Such contracts now account for about


40 percent of the component MRO market globally, Stewart says, and are expected to rise above 50 percent of the component MRO market by the end of the decade. LHT, AFI KLM E&M and SR Technics are prominent in this area in Europe, he says, with some others such as AJ Walter also enjoying the growth in demand for this type of service. Component OEMs are getting more


aggressive too. Stewart estimates component OEMs’ share of component overhaul and repair activity in 2012 at 38 percent, and expects their share to rise to between 45 and 50 percent by 2021, a second trend. Although component OEMs have expertise in repairing their own material, “they are manufacturers, and not maintenance experts or operators,” Weber adds. “Even if they have feedback from the airlines on how their material actually behaves on wing, they should face the fact that they learn everything about operational conditions from the operators themselves.” A third trend is that airframe OEMs like Airbus, Boeing and ATR are getting more strongly into the components business. Airbus’ FHS program includes options for component, engine, line and base maintenance services provided by a network of MROs. The comprehensive component support option has been taken up by Singapore Airlines, for example. Airbus’ name appears on the maintenance contract but somebody else does the actual work, Stewart says. ATR offers similar support through its Global Maintenance Agreement (GMA) concept. GMA customers can choose options, such as equipment repair, spares and standard exchange services, as well as airframe maintenance. The aircraft OEMs occupy a niche in overall MRO activities, Weber concedes. “But for many reasons AFI KLM E&M does not believe that they will take 80 percent of the market!” Weber believes “that the airline community will not accept that a few suppliers rule the aftermarket, especially if these suppliers are also the ones who offer incentives while selling the aircraft, engines or components and later sell spare parts [at price levels] to get their money back.” For one thing, maintenance costs would


increase significantly if one category of players cornered the market, Weber says. “It is vital for airlines to have a market that offers alternatives.”


Airframe Maintenance Airframe maintenance is also changing. The maintenance hangars of the European MRO providers are only 60-70 percent


W


alter Heer


dt, Senior Vice Pr


esident Marketing & Sales for Lufthansa T


loaded, according to FL Technics’ Butautis. One major cause of this, he says, is the “hangarmania” that “dominated the market during the previous decade.” Another contributing factor is fleet renewals, which are replacing maintenance-intensive aircraft with newer models boasting expanded intervals. Stewart agrees that there’s significant overcapacity in airframe maintenance on a global basis. FL Technics points out that local carriers in Russia and the former Soviet bloc states are still investing in in-house MROs although some of the companies have started to realize “that they won’t be able to provide cost-efficient solutions while being loaded by just one main customer — their mother company.” The times may be changing, however. The migration of airframe maintenance work to the Far East may well have peaked, Stewart says. First, the more modern aircraft require significantly fewer man-hours per heavy check. By the end of the decade, this number will be some 20 percent less on average, he says.


If you add the higher fuel cost to ferry the plane to China, for example, and the rising labor rates in the region as local economies grow, the cost/benefit gap is narrowing, he says. The 787, for example, “will behave more like a narrowbody does today for its airframe maintenance,” Stewart says. Its first heavy maintenance event is 12 years into its life cycle, vs. 6-8 years for older aircraft. By the time a 787 comes up for heavy maintenance, it probably won’t be worth doing it at such a distance.


PMA, Anyone? Attitudes towards non-OEM parts range from firm rejection to grudging acceptance


24 Aviation Maintenance | avm-mag.com | August / September 2012


echnik.


to (a rare) welcome. The general policy of ATR, for example, is to avoid these parts, says Lilian Braylé, senior vice president product support & services. “We also encourage operators to use original parts.” Stewart sees the parts manufacturer


approval (PMA) market leveling off as a result of converging factors such as high fuel prices, low interest rates, high aircraft production rates and the expected large number of airplane retirements. He anticipates an increase in surplus OEM parts penetration —from around 18 percent today to 20 percent by 2015. These lower-cost parts will dampen demand for both new OEM and PMA components. He predicts that PMA will plateau at about 3 percent of the total material spend by 2018. GKN Aerospace, an OEM which also


produces PMAs, praises the use of these parts. It has introduced some strategically important 757/767/777 cockpit window PMAs to the market in the last 12 months. The company is still in the early stages


of growing its market share, so most of its activity has been U.S.-based. But it expects the recent Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement will help encourage PMA acceptance. GKN also hopes to see more interest from aircraft lessors as a way to let leased aircraft operators reduce their maintenance costs and improve margins. British Airways Engineering and sister unit Iberia Maintenance also look kindly on PMA. They have contracted with HEICO to deliver PMA materials, which are “a valid and safe alternative supply route,” Murray- Smith says. In fact the two are “considering how PMA can be more widely used to improve availability while ensuring a low cost base.” AM


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72