La configuration Ariane 6 continue de faire débat – Article Les Echos

Une autre article, cette fois dans ‘Les Echos’, sur le débat modularité vs non-modularité pour la configuration Ariane 6.
Dans ce blog, nous avons défendu les bénéfices de la modularité dans un environnement où les prix d’emport dépendent de la masse du satellite lancée. En effet, je ne suis pas sur que les opérateurs satellite soient prêts à payer le même prix pour embarquer un satellite de 3T ou de 6T alors que ce n’est pas le cas sur Ariane 5.

Ariane 6 configuration flexibility is an asset

Ariane 6 ‘frozen’ configuration was presented by CNES in July 2013 (see figure 1).

Ariane_6

Figure 1

As was already know, the presented concept was part of the ‘PPH’ family.The interesting factor of the final configuration is that it does not allow for any flexibility i.e it does not allow for a family of Ariane 6 configurations as broadcasted before (see figure 2).

A6 P7C

Figure 2

This final configuration is now under significant pressure due to uncertainty in commercial telecom satellites masses due to electric propulsion progress (notwithstanding the debate A5 ME vs A6!)

In this context, it is interesting to analyze benefits of having family versus having one fixed configuration.

In this article, we study 2 Ariane 6 scenarios & 2 satellite mass evolution scenarios

 Ariane 6 scenarios

  • Ariane 6 baseline: one configuration

4 P145 – H32 – Perf in GTO ~ 6.5 T

  • Ariane 6 ‘fagot': two configurations

4 P145 – H32 – Perf in GTO ~ 6.5 T

3 P145 – H32 – Perf in GTO ~ 3.5 T (tbc)

  • Ariane 6 ‘strap-on': two configurations

4 P145 – H32 – Perf in GTO ~ 6.5 T

2 P80 – 2 P145 – H32 – Perf in GTO ~ 3.5 T (tbc)

Satellite mass evolution scenarios based on FAA COMSTAC forecasts-

Note: revenues for each satellite class are included as well based on 20% margin vs 70M€ announced cost)

  • Baseline foreceast – No increased electric propulsion development

Mass class (T)

< 2.5T

2.5T – 4.2T

4.2T – 5.4T

>5.4T

%

13%

27%

20%

40%

Revenues

35.0

58.8

75.6

91.0

  • Alternative with enhanced electric propulsion development – With increased electric propulsion development

Note: revenues for each satellite class are included as well based on 20% margin vs 70M€ announced reccost

Mass class (T)

< 2.5T

2.5T – 4.2T

4.2T – 5.4T

>5.4T

%

25%

27%

20%

28%

Revenues

35.0

58.8

75.6

 91.0  

In summary

  • First of all, the analysis shows that it is not worth it to develop Ariane 6 ‘strap-on’ configuration as 2 P80 recurring cost difference vs 2 P145 is almost fully offset by 2 P80 amortization cost (assumption ‘strap-on’ configuration development cost é 300M€) & P145 reduced experience effect (Aerospace 85% experience factor).
  • Secondly, taking into account experience curve effects (Aerospace 85% experience factor) & additional development costs from Ariane 6 ‘fagot’ 2 configurations (300 M€ from additional qualification launch + specific developments), this alternative scenario should be economically more interesting than Ariane 6 baseline – see details hereunder, unless technical feasibility of Ariane 6 is not fully proven…

No flexibility ( one A6 configuration)

With flexibility ( 2 A6 configurations)

No electric prop. development Electric prop. development No electric prop. development Electric prop. development
4P145-H32 launches/ year

8

8

6

5

Recurring cost / launch

71

71

71

71

Direct costs incl. depreciation / launch

125

125

124

125

3P145-H32   launches per year

0

0

2

3

Recurring cost / launch

0

0

62

63

Direct costs incl. depreciation / launch

0

0

117

118

Total

Recurring costs -no Kourou costs

569

569

551

544

Direct costs incl. depreciation &   fixed costs sharing (Kourou)

996

996

979

978

Revenues

576

522

576

522

Profits vs recurring cots

7

-47

25

-22

Profits   vs direct costs incl depreciation

-421

-475

-403

-456

Note: A6 recurring cost has been adjusted to match 70M€ target at maturity (10 years of operations)

 

 

 

Ariane 6 modularity requested by satellite operators

Spacenews publishes an article detailing concerns of European satellite operators on future Ariane’s  pricing policy for small satellites.

In fact, Ariane 6 as designed today is not flexible and has a ~6T GTO performance. As electric propulsion seems to be developing fast, operators are afraid to have to pay for 6T launcher for a satellite weighing 3T…

It’s true that Ariane 6 design could be reviewed to include flexibility using solid boosters. However, is this flexibility worth it? Reduced scale effects, price difference between strap-on boosters and core boosters not so big,…

More generally speaking, what is reference mission for Ariane 6: commercial telecom satellite in GTO or science/ governmental in LEO, SSO,…?

 

Delta RFP

We have found very interesting analysis on Delta RFP in Airchive blog

In summary, for Delta conservative fleet approach

  • Replacement of B767-300ER : B787 vs A330(neo) => A330neo
  • Replacement of B747: B777-300ER vs A350-1000 => B777-300ER with quite pricing assumptions on B777 vs A350.  Remark: I belive that Airbus will market A380 in this segment in complement of A350.

 

 

 

 

B787 reliability figures -March 2014

Hereunder reliability figures from FAA B787 report.

B787 reliability figures

In summary, in spite of all news, during first months after EIS and before grounding due to batteries, B787 schedule reliability was at B777, B767 level and significantly above B747 level.
Note that reliability figures announced by Boeing today are at ~98%.

This data & additional details on B787 reliability to be found on Aviation Week link

 

A330-200neo vs A350-800 operating costs comparison

In previous posts, we have concluded that Airbus lacks wide-body capacity to with respect to market demand & Boeing, in particular in 250 seater market. In this context, there are 2 solutions: develop a competitive version of A330 i.e. A330neo or build new A350 facility.

In this post, we will estimate cost positioning of A330-200neo vs A350-800 to be able to choose.

 First of all, some design data from A330-200, A330-200neo & A350-800

 

A350-800

A330-200

A330-200neo

Seating (bi-class)

276

246

246

Range (nm)

8250

7400

> 7400

MTOW max

259

242

245

List price

261

222

242

Discounted list price (25% A350 & 30% A330-200)

196

155

169

 (see assumptions at end of article)

 Secondly, we have computed the relative direct operating costs positioning of A330-200, A330-200neo and A350-800. The results are as follows:

A332neo_A358 DOC comparison 

So,

  • A330-200neo is very well positioned vs A350-800 with
      • DOC/seat disadvantage of only ~4%
      • DOC/trip advantage of ~4.5%

At this stage of analysis & maturity of data, this analysis shows that in terms of operational costs, A350-800 & A330-200 are very similar.

In addition,

  • A350-800 development is riskier vs A330-200neo, specially with respect to fuel burn advantage results
  • A330 is widely used aircraft and introduction costs for A330neo will be very low for all operators which is multimillion dollar advantage vs new generation aircraft
  • A330neo development does not any additional FAL

 Overall, going for A330neo seems to be the best option!

  Assumptions

DOC_IATA 

  • Operating costs detailed computations:
 

Benchmark

A350-800

A330-200

A330-200neo

Direct operationg costs per seat

Fuel costs

47%

80.0%

100%

89.0%

Maintenance costs

18%

89.1%

100%

95.0%

Ownership costs

15%

112.4%

100%

109.0%

Crew costs – Cabin & Flight

9%

100.0%

100%

100.0%

Charges -Landing & Navigation

12%

107.0%

100%

101.2%

 

Total

91.32%

100.00%

95.41%

 

Direct operating costs per trip

Fuel costs

47%

89.8%

100%

89.0%

Maintenance costs

18%

100.0%

100%

95.0%

Ownership costs

15%

126.1%

100%

109.0%

Crew costs – Cabin & Flight

9%

100.0%

100%

100.0%

Charges -Landing & Navigation

12%

107.0%

100%

101.2%

 

Total

99.84%

100.00%

95.41%

  • Benchmark: IATA airlines costs share
  •  A350-800 fuel burn – Airbus source (quoted in PPR forum)A330-200neo fuel burn: Leeham news
    •  23% fuel burn per pax  vs A330-200 on 4000nm route  
    • Degradation of 3% following A350-800 redesig
  • A330-200neo engine maintenance advantage based on A320neo & fact that engine maintenance costs  ~1/2 aircraft maintenance cost
  • Charges proportional to MTOW max

My aerospace news & analysis