Report on the SMI MRO Conference held at The Hatton London
On 30th and 31st January 2006
The SMI, a commercial enterprise engaged in a number of fields, held its 6th annual Civil Aviation MRO conference at The Hatton on London in January 2006. I attended on behalf of IFA and my report and impressions are provided below.
Would readers please note that it is compiled entirely from notes taken during the meeting and without the benefit of the official CD which is still some 2-3 weeks away. My own views and interpretation are in italics.
- SMI
SMI has considerable expertise in organizing conferences but depends on professional advisers for preparing agendas and acting as session chairmen. That saidthe conference was balanced and informative. It was well attended and appeared virtually fully subscribed. A full list of speakers, subjects and attendees is contained on the CD. SMI publish a varied programme most of which is of little interest to IFA but rather more to the defence industry.
- Speakers
Sixteen speakers were scheduled and comprised:-
Airlines7
OEM’s2
Regulation1
IT providers2
Legal2
Market research1
Materiel1
- Day one
Mike Bell-Group Director Safety Regulation, UK CAA “Commercial Aviation in the 21st Century”
Mike provided data on the improvements in overall safety from 1982 to date, and how expected accidents had progressed from one per million departures to 0.2 per million. He illustrated this with some events and also addressed the growth of Low Cost Airlines (now apparently universally known as LCC).
This speaker considered forthcoming environmental regulations to be the biggest challenge to airlines.
‘Single skies’ was also touched on.
Other subjects seen as significant to regulators were the A380, the Boeing 787, airport design, wake vortex etc.
Presentation of information to crews is also crucial in new designs. He also had predictions on cabin environment including one that bleed air would no longer provide a means of cabin pressure in the future.
On EASA, the current budgets problems were touched caused, perhaps, because of the way the agency was set up.
Q and A session
Q1What about national interpretation of EASA regulations?
A1This was due to cultural differences
Q2Do you think technology is moving faster than regulations?
A2Design regulations when introduced are frozen for five years.
Q3About the design philosophy of the A380 compared to the B787?
A3The speaker thought the introduction of the 787 would, if anything, be easier than the A380.
Q4A question was asked about the relationship between EASA and FAA?
A4This answer reduced to the minimum was that the relationship is good.
Q5Explain the “agency” status of EASA?
A5The speaker explained how the agency method is being made to work despite its status.
David Stewart-Principal, AeroStrategy “Key MRO Trends and their implications”
This speaker, well known in industry, advised that the figures he was about to present would be superseded shortly but the latest ones could be seen on the AeroStrategy web site.
$41Bn is being outsourced annually on airframe maintenance while engine and component values were both greater than this figure. This was said to show that the actual cost of airframe maintenance was quite low when compared to engine and component maintenance value.
In terms of where the airframe work was going:-
USA was a net exporter.
Asia was a net importer.
Europe was a net importer.
Airframe maintenance cost is growing at a rate of 5.6% per annum but the speaker predicted a slow down to 4%.
Broad Component Support (BCS) is a growing business with operators tending to lease rather than own spares.
$44Bn in spares is held worldwide.
Some US major carriers are going world wide for airframe maintenance making cost savings but this trend is far from universal.(Note later speakers on this specific point PAH)
David predicted “extraordinary growth” in the MRO sector in the Asia Pacific region. (IFA note for future members)
He continued to make reference to his predictions on the Asia Pacific region for growth and activity as a whole. There will be challenges to the whole MRO industry.
Q and A session
Q1The speaker was pressed on man-our rates.
A1This was variable with some notable highs and lows. In house rates were always much higher than independent MRO providers though the difference was narrowing. Asia was lowest in rates.
Q2Is BCS viable? (see BCS above)
A2By and large yes.
Q3This question centred on Asia as a full house provider.
A3Less engine work going to Asia and C Checks tended to be done nearer to the home base but D Checks were the natural for Asia due to the lower man-hour rates.
Catherine Erkelens Joint Head, Aviation Group, Bird & Bird “Regulatory Framework”
Catherine’s presentation was on the start up and operation of EASA and its’ legal basis. She touched on the links to ICAO and made some interesting if perplexing comments on EU member states having some opt out rights.
Due to the problems of recruitment EASA were still outsourcing some of its activities.
Q and A session
Q1 Regarding the opt out possibility, did this mean the return of “national variants”? (This question was from the chair PAH.)
A1EASA has a transparent system thus allowing other member states to object to such opt outs.
John Laughter VP Maintenance Delta “Strategies to Manage Cost Pressure”
John’s presentation was made in light of the facts that he and subsequent speakers provided on the financial state of many US Majors.
Fuel cost increases dwarfed all other matters and as such was primarily beyond the control of carriers to influence.
DL had achieved a 17% decrease in labour costs.
The approach of DL should be seen in the framework of a 76 year history where the culture was to do everything in house. Thus it was concentrating on efficiency and cost control rather than large scale outsourcing. John termed a Lean Enterprise.
John wanted to advise MRO’s of the level of detail needed to match a very efficient in-house maintainer.
A chart was shown giving a 5 year improvement in DL performance.
Q and A session
Q1Why does Jet Blue come out so well in comparative US maintenance costs? (Shown on one slide PAH)
A1Their fleet age is low.
Q2What is the average age of the DL fleet?
A212 years.
Q3What do you mean by a Lean Enterprise?
A3Efficiency. It has been given other names by other organisations.
Q4How much do you use 6 Sigma?
A4We use ‘lean culture’ rather than this phrase.
Michael Skinner Manager Quality Engineering BA “PMA Parts. Threat or Opportunity”
Mike gave a brief history of PMA parts and their status in certification terms. He also made some telling cost comparisons between OEM and PMA parts. He quoted CAA AWN’s and EASA’s position on PMA.
The situation was clear in his view on aircraft certificated in the US but less so on EU certificated types. (But see the view of a later speaker from HEICO PAH)
Mike showed statistics on how many parts from PMA sources were used by BA and its One World partners (BA having comparatively low numbers).
Mike is now the Chair of an AEA group looking at EASA regulation.
Q1Will bilateral affect this issue?
A1(Answer awaits publication of the CD-ROM PAH)
Q2Another question on the use of PMA parts on non US certificated aircraft.
A2The matter is still not cleared up.
Q3As a chart had been shown giving numbers of PMA parts used by BA’s One World partners how does this affect lease turn back conditions?
A3This continues to be an issue with some lease companies. A commenter from the floor thought that so many PMA parts were in US aircraft that the matter is now too big to control. (My interpretation PAH)
Q4This question related to patent matters.
A4This aspect was addressed from an attendee who stated that PMA manufacturers were bound completely by patent rights.
Danny Martinez VP Line Maintenance American (AA) “AA The Newest Low Cost Carrier”
This speaker took much the same approach as DL in that internal efficiency was the primary driver. Charts were showing comparisons across the US industry. These highlighted the precarious financial status of many of them with some of the largest in Chapter 11.
AA was still active in seeking to do third party MRO.
There was no intent to outsource MRO.
Danny thought that the MD80’s still had a good future though fuel costs were a concern.
He described how AA is proceeding, using very traditional methods and intense but not revolutionary processes.
Overall maintenance costs had come down by 30%. He explained the new flexibility between Line and Base Maintenance where Line, for example, would carry out gear changes to off load Base Maintenance. AA is trying to show itself as committed to third party customers. It is looking to double its third party turnover in 2006 compared to 2005.
Q and A session
Q1How did AA compare to LHT (Lufthansa Technics)?
A1AA is always willing to learn from others.
Q2How is fuel usage being dealt with?
A2In many ways such as Later Engine Start, Late APU Start, in fact anything that provides mini fuel savings. Danny explained that fuel was such a dramatic element of AA costs they would rather have back up aircraft for casualties than incur high fuel costs. He described the AA “Gas Station” concept in that a special fuel burn cell had been set up at main base to provide crews with minute by minute advice on fuel burn and uplifts. This was somewhat difficult at first for crews to accept but was now gaining much credibility.
Q3How much of AA’s revenue is down to third party MRO?
A3Please ask me that question at the next MRO conference in 2007!
Lawrence Chan Ultramain Project Team Leader Cathay Pacific, “The Ultramain Maintenance and Logistics System”
This presentation used a large number of complex slides to portray how CX had decided to systemise its maintenance operations. It became clear during the presentations that Haeco, CX’s partner base maintenance organisation, was not yet included in the use of Ultramain.
The number of legacy systems in Cathayprior to Ultramain was shown
The main improvement claimed was in reduction in ADD’s and the time taken to clear them (down from 3 days to 13 minutes) this was taken to mean from opening an ADD to its closure. At the same time the actual number of ADD’s was down by 50%. It was also claimed that there has been a large drop in Nil Stock situations.
CX will provide MRO providers with access to Ultramain but not to the extent of allowing them to access and change aircraft records. The access allows mechanics to see and comment on work card content.
CX does advocate sharing an airline system with its MRO provider.
Some new phrases appeared in this presentation such as “to vision forward”.
Q and A session
Q1Where are the savings?
A1Not clearly stated but it was clear that line efficiency was an early driver.
Q2How long before full benefits are seen?
A2Perhaps five years.
Matthew Tobin VP Mxi Technology “Innovations in IT for MRO”
This was a well presented case for new IT but moreover it was advice to any organisation thinking of upgrading. It promoted, not unexpectedly, that an outside Software House would be quicker and cheaper than an in-house system
A chart was shown with the relative cost of fixing problems and was basically:-
StageCost
Find problem during concept1
Find problem during build10
Find problem during operation100
Matthew also stressed the danger of a user trying to matching new IT to legacy systems rather than changing to new working methods possible with new technology.
He also believed that the days have gone when mechanics signed paper documents. Some explanation was given of authentication and security of the electronic signature.
Mxi was at pains to promote web based systems with its attendant ease of universal updating.
Q and A session
None recorded.
- Day 2
Paul Briggs Joint Head International Aviation Bird & Bird “Limitation of Liability”
Paul had set the scene for his presentation by asking all attendees to carry out “homework” the previous night on a theoretical contract with an MRO.
His presentation centred on his experience with aerospace contracts and how he warned of avoiding phrase and words that gave insufficient protection to the buyer in MRO agreements.
He used English Law as his basis for contracts and advised whenever possible UK clients did likewise. He used the phrase, “a bad deal is a bad deal” regardless of the contractual terms. He quoted from the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
He also gave advice on preparing for any court action to recover liquidated damages.
Q and A session
Q1What is the importance of choosing which state’s law should have jurisdiction over a contract?
A1Vital. Try to get UK law. Remember that in some countries, courts may tend to have sympathy for a local entity.
Q2What is the position of an intermediary?
A2(Answer awaits publication of the CD-ROM PAH)
Q3A questioner asked for specifics on T’s and C’s and on the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
A3Not possible to be specific but reasonableness reigns!
Mike Blyth, Director MRO Support Management Airbus. “The Airbus MRO Network”
Mike explained the timetable since 2002 of how Airbus decided a policy of partner MRO’s and how it has gone about setting it up.
This process started with benchmarking and eventually appointing 12 partners world wide principally in regions with the highest need for Airbus MRO. Benchmarking was a very prominent aspect and this has carried through into all measures of performance which Airbus retains.
Cost data is not made available to operators or other partners.
In selecting partners, Airbus does not exclude airlines’ own in house maintenance but does show preference to those MRO’s who actually have a good record in third party maintenance. (The CD will show names and locations of the current partners. PAH)
Airbus carries out customer surveys to measure satisfaction with partner MRO’s and it was apparent that in almost all criteria the 80% threshold was exceeded. Price was the only measure not quite as this point.
To collect data from partners Airbus provides a web based system for returns. This data is never shared with customer airlines! It does however provide certain data to new airline customers who express a desire to seek support from a partner MRO.
It was noteworthy that few of the current 12 are actually Airbus operators.
Airbus predicts a large increase in MRO work given their own order book.
Q1How does Boeing do things in this respect?
A1 The presenter explained diplomatically that he believed Boeing did things differently.
Q2What is the policy on AI’s own MRO bases and what about smaller OEM’s such as component manufacturers and who have their own MRO’s?
A2Airbus does not intend to include OEM’s who do not have full Airbus airframe capability in their partnership programme.
Luis Alberto Correa, VP Marketing and Sales, Varig Engineering. “MRO Challenges in South America”
Luis explained his personal background as pilot, licensed engineer and graduate. He began his presentation with a slide showing VARIG’s remoteness from mainstream MRO users, i.e. N America.
South American operators were nevertheless not insulated from fuel costs.
One very pertinent fact came across from Luis. It reinforced that from David Stewart of the previous day’s programme.
In short airframe maintenance is providing the lowest spend for airlines thus underscoring the difficulty airframe MRO’s have in achieving good margins.
The figures shown by Luis were as follows.
Varig EM is now 10% Varig owned and 90% TAP Group.
In Latin America, $5.2bn would be airframe, $12.2bn would be engine and $7.3bn would be components.
Varig Engineering has two bases and estimate their man-hour rate advantage over USA is 20% and over Europe 30%.
A worrying figure for European MRO given the known threat from Asia Pacific.
Luis showed more slides on Varig moves to improve its capability on high technology. He also believed that military offset may assist their order book.
Question and Answer Session
Q1Which sector of MRO do you see provides most opportunity for Latin America.
A1Engines gives most opportunity but finance is still a major issue given the material which must be bought in. Airframe HM continues to be the mainstay.
Q2Can Varig EM do B737 Lap Joint modification?
A2Yes.
Q3Do you see any new issues coming from the new ownership of Varig EM.?
A3No information to be given at present.
Q4Will the labour rate differential be maintained-or lost?
A4Maintained.
Vanja Roller VP Maintenance and Engineering Croatia Airlines “Maintenance in a Small/Medium Size Airline”
This was a very interesting presentation given the recent history of the region and illustrated how Croatian has overcome a gap in its heritage from an earlier airline.
Effectively the airline started from scratch in 1990. Vanja covered modern trouble shooting but acknowledged the vastly improved reliability of current engines. He stated Croatia gets 15000 cycles on wing.
He also accepts that it has been a steep learning curve with many finding the jump from paper to digital being hard.
It was explained that there is no choice in the matter as, for example, Airbus no longer supports paper maintenance manuals.
The speaker came down firmly on the side of “invest in new technology” citing that forthcoming World Cup football tickets can only be bought on the internet, so why not airline spares?
Vanja believed that full internet access will become the only avenue for maintenance documents leaving microfilm and even CD’s in the dim past.
He, rather sensibly, showed some scepticism in the premise that all new technology brought cost benefits, citing that once upon a time one person cleaned all the microfilm readers. Now the same man and more are employed keeping server rooms at the necessary level of cleanliness!
Once more the subject of fuel cost was raised.
From the JT8 to the CFM56-7 a fuel saving of 30% was achieved. In the same time the fuel price has increased by 70%!