Podcast: The Era Of 787 Heavy Maintenance Begins

As D checks on older Boeing 787s ramp up, the first all-composite widebody's characteristics make it a unique proposition for MRO shops. Listen in to hear from Aviation Week's forecaster Daniel Williams and Guy Norris, who has covered the 787 program since its inception, as they discuss the airframe and break down the engine situation with host James Pozzi.

Subscribe Now

Don't miss a single episode. Subscribe to Aviation Week's MRO Podcast in Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get podcasts.

Discover all of our podcasts at aviationweek.com/podcasts.

Transcript

James Pozzi:

Welcome to the MRO podcast. I'm James Pozzi, MRO Editor for the EMEA regions, and today we are going to be discussing the Boeing 787 aircraft program, which of course entered service in 2011 and is a competitor in the wide body aircraft market to the Airbus A350. The engine options for the 787 is also a competitive market with GE Aerospace's GNX and the Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 as options. So today, joining me is Dan Williams, of course, a regular of the MRO podcast. He's director of Fleet Data Services for Aviation Week. Welcome, Dan.

Dan Williams:

Thank you.

James Pozzi:

And for the first time on the MRO podcast, I believe, Guy Norris joining us, Senior editor for Aviation Week. Guy, thank you.

Guy Norris:

Yeah, thanks, James. I didn't realize it was my first MRO podcast. You caught me there and I apologize for being so sluggard and not being part of it earlier.

James Pozzi:

It's great to have you, of course. Let's get started then. So Dan, I see some 787s are starting to mature, of course. I mentioned at the beginning, it's 2011 when it enters service amazingly, and some of the variants, the -9 for example, are coming up for certain types of checks on the heavier side, of course. What can you tell us about maybe some of the numbers around that and the ramifications of that for the aftermarket and I guess for operators?

Dan Williams:

Yeah, thank you. The 787 is coming of age, you could say. We're approaching that window where D checks, which happen at 12 on a 787 are really beginning to ramp up. We've just recently released our 2025 forecast, so I thought I'd have a dip into that and see. And it comes as no surprise that it's the 787-8s, it's the original ones, that are approaching that 12-year window. And in 2025 alone, we're forecasting over 50 D checks for the 787-8 and a couple of D checks for the 787-9s, but just literally a handful. But what we're seeing is over the coming years '26 will be over a hundred D checks on the -8 and a dozen or so on the -9, however they grow, and eventually the 787-9s, you'll probably have around about a hundred D checks in about 2028 and the first -10 D check won't occur till 2029.

And it's really interesting that we're entering this MRO window now where we're seeing these ramp ups on these airframes. It was an interesting airframe when it came to production and enter into service. It's very different from pretty much everything else that's on the market. And I'll let guy talk into that because it's much more learned than I am. However, we are at the point where people are having to learn how to do these D checks and do them quickly. We've seen some interesting news recently. For example, China Southern have announced that they want to get rid of their 787-8. Now conveniently, they are all at or around this magical 12-year-old mark. So they're probably all at D check age. So China Southern are probably studying their options right now where they're like, "Hey, do we spend X amount of dollars," where X is probably quite substantial, "keep this aircraft in service? Do we try and sell it off to somewhere else?"

Is it a possibility that we start to see some more teardowns of 787? We've seen a handful with some of the terrible teens within the 787 fleet. They have happened. Or, "Do we find a secondary market for these aircraft?" And that's a little bit more difficult except for the facts that both Boeing and Airbus are finding it really difficult to deliver wide bodies right now. So could somebody who has 787-8s take them on board, pay for them to go through a D check and then operate them for another 12 years, but actually have an aircraft in service rather than have to wait for an aircraft to come from the OEM. So it's a real interesting time right now, and I'll just touch very briefly on the in-service fleet and the engines, and I'll try and get all my numbers out there and we can dissect them.

As we stand right now, there's a little over 1,000 787s in service. The engine split is about a third for Rolls. Remainder are GE. And then we get to the end of our forecast in 2034, there should be a little under 2,500 787s still in service by then. However, that engine percentage shift goes from about a third Rolls to a little over 20% Rolls. So from a third to a fifth because we've seen some issues with trends. They were the issues pre GTF, which we've talked a lot about recently as well. The only difference is there weren't as many of them in the market as there were GTF. So we've seen a shift away from Rolls in terms of the fleet, a shift away from the smaller 787-8s to the bigger stuff. The nine is going to be the most dominant airframe of the market, but the future's bright for the 787. We're just entering that window of opportunity for MRO on these airframes right now.

James Pozzi:

Yeah, sure. Thanks, Dan. Now, we'll bring Guy of course. Now, Guy, you have literally written a book on the 787 program, so there's probably nothing you don't really know about it, but as Dan mentioned, the differences around the aircraft, maybe technically I'd characterize the 787 for the high percentage of composites in the manufacture of the aircraft. But what are of the differences of this aircraft compared to other ones and maybe some insights maybe on the technical and the maintenance side of things from you?

Guy Norris:

Thanks, James, and appreciate the plug by the way. Nothing like a few book sales to help as we approach the festive season. Exactly. No, I wish. Those days are gone. But anyway, yeah, no, you're absolutely right and Dan mentioned this at the start. There's something fundamentally different about a composite aircraft and we've got to remember that the 787 really broke the mold when it came to how to... Boeing was definitely bringing in a whole new revolution in terms of structures, airframe life and maintenance expectations when it really made the bold step to come in with this aircraft, which is over 50%, in terms of structural composition, by composites. So what does it mean, really? Why is it different? So there's a couple of things that you really have to remember about composites compared to the classic aluminium metallic structure, where the industry's been used to since the birth of even their transport, particularly since the painful lessons of the 1950s onwards with the move to jet transports when fatigue and corrosion really resulted in some tough lessons.

So what do we know about composites? They're inherently resistant to corrosion. So that's a huge difference there. It reduces the need for inspections and repairs related to degradation from any environmental factor, for example, but particularly it leads to this overall lower maintenance cost and extends the potential lifespan of the aircraft compared to your conventional metallic structure. So you've got corrosion resistance, you've also got fatigue resistance. Composites are often designed with a much better ability to withstand fatigue cycles and that reduces the likelihood of cracks and structural failures over time. So that of course has a major implication when it comes to maintenance. So just to look at what Boeing wanted to do with that. When they first designed the 78, it was the 7E7, I remember going to this press conference up in Boeing Field actually in the early 2000s where they were beginning to show more details about 7E7, and they said, "This is going to be 30% cheaper from a maintenance perspective."

And everyone goes, "How do you do that?" He says, "Well, because not only do the intervals between maintenance checks get longer, but as the aircraft ages you get more and more maintenance, cost savings. It kind of seems a bit weird, doesn't it? It's the opposite of what you get with a metallic aircraft where it gets more and more expensive to maintain. So what they said was, "Well, how is this possible?" So he said, "Right, let's run through a few numbers. Let's start with line maintenance checks. Normally the 777 is about 600 hours between line maintenance checks. 767 was even more intensive, like 500 hours, line maintenance for a 78, they designed it for every 1000 hours. It's sort of like the beginning of this curve. Then you go to say a base maintenance check. I don't know, Dan, is that probably the equivalent of a C check maybe?

Dan Williams:

Yeah, yeah. Cs and Ds, yeah.

Guy Norris:

Okay. So on a 767, that would be every 16 months, two years for a 777, it's every three years for a 78, and then of course the big one, the one that Dan's mentioned for China, for example, major check, D check, it's 12 years, as we've mentioned, for the 78, versus eight for a 777 and six for a 767. So instantly you get this idea of what's better, I suppose. But of course there's no such thing as a free lunch, as we all know when it comes to maintenance. Yes, it's got those fatigue and corrosion factors and it's light and all that sort of stuff, but it has required this massive great big education and new maintenance techniques, repairs, specialist skills for inspecting. You're going to have to bring in a lot of this new ultrasonic type inspection technology.

Because I should just, before I stop ranting, there's just a couple of other things we ought to remind people about. The difference between composites and metallic structures is, if you are looking for, say, damage, it's easy, isn't it? With a metal aeroplane, you see a big dent in the side and you know immediately where the problem is and potentially how bad it is in terms of maintenance and repair. With composites, it's not as easy as that. For example, you could have a point of impact damage, which could just be the cause of, say, a little bit of ramp rash, like somebody poking it with the edge of a container. And that point of damage could look the same as if a fuel truck has run into the side of the airplane. Of course underneath it, the fuel truck damage is massively more important for the structure, but externally, there's very little clue to that. So this whole idea of visual inspection, the difference between point of impact damage and major load path damage, those are the two considerations. So that's the summary as far as I'm aware from the top level.

James Pozzi:

Yeah, no, very, very interesting, Guy. And just on the composite thing, we obviously talked for a while about could the secondary market for the 787 also, could it become a potential passenger to freighter conversion option in the future? Would the high density of composites, would that impact that? Would make that difficult to do, or how would that be?

Guy Norris:

Yeah, that's a really good question. I mean, obviously, I think the big factor that we're looking at potentially is whether the 78, could it be freighter for a conversion market. The passenger to freight market is buoyant as we know, and it's going to become even more buoyant in that sector because 76 freighters are coming to an end. Airbus is obviously seeing an opportunity there, but the difference here is that normally the passengers, the stock, the available aircraft that are out there to convert into freighters in the future is not going to be that huge for the 76s because the major fleets that are currently in service, like for example in the states like Delta and even United, they're keeping on flying those airplanes and every day they fly them, it reduces by a few cycles, their potential life as a freighter.

So the decision by Boeing to stop production at the end of, I think, '27 is going to creative vacuum. There's no doubt about it. Boeing, of course, does want to do a 787 freighter. They've been studying it. There's no secret about that now. They've talked about it. So they've obviously figured out that it is feasible. What I'm thinking is that there's a lot of people out there who would love to do that program themselves, but with a composite, it's awfully complicated, especially the way that Boeing builds theirs with the one piece barrel compared to, say, even Airbus with the A350, which does a black aluminum type approach with sections rather than the one piece. So it's a really interesting question. I don't know. Dan, you've obviously been looking at this too, right?

Dan Williams:

Yeah, no, that is a good point. I mean, in terms of the size of the aircraft, it does make a very good candidate. I personally don't think they will do it. I think Boeing have got other things they can spend their money on right now. And I think if you look at the other traditional passenger to freighter conversion companies, I'll take IAI for example, they've had a long-standing 767 production line at Tel Aviv with their P2Fs. They've now got the 777 and they're looking at the 330s, they're coming in as well, so of which there are both a huge feedstock of aircraft. I think the cost to do the composite, I think it's just too much for people to pay to operate.

And if you look at the traditional people who have taken those aircraft, FedEx, UPS and the like, well, they're buying new 767s that'll last them quite a while. They've been buying 777s. They'll happily wait for the 777X. They'll happily wait for the A350 freighter if required. And if they need to supplement their fleets, they'll replace their 75s with the A321P2F or they'll go to A330s or 777s accordingly if they need to.

James Pozzi:

Okay. Well, thank you for those insights, and just finally before we go, doesn't feel like there's enough time read to do it justice, but going back to obviously, Dan, near the beginning, you mentioned an interesting part of the equation, the Trent 1000 versus the GNX, the engine options for the 787 program. As you said, that's become more heavily weighted in recent times to GE over Rolls Royce. There's obviously been a loss of market share on that program. How do you see that playing out in the future? Is that something that could maybe be rebalanced or are these technical issues that Rolls is experiencing on the Trent 1000 program, is that going to have longer lasting effects? What do you see on that?

Dan Williams:

Yeah, very much so. We did a podcast on the Trent 1000 earlier in the year, and I was very blasé and I hold my hands up. It was pre-Farnborough. I'm like, "BA will take Rolls Royce for their... They have six outstanding 787s or not." And I was very blasé. I'm like, "Because it will be too ridiculous and too expensive for BA to operate separate engines on part of their 787 fleet." And lo and behold, in Farnborough, it was announced they're taking GE engines. Now, do not get me wrong, I'm sure there are some people in the GE marketing department though are absolutely delighted and I'm sure there was some nice discussions had to make it worthwhile. However, I also imagine that it probably didn't take much for BA to be swayed away from the trend. I think some of our colleagues, when we were traveled to a recent MRO, Australasia had to be re-routed because they were booked on a BA 787 that subsequently got canceled.

In fact, the way that Aviation Week knew that BA were having extra issues with their Trents was through those emails. So I think that where companies still have Rolls, they are likely to buy Rolls. Not guaranteed, but likely. However, if you are a new customer, if you are a lessor, and lessors don't really order wide bodies. If you look at the backlog, there's very few, it's less than light, it's the wide body order book. They will tend to go for GE. So Rolls will win one or two deals, do not get me wrong, because there are companies who have Rolls and don't want dual fleets. Lufthansa do have a dual fleet, BA will have a dual fleet, but people are moving away from the Trents even though [inaudible 00:18:11] is testing right now. Is that right, Guy?

Guy Norris:

Yeah, yeah, absolutely, Dan. And I was going to say, as you know, I'm a little more of a glass half full sort of person when it comes to the engine market, but I would say that we're in a bit of a lull right now. GE has of course completely dominated the market thanks to the reliability. Well, it's durability. Let's remember that. Not reliability on the issue with the Trent 1000. But under Tufan Erginbilgiç, the Rolls Royce CEO, he's launched this massive restructuring of the company including spending a billion pounds on upgrades for the Trent product line. And there's the one that Dan was mentioning there, the HP turbine blade is probably the most pivotal one of the lot. Now they've just, a month ago, announced that the FAA certification for that, which is critical to getting it into the fleet, has been delayed slightly. So it was supposed to be by the end of this year. Who knows? It's probably going to be a month or two into early '25 as far as we know.

But honestly, that's the sort of thing which is going to make a massive amount of difference to their target of essentially doubling time on wing for the Trent. Then of course you've got the supply chain issues actually getting that out into the fleet. So it is going to be a couple of years, I think, before any of this is going to begin to be visual in terms of the market and Rolls Royce's attempts to step back into it. They were pretty well, 50/50 to begin with, when all this kicked off, but we've seen how it's gone down. But my feeling is that the Trent 1000 market will rally and I think that in a couple of years time we're going to see Rolls make a huge effort to get back in. I mean, they're doing the homework now and building a platform for recovery and it's going to take some time to get back into it, but I don't think it'll happen.

Dan Williams:

I wonder if Rolls should push for a 787 MAX with the ultra fan on it, but there you go.

Guy Norris:

Well, funny should say that. No, no, it would be would great, wouldn't it?

Dan Williams:

Yeah. Or an A350neo with an ultra fan on it.

Guy Norris:

Absolutely.

Dan Williams:

They need to find a platform for that off-end engine.

Guy Norris:

They really do. Yeah. But of course they are looking at a single-line version of it too, which is under the European Clean Aviation HEAVENLY program. So anyway, that's for another podcast, I'm sure.

James Pozzi:

Absolutely, yeah. And we can certainly go on and on and on, but we'll call time now, unfortunately, but very interesting final thoughts and views on the program and the engines and other associated topics. So, Dan and Guy, thank you so much for joining us today on the MRO podcast, and don't miss the next episode by subscribing to the MRO podcast wherever you listen to your podcasts. And one last request, if you're listening in Apple Podcasts and want to support this podcast, please leave us a star rating or write a review. Thanks.