**Appendix A**

**Aircraft cluster (earliest EIS year) Cost improvements from cluster introduction to service [%] Fuel cost Nonfuel COC ADOC** Long-range combi (1973) Cruise performance improvement package: −4% [69] Long range heavy (1973) Interior changes, aerodynamics and engine: −25% [70] Engine: −12% [70] PW4000 94-inch upgrade package: −1% [71] B747–400 entry into service: −26% [72, 73] Jet commuter (1968) E190 EIS, −18% [74, 75]; aerodynamic enhancements, −2% [76] E190 improvement compared to previous aircraft in cluster, −25%; maintenance improvement, −5% [77, 78] Turboprop commuter (1990) Use of ARMONIA cabin: −0.6% [79] Long range (1991) PIP, −1% [80]; upgrade package, −2% [81] −3.4% [82] −3.4% [82] Narrow body (1968) A320 improvement compared to previous aircraft in cluster: −16.6% [83, 84] Other improvements including wingtip fence and sharklets: −3.5% [82] Compared to previous aircraft in cluster: −7.9% [83] Average improvement adopted from B737–800: −2.5% [82] Average improvement adopted from B737–800: −2.5% [82] Next-gen mid range (2011) Compared to previous generation, −20% [85, 86]; Trent 1000 TEN, −2% [87, 88] Compared to previous generation: −10% [89] Next-gen long range heavy (2012) Compared to previous generation: −16% [90], −3.5% [91] Compared to previous generation: −3% [73]

**167**

**Table A-2.**

**Author details**

Oluwaferanmi Oguntona

*Increasing the Emission Mitigation Potential by Employing an Economically Optimised…*

**Cost improvements from cluster introduction to service [%]**

**Fuel cost Nonfuel COC ADOC**

Compared to previous generation: −25% [92]

Compared to previous generation: −14% [95]

Compared to previous generation: −10% [97]

Lower noise: −2%

[98]

**Aircraft cluster Cost improvements [%]**

LRH −4% −7% MR −1.8% −3.6% LR −2% −2% NGMR −14.9% −9.8% NGLR −15% −5%

*Additional aircraft cluster cost improvements assumed during calibration.*

\*Address all correspondence to: ooguntona@gmail.com

provided the original work is properly cited.

Munich Aerospace e.V., Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Taufkirchen, Germany

© 2019 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

**Fuel cost Nonfuel COC ADOC**

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88219*

Compared to previous generation, −25% [92]; Trent XWB-84-enhanced performance, −1% [93]; sharklets, −1.4% [94]

Compared to previous generation, −15% [91]; PW engine improvement, −2%

Compared to previous generation: −17.3% [96]

*Incremental and giant-leap cost improvements of FSDM aircraft types.*

[92]

**Aircraft cluster (earliest EIS year)**

Next-gen long range (2015)

Next-gen narrow body (2015)

Next-gen commuter (2016)

**Table A-1.**

See Tables A-1 and A-2.

*Increasing the Emission Mitigation Potential by Employing an Economically Optimised… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88219*


#### **Table A-1.**

*Environmental Impact of Aviation and Sustainable Solutions*

price elasticity of fuel price changes.

**Acknowledgements**

See Tables A-1 and A-2.

Cruise performance improvement package: −4%

Interior changes, aerodynamics and engine:

E190 EIS, −18% [74, 75]; aerodynamic enhancements,

Use of ARMONIA cabin:

PIP, −1% [80]; upgrade package, −2% [81]

A320 improvement compared to previous aircraft in cluster: −16.6% [83, 84] Other improvements including wingtip fence and sharklets: −3.5% [82]

Compared to previous generation, −20% [85, 86]; Trent 1000 TEN, −2% [87,

Compared to previous generation: −16% [90],

88]

−3.5% [91]

−25% [70] Engine: −12% [70] PW4000 94-inch upgrade package: −1% [71]

−2% [76]

−0.6% [79]

[69]

ing the research.

**Appendix A**

**Aircraft cluster (earliest EIS year)**

Long-range combi (1973)

Long range heavy (1973)

Jet commuter (1968)

Turboprop commuter (1990)

Long range (1991)

Narrow body (1968)

Next-gen mid range (2011)

Next-gen long range heavy (2012)

As an outlook, having known the emission mitigation potential of the proposed *Replacement Strategy*, the cost analysis, i.e. advantage or disadvantage, of this measure should also be evaluated. Lastly, this study does not include effects of ticket

This research was carried out using a Munich Aerospace Scholarship. The author would like to thank Professor Mirko Hornung and Dr. Kay Ploetner, as well as other members of the Munich Aerospace network, for their useful comments made dur-

**Cost improvements from cluster introduction to service [%]**

**Fuel cost Nonfuel COC ADOC**

B747–400 entry into service: −26% [72, 73]

E190 improvement compared to previous aircraft in cluster, −25%; maintenance improvement,

Compared to previous aircraft in cluster: −7.9%

Average improvement adopted from B737–800:

Compared to previous generation: −10% [89]

Compared to previous generation: −3% [73]

−3.4% [82] −3.4% [82]

Average improvement adopted from B737–800: −2.5% [82]

−5% [77, 78]

[83]

−2.5% [82]

**166**

*Incremental and giant-leap cost improvements of FSDM aircraft types.*


#### **Table A-2.**

*Additional aircraft cluster cost improvements assumed during calibration.*
