How well are re-engined narrow-body aircraft performing?

The neo and MAX families keep Airbus and Boeing chasing higher production rates as supply chain constraints plague the industry. Are they performing well enough to justify the industry's continued record orders and backlog? To answer that question, we turned to the Skailark database to examine fuel burn, the critical element differentiating the cost structure between older and newer models. The older ceo and NG models and the neo and MAX models have similar infrastructure costs, virtually identical crew costs, and similar maintenance costs, including by-the-hour engine maintenance contracts. The net result is that fuel burn is the key element that impacts operating economics.We aggregated several variables by analyzing data from Skailark for North American and European airlines from 2019 through the third quarter of 2023. We excluded aircraft converted from passenger to freighter configuration and examined the eight aircraft types that provide a comparison on an apples-to-apples basis across two metrics. The first is gallons per block hour, a measure of fuel efficiency where the lower the number, the better. The second is ASMs per gallon, a measure of how well the aircraft economically transports passengers; the higher, the better.Of course, during the model change-overs from the ceo and NG families to the neo and MAX, seating density has risen as airlines take advantage of improvements to aircraft interiors. These improvements generate economic improvements that, while not fuel-burn-driven, impact the overall economic comparisons. Similarly, increases in range can impact fuel efficiency, as longer-range routes are more fuel-efficient than short-range routes. We have not adjusted for these effects but feel the results are interesting.The answer, in a nutshell, is yes, the efficiency improvements do merit the increased backlog and sales for new models, but the differential performance isn’t uniform across the board. As reflected in the order book, some models perform better than others.The following table shows the percentage improvement for the new model over the older one it replaces. We show fuel burn per block hour, a direct cost measure, and available seat miles per gallon, a measure of how efficient the new aircraft performs vis-à-vis the older model. [caption id="attachment_78431" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Data courtesy Skailark[/caption] From a fuel burn perspective, most have a double-digit improvement in fuel gallons per block hour, except the base A320neo model at 6.9%. This contrasts with the A321neo, which shows a 16.1% improvement over its predecessor. Our data include CFM International LEAP and Pratt & Whitney GTF engines, and we did not calculate improvements by engine type. On the Boeing side, the 737 MAX8 shows a strong improvement over the 737-800, while the MAX9 showed the most significant improvement over the 737-900ER, which may have been expected given the 900ER's lower performance levels.The metric of available seat miles per gallon reflects the true operational efficiency of the new model, and the following table shows the results for that metric in descending order. [caption id="attachment_78432" align="aligncenter" width="640"] Data courtesy Skailark[/caption] The A321neo is the efficiency leader, followed by the MAX8 and the A320neo. The MAX9 has the lowest efficiency of the new models but still handily beats all the older models in the comparison.The Bottom LineInterestingly, the order books and backlogs for the aircraft follow the same order, with the A321neo the best-selling aircraft, the MAX8, the A320neo, and then the MAX9. Fleet planners are well attuned to the comparative operating economics of each aircraft, tempered by acquisition and transition costs for making a change. It is in this area that Airbus and the A321neo have made considerable progress in gaining market conquests with Boeing customers, as the A321neo comes closest to filling the role of the now retiring 757s, as there is no viable aircraft from Boeing in the middle of the market.From a strategic standpoint, if the A320neo becomes widely perceived to have a weak fuel burn improvement, the potential for an A220-500 remains in the background, mainly since Bombardier designed five CSeries models in the computer with three larger potential offerings. That aircraft, which incorporates 20 years newer technology than the A320 design, could be a viable replacement in the 150-seat market in a relatively short time frame.Boeing’s MAX7 and MAX10 appear to be stalled in certification as the FAA, stung by the MAX 8 certification debacle and subsequent crashes, no longer trusts Boeing and is verifying details it formerly delegated to the company. This has extended the certification time frames, moving both aircraft back another year. For airlines that can wait to replace older aircraft, that is fine. Still, many are facing heavy maintenance decisions that mean either investing in maintenance that would keep older aircraft flying for another five years, thereby deferring deliveries, or choosing another aircraft. Either option doesn’t help Boeing’s order book and cash flow when aircraft programs run late.Fuel and labor drive an airline's cost structure. As we will not change the number of pilots flying an aircraft soon, particularly after incidents like last week, fuel burn is the critical variable for operating costs. The neo and MAX are delivering improvements in fuel burn, and we will continue to see order books fill up as more fuel-efficient models are introduced.

US Flight Planner - US DoT On-Time Data	Airbus vs Boeing - Official OEM Data
US Airline Schedule Performance - US DoT Data	Daily OEM Production & Deliveries -

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Related News

JetZero’s Buzzing Week In Farnborough

MHIRJ Starts Evaluating CRJ Successor

Rolls-Royce’s Option: Embraer or JetZero, Not the Duopoly