HX2QR Series SMR Feeders study "TAO" for EADS Airbus 14th February 2011 H19QR, H20QR, H21QR and H22QR Twin Aisle five abreast (1+3+1) "Quick Rotation" ( + F21QR and F22QR Quick Rotation Freighters) Reconfiguration proposals for application to A320 Series aircraft family made by TwinAisleFeeders contact@TwinAisleFeeders.com +33(0)561535743 +33(0)671981212
TwinAisleFeeders : CredoTo attain full maturity as an Industry, the ethical controls of SMR Feeder Air Transport shall need to pass from the historical initiators ‐ the Producers (Manufacturers and Operators) ‐ into the hands of the End Users : the worlds travelers and people to whom aircraft and airports are their workplace. If aircraft are purchased by or on behalf of some "Xyz Airways p.l.c.", never forget that the payors‐in‐fact are all those who cash out the price for the airfares. A drastic first step to SMR Air Transport maturation ‐ industry‐wide corporate liposuction ‐ was accomplished with the Low Cost Carrier revolution; the second and final step ‐ full ethical liberation from Producers ‐ again will crave drastic changes to operator mentality : cabin safety, ergonomy and comfort shall be restored at the very center of SMR feeder cabin strategy decision‐making. Final End Users legitimately crave that advances in technology be passed on as enhanced safety, improved cabin ergonomy and better passenger comfort and not only to reduce operating costs, ie to improve the profit margins of Operators. The availability of PurePower or Leap‐X ultrahigh bypass NEO for EIS early in 2016 should be combined with A320HQR Series (1+3+1), the end‐user friendly Twin Aisle Option preconized by TwinAisleFeeders, also available for EIS by 2016 : the (3+3) single aisle six abreast sardine‐box cabin in wide use on SMR feeder services is a strictly production‐oriented ‐ and as such, an obsolete ‐ concept. If selling [hardware] wrapped into [software] we make money then were resilient, were in the market to stay, we may compete for the passengers, increase frequencies, add new legs, gain market share : BINGO! Let yield ‐ and not solely the cost side of the yield equation ‐ drive SMR feeder Air Transport strategy. Decision‐Makers : to finance the next decades fully mature ‐ hence costlier ‐ SMR feeder strategies, roll up your sleeves, make your day seeking more or alternative revenue, in four main directions : a) adopt resolute end‐user‐friendly Product Differentiation; b) boost up scheduled air freight; (c) boost up aircraft productivity (shorten airport ground rotations); and d) look for ways to turn IFEC into a revenue source. A320HQR Series - packaged with PEOPLE® - are alternative AirTransport business strategies preconized by TwinAisleFeeders,available sine die to SMR feeder operators and built upon XXIstCentury - legitimate - End User service aspirations whilst perfectlycompatible with - equally legitimate - Producer business objectives. TwinAisleFeeders 14 February 2011 ( * ) (from the mid-pages) (Hägar, by Dik Browne) Says Hägar, the Horrible Wiking : "Son, life neednt be EITHER‐OR ‐ lets make it BOTH‐AND !!"
A320 (3+3) vs H20QR (1+3+1) vs CS (2+3) Multi-Criterion Analysis SMR feeder aircraft cross-sectionsLet us compare the respective cross‐sections of the Airbus A320 Series six abreast single aisle (3+3) cabin vs the Bombardier C‐Series five abreast single aisle (3+2) cabin and vs the A32XHQR Series five abreast twin aisle (1+3+1) cabin, where "QR" is for "Quick Rotation" and where "H" is for "Happy" or more seriously, to literally depict the H‐shaped twin aisle geometry : series designator A320 (3+3) Series A32XHQR Series CS Series cross-section (1.1.1+1.1.1) (1+1.1.1+1) (1.1.1+1.1) manufacturer Airbus TwinAisleFeeders BombardierAisles 1 2 1Aisle seats 2 4 !! 2One‐off seats 2 1 2Outer seats in a triple 2 !!! 0 1 !!!Middle seats in a triple 2 (*e) !! 1 (*d) 1 (*e)Single seats no yes, 2 (*b) noRow Excuse‐me factor 6! 1 or 1/2 (*c) 4 !!Central OHSC no yes, 1 huge ! noLateral OHSC yes, 2 no yes, 2Vol/seat OHSC 32" 2.045 cuft/pax 3.25 cuft/pax 2.4 cuft/pax (*a)Vol/seat OHSC % 100 % (basis) 159 % !! 117 %IFEC AVOD yes (seatbacks) yes (seatbacks) yes (seatbacks)IFEC Home Cinema NO !!! YES, twice 44" x 25" NO !!!Cabin symmetry yes yes nopax per aisle (stand‐up) 6 !!! rhs : 2 1/2 lhs : 2 1/2 5 !!!AGR turn‐around time SLOW (= basis) QUICK (16 to 22 less) SLOW (≈ basis)Cabin SAFETY adverse outstanding adverseErgonomy/Service adverse outstanding adverseErgonomy/Cleaning adverse outstanding adverse_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________inter‐equivalences (3+3) (1+3+1) (2+3)vs "FREEDOM" all Y-class @ 32" all Y-class @ 30" all Y-class @ 32"Overall rating (basis) excellent!! ≈ basis !!vs "COMFORT" (= BAD) N° 1 ( = POOR ) Affaires Internationales TwinAisleFeeders contact@TwinAisleFeeders.com +33561535743 +33671981212 (update 14 February 2011)* (a) source : Bombardier Aerospace CS Programme Planning (b) with an alter ego opposite number, the two "lonely cowboy" singles are not "lonely" anymore (c) with two ways to access an aisle, the seat EMF here will be better perceived (symbolised by 1/2) (d) this middle seat in a triple is accessible from both sides for both service and egress/return (e) this middle seat is accessible only from one side
H2XQR Series (1+3+1) vs A32X Series (3+3) TwinAisleFeeders vs EADS AirbusThe outstanding operational efficiency of current SMR Feeders (737NG + A320 Series) has evolved from sharp‐edged trimming of conflicting design demands upon a given airframe : enhanced revenue generating capability for Operators vs enhanced comfort for Passengers; vs enhanced safety for Regulator Agencies; plus vs enhanced ergonomy for Flight Attendants. State‐of‐art engineering shows that the "perfect" cylinder (with circular or near‐circular cross‐section) offers good compromise of [resilience to stress + light weight] vs [available volume]. Operators make use of the cylindric (or near‐cylindric) cabins of their 737NG or A320 Series as single aisle aircraft, with (3+3) in YC for maximal seat count per available floor m2. So from the very outset, the choice for (3+3) accomodation results from an utterly wrong perception of the stakes in Air Transport, which are about volumes, not square meters. The HQR (1+3+1) concept makes a different use vs the Airbus A320 (3+3) of the overall available volume in the aircraft : total 42.61 sq.ft x 32" for five passengers or 8.52 sq.ft x 32" per passenger in the main deck cabin, vs 47,78 sq.ft x 32" for six passengers or 7,96 sq.ft x 32" per passenger, ie 7 % more volume for the passenger in HQR vs (3+3). Obviously, this allows to recuperate more volume in the upper centre cabin, for overhead carry‐on stowage : the HQR gives 60 % more carry‐on volume per seat vs A320 (3+3) Series, a strategic advantage ! More carry‐on means no ombilical strings to the aircrafts cargo holds. Twin aisles are a big pluss : we remove congestion in the aisles for easy boarding/deplaning, with a BONUS on top : twin aisles enable trouble‐free in‐fight service and quick cabin cleaning (with two teams) at airport ground rotations. The aisles of the HQR have been made 2.4 times more spacious/pax vs A320 (3+3), a different world ! H2XQR Series : back to essentials !
A kick in the anthill : setting the brainwheels spinningIn a SMR Feeder context, such dogmatic shift away from essentials withbrings a string of corollaries affecting EndUsers, starting at the check‐in, onwards into the boarding area and all the way into the aircraft cabin, where ‐ as we say in the profession ‐ the "shit hits the fan" ! Travellers on a SMR Feeder flight are just going for the hike, nothing else : they dont need the harassment of luggage check‐in at airport registration counters, nor wasting their time in boarding areas or in interminable boarding queues, nor do they relish the anticlimax sardine‐box promiscuity of six passengers per 4.2 sq.ft in jammed aisles of crammed cabins, with outbursts of agoraphobia or claustrophobia at peak‐hours. Upon arrival, the hikers want to just grab their rollerbags and walk leisurely out through the Gate straight onto a flybus or a taxi. A journalist has asked : what evidence is there that passengers would be willing to pay for easier boarding ? Rob Wallace (Inventor of the Flying Carpet) indirectly answered this query : if boarding time and deplaning time (Nota Bene : were adapting Robs reasoning, but his Principle remains, Robs Flying Carpet is not concerned with deplaning) are made shorter by an average of five minutes for each passenger and if that same lucky passenger on top could skip baggage check‐in upon departure AND baggage reclaim upon arrival, then he or she will experience a total ‐ say ‐ of twenty minutes saved time door‐to‐door for the trip. Lets now compute the value of the unnecessary waiting. As a thumb‐rule, set the value per productive man‐hour to 8 euros. Yearly, 6 billion passengers (source : IATA) in the world are concerned by air travel, whereof say 60 % for SMR Feeder services or 3.6 billion passengers. A gain of 20 per passenger equates to a total annual gain of 3.6 x 20 / 60 = 1.2 billion hours, now made available as extra productive (working) time worth 9.6 billion Euros or 120 units A320/A321 aircraft in equivalent value [@ Airbus 2011 list prices]. Such is the economic penalty inflicted annually upon the world by those ("X" ?, follow my eyes !!) who didnt opt for a better solution. ( Thanks, Rob ! and Happy Flight to your Flying Carpet !) The single ‐ centrally located ‐ aisle cabin cross‐section design solution translates into inefficient use of the tubular volume developping from the surface at the center of the cabin cross‐section (it allocates it so to say for "thin air + light") whilst imposing promiscuity and discomfort upon the Passengers, but also inergonomic working conditions upon Flight Attendants or Cabin Cleaners, plus hampering quick egress to safety in an event of emergency evacuation, due to excessive passenger density in the aisle. Airline and Manufacturer planners alike need to reckon with the emergent countdown to a ban by FAA/EASA and sister Airworthiness Agencies against installation of triple seats squeezed against a wall panel in aircraft cabins. Such (ab)use of triple seats not only is inergonomic for the Flight Attendants and uncomfortable for the passengers, but also UNSAFE (in an emergency event). The worlds associations of Flight Attendants intensify their international political lobbying for improved ergonomy and safety in aircraft cabins to alleviate the professional ails from service on‐board todays user‐unfriendly aircraft. Airworthiness certificates for installation of triple seats squeezed against a wall panel date back to the early 1950ies when aircraft cabin design was 100 % production‐driven. In 2011, the concept is obsolete. It is only a matter of time until Regulators will want triple seats to be accessible from both ends : no seat shall be more than one seat off from an adjacent aisle. Cabin interior strategists and airline Planners need to anticipate or they’ll get trapped ! The P3 concept, announced by Jan Carlzon in 1985, neednt wait until 2020/25 to become a reality, it could be introduced before, although not necessarily as a pure (2+2+2) P3 to begin : the HQR concept (1+3+1) will be OK. The armwrestling in this direction between Producers (the aforementioned "X" = manufacturers + operators) and EndUsers (you, Reader, and me, plus Consumer Unions, Traveller Associations, AFA‐CWA, airport Workers Unions (Cabin Cleaners) and EASA/FAA – the Safety Advisors) has already started.
Looking around to find a solution ? TwinAisleFeeders proposes to sine die change emphasis in the maindeck cabin from single (3+3) to twin aisle HQR (1+3+1) because closer scrutiny shows that this design will improve ergonomy, safety and comfort, whilst remaining fully compatible with Operator demands. To illustrate the idea of TwinAisleFeeders, represent the A320 Series as an aircraft family constructed by assembling a same basic Lego building block @ 30 seats, in varying numbers : A320 Series (3+3) models A318 ← A319 ← A320 → A321 number of Lego blocks 4 5 6 7 capacity (@ 30 seats/block) 120 150 180 210 number of rows 6 abreast 20 25 30 35 . capacity – actual aircraft 117/132 134/156 164/180 198/220 n° of rows in the actual a/c 19/22 22/26 27/30 33/37 Metaphorically the A321, A319 and A318 ‐ successively and in that order ‐ evolved as shown from the original A320 design. Lets look at the A320 differently : assume we create a different type of Lego block, one long line of N seats; we have 6 such long lines assembled in parallel. Now we decide that we dont want six lines anymore, but only 5 lines in parallel : the various members of the A320 Series family will have 5 lines of varying length, pending the n° of rows; starting from the basic A320, the founding member of the family, we have, say, 27 rows, giving a capacity of 27 x 5 = 135 seats; to this basis we may add or substract varying numbers of rows @ 32" pitch 5 seats abreast, to form the A320HQR Series: H2XQR Series (1+3+1) models __ H19QR ← H20QR → H21QR → H22QR n° of rows (32" pitch) +/– – 5 27 (= basis) + 7 + 12 theoretical capacity @ 32" _ 110 135 170 195 . n° of rows in the actual aircraft 22/25 27/30 34/38 39/43
The seemingly paradoxal proposition of TwinAisleFeeders ‐ that H2XQR Series make sense economically speaking ‐ requires academic substantiation, boldly ventured as follows : At the low end of H2XQR Series, the smaller H19QR (resp. H20QR) is proposed as a direct predator to Bombardiers CS‐100 (resp. CS‐300); this point will be developed separately; in the within analysis we shall concentrate on the comparative situation for the larger aircraft : Pitching A321 (3+3) side by side vs H21QR (� A321HQR) : ========================================================================================== The cargo compartments of the A321 (3+3) accomodate 10 ULDs, 5 per each (fwd + aft) cargo hold, totalling ca. 1300 cuft. In addition, a bulk cargo volume of 208 cuft is available. The same goes for the cargo holds of H21QR. Let us compare the respective LOPAs : standard A321 (3+3) @ 32" pitch ≈ 33 rows ≈ total 198 seats H21QR (1+3+1) @ 32" pitch theoretical capacity ≈ also 33 rows ≈ total 165 seats ?? However, the exact situation is not quite this one : current EASA/FAA regulations for maximum seat allowance with two Type B + one overwing "double" Type III emergency exits is : 2 x 75 + 65 = 215. Consequently, whatever the actual accomodation (ie whether with approximately 175 seats/35 rows or nearer 200 seats/40 rows) – in theory – the H21QR, due to its now down‐rated safety requirements vs A321 (3+3) (from the factual reduced seat count resulting from going five abreast), would only require two Type III overwing exits (as for the smaller A320 (3+3) type), wherefore – in theory – wed be authorised to dispose of the two mid‐cabin type B emergency exits which we would not require anymore; nor would we need from regulatory considerations the corresponding two 36" wide cross‐aisles (to be replaced – in theory – by cross‐aisle passageways of 2 x 10" width) nor do we need any "reserved assist‐seat"; wed also
be founded to reduce the Lavatory Requirement, because we have less seats, so we can adopt the same number of Lavatories as shown by Airbus for their A320 (3+3) specification layouts; total, two more rows of seats, so wed gain another 14 more seats, these modifications – in theory – resulting in an effective A321HQR layout @ 32" pitch, with 179 seats. Compare : standard A321 (3+3) @ 32" pitch ≈ 33 rows ≈ total 198 seats H21QR (1+3+1) effective @ 32" pitch ≈ 35 rows plus 4 singles, total 179 seats But, there is an ique ! The foregoing theory doesnt withstand closer scrutiny ! With our Twin Aisle cabin interior, new issues arise, from both the regulatory viewpoint and the architectural viewpoint : with a – rather HUGE !! – centrebin suspended at a height of 59" from the floor down the full length of the cabin, we need a proper cross‐aisle passageway ! Also, to pervade the safety of A320HQR Series vs the (3+3) sister versions is not on the agenda of TwinAisleFeeders : we shall retain the mid‐cabin Type B Emergency Exit concept elected by EADS Airbus for A321 (3+3), which is indeed much better than the older "double Type III" EE concept for the smaller A320 (3+3), But the locations (at stations C35.2 and C47.3) retained by Airbus for the fwd or aft mid‐cabin Type B EEs are presently needed for other purposes : we want to install a second access to the fwd and aft cargo compartments underneath in the cabin floor in approximately these areas, so we shall need to solve relocating the Type B EEs away from C35.2 and C47.3; as the seat allowance with three Type B EEs is 3 x 75 = 225, vs a "maximum maximorum" of 41 rows/205 seats for A321HQR, we decide to retain only one Type B EE in the overwing position, in lieu of the previous two such type B EEs for A321 (3+3) from a design requirement for a high‐density maximum seat capacity of 220+ seats, found unreasonably close to the allowed limit of 225 seats by Airbus. For the A319HQR, the A320HQR and the A321HQR we therefore the same Type B single overwing EE located on RHS and LHS at station C41. This is offered as a STUDY DECISION. It is based upon the assumption – believed to be reasonable – that pertinent engineering solutions will be found to
satisfactorily meet the provisions of sections FAR121.25.[803‐815] concerning deployment of escape assist means, EE accessibility and egress route safety requirement. Such "Study Decision" withbrings the need to provide for a minimum 36" wide cross‐aisle passageway plus for 2 adjacent "assist" seats. Reader : for an instant, arrest your mind upon this crucial point ! Based on conflicts of EndUser interests vs other – equally legitimate – Operator interests, here we are being put in danger of "overkilling" the H2XQR Series ? If we allow the armwrestling to bend over too far, then our H2XQR Series project will go "down the drain", full stop. TwinAisleFeeders may put the key under the mat. Already we have taken out one seat per each row of six. On top of this penalising decision, for the sake of SAFETY, we now open a 36" wide cross‐aisle passageway, whence we need to arrange two adjacent "assist" seats too ! For the "assist" seats we can manage, but Reader : what are we going to give in exchange to Operators to upkeep the balance of "pros and cons" for the A320HQR Series (1+3+1) vs A320 Series (3+3) ? Operators sure expect to recover a fair return upon their investment ? On the one hand, the picture for the End Users has progressed significantly, the HQR series leap‐frogging the obsolete (3+3) series design. On the other hand, when comparing the two aircraft we are being hypnotized, obnubilated really, by the basic industry reference for aircraft cabins, ie, the famous all YC 32" specification layout. Reader, make sure Boeing or Airbus or Bombardier dont ever throw down onto your table an all YC 32" reference ("apples‐to‐apples" they call it ?!) cabin layout ! Basta ! The all YC 32" LOPA is not the end of YOUR world : it is the end of the (3+3) world, ie of THEIR world ! HQR vs (3+3) [or vs (3+2)] are separate approaches to a same SMR Feeder market, attacking it from different angles ! The perspective changes ! H2XQR Series : Cross-section Y-class
We shall not let any "(3+3) or (3+2) player" distillate doubts in our mind about HQR (1+3+1) based on biaised – dust‐covered, retrograde – arguments in defense of their obsolete (3+3) or (3+2) products. The two vinculations are different ! Lets stay clear of the (3+3) or (3+2) traps ! Allow your mind to lift itself above the penalising reference horizon of (3+3) or (3+2) products where we shall leave them gasping for air ! Take a fresh look at the real issues of SMR Feeder service with NEW EYESand an OPEN MIND ! BREATH IN, Reader : ELEVATE YOURSELF, LET (3+3) CONCEPTS FADE AWAY ... out of the scope of your vision : now you are in a receptive state of mind, the hypnosis of (3+3) propaganda (with its footprint sticking onto our minds since the times of the 707/727/737/757 cross‐section, ie since the early 1950ies) slowly dissipates ... FREE YOURSELF completely from the past ... then Reader, consider this : (a) transverse ease means more than legspace to passengers overall perception of "comfort"; (b) "promiscuity" as a feeling stems from physical contact with other human beings; (c) there is no physical contact with any "next row" occupant, only with lhs or rhs neighbours; (d) the negative connotation of a seat "excuse‐me factor" strongly correlates to promiscuity; (e) freedom of movement in the cabin strongly correlates to a feeling of enhanced safety; (f) aisle seats and twin aisle cabin geometry inspire an impression of open space and freedom; (g) carry‐on luggage cuts ombilical strings to cargo holds, freeing from reclaim/lost luggage. Conclusion : Operators are founded to claim a trade‐in for the positively perceived greater transverse and carry‐on freedom of the HQR, against a little less longitudinal space vs (3+3) : [ HQR (1+3+1) @ 30" pitch ] = [ classic (3+3) @ 32" pitch ] (equivalence in terms of passengers perception of "freedom" in the cabin) H2XQR Series : 3D perspective rendering Y-class cabin
Such trade‐in will not compromise the perception of HQR on top as a distinctly better cabin product from an overall viewpoint of "comfort" vs the competing (3+3) or (2+3), cf attached MCA*. Henceforth, in all spread‐sheets, HQR (1+3+1) @ 30" Series shall systematically be pitched vs (3+3) Series @ 32" aircraft for fair, "apples‐to‐apples", side‐by‐side comparisons. If we assume that the volume of checked‐in luggage for 33 pax in average will occupy the volume of 1 AKH container, or 127 cuft, at a cabin load factor of 100 % in the A321 (3+3) we shall need 6 such AKH for the luggage, leaving 4 ULD‐positions + the bulk volume available for cargo. At the same cabin load factor of 100 %, the H21QR carries 179 passengers, whereof the first 33 x 5 = 165 ‐ at a same average volume/pax of checked‐in luggage ‐ will need only 5 AKH for their luggage, giving one additional ULD‐position available for cargo. Now, the available volume/seat of carry‐on stowage in the HQR cabin is 3.2 cuft/pax or total 565 cuft for the full length of the overhead central stowage bin (+ stowage cupboard), vs total some 405 cuft for the two lateral overhead stowage bins in the A321 (3+3). The difference is 565 – 405 = 160 cuft more total available carry‐on volume in the H21QR vs A321 (3+3). We assume that the total "luggage" requirement per pax is identical when travelling in the A321 (3+3) or in the H21QR. Taking the former aircraft as a reference, we may compute the luggage requirement as follows : "checked‐in" 127 cuft/33 = 3.85 cuft/pax + "carry‐on" 2.05 cuft/pax, total luggage 5.9 cuft/pax; on account of the foregoing, 160 cuft represents the checked‐in luggage requirement for 160 / 3.85 = 41 pax, whose luggage doesnt need to be checked in anymore : it may be brought onboard the maindeck cabin, as additional "carry‐on" luggage. This will free one additional ULD position for cargo. Let us verify this assumption : using 4 AKH for checked‐in luggage, we have done away into the cargo holds with 127 x 4 = 508 cuft, whereas the total requirement for 179 passengers is 179 x 5.9 = 1,050 cuft, so we still need 1,050 ‐ 508 = 542 cuft, which we may comfortably accomodate as "carry‐on" luggage, because the available total cabin stowage volume in the H21QR is 565 cuft (cqfd). So, with 565 cuft total carry‐on volume, we may safely enterinate that ‐ in addition to the normal "carry‐on" baggage for all 179 passengers ‐ an additional volume representing the allowance for "checked‐in" luggage for 47 passengers may be admitted into the cabin as "carry‐on" hand‐luggage, freeing a second ULD‐position underfloor, for cargo. Consequently, per each rotation, in our assumption for the Cabin Load Factor, an H21QR generates two more ULD positions available for carrying cargo vs the standard A321 Series (3+3) : A321 (3+3) standard : total 198 seats plus 10 ULD whereof 4 for payfreight H21QR (1+3+1) : total 179 seats plus 10 ULD whereof 6 for payfreight Consequence for aircraft dispatching at the end of check‐in : with TWO cargo loaders ready in position, the A321 (3+3) is waiting for the 6 AKH with checked‐in luggage, always arriving late from the check‐in Terminal; when delivered to the loaders, the 6 ULDs will require THREE MOVEMENTS to and fro of two loaders, then holds are closed, ground is cleared, thumbs up from Yellow Dog and push‐back : GO ! The situation with H21QR is much better : FOUR cargo loaders are ready in position, awaiting the (late !) last 4 AKH with checked‐in luggage; these 4 ULDs will require only ONE MOVEMENT (of the four loaders in parallel) then holds are closed, ground is cleared, thumbs up from Yellow Dog and push‐back : GO ! This single little point is of great operational significance : it will avoid getting late, reducing the risks of losing your take‐off timeslot; it will shorten overall AGR critical flowpath but it will also enable to accomodate more last minute passengers, an additional flexibility much valued eg with shuttle services. It is also interesting to note that the rental fees for four cargo Loaders during 22 minutes each do not cost more than the rental fees for only two cargo Loaders, but which are needed for 44 minutes : container handling charges are the same, simply because the "RollOn/RollOff" H21QRs are so much quicker, an advantage that the freight people shall certainly turn into boosted revenues from Cargo !
Take note also of this : when passengers are taking care of their own luggage, the call upon handlers at the airport for loading or unloading of checked‐in luggage is reduced accordingly, resulting in significantly lower charges for airport handling : four ULDs both ways between the Terminal and the aircraft in the case of H21QR, or total eight movements of ULDs; the corresponding number for the A321 (3+3) is twelve ULD movements, translating into higher costs, charged by the handling agent for moving luggage (NB : an item – dead weight – that operators usually carry f.o.c. !). Assuming an average leg duration from push‐back to push‐back of 140 for the A321 (3+3), whereof 50 planned AGR‐time (Airport Ground Rotation time, from "Fasten Seatbelts" signs off for flight N to push‐back for flight N+1), in apprx 16h aircraft activity/24h the A321 (3+3) can produce a safe average of 7 legs involving 6 AGR; starting from its home‐base, the aircraft finishes the day at some out‐station on odd days, and returns to the home‐base in the evening of even days : 7 x 90 + 6 x 50 = 930. The quicker "Roll‐On/Roll‐Off" H21QR will produce 8 legs or 4 return flights, involving 7 AGR in the same period of activity : 8 x 90 + 7 x 30 = 930. In 24h (assuming a CLF of 100 % for passengers AND cargo), lets compare the cargo throughputs : A321 (3+3) : 7 x 4 x 127 cuft + 7 x 208 cuft = 5.012 cuft/24h = basis 100 % vs H21QR : 8 x 6 x 127 cuft + 8 x 208 cuft = 7.760 cuft/24h = 155 % ... CONTINUED ON PAGE 16 H2XQR Series : Cross-section B-class The perfect Premium Offer in a balanced cabin environment
Recreating the world of Mobilier urbain for JC Decaux ? IFEC on SMR feeder routes HQR Series is Gotts Himmel for IFEC Media operators who will push HQR Series In the foregoing we have concentrated operators to accept advertising fees in hard on tickets and freight – traditional currency as if for N more tickets @ YCff per income sources, but we live in an ever flight, but those N virtual "IFEC‐pax" need no changing world : welcome to IFECs handling nor any catering/in‐flight service : Wonderland !! Take the (3+3) or (3+2) IFEC pays up NET into Operators pockets ! Series, whichever. These aircraft serve on SMR Feeder flights of from 60 up to Indeed, SMR Feeder flights distillate sharp 180. minutes. Obviously the travellers – socio‐economic ciblage to please Media "local" people mostly – are open to Brokers and to convince advertisers attracted IFEC, necessarily relegated to miniature to the HQR Series KabinKino + AVOD Media ( ≈ max 16" ) seatback flatscreens as are Paysage, top‐rated by psychologists and in common use for AVOD distribution. expert Media counsels; marginal exposure time + only limited repetitions in one flight This we shall now change : for A320HQR will produce a superior memorising impact, Series, in both fwd and aft cabins, in the due to the unusually high mental presence conspicuous central location – up‐front, and receptivity of on‐lookers (impressed in on the centrepartitions – we shall install de‐stressing yet adrenaline‐tense times). Home Cinema 44" x 25" flat screens !! As a means to partially finance the non‐ Such IFEC Home Cinema flat screens are recurrent costs for H2XQR Series program called to become an essential element of R&D, TwinAisleFeeders will explore contract the A320HQR Series Cabin Interior forward the exclusive rights as Media Space Paysage ! Welcome to the HQR Series : Providers on‐board all H2XQR Series aircraft, we actually have created a new SPACE analysed as a new type Urban Furniture, to for accomodating another Urban eg JC Decaux (the recognized world experts in Advertising Panel, ie a new type this field). The aircraft would be sold with "Mobilier Urbain" (in the sense of JC those rights attached, complete with pre‐ Decaux) so far unavailable on SMR installed KabinKino screens and related Feeder routes, which make up for 60 % system drivers as SFE (Supplier Furnished of IATAs annual global traffic. Onboard Equipment), any changes back to BFE to be (3+3) or (3+2) single aisle aircraft cabins treated as customized options, so at a cost. there simply is no place where to install a big KabinKino (Home Cinema) screen ! Home cinema IFEC cabin paysage : a world exclusivity of A32XHQR Series on SMR feeder routes IFEC : A NEW SOURCE FOR REVENUE The bits and pieces of the "puzzle" are these : a cargo door, a loader, two chain movers LHS + RHS, a direction shifter ... ?? H22QR ( A322HQR) : Let it be ! (cf. Sir Paul McCartney) Reader : take this as a QUIZZ : maybe YOU will find the solution. One thing is sure : it can be done ! Scandinavian shipping people say : good engineering for logistics can be found ... in Poland or Korea (if not in Scandinavia !) ; they also say : to solve a Chinese Roger Béteille, inceptor of Airbus, opinioned that every fine and successful aircraft design must ultimately grow into an even finer puzzle, ask a Chinaman ! If Daniel Baubil is INSTRUCTED (by the Airbus Supervisory Board, giving Airbus the required financial and more successful stretched version of the same aircraft. In what follows, the designator " H22QR " is meant more as a means) to urgently solve the CLS ground handling shortcomings of the A321, then an SCN package for "Quick CLS" will be in provocation than as a promise, because we want EADS Airbus to do their " coming out " for the H2XQR Series, if only to object : operational service within 24 to 30 months. We have total 48/60 months – more than sufficient time –till the first H2XQR Series we are deliberately "unveiling" to the Air Transport World an aircraft concept with a limited maximum pitch rotation angle at aircraft could be first flying, ie 2015/16. Yet again obviously and as a deliberate provocation, when we describe H22QR as a two‐take‐off (ΨMAX ≤ 10 °) and an aft cargo door n° 2 the loader access path onto which could interfere critically with the wing ?! aircraft‐in‐one "RollOn‐RollOff" logistic marvel, we hear the wise words of Hagbard the Horrible Wiking !! cf Page 2 "CREDO" (*) Yet if somehow it could be made to exist, the H22QR – in theory, in terms of revenue generating efficiency – would epitomize the TwinAisleFeeders will make one firm promise to the market : if we can convince Airbus to launch the H2XQR Series as – rather perfect SMR Feeder Work‐Horse and Money‐Spinner craved by the market. "Prêchez le faux pour savoir le vrai" they say in than outcasts – just the full‐blooded integrated members of the A320 Series family they deserve to be by their own legitimate French. Also, General Douglas MacArthur would say : "Taking control of (such srategic military stronghold : a bridge, a fortress, a right, then along with passing on our goodwill for the original creation of the H2XQR concepts, we shall pass on obligation upon town ...) is not a question of whether it can or cannot be done, but of how important it is to the Strategists" ?! The sales message Airbus to deliver any A320HQR Series aircraft with a "Groundworthiness Certificate" establishing the aircraft types proven "we are creating the H21QR and H22QR with four underbelly cargo door to divide CLS AGR handling time fourfold" is more of a (demonstrated in‐service) capability – confirmed by the stamp, seal and signature of e.g. the Teal Group or AVITAS or MANTRA : by saying it, we are WILLING this necessary transformation to actually HAPPEN. To crack the slow CLS of the A321 is a equivalent Independant Surveyors – to complete in max 30 a full ground turnaround [@ passenger & cargo 100 % LFs, incoming nut that hasnt really come onto the Airbus design tables so far, because the shortcomings of the present CLS havent been & outgoing flights], in‐between two typical intra‐European average design mission flights (e.g. Stockholm – LHR – Milano). strongly enough resented : the A321 (3+3) AGR flow‐chart is bottlenecked anyway from the maindeck cabin ! But having halved the maindeck AGR flowchart time with the new HQR cabin, the CLS rotation flowchart "as is" for the present A321 (3+3) becomes Reader : your support is needed to influence EADS Airbus !! an obstacle to meeting TwinAisleFeeders resolute design target for H21QR and H22QR, aiming for 30 guaranteed AGR time ! Contact Airbus to request Programme Planning information for H2XQR Series !
(... CONTINUATION FROM PAGE 13) In the case of airlines with a shorter average flight time, of ‐ say ‐ 60, the production in a 24h day with 16h activity will be 9 x 60 + 8 x 50 = 940 for the slow rotating A321 (3+3) against 11 x 60 + 10 x 30 = 960 for the quicker rotating H21QR; compare now the cargo throughputs : A321 (3+3) : 9 x 4 x 127 cuft + 9 x 208 cuft = 6,444 cuft/24h = basis 100 % vs H21QR : 11 x 6 x 127 cuft + 11 x 208 cuft = 10,670 cuft/24h = 166 % We can also do the calculations for an average "more reasonable" LF of 70 to 80 %, and we will observe that the situation will always improve more for the H21QR, due to the additional n° of rotations/24h, with a greater n° of ULD‐positions available for cargo for each rotation. Convert these calculations into a boost to the yield, using the average revenue/cuft for freight on SMR routes to compute the internal freight‐to‐pax conversion factor which is known to operators; do the maths ‐ as an exercise ‐ with : 12.6 cuft freight = (net!) 1 YC full fare pax. In other words, the H21QR carries 179 pax in the upper‐deck cabin plus another 60 YCff virtual‐pax (in equivalent economic value) in the "under‐deck cabin", total 239 pax, which equates to 198 + 40 YCff virtual‐pax, total 238 pax, for A321 (3+3) [NB if ZERO DILUTION*]. Lets reformulate this way : with the extra carry‐on capability we have recouped all 33 seats thrown out (in theory) when we went five abreast (1+3+1) from the original six abreast (3+3). The costs of non‐productive ground time heavily weigh upon the accounts of the operator : A321 (3+3) : 6 AGR @ 50 each = 300 or 5 hours of non‐productive ground time/24h H21QR : 7 AGR @ 30 each = 210 or 3h 30 of non‐productive ground time/24h And in the case of airlines with a shorter average flight time of 60/flight : A321 (3+3) : 8 AGR @ 50 each = 400 or 6h40 non‐productive ground time/24h H21QR : 10 AGR @ 30 each or 300 or 5h non‐productive ground time/24h During the aircaraft ground time, the counters for the costs of airport slots, of handling agents, of cabin crew, of flight crew and those for aircraft depreciation ... are making tic‐tac‐tic‐tac. When charged to the productive periods these costs impact negatively upon yields : the higher the ratio of unproductive time vs productive time, the lower the resulting yields per 24h ! And remember : the H21QR gives one extra flight per each period of 24h; adding the ∆ in production from both cargo AND passengers, for the A321 (3+3) we get 5,012 cuft cargo = 398 YCff pax‐equivalent plus 198 x 7 cabin pax, total 1,784 daily "pax" production whereas for the H21QR we get 7,760 cuft cargo = 616 YCff pax‐equivalent plus 179 x 8 cabin pax, total 2,048 daily "pax" production or 14 % better productivity, at a moderately incremental daily expense (covering one more set of cyclic costs, plus the additional [maintenance+fuel] costs for one more flight) : all other costs [PER HOUR, for 16h of activity] are near identical, giving a net advantage to H21QR PER FLIGHT (however, cf remarks** later on about costs!). For the operator with the shorter average flight time, for the A321 (3+3) we get 6,444 cuft cargo = 507 YCff pax‐equivalent plus 198 x 9 cabin pax, total 2,289 daily "pax" production whereas for H21QR we get 10,670 cuft cargo = 840 YCff pax‐equivalent plus 179 x 11 cabin pax, total 2,809 daily "pax" production or 23 % better productivity. * Dilute 60 YCff virtual pax with an average CLF (79 %) : then the H21QR cargo represents + 76 equivalent pax, total 255 pax (vs 248 for A321 or + 2 % per each flight). If we dilute + 60 YCff pax with an average fare dilution (say, of 60 % vs YCff) then the H21QR cargo represents + 100 equivalent pax
paying 60 % of YCff, total 279 pax (vs 265 for A321 or + 5 % per each flight); if we double‐dilute 79 % times 60 %, then H21QR cargo represents + 126 equivalent pax, total 305 pax (vs 282 for A321 or + 7 % per each flight). Add to the dilution the effect of one more flight/day and the H21QR literally "takes off" with + 22 % vs A321 ! And in the example with two more flights/day (assuming 60 average flight time in lieu of 90 average flight time) the H21QR literally "rockets off" with + 31 % vs A321 ! So under realistic operating conditions, the H21QR – although offering 19 less seats in direct passenger cabin capacity, but with a more attractive twin aisle seating – will score with much higher yields vs A321 (3+3), because with its distinctly better pax‐appeal, the fare dilution for H21QR will not be as dramatic as for sardine‐box A321 (3+3). And if higher market prices for freight prevail, ie if we use a ratio of – say – 8.3 cuft freight/YCff, the picture improves even more : so far weve only considered Production, plus the impact of ticket price dilution and of cabin load factor dilution whilst assuming unchanged freight price levels; with the better pax‐appeal, we may expect improvements in ticket yields; assume these to be + 6 % (resp. + 8 %) (resp. + 12 %) better vs A321 (3+3) : at equal cargo yields well then get : improvement in ticket yield + 6 % + 8 % + 12 % with 12.6 cuft/YCff 90 FT 120 121 124 60 FT 128 130 133 with 8.3 cuft/YCff 90 FT 128 130 133 60 FT 132 133 136 [Nota Bene : the above table shows numbers for H21QR; basis 100 = revenue production of A321 (3+3); it is left up to Readers to explore the effect of dilution from non‐optimal ‐ cabin or cargo ‐ load factors] H2XQR Series : 3D perspective rendering B-class cabin
Pitching A321 (3+3) side by side vs H22QR (A322HQR) : ==========================================================================================H2XQR Series culminates with the stretched A322HQR or H22QR which was first brought to the baptismal fonts by TwinAisle Feeders Designer on 5Feb11 at 12h:05 GMT+1. Hurrah ! Long Life and welcome to the Air Transport World for the H22QR ! Lets pitch the H22QR next to A321 (3+3) exactly as we have done earlier for the H21QR, just changing the sizes : H22QR carries 13 ULDs whereof 8 ULDs for freight; compare 16h daily cargo throughputs : 140 legs, 90/50 A321 (3+3) : 7 x 4 x 127 cuft + 7 x 208 cuft = 5.012 cuft/24h = basis 100 % 120 legs, 90/30 vs H22QR : 8 x 8 x 127 cuft + 8 x 208 cuft = 9.792 cuft/24h = 195 % 110 legs, 60/50 A321 (3+3) : 9 x 4 x 127 cuft + 9 x 208 cuft = 6,444 cuft/24h = basis 100 % 90 legs, 60/30 vs H22QR : 11 x 8 x 127 cuft + 11 x 208 cuft = 13,464 cuft/24h = 209 % Daily total (passengers + freight) production [@ LF = 100 %, conversion φ=12.6 cuft/YCff] Zero dilution A321 (3+3) : 90/50 : 7 x 198 pax + 398 virtual‐pax = 1,784 pax = basis 100 % (ft 90) vs H22QR @ 90/30 : 8 x 204 pax + 777 virtual‐pax = 2,409 pax = 135 % Zero dilution A321 (3+3) : 60/50 : 9 x 198 pax + 507 virtual‐pax = 2,289 pax = basis 100 % (ft 60) vs H22QR @ 60/30 : 11 x 204 pax + 1,069 virtual‐pax = 3,313 pax = 145 % A322HQR – TwinAisleFeeders Flagship – in ground operations
φ = Cabin Load Factor 79 % Ticket Fare dilution 60 % double dilution 0.79 x 0.6 12,6 A321 H21QR H22QR A321 H21QR H22QR A321 H21QR H22QR "pax cabin 156 141 161 198 179 204 156 141 161 per ULD 40 6 80 67 100 133 84 126 168 flight total 196 201 241 265 279 337 240 267 329 in % 100 103 123 100 105 127 100 111 137 Daily total (passengers + freight) production [@ LF = 100 %, conversion φ=8.3 cuft/YCff] Zero dilution A321 (3+3) : 90/50 : 7 x 198 pax + 604 virtual‐pax = 1,990 pax = basis 100 % (ft 90) vs H22QR @ 90/30 : 8 x 204 pax + 777 virtual‐pax = 2,812 pax = 141 % Zero dilution A321 (3+3) : 60/50 : 9 x 198 pax + 776 virtual‐pax = 2,558 pax = basis 100 % (ft 60) vs H22QR @ 60/30 : 11 x 204 pax + 1,069 virtual‐pax = 3,866 pax = 151 % φ = Cabin Load Factor 79 % Ticket Fare dilution 60 % double dilution 0.79 x 0.6 8,3 A321 H21QR H22QR A321 H21QR H22QR A321 H21QR H22QR "pax" cabin 156 141 161 198 179 204 156 141 161 per ULD 61 93 121 101 152 204 128 192 256 flight total 217 234 282 299 331 408 284 333 416 in % 100 108 130 100 111 137 100 117 143 In the above, we havent credited H2XQR Series aircraft with the commercial impact of an enhanced IFEC market attraction, nor have we explored the impact of better ticket yields from enhanced pax‐appeal of the HQR product vs the (3+3) product. We have just wanted to wake up the Reader to H2XQR Series reality : Hey folks, look ! ‐ something important is going on! Reader : are you interested in hearing more ? Give us your vote of strategy support, sending an email to contact@TwinAisleFeeders.com with your Request‐For‐Proposal or your queries to TwinAisleFeeders concerning our concepts and planning.
H2XQR Series Users Manual/CRS operations : P.E.O.P.L.E.® The HQR concepts offer many thrilling thematic variations vs the classic (3+3) offer for a resourceful expert Media advertiser to play, in TV, magazines, urban advertising panels etc. The message comes out loud & clear, the differentiation is overwhelmingly convincing, the superiority of the new product in terms of comfort, service, cabin freedom etc is immediately grasped, by the man‐in‐the‐street or by frequent travellers : all clients – LCC or Major alike. LCC commit a basic mistake : theyre not fully (or correctly) exploring each travellers "Purchase Decision Enactment Hinge" (PDEH). Tickets are sold based on an automatic "auctioning" system : the closer were getting to departure, and/or the less remaining available seats in the cabin, the higher the price, except possibly for the last few remaining tickets, sold as "stand‐by" bargains at the very airport ticket counter, shortly before check‐in closing time. This is what is called "giving pearls to pigs" : of the lucky ones – those with foresight – who booked into the ticketing system early up and got a miraculous bargain, many would in fact be quite willing to pay some – up to much – more for his or her ticket than the actual sales price granted from the "auctioning" casino. LCC are losing track totally of their customers PDEH parameter – although vitally important : at exactly what price – the famous hinge – will a given client estimate to have a "fair deal" at hand, enacting a decision to buy the ticket ? The problem is rooted deeply into LCC Sales & Marketing philosophy : LCC sell tickets as an indistinct "commodity" – unbranded, without wrapping, no colour, no taste, no nothing – just the tickets, thrown into the same basket pêle‐mêle, with all the buyers messing around to seize theirs with a deft click of the mouse... all the thrill of "shopping" is deliberately removed, except one : hey, move NOW, go grab the damned thing before its too late and prices go up ! Any Sales & Marketing expert operating in the Luxury market knows how very wrong, how backwards, how anti‐commercial such an approach is! Let people do their shopping in their preferred way, dont impose upon people to join the sheep flock. You dont want to know whether wolves or goats, but treat people as individuals !! If airlines follow this very basic and simple precept, the reverse side of one of Jan Carlzons "Moments of Truth", the one experienced at the airline ticket counter, then ticket yield expectations will shoot skywards. Summing up : we shall implement a new – radically different – sales strategy where we shall take full advantage of the new specific finesses of the HQR twin aisle five abreast cabin hardware, letting customers undergo P.E.O.P.L.E.® (Passenger Empathy‐Objective PDEH Logical Explorer), a new software package under development by Affaires Internationales. Very simply, this acronyme designates a new type software black box – a kind of "Users Manual" for HQR Operators – to be integrated into the existing CRS intra‐ and inter‐Alliance (SkyTeam, STAR, OneWorld ...) Sabre/Worldspan/Amadeus/Galileo..., whereby to zero in on each passengers PDEH, aiming to exploit – tap – the hidden service quality price elasticities underlying in the SMR Feeder air transport markets, which through application of P.E.O.P.L.E.® will now come revealed, for benefit to the worlds privileged HQR operators. As a cherry‐on‐the‐top, the new H2XQR Series offer is for a glamour product with distinctly better pax appeal, the talk of the town, attracting more, new, higher paying customers, creaming off an expanding portion of the most enviable ‐ TOP ‐ slice from the customer base.
H2XQR Series : cross‐aisle passageway cabin section In addition, the AGR efficiency of HQR aircraft will appeal to Airport Authorities because HQR slot times beat the other SMR Feeders : Airport Operators and Handling Agents business will increase with the increased number of slots made available/24h thanks to HQR efficiency, a trumf card in our hands in the next tour of airport slot negotiations. Re‐bingo ! In particular for HQR, the 59 % superior vol/seat vs (3+3) aircraft of overhead stowage in the cabin will pass on to the passengers part of the superior airport ground rotation efficiency : no check‐in waiting lines, you get to the airport, you walk into the aircraft and it takes off; you land, you walk out of the aircraft downtown, no queues or lost luggage at the redelivery belt, benefits – that our inventive Marketeers will find ways to turn into extra airline revenue. Removing one seat per each row in the passenger cabin doesnt mean amputating revenues by 1/6th, : it means taking a fresh look at essentials, and from there, whilst handing over to EndUsers a truly differentiated cabin Product, that we are going for alternative, new revenues ! Taking a look at the COST side of the Yield equation Weve discussed the relative situation of the Revenue Production for A320 Series (3+3) vs H2XQR; for full assessment of the total Business Picture, we may now venture taking a look at the cost side of the yield equation. The missing element in our analysis is usually referred to as a "Route Study". This is a computer simulation for the aircraft in operation, introducing assumptions which are representative of a "typical 16h work‐day" for a given Operator. Usually
the Operators experts (from Planning) provide Airbus with info on their network. Then their Airbus alter ego (Sales Technology) does the simulation. This approach establishes a good estimate of the COST side of the picture. Well need it to accurately compute yields. 3D aisle perspective A32XHQR Series with centrebin stowages After all, selling H2XQR aircraft is BUSINESS for EADS, if not directly for "Airbus" as such then at least for its "German Wing" ! Loyalty to the Shareholders is recommended ?! ** TwinAisleFeeders has repeatedly requested assistance from Airbus to be given access to their experts. This request has been left unanswered. Obviously, these people are busy !? But we may ourselves make a few remarks about the cost structure of A321 (3+3) vs A321HQR : (a) the HQR aircraft will feature reduced design weights, the design mission max payload being some 2.2 to 3.6 metric tons lighter; (b) the weight of HQR cabin features should in total be somewhat lighter, although we have two more cargo doors; (c) a lighter aircraft accelerates faster, climbs quicker, flies higher, therefore consumes less, hence needs to carry less fuel, so consumes less fuel to carry fuel, etc etc (the computer does a loop...); (d) being lighter, the HQR aircraft also erodes less tyre surface for landing/breaking, wherefrom less maintenance costs; (e) we may CERTIFY the HQR aircraft to the correct lower operating weights, whence youd have less ATC taxes, less airport Landing Fees; (f) also Airport slot fees will be cheaper (quicker ground rotation); (g) as discussed earlier, handling fees will be less; (h) also for any given leg, obviously, all hourly costs will be reduced (from shorter leg‐time, from quicker ground rotations); in short, the HQR erodes operating costs whilst it also yanks up revenue, a twofold combination boosting airline yields.
TwinAisleFeeders needs assistance from Airbus A320 Sales Technology/Product Marketing the well‐tuned computers of whom will showcase in detail what were saying here.This will further emphasize the advantages of HQR vs (3+3). It will be an easy task for Airbus to do. To the Reader hereof, TwinAisleFeeders would like to convey the following invitation : if you have formed a POSITIVE OPINION overall for our A320HQR Series (also referred to as the H20QR Series or "H2XQR" Series) Project ?? ‐ then please intimate for Airbus to provide the required professional assistance : you are entitled to normal access to Airbus A320 Sales Technology; if not attended, send advice to contact@TwinAisleFeeders.com. Conclusion : Whilst early in 2011 airline Planners and Strategists are shopping eagerly for more efficient SMR Feeder solutions, pressing manufacturers to offering advances in technology to alleviate the cost side of the yield equation, in response, EADS Airbus has launched A320 Series NEO, featuring new UHBP (PurePower/LeapX) powerplants, scoring successfully with Virgin America as first A320 NEO Launching Customer. Congratulations ! Yet regretfully, NEO only partly answers the concerns of the Operators who are seeking to gain 25 % in operating efficiency, a goal beyond reach for the NEO revamp package alone. As a more appropriate answer, TwinAisleFeeders recommend for airlines to simply opt for TAO = H21QR, the twin aisle five abreas( (1+3+1) cabin revamp to the A320 Series aircraft, featuring new EndUser‐friendly solutions to overcome todays imbalances in SMR Feeder fleet yield equations : rather than – or in complement to – reducing current operating costs going for A320 Series NEO, TwinAisleFeeders propose to boost fleet productivity by introducing the H21QR to raise total [freight + passenger] throughput, with extra contribution on top from cabin Product Differentiation whilst at the same time reducing aircraft cost/24h. The TAO H21QR [with todays engines or with NEO] is the only strategy available by 2015/16 to all types of Operators – LCC or Majors alike – fully meeting the most ambitious yield targets! H19QR, H20QR [+NEO?] : Predators to RJ /Bombardiers business plans H2XQR Series : N° 1 money-spinning Pax, Cargo work-horses& for IFEC H2XQR [+NEO?] : a "piece-of-cake" (cf Adam Pilarski, AVITAS) H2XQR [+NEO?] : a "caviar" (*) (cf Morten Müller, TwinAisleFeeders) (*) " caviar" in European football is a journalistic term for the absolute perfect pass from the midfield player to the forward attacker who receives the ball exactly at the right place, speed and timing into his control, dribbles through the last defence line and .. scores : goooaaaaal !! (metaphorically : here the two teams in opposition are [Major Airlines] vs [LCC + Regional Airlines] : with H2XQR, Majors win !!) FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR BOMBARDIER PROSPECTS On Prices FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR BOMBARDIER PROSPECTS " Its unwise to pay too much, but its worse to pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose a little money – that is all. When you pay too little, you sometimes lose everything, because the thing you bought was incapable of doing the things it was bought to do. The common law of business balance prohibits paying a little and getting a lot – it cant be done. If you deal with the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for the risk you run, and if you do that you will have enough to pay for something better. " – John Ruskin (1819 ‐ 1900)
↑ with ULD transborders ↑ F21QR ground operations @ MUC with ULD conveyor belts directly ↓ into the Cargo Terminal ↓
Message to Readers : Dear Reader ‐ Dear (prospective) Customer The within Brochure shows Projects ie : fantasies, creations ... by the (wild ?) imagination of an Aeronautical Engineer in age of retirement, frustrated not to have been heard – when in active service – by those who are conducting affairs and deciding the Product Strategy @ EADS Airbus or Boeing Commercial Aircraft. Summarized : the sardine‐box (3+3) cabin alternative has done its job in active service for some 60 years : let it go on a well‐deserved retirement : Bon Vent (3+3) ! Operators actually CAN make money doing things otherwise : try (1+3+1) ! Now, if intrigued with what youve heard so far, or if directly interested, please : (A) keep your options open, approaching EADS Airbus with a request to revise your existing contracts (if relevant) in way of introducing the flexibility to re‐assign your A320 Series delivery slots in or after 2015 (with or without NEO !) in favour of SAME DELIVERY SLOTS but for H2XQR Series aircraft (also with or without NEO !); (B) pass the message to EADS Airbus Supervisory Board ie above the head of John Leahy or Thomas Enders who both – deprived of their Executive Incentives in respect of the H2XQR Series – are not going to "Let It Be !" (qte Sir Paul McCartney) if they can help it ... An easy way to do this is to offer TwinAisleFeeders your vote of confidence by way of a formal RFP (Request for Proposal) or LOI (Letter of Intent); (C) call for support upon one or all concerned functions in EADS Airbus Human Matrix : Product Strategy Management, A320 Programme Management, Product Marketing, A320 Product Marketing and/or your normal Airbus Area Sales Director who should be made aware of your interest. Ask for H2XQR Series Programme Planning, request Airbus assistance with H2XQR series Route Studies, LOPA studies, Design Weight assessments, request engineering confirmation for Type B overwing Emergency Exits and dual CLS cargo operations, plus eventually for full Programme Feasibility for TwinAisleFeeders three provocations : H22QR, F21QR and F22QR ! READER : THANK YOU ! morten@TwinAisleFeeders.com
Privileged Information(Notice of TwinAisleFeeders Business Practice)Business Strategy concepts conceived by Affaires Internationales (TwinAisleFeeders) contain user privileged information intended specifically for Designated Intended Recipient(s) and are shared on a professional basis and in good faith in the understanding that in the event that said Designated Intended Recipient(s) (who separately have all been duly notified accordingly) would decide to avail himself (itself, themselves) or to otherwise make use of these concepts in a business context then the interests of Morten Müller as a professional (free‐lance) Air Transport Business Strategy Consultant shall be duly considered in good faith to prior mutual satisfaction. The list of "Designated Intended Recipient(s)" explicitly includes (but is not limited to) Boeing Commercial Aircraft and EADS Airbus : both Manufacturers are in first order concerned directly; in second order [by way of "transmission" through the two aforementioned Entities] are "Designated Intended Recipient(s)" any party to co‐operative, subcontracting, licensing or assembly line production (eg Tienjin) or other agreement(s) including commercial sales agreements ‐ inasmuch as (a) one of the parties is either Boeing Commercial Aircraft or EADS Airbus or any Joint Venture partner, subsidiary or parent company thereof, or (b) any such agreement(s) would include, refer to or otherwise be connected to a transfer of Title to SCNs related to Industrial Applications of the A320H Series or 737H Series cabin interior concepts. Morten Müller, 14February 2011 EADS Airbus market forecasts with H2XQR Series, or ¿¿ without ?? On top of its benefits for Operators, the H2XQR Series family [H19QR, H20QR, H21QR and H22QR ‐ whether with NEO or standard powerplants, pending Operator preferences] also offer substantial benefits for Airbus : launching the H2XQR Series will entail increases (a) in overall sales; (b) in net revenue but mostly (c) in profits, from Airbus sales into the SMR Feeder aircraft market (1) in larger numbers, (2) throughout a longer period of time, (3) withholding the uprise of competitors Bombardier, Irkut and COMAC, (4) defeating Boeing whose 737 Series becomes obsolete with the entry upon the marketplace of H2XQR Series, (5) extending the useful product life of the A320 Series Family (EADS Airbus "bread‐&‐butter") based on deep market penetration of H2XQR Series, as the latter progressively replaces the less efficient – obsolete really – A320 Series (3+3) condemned to fading away, (6) with better industrial and social ‐ labour ‐ control for the delicate phase‐over process to the A30X Series all‐new‐tech replacement of A320 Series (and of H2XQR Series) after 2025‐27. Compare 5500 A320 Series units sold as 400 x A318 + 1150 x A319 + 2650 x A320 + 1300 x A321 (total sales @ 2011 Airbus list prices = 470 BUSD) against a larger market share with sales of the costlier H2XQR Series models of now total 7800 A320 Series aircraft e.g. sold as 800 x [A318 + H19QR] + 1600 x [A319 + H20QR] + 3600 [A320 + H21QR] + 1800 [A321 + H22QR] over same timeframe (total sales @ assumed list prices for H2XQR Series = 760 BUSD, or Δ = 290 BUSD better sales or + 62 %), provided Airbus can arrange to produce the 2300 additional aircraft needed to satisfy the boost to the demand! (NB : any H2XQR Series impact causing incremental PER projections and NYSE or City quotations for EADS shares to be ascribed to TwinAisleFeeders as de‐facto Product Strategy Consultants to Airbus] (qte J. Lennon) : Imagine ! Δ is offered as the positive business impact for Airbus of launching the H2XQR Series over the transition period from 2015/16 until industrial phase‐over to A30X after 2025/27. If H2XQR Series is not launched Δ will be lost to the competition ie to Comac (C‐919), Irkut (MC‐21), Bombardier (CS Series), Boeing (?) ... (NB : optional NEO powerplants are not included in the market projections, as sales thereof in essence do not affect Airbus)
A320HQR Series Consortium Industrial Joint-Venture (Draft Proposal) for the development, production, marketing & sales of A320HQR Series Twin Aisle Five-Abreast SMR Feeder Aircraft 1. EADS Airbus and A320HQR Series Consortium to be financially separated; 2. A320HQR Series Consortium Members : %tbd EADS Airbus : apport of share capital; in addition : apport of risk funding in the form of a loan, initially non-refundable; %tbd Affaires Internationales (Morten Müller) : apport "en industrie", whereof Inventors title to Intellectual/Industrial Property for the idea/concepts (implicit, acknowledged); plus apport of his project initiation goodwill over 1985-2010; %tbd other direct participations tbd : EADS Members ?; venture capital contributors ?; third party industrial participants ?... 3. A320HQR Series Consortium to draw upon Airbus existing resources, as follows : - A320HQR Series Consortium offices to be located within Airbus precincts; - full general Airbus administration to apply as share-ware; - post-sales, A320HQR Series aircraft to count as standard A320 Series aircraft for pre-delivery contract management, flight tests, contractual delivery, post- delivery product support, etc - pre-sales, A320HQR Series Consortium operations to be separated; - consumption of administrative, marketing & sales support resources based on task orders/invoices to/from Airbus; 4. Consortium staff restricted initially to a limited number of direct employees : e.g. Executive Programme Manager; Commercial Director; (+ Technical Director ??); 5. "Green" HQR-compatible Aircraft pricing including cost of HQR-Series SCNs to be negotiated in good faith with Airbus; 6. Political Programme Launch support 350+ post-2014 (but early !!) A320 Series delivery slots to be made available for reconversion and direct sales as HQR-Series aircraft (sales results thereofo be assigned to A320HQR Series Consortium) 7. A320HQR Series Consortiums commercial policy to be framed in by rules set by A320HQR Series Consortiums Board, in line with Airbus commercial policy; 8. Industrial go-ahead for massive type conversions in existing A320 Series assembly lines (including Tienjin) plus throughput stepping-up to boost the availability of additional early delivery slots for sale as A320HQR Series, intended as a sales clamp-on strategy for the all-new-tech - (2+3+2) or other ? - A30X programme sales; 9. Life time-frame of A320HQR Series Consortium to end - the A320HQR Series program to be killed - seven years after the all-new-gen A30X programme launch; 10. TwinAisleFeeders ad-hoc support tbd (free-lance) or walk-away ?; 11. ... ? (additional issues, clauses, amendments, etc ... to be introduced by Airbus ?)A320HQR A320HQR A320HQR A320HQR A320HQR A320HQR ( revision Monday February 14th, 2011 ) TwinAisleFeeders