TC957
Topic Author
Posts: 3506
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 2:57 pm

Just spent a few days at FRA and the 2 LH A320NEO's were in & out, so I'm wondering how LH being the first operator of them are getting on with them.
Are the promised fuel burn reductions being met ? Any unforseen / unplanned Operational issues ?
When will LH take their next NEO's ?

Thanks for any updates.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4439
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:11 pm

Quoting TC957 (Thread starter):

If you look at the flight rates of D-AINA and D-AINB, the rates were low in the beginning, only 4 flights a day. This has changed, they now fly more, 8-9 flights a day.
Public comments on issues were rather quiet, but it seems they actually like the plane and that it seems to deliver on fuel burn spec.

So, it seems it is doing ok. There were some issues, but the fuel burn is fine.
 
FRAEDDF
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 8:35 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:31 pm

Quoting TC957 (Thread starter):
When will LH take their next NEO's ?

Two more this summer and one later in the year.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 1):
This has changed, they now fly more, 8-9 flights a day.

Right, I noticed this too. Reliability seems to be pretty good. Still only flying intra-German routes from FRA, though (HAM/MUC/TXL/DUS).
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:34 pm

99%+ reliability, Fuel Burn per Seat Mile -20%, start up time 350 seconds
 
PanHAM
Posts: 9731
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 6:44 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:40 pm

Having LH Technik smoothening the path is by far better than screaming.....
Was Erlauben Erdogan!!!
 
flyby519
Posts: 1428
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:31 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 3:46 pm

Quoting seahawk (Reply 3):
start up time 350 seconds

What do you mean by this? 350 seconds for the motor startup? That's a looooong time, does it include a required warmup period before T/O thrust?
 
chiad
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 4:56 pm

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 5):
350 seconds for the motor startup? That's a looooong time

So that's what the whole hubbub is all about? 6 minutes?
Is it so har dot incorporate startup while boarding?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26496
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:19 pm

Quoting chiad (Reply 6):
Is it so har dot incorporate startup while boarding?

With ground workers there?
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 5:23 pm

Lufthansa CEO also mentioned that fuel burn is better than promised.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Luftymatt
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:27 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 6:24 pm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 4):
Having LH Technik smoothening the path is by far better than screaming....

Very true.... It doesn't get you much attention in the press though.   
chase the sun
 
Navion
Posts: 1065
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 1:52 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 7:31 pm

The only real issue with the engines has been the extended start up time. It is a fully certified engine which is meeting or exceeding all of it's promises but the start-up time is a problem. I hadn't read it was almost 6 minutes, I had read it was about 3 minutes although if the two engines are being started up in sequence then that would take almost 6 minutes.

Pratt has started shipping the "new" engines with refined hardware and software to airbus which should alleviate some of the problem.
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 8:58 pm

Quoting FRAEDDF (Reply 2):
Still only flying intra-German routes from FRA, though (HAM/MUC/TXL/DUS).

In late February and late March, this was not the case. I flew on D-AIUQ twice -- both unplanned -- one time from BCN - MUC and one time from OSL - MUC.

Plane was nice. Couldn't tell if it was quieter than other A320s (they're not particularly noisy to begin with in flight). Interior didn't seem a whole lot different from new-build A320s or A330s.
 
Someone83
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:47 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:05 pm

Quoting tigerotor77w (Reply 11):
late February and late March, this was not the case. I flew on D-AIUQ twice -- both unplanned -- one time from BCN - MUC and one time from OSL - MUC.

D-AIUQ is not a NEO, but a CEO version
 
bgm
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:28 pm

Quoting tigerotor77w (Reply 11):
Plane was nice. Couldn't tell if it was quieter than other A320s

That's probably because it was exactly the same as the other A320s...  

You probably got confused because it had sharklets. LH has a number of A320ceos with sharklets.

D-AINA/B are the NEO variants.
████ ███ █ ███████ ██ █ █████ ██ ████ [redacted]
 
FRAEDDF
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 01, 2015 8:35 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:28 pm

Quoting tigerotor77w (Reply 11):
In late February and late March, this was not the case. I flew on D-AIUQ twice

Registrations for the two NEO´s currently in service for LH are D-AINA and D-AINB.

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 12):
D-AIUQ is not a NEO, but a CEO version

  
 
alyusuph
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:38 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:04 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 3):

99%+ reliability, Fuel Burn per Seat Mile -20%, start up time 350 seconds

So the fuel burn has improved which is good. Does LH also rant about the hydraulics, or that is just something affecting NEOs operations in hot climate.
I am not an Airbus or Boeing fan, just an aircraft fan
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 690
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:07 am

6 mins startup time per flight * 8 flights per day means you will likely lost one rotation for intra-Europe flight.....
Not good for utilization
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18095
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:11 am

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 1):
If you look at the flight rates of D-AINA and D-AINB, the rates were low in the beginning, only 4 flights a day. This has changed, they now fly more, 8-9 flights a day.

That is good news. I was... concerned on the 4 flights per day on such short flights.

Quoting seahawk (Reply 3):
99%+ reliability, Fuel Burn per Seat Mile -20%, start up time 350 seconds

Reliability needs work (LH expected 99.3%+ out of the gate). The climb fuel burn has beat promise, so I'm waiting to see the fuel burn on a route that 'stretches the legs' of the NEO. The plane has about 700nm more range than the CEO, but is doing very short routes.

Quoting flyby519 (Reply 5):
That's a looooong time

The whole issue has been:
1. Reliability (99% isn't good enough) and
2. The added turn time.

Quoting chiad (Reply 6):
Is it so har dot incorporate startup while boarding?

Besides the already mentioned ground workers who would become 'ground chuck,' the rules require the doors during startup (I just realized, does this include the cargo doors, I do not know...). So this is serial time. For 9 flights that is an added 4 minutes per flight or 36 minutes per day...

The Highest utilization I know of is HA at 17 flights/day during busy season. That would be (6min-2min)*17=68 minutes, or a limited utilization for HA of 15 flights per day (more aircraft would have to be purchased). Now, every other airline will be less sensitive to this than HA, but for high frequency flights such as U2 or FR, it is the loss of one leg per day. That is one less leg of revenue.  


Much to my surprise, this seems to be consistent with the C-series 1525G engines too (ish). A 4 minute start time per reports I've read.

But I note Pratt is quoting the per engine start times:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...-williams/articleshow/52502052.cms
Customers have been pushing Pratt & Whitney to speed up the start time to 90 seconds from 180 seconds.

Now, it should be possible to initiate the start of the 2nd engine before the first is fully going.

CFM claims 50 seconds per engine:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cfm-claims-50-second-start-up-time-for-a320neo-engin-421665/


What matters is if the added turn time results in one (or more) lost legs flown per day. For an 8 flight per day schedule, it is a lost leg. For Jetblue that tends to fly longer distances (but more hours per day), it would matter far less.

CFM is making a big deal of this as they do no want the fuel burn compared. So short flight airlines (typical in Europe) will probably favor the CFM LEAP-1A unless the fuel burn advantage of the PW1100G is enough to pay the difference. Long flight airlines (North America) will favor fuel burn. The LEAP-1A will not have the compressor fix until next year, so we're a year away from a comparison and then just a year away from PIP #1 for the Pratts... So I expect Pratt to have the advantage in fuel burn for a while (this is a Marathon, mind you...). CFM also has better design practices for maintenance, so high cycle airlines will probably also end up favoring the CFM LEAP-1A.

For the 'mid-market' (most airlines), it will be a toss up. Thus a competition.   

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
zkncj
Posts: 3259
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 3:14 am

Quoting hongkongflyer (Reply 16):

6 mins startup time per flight * 8 flights per day means you will likely lost one rotation for intra-Europe flight.....
Not good for utilization

Not really that much of an impact in an busy airport, start one during push-back then the other during taxi.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18095
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:28 am

I should note the latest A320NEO have exceptional reliability from Pratt:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...meets-benchmarks-for-airbus-planes

“I’m just going to state the facts … We’ve got three airlines in service, seven airplanes flying … without any flight shutdowns, no air turn-backs, no rejected takeoffs, at a dispatch reliability of 99.75%.”

It seems the software fix really helped.

Quoting zkncj (Reply 18):
Not really that much of an impact in an busy airport, start one during push-back then the other during taxi.

Agreed. But for some reason your quote was another user for my post.    But it still is a substantial delay over a large number of legs. When it is 90 seconds per engine, it will be one on and the 2nd during taxi.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
chiad
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 4:24 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:30 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
With ground workers there?
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):
Besides the already mentioned ground workers who would become 'ground chuck,' the rules require the doors during startup

Thanks guys. I know nothing about engines at all.
I just imagined them to be more like car engines that can be switched on and run in idle.
 
minister
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:22 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:02 am

Quoting seahawk (Reply 3):
99%+ reliability, Fuel Burn per Seat Mile -20%, start up time 350 seconds

Word from IndiGo in India is that Fuel Burn is closer to ~16% over the CEO

The start-up time is also reported around the 6-7 minute mark

Utilisation is closer to 7 hours here. They have 4-5 NEOs which do very specific route sets out of DEL. Factor in the 40+ degrees C temperature, and you can wonder why it is lesser than LH

The bigger problem I believe with the GTF is that the engine doesn't start if winds exceed 10 knots. The aircraft has to be repositioned at a particular angle to compensate against the wind direction

The issue is that due to the bending of the main shaft, irregular gaps are created between the fan and the engine casing, this causes wind to bypass the fan (even though the gap is already very small) so the engine cannot generate enough thrust at start up in a high wind scenario. This is what I've understood of the issue, I'm sure a technical focused person may be able to explain this better!
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:52 am

Quoting minister (Reply 21):
The issue is that due to the bending of the main shaft, irregular gaps are created between the fan and the engine casing, this causes wind to bypass the fan (even though the gap is already very small) so the engine cannot generate enough thrust at start up in a high wind scenario. This is what I've understood of the issue, I'm sure a technical focused person may be able to explain this better!

That reasoning sounds a bit fishy/fantastic !?

For getting the core running tip losses on the fan should not be relevant at all?
Murphy is an optimist
 
starbucks
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:29 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:57 am

Quoting minister (Reply 21):
Word from IndiGo in India is that Fuel Burn is closer to ~16% over the CEO

I believe LH's 20% number is based on saving per seat, they've added a number of seats in their neo's compared to the ceo. (180 seats in neo, 168 seats in ceo)
For as far as I can see Indigo only has 180 seat configs, so their fuel saving is a direct comparison to a ceo.

//Edit: Eventhough I can't find it directly, I believe LH even spoke about a 25% cost reduction on the neo when they factored in some other cost saving measures introduced with the aircraft

[Edited 2016-06-09 23:59:34]
 
rheinwaldner
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:58 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 6:57 am

Quoting minister (Reply 21):
Word from IndiGo in India is that Fuel Burn is closer to ~16% over the CEO

Still more than Airbus was saying in their Indigo delivery press release:
http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/pr...kes-delivery-of-its-first-a320neo/

The difference could come from what is exactly compared with the NEO. LHs oldest A320 might indeed burn 20% more fuel than the NEO. Indigos much younger CEOs on the other hand could already be 4% better than LHs CEOs, so they see only a 16% improvement...
Many things are difficult, all things are possible!
 
User avatar
BobMUC
Posts: 1078
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:59 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:15 am

Quoting starbucks (Reply 23):
Eventhough I can't find it directly, I believe LH even spoke about a 25% cost reduction on the neo when they factored in some other cost saving measures introduced with the aircraft

Sorry in German but the article from February is quoting Carsten Spohr:

http://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/diens...gen-billigkonkurrenz/12948404.html

- Savings per seat up to 25%
- After the first flights we are seeing savings up to 17%
(probably based on per flight and not on per seat)
 
starrymarkb
Posts: 285
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:19 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:51 am

Quoting minister (Reply 21):
The bigger problem I believe with the GTF is that the engine doesn't start if winds exceed 10 knots. The aircraft has to be repositioned at a particular angle to compensate against the wind direction


That also applies to the IAE engine, so it's not a new thing.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:53 am

Quoting BobMUC (Reply 25):
- Savings per seat up to 25%

That's because the A320neo has 12 additional seats.

Quoting BobMUC (Reply 25):
- After the first flights we are seeing savings up to 17%

Block fuel burn is clearly above the promised 15%.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
TC957
Topic Author
Posts: 3506
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:53 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):
The climb fuel burn has beat promise

That's not surprising since the two LH frames are doing such short sectors, hardly need to fully use the take off thrust available.
As you say, once the 2000nm + flights start, we'll see better how climb fuel burn matches expectations.
Listening to them climbing out of FRA, they have a distinct low-revving hum to them more akin to washing machines than a jet engine.
 
TheSonntag
Posts: 4439
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:23 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:07 am

How does the lower fuel burn affect the amount of fuel an airplane is having on board?

Lets say we have Standard metereological conditions in all of Europe, so no fancy alternate planning is required, and LH wants to fly FRA-HAM.

LH could use D-AIPA (A320 from 1988) or D-AINA.

Will D-AINA in such a case carry less fuel, or the exactly same amount of fuel? As I said, conditions are the same and the Pilot is the same, too  .
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:41 am

Quoting FRAEDDF (Reply 2):
Still only flying intra-German routes from FRA, though (HAM/MUC/TXL/DUS).

They have ventured further afield occasionally, to LHR

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...sa-a320neo-visits-heathrow-424138/

and to ARN

http://www.instagram.com/p/BFjWfhuHkwb/
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
minister
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2006 10:22 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:15 am

Quoting WIederling (Reply 22):
That reasoning sounds a bit fishy/fantastic !?

For getting the core running tip losses on the fan should not be relevant at all?

I too was skeptical of the explanation when I first heard it. But I don't have any more knowledge to judge what the real problem is

Quoting rheinwaldner (Reply 24):
The difference could come from what is exactly compared with the NEO. LHs oldest A320 might indeed burn 20% more fuel than the NEO. Indigos much younger CEOs on the other hand could already be 4% better than LHs CEOs, so they see only a 16% improvement...

Ah, Thanks! Now I fully understand why IndiGo is fairly happy with the ~16%
 
douglasyxz
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:33 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:35 pm

Wasn't the long start time only required when the engine was off for a certain time, IIRC something between one and two hours due to different cooling of different parts of the engine? Assuming short turnaround times of less than one hour, shouldn't the GTF be prepared to be started without requiring the windmilling?
 
tigerotor77w
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 11:35 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:06 pm

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 12):
D-AIUQ is not a NEO, but a CEO version
Quoting FRAEDDF (Reply 14):
Registrations for the two NEO´s currently in service for LH are D-AINA and D-AINB.
Quoting bgm (Reply 13):
That's probably because it was exactly the same as the other A320s...  

You probably got confused because it had sharklets. LH has a number of A320ceos with sharklets.

D-AINA/B are the NEO variants.

 Wow!

Well don't I feel terrific now!

I looked up the registration and thought the date was close enough to the delivery date of an NEO that it would be an NEO. My assumption wasn't helped by both captains announcing that this was (at the time) the newest A320 in the fleet. (I didn't realize LH was still taking delivery of CEOs.) I did think it was strange that there was no painting on the side of the craft with the "first to fly the NEO" message, but I didn't put much thought into it. Now I know why...

Well thanks for the clarifications!
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 9:12 pm

Regarding the startup time, it is less worse than the media tries to sell.

A good read:

The GTF and start-up issues on the neo – Much Ado About Nothing?
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
rbrunner
Posts: 661
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 10:13 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:31 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
Regarding the startup time, it is less worse than the media tries to sell.

I agree. Will the existing A320neos be upgraded or will they swap engines?
 
User avatar
IFixPlanes
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 11:34 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Sat Jun 11, 2016 7:20 am

To get rid of the longer startup time software update must be combinated with a change of hardware.
Hardware change could only be done in shop, so we have some engine changes in the near future.
never tell an engineer he is wrong ;-)
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:09 am

Quoting rbrunner (Reply 35):
Will the existing A320neos be upgraded or will they swap engines?

A retrofit kit will be available.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Unflug
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:25 pm

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Sat Jun 11, 2016 10:43 am

Quoting douglasyxz (Reply 32):
Wasn't the long start time only required when the engine was off for a certain time, IIRC something between one and two hours due to different cooling of different parts of the engine? Assuming short turnaround times of less than one hour, shouldn't the GTF be prepared to be started without requiring the windmilling?

Exactly, the longer start time only applies if the engine has not been running for some time - according to this source 2.5 hours:

http://aeroturbopower.blogspot.de/20...-business-model-threatened-by.html

On fast turnarounds this is no issue at all.
On slow turnarounds I don't see how it should matter...
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8690
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

RE: LH And Their 2 A320NEO's

Sat Jun 11, 2016 11:12 am

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 34):
Regarding the startup time, it is less worse than the media tries to sell.

350 seconds is a worst case scenario any way and the worst case time for a IAE V2500 is 160 seconds. So we are talking 3 minutes difference at most, even with the basic configuration. Now LEAP X is promising 50 seconds worst case. We will see how it goes.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos