Giving the customer a choice is a principle anchored in AFI KLM E&M’s company culture, and constitutes one of the key pillars of its offer: Adaptiveness®. This means being able to address a wide range of needs in terms of scope, costs, and services provided, through varied support configurations designed to meet the challenges and expectations of its customers.
BlueLink
PBH vs. PBE
PBH vs. PBE
Two contract models, one objective
Power-by-the-hour (PBH) or Power-by-event (PBE)? These concepts refer to the two main contract models via which an MRO service provider may deliver component support, with each one designed to meet different needs and offering specific advantages. With dedicated teams for both models, AFI KLM E&M is able to offer its customers either option – or even a combination of the two approaches for optimal support.
From case-by-case to full coverage
Today’s component support market is mainly driven by the PBH model. This is often founded on a long-term contractual relationship, during which the customer pays – on a flight-hour basis – for comprehensive servicing, including repairs and the availability of components (pool access, Main Base Kit, etc.). However, PBE constitutes a preferred option for certain airlines, particularly in the USA and in China, as well as for brokers and lessors. The logic behind this approach involves managing maintenance on an event-by-event basis, i.e. through repair or a standard replacement, and through technical and operational management of the pool required.
Bruno Tricoire, SVP Components at AFI KLM E&M.
Primarily, the economical balance and the administrative and technical tasks and expertise the operator is prepared to integrate
Follow Bruno Tricoire on LinkedIn“With PBH, a portion of the risk associated with the eventual failure of a component is transferred to the MRO supplier, who has committed to ensuring an overall level of performance for the customer. This is one of the key points of appeal for PBH, as it means more predictable costs and greater flexibility in the scope of services activated. The PBH customer will also benefit, both economically and operationally, from the scale of a much larger pool and its associated leverages. On the other hand, with the PBE approach, the operator must possess the necessary capacity to determine its pool size and technical standard and manage their component operations from end to end. PBE customers are looking for more direct control over their operations, and to benefit from market opportunities – which means assuming the associated risks.”
Bruno Tricoire
SVP Components at AFI KLM E&M.
The choice is in your hands
Ultimately, neither of these choices is a foregone conclusion.
“We don’t believe that one option is better than the other; they each offer different added value, and the decision ultimately rests with the airline and depends on their pre-defined parameters. Our role is to provide support and to meet our customers’ needs in an adaptive and efficient way, through the intervention of our experts in specific PBH/PBE solutions.”
Bruno Tricoire
SVP component at AFI KLM E&M
This may include the design of a solution combining elements from each of the two approaches. A client who has a PBH contract for one fleet may benefit from excluding certain components, instead using a PBE solution in the event of a defect in order to lighten their overall costs. Owing to its experience and vast database of component reliability statistics, AFI KLM E&M is able to provide customers with pertinent advice on how to define these exclusions and optimize their scope.
