IndividualProjectReport_Andrew Peck_8185732

Evaluating
Different Aircraft
Options Based
Upon Airline
Requirements
Andrew Peck - 8185732
MACE 30130 – Individual Project Dissertation
Aerospace Engineering with Management
Project Supervisor: Dr P. Hollingsworth
27/04/2015
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering
2014-2015

Andrew Peck Andrew Peck - 8185732
1

2
Acknowledgement
Firstly I would like to thank Dr Peter Hollingsworth for his time helping me to complete this
fantastic and eye-opening project. Always motivated and willing to help, I would further
like to thank him for his enthusiasm and exceptional support, as I feel without his guidance
and outstanding technical knowledge, on understanding many of the complexities within
this report, I would not have been able to complete this dissertation and achieved all my
desired aims.
Thank you.

3
Summary
Together the commercial aviation and airline industry combine over 1,300 airlines and
25,000 aircraft (IATA, 2014) which together define over 3.5% of the global GDP (IATA,
2014). In the U.S. alone, 873.2 million passengers were transported producing 1,146 billion
revenue passenger miles, as well as 61.2 billion revenue tonne miles (FAA, 2014). These
figures for the U.S. constitute a significant portion of the total 3.1 billion passengers and 49
million metric tonnes of cargo transported globally in 2014 (ATAG, 2014). In total, 2013 saw
the total global economic value of the aviation industry exceed $2.4 trillion (IATA, 2014), of
which $708 billion is estimated to have been generated by the airline industry (Anon.,
2014).
Despite these figures showing the positive scale of the global commercial aviation industry,
growth within already saturated markets, such as the U.S. has been difficult to fathom.
Factors such as increased competition from LCC’s, global terrorism and economic crises, as
well as volatile fuel prices, have forced many airlines and aircraft manufactures to make
tough decisions based on their futures and business models for growth. These events have
had a substantial impact on the airline’s fleet planning options, and in turn, the aircraft
they purchase in order to meet their requirements.
It is arguable that despite its volatility, the general trend of increasing fuel prices over the
past two to three decades represent the biggest challenge facing both the airline and
commercial aviation industry, with roughly over a third (33%) of all airline operating costs
resulting from fuel expenditure, up by 13% from 2001 (ATAG, 2014). As a consequence of
increased fuel prices, there is a greater emphasis on airlines to option their aircraft in such
a way as to reduce impact of fuel cost and the cost of fuel as a proportion of revenue
generated, in order to generate the required profits level, to maintain their competitive
edge and attract customers away from competition.

4
The justification for carrying out the resulting research and analysis has been to observe
the effects of different available options on each aircraft with each airline and define the
possible consequences of choosing the wrong option, in order to make a recommendation
on which option may be best suited to meet an airline’s specific operational requirements.
As a result, this report has studied the effects of using different aircraft engines as an
option on the varying performance of the Boeing 767-300 and Boeing 777-200 and their
operation by American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United Airlines and U.S. Airways. The
efficiency in which the aircraft’s engines burn fuel has been determined by calculating the
SFC of each aircraft and engine combination for each airline.
It is during the cruise segment, that the aircraft’s performance often becomes the biggest
factor, particularly on medium and long-haul flights, as the cruise typically represents the
greatest portion of flight. Therefore, the Breguet Range Equation has been used in
conjunction with data on each aircraft’s operation and airline specific data on payloads and
passenger numbers.
This report has found that within a series of defined assumptions, different engine options
greatly affect the profit generated per flight to each airline as a consequence of the total
fuel burnt. As a result, it is possible to state that he total costs of various technological
options must be carefully examined by each airline in order to determine which will
ultimately the greatest return on assets and allow them to compete within the highly
volatile airline industry.
Overall, this project can be classified as a success, as clear distinctions have been defined
regarding the effect of different aircraft options for each airline and aircraft studied.

5
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................................................................2
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................3
TABLE OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................................6
TABLE OF TABLES.............................................................................................................................7
NOMENCLATURE .............................................................................................................................8
INTRODUCTION: AIMS, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE..............................................................................9
1. THE AIRLINE & COMMERCIAL AVIATION INDUSTRY...............................................................10
1.1 THE DUOPOLY – AIRBUS VS. BOEING ............................................................................................10
1.2 THE DUOPOLY VS. THE “SMALLER” MANUFACTURES .......................................................................14
1.3 THE CHANGING FACE OF THE AIRLINE INDUSTRY .............................................................................19
1.4 FACTORS AFFECTING THE AVIATION AND AIRLINE INDUSTRY ..............................................................22
1.5 LCC’S VS LEGACY CARRIERS ........................................................................................................24
1.6 OPTIONS FOR SOURCING AN AIRCRAFT..........................................................................................27
2. THE EFFECT OF TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ............................................................................29
2.1 PROPOSED RESEARCH AREA........................................................................................................29
2.1.1 Airlines of Choice for Analysis ..........................................................................................31
2.1.2 Aircraft of Choice for Analysis..........................................................................................32
2.1.3 Specific Fuel Consumption ...............................................................................................33
2.1.4 Average Ticket Fare Breakdown of US Airlines ................................................................36
2.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................37
2.2.1 Calculating Aircraft SFC ...................................................................................................37
2.2.2 Determining the Cost of Aircraft Options ........................................................................44
3. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS.........................................................................................................46
3.1 PAYLOAD RANGE DIAGRAMS.......................................................................................................46
3.2 SFC CALCULATIONS...................................................................................................................49
3.2.1 Evaluating the SFC Values Calculated for the Boeing 767-300........................................49
3.2.2 Evaluating the SFC Values Calculated for the Boeing 777-200........................................51
3.2.3 Fuel Cost Analysis Boeing 767-300 ..................................................................................54
3.2.4 Fuel Cost Analysis for Boeing 777-200.............................................................................57
3.3 CHOSEN AIRCRAFT/ENGINE OPTION COMBINATIONS.......................................................................60
4. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK.......................................................................................62
5. APPENDICES...........................................................................................................................67
5.1 DETAILS OF PROPOSED 90 SEAT TURBO PROPS...............................................................................67
5.2 BOEING 767-300 SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION (SFC) VALUES........................................................68
5.3 BOEING 777-200 SPECIFIC FUEL CONSUMPTION (SFC) VALUES........................................................69
5.4 OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AIRCRAFT CHOSEN FOR ANALYSIS ..............................................72
5.5 FUEL COST AND FUEL COST AS PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE GENERATED, BOEING 767-300 .....................73
6.2 FUEL COST AND FUEL COST AS PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE GENERATED, BOEING 777-200 .....................74
5.6 PLANNING AND PROJECT ORGANISATION.......................................................................................76
6. REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................78

6
Table of Figures
Figure
Number
Figure Description
Page
Number
1
The Fluctuating Market Share of the Boeing and Airbus
Combined Market Segment of the Civilian Airliner Market
(1995 – 2013)
9
2
Variation in Airbus and Boeing Commercial Aircraft
Deliveries (2004 – 2013)
10
3
Difference in Airbus and Boeing Combined Backlog at
2013’s end (By Aircraft Type)
11
4 The Real Price of Air Transport (US$/RTK in 2009) 18
5 Airline FTKs by Region of Airline Registration 19
6 Share of U.S. Airline Traffic in 2015 30
7 Picture: Delta Airlines Boeing 767-300 31
8 Picture: American Airlines Boeing 777-200 31
9 - 12
Monthly fuel costs & consumption per gallon for
American, Delta, United Airlines and U.S. Airways
Respectively
34
13
Snapshot of data exported from Bureau of Transportation
Statistics website on the operation of an aircraft for an
Airline
39
14
Snapshot of data averages per flight per cruise distance
segment length for each airline
40
15
Snapshot of data on the Long Range Cruise Control for the
Boeing 777-200, GE 90 Engines
41
16 Joachim K. Hochwarth Aviation Calculator 44
17
Boeing 767-300 Payload Range Diagram Showing Average
Airline Payload per Flight Data per Cruise Distance
48
18
Boeing 777-200 Payload Range Diagram Showing Average
Airline Payload per Flight Data per Cruise Distance
48
19
Average Passenger Numbers for the Boeing 777-200 per
cruise distance segment length
50
20
SFC vs Cruise Range plot for various engine optioned
American Airlines Boeing 767-300
51
21
SFC vs Cruise Range plot, various engine optioned Delta
Airlines Boeing 767-300
52
22
SFC vs Cruise Range plot, various engine optioned United
52
23
American Airlines Boeing 777-200
53

7
24
SFC vs Cruise Range plot for various engine optioned Delta
54
25
United Airlines Boeing 777-200
54
26
SFC vs Cruise Range plot for various engine optioned U.S.
Airways (PROPOSED) Boeing 777-200
55
27
Fuel Cost per Flight as a Percentage of Revenue Generated
per Flight, Various Engine Options, American Airlines,
Boeing 767-300 per Cruise Distance Segment Length
56
28
per Flight, Various Engine Options, Delta Airlines, Boeing
767-300 per Cruise Distance Segment Length
56
29
per Flight, Various Engine Options, United Airlines, Boeing
57
30
per Flight, Various Engine Options, American Airlines,
Boeing 777-200 per Cruise Distance Segment Length
59
31
per Flight, Various Engine Options, Delta Airlines, Boeing
59
32
per Flight, Various Engine Options, United Airlines, Boeing
60
Table of Tables
Table
Number
Table Description
Page
Number
1
Financial impact of September 11, 2001 terror attack on
the Airline Industry
21
2
Average Airfare Prices per Mile for Airlines of Choice to
study
47
3 Proposed Aircraft Engine Options 63

8
Nomenclature
ACAP Aircraft Characteristics for Airport Planning
ATAG Air Transport Action Group
ATR Aerei da Trasporto Regionale / Avions de Transport Régional
AVIC Aviation Industry Corporation of China
BTS Bureau of Transport and Statistics
CAPA Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FCOM Flight Crew Operating Manual
FTK Freight Tonne Kilometre
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GE General Electric
IATA International Air Transport Association
LCC Low Cost Carriers
LRCC Long Range Cruise Control
MDZFW Maximum Design Zero Fuel Weight
NEO New Engine Option
PW Pratt and Whitney
RR Rolls Royce
RTA Regional Transport Airliner
RTK Revenue Tonne Kilometre
SFC Specific Fuel Consumption
SOEW Specific Operating Empty Weights
U.S. United States (of America)
USDT United States Department of Transport

9
Introduction: Aims, Objectives and Scope
The aim of this project is to evaluate the effect of different available options in relation to
specific airline/s and their specific operational requirements. The following objectives will
be explored throughout this dissertation in order to achieve the project aim;
 To understand the scale of the commercial aviation market in respect to the airline
industry, in order to evaluate which aircraft manufactures are producing which
type of aircraft and why, as well as which aircraft as options themselves, are
currently best suited to which market based the market’s performance.
 To evaluate predications for the future of the commercial aviation industry in
terms of how the airline industry is changing as well the future of aircraft options
available e.g. aircraft engines and aircraft types that airlines may choose to fly. This
will be achieved through the evaluation of market forecasts and technical/market
analysis’ available as well as an independent analysis on the data available.
 To explore the key current factors affecting both the airline and commercial
aviation industry, and to look ahead to observe what factors might, over the next
few years, affect the current trends in the choice of options by the airlines when
choosing an aircraft.
 To evaluate the effect of a specific aircraft option on the requirements of a specific
airline/aircraft combination, explore their similarities and differences, and produce
a qualitative and quantitative analysis on how different engine options affect the
performance aircraft of the choice, for a specific series of airlines and aircraft. This
will allow for possibility to determine the best choice of engine option for each
aircraft based on data gathered on the operation of these aircraft over a period of
time.

10
1. The Airline & Commercial Aviation Industry
1.1 The Duopoly – Airbus vs. Boeing
Airbus and Boeing have represented the duopoly, the two leading jet airliner manufactures,
since the mid 1990’s, through merging and combining the strengths of different
manufacturers under a single brand name. However, unlike Boeing, who absorbed their
main competitor McDonnell Douglas, Airbus began as a consortium established in 1972 by
the governments of Germany (Deutsche Aerospace) and France (Aerospatiale). Both
manufactures today produce a variety of aircraft designed to meet the demand of the
airline industry in each of individual market, hence producing a mixture of short and long,
narrow and wide body jet aircraft.
Figure 1 Fluctuating Market Share of the Boeing and Airbus Combined Market Segment of
the Civilian Airliner Market (1995 – 2013) (Leahy, 2015)
As Figure 1 shows, up until 1998, the largest share of the civilian airliner market was
dominated by Boeing, who in 1995 obtained a majority of 82% of orders (CAPA, 2014) out
of the total combined Boeing and Airbus order share. However, since then, a steady rise in
the growth of Airbus, who expanded into new markets, offering a competitor to many of
Boeing’s models saw them overtake Boeing in terms of order shares for the first time 1998.

11
Today, the market share is now almost 50:50, up until the end of 2013, where Airbus took
1,503 orders to Boeing’s 1,355.
Another driving factor in Airbus’ growth has been the rapid expansion of the Asia-Pacific
market, where the demand for the Airbus A320 family of narrow-body jets, specifically in
China, had brought in large quantities of sales. However, as of July 2014, the tides turned
yet again into Boeing’s favour. This was partly due to the launch of the new Boeing 777X
wide body jet at the end of 2013, as well as order cancelations of the Airbus A350 by
Emirates airlines.
Figure 2 Airbus and Boeing Commercial Aircraft Deliveries (2004 – 2013) (CAPA, 2014)
Despite the fierce competition between both manufactures and their fluctuating order
shares, there has been an overall positive trend of increasing orders numbers and
deliveries received by both aircraft manufacturers as seen in Figure 2, particularly within
the narrow body Airbus A320 Boeing 737 families, as seen in Figure 3 below. Airbus has
taken the initiative in increasing the production rates of in short haul A320 family aircraft,

12
from the current 44 aircraft per month (CAPA, 2014) to 50 aircraft per month by 2017
(Stothard, 2015). This competition has been one of the driving factors behind the
increasing sales of each aircraft, as each manufacture seeks to find an innovative new idea
to add to improve their aircraft and better themselves over their counterpart in the
opposing organisation.
Figure 3 Airbus and Boeing Combined Backlog at 2013’s end (By Aircraft Type) (CAPA,
2014)
Figure 3 highlights the significance in the popularity of the narrow-body aircraft models,
with a combined backlog of 7,978 firm orders between Airbus and Boeing. This combines to
represent almost 75% of all orders received by both manufactures in 2013.
The new generation of wide-bodied aircraft, such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350,
account for a mere 1,728 aircraft, around 14% of orders (CAPA, 2014), whilst the very large
wide-body market retains the weakest proportion of orders. However, with the Airbus
A380 becoming more popular than its rival, the Boeing 747-8i, this small figure is expected

13
to grow as airlines begin to evaluate the cost effectiveness of operating such a large
aircraft. Within 2013 Boeing won 12 orders from five customers, while Airbus won a firm
order for 50 A380s from Emirates Airlines in December 2013 alone, highlighting the effect
the A380 is having on the airline industry already. So far, 833 orders have been placed with
Boeing compared to 705 with Airbus up to July 2014 (Team, 2014).
With both Airbus and Boeing receiving a high number of orders for a wide range of aircraft
on a consistent yearly basis, it shows that there is a high demand for a wide variety of
aircraft options of various shapes, sizes and capabilities. As airlines look to expand into new
markets, it is likely that these two manufacturers will remain the first choice for many
airlines as a source of aircraft, due to the large variety of options available. With the
increasing pressure of airlines demanding ever more efficient aircraft in order to maximise
profits, it is crucial that both Airbus and Boeing continue to provide and extend their
current range of aircraft options as the list requirements an aircraft should hold by
potential airlines around the globe become longer and ever more precise.

14
1.2 The Duopoly vs. the “Smaller” Manufactures
In comparison to Boeing and Airbus, who, within section 2.1, are noted as having been the
dominant forces within the commercial airliner market for many years, it is the likes of
Bombardier, Embraer and ATR which represent a much smaller fraction of the commercial
aviation market and are commonly known as the “western regional manufactures”. As the
name suggests, they produce small regional jets and turboprops for use on predominantly
short-haul, continental flights. In contrast to the 1,274 aircraft delivered by Airbus and
Boeing in 2013, only 230 aircraft are projected to have been delivered by the combination
of these three manufactures within the same year (CAPA, 2014). Embraer were the largest
contributor delivering 90 aircraft over the year whilst Bombardier and ATR both exceeded
their delivery total of 2012 and set out higher expectations for 2014 and beyond.
Beginning with the Embraer E Jets and the Bombardier C Series jets, two small regional
airliners, the new Embraer E2 jets generated significantly more orders than the rival C
Series Jet. Although these aircraft were aimed at different markets entirely, both aircraft
had been aimed to propel their respective manufactures into markets which are dominated
by Airbus and Boeing over the coming years. Whilst Embraer launched their E Jets into the
traditional regional airliner market, Bombardier attempted to launch their C Series aircraft
into a niche market where no other commercial aircraft manufacture had previously tread
before. Despite this, both Bombardier and Embraer were aiming to compete with the new
Airbus A320 NEO and the Boeing 737 MAX (Buyck & Anselmo, 2013). The Embraer E195-E2
claimed to have a 5% lower cash operating cost per seat and 20% less fuel burn per trip
compared to the Airbus A319 NEO, as well as having a lower seat cost and better size than
the Bombardier CS100 Jet. As a result, the Embraer family, especially the smaller 88 seat
E175-E2, have become popular in both the United States and Europe; a stark comparison to
the Bombardier C Series fleet, which at the 2013 Paris Air show, had failed to add to its

15
existing order sheet. It is clear that while both manufactures are attempting to compete
with the duopoly of Airbus and Boeing in A320/B737 family market, Bombardier and
Embraer are yet to launch aircraft which can carry a similar number of passengers, and it
seems to be this factor, rather than the prospect of lower operating costs that have led
major airlines, such as EasyJet, to instead purchase orders for over 100 new Airbus A320
NEO aircraft (Buyck & Anselmo, 2013). It further seems that in comparison to the options
Airbus and Boeing can offer, both Embraer and Bombardier are struggling to offer a similar
variety of choices in order to compete with the two Bombardier or Embraer manufactures,
especially in the short haul continental markets. Unless either manufacturer obtains a
substantial advantage in one or more key performance area over Airbus and Boeing, they
will struggle to attract the attention of many of the top airline customers and prize away
their customers.
The other side of the story concerns the turboprop aircraft. The past 50 years have seen
the turboprop aircraft overshadowed by the rise to prominence of the jet, but recent
increases in fuel prices particularly over the past three years during the global financial
crisis, have sparked a growing demand for a new era of turboprop which hold the ability to
carry between 70 – 90 people.
During the early 2000’s, the price of aviation fuel fell to as little as $37 a barrel, leaving the
turboprop with little room to compete with the faster and higher flying jets. Undeterred,
ATR and Bombardier kept manufacturing the ATR-42/72 and Dash 8 Q400 aircraft
respectively, both of which focussed on fuel economy and range rather than the high speed
flight of their jet rivals. As oil prices soared to a startling $126 a barrel in 2012, bombardier
took the decision to make the bold statement that, of the approximate 6,000 aircraft that
were due to be delivered in the 20 – 99 seat commercial aircraft market, between 2012
and 2013, 48% were to be of current turboprop models already in production (Unknown,

16
2012). Despite Airbus and Boeing steadily increasing the size and capability of their aircraft
models, ATR stuck with a turboprop aircraft aimed at the 90 seat market, claiming that
feedback from existing customers showed an estimate 1,340 aircraft of this size were
required over the forthcoming 20 years period (Perrett, 2013). They further claimed that
current of models were also up to 50% more fuel efficient on a mission-to-mission basis
than an equivalent regional jet with a similar capacity. Furthermore, Filippo Bagnato, chief
executive of ATR, went on to say that an airline operating a fleet of 20 ATR-72 90 seat
aircraft, could in fact bring an annual fuel saving of over $30 million when compared to
equivalent jets (Unknown, 2012).
With figures such as those presented by ATR, and the almost inevitable fact that oil prices
will continue to fluctuate with little warning, it becomes evident that airlines will begins
may start looking at these aircraft to replace their current fleet of short-haul jet aircraft in
order to reduce operating costs. Both Boeing and Airbus have yet to produce a turboprop
aircraft to compete with ATR and Bombardier, however with increasing demand, the
potential changes in environmental legislation on emissions and the unpredictable nature
of oil and fuel prices, it might not be long until the duopoly begin looking to develop their
own turboprop competitors. Should Airbus and Boeing open their doors to undertaking the
challenge of competing at this level, it will certainly increase the options available to many
airlines and further persuade more airlines to diversify their fleet and include turboprop
aircraft. However, with the current requirements and performance of many airlines and the
surge in popularity of LCCs whose sole aim is to transport the largest number of passengers
over a distance, it would require a turboprop with the option to operate in a variety of
market to persuade these airlines to switch from their existing fleet of jet aircraft.

17
It is no wonder then, that since 2013, a new era of turboprop aircraft design solutions have
begun emerging into view, not only from the well-known manufactures of ATR and
Bombardier.
Five new concepts are currently in different stages of development, including the AVIC
MA700 from China, the RTA of India's Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, an all-new aircraft from
ATR, a possible stretched version of the Bombardier Dash 8 Q400; and the Korea Aerospace
Industries DRA (Perrett, 2013). More data on these aircraft can be found in appendix 5.1.
Each of these aircraft, whilst looking similar from afar, would in fact be completely different
in almost every. Each aircraft concept has been aimed towards a different potential
customer with the hope of significantly broadening then current turboprop market.
Additionally, ATR has plans to develop a totally new aircraft with five-abreast seating, a
design concept which hasn’t been seen since the early days of turboprop aircraft design. It
seems, however, that whilst current turboprop manufactures are reluctant to increase their
capacity of current aircraft models to in excess of 90-100 seats, current commercial
aviation regulations would suggest there is plausible motivation maintaining the current
capacity, in that expanding to around 100 seats would require airlines to employ a third
flight attendant and hence increase operational costs. Whilst economy would increase as
the number of available seats rose, the current designs of long and thin fuselage would be
inefficient and require significant reinforcements to hold a greater capacity. Therefore,
increasing the width of the fuselage would benefit both aircraft manufactures and
customers alike.
There is, therefore, significant evidence to suggest that a turboprop aircraft with an excess
of 150 seats, such as the new generation of aircraft as mentioned previously, would be a
significant rival to the Jet aircraft cousins on short haul routes, where the Jet aircraft are
comparatively less efficient. Each of these new turboprop aircraft have different market

18
appeals to airline customers based on their cross sectional designs and can offer a
considerable scope in capabilities to pitch their aircraft to airlines, including cargo capacity,
seating capacity and range being some of the various KPI’s that define each aircraft.
Just as Bombardier and Embraer remain the underdogs of the small regional jet market, the
likes of AVIC, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd and the Korean Aerospace Industry lack the
reputation and established customer base of ATR and Bombardier. It seems that whilst
China’s AVIC remains the current leader out of the three Asian manufactures and the most
likely to successfully produce a new turboprop aircraft to meet the requirements of their
future airline industry, in the western countries at least, it is likely that they would secure a
significant base in their own home country, due to severity of China’s import tax levels on
small regional airliners. Similar cases are found with India’s and South Korea’s designs. It
seems therefore that while these aircraft are destined to only enter their respective
domestic markets, there is a growing demand for the turboprop aircraft from many airlines
in order to broaden their possible options, and while current aircraft models retain only a
moderate competitive factor to Boeing and Airbus, a new era of larger, wider aircraft with
in excess of 150 seats, could certainly challenge the duopoly in the small regional market
should the availability of options suit the desired requirements of their customers.

19
1.3 The Changing Face of the Airline Industry
Over the past 20, it is arguable that the biggest change in the airline industry has been the
introduction of low-cost airlines, who have brought with them a more efficient ‘package’ in
terms of transporting large volumes of people, filling all available seats in the aircraft, and
possessing the ability to conduct faster turnarounds and higher profit margins. Within
these airlines, every cost imaginable has been trimmed down to the minimum as to meet
the required standards and regulations (Dixon, Unknown). The introduction of airlines such
as EasyJet, Ryan Air and Southwest, have been the driving factor behind the drop in price of
aviation travel by as much as 60% as, Figure 4 below shows.
Figure 4 The Real Price of Air Transport (US$/RTK in 2009) (IATA, 2013)
As the airline industry has expanded, the numbers of connected cities across the globe
have risen by almost 2.5 times, from over 6,000 city pairs in 1980 to 15,000 in 2012. A core
reason for this has been the growth of airlines in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and the
operation of low-cost carriers who have started flying to locations that were once not
considered to have the desired appeal to attract a large number of passengers in travelling
to these destinations.

20
Figure 5 FTKs by Region of Airline Registration (IATA, 2015)
As the graph in figure 5 shows, the worst hit regions as a consequence of the recent global
financial crisis were not those where the airline and aviation industries which have only
recently been introduced. In fact, the general trend shows that both the Middle East and
African markets have revealed a general increase in growth for FTKs (Freight Tonne
Kilometres); where one FTK stands for one metric tonne of revenue load carried in one
kilometre. In spite of the economic situation which defined the volatility in fuel prices over
the past five years, the airline industry has been forecast in a favourable fashion for the
next few years, with an expected 5% growth up to and beyond 2017; 4.3% of which growth
was obtained in 2014 and an expected through 5.1% in 2015 (Cederholm, 2014), in
comparison to the meagre 2.9% of the past few years (AviationCV, 2013). However, as of
the end of 2013, the average airline earnings are expected to rise beyond $8.4 billion per
airline as the economic situation begins to improve and the price of aviation fuel begins to
stabilise.

21
Another defining characteristic of the past ten years have been the increasing number of
airline mergers of major airlines, such as Air France and KLM in 2004, Lufthansa and other
smaller airlines, and British Airways - Iberia in 2011. A similar trend has occurred in North
America, most notably when Continental and United Airlines merged in 2010. Altogether
there have been four major mergers of large airlines in 2005. It seems the predominant
reason as to why these large carriers opted to merge is to achieve higher revenues and
profits and compete with the LCCs, flying on the highly trafficked and lucrative routes,
which more often than not have remained consistently profitable (AviationCV, 2013).
However with greater competition, the more damaging it becomes to the airline’s
profitability. With airlines merging to gain a dominant position in the pricing of airfares on
highly prized routes, they took with them the advantage of the dwindling numbers of
carriers which didn’t survive the crisis. As a result of demand not nearly slackening as much
as supply, the merged airlines had the ability to limit the number of seats available, offering
fewer flights and raising the cost of airfares to increase profitability (Nocera, 2013).

22
1.4 Factors affecting the Aviation and Airline Industry
Both industries are affected by political, economic, social, technological and legal issues,
however in some cases each industry is affected in different ways. On the political and legal
front, regulations and restrictions related to international trade, tax policy, and
competition remain key factors in the airlines choice of aircraft. The airline industry is also
impacted by issues like war, terrorism, and the outbreak of diseases such as Ebola and
SARS.
Table 1 Financial impact of September 11, 2001 terror attack on the Airline Industry
(IATA, 2011)
Major disasters such as the September 11th
2011 attacks in New York produced a 6% total
revenue short fall of in excess of $22 billion from the previous year (IATA, 2011). It took
over three years for the global airline industry to recover from this event. In contrast, when
the global financial crisis hit the world in 2008, global revenues fell by more than double at
14%. However, by this time, the commercial aviation industry had become leaner and more
resilient to major catastrophes. This was evident when, less than a year later, revenues had

23
rose from $482 billion to $554 billion, with the global airline industry alone posting $18
billion in profit (IATA, 2011).
Advances in technology have been another key factor in allowing airlines to reduce
operating costs and improve reliability, and hence the surge in popularity of Low Cost
Carriers across the globe. By being able to communicate effectively, not only with their
customers, but aircraft manufactures, technology has brought improved maintenance and
IT solutions as well as a general improved passengers’ travel experience.
Most importantly, technology has also played a large roll in reducing fuel costs, something
which affects both the airline and aviation industry. Fuel has come to represent a thorn in
the side of an airline business operation, with on average 30% of their annual revenue
generated being lost in the purchase of fuel (Cederholm, 2014). New aircraft such as the
Boeing 737 MAX series, 777-9X and 787 series, as well as the new Airbus A320 NEO’s and
A350 series, are examples of aircraft designed to maximise fuel efficiency and fly further for
per unit of fuel consumed over their older generations. Improving the engine efficiency of
these aircraft, adding winglets, and improving the vast quantity of various technological
subsystems, are just a few examples by which aircraft manufactures have improved their
performance. Some of these improvements reduce noise, both to the passengers in the
aircraft and people on the ground, allowing some aircraft types to operate beyond the
flying limits of some airports. Some airlines have ventured even further, employing
technology to replace flight operations manuals for their aircraft. In 2013, American
Airlines completed their rollout of electronic flight bags; containing the manuals of all of
their current fleet types which can be accessed on an iPad and used within the cockpit of
the aircraft. The estimated weight save is expected to be over 35 pounds, which when
considering every aircraft within the American Airlines fleet, over an annual period, could
result in fuel savings of over $12 million.

24
1.5 LCC’s vs Legacy Carriers
Over the years it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between a budget and a
legacy airline as the “low-cost” term so widely used by the budget airlines is not so true
anymore. The Airline Disclosures Handbook stated that in 2013, the prior six years had seen
a reduction in the cost gap between both types of airline by roughly 30% (Gulliver Business
Travel, 2013), as once major differentiations such as free baggage and inflight catering on
short haul services were abandoned. Due to the soar in fuel prices, the emphasis became
on reducing weight, and this affected inflight services within many legacy carriers; such as
the cutting of inflight food for economy passengers, as well as the introduction of seat-
reservation charges. It was deemed in 2013 that on average a budget airline would use 2.5
cents less than a legacy carrier to move one seat through the air one kilometre, down from
3.6 cents in 2006. If this escalated into total operating costs, on a typical commuter route
between London and Rome, on an Airbus A320, legacy carriers tend to spend almost
$12,000 more than budget airlines, with no substantial differentiations between each
service (Gulliver Business Travel, 2013).
LCC’s have formed generally as a result of a subsidiary of a major airline, or through
government and large corporation incentives. With a financially stable background, the
parent organisations have the possibility to buy new or lease aircraft in large quantities.
The advantages of buying a newer aircraft over a similar one which is second hand tend to
include lower operating costs assuming the aircraft is used regularly, and airlines therefore
able to offer lower ticket fairs in comparison to airlines with an ageing fleet. However there
are also a number of low cost carriers who are not so well financed and cannot afford to
purchase new aircraft. The carriers, if a successful business model is employed tend to
survive early losses with second hand aircraft if they are entering a relatively new market
with little to moderate competition. It is only when the market becomes saturates with stiff

25
competition, that it becomes essential to purchase new aircraft to survive, as the cost
structure compared to legacy carrier and alternative low cost carriers does not become
enough to stimulate growth. While some low cost carriers purchase the less common and
popular aircraft, often at a lower price such as the MD-80 and Fokker 100 series aircraft,
most low cost carriers in the current market use single aircraft types typically the B737 and
A320 series aircraft (Trubbach, 2013). Whilst lower purchase costs are favourable, higher
fuel consumptions, higher maintenance bills with fewer providers as well as fewer type-
rated aircrews, are often the deciding factor between the choices of a popular or
unpopular aircraft. These unpopular models therefore tend to be used on charter based
services. The major expansion of these low cost airlines such as Ryanair has required the
purchase of large numbers of aircraft, and each airline employs a different fleet
management strategy. However the common differentiation seems to be a young fleet of
aircraft renewed constantly, or an older fleet of used and leased aircraft, with older models
replaced by newer, but also used, versions of the replaced aircraft. Southwest airlines
began operations with 3 new Boeing 737-200s in 1971 in comparison Ryanair and EasyJet
which both operations with second hand aircraft. One reason for Southwest airlines choice
of new aircraft could have stemmed from the fact no suitable aircraft were available at that
time; however unlike most conventional low cost carriers, they have been following in the
fleet strategy of most low cost carriers, by employing the long term use of aircraft. Other
airlines such as the major European and Asian low cost carriers, upon reaching break even,
began placing large orders for new aircraft in order to expand their fleet. This has been the
case with the majority of financially stable carriers which formed after 2000. (Trubbach,
2013)
In comparison, legacy carriers tend to operate their aircraft for up to two decades, mostly
new, but some second-hand. Some legacy airlines, such as Delta utilise less expensive used
aircraft, and purchase last quantities of aircraft on an opportunistic basis, such as the

26
acquisition of 88 B717s from Southwest in 2012 to replace outdated DC-9s other commuter
aircraft such as the CRJ100/200 (Delta, 2012). This is an example of just one airline that
uses a similar strategy to low cost carriers. The difference between the fleets of one over
the other usually depends usually on network and fare structure as well as the service level.
A legacy carrier tends to have a lower fleet utilisation as it operates a schedules based
around a number of hubs on a variety of missions both internationally and within the same
continent on very specific departure times, in comparison to the average single hub low
cost carriers. It therefore isn’t as efficient to operate a fleet of new aircraft which are
constantly updated every few years. The age of the aircraft tends to depend on the route
being served; with premium routes such as London to Paris, New York or Dubai, operating
newer aircraft on longer sectors, where a low fuel burn has larger effect on the operational
costs, whilst commuter routes such as London to Dublin or Rome, operate aged aircraft up
sometimes over 25 years old.

27
1.6 Options for Sourcing an Aircraft
Airliners are expensive to purchase, especially for a start-up airline. A typical Boeing 737-
700 costs in the region of $78.3 million, whereas the larger Boeing 777-9X costs in the
region of $388.7 million (Boeing, 2014). However, although these might be the list prices
for brand new aircraft, very few airlines actually pay this price, as they negotiate a lower
price with the manufacture, set up a leasing option with a leasing company or purchase an
aircraft second-hand. There are also a number of other financing options available,
however some are more common than other and depend on the manufactures and the
customers financial situation.
Loans are another method by which an aircraft can be financed. “Simple” bank loans by
which the bank lends money to the airline directly are not particularly common, as the
bank has the right to repossess the aircraft should the loan stop being repaid. Export credit
loans are more complex. In this case the government of a certain company where an
aircraft manufacture is situated help to export their aircraft to oversees customers. Unlike
a common bank loan, where such loans are almost impossible for airlines which make only
small amounts of profit, banks such as Export-Important Bank of the United States
guarantee the loan. While this can be seen as risky especially where volatile countries and
airlines are concerned, is a common method of selling aircraft.
Sourcing an aircraft by cash is the least common of option. While it is arguably the simplest,
it can only be used as an option for a profitable airline such as Southwest Airlines or state-
owned airlines. Nevertheless, Southwest Airlines brought in a plan to delay the delivery of
new aircraft, new generation Boeing 737 MAX models, and instead opted to fill the gap
with used aircraft until such aircraft manufactures produce new aircraft with significant
increases in aspects such as fuel economy and lower operating costs. Their motive for
purchasing aircraft, some of which are over 12 years old, is that it will reduce spending

28
whilst increasing capacity (Koenig, 2013). This would not be a suitable option for all airlines,
as the airline industry on a whole is not a particularly profitable (Pearce, 2013).
Airline leasing represents the largest single method by which and airline obtains its aircraft.
It is estimated that roughly 36% of the world’s airliner fleet is leased as of the beginning of
2013 (Baldwin, 2013). There are three common schemes employed by airlines; secured
lending, operating leasing and finance leasing. When direct lending is applied to large,
civilian aircraft which often cost hundreds of millions of dollars, such an application is
incorporated by a security interest clause allowing the aircraft to be repossessed by the
lessor should the airline fail to pay. By directly owning an aircraft the airline would be able
to deduct depreciation costs for tax purposes and spread out these costs to improve their
bottom line (Morrell, 2007).
The second of these options, finance leasing, is also known as capital leasing. Here, an
intermediary purchases the aircraft (often a dedicated leasing company) and then leases
them to airlines. It is a longer term option and at the end of the lease the airline lessee
often has the option to purchase the aircraft, often for much less than the price of a non-
leased aircraft of the same age and specifications. The benefits to the lessee are that they
are able to claim the depreciation deductions of the aircrafts lifespan and therefore, the
profits from the lease are offset for tax purposes (Morrell, 2007).
The other common leasing method is defined as operating leasing; generally held over a
period of no more than 10 years. Unlike finance leasing, this option is more suitable to
start-up airlines and those which are beginning an expansion process into a new market
when acquiring a new model/make of aircraft for the first time. Such leases, unlike finance
leasing, are often given to airlines that are deemed to be less creditworthy (Morrell, 2007).

29
2. The Effect of Technological Options
2.1 Proposed Research Area
The previous sections of this project have addressed the effects of current and future
market situations on the options available to airlines, when choosing particular aircraft
option, including aircraft airframes themselves as options. This section will focus on a
specific option available on an aircraft, to an airline, once a particular airframe has been
chosen.
Aircraft performance represents a key factor in the success of its ability to meet the airlines
specified various mission requirements. Whilst an aircraft, with no payload, holding a
maximum fuel load, may be able to operate up to a maximum range whilst flying at an
optimum altitude and speed, in practice an airliner will never operate at an exact design
point where all optimised conditions merge into one ideal point. Furthermore, it is
impractical to hold a fleet of aircraft only capable of operating efficiency on one specific
mission. An aircraft, when optioned correctly, and capable of holding an efficient off design
performance, becomes a much more valuable asset to an airline.
Whilst the method in which an airline elects to operate an aircraft is limited by certain
performance criteria of the aircraft i.e. the maximum range, payload, fuel capacity etc.,
below these maximums there are no set operable limits by which the airline must stick too.
There are nevertheless a number of trade-offs the airline must make in order to operate
the aircraft in such a way that it generates the maximum “return on assets”. Such trade-
offs will typically end up referring back to the weight of the aircraft. For example, whilst an
aircraft carrying the maximum number of passengers may generate the highest income
through ticket fares, flying with a heavier weight may also increase the take-off run of the
aircraft and potentially prevent it from operating off from various airports where the airline

30
may wish to operate. It will also affect its optimum cruise altitude, cruise speed and
therefore the fuel consumption of the aircrafts engine. The end result is that while the
airline may generate a larger income based upon higher revenues and profit margins, it will
however experience a higher operating cost due to an increased fuel burn and potential
inability to operate at various locations. Consequently, it becomes apparent that the
operational profile of the aircraft should be carefully planned and optioned in the most
efficient manner reflecting its mission requirements.
In terms of the technological options which affect the performance of the aircraft, the
airline only possess a limited say in their effect at the point of purchase. They do
nevertheless, possess the ability to option the interior trim of the aircraft and hence the
number of passengers available to transport, as well as the layout of the passenger cabin
and the fixtures/fittings used. This will, therefore, directly affect the weight of the aircraft
and ultimately the aircraft’s performance.
Furthermore, an airline also has the option to choose which manufacturer and model of
engine is fitted to aircraft. For example, the Boeing 777 can be optioned in in various
variants, all of which can be powered by various engine options depending on the model
chosen. Whilst each make and model of engine will vary in weight, with updated versions
potentially containing new and lighter materials and technologies, the engine choice may
also affect the performance of the aircraft in terms its overall fuel consumption and hence
determine the altitude, range and endurance of the aircraft at cruise, as well as its climb
rates. All in all the aircraft’s engine plays a significant effect on the aircrafts ability to meet
the airlines specified mission requirements. The following sections will aim to look at the
effect choosing different aircraft engines on the performance of various aircraft in order to
meet the operational demands of various airline as well as the effects of these decisions on
the ability to generate a profitable income.

31
2.1.1 Airlines of Choice for Analysis
Four airlines were chosen for analysis within this report; American Airlines, Delta Airlines,
United Airlines and U.S. Airways. These four represent the major legacy carriers operating
from the throughout the USA, and operate from a variety of domestic and international
locations, on both premium and contemporary travel routes. These four airlines represent
62.2% of airline traffic so far in 2015 (Clark, 2015) within the USA, as Figure 7 shows below:
Figure 6 Share of U.S. Airline Traffic in 2015 (Clark, 2015)
The principal reason for opting to analyse these four airlines is because they operate a wide
range of aircraft from which to evaluate various options off. Additionally, data on the
operation of aircraft by these airlines are readily available via the United States Bureau of
Transportation. With readily available data, the process of data acquisition has been
reduced in complexity hence reducing the workload required to obtain information on the
operation from airlines across the globe. The following research methodologies could also
be applied to legacy carriers operating in various global markets, not just within the USA.

32
Figure 8 American Airlines Boeing 777-200
Source: Adrian Pingstone, LHR, 1st
Mar 2007
2.1.2 Aircraft of Choice for Analysis
The Boeing 767-300 aircraft is a mid-size,
twin isle aircraft. The -300 model is an
enlarged variant of the original -200
model, frequently used on high-density
routes throughout Europe and Asia
(Birtles, 1999). As of February 2015, there
are currently 74 aircraft in service, with
104 originally being manufactured (Flight International, 2014). Whilst newer variants are in
production such as the ER (Extended Range) model, the base -300 variant has been chosen
for analysis as data is available on the operation of this aircraft for a much larger number of
engine options of the -300 ER model.
The “triple seven”, or Boeing 777-200, had
originally been conceived to bridge the
gap in the market for an aircraft with the
capacity capability between the Boeing
767 and the Boeing 747. In comparison to,
the 777 possesses the ability to transport
over 100 extra passengers over a larger
operating range. However, the original -
200 series aircraft, which entered service in 1995, were chiefly aimed towards the US
domestic market (Eden, 2008). As of July 2014, there were 84 aircraft still in service (Flight
International, 2014). The -200 model triple seven was designed to compete with the Airbus
A330-300 (Wallace, 2001). The base -200 model has been chosen for review over the ER
model to allow for a comparison to be made with the final aircraft of choice, the A330-200.
Figure 7 Delta Airlines Boeing 767-300
Source: Richard Snyder, San Jose CA, 5th
Aug
2011

33
2.1.3 Specific Fuel Consumption
The SFC of an aircraft is one method of describing the efficiency of an aircraft engine in
burning fuel over during a mission. The SFC, in units (1/seconds) can be defined as the mass
of fuel required to provide the net thrust of a given period of time multiplied by the thrust
itself. The SFC is just one constituent part which makes up the Breguet Range Equation
seen in Eqn.1:
𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 =
𝑉
𝑔
1
𝑆𝐹𝐶
𝐿
𝐷
𝐿𝑛(
𝑊𝑜
𝑊1
) Eqn. 1
This equation can hence be rearranged to calculate the SFC of the aircraft based upon the
aircraft range, or the range in which the aircraft is operating over:
𝑆𝐹𝐶 =
𝑉
𝑔
𝐿
𝐷
𝐿𝑛(
𝑊 𝑜
𝑊1
)
𝑅𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒
Eqn.2
Eqn. 2 is one possible method of determining the SFC of the aircraft if the range is already
known. It is dependent on the velocity of the aircraft, its lift to drag ratio, the start and end
weight of the aircraft (i.e. its change in weight dependant on the fuel burnt by travelling a
set distance) and the range of the aircraft, i.e. how far it has flown by burning a set amount
of fuel as stated in the weight fraction. The units of measurement of SFC are
𝟏
𝒔
.
The weight fraction is used to define the mass of fuel burnt over the given range. Mass is
used rather than volume, as the volume of fuel changes with temperature and pressure
and hence, altitude. It is therefore easier to calculate the volume of fuel consumed as a
fraction using weights, as aircraft will typically fly at different cruise altitudes dependant on
their gross weight and may also employ a stepped cruise condition as fuel is burnt.

34
Figure 9 and Figure 10 showing monthly fuel costs & consumption per gallon for
American and Delta Airlines Respectively Source: USDT
Figure 11 and Figure 12 showing monthly fuel costs & consumption per gallon for United
Airlines and U.S. Airways Respectively Source: USDT
The main justifications for researching into which aircraft-engine combination is best suited
to an airlines requirements is highlighted in figures 9 to 12, which show the general trend
of an increase in the cost of aviation fuel per gallon since 1990 ((BTS), 2015). The graphs,
which display data on both domestic and international consumption and cost between
1990 and 2014, show that the price of aviation fuel per gallon for each airline risen from
between $0.5 - $1 to almost $4 per gallon high during the global financial crisis.
With fuel prices quadrupling over the 25 years period, and despite the increasing efficiency
of aircraft and aircraft engines combines, the need for choosing the correct aircraft with
the most efficient engine is becoming ever more paramount in order to reduce the overall
operating cost of an airline’s fleet of aircraft.

35
The data in figures 10 to 13 also show that for all four airlines, the general consensus
throughout the 25 year period is that domestic fuel consumption has decreased, while
international fuel consumption has increased. Despite domestic fuel consumption
decreasing however, the data also shows that domestic fuel costs have to each airline has
increased.
These trends are clearly visible for all four airlines. They show that whilst competition from
rival low-cost airlines have meant there are few flights being operated domestically by the
four legacy carriers, the cost of increasing fuel prices have hit this particular market
segment the hardest, further emphasising the need to ensure an airline has most efficiently
and cost-effectively optioned its aircraft and fleet.

36
2.1.4 Average Ticket Fare Breakdown of US Airlines
The average airline ticket fare can be broken up into smaller constituent parts, ranging
from the cost of fuel to taxes on immigration, the origin and destination locations and the
distance of the trip. In order to understand the potential profit each aircraft could generate
for each airline, a detailed air-fare breakdown for a wide variety of ticket fares available on
each aircraft, to both domestic and international destinations with ranges within the cruise
range groups mentioned previously and taken from the Transtats website.
On a typical long haul flight between London and New York, the typical airfare breakdown
is 77.42% charged to the passenger and 21.97% taxes, which are imposed on the airline
(TravelZoo, 1015). With aviation fuel roughly 30%, the consequence is that profit margins
ends up being as little as 0.61%, once staff (30%), leasing and debts (10%), and
sales/marketing (8%) costs are deducted (TravelZoo, 1015). These figures will vary between
destinations and seasonal operations, with profit available varying from 0.1 to 5% (Anon.,
2014). Nevertheless, this type of flight, over these ranges, between these sorts of
destinations, is typical of the four airlines of choice within this report, on routes served by
the Boeing 777-200 and Boeing 767-300, and so the aforementioned figures are a
benchmark in relation to the results later on in this report.
These figures reflect the importance in ensuring an airline chooses the correct aircraft for
its fleet and for each flight. With profits at such a low margin, and the cost of fuel rising on
a daily basis despite the increasing efficiency of the aircraft themselves, it again highlights
the importance of carrying out this study to determine the best options for each airline.

37
2.2 Research Methodology
2.2.1 Calculating Aircraft SFC
Through calculating the SFC of different aircraft/engine variations, this will allow a
measurement of the efficiency in which an aircraft burns fuel over a set distance, at a given
weight, to be obtained. These SFC values can be evaluated for different airlines by
combining data on the average passenger numbers and payloads carried over a given
operating range to determine the most fuel efficient aircraft/engine combination.
Data on passenger numbers, payloads and departure numbers are readily available from
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, United States
Department of Transport, Bureau of Transportation Statistics website; www.transtats.org.
The information in the “Form 41 Traffic, T-100 table profiles” provided the required
aforementioned data, for each airline, both internationally and domestically. Furthermore,
information on how these aircraft are operated, depending on their weight, was available
in the form of ACAP and FCOM documents.
The cruise segment of a flight typically represents the longest single segment of an
aircraft’s flight, particularly on medium and long haul flights. It is also the segment of flight
which corresponds to the “range” within the Breguet Range Equation. As a result, it is
noticeably easier to calculate the fuel burn only over the cruise segment, in comparison to
including the climb and decent profiles etc. However, the calculations on fuel burn during
cruise assume for a steady flight with minimal turbulence and no deviations in altitude
throughout the flight. In practice, turbulence is a random occurrence and always possible,
whilst a step climb is often employed as this is more efficient, due to the aircrafts changing
weight as fuel is burnt.

38
Figure 13 Snapshot of Transtats data on operation of aircraft for each Airline in Excel.
Figure 13 shows displays data for each cruise distance segment range, including; number of
departures performed, payload passengers and freight per flight, for each airline and
aircraft type. The data in figure 14 is for a Delta Airlines Boeing 767-300.
Figure 14 Snapshot of data averages per flight per cruise distance segment length for
each airline

39
While the data differentiates for different cruise segment lengths, it does not, however,
differentiate for seasonal operation and the fluctuating volume of passengers who have
flown on that type of aircraft at different times of the year.
Data on aircraft operations were collected from the the aircraft FCOMs and ACAPs. Within
these two documents, data on aircraft operational cruise altitudes, Mach No’s, and engine
fuel fuel-flow rates were given dependant on the aircraft weight. Within the ACAP’s, the
SOEW’s of each aircraft were given. These weights are defined as the weight of the aircraft
airframe, all furnishing and operating systems and equipment considered important in the
aircrafts operation, all unusable fuel as well as the weight of both power-plants. It does not
however include the payload, the weight of passengers/cargo and the trip fuel.
Figure 15 Snapshot of Long Range Cruise Control for the Boeing 777-200, GE 90 Engines

40
Figure 15 shows an example section of the Boeing 777-200’s FCOM LRCC, all engines
operative, for the operations with General Electric GE90 engines. Based upon the aircraft
weight, as defined by the number of passengers, the payload and the trip fuel, the cruise
altitude can be calculated through interpolation, as with the aircraft cruise Mach No and
the fuel flow rate per engine.
The thrust values on required take-off were taken directly from the ACAPs documents,
which state the maximum thrust each engine produces (Boeing Commercial Aeroplanes #1,
1998) (Boeing Commercial Aeroplanes #2, 2005). It was assumed that during take-off,
maximum thrust is applied, as detailed data on engine thrust levels per flight set by the
flight crew could not be obtained.
However, for the Breguet Range Equation, total engine thrust at cruise was required and
calculated, based on the assumption that thrust decreases proportionally with atmospheric
density. Therefore, the standard atmospheric tables (Cavcar, n.d.) and the ratio of ρ/ρ0 was
used to calculate the thrust at cruise. Whilst this process is simple and relatively crude by
not taking into account other factors such as engine inlet temperatures, it does allow for a
fair assumption to be made on the cruise thrust required.
Then, the aircraft operational empty weights were taken directly from the ACAPs, which
presented details on the SOEWs. Whilst this might vary between different airlines, this data
from each airline was inaccessible and therefore the value presented in the ACAPs were
used during the calculations.
The “range” part of the Breguet Range Equation, or cruise segment distance ranges, were
taken as the maximum points of each range group specified within the transtats website.
Each cruise segment group increased in increments of 500 Statute Miles; 0-500miles, 500-
1000 miles and so on. The end value in each of these groups were utilised for the
calculations in order to give the most exact and “worst case scenario” representation of the

41
data available. This is due to the fact that while the number of departures within each
group were given, the exact ranges of each individual flight were not specified, simply that
it was within a given segment group. The average number of passengers were taken
directly from the workbook seen Figure 15.
The average weight of the passenger standard was estimated at 190 lbs (Anon., 2011), or
86.2kg by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As each passenger typically carries
one piece of hand luggage (roughly 5kg) and one suitcase within the hold, 23kg,
(netflights.com, 2015), as typically allowed by the legacy carriers studied within this
dissertation, the average weight of a passenger with luggage totals to 114kg. This value was
multiplied by the average number of passengers per flight.
Within the Form 41, T-100 table, payload is defined as “Equal to the certificated take-off
weight of an aircraft, less the empty weight, less all justifiable aircraft equipment, and less the
operating load (consisting of minimum fuel load, oil, flight crew, steward's supplies, etc.)” (BTS,
2014). The average passenger numbers, payloads and the SOEW weights are added
together to estimate the initial weight of the aircraft without fuel, and are used to
determine the optimum cruise altitude within the FCOM, Long Range Cruise Control
section. From here, the Mach No. was calculated through interpolation, and converted into
a velocity (m/s) using an online conversation calculator (see Figure ##4) which converts the
Mach number at a given altitude into true airspeed. The true airspeed is the value used
within the SFC calculation as the velocity term.

42
Figure 16 Joachim K. Hochwarth Aviation Calculator (Hochwarth, 2014)
Similarly to the Mach number, the fuel flow rates per engine were calculated using FCOMs
based upon the calculated cruise altitude and weights. To calculate the total fuel
consumption based on the aircraft weight, without fuel, the fuel flow rate per second for
both engines combined was multiplied by the time taken to cover the cruise distance, to
calculate the fuel required to cover the distance based upon the cruise speed. The weight
of fuel required was added to the aforementioned aircraft weight (without fuel) to produce
the Initial Aircraft Weight at the beginning of the cruise segment.
Based upon this, the calculations for the cruise altitude, Mach No. and fuel flow rate were
once again calculated to determine the final weight of the aircraft at the end of cruise. The
aircraft’s final weight had been calculated as the aircraft initial weight minus the fuel burnt
over the cruise period. Unlike a flight planning system which can calculate the fuel used per
waypoint and takes into account aircraft re-routing on fuel burn, these calculations based
purely on the values given within the FCOMs as data on engine performance and fuel flow
rates for other flight profiles such as climb and descent are not readily available. It would
be preferable to include the effects of air temperature, altitude, air pressure or the effect
of fuel consumption through using either brand new or worn out engines, on the

43
calculation of the SFC, however the data is not available and therefore will affect the
accuracy of the results.
The weight fraction was calculated using the aircraft initial weight and final weight
mentioned previously. The L/D ratio was rearranged to take the values of Weight over
Thrust at Cruise. The weight was an average of the start and end weight, due to the fact
that the SFC was being calculated across a specific range.

44
2.2.2 Determining the Cost of Aircraft Options
In the end, the main reason for choosing one option over another is in the amount of profit
which can be generated over a defined period of time. When looking at the engine options
available on aircraft to airlines, the amount of fuel required on a certain flight has a large
impact on the price of the airfare charged to passengers. This will directly affect the profit
margin obtained from each passenger who flies on board the aircraft, and will also affect
the likelihood of a passenger booking a flight with that airline. Based upon price alone,
comparing two identical flights and services, most people would most likely choose the
cheaper option, and therefore despite the quality of service that each airline operates, the
cost of the airfare represents a major pull of push factor in attracting passengers, and
hence making profits.
By analysing how much fuel various engine optioned aircraft consumed on an average
flight, the cost of fuel as a proportion of the revenue generate through the average
passenger number can be determined to give an idea of the likely profit generated per
flight. A number of assumptions will be made in determining a cost as a percentage of
revenue generated per flight, as noted in section 3.1.4, where the average airline ticket fare
is broken down into it constituent parts. This will help determine a possible profit figure
generated per flight at different ranges. As finding the average ticket price between two
locations for each of the studied airlines and for each aircraft operation within these ranges
will be a time intensive and labours task, an assumption has been made on the average
airfare cost per mile and applied across the different ranges, set range in order to
determine a rough estimate on the airfare cost over a set range.

45
The typical airfare cost per mile has been calculated for all major airlines, by the online
Blog; Rome2Rio (Rome2Rio, 2013) who utilised data over a four month period between,
and only considered the cost of economy seats. The data that follows represents the
selected data in the 20th
percentile of the fares sourced by Rome2Rio. Only competitive
fares (within twice the amount of the cheapest for each price search) were included,
producing the following figures for the four airlines being studied within this report. While
this is technically not the most accurate method working out the average costs, it will at
least allow for a decent set of predictions to be made within the project limitations.
American
Airlines
Delta Airlines United Airlines U.S. Airways
Airfare Cost Per
Mile ($)
$0.01 $0.099 $0.099 $0.093
Table 2 Average Airfare Prices per Mile for Airlines of Choice to study (Rome2Rio, 2013)

46
Range (Miles)
Payload(Lbs)
Range (Miles)
Payload(Lbs)
3. Results and Analysis
3.1 Payload Range Diagrams
Figure 17 Boeing 767-300 Payload Range Diagram
Figure 18 Boeing 777-200 Payload Range Diagram

47
Figures 17 and 18 show the payload range diagrams for the Boeing 767-300 and Boeing 777-
200. The constituent payloads and ranges have been taken directly from the ACAP documents,
for each aircraft-engine combination (see page 49 for the Boeing 767-300 (Boeing Commercial
Aeroplanes #2, 2005) and page 42 for the Boeing 777-200 (Boeing Commercial Aeroplanes
#1, 1998)). The payloads which make up the payload range diagram, shown in Figures 18
and 19, represent the maximum possible payloads that each aircraft/engine variant can
carry, excluding fuel. They have been calculated as the MDZFW less the SOEW.
Also plotted are the average payloads per flight over a distance corresponding to each
range group, as stated on the Transtats website. The average payload values are taken
from an online database within the Transtats website and represent, as quoted from the
website; “equal to the certificated take-off weight of an aircraft, less the empty weight, less all
justifiable aircraft equipment, and less the operating load (consisting of minimum fuel load, oil, flight
crew, steward's supplies, etc.)” (BTS, 2014). The data within the payload range diagrams give an
insight into howthese airlines areoperatingtheir aircraftonmissionsof differentcruise distances.
For both aircraft, American Airlines operate their aircraft with at the heaviest payloads,
with Delta Airlines slightly lighter, followed by United Airlines. Each of the other two
aforementioned airlines operates a similar payload for each cruise distance segment length
for each aircraft, the average payload for the Boeing 777-200 United Airlines fluctuated by
almost a tonne, with no significant trend notable as the range increase.
The data for the average payloads carried by U.S. Airways A330-200’s were also plotted
onto the payload range diagram for the Boeing 777-200. It shows that based on the
average payload carried by U.S. Airways’ A330-200’s, the Airline could also operate the
Boeing 777-200, should they opt in the future for an aircraft with either Rolls Royce or Pratt
and Whitney engine options.

48
Range (Miles)
AveragePassengerNumbers
PerCruiseDistanceSegment
Figure 19 Average Passenger Numbers for the Boeing 777-200 per cruise distance
segment length
The data in Figure 19 for the Boeing 777-200 shows that while American Airlines may carry
more payload per flight, it is Delta Airlines which carry the greatest number of passengers
for each cruise range group on the same flights. Also, while American and Delta both see
the number of passengers increasing as the distance increases; United Airlines operate
their aircraft with consistent passenger numbers displaying a fairly even trend in passenger
numbers across all cruise distance segment lengths. This trend is similar to the plot showing
average data on U.S. Airways’ operation of their A330-200 fleet. Currently U.S Airways do
not operate this type, but Figure 20 shows that based on the average payload carried by
U.S. Airways’ A330-200’s, switching to the Boeing 777-200 is a feasible option. Figure 19
shows that based on the average number of passengers transported by U.S. Airways’ A330-
200, the airline could also operate the Boeing 777-200 as the Boeing aircraft is substantially
larger with the ability to carry much more passengers than the Airbus A330-200.

49
Range (Miles)
SFC(1/s)
3.2 SFC Calculations
3.2.1 Evaluating the SFC Values Calculated for the Boeing 767-300
All exact SFC values are available in Appendix 5.2
Figure 20 SFC vs Cruise Range plot for various engine optioned American Airlines Boeing
767-300
Figure 20 shows that for each engine options, for a typical American Airlines flight over
each cruise distance segment length, the SFC of the Boeing 767-300 aircraft increases with
cruise range at a steady, almost linear rate. Based upon the data collected via the Transtats
website, American Airlines operate their 767-300’s to a maximum cruise range of between
5000 and 5500 Statute Miles.
The engine which presents the lowest SFC across all ranges is the GE CF6-80C2/B2.
Conversely, the power-plant which represents the highest overall SFC is the CF6-80A. The
C2/B2 model of the CF6-80 engine family is newest model fitted to the Boeing 767-300 and
therefore will contain the latest most efficient technology. Being newer, this could however
mean that purchase and maintenance costs are higher, although conversely less frequent
against older models.

50
SFC(1/s)
Ranges (Miles)
SFC(1/s)
SFC(1/s)
Ranges (Miles)
Figure 21 SFC vs Cruise Range plot, various engine optioned Delta Airlines Boeing 767-300
Figure 22 SFC vs Cruise Range, various engine optioned United Airlines Boeing 767-300
Figures 21, for Delta Airlines, and Figure 22 for United Airlines, show the CF6-80C2/B2
represents the lowest SFC across all cruise ranges. These two airlines further operate their
aircraft to maximum cruise ranges of between 5500 and 6000 miles. Figures 21 to 23 also
show that these three airlines operate these aircraft very similarly

51
SFC(1/s)
Ranges (Miles)
3.2.2 Evaluating the SFC Values Calculated for the Boeing 777-200
Figure 23 SFC vs Cruise Range, various engine optioned American Airlines Boeing 777-200
Figure 23 represents the SFC variations for all 12 possible engine options on a American
Airlines Boeing 777-200. Figure 23 on between 0-500 miles and 3000-3500 miles shows
that the Rolls Royce Trent 884 offers the lowest overall SFC for cruise distance up to a
range of 3500 miles, and the PW 4084 from 4000 miles onwards.

52
Ranges (Miles)
SFC(1/s)
Ranges (Miles)
SFC(1/s)
Figure 24 SFC vs Cruise Range, various engine optioned Delta Airlines Boeing 777-200
For a Delta Airlines Boeing 777-200, using data acquired over the same 12 month period,
Figure 24 show that the SFC for all cruise distance segment lengths, a RR Trent 884
optioned aircraft also the possess lowest SFC, whilst the PW 4073/4073A takes the highest
SFC values, again across all ranges in which the aircraft is operated.
Figure 25 SFC vs Cruise Range, various engine optioned United Airlines Boeing 777-200

53
Ranges (Miles)
Ranges (Miles)
SFC(1/s)
For United Airlines, there is yet again a change in the engine option providing the lowest
SFC, as shown on the previous page, in Figure 25. For all cruise ranges, bar between 2000
and 3500 miles where the RR Trent 884 holds the lowest SFC values, the General Electric GE
90 B4 holds the lowest SFC values for the rest of the ranges. Nevertheless, similarly to Delta
Airlines, the engine option with the highest SFC is also the PW 4073/4073A.
Figure 26 SFC vs Cruise Range, various engine optioned U.S. Airways (PROPOSED) Boeing
777-200
Figure 26 shows data for the proposed Boeing 777-200 U.S. Airways flights, using data on
U.S. Airways’ A330-200’s. Whilst the airline does not currently operate the type, the data
on average payloads and passenger numbers were transferred and applied to the 777-200.
The data shows similar SFC values in comparison to the previous three airlines, across all
cruise distance segment lengths. However, there is again a fluctuation in engine options
which provides the lowest SFC. Between 0 and 4000 miles, RR Trent 884 possesses the
lowest SFC values, whilst from 4000 miles onwards, it is the PW 40814 which occupies the
title. Similarly to American Airlines, between 0 and 2000 miles, the PW 4073/4073A takes
the largest value for the SFC, and from 2000 miles onwards, it is the Trent 870/871.

54
FuelCostas%ofRevenueGeneratedFuelCostas%ofRevenueGenerated
Ranges (Miles)
Ranges (Miles)
3.2.3 Fuel Cost Analysis Boeing 767-300
Figure 27 Fuel Cost per Flight as a Percentage of Revenue Generated per Flight, Various
Engine Options, American Airlines, Boeing 767-300 per Cruise Distance Segment Length
Engine Options, Delta Airlines, Boeing 767-300 per Cruise Distance Segment Length

55
FuelCostas%ofRevenueGenerated
Ranges (Miles)
Engine Options, United Airlines, Boeing 767-300 per Cruise Distance Segment Length
Each of figures 27 to 29 above, show that the average cost of fuel per flight as a percentage
of the average revenue generated per flight, fluctuate significantly with the cruise range, to
the extent where no conceivable trend can be defined, for either airline. However, as
Figure 28 shows, Delta Airlines’ aircraft typically see the highest fuel cost per flight on a like
for like basis for each engine option, in comparison to the other two airlines; this will
typically be because the average passenger numbers, and hence revenue, over each cruise
distance length, are lower for this type of aircraft in comparison to Delta Airlines and
American Airlines. Appendix 5.5 shows the revenue generates per flight and the percentage
values for all three airlines.
The data in appendix 5.5 further shows that the maximum fuel cost variation between each
of the four engine options for any airline varies by a maximum of between $700 and $800,
at a range of 6000 miles; the largest variation of which is for United Airlines. This variation
in fuel costs represents only roughly 3% of the overall fuel cost on a 6000 mile flight.
However, when considering that in 2014, 532 Boeing 767-300 flights were conducted by

56
United Airlines (BTS, 2014), this $800 variation per flight in fuel costs equates to a total of
over $425,000 over a yearly period in potential losses if the less efficient engine option was
chosen.
One common occurrence in all three sets of data above, is that below a cruise range of
1000 miles, and similarly at around the 4000 mile mark, all airlines see their fuel
consumption as a percentage of revenue percentages peak, either side of much lower
percentage values. This corresponds to the fact that on average over a yearly period, more
passengers seemed to have flown on this type of aircraft over these ranges, and hence
more revenue is generated in the regions where the fuel cost represents the lowest
percentage, which for all three airliners is typically between 1000 to 4000 miles.
For all three airlines, it is the CF6-80 A2 which represents the lowest fuel cost percentage
across all cruise distance segment lengths, which corresponds to the data seen in section
4.2.1 and the SFC calculations.

57
Ranges (Miles)
Ranges (Miles)
3.2.4 Fuel Cost Analysis for Boeing 777-200
Engine Options, American Airlines, Boeing 777-200 per Cruise Distance Segment Length

58
Ranges (Miles)
Figures 30 to 32 for the Boeing 777-200, represent a similar cost analysis approach to
section 3.2.3. Once again, there is no clear trend in the cost of fuel in relation to the
revenue generated per flight, particularly figure 31 for Delta Airlines. Figure 30, which
represents American Airlines, showing that the GE90 B5 option holds the lowest fuel cost
percentage, in comparison to the Trent 877 option for Delta Airlines in figure 31.
The importance in choosing the correct engine option becomes apparent when further
studying figure 30. The exact figures on fuel consumption and cost, based upon the
assumptions made earlier in the report, show that the difference in fuel costs between the
least and most efficient engine options, where the cruise range is between 6500 and 7000
miles, is in excess of $13,000 (see appendix 5.2). In 2014, where a total of 933 Boeing 777-
200 flights were operated by American Airlines (BTS, 2014) within the 6500-7000 mile
cruise range, the potential total difference in fuel cost between the most and least efficient
engine could have totalled up $13.5 million. In the grand scheme of things, when
considering that in 2014 American Airlines generated a record $4.2 billion in profit

59
(American Airlines, 2015) across the entire business, the difference in fuel cost only
represents a 0.3% of this profit value and is therefore possible to be considered as
insignificant. However, when considering all makes and models, not just the Boeing 777-
200, there are 957 aircraft in service with American Airlines (as of 19th
April 2015 (CH-
Aviation, 2015)). As part of the American Airlines group, in conjunction with U.S. Airways,
these aircraft flew over 14,200 daily flights in 2014, meaning the potential for lost profit
from simply choosing the wrong engine option, becomes visibly apparent, especially when
considering American Airlines operate larger and older aircraft, as well as smaller but
substantially more frequent used, short haul airliners.
Figures 30 to 32 show the cost as a percentage of the revenue generated fluctuate
continuously across the range of operations. No single desirable option is visible for United
Airlines in figure 32, unless the airline was to operate aircraft with a certain engine option
on flights of certain cruise lengths, a frankly impractical proposal. Nevertheless, the
variation in fuel costs between the least and most efficient engine for the average typical
flight at a cruise range between 6500 & 7000 mile, represent less than half of that
calculated difference for American Airline; just under $5,500 per flight in appendix 6.2. This
vale is even less for Delta Airlines, at just over $4,500 per flight.
The results in general, for all three airlines, show the fuel cost as a proportion of revenue is
greater than the average figure stated in section 2.1.4. It also shows that when fuel
constitutes a higher percentage in comparison to the revenue generated, it would be
unfavourable to operate these aircraft in these conditions. This is because fewer
passengers carried can result in either passengers being charged more or a smaller profit
margined being obtained. In these cases, it would be more favourable to operate a smaller
aircraft with a similar range as both operating costs and the cost of fuel would potentially
be lower in relation to the revenue generated, such as the Airbus A330-200.

60
3.3 Chosen Aircraft/Engine Option Combinations
Based upon the data collected in this report and on the assumptions made throughout the
methodology, the following recommendations can be made regarding the choice of aircraft
and engine combination to meet the requirements for each airline.
Boeing 767-300 Boeing 777-200
American Airlines CF6 80 C2/B2 Rolls Royce Trent 884
Delta Airlines CF6 80 C2/B2 Rolls Royce Trent 884
United Airlines
CF6 80 C2/B2
General Electric GE 90
B4
U.S. Airways (Proposed) Rolls Royce Trent 884
Table 3 Proposed Aircraft Engine Options
The data in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3 show that the most efficient aircraft-engine option, for
all three airline’s Boeing 767-300, is the CF6 80 C2/B2, as this aircraft and engine
combination offers the lowest specific fuel consumption for each airline-aircraft
partnership, based on their current operational performance during 2014. This proposal
matches the current engine option on the American Airlines (American Airlines, 2015) and
United Airlines (United Airlines, 2015) fleet of current Boeing 767-300’s, which have all
been optioned with CF6 80 C2/B2 engine. There is no information on the engine options of
the for Delta Airlines’ 767-300 (Delta Airlines, 2015)
For the Boeing 777-200, the choices of engine option differ to the engine options already in
service with the current aircraft in each airline’s fleet. Currently American Airlines operate

61
their fleet of 777-200’s with Rolls Royce Trent 892 engines (American Airlines, 2015).
However, based on the data available in the ACAP and the resultant analysis for the Boeing
777-200, the Rolls Royce Trent 884 represents the engine option with the lowest SFC to
power the American Airlines fleet. Data on a Trent 892 was not available however in the
ACAP, so it is impossible to compare which engine variant is actually more efficient.
United Airlines operate their 777-200 fleet with a combination of Generation Electric GE90
and Pratt and Whitney and PW4070/4090 engine options (United Airlines, 2015). This
matches the results seen in Table 3 above, where the data and analysis shows that the
General Electric GE 90 B4 option presents the most efficient engine option with the lowest
SFC out all possible variations. Again for Delta Airlines, there is sufficient information
available to ascertain which engines power their fleet of 777-200’s.
Whilst this report looks at the engine options in relation to the specific fuel consumption
and the cost of fuel in relation to the revenue generated, it does, however, not take into
consideration, the acquisition cost of each engine, the cost of maintenance, the frequency
of maintenance and the availability of each engine i.e. current contracts already in place
with other aircraft engine providers within the current fleet. It also does, as previously
mentioned, only observe the cruise stage. The reason that these points have not been
considerations regards the availability of the data, with most such costs not available for
public view. With this data however, the above recommendations could change.

62
4. Conclusions and Future Work
At the start of this project, a series of objectives were presented, in order to meet the
desired project aims of evaluating different aircraft options based upon the requirements
of various airlines.
Whilst Boeing and Airbus are set to remain the duopoly in the aviation industry for the
foreseeable future, competition from smaller aircraft manufactures in the short haul 100-
170 seat market is growing, with the likes of the Embraer E170 and E190 and the
Bombardier C Series aircraft set to rival the likes of the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320
family in the coming years in the short haul market. There is also increasing pressure from
the turboprop market, particularly with the uncertainty of the fluctuating oil and fuel
prices.
It is, nevertheless, the short haul market which is expanding at a pace faster than any
other, resulting in the likes of Airbus announcing their intentions to increase the production
of their short haul aircraft family, in order to meet growing demands from across the globe.
While these markets constitute the majority of orders received by both manufacturers in
the duopoly, the most recent commercial airliners which have been released by these two
manufacturers have in fact been targeted towards the medium and long haul segments. It
shows while airlines at present are keen to focus on the expansion of their short haul
operations, the emphasis has been on the commercial aviation industry to develop more
efficient and advanced airliners, capable of travelling further and carrying greater loads to
meet the investable requirements of many of the current crop of airlines, new and old, who
in the future will most likely expand their operations and look for options for long haul
intercontinental operations.

63
The steady rise to prominence of low cost carriers over the past decade has led to fierce
competition between the established legacy carriers and their new counterparts, as the
differentiations between both styles of airline slowly become erased due, to reduced
general operating costs and increased fuel prices. Whilst low cost airlines formed to
compete against the legacy carriers, the high end legacy carriers opted to merge,
sometimes successfully, other times not so, in order to bring together a variety of different
aircraft models and a greatly expanded fleet, increasing their options available for
operating on a given route.
However, the process of selecting the correct aircraft, based upon the market demand and
the desired operations of the airline, is not as simple as simply choosing an aircraft based
upon its ability to carry the most passengers over the greatest range. A number of external
factors affecting both the airline and commercial aviation industry present a large influence
on the choices of aircraft and aircraft options available to airlines. These influences range
from the effects of governmental and environmental legislation, to the effects of natural
and man-made disasters.
The most influential external factor however, remains the price of oil, and hence aviation
fuel. Despite a recent decrease in the cost of aviation fuel, the overall trend has been an
almost exponential increase over the past 25 years. As the political instability of many oil
producing company’s rises and the quantity of oil slowly reduces, combined with the
effects of environmental legislation, the chances of aviation fuel prices increasing heights
never before witnessed over the coming years remains highly likely.
Ultimately, obtaining the maximum return on assets, despite the negating effects of
internal and external factors, presents arguably the most crucial requirement for any airline
in order to generate the maximum amount of profit and remain operationally successful. It
is therefore crucial that once an airline has chosen which market they wish to enter or

64
expand into, and which aircraft/airframe they wish to operate, that it is optioned correctly
in order to maximise its performance to meet the airlines operational demands for this
aircraft.
Further research on how specific technological options affected a specific aircraft’s
performance based upon an airline’s requirement, was also required in order to fully
evaluate the effects of different options on an airline’s performance. The research
conducted within this report looked at one technological option, the aircraft engines, and
their effects on the aircraft’s performance, based upon current data on how airlines chose
to operate these aircraft.
The use of the Breguet-range equation was required to determine the specific fuel
consumptions of two aircraft of choice, the Boeing 767-300 and Boeing 777-200 for four
airlines. The SFC of each aircraft was directly related to the performance of the engines
powering the aircraft. As it turned out, each engine option produced a different set of SFC
values, based upon the calculated weight of each aircraft, using assumptions on average
passenger weights and average passengers flown over set cruise distance ranges.
When the variations in fuel costs were compared to calculations on the potential revenue
generated per flight for each airline, the effect of the different SFC’s for each engine option
became clear, with the potential fuel cost variation per flight between different engine
options varying as much as $13,000, for an American Airline’s Boeing 777-200; an
extremely large value considering the potential number of flights the aircraft could operate
over its lifetime with the airline.
These results presented clear evidence on the importance of carefully evaluating the effect
of each potential option available to an airline, be it the potential market chosen to operate
within, down to the engine’s operating the aircraft themselves.

65
Based upon the initial research and findings of this report, there are number of potential
revision which could be made to the research areas as well as the methodology process, in
order to improve the accuracy and reliability of the results conducted and as well as the
exactitude of the resulting recommendations and conclusions. This is of particular
importance if the project were to be continued and expanded to include new areas of
focus.
Whilst this report has only evaluated the effect of one option, the aircraft’s engines, on two
specific aircraft, and operated by four airlines, the aim of this project allows for an
expansion of the project’s scope to include a much wider area of focus; both airlines and
aircraft combined. This is possible when acknowledging that each airline ultimately
possesses the same goal; to generate the maximum profit through returns on assets.
Therefore, it is vital that each airline appropriately options their fleet on top of the aircraft
themselves, to meet their individual operational requirements on what markets they
choose to operate within, the geographical locations of their operation, combined with
historical and predicted trends in payloads carried and revenues generated.
In order to consider evaluating a much larger number of variables, including the effect of
different options on an entire fleet of aircraft for one (or more) airlines, it would be crucial
to research and collect much more accurate data on the operational performance of that
airline for each aircraft of choice over a much longer period of time, rather than the one
year range operated within this report. Through choosing to evaluate data over the past
five to ten years of the airline’s history, it would greatly increase the reliability of any
following recommendations, by including a more accurate description of the effect of
changing internal and external factors on the airline’s performance. These trends could be
used, in line with proposed research on the future of the airline industry and predictions

IndividualProjectReport_Andrew Peck_8185732

IndividualProjectReport_Andrew Peck_8185732

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to IndividualProjectReport_Andrew Peck_8185732

Similar to IndividualProjectReport_Andrew Peck_8185732 (20)

IndividualProjectReport_Andrew Peck_8185732