Civil Uses for UAS: A Passenger Transportation Perspective

Transcription

1 Civil Uses for UAS: A Passenger Transportation Perspective Lance Sherry (Ph.D.) Center for Air Transportation Systems Research (CATSR) George Mason University (GMU) March,

2 Center for Air Transportation Systems Research (CASTR) at GMU Charter Established 2003 (by Professor George Donohue) Foster excellence in education and research in Air Transportation defined by: Network-of-Networks Stochastic Networks Distributed, Autonomous Decision-making Agents Safety Critical Operational Constraints Driven by Technology and Economics and Policy 2

3 Center for Air Transportation Systems Research (CASTR) at GMU Teaching Hospital Model Funding Real world problems Real world constraints LRI research grant (2011, 12) AIAA scholarship fund (2011) John Gonda 3 3

4 NEW! Minor in Aviation Available in Fall 2013 Flight Training & Aviation Management 1.Ground school (SYST 460) 2.Flight Training I (SYST 462) 3.Flight Training II (SYST 463) 4.Air Transportation (SYST 461) Two Electives 1. Psychology 2. Business Management 3. History 4

5 Civil Uses for UAS: A Passenger Transportation Perspective 1. Trends in the Passenger Transportation Market 2. Airline Economics 3. Opportunities Single-pilot Monitored 4. Roadmap 5

6 Air Transportation Growth ( ) Industry experience remarkable growth Belief that growth is sustainable 6

7 Historically ASM Grow with GDP ASMs growing faster than GDP ( ) ASMs not growing as fast as GDP ( ) ASMs growing on pace with GDP ( ) 7

8 ASMs/Real GDP ASMs growing faster than GDP ( ) ASMs growing on pace with GDP ( ) ASMs not growing as fast as GDP ( ) 8

9 Airfares 9

10 Situation Fact: Airline transportation services shrinking (even in presence of growing economy) 1. ASMs/Real GDP decreasing 37M/Q 2. Real Airfare increasing $3/Q Fact: Airlines are migrating to a model of serving fewer, higher paying passengers Implications 1. Lost economic productivity (geographic and economic access)? Shrinking of tourism industry - less discretionary travelers but weighted more towards the higher yielding business traveler Non-profitable markets eliminated Essential Air Service (EAS) gvt subsidies lead to AmAir (Amtrak of the skies) 2. Reduced ANSP financing? 3. Modernization financing? 10

11 Explanation # 1 Capacity Rebalancing Capacity is being "rebalanced" with the size of the US economy Airlines for America (TRB, 2012) By 2017, annual growth will be 2% or less as the norm and no longer track with traditional metrics such as GDP. Instead, it will be the airlines that call the capacity shots and will ultimately drive traffic growth or lack thereof. Boyd Group, 2012 We'll have the domestic [operations] sized solely to feed the international traffic Smisek (CEO United/Continental), 2011 seeks to provide more connections to and from the major US business markets and international gateways, such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas/Fort Worth and Miami 11

12 Explanation # 2 Re-fleeting Cycles The long overdue re-fleeting of US airlines ushers in much more than a few hundred new aircraft as the industry adjusts to a whole new world. The new single-aisle aircraft will be much more flexible, with longer ranges In the United States, by 2017, the near total elimination of 50-seat regional jets will result in a further consolidation of the domestic air transportation system. The US industry is shrinking in reach Boyd Group,

13 Explanation #3: Poor Business Practices It took 30+ years to create the unsustainable network architecture that comprises the US air transport industry today, it will take at least through this decade to determine its scope and scale in the next decade. Swellbar,

14 Explanation # 4 Rational Profitseeking Economics reallocate flying within American s domestic network from unprofitable routes to the airline s primary markets What revenue/cost factors shaping industry Revenue price elasticities constant (Ferguson, 2011) Costs fuel prices, labor costs 14

15 What about the Role of Fuel Prices? ASMs not growing as fast as GDP Fuel Price > $1/Gallon 15

16 ASMs/GDP Correlated with Fuel Price ASMs per GDP have declined as the Cost of Jet Fuel has Increased 16

17 Aircraft Downsizing Avg Aircraft Size (Seats) Jet Fuel ASMs/GDP Jet Fuel > $1/Gallon 17

18 Airline Economics 18

19 Cumulative Demand Cumulative Demand vs Airfare JFK-ATL WTP Curve Theoretical # Pax at Airfare = Zero cum demand Expon. (cum y = 1529e x R² = Cumulative Demand = M * exp(airfare*coeff) Cumulative Demand = 1529 * exp (Avg Airfare * ) Shape of exponential curve ~ elasticity less negative = inelastic more negative = elastic Ferguson, Average Airfare 19

20 Average Airfare ($) Revenue ($) Cumulative Pax Demand vs Average Airfare Revenue ($) vs Cumulative Pax Demand Cumulative Passenger Demand Cumulative Passenger Demand (a) (b) 20

21 Revenue ($) Airfare ($) Revenue Curve Revenue ($) Airfare ($) Max Revenue Max Profit Revenue Profit Airfare Cost Zero Revenue Zero Profit Cumulative Passenegers Total Number of Passengers Revenue Cost Profit Airfare 21

22 Costs per Flights Cost per Flight = BH *Seats * CSH where: BH gate to gate time, known as Block Hours (hours) Seats = Number of Seats CSH = Cost per Seat-Hour ($/seat-hour) = [ NFR + (FBR * FP) ] NFR non-fuel rate ($/seat-hour) FBR fuel burn per seat-hour (gallons/seat-hour) FP fuel price ($/gallon) Ferguson,

23 Non-Fuel Operating Costs by Seat Size Marginal economies-of-scale 23

24 Fuel Burn Rate by Seat Size No economies-of-scale (by year of introduction) 24

25 $ 1 Revenues, Cost, Profit ($) Effect of Increasing Costs Fewer passengers at higher airfares $ (2) Change in Max Profit point (1) Increase in Costs due to fuel price (3) Reduction in number of passengers due to fuel price Cumulative Passengers Rev Costs $1/Gallon Profit $1/Gallon Costs $4/Gallon Profit $4/Gallon 25

26 Opportunities 26

27 Control Levers Revenue is exogenous Costs provide control levers Reduce fuel burn (propulsion, aerodynamics) Reduce labor costs (singlecrew/monitored cockpit) Optimize aircraft design for U.S. domestic markets (700nm 1200nm stage lengths) 27

28 Recommendation Two-pronged approach: 1. CAFÉ standards for airlines (Corporate Average Operations Economy) Operational Cost efficiency standards across fleet 2. Cost Target-driven Aeronautics program Materials Propulsion (high by-pass, turbo props) Fuel to Pax Weight ratios optimized for U.S. Domestic Stage-lengths Single-pilot (monitored) cockpit 28

29 Cost-Driven Aeronautics Roadmap Composite Materials Single-Pilot Monitored Cockpit Propulsion Design for Transportation Network NASA/GE Aviation Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research 29

30 Airline Crew Trends 5: Captain, First-Officer, Flight Engineer, Navigator, Radio Operator 4: Captain, F/O, F/E, Navigator + Autotune Radios, SELCAL, CATCOM (1950 s) 3: Captain, F/O, F/E + INS, Area Nav (1970 s) 2: Captain, F/O +. ACARS, Automated Aircraft Systems, EICAS (1980s) 1: Captain + Ground-based decision support 30

31 Single Pilot Ops Aircraft Rating Props vs. Jets Jets < 12,500 lbs (single pilot option) > 12,500 lbs (two pilots) Flightdeck interaction Nosewheel steering Integrated flightdeck Autopilot/FMS Note: Insurance costs for single pilot ops > costs of second pilot Convenience factor Pilot Type Rating Pilot qualified to fly solo Workload 31

32 Issues Human Operator Missing Information/Knowledge Tunneling Situational Awareness Limits Bias of Decisions Communication Challenges Errors of Omission Time-Risk Trade Automation Reliability Complexity of behavior Task loading 32

33 Single-Pilot Monitored Cockpit Leverage UAV systems/technology Crews Ground stations Comm Procedures Failure Response Two schools of thought Single-pilot monitored cockpit has to meet: standards of a fully autonomous cockpit Standards for semi-autonomous cockpit 33

34 R&D Roadmap Research program Prototype flights Entry-into-service Cargo Certification for Part 121 Entry-into-service New entrant 34

35 Industry Activities RyanAir: "he is writing to aviation authorities for permission to use only one pilot per flight because he says co-pilots are unnecessary in modern jets where "the computer does most of the flying now Financial Times of London quoting Michael O Leary (CEO RyanAir) Embraer: Embraer is serious looking into developing single-pilot airliners as the next generation air traffic control systems come into operation in the US and Europe. reported by FlightGlobal Thales Cockpit 3.0 "aimed at reducing crew workload, complexity and scope for human error, as well as the physical size of the cockpit to maximise payload volume" would be investigating the introduction of single-pilot airliners in the 2030 timeframe. Thales as reported by FlightGlobal, 7 Jul

36 Cockpit Seats (Chronology) Two Seat Cockpit Ford 5-AT Trimotor ( ) Single engine prop Vickers Viscount ( ) Multi-engine turbo prop DC-9 ( ) Single-aisle jet 757 ( ) Single-aisle jet A300B4-200FF ( Wide-body, jet Three Seats Concorde ( ) Supersonic jet 36