Premium – A320neo Ops update (dispelling neo nonsense)

In this article, we will dispel "neo nonsense" regarding difficulties with the new aircraft. The A320neo entry into service continues to settle in with variable results We show the latest flight ops data, through March 30, 2017 There is some "neo nonsense" to clarify with respect to engine performance Our source data is from Flightradar24 and is based on 40,186 flights reported for the A320neo since entry into service. Let's start with engines because that is where the focus has been so far. As the completion rate shows (Landed/Total), the A320neo is performing very well. So far in 2017, the completion rate is slightly lower than in 2016. It does not appear to us that there is any cause for alarm about the A320neo fleet's progress. The platform is well-known and the new engines are clearly settling in. When one considers the scale of the ramp up faced by both engine OEMs, a completion rate of approximately 99% is pretty good, particularly given the opportunity for weather-related cancellations in the winter. The following table illustrates cancellations, delays, and the completion percentage for A320neo models by engine type. As the fleet has grown, so have operations. The following table shows the growth in operations since EIS. The fleet is seeing steady growth in operations on a per aircraft basis as well. If A320neo operators did not have confidence in the aircraft, they would not be pushing them harder every month. So why is there news hinting at problems with new engines, especially the Pratt & Whitney GTF? Based on the data in the first table we can see the GTF is slightly behind the LEAP in completion rates. But the difference is 0.65%! Hardly the delta one would expect from the frothy news reports. The reality appears somewhat different when one examines the data. We do know the most scathing news reports have come from India. The following table shows where the "problems" have occurred - where we define a "problem" as flights not classified as "landed." Because the data do not provide details of why a fly was not completed, we cannot infer that all problematic flights are caused by engine problems. However, should a problem exist, it would likely show statistically over a large number of airlines and operational trends. As expected, India is #1 in terms of the sheer number of problems, which we would expect given that it has the highest number of operations. India accounts for 33.5% of all the "problems" to date, but that is a lower number than its 43.9% of all operations. The following two pie charts show the relative operational levels and the relative number of flights that are problematic. The lone operator in Turkey (Pegasus) is using the LEAP engine. There is clearly some disparity between the pie charts. India is a problem market, but it does not appear that the GTF engine is anywhere near as troublesome as one might expect from the dramatic news reports. Looking at the data from the Indian market, we can dig further to see where there might be an issue. Based on this data, we would suggest that there is perhaps an engine issue, but perhaps more likely an airline related issue. Go Air has more than its share of problematic operations. IndiGo generated 3.7 times the operations of Go Air, but Go Air has more than twice the number of problems. The next table below lists operations by airline, in descending order of problems, with associated engine type. India and Go Air may have generated the greatest fuss. But that is not the worst situation. Spirit and LATAM all also showing peculiar issues where their problems are much higher than operations would have one expect. Latam is a disaster. But there has been no media information on this. We have contacted Latam for a comment. Bottom line: It is clear there are hot spots for the A320neo. The GTF has nearly twice the number flights, compared to LEAP, on the A320neo program and 2.5 times the number "problem" flights. So the GTF does have slightly more teething problems than the LEAP. If we remove Latam from the count, the GTF has twice the hours and twice the problems. The biggest problem is not in India or Go Air, it is at LATAM. It is crucial to go to the data to dispel the "neo nonsense". Performance of the neo with the GTF has been excellent with the exception of a couple of airlines. Removing the top two problem airlines leaves the remaining fleet with an outstanding performance record. Is it the engine, or the airline? The jury remains out. And don't believe the fake news.

No results