A Predictive Model of User Equipage Costs for Future Air ... - Mitre

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 Predicted User Responses and Costs Because of the wide variety of users in the NAS, it is expected that there would be a wide range of responses to any FAA implementation action. Since it is impossible to accurately predict the future, four responses were developed that describe possible user responses from the best to worst cases, allowing for a full range of analysis of potential costs and benefits. It was recognized that Air Transport and GA users have different needs and will respond differently, so the range of responses was created for each. This also allows for different combinations of responses to any one FAA action. 8.1 Air Transport 8.1.1 Extreme Joy (AT1) This scenario describes a highly optimistic user response to the FAA implementation of ADS-B infrastructure and services. In this case, the benefits of CDTI applications are readily apparent to all users, resulting in retrofits of all aircraft by 2016 (Figure 8-1). Because of the favorable user response, the large airframe manufacturers incorporate CDTI as a standard feature in production aircraft in 2008, with the regional manufacturers following suit in 2010. This response includes a near-term upgrade to broadcast only capability for those modern aircraft without such capability due to cost savings from transponder parts commonality for the users with mixed fleets. These aircraft then are further modified to include a CDTI along with all other aircraft as per the schedule. While this response may be too optimistic, it serves as an upper bound on expected equipage. Response AT 1 Extreme Joy AT CDTI STD in 2008; RJ CDTI STD in 2010 Retrofit to CDTI Classic 2008 – 2012; Neo-classic 2010 – 2016; Modern 2009 – 2013 RJ; jets 2009-2014; TurboP 2012-2014 (60%) Retrofit to BCST Modern (parts commonality) 2006, 2007, 2008 (33% each) RJ; Jets and TurboP none [Blue text is Regional (RJ) assumptions] Figure 8-1. AT Response Equipage Definitions, Extreme Joy 8-1
8.1.2 Higher Equipage Realism (AT2) This response describes a scenario of high equipage but introduces a degree of realism by recognizing that not all users may anticipate the benefits of CDTI applications for various reasons, and would thus not retrofit their aircraft. For example, an airline may decide that an aircraft that is 5 years from retirement is not economically feasible for modification, yet this aircraft would continue to operate unmodified until its retirement date. Some users may make different assumptions for the costs of retrofits and the associated savings, causing them to decide against modifications. Additionally, some users may fly routes (e.g. short haul, low altitude, good weather, low density airports, etc.) where their benefits would be less, thus making retrofit less attractive for them. Because of the reduced amount of users planning retrofits, it is assumed that the large airframe manufacturers would only offer CDTI as an option in 2008, with the technology becoming standard equipment in 2012 (2014 for regional jets). Additionally, only certain percentages of aircraft are assumed to be modified (Figure 8-2). Response AT 2 Higher Equipage Realism CDTI Optional 2008, STD 2012; RJ FF in 2014 Retrofit to CDTI Classic 75% 2012 – 2016; Neo-classic 60% 2014 – 2018; Modern 85% 2012 – 2016 RJ; Jets 85% 2013-2018; TurboP 40% 2016 -2018 Retrofit to BCST Modern 80% 2008 – 2010 RJ; none [Blue text is Regional (RJ) assumptions] Figure 8-2. AT Response Equipage Definitions, Higher Equipage Realism 8.1.3 Lower Equipage Realism (AT3) This response recognizes that even less users may anticipate the benefits of CDTI applications for various reasons, thus further reducing aircraft modifications. Because of the further reduced amount of users planning retrofits, it is assumed that the large airframe manufacturers would not offer CDTI as an option until 2012, with the technology becoming standard equipment in 2016 (2018 for regional jets). The A380 is assumed to be delivered with CDTI capability as has been previously stated by Airbus. Additionally, even lower percentages of aircraft are assumed to be modified (Figure 8-3). 8-2
Page 1 and 2: MTR 05W0000082 MITRE TECHNICAL REPO
Page 3 and 4: Abstract Many new technological sol
Page 5: Acknowledgements The authors would
Page 8 and 9: 3.2 Regional 3-2 3.2.1 Jet 3-2 3.2.
Page 10 and 11: Appendix B GA Forecast 2003 - 2020
Page 12 and 13: List of Tables Table 2-1. GA Fleet
Page 14 and 15: aircraft knowledge, this forecast i
Page 16 and 17: 2 Fleet Forecast 2.1 Air Transport
Page 18 and 19: 2.1.5 Cargo Conversions History has
Page 20 and 21: eflects the FAA’s GA Forecast and
Page 22 and 23: a new aircraft forecasted delivery
Page 24 and 25: closely considered like the classic
Page 26 and 27: 4 Equipage States 4.1 Not Equipped
Page 28 and 29: These discussions also provided inf
Page 30 and 31: 0 Not Equipped Latent CDTI 2 1 4 3
Page 32 and 33: equire some level of software updat
Page 36 and 37: Response AT 3 Lower Equipage Realis
Page 38 and 39: 2004 Response 1 2004-2008 2009-2012
Page 40 and 41: transponder mandates as related to
Page 42 and 43: Table 8-1. FAA1 Action and Response
Page 44 and 45: Table 8-4. FAA4 Action and Response
Page 46 and 47: 9.2 Implementation Plan #2 (IP2) Th
Page 48 and 49: Voluntary and Straggler Costs 2004
Page 50 and 51: The summary of the total Straggler
Page 52 and 53: 11 Summary The methodology describe
Page 54 and 55: A.1 US Fleet Forecast 2005 - 2009 (
Page 62 and 63: Appendix C Surveys C.1 Large Air Tr
Page 64 and 65: Appendix D AT Transition Costs D.1
Page 66 and 67: D.3 AT Modern NE --> CDTI (ATm1) NE
Page 68 and 69: E.2 Major Assumptions • Display c
Page 70 and 71: F.2 Major Assumptions Unit costs in
Page 72: Glossary ACAS AirCraft Analytical S

A Predictive Model of User Equipage Costs for Future Air ... - Mitre

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?