737 Classic

AIRCRAFT OWNERS & OPERATORS
GUIDE: 737-300/-400/-500
i) Aircraft specifications, page 6
ii) Production & fleet analysis, page 8
iii) Major modification & upgrade programmes, page 10
iv) Maintenance requirements & analysis, page 14
v) Values, lease rates & aftermarket activity, page 24
6 I AIRCRAFT OWNERS & OPERATORS GUIDE
T
he second generation 737-300/-
400/-500 family is one of the
most popular short-haul
workhorses, particularly for the
growing number of low-cost carriers. The
various combinations of gross weight,
range and engines of the 737 300, -400
and 500 are detailed in this section.
In total, 1,988 737-300/-400/500s
were built between January 1984 and
December 1999. Of these, 1,113 were the
300 variant, 486 were the larger 400
and the remaining 389 were the smallest
500. The last aircraft built was a -400
for CSA Czech Airlines.
The family was launched with entry
into service (EIS) in November 1984 with
a -300 for US Airways: line number
1001. The airframe shares 80%
commonality of spare parts with the
earlier 737-200. Other internal changes
compared to the -200 include materials
and systems improvements rst developed
for the 757 and 767, including an early
generation EFIS ightdeck (with four
colour CRT screens). Soon demand for a
larger capacity aircraft, partly as a 727
replacement with family commonality
with the 737300, led to the introduction
into service in January 1988 of the
stretched 400, which added ten feet
accommodating three extra seat rows.
This increased capacity by 19 seats.
The 500 was launched by Southwest
and entered service in 1990 to serve some
of its less dense point-to-point routes. It
had almost the same fuselage length as
the -200, which gave it three seat rows
and 18 seats fewer than the -300. The -
500s main appeal is for operators of
large 737-300 and -400 eets. Although
the -500 is a shortened development of
the -300, the -500 still carries much of the
structural weight needed for the larger
models. This makes the -500 less efcient
than if it was designed specically for its
size category. The -500s extensive
commonality benets more than
compensate for this, however.
A variety of engine options were
introduced by CFMI for the -300/-400/-
500. The CFM56-3 was launched on the
737-300 in its 3B1 variant, initially
rated at 18,500 lbs thrust. It had the
characteristic squashed engine cowl to
accommodate the fact that it was a high-
bypass ratio engine, with a signicantly
larger fan diameter compared with the
Pratt & Whitney JT8D on the earlier
737-100 and 200. Two other main
CFM56-3 variants are available at
various thrust ratings: the 3B2 and the
3C1. There is a degree of
interchangeability across the family.
There is also an option to install
integral forward airstairs on all 737-300/-
400/-500 models.
Specifications
-300 series
The 300 model can accommodate
140 passengers in an all-economy six-
abreast conguration at a 32-inch seat
pitch. This increases to 149 at a higher
density 30-inch pitch. Major US
operators, like the launch-customer US
Airways, congured the aircraft with a
two-class cabin, with eight rst class four-
abreast seats and 120 six-abreast
economy seats, totalling 128 passengers.
The initial 300 model has a
maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of
124,500lbs and fuel capacity of 5,311
USG (see table, page 6). This is powered
by the CFM56-3B1 rated at 20,000 lbs
thrust. There are two other MTOW
variants for this engine variant. These are
the 130,000lbs MTOW with fuel
capacity of 5,701USG (which is achieved
with a 390USG Boeing-installed auxiliary
fuel tank in the aft cargo compartment)
and the 135,000lbs MTOW with fuel
capacity of 6,121USG (using an 810USG
Boeing-installed auxiliary tank in the aft
cargo compartment).
With the CFM56-3B2 engine variant,
rated at 22,000lbs thrust, MTOWs
increase as do fuel capacities, again using
auxiliary fuel tanks in the aft cargo hold.
These are MTOWs of 137,000lbs,
138,500lbs and 139,500lbs with fuel
capacity of 5,803USG (500USG
Rogerson-installed auxiliary tank), and
6,295USG (1000USG Rogerson-installed
auxiliary tank) for the two higher weights
(see table, page 6). A derated CFM56-
3C1 was also introduced with these
MTOWs in 1988 after the -400 was
made available.
Range with 128 passengers and
standard fuel is 1,815nm, while range
with 128 passengers and maximum fuel is
2,685nm. The high gross weight version
has maximum range of 3,400nm with
140 passengers.
737-300/-400/-500
specications
The 737-300/-400/-500 is available with three
different engine variants and multiple MTOW &
fuel tank options.
There are three main variants. Each can be
powered by engines with two different thrust
ratings. More than 1,100 aircraft are the -300
variant, and nearly 500 are the largest -400
variant.
40-737 SPECS.p6/7 22/6/05 10:49 am Page 6
-400 series
The larger 400 model can
accommodate 159 passengers in an all-
economy layout at a 32-inch seat pitch.
This is achieved with a six-feet fuselage
plug insertion forward and another four-
feet plug insertion rear of the wing. Seat
capacity increases to 168 at a higher
density 30-inch pitch. Some major US
airlines operate with a two-class cabin
layout, with eight rst class four-abreast
seats and 138 six-abreast economy seats.
The initial basic 400 model has an
MTOW of 138,500 lbs and fuel capacity
of 5,311 USG. This is powered by the
CFM56-3B2 rated at 22,000lbs thrust,
the same engine as the high weight -300.
There are two other MTOW variants
for this particular 22,000lbs engine
variant. These are the 142,500lbs
MTOW with fuel capacity of 5,701USG
(which is achieved with a 390USG
Boeing-installed auxiliary fuel tank in the
aft cargo compartment) and the
150,000lbs MTOW with fuel capacity of
6,121USG (using a 810USG Boeing-
installed auxiliary tank in the aft cargo
compartment). The higher gross weight
aircraft have strengthened undercarriages.
The higher thrust CFM56-3C1 engine
variant, which entered service in
September 1988, and is rated at
23,500lbs thrust, allows MTOWs and
fuel capacities to increase. Higher fuel
capacity is again achieved using auxiliary
fuel tanks in the aft cargo hold. The
different versions are MTOWs of
142,500lbs, 143,500lbs and 150,000lbs.
The rst has a fuel capacity of 5,803USG
(500USG Rogerson-installed auxiliary
tank), and the two higher weights have a
6,295USG fuel capacity (Rogerson-
installed 1,000USG auxiliary tank).
The CFM56-3C1 can also be de-rated
for use on the 737-300 and 500. The
3C1 is the most numerous of the
CFM56-3 family and superseded the
3B2 and 3B1.
The -400s standard range with
maximum payload is 2,160nm, while
typical range with 146 passengers is
1,960nm. Their range of the high gross
weight option with 146 passengers is
2,080nm. Its transcontinental US range
made it an ideal 727 replacement.
-500 series
Originally designated as the 737-
1000, the smaller 500 model is a direct
replacement for the 737-200 and can
accommodate 122 passengers in an all-
economy conguration at 32-inch seat
pitch. This increases to 132 at a higher
density 30-inch pitch. In a two-class
cabin layout, with eight rst class four-
abreast seats and 100 six-abreast
economy seats, but airlines rarely use this
aircraft in this conguration.
The initial basic 500 model has an
MTOW of 115,500lbs and fuel capacity
of 5,311USG. This is powered by the
CFM56-3B1 rated at 18,500 lbs thrust,
the same engine as the low weight 737-
300. There are two other MTOW
variants for this thrust rating of the 3B1.
These are the 124,500lbs MTOW with
fuel capacity of 5,701USG (which is
achieved with a 390USG Boeing-installed
auxiliary fuel tank in the aft cargo
compartment), and the 133,500lbs
MTOW with fuel capacity of 6,121USG
(using an 810USG Boeing-installed
auxiliary tank in the aft cargo
compartment).
With the same CFM56-3B1 engine,
up-rated at 20,000lbs thrust, there are
two further MTOWs available. The
124,500lbs MTOW has a fuel capacity of
5,803USG with the 500USG Rogerson-
installed auxiliary tank, and the
133,500lbs MTOW has a fuel capacity of
6295USG with the 1,000USG Rogerson-
installed auxiliary tank.
Standard range with maximum
passengers is 1,520nm, while the higher
gross weight option has a range of
2,400nm with maximum passengers.
737-300/-400/-500 SERIES SPECIFICATIONS
Variant -300 -300 -300 -300 -300 -300
MTOW lbs 124,500 130,000 135,000 137,000 138,500 139,500
Fuel volume USG 5,311 5,701 6,121 5,803 6,295 6,295
Engine CFM56-3B1 CFM56-3B1 CFM56-3B1 CFM56-3B2 CFM56-3B2 CFM56-3B2
/-3C1 /-3C1 /-3C1
Engine thrust rating lbs 20,000 20,000 20,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
Seats 128/140 128/140 128/140 128/140 128/140 128/140
Variant -400 -400 -400 -400 -400 -400
MTOW lbs 138,500 142,400 150,000 142,500 143,500 150,000
Fuel volume USG 5,311 5,701 6,121 5,803 6,295 6,295
Engine CFM56-3B2 CFM56-3B2 CFM56-3B2 CFM56-3C1 CFM56-3C1 CFM56-3C1
Engine thrust rating lbs 22,000 22,000 22,000 23,500 23,500 23,500
Seats 138/159 138/159 138/159 138/159 138/159 138/159
Variant -500 -500 -500 -500 -500
MTOW lbs 115,500 124,500 133,500 124,500 133,500
Fuel volume USG 5,311 5,701 6,121 5,803 6,295
Engine CFM56-3B1 CFM56-3B1 CFM56-3B1 CFM56-3B1 CFM56-3B1
Engine thrust rating lbs 18,500 18,500 18,500 20,000 20,000
Seats 108/122 108/122 108/122 108/122 108/122
40-737 SPECS.p6/7 22/6/05 10:49 am Page 7
O
f the 1,988 737-300s, -400s
and 500s built, more than
1,872 are still in service.
Analysis of the eet shows
that there are a good number of quality
aircraft in operation.
Of the nearly two thousand aircraft
built, 1,113 were the 300, 486 were the
larger 400 and 389 were the smallest
500. There are 1,045 -300s active, 467 -
400s active and 360 -500s active.
Of the stored aircraft, 50 are -300s,
only ve are -400s and 26 are -500s.
Most of the stored -300s are United
Airlines aircraft, with between 40,000 to
45,000 ight hours (FH) and 26,000 to
30,000 ight cycles (FC). They are all
CFM56-3C1 powered and have a
maximum take-off weight (MTOW) of
130,000lbs. The stored -400s have a total
time of about 35,000FH and 20,000FC
and are lessors aircraft. The stored -500s
are mainly United aircraft again, and are
similarly CFM56-3C1 powered. They
have an average time of 35,000FH and
25,000FC, and are the 123,500lbs
MTOW variant.
The largest eets of all variants (-
300/-400/-500) belong to America West,
China Southern Airlines, Continental
Airlines, Delta, EasyJet, KLM, Lufthansa,
Garuda, Southwest Airlines, THY
Turkish Airlines, United Airlines, US
Airways and Varig.
Some airlines have already begun to
replace their 737-300/-400/500s with
737NGs or A320 family types, although
the global 737-300/-400/500 eet shows
no real sign of decline overall. There is
some activity in conversion of some older
aircraft to freighters, but there has been a
surge in demand for passenger-congured
aircraft over the past year and supply has
diminished.
-300 series
Of the 1,113 737-300 series aircraft
built, 1,045 remain in service. Fifth of the
remainder are stored. Most are ex-United
Airlines aircraft.
The rst -300 built was line number
1001, built for USAir, in January 1984.
The last to be manufactured was for Air
New Zealand in November 1999: line
number 3130.
Southwest Airlines has the largest
eet, with 194 aircraft built between
1984 (line number 1037) and 1997 (line
number 2932). The eet is predominantly
powered by the CFM56-3B1 and has a
130,000lbs MTOW and 6,291 US
Gallons (USG) fuel capacity. About half
of these have accumulated more than
40,000FH, with the oldest at 65,140FH
and 63,612FC. The remainder average
about 30,000FH and 29,000FC. They are
all congured with 137 seats in an
economy layout.
Half of all active -300s are powered
by the CFM-3B1, with 23% (256
aircraft) equipped with the -3B2 and just
27% (294 aircraft) with the higher rated -
3C1. In terms of seat congurations, 576
are in a two-class 120- plus eight-seat
conguration. Another 288 are in normal
economy 134- to 140-seat conguration,
and 186 are in ultra-high density 148-seat
layout.
The 67 highest gross weight aircraft
at 139,500lbs MTOW, powered by -
3C1s, are operated largely by Aegean, Air
New Zealand, America West, EasyJet,
Southwest and Garuda. These aircraft
were mainly produced after 1990 and
include some of the rst -300QC
conversions. Most -300s have lower
MTOW of 130,000lbs to 135,000lbs.
There are large eet operators and
mid-sized secondary operators like
Airasia, bmiBaby, Comair, DBA, Frontier
Airlines, GOL, Hainan, Jetconnect,
Norwegian Air Shuttle, Pace Airlines,
PIA, Philippine Airlines, Rio Sul,
Shangdong Airlines and Shenzhen
Airlines. There is also a plethora of small
scheduled airlines and charter operators,
or airlines with small sub-eets.
-300 Freighter
By 2005, 52 737-300s had been
converted to freighters, but the number
being converted is increasing. The
youngest aircraft converted was built in
1997, and operates with Air Austral.
Pemco completed conversion of the
rst quick change 737-300QC in 2003.
Pemco also converts to pure freighters as
the 737-300SF. One major operator is
Europe Airpost. Other freighter operators
include Bluebird Cargo (IAI Bedek and
Pemco -300SF), Channel Express (-300SF
from IAI Bedek), China Southern/China
Post (Pemco -300QC), TNT Airways (-
300SF from IAI Bedek) and Yangtze
River Express Airlines (Pemco -300QC).
Kitty Hawk became the rst 737-
300SF operator in North America, taking
delivery in early 2005.
737-300/-400/-500
eet analysis
Most 737-300/-400/-500s remain in service.
Aircraft are in operation with a wide variety of
weight specifications & engine variants.
The majority of 737s are -300s. Half of these are
powered by the CFM56-3B1, while just less than
300 are equipped with the -3C1 engine. Many
-300s have now reached mature age.
40-737 FLEET.p12 22/6/05 10:53 am Page 8
-400 series
Of the 486 737-400 series aircraft
built, 467 are still active. Five of the
remainder are stored. The rst -400
aircraft built was for the now defunct
Piedmont Airlines (line number 1487) in
January 1988. The last was built almost
12 years later in December 1999 for CSA
Czech Airlines, and remains with it in
service.
USAirways has the largest eet of -
400s. All 46 of these aircraft are CFM56-
3B2-powered, have the lower MTOW of
142,500lbs, and are equipped with 144
seats in a two-class conguration. These
aircraft represent some of the older -400s
with total time exceeding 40,000FH and
20,000FC. Malaysian is close behind
with 38 aircraft, all with an average total
time of 27,000FH and 27,000FC.
Other major -400 operators are Air
One, Alaska Airlines, British Airways,
CSA Czech Airlines, Garuda, Japan
Transocean Air, KLM, Malaysian Air
System, Olympic, Qantas and THY
Turkish. Most of the -400 eet are
middle aged, with two-thirds of the eet
having a total time of up to 40,000FH
and 20,000FC. About a third of the eet
is the high gross weight 150,000lbs
MTOW variant, with the other three
lower weight variants being equally
represented.
Most -400s are powered by the
CFM56-3C1. In detail, 383 -400s have
the CFM56-3C1, and 65 have the -3B2.
Only 18 have the -3B1 variant, all of
which are operated by Alaska Airlines.
Most 737-400s are congured in a two-
class 144- to 150-seat layout. Only 50 are
in the high-density 170 seat, all-economy
layout.
Secondary -400 operators include
Aegean Airlines, Aerosvit Airlines, Air
Algerie, Air Europa, Air Gabon, Blue
Panorama Airlines, China Xinhua
Airlines, Hainan Airlines, JAL Express,
JAT Airways, Lion Airlines, MNG
Airlines, TUI Airlines Belgium, and Virgin
Express.
Some carriers have started to phase
the -400. Lufthansa has disposed of all its
-400s. BA has phased out six relatively
young aircraft. Aer Lingus has two of its
original six, both of which are aircraft
with less than 35,000FH and 25,000FC.
Malaysian Airlines has reduced its eet
by three aircraft. Its remaining aircraft
have interesting potential for acquisition.
Alaska Airlines is to have four of its
737-400s converted to a xed 70-
passenger/four pallet conguration. One
aircraft will be retrotted to full cargo
conguration. The aircraft will replace
the airlines retiring 737-200s.
-500 series
The smallest of the classic 737s, the -
500, was introduced as the last member
of the family. Of the 389 737-500 series
aircraft built, 360 are still active. Of the
remainder, 26 are stored or inactive.
The rst -500 aircraft built was for
Southwest Airlines, line number 1718, in
May 1989. The last was line number
3116, built in June 1999. Most -500s
have stayed with their original operator.
Because it is a shrink of the original -
300, the trip costs of the -500 are the
lowest for the family. These make it an
attractive aircraft for small operators, or
start-ups, which wish to take a lower risk
on lling aircraft on new or thin routes. It
is also a good aircraft to serve point-to-
point routes in markets like the US.
The largest eet of -500s by far is
Continental Airlines with 64, all of which
are currently active. Half are tted with
the lower rated CFM56-3B1 engine and
the remainder have the newer, higher
rated CFM56-3C1. They are all the low
gross weight basic version with a MTOW
of 115,500lbs, and have a 5,307USG fuel
capacity and 104-seat, two-class
conguration.
They were all built after December
1993 and have an average total time of
about 30,000FH/23,000FC. Aircraft
range from 16,000FH/9,000FC up to
31,500FH/16,500FC.
United has the next largest eet, with
38 of the heavier 123,501lbs MTOW -
3C1 powered variant, again with a 104-
seat, two-class layout. These all have a
total time of about 37,000FH/27,000 FC,
and six are in storage. Four of Uniteds
aircraft have been sold to Canjet Airlines.
Other large -500 eets are with Air
France, All Nippon Airways (ANA), BA
(all used), China Southern Airlines, CSA
Czech Airlines, Lufthansa, SAS Norway
(Braathens) and Southwest Airlines.
Airlines that have phased them out, or
are beginning to phase them out, are SAS
Norway (Braathens), Maersk and
Malaysian.
There are 111 aircraft with the lowest
MTOWs between 108,000lbs and
115,500lbs. Another 211 aircraft have
intermediate MTOWs between
116,500lbs and 124,500lbs. There are
another 62 aircraft with highest MTOWs
between 127,500lbs and 133,500lbs.
One-third of the -500 eet are
equipped with the lowest thrust CFM56-
3B1, and two-thirds with the highest
thrust -3C1 variant. Only three ANA
aircraft have the CFM56-3B2.
Secondary -500 operators include
small regional carriers and some start-up
low-cost carriers in Europe. The -500
also forms a small part of larger mixed
737 eets. Operators include Aerolineas
Argentinas, Air Baltic, Bmibaby,
Britannia Airways, DBA, Estonian Air,
Garuda Indonesian Airways, Hapag-
Lloyd Express, LOT Polish Airlines,
Luxair, Maersk Air, Royal Air Maroc,
VARIG and Xiamen Airlines.
While not many are readily available,
there are a number of low- to middle-
aged aircraft that would be interesting for
start-up or small airlines increasing
aircraft size. CFM56-3C1-powered
aircraft are most attractive.
There are almost 500 active -400s, and most of
these are powered with the -3C1 engine. The
-400 is the variant in highest demand on the
used market.
40-737 FLEET.p12 22/6/05 10:53 am Page 9
AIRCRAFT COMMERCE ISSUE NO. 40 APRIL/MAY 2005
T
here is a wide range of
mandatory and voluntary
upgrades and modications for
the 737-300/-400/-500 that
enhances their operatibility and allows
continued operation. These modications
include several passenger-to-freighter
conversions for the -300 and -400.
Besides conversion to freighter, the
main modication and upgrade
programmes for the 737-300/-400/-500
family include: performance enhancement
kits; auxiliary fuel tank installations;
CFM56-3 engine upgrades; and avionics
installations.
Performance enhancement
Aviation Partners Boeing
Some of the design work that has
been done for the 737NG family (-BBJ/-
600/-700/-800/-900) has beneted the
classic family. Aviation Partners Boeing
(APB) has certied the Blended Winglet
modication, originally developed for the
737-BBJ business jet and the 737-700/-
800, for the 737-300. It is not yet
available for the -400 or -500.
Aircraft modied with Blended
Winglets carry the SP sufx on their
variant number to designate for special
performance. Launched by AirPlus
Comet on the 737-300 programme, the
Blended Winglet received FAA
certication on May 30th 2003. We
anticipate extensive market penetration
with our Blended Winglets for the 737-
300 and -400, says Sheldon Best, vice
president of sales at Aviation Partners
Boeing. Blended Winglets pay off in fuel
savings, performance improvements and
environmental benets.
The total block fuel saving benet of
a 737-300SP is up to 4.5%, about half a
per cent better than weve achieved with
737NGs, says Mike Marino, chief
executive ofcer at APB. The average
737-300, ying 2,900 ight hours (FH)
per year with an average ight cycle (FC)
time of 1.5FH, will save over 65,000 US
gallons (USG) of fuel per year.
The environmental benets of
Blended Winglets include reduced noise
on take-off and landing, decreased engine
emissions, and reduced engine
maintenance requirements. Installation
requires a revision to the avionics and
ightdeck to install the Load Alleviation
System (LAS) controller and LAS
speedbrake auto-Stow mechanism. LAS is
not required for aircraft with an MTOW
of less than 125,000lbs. A full suite of
manual supplements is delivered with the
Blended Winglet modication.
The modication is estimated to take
2,260-2,360 manhours (MH) and has a
span time of eight to 10 days. The list
price is $450,000 for the 737-300.
Operators look at the winglet
modication for a number of economic
reasons, but it also improves performance
from airports with operating limitations.
Another benet comes from reduced
engine maintenance costs. Lower thrust
levels extend on-wing life and reduce
EGT margin degradation. Take-off thrust
levels typically are reduced by about 3%
and cruise thrust levels by about 4%. The
nal benet is higher residual value for
the aircraft, since its operational life is
longer than an un-modied aircrafts.
The main purpose of the Blended
Winglet is to reduce wingtip vortice drag,
which reduces fuel burn on all phases of
ight. The largest fuel savings are made
with the longest stage lengths. Fleet
studies show that average sector lengths
for the 737- 300 and -400 are 750-
980nm. In both cases, the average
reduction in block fuel is about 3.2%.
Fuel burn reduction for longer routes is
up to 5%. The 737-300s fuel burn of
about 1,550USG for a 750nm trip length
will be reduced by about 55USG. Annual
utilisations for many US and European
and other similar operations generate
1,800 ight cycles (FC) each year. At
these rates of utilisation, total fuel burn
saved will be about 100,000USG, equal
to $121,000 per aircraft annually (see
table, page 11). This will allow operators
to realise a payback from installation of
the kit in ve to six years, based on
acquiring the kit at list price.
737-300/-400/-500
modication programmes
The 737-300/-400/-500 remains viable for passenger operations. A range
of performance modifications & engine upgrades are available, in addition
to mandatory avionic upgrades and freighter conversion programmes.
There are three performance modifications
available for the 737-300. These all reduce drag
with the consequence of reducing fuel burn by 3-
5%, depending on modification. At current fuel
prices, the cost of these upgrades are paid f0r
within 18-60 months.
AvAero
Performance enhancement
modications do not all involve major
structural changes. One provider of
enhancements for the 737 classic family is
AvAero from Florida, which offers its
FuelMizer modication. Based upon
enhancing the aerodynamic effectiveness
of the wing, FuelMizer is an FAA-
approved modication for the 737
classics, including the freighter version of
the aircraft. AvAero claims the FuelMizer
is the only wing modication for the 737
-200, -300, -400, & -500 series designed
to improve lift and aerodynamic
performance without costly structural
modications. FuelMizer enhances the
aerodynamic efciency of the wing by
increasing the aircrafts lift-to-drag ratio.
By reducing induced drag, a by-product
of lift, the FuelMizer modication is able
to deliver typical fuel savings of up to
4%. The aft segments of the trailing edge
aps are relocated aft and below their
standard locations when in the retracted
position. These changes result in
increased wing area, and airfoil camber,
and a lengthened wing chord. AvAero
calculates typical fuel savings of between
50 and 80 USG per ight, depending on
stage length. A 90 minute ight time and
annual utilisation of 1,800FC would save
about 90,000USG and $107,000 per year
(see table, this page). The AvAero kit has
a list price of $135,000.
Importantly there is no change to
operational or ight procedures. One
recent customer is Kitty Hawk, which has
chosen to install the AvAero FuelMizer
solution for its 737-300SFs in
conjunction with a passenger-to-freighter
conversion from Bedek.
Based on test ights with other
airlines, Kitty Hawk expects to realise as
much as a 4% fuel saving. In typical use,
the modication can reduce jet fuel
consumption by thousands of gallons per
year per aircraft.
Quiet Wing Technologies
Quiet Wing Technologies Inc has
developed a new noise reduction and
performance kit for the 737-200 and
737-300/-400/-500 series. Customers
have the option of installing just the wing
conguration changes for added
performance (performance kit) or the
acoustic treatments and wing
conguration changes (noise and
performance kit), with the additional
option of adding winglets to either
conguration for further performance
and fuel savings. The overall effect is
improved operating performance and
reduced fuel burn, plus a reduction in
aircraft noise, which helps the aircraft
achieve Stage 4 compliance.
Total list price for the noise,
performance and winglet kit ranges
between $295,000 and $645,000,
depending on options and the original
conguration of the aircraft being
modied. An additional cost is
installation. The performance kit alone
requires about 1,200MH, which adds
$60,000. Installation of the winglets
requires a further 600MH, adding
another $30,000.
The reduction in drag relates to a
reduction in fuel burn through all phases
of ight. Savings in fuel burn are 2-3%
for modied aircraft without winglets
and 5-6% with winglets installed.
At an annual utilisation of 1,800FC,
the performance kit will save about
67,000USG of fuel and about $81,000,
while adding the winglets will increase
the savings to 112,000USG of fuel and
$134,000 (see table, this page).
It is not yet clear what operating
performance and payload enhancements
the 737-300/-400/-500 will gain from the
kit, but the additional available payload
and revenue generated will reduce the
payback period for investing in the kit.
Kits for 737 classics will be available after
FAA ight testing and receiving STC.
Engine upgrades
The initial variant of the CFM56-3
was the -3B1, which was rated at
20,000lbs thrust and 18,500lbs thrust.
The -3B2 was introduced and rated at
22,000lbs thrust, and the -3C1 was rated
at 23,500lbs thrust. These could also be
de-rated to lower thrusts, and so the -3C1
could be rated at all four thrust ratings.
There are three main upgrade kits
available on the CFM56-3 series, all of
which improve reliability: a major Time-
On-Wing (TOW) extension; an Enhanced
Performance kit; and an Enhanced
Durability kit. These kits improve
reliability.
Younger CFM56-3C1s reach more
than 25,000 engine ight hours (EFH)
before their rst shop visit. Expected rst-
run life of more than 16,000EFH make
these one of the most durable engines in
operation. Older -3C1s, and -3B2s and -
3B1s achieve shorter on-wing intervals
than the youngest -3C1s.
The rst major modication CFMI
offers is the TOW; this is a core upgrade,
based on CFM56-7B technology, which
CFMI claims will save up to 1% specic
fuel consumption. The kit also increases
exhaust gas temperature (EGT) margins
by about 15 degrees centigrade, thereby
giving the engine about 1,500-2,500EFH.
The TOW package costs about $1.2
million.
The kit features the same advanced
three-dimensional high pressure
compressor aerodynamics (3-D aero) and
new high pressure turbine hardware as
the CFM56-7B. The TOW modication
was launched by Southwest Airlines in
2001 with an order for 300 kits.
Earlier build engines had problems
with the HPT nozzle guide vane and
other parts like C-clips. Some earlier
build engines used X40 material for the
high pressure turbine (HPT) nozzles of
which the nozzle areas tended to open
during operation, causing EGT margin to
erode. A new material, DSR142, released
in 1990, made the nozzles more stable so
that EGT margin deterioration was not as
rapid. As earlier build engines have gone
through shop visits, their older hardware
has been replaced with younger material,
thereby improving their reliability and
EGT margin deterioration rates.
Operations, average ight cycle time,
route network, and ambient temperatures
all have an impact on the rate of EGT
ISSUE NO. 40 APRIL/MAY 2005 AIRCRAFT COMMERCE
PERFORMANCE UPGRADE PROGRAMMES FOR THE 737-300
Modification APB AvAero QuietWing QuietWing
programme Blended FuelMizer Performance Performance
Winglet & Winglet
Kit list price $450,000 $135,000 $400,000 $550,000
Install MH 2,000 250 1,200 1,800
Install cost $100,000 $12,500 $60,000 $90,000
Annual FC 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800
Fuel burn 4.50% 4.00% 3.00% 5.00%
improvement
Annual fuel 100,800 89,600 67,200 112,000
saving USG
(Average 90 minute
flight time)
Annual fuel saving 120,960 107,520 80,640 134,400
(Fuel at $1.2 per USG)
margin deterioration and time on-wing
between removals.
The need for performance and life
improvement modications on CFM56-
3s therefore depends on the engine
variant and build date, type of HPT
nozzle guide vanes, and style of
operation.
Earlier in 2004, CFMI launched two
more upgrade kits: the Enhanced
Performance kit and the Enhanced
Durability kit, giving customers more
exibility in managing maintenance costs.
The Enhanced Performance kit
includes the 3-D aero HPC blades and
vanes, and provides increased exhaust gas
temperature (EGT) margin that translates
to as much as 40% longer on-wing life,
depending on airline operations.
The Enhanced Durability kit reduces
part scrap rates by 50%, thereby
reducing maintenance costs. This kit is
available now and CFMI has received
four orders to date. KLM has ordered 31
Advanced Upgrades and Air China ve.
Freighter conversion
The 737-300SF/-400SF (Special
Freighter) and QC (Quick Change) are
ideal successors for the 727-100 and 737-
200. The 737-300SF/-400SF have an
identical fuselage cross-section to the
727-100/-200, allowing them to use the
same pallets and containers. There are
three main freighter conversion
programmes for the 737-300/-400. There
is no freighter conversion available for
the -500. Conversions are offered by Bedek
Aviation in Israel, by Pemco, Alabama in
the US, and by Boeing Airplane Services
with the aircraft modied either by
Goodrich in the US or InterContinental
Aircraft Services (ICAS) in Taiwan.
Bedek Aviation
Bedek launched its conversion
programmes for the 737-300 in June
2001, with a launch order from GE
Capital Aviation Services (GECAS) to
convert 15 aircraft to a Special Freighter
(-300SF) conguration. Bedeks
additional 737-300 conversion program
is the 737300QC (Quick Change).
The conversions have received their
STCs from the leading aviation
authorities (FAA, EASA, UK CAA and
others). The 737-300SF received its STC
in September 2003, and the 737-300QC
(Quick Change) received its STC in
April 2004. The 737-400SF/QC STC is
expected in the last quarter of 2006. The
price for standard 737-300 conversion
from Bedek is less than $3 million.
The 737SF conversion requires a 60-
day cycle, and Bedek operates more than
one conversion line. The conversion
consists of removing all passenger-related
interior items and associated wiring, and
installing of freighter liners.
Floor beams are tted as required to
meet cargo load requirements, including
the additional pallet (60.4-inch X 79-inch
X 64-inch or 60.4-inch X 96-inch X 64-
inch) in the rear position.
There are three standard 737-300SF
maindeck cargo congurations. One main
option is eight 88-inch X 125-inch X 82-
inch containers plus one 60.4-inch X 96-
inch X 64-inch container (see table, this
page). Each of the main containers has a
tare weight of 476lbs and internal volume
of 440 cubic feet. The nine containers
therefore have a total tare weight of
4,308lbs and volume of 3,672 cubic feet
(see table, this page).
The specication weights are:
maximum take-off weight (MTOW)
139,500lbs; maximum zero fuel weight
(MZFW) 109,600lbs; maximum landing
weight (MLW) 113,600lbs; and operating
empty weight (OEW) 66,500lbs. Exact
weights will differ for each customised
conguration. This gives the aircraft a
gross structural payload of 43,100lbs. An
allowance of 500lbs for crew weight
should be given.
The aircraft also has a lower deck
volume of 1,068 cubic feet, taking total
volume for freight to 4,740 cubic feet (see
table, this page). The crew weight and
tare weight of containers give the aircraft
a net structural payload of 38,562lbs.
This volume allows a maximum
packing density of 8.2lbs per cubic foot.
With freight packed at 7.0lbs per cubic
foot, the aircraft has a volumetric
payload of 33,180lbs.
Pemco
Pemco World Air Services is the other
main provider of 737-300 passenger-to-
freighter modication.
Following Pemcos modication, the
aircraft will have an MZFW of
109,600lbs. OEW varies with conversion,
with an average weight of 68,298lbs. This
gives the aircraft a gross structural payload
of 40,802lbs (see table, this page).
The maindeck has capacity for eight
standard containers and a smaller ninth
container, with an internal volume of 152
cubic feet and tare weight of 230lbs.
Total maindeck volume is therefore 3,672
cubic feet (see table, this page). These
nine containers have a combined tare
weight of 4,038lbs, which takes the net
structural payload to 36,264lbs (see
table, this page). The aircraft also has
1,068 cubic feet of space below the
maindeck, taking total freight volume to
PAYLOAD CHARACTERISTICS 737-300SF/-400SFAircraft Pemco Bedek Boeing
Aircraft Bedek Pemco Boeing Boeing
type 737-300SF 737-300SF 737-300SF 737-400SF
MZFW-lbs 109,600 109,600 109,600 113,000
OEW-lbs 66,500 68,298 68,100 71,050
Gross structural payload-lbs 43,100 40,802 41,500 41,950
Crew weight-lbs 500 500 500 500
Number maindeck containers 8 +1 8 + 1 8 9
Type maindeck containers 82/88/125 82/88/125 82/88/125 82/88/125
Unit tare weight maindeck containers-lbs 476/230 476/230 476 476
Unit volume maindeck containers-cu ft 440/152 440/152 440 440
Total tare weight maindeck containers-lbs 4,038 4,038 3,808 4,284
Total volume maindeck containers-cu ft 3,672 3,672 3,520 3,960
Lowerdeck volume-cu ft 1,068 1,068 1,068 1,376
Net structural payload-lbs 38,562 36,264 37,192 37,166
Total volume-cu ft 4,740 4,740 4,588 5,336
Maximum packing density-lbs/cu ft 8.24 7.65 8.10 7.00
Volumetric payload @ 7.0lbs/cu ft 33,180 33,180 32,116 37,352
4,740 cubic feet. The aircraft can thus
have a maximum packing density of
7.65lbs per cubic foot. Freight packed at
7.0lbs per cubic foot generates a volumetric
payload of 33,180lbs.
In October 2003 Pemco completed
conversion of the rst 737-300QC. The
QC aircraft is designed to provide
maximum utilisation and revenue by
allowing passenger use during the day
and cargo operations at night,
comments Hal Chrisman at Pemco World
Air Services. China Southern is a major
customer for the QC. The rst two 737-
300 aircraft being delivered to China
Southern will be QCs and the next two
will be all-cargo aircraft. All four 737-
300s are leased from GECAS.
Passenger seats in the 737-300QC
aircraft can be removed within 45
minutes, so that the aircraft can be
available for freight operations. Seats can
be quickly locked back into place and
ready for passenger service.
Converted aircraft will be equipped
with all of Pemcos latest upgrades,
including the Pemco redesigned main
cargo door, says Chrisman. These
features are unique to Pemco, and
increase aircraft dispatch reliability and
reduce maintenance costs. Each QC can
accommodate eight cargo containers with
a payload of about 38,000lbs, while the
737-300SF can carry nine cargo containers
with a capacity of up to 40,000lbs.
Boeing Airplane Services
Boeing has entered the conversion
market in a teaming agreement with
Goodrich and ICAS, offering
modications for the -300SF and -400SF.
Under the agreement, all three
companies worked together in a
partnership to develop a 737 passenger-
to-freighter conversion program. ICAS is
an alliance of major Taiwanese
companies, including Air Asia, China
Airlines (25%), Evergreen Aviation
Technologies, and Aerospace Industrial
Development Corp. They are also
members of Boeing Airplane Services
international network of modication
and engineering facilities. A QC option is
also being evaluated.
Under the agreement, the partnership
is led by Boeing Airplane Services, which
will provide proprietary data and
technical expertise. The STC is owned by
Boeing, ensuring that customers can
obtain round-the-clock support from the
Boeing global network of Field Service
representatives.
ICAS and Goodrich perform aircraft
modications at their facilities in Taiwan
and in Everett in the US.
The -300SF modication carries eight
maindeck 88-inch x 125-inch pallets,
providing 3,520 cubic feet of maindeck
palletised volume and 1,068 cubic feet of
bulk volume in the lower cargo hold.
This takes total available volume to
4,588 cubic feet (see table, page 12).
The specication weights are: MTOW
139,500lbs; MLW 116,600lbs; MZFW
109,600lbs; and OEW 68,100lbs.
Maximum structural payload is
41,500lbs. Deducting tare and crew
weight, the aircraft has a net structural
payload of 37,192lbs (see table, page 12).
This gives the aircraft a maximum
packing density of 8.10lbs per cubic foot.
For the -400SF, there are nine
maindeck pallets providing a volume of
3,960 cubic feet. Combined with 1,376
cubic feet of bulk volume in the lower
cargo hold, the aircrafts total available
volume is 5,336 cubic feet. The
specication weights are: MTOW
143,500lbs; MLW 121,000lbs; MZFW
113,000lbs; and OEW of 71,050lbs.
Maximum structural payload is
41,950lbs. The container tare weight
gives the aircraft a net structural payload
of 37, 166lbs (see table, page 12).
Avionic upgrades
There are various avionics upgrades
that 737 -300/-400/-500 owners and
operators need to consider.
The following modications are
mandatory on all aircraft in Europe. Two
sets of VHF communication transceivers
must be installed an operational with
8.33kHz frequency spacing above FL245.
Trafc collision avoidance systems
(TCAS) have already been mandated.
Terrain awareness and warning systems
are also mandatory, currently known as
enhanced ground proximity warning
systems (EGPWS), but this requirement is
expected to expand with technology.
Reduced vertical separation minima
(RVSM) is mandatory in Europe and
Atlantic ocean areas to support higher
trafc densities.
The basic form of area navigation
requirements (B-RNAV) is mandatory in
Europe, with precision (P-RNAV)
optional for now, but will soon be
required to y into major airports in the
near future with preferential slots.
Mode-S transponders are also
mandatory, with the Elementary and
Enhanced Surveillance becoming
mandatory in 2007.
Requirements differ in North
America. As with Europe, 8.33kHz
frequency spacing and 25kHz frequency
spacing are mandated. TCAS mandatory
effectivity was extended to January 2005
and EGPWS also became mandatory in
2005. Mode-S transponders are
mandatory as in Europe.
Requirements vary widely outside
Europe and North America, making it
difcult to generalise. Radio spacing,
TCAS and EGPWS are either mandatory
already or in progress.
Typical costs for mandatory avionics
modications per aircraft are as follows:
VHF radio spacing requires parts and
wiring modication and costs about
$110,000 and uses about 50 man-hours
(MH), RVSM is typically $30,000 and
30MH, EGPWS/TAWS is about $80,000
and 100MH, and TCAS and Mode-S is
$250,000 and 800MH.
A small number of 737-300s have been
converted to freighter. STCs will be available for
-400 conversions from late 2006. Market
forecasts predict about 250 737-300/-400s will
be converted to freighter over the next 20 years.
T
he 737-300/-400/-500 was
developed with a maintenance
steering group 2 (MSG2)
maintenance programme. Some
airlines have bridged the aircraft on to an
MSG3 maintenance programme. The
737s maintenance requirements include
line maintenance, base airframe checks,
heavy component repair and overhaul,
line replaceable unit (LRU) rotable
components, engine maintenance and
spare engine support.
This analysis considers the 737-300/-
400/-500s maintenance requirements and
overall maintenance cost budget for
aircraft operated at an average ight cycle
(FC) time of 1.25 ight hours (FH) and a
typical utilisation of 2,500FH and
2,000FC per year.
Maintenance programme
The 737-300/-400/-500s line
maintenance programme is standard with
all other aircraft types. It has a pre-ight
check performed before the rst ight of
each day, a transit check prior to all
subsequent ights during the day and a
daily check performed every 24 hours.
Most 737s are operated on short-haul
operations during the day and so daily
checks are performed overnight in most
cases.
The 737-300/-400/-500 has a basic A
check interval of 250FH, and four A
check multiples of 1A, 2A, 4A and 8A
items. These can be grouped into block
checks or equalised.
When grouped into block checks the
A8 check is the heaviest and completes
the cycle at an interval of 2,000FH. The
A1, A3, A5 and A7 checks have just the
1A tasks, while the A2 and A6 checks
have the 1A and 2A tasks. The A4 check
has the 1A, 2A and 4A tasks, while the
A8 has all four multiples.
Air New Zealand Engineering
Services (ANZES) has a system under
which it performs its A checks as
equalised checks, which are further split
to allow checks to be tted into overnight
maintenance slots.
The 737-300/-400/-500s maintenance
planning document also has a similar
block check system for C check tasks.
The basic C check interval is 4,000FH,
and so two A check cycles are completed
every C check interval.
The C check items are packaged into
the 1C, 2C, 4C, 6C and 8C items, as well
as the structural inspection (SI) tasks.
There are two ways these tasks can be
grouped into a system of checks,
explains Li Qiang, manager of
engineering subdivision at Ameco Beijing.
There can be a system of eight checks in
the C check cycle, with the 6C and SI
tasks being performed in the C6 check,
and the 8C items in the C8 check. This
makes two heavy checks. The 1C, 2C and
4C tasks are performed at their
appropriate intervals, so that the C1, C3,
C5 and C7 checks have the 1C tasks, the
C2 check has the 1C and 2C items, and
the C4 has the 1C, 2C and 4C tasks. This
way the 6C and SI items get out of phase
with all the other tasks, since the 6C and
SI items will be performed again at the
twelfth C check, or the fourth C check in
the next C check cycle.
The other system that can be
followed is that 7C and 8C tasks are
brought forward to the C6 check and the
cycle is completed at this check,
continues Qiang. This sixth check
would have all the heavy tasks and is
termed the D check.
ANZES operates the system of
completing the C check cycle with the
heaviest check at the C6 check. Our C
check has a basic interval of 4,500FH,
4,000FC and 15 months, whichever is
reached rst, explains Viv de Beus,
customer support manager for ANZES.
Considering that most aircraft achieve
about 2,500FH per year, about 3,000FH
are accumulated in the 15-month
interval. This means the full C check cycle
is completed about once every 85-90
months (about seven years) and every
18,000-19,000FH, rather than the
maximum interval of 27,000FH that is
allowed by the basic C checks FH
interval. We operate a block check
system, so the checks vary in size, with
the C4 and C6/D checks being the largest.
The C1, C3 and C5 checks just have the
1C items and so are the smallest.
Some operators have modied their
maintenance programmes, and even
bridged to an MSG3 system. KLM
operates 14 737-300s and 13 -400s. We
changed our eet to an MSG3 in 2004,
says Ton de Geest, project engineer
maintenance programs at KLM
Engineering & Maintenance. We did
737-300/-400/-500
maintenance analysis
The 737-300/-400/-500 have competitive
maintenance costs for aircraft in their size class.
Careful management of maintenance costs will
ensure the aircraft remain economic.
The 737-300/-400/-500s line maintenance
programme results in labour and material costs
in the region of $290-355 per FH, not including
supply of LRUs.
this in conjunction with a Boeing
working group. The main difference to an
MSG2 programme is that an MSG3
system allows the operator to group each
task into checks that suit its operation.
This means tasks with escalated intervals
can keep their escalations, while others
can be re-grouped into new checks. We
have pre-ight, transit and overnight
checks in our line maintenance
programme like all other operators, as
well as out-of-phase tasks that are either
added to overnight checks or performed
separately. We have an A check interval
of 550FH, and basic C check interval of
4,000FH, 4,000FC and 18 months.
The new MSG3 programme has
effectively re-arranged tasks, deleted some
and added others. The MSG2 programme
had separate structural items and
corrosion prevention and control
programme (CPCP) items, as well as
others, explains de Geest. These have
been re-arranged and an enhanced zonal
programme has been added to the MSG3
system. The number of tasks overall has
been reduced. In the meantime we have
transferred the eet to a new schedule in
the MSG2 system where we have a base
check cycle of six C checks. We had a
problem in that some structural tasks had
different initial and repeat intervals,
which got more frequent as the aircraft
got older. This meant checks were
gradually getting heavier and less
predictable in terms of content. The new
system has all structural items
concentrated in the 3C and 6C checks,
and the 1C, 2C, 4C and 5C checks are
light. These four are all similar in content,
while all the structural tasks have the
same intervals. The system means that
every third check is a heavy check, with
an interval of 54 months (four and a half
years). This system should result in less
overall MH per heavy-check cycle than
the previous block-check system which
was more complicated. This is because
repetition of access required during
lighter checks is avoided, and is only
required during heavy checks. The 3C
group of tasks, however, actually has
some CPCP items that have an interval of
48 months. We therefore adjusted the C3
interval to 48 months, and the C6
interval to 96 months (eight years).
The 737-300/-400/-500 eet was built
between 1984 and 1999, and so aircraft
are now between six and 21 years old.
The base check interval of about seven
years means that most aircraft will not
have had more than two D checks and
will be in either their rst or second base
check cycle.
Line maintenance
On the basis of an aircraft operating
for 350 days per year and completing
about 2,000FC, about 350 pre-ight and
350 daily checks will be performed each
year. A further 1,650 transit checks will
be completed annually, and if weekly
checks are included in the maintenance
schedule then about 50 will be performed
each year.
The number of MH used and
consumption of materials and
consumables for all of these checks can
be totalled and compared to annual
utilisation to provide a cost per FH for
ramp checks.
MH and material consumption for A
checks can also be analysed on the same
basis. The length of the A check cycle in
terms of calendar time will depend on the
A check interval and number in the cycle.
As an example, ANZES has a phased
A check interval of 250FH. Because of a
daily utilisation of about 7FC, the actual
interval it achieves between A checks is
likely to be about 125FC. On this basis
the number of ramp and line checks
performed in the complete A check cycle
is similar to the number completed in a
year.
Estimations of MH used during ramp
checks vary widely between operators.
This is due to variations in how line
mechanics hours are recorded, how
extensively the aircraft are cleaned and
how defects are addressed. The MH used
to have the most inuence on the total
number of MH consumed in the complete
A check cycle. Pre-ight and transit
checks consume a similar number of MH,
which total about 2.0, says de Beus.
This is enough for 1.0MH for routine
items and another 1.0MH to cover
defaults arising during operation. Also
included in these MH are general
servicing requirements. The cost of
materials and consumables covers items
such as oil and water. An amount which
can be used for budgeting purposes is
about $15 per check.
A daily check requires 2.0-3.0MH
for engineering items, and again general
servicing requirements. This is the
evaluation of dealing with technical log
items. Cleaning and cabin work will add
MH, although this can be done by a third
party, continues de Beus.
Michael Keller, manager of
production of engineering and planning
at Ameco Beijing estimates that a daily
check can consume up to an average of
13.5MH. Again, the cost for materials
and consumables will be relatively light.
Operators can use $50 per check as a
budget for material and consumable
consumption for daily checks.
Keller says that material and
consumable cost overall for pre-ight,
transit and daily checks can total about
$7 per FH.
Some operators include weekly checks
in their line maintenance schedules to
complete out-of-phase tasks. These tasks
can also be added to the content of daily
checks.
Over the course of a year, a 737-300/-
400/-500 will consume 8,000-10,000MH
for the 2,300-2,400 ramp checks
completed. This will be equal to a
consumption of 3.2-4.0MH per FH. With
While most operators have retained an MSG2
maintenance programme for the 737, KLM has
recently bridged its fleet to an MSG3 programme.
This effectively rearranges tasks and the total
number in the programme has overall been
reduced. The system is expected to make the
work content of base checks more predictable,
and result in less man-hours consumed.
labour for line maintenance charged at an
industry standard of $70 per MH, this is
equal to a cost of $220-275 per FH.
Consumption of materials and
consumables adds $7-20 per FH, taking
total cost to $230-295 per FH (see table,
page 22).
A checks vary in size and so does the
use of MH and materials. The block
check system we operate has MH
consumptions of about 85MH for A1,
A3, A5 and A7 checks, says Keller. The
larger A2 and A6 checks use about
125MH, the A4 check consumes about
235MH and the largest A8 uses about
325MH.
Amecos schedule of an A check cycle
of eight checks has an interval of
2,000FH, although the actual interval
achieved is likely to be close to 1,600FH
considering the utilisation of the A check
interval achieved by most operators. MH
consumption for all eight checks totals
about 1,150. This is equal to about
0.7MH per FH. A labour rate of $70 per
MH takes labour cost per FH to $50.
Keller estimates the average material and
consumable cost for A checks at about
$1,500, totalling $12,000 for the cycle
and equal to another $8 per FH. This
takes total cost per FH for cost of A
checks to about $60 per FH (see table,
page 22).
de Beus explains that under ANZESs
1/2 A check system, each half uses an
average of about 40MH and about $200-
500 in materials and consumables.
Although line replaceable units
(LRUs) are exchanged during line
maintenance, the capital cost of these
parts and additional charges for repairs
and management are accounted for as a
separate item.
Base maintenance checks
As described, there are several ways a
base maintenance programme can be
organised. ANZES follows the system of
block checks, with the cycle being
completed at the C6 check. The total
number of MH used in each check in the
series depends on how the programme is
structured, as well as the content,
explains de Beus. Besides routine
inspections and non-routine tasks that
arise as a consequence, several other
items have to be added. These are
airworthiness directives (ADs), service
bulletins (SBs), modications and
engineering orders (EOs), component
changes such as landing gear or thrust
reversers, non-routine repairs to
components, interior work, and the
supplemental structural inspection
document (SSID) and CPCP. The heavier
checks towards the end of the cycle will
have a higher level of interior work for
refurbishment of panels, lavatories and
galleys. They will also include stripping
and painting.
ANZES manages Air New Zealands
eet of 12 737-300, as well as
Freedomairs four aircraft, and
Jetconnects domestic eet of nine aircraft
in New Zealand. These are aircraft built
between the late 1980s and 1999, many
of which are still in or have completed
their rst C check cycle, but have not got
to their second D check, says de Beus.
Based on a review of several
maintenance providers, the industry
average for C1, C3 and C5 checks is
about 5,000MH for the whole content.
Only about 1,200-1,500MH of this is
used for the MPD element and interior
work. The remainder is used for ADs,
SBs, modications, EOs and component
changes and all non-routine maintenance.
The check uses about $125,000 for
materials, consumables and some
component repair activity.
A C2 check is slightly heavier and
uses about 6,500MH when all items are
considered and in the region of $150,000
or materials, consumables and some
component repair activity. The C4 check
is one of the heavier checks experienced
by operators, and consumes an average of
8,000MH when all items are considered,
plus about $200,000 in materials,
consumables and component repairs.
Depending on the operator, the
C6/C7 or D check is the largest check,
and can include some signicant
modication packages. A lot of SBs and
ADs are often completed in these checks
so that the aircraft is clear until the next
C check. Average consumption for a rst
D check is about 13,000MH plus another
1,500MH for stripping and re-painting.
The cost of materials, consumables and
some component repairs can vary widely,
since the degree to which interior parts
and items in the interior are either
refurbished or replaced also varies widely.
The cost of component repairs is also
highest in this check, since items such as
ap tracks are repaired during these
checks. A typical range is $300,000-
800,000, with an average of $550,000.
These checks are also often required for
aircraft at the end of a lease agreement,
when bridging maintenance and changes
to avionics and components are required.
Total MH consumption for base
checks over the rst C check cycle is
about 45,000. Charged at an industry
average labour rate of $50 per MH, total
labour cost is $2.3 million. Total cost of
materials, consumables and component
repairs is about $1.3 million. This total
cost for labour and materials amortised
over the interval of 18,600-20,000FH
works out at an average of 2.4MH per
FH, and total cost for base maintenance
Fckker Servloes B.v.
l. 0. Bcx 3
4630 ^^ Hcceerhelde
The Netherlands
Tel. +31 164 61 82 07
Fax +31 164 61 86 66
Fckker Servloes. lno.
5169 Scuthrldee larkwav
Sulte 100
^tlanta. C^ 30349
U.S.^.
Tel. +1 770 991 43 73
Fax +1 770 991 43 60
Fckker Servloes ^sla lte. Ltd
Bulldlne 139. llooadlllv
Last Camp. Seletar ^lrpcrt
Slneapcre 798378
Slneapcre
Tel. +65 64 81 10 80
Fax +65 64 81 14 38
www.fckkerservloes.ocm www.mvfckkerfleet.ocm www.mvflrstfckker.ocm
'^n experlenoed wcrkfcroe. dedloated
hanear & shcp faollltles and ocmprehenslve
ocmpcnent cverhaul & repalr oapabllltles.
enable cnestcp shcpplne fcr 737 heavv
oheoks and mcdlfoatlcns. Sc. whv nct
ocnslder Fckker Servloes fcr vcur next
malntenanoe vlslt?`
@9OUR FLEXIBLE SOLUTION
Rlohard 1aocbs.
vloe lresldent
Marketlne & Sales
;ncw ls the tlme fcr &OKKER=
checks is $180-195 per FH (see table,
page 22).
Ameco Beijings C check programme
is similar to that of ANZES. A total of
about 15,000MH are consumed for the
rst D check, which includes labour for
MPD tasks, engineering orders and
modications and component repairs,
says Torsten Kurznack, manager
subdivision of aircraft overhaul at Ameco
Beijing. Material consumption for the
check is about $300,000 which is for
materials and consumables, but does not
include the cost of component repairs.
The MH consumed for the second D
check will rise over the rst, mainly
because of an increase in the non-routine
ratio. About 8,000MH will be required
for routine and CPCP tasks, about
another 5,000MH for non-routine tasks,
about 4,000 for EOs and modications,
2,300MH for component repairs and
another 1,600MH for stripping and re-
painting. This would be a total of about
21,000MH. Total material cost for these
heavier checks has averaged about
$550,000.
Total MH for the second base check
cycle is about 52,000, depending on the
non-routine ratio. This increase, plus a
rise of total material costs to about $1.6
million over the cycle will take total
charge for the base maintenance cycle to
about $3.9 million. This will be equal to
about $210 per FH.
Heavy components
Heavy components fall into four
categories: landing gear, thrust reverser,
wheels and brakes, and auxiliary power
unit (APU). These four component types
have independent maintenance schedules.
Apart from the landing gear, all are
maintained on an on-condition basis.
Most operators now opt for exchange
programmes for landing gears, which will
have to be used for small airlines
acquiring used aircraft. Maintenance
intervals are 8-10 years and up to
32,000FC, and exchange programmes are
a single cost to cover exchange fee and
overhaul cost. Exchange costs vary
widely depending upon availability, but
they normally include a xed cost of
overhaul, explains Steve Hodgkiss,
managing director of FlyerTech. An
overhaul fee of $150,000 is reasonable
depending on condition of the landing
gear. Exchange fee will be about $40,000.
A total cost of $190,000 incurred
every eight years will be equal to a cost of
$10 per FH (see table, page 22).
Costs for wheels and brakes are
related to FC intervals. Wheels require
tyre remoulds and replacement, as well as
wheel rim inspections. Tyre removal and
re-tread intervals will be affected by
landing weight, which will vary by
aircraft variant. Average intervals of
250FC for main wheels and 200FC for
nose wheels can be expected, and tyres
are remoulded an average of three times
before being replaced at the fourth
removal. This would make the total life cycle
of main and nose tyres 1,000FC and 1,200FC
Re-tread of main wheel tyres has an
average cost of $400, while nose tyres
will be about $350. New main and nose
tyres cost about $1,400 and $800. Total
cost for remould and replacement for a
complete shipset of four main wheel tyres
would be about $10,400, and about
$3,700 for a shipset of two nose wheel
tyres. Amortised over the replacement
interval, this results in a rate of $13 per
FC (see table, page 22).
Wheel inspections are made at tyre
removal and have an average cost of
$650 for main wheels and $600 for nose
wheels. This results in a cost of $12 per
FC (see table, page 22).
Brake repairs are made on average
every three wheel removals, and so about
every 900FC. The average cost for a
brake repair is about $11,000, and the
cost per FC for all four main wheel brake
units is $49 (see table, page 22).
Thrust reversers for mature aircraft
have an average removal interval of
about 8,000FC. A cost of $190,000 for
an average shop visit can be used for a
thrust reverser shipset. The total cost for
both reverser shipsets amortised over the
removal interval is about $48 per FC (see
table, page 22).
The 737-300/-400/-500 uses the
GTCP 85-129 auxiliary power unit
(APU). Many operators will use the APU
while taxiing to the gate before
connecting to a ground power unit, and
then use the APU again during engine
start. The APU thus gets used twice in
each FC for an average of 45 minutes,
and will therefore accumulate about
1,500 hours per year. The average time
between shop visits is about 3,500 APU
hours, equal to more than two years of
aircraft operation. An average shop visit
cost of $150,000 is equal to $32 per FC
(see table, page 22).
Line replaceable components
The 737-300/-400/-500 is now
widespread in the global eet, and there
is a plentiful supply of rotable LRUs on
the used market. Prospective operators of
737-300/-400/-500s have several choices
for sourcing LRUs. Many maintenance
providers offer LRUs, as do specialist
component providers.
The standard practice would be for an
operator to be supplied with a home-base
stock and given access to a component
pool for the remainder of the items once
it had established the condence level it
required in its operation, what the failure
rates of the components are likely to be,
as well as the structure of its operation.
Ralf Aljes, manager subdivision
component services at Ameco Beijing says
a small operator can be supplied with an
LRU contract at a rate of $110-120/FH
to cover the cost of repair and
management of the parts, and a further
$40-50/FH for access or lease costs of the
material. Total cost is $180-220 per FH
The base checks in an MSG2 programme
consume in the region of 50,000 man-hours for
the second base check cycle. This, and material
costs, result in an overall cost in the region of
$210 per FH.
for the airline if it joins the access pool
(see table, page 22). This cost includes the
repair and management of parts and
access to all LRUs. This compares to a
probable cost of $300/FH if an airline
were to lease its own stock and manage
the repair by itself, says Aljes.
Every rotable supply contract is
different, and Hodgkiss says it is possible
to get a contract for about $110 per FH.
This would be the rate for the supply
and repair of all LRUs, without including
wheels and brakes, interior parts and
large insurance items. It does not include
the cost of shipping all items sent for
repair. The $110 per FH rate includes the
supply of a minimal home-base stock
worth about $500,000 for one or two
aircraft, says Hodgkiss. Another $50
per FH could be added to cover all
miscellaneous and unknown items, such
as cabin items, oil and unscheduled
problems and accidents.
Engine maintenance
There are three variants of the
CFM56-3: the -3B1, -3B2 and -3C1. The
-3B1 is rated at 18,500lbs and 20,000lbs,
and powers the 737-300 and -500. The -
3B2 can be rated at 22,000lbs and
powers all three family members. The -
3C1 is the most numerous and can be
rated at 23,500lbs and all lower thrust
ratings for all three 737 variants.
The lower-rated engines have installed
exhaust gas temperature (EGT) margins
in the region of 135-140 degrees
centigrade, while those rated at 20,000lbs
have margins of about 110 degrees, those
rated at 22,000lbs rated at 70 degrees
and the highest powered models have
margins of about 50 degrees.
These margins and the rate of EGT
margin erosion generally allow long
removal intervals between shop visits.
Most CFM56-3s built have been through
their rst shop visit and are on their
second or subsequent on-wing runs. The
lowest maintenance cost per engine ight
hour (EFH) contributes to lower overall
aircraft maintenance costs. Low rates per
EFH are achieved by optimising removal
intervals, shop visit workscopes and LLP
replacement timing. LLPs can generally
be divided into three groups: in the high
pressure (HP) section, the low pressure
turbine (LPT); and fan and booster
section. Most HP system LLPs have lives
of about 20,000EFC, although a few are
restricted at 15,000-17,000EFC. The list
price for LLPs in this section is about
$650,000. LPT LLPs have lives of
25,000EFC, and have a list price of about
$410,000. Fan/booster LLPs have lives of
30,000EFC and list price of $263,000.
The high EGT margins of the lowest
rated engines allow on-wing intervals to
average about 18,500 engine ight cycles
(EFC). This compares to an annual rate
of utilisation of about 2,000EFC, and so
is equal to about nine years of operation.
HP and LPT LLPs should be replaced at
this stage, since the restored EGT margin
after the shop visit will allow a second
removal interval of 11,000-12,000EFC.
Besides HP LLP replacement, the engine
should require a performance restoration
on the core engine and a workscope on
the LPT. This will have an approximate
cost of $1.1 million, not including LLPs.
The second run of about 11,000EFC
will be followed by another core engine
performance restoration and workscope
on the fan and booster section, as well as
replacement of fan and booster LLPs.
This will incur a cost in the region of
$950,000, not including LLP
replacement. The third removal interval
will be 500-1,000EFC less than the
second and will be followed by a shop
visit workscope similar to the rst at
which HP and LPT LLPs would be
replaced. This would have a cost of about
$1 million, not including LLPs. By this
stage the engine will have accumulated
about 40,000EFC on-wing, equal to
about 20 years of operation.
Maintenance reserves, including LLP
amortisation, up to the rst removal will
be in the region of $90 per EFH. This will
increase to $110-115 per EFH for the
:jgdeZ! B^YYaZ :Vhi! 6[g^XV
(*( & +(& .&)-
(*( & +(& .&++
6jhigVaVh^V! 6h^V EVX^[^X
++ ' .%) --,&
-*' ''&* ((%%
6bZg^XVh
(*( & +(& .&)-
A spare engine can cost anyyLere lrom $LS3 million
to $LS15 million. 1Lat`s a Leavy capital luroen lor
an operator. specially yLen you can enjoy access
to spare engines yitL no capital investment simply
ly leasing lrom Macouarie Aviation Capital.
At Macouarie ye can Lelp you reouce your asset
lase ano lree up your capital.
Want to talk !or lurtLer oetails ano enouiries
simply contact your nearest Macouarie Aviation
Capital representative.
;DG ;JGI=:G >C;DGB6I>DC
:B6>A/ Zc\^cZh5bVXfjVg^Z#Xdb
;G::I=:
86E>I6ANDJ=6K:
I>:9JE>CNDJG
HE6G::C<>C:H
second removal intervals (see table, this
page) and increases again to about $130
per EFH for the period up to the third
removal. Subsequent intervals are
expected to be in the region of 9,000-
11,000EFC, given the high EGT margin,
and $130-145 per EFH should be
allowed for maintenance reserves.
Mid-rated engines have planned rst-
run removal intervals of about
11,000EFC, and can be expected to have
a subsequent on-wing time of 9,000EFC.
It is therefore not necessary to replace any
LLPs at the rst shop visit. The rst shop
visit workscope is usually a core
performance restoration, since the LPT
and fan/booster sections can remain on-
wing until the second removal. The cost
of this rst workscope will be in the
region of $900,000.
The second removal interval of
9,000EFC takes total time to about
20,000EFC, equal to about 10 years of
operation, at which point HP and LPT
LLPs should be replaced. The shop visit
workscope at this stage is a core
refurbishment and LPT workscope. The
cost for this shop visit, not including
LLPs, is about $1 million. The third and
subsequent on-wing intervals will be in
the region of 8,500EFC.
Maintenance reserves, including LLP
amortisation, are in the region of $105
per EFH up to the rst removal, $125 per
EFH up to the second removal, and $135
per EFH up to the third removal and a
similar rate thereafter (see table, this
page).
The highest-rated engines naturally
have the shortest on-wing removal
intervals, which are about 8,500EFC for
the rst interval. At this point the engine
has a core engine performance restoration
workscope, but no LLPs are replaced
since the engine is capable of a second
removal interval of about 6,500EFC. The
rst shop visit workscope is a core
performance restoration, which will cost
about $900,000 not including LLPs.
The second removal interval will be
about 6,500EFC and the engine will have
a heavy core workscope, since
accumulated time on-wing will not
necessitate work on the fan/booster or
LPT sections. Total accumulated time at
this stage will be about 15,000EFC, and
so HP LLPs should be replaced, although
fan/booster and LPT LLPs can remain for
the third on-wing run. The second shop
visit will cost about $950,000, not
including LLPs.
Mature intervals to subsequent shop
visits will be 6,000-6,500EFC. Total time
to the third shop visit will be about
21,500EFC and the engine will require a
full workscope on the core engine and
LPT section, as well as LPT LLP
replacement. The cost of this workscope
will be in the region of $1.1 million, not
including LLPs. Maintenance reserves to
the rst shop visit will be about $135 per
EFH, climbing to about $180 per EFH at
maturity (see table, this page).
Maintenance cost summary
The total direct maintenance costs for
the 737-300/-400/-500 vary between
$1,050 and $1,270 per FH (see table, this
page). The actual cost per FH is
inuenced by all elements of maintenance
cost, but ramp and line checks, repair of
heavy components, LRU rotable
component support and engine
maintenance vary widely. Despite their
magnitude and attention they attract, the
costs of base airframe checks are
relatively predictable.
The eventual cost per FH for ramp
checks will be affected by efciency of
labour, but also how labour for line
maintenance is recorded and allocated, as
well as an airlines maintenance practices.
This goes partly in-hand with the cost
of LRU rotable support, which is also
highly variable. The ultimate cost per FH
for this element can vary by more than
$100 per FH. Engine maintenance costs
will be most affected by thrust rating, and
consequently by aircraft variant and gross
weight.
The 737-300/-400/-500 are still
popular, and many are operated by
original users, although more aircraft are
now being acquired by secondary users
and are becoming mature. The last
manufactured aircraft is now six years
old, and most engines are mature, having
been through their rst and second shop
visits. Tight control of all these elements
can keep maintenance costs stable.
Spare engine support
Operators also have to consider the
costs of spare engine provisioning.
Removal intervals for mature engines are
in the 7,500-12,000EFH range,
depending on thrust rating and style of
operation. This is equal to three to ve
years of operation in most airlines cases,
but will be 30-55 months once
unscheduled removals are taken into
account. Typical shop turn times of three
DIRECT MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR 737-300/-400/-500
Maintenance Cycle Cycle Cost per Cost per
Item cost $ interval FC-$ FH-$
Ramp checks $600,000-700,000 1 year 230-295
A check $60,000-90,000 1,300-1,600FH 60
C & D checks $3,600,000 18,500-20,000FH 180-195
Heavy components:
Landing gear $190,000 16,000FC 13 10
Tyre remould & $12,000 800FC/1,400FC 13 10
replacement
Wheel inspections $3,800 200FC/250FC 12 10
Brake inspections $44,000 900 49 39
Thrust reverser $340,000 8,000 48 38
overhauls
APU $150,000 4,700 32 26
Total heavy components 167 133
LRU component support 180-220
Total airframe & component maintenance $785-910/FH
Engine maintenance:
High rated (mature) $180/EFH X 2
Mid rated (mature) $135-150/EFH X 2
Low rated (mature) $130-145/EFH X 2
Total direct maintenance costs:
Aircraft with high rated engines $1,145-1,270/FH
Aircraft with medium rated engines $1,055-1,210/FH
Aircraft with low rated engines $1,045-1,200/FH
Annual utilisation:
2,500FH
2,000FC
FH:FC ratio of 1.25FH:1.0FC
to four months mean that one spare
engine will support 10-15 installed
engines, or a eet of ve to seven aircraft.
This is a small eet, and airlines with
at least this number of aircraft would nd
it economic to own a spare engine that
had full utilisation in covering for
removed units going through shop visits.
Demand for the 737-300/-400/-500 has
increased over the past year to 18
months, following a surplus. A number of
aircraft were repossessed from United
Airlines and USAirways. Some were
broken for parts and engines, which
temporarily brought down values of
aircraft and the CFM56-3s. The last
peak in CFM56-3 values was in 1998,
and they then reached a trough in 2000-
2002, says Tom MacAleavey, senior vice
president of sales and marketing at Willis
Lease Finance Corporation. CFM56-3
values have gone up by 20-25% and
there is now a shortage of them. The
engine is also no longer built and this has
exacerbated the problem. Values mainly
depend on the maintenance status. It can
cost nearly $3 million to put an engine
through a heavy shop visit and replace a
complete set of LLPs. Core values of
completely run-out engines are $600,000-
700,000. Values of -3C1s fresh from an
overhaul that have LLPs with at least
10,000EFC remaining have a value of
$3.5-4.0 million. Values of -3B2s are
slightly less at about $3.2 million.
Andrew Pearce, director at Macquarie
Aviation Capital puts values for -3C1s
and -3B2s in a good maintenance
condition at a similar level. A -3B2 fresh
from a shop visit and with fairly good
LLP status has a market value of $3.2-
3.45 million. A -3C1 in the same
condition has a value of about $4.0
million.
These values have to be considered in
relation to long-term lease rates that
airlines would alternatively have to pay if
they did not own spare engines.
Maintenance reserves would also have to
be paid with lease rentals. More airlines
are now taking engines on long-term
leases, says MacAleavey. Long-term
lease rentals have now risen to $40,000-
44,000 per month for -3C1s, and are
slightly lower for -3B2s.
Pearce conrms that lease rates have
rmed up to this level over the past 12
months. Maintenance reserves also have
to be paid, and these are about $120 per
EFH and $70-80 per EFC, says Pearce.
This equates to a total reserve of $184
per EFH for an engine operated at an
average EFC time of 1.25EFH.
MacAleavey puts reserves at $115 per
EFH and $71 per EFC for -3C1s, $84 per
EFH and $62 per EFC for -3B2s, and $98
per EFH and $62 per EFC for -3B1s.
Most airlines also have to consider
short-term leases for coverage in the event
of unscheduled failures and engine
removals, and emergency requirements.
Short-term lease rentals are in the range
of $1,800-2,000 per day, plus
maintenance reserves, although they do
drop by about $400 per day in off-peak
seasons when airlines are not so busy,
comments Pearce.
Technical support
Besides direct maintenance costs,
airlines have to consider having the
infrastructure in place for the technical
management of their aircraft. This will
be expensive for small and start-up
operators to consider, says Hodgkiss at
Flyertech. We specialise in providing this
technical management and can source
maintenance providers, set a maintenance
control department, and manage the
whole range of technical management
aspects for airlines. This includes
managing the aircrafts maintenance
programme, determining maintenance
task workscopes, deciding which ADs
and SBs to perform, monitoring reliability
data, keeping maintenance records, and a
whole range of other tasks. The cost for
providing all of these services for a small
eet will be in the region of $2,500-3,500
per aircraft month, and will reduce with
eet growth.
T
he 737-300/-400/-500 are too
technologically advanced to
enter a state of decline. The
aircraft are simple to operate
and have been used by the majority of
airlines around the world. There is also
the fact that there are more than 1,000
MD-80s in service that will decline prior
to the 737, as well as the overriding
factor that there are few good quality
aircraft in storage.
The age of the 737-300/-400/-500
eet ranges between six and 20 years.
The majority of aircraft would thus be
considered to be at a mature age. The
median age of the eet and their
accumulated ight hours and ight cycles,
and the presence of the more advanced
737NG and A320 families, has put
pressure on the market values of 737-
300/-400/-500s. Most aircraft have
entered the phase where values have
begun to decline more rapidly.
Values of 737-300/-400/-500s
dropped after 9/11 with the ensuing glut
of aircraft. While the values of older
aircraft types have dropped through the
oor, values of good quality 737 classics
have gone up by 30-40% since the post-
9/11 trough, says Doug Jaffe, chief
executive ofcer at Jetran International.
There was a surplus of 737-300/-400s
after 9/11, mainly because a large number
of ex-United and ex-USAirways aircraft
were parked.
The supply of 737-300/-400/-500s is
now tight. This is because airlines are
swapping out older aircraft, like the 737-
200 and MD-80, for younger types. This
process has been intensied because of
the rise in fuel prices. The price of fuel
has driven 737-300/-400/-500 values up
because they are the most fuel efcient of
older generation aircraft, continues
Jaffe. The 737-300/-400/-500 is also
much easier to trade worldwide than
some types. It is hard to get an air
operators certicate (AOC) for the MD-
80 in Romania, for example. There are
still problems when trading 737-300/-
400/-500s across continents, however.
Some avionics are mandatory in Europe,
but not in the US. This can result in some
expensive modications being required.
Jaffe makes the point that if a major
operator, for example USAirways, were
to cease operations or merge with
another carrier, it might release 40-50
aircraft onto the market. It would still
not be too difcult to place these aircraft
with airlines, given the demand for them,
although it would pull values down
again, he comments.
The problem with 737-300/-400/-500
values is that the CFM56-3 is an
expensive engine to overhaul. This is
mainly because of the price of parts. An
overhaul can go to as high as $1.5
million, which compares to about $1.0
million for a JT8D. The maintenance
status of the engines therefore has the
most inuence over values of 737-300/-
400/-500s. Older -300s, which are mid-
life in maintenance terms, have values of
about $7 million, while younger aircraft
built between 1990 and 1999 have values
in the $9-11 million range, says Jaffe.
This compares to engine values, which
are $3-4 million each, depending on
maintenance status and lives of life
limited parts. Engines can thus account
for up to 90% of an older aircrafts value,
and up to 80% of a mid-life aircrafts.
Values of -400s are not much higher,
with older aircraft being in the $7-8.5
million range and mid-age aircraft being
$9-12 million, continues Jaffe. The -
500s are not that popular, but values are
nevertheless close to the -300/-400 at $8-
10 million. Lease rates are also close for
the three variants, and are $85,000-
105,000 per month for earlier build
aircraft and $110,000-140,000 for
younger aircraft.
While the supply of aircraft has been
soaked up, values have not increased as
much as lease rates. There are few cash
buyers of aircraft, and most airlines
prefer to lease when liquidity is low.
The 737-300/-400/-500 benets from
the fact that the CFM-56s have
predictable on-wing intervals, and
although they are expensive to maintain
they make the aircrafts overall
maintenance costs stable.
The rise in values will cause
uncertainty in the freight conversion
market. The accepted market lease rate
for a 737-300SF is in the region of
$100,000-110,000, and a lease rate
factor of 1.25% puts the total cost for
acquisition and conversion to freighter at
no more than $9 million. This means
the market for an aircraft can be no more
than about $6 million for someone
buying a used machine and speculatively
converting it, says Jaffe. A lessor that
has fully or nearly depreciated its aircraft
can justify conversion, however.
737-300/-400/-500
values, lease rates &
the aftermarket
Values of 737-300/-400/-500s have rebounded
following a surge in demand.
Demand for 737-300/-400/-500s has lifted
market values by as much as 40%. Supply of
aircraft is now tight and values are in the region
of $7-11 million, depending on age, variant and
maintenance status.

737 Classic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

737 Classic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

737 Classic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the specifications of the 737-300/-400/-500 family?

How have market values of 737-300/-400/-500s changed over time?

AIRCRAFT OWNERS & OPERATORS

You might also like