China moved one step closer to manufacturing jumbo aircraft by inaugurating its national pride in commercial aircraft manufacturing, while stressing that the new company will offer no short-term challenge to Boeing or Airbus.
China's new aerospace firm Commercial Aircraft Corp. of China Ltd. (CACC) was formally launched in Shanghai on May 11 2008. The Company is charged with building jumbo-jets that will pose no threat to Airbus and Boeing for 20 years and will require the help of foreign technology. However, Beijing has indicated it could compete with some Boeing and Airbus models by 2020.
A key reason for setting up CACC is the desire to meet China's domestic demand. Vice Premier Zhang Dejiang says the new company must help serve the rapidly expanding home market. While importing technology and cooperating with foreign companies, China must also make its own innovations and have its own intellectual property rights in aircraft building, says Zhang.
The new company has a registered capital of $2.72 billion, with the state-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission being the largest stakeholder. Other stakeholders include Guo Sheng Group representing the local Shanghai government, AVIC 1, AVIC 2, Baosteel Group, Aluminum Corp of China and Sinochem Corp.
Chairman Zhang Qingwei said the company will be responsible for "aircraft research and development, key parts production and final assembly, marketing, customer service, airworthiness certification and financial leasing."
The launch of the CACC has the backing of the top level of government, with Premier Wen Jiabao underscoring the need for China to pursue independent innovation. The new company's capital includes 6 billion yuan from the central-government commission that manages state enterprises.
Premier Wen Jiabao hinted that the industry has no future as an engineers' playground and maintains the new business has to be run as a modern commercial enterprise as well as pursuing high technology. "Innovation cannot exist without the environment and condition of a market-oriented economy," Premier Wen says. "Aviation enterprises should actively take part in market competition and the deepening of structural reform."
CACC general manager Jin Zhuanglong indicated the company doesn't have a development strategy and can't compete with Boeing and Airbus at this time. Jin said the short-term goals of the new venture are to accelerate training of civil aviation professionals and to conclude the ARJ 21's first flight and airworthiness certification process. "As for our long-term goal, we only have one," he said. "That is to guarantee commercial success of our large commercial trunk aircraft."
Jin told the state news agency Xinhua that CACC has adopted an "opening-up" policy with the desire to purchase avionics and engines for its large aircraft from international suppliers. "We welcome our foreign counterparts to participate in the manufacturing process of our large commercial trunk aircraft so as to create a win-win situation," he said.
He conceded that it will be a "long-term process" to develop large commercial aircraft, adding that no timetable has been established for building the first model. He also downplayed the potential challenge CACC will present to established manufacturers. "Even if we make it, our large commercial trunk aircraft won't pose any challenge to Boeing and Airbus, as we [will] only have one single type [initially] while they have multiple types of aircraft."
After getting the ARJ21 into service, CACC will develop an aircraft with more than 150 seats and a take-off mass of more than 220,000 lbs., a specification for an aircraft at least as big as a Boeing 757 or Airbus A310.
Comments?
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
Continental Airlines, Boeing and GE Aviation Plan Biofuel Flight
Continental Airlines, Boeing and engine maker GE Aviation have scheduled a biofuel demonstration flight for early 2009 as part of the ongoing effort in the aviation industry to identify sustainable alternative fuels.
The Continental Airlines flight will be Boeing's third joint biofuel demonstration with an airline. Continental Airlines is the first major U.S. airline to make such a move in promoting the use of sustainable biofuels in aviation, an emerging trend gaining momentum as crude oil prices shoot through the roof.
In February 2008, Boeing and Virgin Atlantic Airways flew a 747 from London to Amsterdam with one of its four engines powered by a mix of 80% jet fuel and 20% biofuel based on coconut and babassu oil. Boeing, Air New Zealand and Rolls-Royce plan to conduct another biofuel demonstration flight for the second half of 2008 using an Air New Zealand Boeing 747-400 equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. These tests are part of an industry wide effort to find a biofuel that is environmentally and economically sustainable.
While the Virgin Atlantic Airways flight proved biofuel is a viable alternative fuel for the airline industry, the main focus is on the raw materials that go in to produce these biofuels. Critics maintain using eatable food as source for biofuels will exacerbate global food shortage and serves to raise food prices worldwide. Others oppose to the idea as the common alternative fuels based on corn, soybean and palm oil require enormous amounts of water and land to produce.
While the partners are working to identify sustainable fuel sources that don't impact food crops, water resources or contribute to deforestation, the airline industry is focusing on the second-generation biofuels based on marginal or experimental crops such as algae, switch grass and jatropha.
The airline industry, which accounts for 2% of global carbon emissions, is high on the watch list of environmentalists and regulators concerned about global warming. A viable biofuel would certainly be the Holy Grail of the airline industry, whose carbon footprint is poised to grow as demand for air travel increases. Besides the soaring fuel costs, government-mandated greenhouse-gas emission limits could make flying airplanes more costly. The International Air Transport Association has proposed building a zero-emissions aircraft within 50 years and many experts feel the lofty goal is unattainable. But, with increased use of biofuels in combination of other measures, they feel emissions could be kept in check.
The upcoming Continental Airlines biofuel flight will use a Boeing Next-Generation 737 equipped with CFM International CFM56-7B engines, using a blend of between 20%-50% of a second-generation biofuel in one engine.
The CFM56-7B engine is used exclusively for the Boeing 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900. More than 4,000 CFM56-7B engines are in service and more than 500 airlines fly CFM56-7B-powered 737s. Since entering service in the mid-90s, they have accumulated more than 50 million flight hours.
In the months leading up to the flight, Continental Airlines, Boeing and GE Aviation will work with an undisclosed fuel provider to identify sustainable fuel sources which can be produced in sufficient quantities. No details on the fuel are available, but the second-generation fuel, that does not impact food production, will have to be production ready in quantities sufficient to support a pre-flight test schedule and mix seamlessly with kerosene aviation fuel (Jet-A).
Continental is the first major US carrier to engage in such flight testing to highlight technological advancements in sustainable biofuels that can help to reduce carbon emissions. The Company is hoping the upcoming test flight will underscore their “commitment to environmental responsibility”. In the last 10 years, Continental Airlines has reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and fuel consumption by 35% by investing $12 billion in new fuel-efficient aircrafts and streamlining operations.
Comments?
The Continental Airlines flight will be Boeing's third joint biofuel demonstration with an airline. Continental Airlines is the first major U.S. airline to make such a move in promoting the use of sustainable biofuels in aviation, an emerging trend gaining momentum as crude oil prices shoot through the roof.
In February 2008, Boeing and Virgin Atlantic Airways flew a 747 from London to Amsterdam with one of its four engines powered by a mix of 80% jet fuel and 20% biofuel based on coconut and babassu oil. Boeing, Air New Zealand and Rolls-Royce plan to conduct another biofuel demonstration flight for the second half of 2008 using an Air New Zealand Boeing 747-400 equipped with Rolls-Royce engines. These tests are part of an industry wide effort to find a biofuel that is environmentally and economically sustainable.
While the Virgin Atlantic Airways flight proved biofuel is a viable alternative fuel for the airline industry, the main focus is on the raw materials that go in to produce these biofuels. Critics maintain using eatable food as source for biofuels will exacerbate global food shortage and serves to raise food prices worldwide. Others oppose to the idea as the common alternative fuels based on corn, soybean and palm oil require enormous amounts of water and land to produce.
While the partners are working to identify sustainable fuel sources that don't impact food crops, water resources or contribute to deforestation, the airline industry is focusing on the second-generation biofuels based on marginal or experimental crops such as algae, switch grass and jatropha.
The airline industry, which accounts for 2% of global carbon emissions, is high on the watch list of environmentalists and regulators concerned about global warming. A viable biofuel would certainly be the Holy Grail of the airline industry, whose carbon footprint is poised to grow as demand for air travel increases. Besides the soaring fuel costs, government-mandated greenhouse-gas emission limits could make flying airplanes more costly. The International Air Transport Association has proposed building a zero-emissions aircraft within 50 years and many experts feel the lofty goal is unattainable. But, with increased use of biofuels in combination of other measures, they feel emissions could be kept in check.
The upcoming Continental Airlines biofuel flight will use a Boeing Next-Generation 737 equipped with CFM International CFM56-7B engines, using a blend of between 20%-50% of a second-generation biofuel in one engine.
The CFM56-7B engine is used exclusively for the Boeing 737-600, 737-700, 737-800 and 737-900. More than 4,000 CFM56-7B engines are in service and more than 500 airlines fly CFM56-7B-powered 737s. Since entering service in the mid-90s, they have accumulated more than 50 million flight hours.
In the months leading up to the flight, Continental Airlines, Boeing and GE Aviation will work with an undisclosed fuel provider to identify sustainable fuel sources which can be produced in sufficient quantities. No details on the fuel are available, but the second-generation fuel, that does not impact food production, will have to be production ready in quantities sufficient to support a pre-flight test schedule and mix seamlessly with kerosene aviation fuel (Jet-A).
Continental is the first major US carrier to engage in such flight testing to highlight technological advancements in sustainable biofuels that can help to reduce carbon emissions. The Company is hoping the upcoming test flight will underscore their “commitment to environmental responsibility”. In the last 10 years, Continental Airlines has reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and fuel consumption by 35% by investing $12 billion in new fuel-efficient aircrafts and streamlining operations.
Comments?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Airline Maintenance Outsourcing
As airlines' profits running scarce, the industry pushes to cut cost by outsourcing its aircraft maintenance.
For quite some time, airlines insist on reducing in-house maintenance work, slashing the number of mechanics on its payroll, and sending maintenance tasks to lower-priced contractors in the U.S. and abroad. Outsourcing of aircraft maintenance has surged in recent years, raising concerns about the experience and background of the aircraft mechanics performing routine maintenance on our commercial airline fleets.
Government statistics show two-thirds of all maintenance on U.S. carriers is done by contractors, up from 30 percent in 1997.
Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines use repair stations in Hong Kong and Singapore. JetBlue Airways, US Airways and America West Airlines have their aircrafts serviced in El Salvador. Labor costs for mechanics are often lower overseas, and hangar space is more readily available. Other carriers send their maintenance work to third parties in the U.S., many located in the South, where labor rates are lower.
As aircraft maintenance becomes a $42 billion-a-year business, countries such as Dubai, China, Korea, and Singapore are making enormous investments to attract airline maintenance contracts.
In light of recent negative publicity about airline safety, new alarms are being raised about U.S. airlines’ growing reliance on foreign repair stations for everything from simple routine maintenance to major overhauls. Trade unions, business-travel groups, and some members of Congress maintain that quality and regulatory oversight suffer when maintenance is sent offshore. Opposition, driven in part by trade union leaders who have seen good-paying maintenance jobs shipped overseas, feels lax oversight of such repair shops is a gaping hole in airline safety and national security.
While repair stations are closely regulated and monitored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the agency requires airlines to ensure that their contract maintenance and training programs, and the contractors themselves, fully comply with federal regulations. The FAA certifies the foreign repair stations that it monitors through its international field offices in London, Frankfurt, Singapore, New York, Miami, Dallas and San Francisco.
Foreign repair stations are certified annually by the FAA, and a certified repair station may lose its certificate if it fails to comply with federal requirements. In practice, a FAA inspector is not required to give advanced notice prior to an on-site inspection, which also includes reviewing air carrier audits.
Both the air carrier and the FAA inspect work done at repair stations. Airline conducts oversight through its Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System, which requires routine audits of the facilities working on aircrafts in its fleet. FAA inspection requirements are based on risk analysis of results from the previous year’s surveillance. Using risk analysis tools, FAA inspectors identify potential safety hazards, target inspection efforts on areas of greatest risk and develop the following year’s inspection program.
United States has country-to-country Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements with France, Germany and Ireland. These agreements eliminate duplicate efforts by the FAA and the national aviation authorities, and specify that each authority perform certification and surveillance activities on behalf of the other. Under these agreements, the FAA conducts sample inspections of repair stations located in these countries.
While there's some concerns about the 4,187 domestic maintenance operators, the real problem lies with the 700-plus foreign FAA-certified repair stations. Beyond those, there are other non-certified repair shops that provide airlines with various maintenance services.
Critics maintain airlines are entrusting major maintenance works to offshore repair shops that the FAA doesn't have the resources to monitor effectively.
With fuel costs keep rising, airlines are left with few choices and doing everything possible, including maintenance outsourcing, to stay afloat. Meanwhile, law makers on Capital Hill are not far behind and are busy to introduce aviation regulations, ensuring that the safety of the flying public is addressed adequately and these repair stations are properly regulated and monitored.
Comments?
For quite some time, airlines insist on reducing in-house maintenance work, slashing the number of mechanics on its payroll, and sending maintenance tasks to lower-priced contractors in the U.S. and abroad. Outsourcing of aircraft maintenance has surged in recent years, raising concerns about the experience and background of the aircraft mechanics performing routine maintenance on our commercial airline fleets.
Government statistics show two-thirds of all maintenance on U.S. carriers is done by contractors, up from 30 percent in 1997.
Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines use repair stations in Hong Kong and Singapore. JetBlue Airways, US Airways and America West Airlines have their aircrafts serviced in El Salvador. Labor costs for mechanics are often lower overseas, and hangar space is more readily available. Other carriers send their maintenance work to third parties in the U.S., many located in the South, where labor rates are lower.
As aircraft maintenance becomes a $42 billion-a-year business, countries such as Dubai, China, Korea, and Singapore are making enormous investments to attract airline maintenance contracts.
In light of recent negative publicity about airline safety, new alarms are being raised about U.S. airlines’ growing reliance on foreign repair stations for everything from simple routine maintenance to major overhauls. Trade unions, business-travel groups, and some members of Congress maintain that quality and regulatory oversight suffer when maintenance is sent offshore. Opposition, driven in part by trade union leaders who have seen good-paying maintenance jobs shipped overseas, feels lax oversight of such repair shops is a gaping hole in airline safety and national security.
While repair stations are closely regulated and monitored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the agency requires airlines to ensure that their contract maintenance and training programs, and the contractors themselves, fully comply with federal regulations. The FAA certifies the foreign repair stations that it monitors through its international field offices in London, Frankfurt, Singapore, New York, Miami, Dallas and San Francisco.
Foreign repair stations are certified annually by the FAA, and a certified repair station may lose its certificate if it fails to comply with federal requirements. In practice, a FAA inspector is not required to give advanced notice prior to an on-site inspection, which also includes reviewing air carrier audits.
Both the air carrier and the FAA inspect work done at repair stations. Airline conducts oversight through its Continuing Analysis and Surveillance System, which requires routine audits of the facilities working on aircrafts in its fleet. FAA inspection requirements are based on risk analysis of results from the previous year’s surveillance. Using risk analysis tools, FAA inspectors identify potential safety hazards, target inspection efforts on areas of greatest risk and develop the following year’s inspection program.
United States has country-to-country Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreements with France, Germany and Ireland. These agreements eliminate duplicate efforts by the FAA and the national aviation authorities, and specify that each authority perform certification and surveillance activities on behalf of the other. Under these agreements, the FAA conducts sample inspections of repair stations located in these countries.
While there's some concerns about the 4,187 domestic maintenance operators, the real problem lies with the 700-plus foreign FAA-certified repair stations. Beyond those, there are other non-certified repair shops that provide airlines with various maintenance services.
Critics maintain airlines are entrusting major maintenance works to offshore repair shops that the FAA doesn't have the resources to monitor effectively.
With fuel costs keep rising, airlines are left with few choices and doing everything possible, including maintenance outsourcing, to stay afloat. Meanwhile, law makers on Capital Hill are not far behind and are busy to introduce aviation regulations, ensuring that the safety of the flying public is addressed adequately and these repair stations are properly regulated and monitored.
Comments?
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Slow Down to Achieve Fuel Efficiency
With jet fuel skyrocketing, airlines are having a tough time and are trying every trick on the book to stay profitability. Airlines are taking different measures including raising fares, adding fuel surcharges to tickets and charging extra for a second checked bag. In recent weeks, several smaller airlines have filed for bankruptcy protection blaming high fuel cost. Jet fuel cost is also blamed for the sharp quarter losses by some air carriers.
From the beginning of commercial flight, airlines came to know the different steps to optimize fuel consumption. Aviation terms such as optimal altitude, optimal cruise performance, optimal flight path, optimal flight speed, etc. are no stranger to aircraft makers (Boeing and Airbus) and commercial airline pilots alike. For years, aircraft manufacturers test their products for fuel economy. Aircrafts' operating manuals include tables and charts helping pilots to determine the optimal cruise performance based on aircraft's gross weight, flight distance, air speed and cruising altitude. Today, airlines e.g. WestJet Airlines, United Airlines, etc., automate this once manual process with on board navigation and software systems.
In practice, airline pilots may find it difficult to achieve aircraft's optimal flight performance in crowded airspace, where airplanes' air speed, heading, speed restrictions and cruising altitude are orchestrated by air traffic controllers.
Jet engine's fuel efficiency improves as an aircraft travels through thin air mass. When an aircraft flies at high altitude, it has less drag in flight and consumes less fuel. But, trip distance is normally the governing factor in determining the optimal altitude for a specific flight if weather, air traffic and wake turbulence are of no factor in flight.
To be cost effective, airlines go great distance to make every drop of jet fuel counted. Airlines require their pilots to taxi at airport tarmac with only one engine. Airlines keep the external surfaces of their aircrafts clean so as to reduce drag in flight.
As an airplane moves through the air, it generates the hazardous wing tip vortices that trail behind the aircraft. Continental Airlines equips its fleet of Boeing 737, Boeing 757 and regional jets with winglets aimed to break up the harmful wing tip vortices that serve to increase the drag on the airplane and to lower its fuel efficiency at the same time.
Aircraft's fuel consumption is directly proportional to its gross weight. To be fuel efficient, an aircraft carry only the payloads that are necessary for the trip. In the seventies, Eastern Airlines stripped off the paint from the fuselage of its aircrafts to reduce an aircraft's gross weight by 500 pounds. With this in mind, have you ever asked why American Airlines' planes are left unpainted? Today, airlines reduce the weight of their airplanes by using lighter trolleys and cargo containers and by carrying enough water on each flight.
Today, we learned U.S. airlines have ordered their pilots to slow down in order to reduce fuel consumption. Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways and Northwest Airlines claim to have multi-million dollar savings by adding few minutes to each flight. The extra flight time is added to existing flight schedules or absorbed into the extra time already built into schedules for taxiing and traffic delays.
Not every airline slows down to conserve fuel. For one thing, flying below a certain speed can actually increase an aircraft's fuel consumption. Some airlines feel working with aircraft gross weight is a better approach to fuel efficiency.
As explained earlier, optimal fuel efficiency can only be achieved by carefully maneuvering the aircraft's gross weight, flight distance, air speed and cruising altitude.
By slowing down an aircraft alone, airlines can definitely save jet fuel. However, I feel airlines can achieve better results with fuel efficiency if they followed United's lead and invested in on board avionics that have a good handle on all factors (airspeed, cruising altitude, gross weight and distance).
Comments?
From the beginning of commercial flight, airlines came to know the different steps to optimize fuel consumption. Aviation terms such as optimal altitude, optimal cruise performance, optimal flight path, optimal flight speed, etc. are no stranger to aircraft makers (Boeing and Airbus) and commercial airline pilots alike. For years, aircraft manufacturers test their products for fuel economy. Aircrafts' operating manuals include tables and charts helping pilots to determine the optimal cruise performance based on aircraft's gross weight, flight distance, air speed and cruising altitude. Today, airlines e.g. WestJet Airlines, United Airlines, etc., automate this once manual process with on board navigation and software systems.
In practice, airline pilots may find it difficult to achieve aircraft's optimal flight performance in crowded airspace, where airplanes' air speed, heading, speed restrictions and cruising altitude are orchestrated by air traffic controllers.
Jet engine's fuel efficiency improves as an aircraft travels through thin air mass. When an aircraft flies at high altitude, it has less drag in flight and consumes less fuel. But, trip distance is normally the governing factor in determining the optimal altitude for a specific flight if weather, air traffic and wake turbulence are of no factor in flight.
To be cost effective, airlines go great distance to make every drop of jet fuel counted. Airlines require their pilots to taxi at airport tarmac with only one engine. Airlines keep the external surfaces of their aircrafts clean so as to reduce drag in flight.
As an airplane moves through the air, it generates the hazardous wing tip vortices that trail behind the aircraft. Continental Airlines equips its fleet of Boeing 737, Boeing 757 and regional jets with winglets aimed to break up the harmful wing tip vortices that serve to increase the drag on the airplane and to lower its fuel efficiency at the same time.
Aircraft's fuel consumption is directly proportional to its gross weight. To be fuel efficient, an aircraft carry only the payloads that are necessary for the trip. In the seventies, Eastern Airlines stripped off the paint from the fuselage of its aircrafts to reduce an aircraft's gross weight by 500 pounds. With this in mind, have you ever asked why American Airlines' planes are left unpainted? Today, airlines reduce the weight of their airplanes by using lighter trolleys and cargo containers and by carrying enough water on each flight.
Today, we learned U.S. airlines have ordered their pilots to slow down in order to reduce fuel consumption. Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways and Northwest Airlines claim to have multi-million dollar savings by adding few minutes to each flight. The extra flight time is added to existing flight schedules or absorbed into the extra time already built into schedules for taxiing and traffic delays.
Not every airline slows down to conserve fuel. For one thing, flying below a certain speed can actually increase an aircraft's fuel consumption. Some airlines feel working with aircraft gross weight is a better approach to fuel efficiency.
As explained earlier, optimal fuel efficiency can only be achieved by carefully maneuvering the aircraft's gross weight, flight distance, air speed and cruising altitude.
By slowing down an aircraft alone, airlines can definitely save jet fuel. However, I feel airlines can achieve better results with fuel efficiency if they followed United's lead and invested in on board avionics that have a good handle on all factors (airspeed, cruising altitude, gross weight and distance).
Comments?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Turboprops Are Here To Stay
Quietly but surely, the noisy, bumpy, fuel-efficient turboprops are making a comeback as fuel costs climb to record highs and airlines struggle to stay afloat.
With the price of oil reaching $120 a barrel, aviation fuel cost, which now becomes a third of an airline's operating cost, is one expenditure that no airline can ignore.
Until recently, greater passenger comfort was the main focus for many commuter airlines. Turboprops, with loud propeller noise and vibrating passenger cabins, gave way to the quieter faster regional jets. Turboprop market shrank and turboprop manufacturers, Fokker and Saab, had either declared bankruptcy or abandoned production of turboprops altogether.
When propeller driven planes can make short trips with a quarter to a third less fuel than regional jets, airlines that only a short time ago were retiring their turboprop fleets in favor of all-jet fleets are now giving a second thought to the fuel-efficient turboprops.
As a result, there has been a clear reversal of trends in the regional airline business. Aircraft manufacturers Canada’s Bombardier and France’s ATR have increased production to 140 planes in 2008, after making 100 deliveries in 2007. This compares with only 26 deliveries in 2002. In the commuter airliner market, turboprops are outselling equivalent regional jets by a factor of two to one.
With increasing market interest, Bombardier is considering to offer a larger 90-seat Q400, and ATR is contemplating designing a new aircraft model. These new planes, which can fly at higher cruising altitudes, would have advanced noise/vibration suppression systems and offer in-flight comfort levels comparable to regional jets.
So, the turboprops are here to stay for good reasons: high aviation fuel cost and optimized operation efficiency.
Comments?
With the price of oil reaching $120 a barrel, aviation fuel cost, which now becomes a third of an airline's operating cost, is one expenditure that no airline can ignore.
Until recently, greater passenger comfort was the main focus for many commuter airlines. Turboprops, with loud propeller noise and vibrating passenger cabins, gave way to the quieter faster regional jets. Turboprop market shrank and turboprop manufacturers, Fokker and Saab, had either declared bankruptcy or abandoned production of turboprops altogether.
When propeller driven planes can make short trips with a quarter to a third less fuel than regional jets, airlines that only a short time ago were retiring their turboprop fleets in favor of all-jet fleets are now giving a second thought to the fuel-efficient turboprops.
As a result, there has been a clear reversal of trends in the regional airline business. Aircraft manufacturers Canada’s Bombardier and France’s ATR have increased production to 140 planes in 2008, after making 100 deliveries in 2007. This compares with only 26 deliveries in 2002. In the commuter airliner market, turboprops are outselling equivalent regional jets by a factor of two to one.
With increasing market interest, Bombardier is considering to offer a larger 90-seat Q400, and ATR is contemplating designing a new aircraft model. These new planes, which can fly at higher cruising altitudes, would have advanced noise/vibration suppression systems and offer in-flight comfort levels comparable to regional jets.
So, the turboprops are here to stay for good reasons: high aviation fuel cost and optimized operation efficiency.
Comments?
Saturday, April 26, 2008
North Atlantic Tracks
North Atlantic Tracks (NAT) are about jet stream, a fast narrow air currents found in the atmosphere about 10 kilometers above the Earth's surface. In northern hemisphere, jet stream travels in a west-to-east direction.
North Atlantic Tracks are heavily-traveled air corridors that stretch from the northeast of North America to western Europe. Unlike stationary land-based airways, the aviation authorities (Shanwick and Gander Oceanic Centers), collectively, relocate these 'tracks' on a daily basis. In so doing, Europe-bound aircrafts traveling on the NAT can save fuel by taking advantage of the strong tail winds generated by the jet stream and westbound traffics can avoid the strong head wind created by the same narrow jet stream. Because strong jet stream causes difference in ground speed, for any given transatlantic city pair, westbound flights usually take longer than their eastbound counterparts.
Aside from supply and demand, airlines' flight schedules are planned around European airports' nighttime closings and landing restrictions. This in turn has an effect on NAT traffic pattern. For NAT, westbound traffic is heaviest during daylight hours and eastbound tracks become crowded during night hours.
There are 5 or 6 tracks in each direction at any given time. Alphabetical letters are used to identify individual tracks, which are kept 60 miles apart from one another. There are approximately eight waypoints in each track.
Each track starts and ends with two named waypoints, linking it to the land-base airways at either side of the Atlantic. Other intermediate waypoints along a track are identified using earth's coordinates (latitude-longitude pairs). All tracks have waypoints along the following longitudes: 50°W, 40°W, 30°W, and 20°W. Pilots are required to project and report their estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the track's entry point as well as the ETA at each waypoint while traveling along these tracks.
For decades, High Frequency-Single Side Band (HF-SSB) has been used exclusively for opened-waters air-to-ground communication. In recent years, satellite-based air-to-ground communication equipment are widely used throughout the airline industry. Today, aircrafts with advanced ACARS and CPDLC equipment conduct air-to-ground communication (position reporting, ATC routing, flight plan, weather information, etc.) through satellite-based digital data links. Although HF-SSB voice channels are still in use, the voice traffic in these channels is significantly less in comparison.
Active NAT is available at https://www.notams.jcs.mil/common/nat.html. Aside from the waypoints of individual active tracks, the webpage has other information such as the list's update time, effective period, flight levels, remarks, etc.
With no radar coverage in the Atlantic, aircraft separation rules are strictly enforced in NAT until aircrafts again come within the range of land-based radars. In general, aircrafts on the same track are kept separated by 10 minutes time interval at same flight level or are kept at 1000 feet vertical distance.
In pre-flight planning, an active transatlantic track is identified for the flight and the selected track then becomes a part of its flight plan to be filed with the aviation authority, e.g. FAA. As a routine precaution, many in-flight emergencies are also considered and contingencies are hashed out before the actual Atlantic crossing.
Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS) is NAT's counterpart over the northern Pacific. They comprise a set of airways linking Japan, Southeast Asia, Honolulu and the mainland US.
Comments?
North Atlantic Tracks are heavily-traveled air corridors that stretch from the northeast of North America to western Europe. Unlike stationary land-based airways, the aviation authorities (Shanwick and Gander Oceanic Centers), collectively, relocate these 'tracks' on a daily basis. In so doing, Europe-bound aircrafts traveling on the NAT can save fuel by taking advantage of the strong tail winds generated by the jet stream and westbound traffics can avoid the strong head wind created by the same narrow jet stream. Because strong jet stream causes difference in ground speed, for any given transatlantic city pair, westbound flights usually take longer than their eastbound counterparts.
Aside from supply and demand, airlines' flight schedules are planned around European airports' nighttime closings and landing restrictions. This in turn has an effect on NAT traffic pattern. For NAT, westbound traffic is heaviest during daylight hours and eastbound tracks become crowded during night hours.
There are 5 or 6 tracks in each direction at any given time. Alphabetical letters are used to identify individual tracks, which are kept 60 miles apart from one another. There are approximately eight waypoints in each track.
Each track starts and ends with two named waypoints, linking it to the land-base airways at either side of the Atlantic. Other intermediate waypoints along a track are identified using earth's coordinates (latitude-longitude pairs). All tracks have waypoints along the following longitudes: 50°W, 40°W, 30°W, and 20°W. Pilots are required to project and report their estimated time of arrival (ETA) at the track's entry point as well as the ETA at each waypoint while traveling along these tracks.
For decades, High Frequency-Single Side Band (HF-SSB) has been used exclusively for opened-waters air-to-ground communication. In recent years, satellite-based air-to-ground communication equipment are widely used throughout the airline industry. Today, aircrafts with advanced ACARS and CPDLC equipment conduct air-to-ground communication (position reporting, ATC routing, flight plan, weather information, etc.) through satellite-based digital data links. Although HF-SSB voice channels are still in use, the voice traffic in these channels is significantly less in comparison.
Active NAT is available at https://www.notams.jcs.mil/common/nat.html. Aside from the waypoints of individual active tracks, the webpage has other information such as the list's update time, effective period, flight levels, remarks, etc.
With no radar coverage in the Atlantic, aircraft separation rules are strictly enforced in NAT until aircrafts again come within the range of land-based radars. In general, aircrafts on the same track are kept separated by 10 minutes time interval at same flight level or are kept at 1000 feet vertical distance.
In pre-flight planning, an active transatlantic track is identified for the flight and the selected track then becomes a part of its flight plan to be filed with the aviation authority, e.g. FAA. As a routine precaution, many in-flight emergencies are also considered and contingencies are hashed out before the actual Atlantic crossing.
Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS) is NAT's counterpart over the northern Pacific. They comprise a set of airways linking Japan, Southeast Asia, Honolulu and the mainland US.
Comments?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
World's Longest Scheduled Commercial Flight
For decades, multi-segment flights were the norm for those travelers making long distance flights. Due to its location, Anchorage Alaska has been for years the scheduled "technical stop" (refueling stop) for many Asia-North America flights using aircrafts with shorter range capacity.
Long-distance flights are becoming more common in part because aircrafts are capable of flying long-haul trips without refueling. The Official Airline Guide said the number of scheduled long-haul flights has been increasing steadily over the past six years. As these aircrafts can fly nonstop on these long-distance routes, airlines using these long-range aircrafts can put their fleet of aircrafts in better use, eliminate technical stops along the way, save landing fees for refueling airports and fly to their destinations without worrying about landing rights at busy airports or airports in unfriendly countries. Long-distance flights also give airlines a marketing edge. Shorter flight time command higher airfares and business travelers are often in favor of speed and convenience over price.
While the new Boeing 777-200LR is the longest-range passenger aircraft in service, Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways and United Arab Emirates use the Airbus A340-500 aircrafts on the world's longest scheduled flights. Singapore Airlines' Newark-Singapore flight (SQ21) is the world's longest scheduled flight, traveling 10,314 miles (16,600 kilometers ) to reach its destination in more than 18.5 hours. In contrast to conventional wisdom, SQ21 flies in easterly direction over the Atlantic Ocean, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, etc. to reach Singapore.
Since more fuel is required for these ultra-long nonstop flights, payload that generates airline revenue in normal situation has to be cut to make room for extra fuel carried on board. In addition, the flight needs to carry extra staff as there is no refueling stop in which to bring aboard fresh crew. To compensate for the loss in airline revenue, passengers are expected to pay more to travel on these flights. With a two-class arrangement, the aircraft is more spacious, less crowded and only carries 151 passengers on board. Singapore Airlines, being one of the top-ranked airlines in the world, makes provisions on its A340-500 for its passengers to stretch out, to walk around or even to socialize over the stand-up bar.
Comments?
Long-distance flights are becoming more common in part because aircrafts are capable of flying long-haul trips without refueling. The Official Airline Guide said the number of scheduled long-haul flights has been increasing steadily over the past six years. As these aircrafts can fly nonstop on these long-distance routes, airlines using these long-range aircrafts can put their fleet of aircrafts in better use, eliminate technical stops along the way, save landing fees for refueling airports and fly to their destinations without worrying about landing rights at busy airports or airports in unfriendly countries. Long-distance flights also give airlines a marketing edge. Shorter flight time command higher airfares and business travelers are often in favor of speed and convenience over price.
While the new Boeing 777-200LR is the longest-range passenger aircraft in service, Singapore Airlines, Thai Airways and United Arab Emirates use the Airbus A340-500 aircrafts on the world's longest scheduled flights. Singapore Airlines' Newark-Singapore flight (SQ21) is the world's longest scheduled flight, traveling 10,314 miles (16,600 kilometers ) to reach its destination in more than 18.5 hours. In contrast to conventional wisdom, SQ21 flies in easterly direction over the Atlantic Ocean, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, etc. to reach Singapore.
Since more fuel is required for these ultra-long nonstop flights, payload that generates airline revenue in normal situation has to be cut to make room for extra fuel carried on board. In addition, the flight needs to carry extra staff as there is no refueling stop in which to bring aboard fresh crew. To compensate for the loss in airline revenue, passengers are expected to pay more to travel on these flights. With a two-class arrangement, the aircraft is more spacious, less crowded and only carries 151 passengers on board. Singapore Airlines, being one of the top-ranked airlines in the world, makes provisions on its A340-500 for its passengers to stretch out, to walk around or even to socialize over the stand-up bar.
Comments?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Airbus' New Navigation System to Reduce Fuel Consumption on Oceanic Flights
An airline's bottom line is tied pretty much to how efficient its fleet of airplanes operated.
As fuel prices skyrocketing, jet fuel becomes such a huge expenditure in an airline's balance sheet, that it can no longer ignore. Airlines are scrambling to look into different ways to minimize the impact caused by high fuel cost. Newer lighter aircrafts with fuel-efficient engines are put into service replacing older heavy aircrafts that burned more fuel. Small lighter aircrafts are used whenever situation warranted.
Aircraft manufacturers are no different. Being light and being fuel efficient are the main design goals, that they try to achieve in all of their products.
When it comes to vast open waters, such as the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean, the range of conventional land-based radars is inadequate and their effectiveness (as an air traffic control tool) diminishes. Vast oceans also render short-range land-based Very High Frequency (VHF) air-to-ground communication useless. The widely-used land-based VHF Omnidirectional Range navigation system (VOR), with its network of transmitting stations, is a concept that simply does not work when it comes to opened waters.
Air navigation has come a long way from the time when sextants were used in the cockpit to guide airplanes traveling over opened waters. To make ocean crossing possible, ships were stationed at four spots in the North Atlantic Ocean at one time to serve as floating Non-directional beacons (NDB). Today, the advance of Global Positioning System (GPS) has changed all that. Signals from a network of geosynchronous satellites provide an accurate and inexpensive means to navigation in general.
A very different air traffic control system is therefore put in place to address the hurdles that are associated with vast opened waters. In oceanic-going flights, air-to-ground communication is conducted using long-ranged High Frequency Single Side Band (HF/SSB) equipment.
Instead of using land-based VORs and predefined routes, flight plans are defined using the earth's coordinates and predefined fixes on over-water segments. To work around weather, daily ocean-crossing tracks (corridor of neatly arranged airways), e.g. the North Atlantic Tracks and the Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS), are jointly published for heavily-traveled routes by aviation authorities of different countries.
Even with today's advance in avionics, pilots are still required to project and report their positions in certain oceanic sectors. Without the help of land-based radars, airplanes are kept in safe distance from one another by air traffic controllers, who gather aircraft position data from pilots manually and analyze their reports through other means. Aside from visual contact, pilots have few clues (mainly from the air-to-ground communication channels) about other aircrafts in their close vicinity.
Last month, Airbus tested a new navigation procedure called CRISTAL ITP (in-trail procedures), building on satellite-navigation-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) technology to give pilots a clear view of their immediate surroundings during oceanic crossings. Airbus claims the new procedure, if implemented, will cut fuel consumption by allowing airplanes to change cruising altitude safely and to fly at their optimal speed and altitude.
Airbus conducted its recent test flight over the Icelandic airspace, using two aircrafts: a Scandinavian Airlines Airbus A330 and an ADS-B-equipped A340 flying in close proximity. The A330 was equipped with the 'ADS-B Out', a GPS-derived, position-broadcasting technology which already certified for all modern Airbus jets.
As part of this test, the Airbus A330 was cruising at a fixed altitude and broadcasting its position and altitude continuously to be received by nearby stations. The Airbus A340-600 test aircraft was outfitted with the new 'ADS-B In' technology allowing pilots of the aircraft to see the positions and altitudes of all other aircraft in the area. In addition to flight data received from the Airbus A330, the test aircraft received Traffic Information Services—Broadcast (TIS-B) data on aircraft positions and altitudes transmitted by nearby air traffic control facilities. With new flight data at hand, the pilots of the Airbus A340 test aircraft could assess the separation requirements in real time and requested clearance for altitude changes when the two aircrafts were at a safe distance from one another.
Airbus estimates that a wide-body jet could cut fuel consumption by 374 pounds on each Atlantic crossing if it can cruise and change altitude to reach maximum fuel efficiency. With 700 daily flights crossing the Atlantic Ocean alone, savings on fuel consumption can be enormous. If all goes well, Airbus plans to have the CRISTAL ITP procedure up and running over the Atlantic Ocean no later than 2010.
Comments?
As fuel prices skyrocketing, jet fuel becomes such a huge expenditure in an airline's balance sheet, that it can no longer ignore. Airlines are scrambling to look into different ways to minimize the impact caused by high fuel cost. Newer lighter aircrafts with fuel-efficient engines are put into service replacing older heavy aircrafts that burned more fuel. Small lighter aircrafts are used whenever situation warranted.
Aircraft manufacturers are no different. Being light and being fuel efficient are the main design goals, that they try to achieve in all of their products.
When it comes to vast open waters, such as the Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean, the range of conventional land-based radars is inadequate and their effectiveness (as an air traffic control tool) diminishes. Vast oceans also render short-range land-based Very High Frequency (VHF) air-to-ground communication useless. The widely-used land-based VHF Omnidirectional Range navigation system (VOR), with its network of transmitting stations, is a concept that simply does not work when it comes to opened waters.
Air navigation has come a long way from the time when sextants were used in the cockpit to guide airplanes traveling over opened waters. To make ocean crossing possible, ships were stationed at four spots in the North Atlantic Ocean at one time to serve as floating Non-directional beacons (NDB). Today, the advance of Global Positioning System (GPS) has changed all that. Signals from a network of geosynchronous satellites provide an accurate and inexpensive means to navigation in general.
A very different air traffic control system is therefore put in place to address the hurdles that are associated with vast opened waters. In oceanic-going flights, air-to-ground communication is conducted using long-ranged High Frequency Single Side Band (HF/SSB) equipment.
Instead of using land-based VORs and predefined routes, flight plans are defined using the earth's coordinates and predefined fixes on over-water segments. To work around weather, daily ocean-crossing tracks (corridor of neatly arranged airways), e.g. the North Atlantic Tracks and the Pacific Organized Track System (PACOTS), are jointly published for heavily-traveled routes by aviation authorities of different countries.
Even with today's advance in avionics, pilots are still required to project and report their positions in certain oceanic sectors. Without the help of land-based radars, airplanes are kept in safe distance from one another by air traffic controllers, who gather aircraft position data from pilots manually and analyze their reports through other means. Aside from visual contact, pilots have few clues (mainly from the air-to-ground communication channels) about other aircrafts in their close vicinity.
Last month, Airbus tested a new navigation procedure called CRISTAL ITP (in-trail procedures), building on satellite-navigation-based Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) technology to give pilots a clear view of their immediate surroundings during oceanic crossings. Airbus claims the new procedure, if implemented, will cut fuel consumption by allowing airplanes to change cruising altitude safely and to fly at their optimal speed and altitude.
Airbus conducted its recent test flight over the Icelandic airspace, using two aircrafts: a Scandinavian Airlines Airbus A330 and an ADS-B-equipped A340 flying in close proximity. The A330 was equipped with the 'ADS-B Out', a GPS-derived, position-broadcasting technology which already certified for all modern Airbus jets.
As part of this test, the Airbus A330 was cruising at a fixed altitude and broadcasting its position and altitude continuously to be received by nearby stations. The Airbus A340-600 test aircraft was outfitted with the new 'ADS-B In' technology allowing pilots of the aircraft to see the positions and altitudes of all other aircraft in the area. In addition to flight data received from the Airbus A330, the test aircraft received Traffic Information Services—Broadcast (TIS-B) data on aircraft positions and altitudes transmitted by nearby air traffic control facilities. With new flight data at hand, the pilots of the Airbus A340 test aircraft could assess the separation requirements in real time and requested clearance for altitude changes when the two aircrafts were at a safe distance from one another.
Airbus estimates that a wide-body jet could cut fuel consumption by 374 pounds on each Atlantic crossing if it can cruise and change altitude to reach maximum fuel efficiency. With 700 daily flights crossing the Atlantic Ocean alone, savings on fuel consumption can be enormous. If all goes well, Airbus plans to have the CRISTAL ITP procedure up and running over the Atlantic Ocean no later than 2010.
Comments?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Airlines' New Second Bag Policy
To help offset rising fuel costs, five major US airlines (United, Continental, US Airways, Northwest and Delta) will start charging coach passengers as much as $25 in May to check in a second piece of luggage.
As the airlines struggle to stay profitable, fees for amenities previously included in the ticket price are on the rise. Travelers are paying extra for everything from food to bulkhead seats that offer extra legroom.
Not all passengers will be required to pay fee for their second bag though. The checked bag charge will be waived for the first/business class passengers, travelers who reach preferred status with the airline and those who participate in its frequent flier program. These passengers will still be able to check in a second bag for free. As more and more business customers traveling in coach, the fees will affect business consumers as well as leisure travelers. Readers are encouraged to check with individual airlines for details of their new checked bag policy.
United Airlines said a quarter of its customers check a second bag and it expected $100 million a year in new revenue and cost savings from the baggage charge. US Airways spokesman Morgan Durant said about 8% of US Airways customers check more than one bag and the charge is expected to generate $75 million in revenue and cost savings for the Company each year.
"Some critics may call this another example of airline customers being 'nickel and dimed' for services that used to be provided as part of the flying experience," US Airways President Scott Kirby said in a statement to its employees. "But the airline industry of 2008 is very different from the industry of 1998 or 1988, and we have to be realistic — and innovative — about our product."
As price-sensitive passengers filling up overhead-bin space with more carry-on bags, it certainly does not leave much room for those passengers who pack lightly for their trips and board the aircraft late.
Air travel becomes a way of life for most of us. As fuel prices rise, things that, we take for granted for so long, are either getting so expensive or taken away from us. Free second checked bag will soon become a thing of the past. What is next? It certainly does not take long before air travel becomes so expensive that only a very wealthy, elite few will be able to afford it.
As simple as it looks, the checked bag policy will certainly have a domino effect on the way we'll do things and conduct businesses. For better or worse, it certainly will change the way we view air travel. This is particularly true for those who travel for a living. Will they still travel as much? Time will tell.
Comments?
As the airlines struggle to stay profitable, fees for amenities previously included in the ticket price are on the rise. Travelers are paying extra for everything from food to bulkhead seats that offer extra legroom.
Not all passengers will be required to pay fee for their second bag though. The checked bag charge will be waived for the first/business class passengers, travelers who reach preferred status with the airline and those who participate in its frequent flier program. These passengers will still be able to check in a second bag for free. As more and more business customers traveling in coach, the fees will affect business consumers as well as leisure travelers. Readers are encouraged to check with individual airlines for details of their new checked bag policy.
United Airlines said a quarter of its customers check a second bag and it expected $100 million a year in new revenue and cost savings from the baggage charge. US Airways spokesman Morgan Durant said about 8% of US Airways customers check more than one bag and the charge is expected to generate $75 million in revenue and cost savings for the Company each year.
"Some critics may call this another example of airline customers being 'nickel and dimed' for services that used to be provided as part of the flying experience," US Airways President Scott Kirby said in a statement to its employees. "But the airline industry of 2008 is very different from the industry of 1998 or 1988, and we have to be realistic — and innovative — about our product."
As price-sensitive passengers filling up overhead-bin space with more carry-on bags, it certainly does not leave much room for those passengers who pack lightly for their trips and board the aircraft late.
Air travel becomes a way of life for most of us. As fuel prices rise, things that, we take for granted for so long, are either getting so expensive or taken away from us. Free second checked bag will soon become a thing of the past. What is next? It certainly does not take long before air travel becomes so expensive that only a very wealthy, elite few will be able to afford it.
As simple as it looks, the checked bag policy will certainly have a domino effect on the way we'll do things and conduct businesses. For better or worse, it certainly will change the way we view air travel. This is particularly true for those who travel for a living. Will they still travel as much? Time will tell.
Comments?
Monday, April 21, 2008
United Airlines Raises Business Fares and Ticket Change Fee to Cope With Hiking Oil Prices
United Airlines said it was increasing business travel fares and the fee it charges passengers to change tickets in an effort to offset high jet fuel prices, that have risen 80% in 2007. United's ticket-change fees will rise to $150 from $100. The ticketing policy, which came to light as oil prices topped $115 a barrel, could pressure other carriers to follow suit. However, history also shows few fare increases in the past failed to stick after competitors refused to follow.
U.S. airlines have been raising fares, adding fees, and cutting capacity to cope with a weakening economy and high fuel costs. With the oil prices keep rising, no one can predict how high fares could rise.
A spokeswoman for United Airlines Robin Urbanski said in an email that United was also requiring Saturday-night stays in about 65% of the markets it serves. This translates to higher airfare for the business travelers who typically don't spend a Saturday night in their destination. Given today's business climate, the fare hike will certainly discourage business travel, which makes up a significant part of United's revenues. Under United's new policy, leisure travelers who opt to stay over weekends will have less impact and still be able to find lower airfares.
In her email, Urbanski said, "In an environment where fuel prices are averaging almost $120 a barrel, we are facing a cost increase of more than $2 billion this year, and that is more than twice the operating earnings we generated last year". She said, "Making these changes is another example of how we need to continue to adapt to today's tough market realities and find new ways to generate revenue". Earlier, Urbanski also said United faces competition from budget carriers like Southwest Airlines Co. on about 80% of its domestic routes.
On another front, the surge in oil prices has left airlines scrambling to find ways to boost non-ticket revenue by charging extra for food, drinks, baggage and added legroom.
Because fare increase is the surest way to boost airline revenues, air carriers, e.g. United Airlines, are likely to continue pushing fares higher even if they eventually have to roll back their fare increases.
Comments?
U.S. airlines have been raising fares, adding fees, and cutting capacity to cope with a weakening economy and high fuel costs. With the oil prices keep rising, no one can predict how high fares could rise.
A spokeswoman for United Airlines Robin Urbanski said in an email that United was also requiring Saturday-night stays in about 65% of the markets it serves. This translates to higher airfare for the business travelers who typically don't spend a Saturday night in their destination. Given today's business climate, the fare hike will certainly discourage business travel, which makes up a significant part of United's revenues. Under United's new policy, leisure travelers who opt to stay over weekends will have less impact and still be able to find lower airfares.
In her email, Urbanski said, "In an environment where fuel prices are averaging almost $120 a barrel, we are facing a cost increase of more than $2 billion this year, and that is more than twice the operating earnings we generated last year". She said, "Making these changes is another example of how we need to continue to adapt to today's tough market realities and find new ways to generate revenue". Earlier, Urbanski also said United faces competition from budget carriers like Southwest Airlines Co. on about 80% of its domestic routes.
On another front, the surge in oil prices has left airlines scrambling to find ways to boost non-ticket revenue by charging extra for food, drinks, baggage and added legroom.
Because fare increase is the surest way to boost airline revenues, air carriers, e.g. United Airlines, are likely to continue pushing fares higher even if they eventually have to roll back their fare increases.
Comments?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Another Boeing 787 Dreamliner Delay
Boeing's 787 Dreamliner launch has again been delayed after further problems with its suppliers and "unanticipated rework". Boeing's bad news comes at a time when it and the European aircraft maker Airbus are in a heated battle for supremacy of the commercial aircraft market.
The 787 Dreamliner, Boeing's new passenger jetliner in over a decade, is designed to use high-tech plastic composites instead of aluminum. In an effort to reduce its gross weight, the 787 Dreamliner's fuselage and wing are made of composites such as carbon-fibre. As the plane getting lighter, Boeing claims the 787 Dreamliner will consume 20% less fuel than similar-sized planes already on the market.
The first flight of Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a fuel-efficient aircraft seen as a key to Boeing's future, will move into the 4th quarter of this year, and first delivery is now planned for the 3rd quarter of 2009, more than a year after the original target of May this year. The $150 billion project is now at least 15 months behind schedule. There is also an indefinite delay for its short-range model, favored by Japanese airlines. It is the latest in a series of delays for the 787 Dreamliner.
Boeing said the new schedule "includes additional schedule margin to reduce risk of further delays on the program" and provides "the addition of margin into the testing schedule".
The delay of the Dreamliner will cost Boeing billions of dollars in compensations to airlines and in canceled orders. As European Airbus got hit with many delays with its Airbus 380, its folks sure are getting a kick out of Boeing's bad news.
The Dreamliner's first customer, All Nippon Airways, said it was "extremely disappointed" it would not receive its 787s until the 3rd quarter of 2009. Airlines are lining up for compensation after Boeing's announcement. Air New Zealand and Air India said they will seek compensation. All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines say they both plan claims after assessing the impact. Virgin Atlantic is negotiating with Boeing about compensation or replacement aircraft. A spokesman for British Airways said: "We are talking to Boeing about compensation, the implications of this delay and the options available to us." Australia's Qantas Airways, the 787's second-biggest buyer with 65 plane orders, said it has already put in a claim for compensation after previous delays.
More than 50 airlines have placed 892 orders (netting $145 billion) for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, but it is unclear when these new aircrafts will be delivered. Boeing had said it was building up to full production more slowly than it had anticipated. Boeing aims to build some 2000 Dreamliners over the next two decades.
In commenting the delay, Boeing's CEO Scott Carson said, "It is our actions, not our words, that will get this state-of-the-art airplane into the air". But, how much a slipped delivery deadline undermines Boeing's credibility remains to be seen.
Comments?
The 787 Dreamliner, Boeing's new passenger jetliner in over a decade, is designed to use high-tech plastic composites instead of aluminum. In an effort to reduce its gross weight, the 787 Dreamliner's fuselage and wing are made of composites such as carbon-fibre. As the plane getting lighter, Boeing claims the 787 Dreamliner will consume 20% less fuel than similar-sized planes already on the market.
The first flight of Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a fuel-efficient aircraft seen as a key to Boeing's future, will move into the 4th quarter of this year, and first delivery is now planned for the 3rd quarter of 2009, more than a year after the original target of May this year. The $150 billion project is now at least 15 months behind schedule. There is also an indefinite delay for its short-range model, favored by Japanese airlines. It is the latest in a series of delays for the 787 Dreamliner.
Boeing said the new schedule "includes additional schedule margin to reduce risk of further delays on the program" and provides "the addition of margin into the testing schedule".
The delay of the Dreamliner will cost Boeing billions of dollars in compensations to airlines and in canceled orders. As European Airbus got hit with many delays with its Airbus 380, its folks sure are getting a kick out of Boeing's bad news.
The Dreamliner's first customer, All Nippon Airways, said it was "extremely disappointed" it would not receive its 787s until the 3rd quarter of 2009. Airlines are lining up for compensation after Boeing's announcement. Air New Zealand and Air India said they will seek compensation. All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines say they both plan claims after assessing the impact. Virgin Atlantic is negotiating with Boeing about compensation or replacement aircraft. A spokesman for British Airways said: "We are talking to Boeing about compensation, the implications of this delay and the options available to us." Australia's Qantas Airways, the 787's second-biggest buyer with 65 plane orders, said it has already put in a claim for compensation after previous delays.
More than 50 airlines have placed 892 orders (netting $145 billion) for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, but it is unclear when these new aircrafts will be delivered. Boeing had said it was building up to full production more slowly than it had anticipated. Boeing aims to build some 2000 Dreamliners over the next two decades.
In commenting the delay, Boeing's CEO Scott Carson said, "It is our actions, not our words, that will get this state-of-the-art airplane into the air". But, how much a slipped delivery deadline undermines Boeing's credibility remains to be seen.
Comments?
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Continental Airlines' Low-Fuel Landings at Newark Airport
According to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal, Continental Airlines pilots reported their aircrafts running low on fuel nearly 100 times in 2007 during approaches to New Jersey's Newark Liberty International Airport, sparking concerns from air traffic controllers, federal regulators and its pilots.
By declaring a fuel emergency on board, a pilot alerts air traffic controllers that the aircraft must, without delay, in reaching the airport for landing. Although fuel emergencies pose no direct safety threat to passengers, they certainly create a burden on the already overloaded air traffic system and a distraction for the air traffic controllers in a busy sector.
FAA regulations require an aircraft on landing to have enough fuel for another 45 minutes of flight in case of bad weather or other unforeseeable emergencies at its destination. In the event of fuel emergencies, air traffic controllers are required to file reports for all occurrences.
US Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General (OIG) disclosed the number of fuel emergencies at Newark increased from 48 in 2006 to 134 in 2007, an increase of 180%. For the same period, OIG found no similar increases occurred at the nearby LaGuardia Airport and John F. Kennedy Airport. The OIS statistics also shows, of the 151 fuel emergencies at Newark in 2007, 66% occurred on international flights, and 64% were issued by Continental Airlines flights. According to OIG, Continental 757 flights from Barcelona to Newark declared fuel emergencies 23 times in 2007, the highest number of any flight reviewed.
With fuel prices skyrocketing, Continental Airlines' strategy is to use the smaller single-isle Boeing 757s with smaller fuel capacity on certain trans-Atlantic routes, e.g. Berlin (3,980 miles).
On Boeing's web site, its 757 advertisement starts as followed, "The Boeing 757 is a twin-engine short-to-medium-range jetliner incorporating advanced technology ...". The direct distance between Barcelona and Newark is 3,848 miles and the flight time is approximately 7.5 hours. It certainly does not appear to be a short flight to me. Is it a long-haul flight? It is hard to say. In comparison, the non-stop Newark-Singapore flight takes 18 hours to reach its destination.
In my view, this certainly is not exactly the trips that Boeing had in mind when they designed and built the Boeing 757. Even if the twin-engine aircraft can make it to the destination in these over-water flights, Boeing 757's small size certainly does not leave a lot of room for passenger comfort and safety.
Not too long ago, FAA restricted twin-engine passenger aircrafts from flying the Atlantic routes. Concerned as it is about airline economics, and with the increased reliability of the jet turbine engines, FAA lifted the ban after aircraft manufacturers and airlines proved to FAA that twin-engine aircrafts could fly nonstop safely over the Atlantic Ocean.
There is another aspect to the whole story. As jet fuel approaching $115 a barrel, airlines' operating efficiency is pretty much depending on the payload an aircraft carries. Carrying excessive jet fuel in an aircraft is not cost effective and can only hurt an airline's bottom line. By cutting back on the reserve cushion of fuel needed for unexpected delays, the airplanes become lighter and lighter planes burn less fuel which can save thousands per flight. To such an extent, airline management always reminds their pilots to use sound judgement on how much fuel they decide to carry on each flight. According to reports, Continental ties the extra fuel pilots carry in flights to their retirement or pension sharing.
Given all these restraints, I feel the Continental pilots are just doing their job to help the Company to improve its bottom line. Meanwhile, the federal auditors have determined that all aircrafts in question had landed with the required FAA minimum fuel levels onboard.
Comments?
By declaring a fuel emergency on board, a pilot alerts air traffic controllers that the aircraft must, without delay, in reaching the airport for landing. Although fuel emergencies pose no direct safety threat to passengers, they certainly create a burden on the already overloaded air traffic system and a distraction for the air traffic controllers in a busy sector.
FAA regulations require an aircraft on landing to have enough fuel for another 45 minutes of flight in case of bad weather or other unforeseeable emergencies at its destination. In the event of fuel emergencies, air traffic controllers are required to file reports for all occurrences.
US Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General (OIG) disclosed the number of fuel emergencies at Newark increased from 48 in 2006 to 134 in 2007, an increase of 180%. For the same period, OIG found no similar increases occurred at the nearby LaGuardia Airport and John F. Kennedy Airport. The OIS statistics also shows, of the 151 fuel emergencies at Newark in 2007, 66% occurred on international flights, and 64% were issued by Continental Airlines flights. According to OIG, Continental 757 flights from Barcelona to Newark declared fuel emergencies 23 times in 2007, the highest number of any flight reviewed.
With fuel prices skyrocketing, Continental Airlines' strategy is to use the smaller single-isle Boeing 757s with smaller fuel capacity on certain trans-Atlantic routes, e.g. Berlin (3,980 miles).
On Boeing's web site, its 757 advertisement starts as followed, "The Boeing 757 is a twin-engine short-to-medium-range jetliner incorporating advanced technology ...". The direct distance between Barcelona and Newark is 3,848 miles and the flight time is approximately 7.5 hours. It certainly does not appear to be a short flight to me. Is it a long-haul flight? It is hard to say. In comparison, the non-stop Newark-Singapore flight takes 18 hours to reach its destination.
In my view, this certainly is not exactly the trips that Boeing had in mind when they designed and built the Boeing 757. Even if the twin-engine aircraft can make it to the destination in these over-water flights, Boeing 757's small size certainly does not leave a lot of room for passenger comfort and safety.
Not too long ago, FAA restricted twin-engine passenger aircrafts from flying the Atlantic routes. Concerned as it is about airline economics, and with the increased reliability of the jet turbine engines, FAA lifted the ban after aircraft manufacturers and airlines proved to FAA that twin-engine aircrafts could fly nonstop safely over the Atlantic Ocean.
There is another aspect to the whole story. As jet fuel approaching $115 a barrel, airlines' operating efficiency is pretty much depending on the payload an aircraft carries. Carrying excessive jet fuel in an aircraft is not cost effective and can only hurt an airline's bottom line. By cutting back on the reserve cushion of fuel needed for unexpected delays, the airplanes become lighter and lighter planes burn less fuel which can save thousands per flight. To such an extent, airline management always reminds their pilots to use sound judgement on how much fuel they decide to carry on each flight. According to reports, Continental ties the extra fuel pilots carry in flights to their retirement or pension sharing.
Given all these restraints, I feel the Continental pilots are just doing their job to help the Company to improve its bottom line. Meanwhile, the federal auditors have determined that all aircrafts in question had landed with the required FAA minimum fuel levels onboard.
Comments?
Friday, April 18, 2008
Can You Make Any Sense Out of Recent Events in the Airline Industry?
There are more airline news than we care for in recent weeks. One way or another, these events have something to do with the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act.
Airline deregulation, created by Alfred E. Kahn, who led the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) at the time, was supposed to achieve two goals: bringing down airfares and spurring competition.
Prior to deregulation, there were 10 big airlines, controlling 90% of the American market, and the 8 regional airlines. The airline industry was tightly controlled by the CAB, which regulated and approved the routes that airlines can operate. It also set the airfares that guaranteed airlines a 12% return on flights that were 55% full. Airlines were also confined to the cities that they can serve. Service was limited and discounts were rare.
With deregulation, airfares are cheaper and there are more flights to more cities. It also brings cutthroat competition and the temptation to cut corners on passenger services. Small cities lose airline services. Airline hubs keep competitors at bay, giving the dominant airline in the city more control over pricing. More than 150 airlines have sought bankruptcy protection or disappeared, but new airlines keep springing up as people find it easy to start an airline.
The airline industry incurred more than $30 billion loss from 2001 to 2006. Profits are dismal. High fuel costs are driving airlines into bankruptcy court, or one another’s arms. The recent Delta-Northwest merger is a good example. It may also push other airlines to pursue partners of their own. Hawaii's Aloha and Frontier Airlines have sought bankruptcy protection in recent weeks. It is a tough environment all over in the airline industry!
With respect to the news on fleet maintenance, Southwest planes were allowed to fly with cracked fuselages. Concerns about wiring on American Airlines' 300 MD-80 jets forced flight cancellations. These are the symbols of a broken system at work. However, I have to admit that the airline industry's safety record has remained plenty much intact.
Does deregulation works? Properly not. On a day when American Airlines canceled more than 1,000 flights and stranded about 100,000 passengers, the chairman of a congressional committee overseeing transportation warned that pressure is mounting to "re-regulate" the airline industry.
Comments?
Airline deregulation, created by Alfred E. Kahn, who led the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) at the time, was supposed to achieve two goals: bringing down airfares and spurring competition.
Prior to deregulation, there were 10 big airlines, controlling 90% of the American market, and the 8 regional airlines. The airline industry was tightly controlled by the CAB, which regulated and approved the routes that airlines can operate. It also set the airfares that guaranteed airlines a 12% return on flights that were 55% full. Airlines were also confined to the cities that they can serve. Service was limited and discounts were rare.
With deregulation, airfares are cheaper and there are more flights to more cities. It also brings cutthroat competition and the temptation to cut corners on passenger services. Small cities lose airline services. Airline hubs keep competitors at bay, giving the dominant airline in the city more control over pricing. More than 150 airlines have sought bankruptcy protection or disappeared, but new airlines keep springing up as people find it easy to start an airline.
The airline industry incurred more than $30 billion loss from 2001 to 2006. Profits are dismal. High fuel costs are driving airlines into bankruptcy court, or one another’s arms. The recent Delta-Northwest merger is a good example. It may also push other airlines to pursue partners of their own. Hawaii's Aloha and Frontier Airlines have sought bankruptcy protection in recent weeks. It is a tough environment all over in the airline industry!
With respect to the news on fleet maintenance, Southwest planes were allowed to fly with cracked fuselages. Concerns about wiring on American Airlines' 300 MD-80 jets forced flight cancellations. These are the symbols of a broken system at work. However, I have to admit that the airline industry's safety record has remained plenty much intact.
Does deregulation works? Properly not. On a day when American Airlines canceled more than 1,000 flights and stranded about 100,000 passengers, the chairman of a congressional committee overseeing transportation warned that pressure is mounting to "re-regulate" the airline industry.
Comments?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
A Tale of Two Airports
An objective can have different results in different societies.
When Queen Elizabeth II helped launch London Heathrow Airport's $8.6 billion (£4.3 billion) new Terminal 5 on March 14 2008, people in aviation industry were quick to compare the new $2.8 billion (£1.4 billion) terminal at Beijing Capital International Airport, which began operation on February 29 2008.
Both airport projects have the same objective: to increase airport capacity. Heathrow has had one of the worst rates of airport delays in the world. Complaints from the business community that Heathrow's logjam could jeopardize London's status as a global financial center. Beijing's new glass and steel airport terminal is a centerpiece project for the 2008 Olympics Games designed to relieve its overloaded airport terminals and to accommodate expected growth in the number of visitors to Beijing.
While Heathrow Terminal 5's opening came after 15 years of planning and construction and protests by local residents and environmental groups, Beijing's new airport terminal took four years to build. In size, Heathrow's Terminal 5 is one third the size of Beijing's Terminal 3. That is not all. Beijing's new Terminal 3 is 17% bigger than the combined floor space of all of Heathrow's terminals, including the new Terminal 5. Can this fast-growing industry tolerate a 15-year project? The answer is a definitive no. To anticipate steep passenger traffic growth, Heathrow's BAA disclosed plans to build a sixth terminal at the airport.
Without going into much details, you can get an idea of what Beijing's Terminal 3 is like with a quote from Norman Foster, the Beijing Airport Terminal 3 project's architect, "It's the world's largest and most advanced airport building". Norman Foster is also the architect who designed the Hong Kong International Airport, which was named best airport in the world in the 2007 passenger survey results.
In term of airport facility, airport's capacity comes in two flavors: boarding gates and runways. Terminals provide boarding gates. Runways determine the number of aircrafts that can use an airport's runways simultaneously. Aside from bad weather, the number of active runways at a major airport at any given time is also a determining factor of its maximum capacity. As part of Beijing's Terminal 3 project, a third runway is completed to handle aircrafts as big as the Airbus A380. In comparison, Heathrow's third runway is still in the pipeline despite some vociferous opposition. Hundreds of houses will be demolished to make way for the new runway and the new Terminal 6.
Comments?
When Queen Elizabeth II helped launch London Heathrow Airport's $8.6 billion (£4.3 billion) new Terminal 5 on March 14 2008, people in aviation industry were quick to compare the new $2.8 billion (£1.4 billion) terminal at Beijing Capital International Airport, which began operation on February 29 2008.
Both airport projects have the same objective: to increase airport capacity. Heathrow has had one of the worst rates of airport delays in the world. Complaints from the business community that Heathrow's logjam could jeopardize London's status as a global financial center. Beijing's new glass and steel airport terminal is a centerpiece project for the 2008 Olympics Games designed to relieve its overloaded airport terminals and to accommodate expected growth in the number of visitors to Beijing.
While Heathrow Terminal 5's opening came after 15 years of planning and construction and protests by local residents and environmental groups, Beijing's new airport terminal took four years to build. In size, Heathrow's Terminal 5 is one third the size of Beijing's Terminal 3. That is not all. Beijing's new Terminal 3 is 17% bigger than the combined floor space of all of Heathrow's terminals, including the new Terminal 5. Can this fast-growing industry tolerate a 15-year project? The answer is a definitive no. To anticipate steep passenger traffic growth, Heathrow's BAA disclosed plans to build a sixth terminal at the airport.
Without going into much details, you can get an idea of what Beijing's Terminal 3 is like with a quote from Norman Foster, the Beijing Airport Terminal 3 project's architect, "It's the world's largest and most advanced airport building". Norman Foster is also the architect who designed the Hong Kong International Airport, which was named best airport in the world in the 2007 passenger survey results.
In term of airport facility, airport's capacity comes in two flavors: boarding gates and runways. Terminals provide boarding gates. Runways determine the number of aircrafts that can use an airport's runways simultaneously. Aside from bad weather, the number of active runways at a major airport at any given time is also a determining factor of its maximum capacity. As part of Beijing's Terminal 3 project, a third runway is completed to handle aircrafts as big as the Airbus A380. In comparison, Heathrow's third runway is still in the pipeline despite some vociferous opposition. Hundreds of houses will be demolished to make way for the new runway and the new Terminal 6.
Comments?
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Changes Brought About by Jumbo Jets and Airbus A380
When United States entered into space race with Soviet Union in the 60s, the aviation industry benefited tremendously from NASA's space technologies. It happened at a time when increasing demand for air travel sparked a new generation of commercial aircrafts: Jumbo Jets. The commercial aviation industry was committed to a scale up in aircraft size that led to significant increase in airline seating capacity.
Commercial aviation industry was booming in the 60s and aircraft manufacturers tried to get a piece of the action in this golden era of commercial aviation. There were different arenas in which manufacturers competed fiercely for their market share. British's Concorde and Soviet's Tupolev-144 were competing for their spot in the commercial SST supersonic transport market. The big three US aircraft manufacturers (Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed) each had its own entry in the "jumbo jet" market: Boeing 747, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and Lockheed's TriStar. Pratt Whitney and Rolls Royce came with their own entries in the aircraft jet engine market.
The story did not end there. It had a significant impact to the aviation industry as a whole. When compared to the aircrafts in service at the time (Boeing 707, Boeing 727, VC-10, Comet 4, Caravelle, etc.), these jumbo jets are significant bigger. All airport operators were forced to upgrade their airport facilities and handling equipment or could not service these new aircrafts.
Around the world, airport runways had to be lengthened. New airport handling equipment needed to be redesigned and built. Airport facilities needed to be upgraded to handle these new jet transports. Aviation trade journals (e.g. McGraw Hill's Aviation Week & Space Technology, etc.) gave detailed coverage to new airport facilities and equipment just as much as they gave coverage to new aircrafts under development.
Airbus A380 is huge when compared to today's Boeing 747 or MD-80. Airbus A380 creates the same problems for the airport operators, that it serves, just like the Jumbo Jets did in the 60s and 70s. However, it does not create the same kind of excitement like the Jumbo Jets did to the aviation industry. It is a one-aircraft phenomenon. No Boeing's participation here. The scope can never be compared to the industry-wide size upgrade in the 60s. On top of that, airlines will only use Airbus A380 in their profitable long-haul high-traffic routes, where airport landing slots are hard to come by. Otherwise, airlines can easily address their traffic demand with few smaller aircrafts, (e.g. Boeing 747, Boeing 777, Boeing 767, Airbus 360, etc.) and more frequency.
As far as I can tell, to welcome the arrival of Airbus A380, airport facility/equipment upgrade is limited and spotty. Compared to the activities generated by Jumbo Jets, it certainly is a small scale operation.
What is your comments?
Commercial aviation industry was booming in the 60s and aircraft manufacturers tried to get a piece of the action in this golden era of commercial aviation. There were different arenas in which manufacturers competed fiercely for their market share. British's Concorde and Soviet's Tupolev-144 were competing for their spot in the commercial SST supersonic transport market. The big three US aircraft manufacturers (Boeing, McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed) each had its own entry in the "jumbo jet" market: Boeing 747, McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and Lockheed's TriStar. Pratt Whitney and Rolls Royce came with their own entries in the aircraft jet engine market.
The story did not end there. It had a significant impact to the aviation industry as a whole. When compared to the aircrafts in service at the time (Boeing 707, Boeing 727, VC-10, Comet 4, Caravelle, etc.), these jumbo jets are significant bigger. All airport operators were forced to upgrade their airport facilities and handling equipment or could not service these new aircrafts.
Around the world, airport runways had to be lengthened. New airport handling equipment needed to be redesigned and built. Airport facilities needed to be upgraded to handle these new jet transports. Aviation trade journals (e.g. McGraw Hill's Aviation Week & Space Technology, etc.) gave detailed coverage to new airport facilities and equipment just as much as they gave coverage to new aircrafts under development.
Airbus A380 is huge when compared to today's Boeing 747 or MD-80. Airbus A380 creates the same problems for the airport operators, that it serves, just like the Jumbo Jets did in the 60s and 70s. However, it does not create the same kind of excitement like the Jumbo Jets did to the aviation industry. It is a one-aircraft phenomenon. No Boeing's participation here. The scope can never be compared to the industry-wide size upgrade in the 60s. On top of that, airlines will only use Airbus A380 in their profitable long-haul high-traffic routes, where airport landing slots are hard to come by. Otherwise, airlines can easily address their traffic demand with few smaller aircrafts, (e.g. Boeing 747, Boeing 777, Boeing 767, Airbus 360, etc.) and more frequency.
As far as I can tell, to welcome the arrival of Airbus A380, airport facility/equipment upgrade is limited and spotty. Compared to the activities generated by Jumbo Jets, it certainly is a small scale operation.
What is your comments?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
At Last, Continental Flies to Heathrow
From the beginning of time, Continental Airlines wanted to fly to London's Heathrow Airport. Due to government regulations, it could not do so. The closest Continental could get to was London's Gatwick Airport.
Things had changed starting 3/29. Thanks to the Open Skies agreement that was signed between the U.S. and the European Union, Continental Airlines began to offer twice-daily nonstop service to Heathrow Airport from both Newark Liberty and Houston's George Bush International Airports.
Newark Airport is one of the two major international airports in the New York City metropolitan area. For years, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, both UK carriers, were the two airlines that operated the Newark-Heathrow route. What about our US airlines? On the surface, it certainly looks to me that we've gotten the short end of the stick in the whole affair!!!
No wonder Continental's CEO Larry Kellner said, "At last we will be able to give our customers something they have long requested -- the opportunity to fly to both London's main airports with their preferred airline".
Comments?
Things had changed starting 3/29. Thanks to the Open Skies agreement that was signed between the U.S. and the European Union, Continental Airlines began to offer twice-daily nonstop service to Heathrow Airport from both Newark Liberty and Houston's George Bush International Airports.
Newark Airport is one of the two major international airports in the New York City metropolitan area. For years, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, both UK carriers, were the two airlines that operated the Newark-Heathrow route. What about our US airlines? On the surface, it certainly looks to me that we've gotten the short end of the stick in the whole affair!!!
No wonder Continental's CEO Larry Kellner said, "At last we will be able to give our customers something they have long requested -- the opportunity to fly to both London's main airports with their preferred airline".
Comments?
Delta Northwest Merger
I am an aviation enthusiast. I grew up with airplanes. In my college years, I went to airports, parked my car along an airport runway, with my VHF radio tuned to the tower and watched airplanes taking off. It was fun.
I am a programmer by trade and have never worked in the aviation industry. In my spare time, I am a keen observer of the aviation industry and try to make some sense out of all the news that surface from time to time.
I create this blog to widen my reach to those who share my interest in the aviation industry. It is a vast subject and should be interesting. I welcome postings from web users of different backgrounds.
It is my intention to keep this blog as clean as possible. As the administrator of this Blog, I reserve the right to remove any postings that I deem to be improper.
Today, we wake up to the merger news between Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines. Newspapers cover most if not all the conventional wisdom that associate with all airline mergers, e.g. reshaping the airline industry, becoming a more efficient airlines, etc. They totaled up the airplanes in their fleets and concluded that Delta Northwest merger will create the largest airline in the world. What about their combined route structures? What about their existing hubs?
The combined route structure between Delta and Northwest will be far reaching. Aside from its southern focus, Delta has its reach in Europe, Japan, India, South America and Carribean. Northwest's main focus is in the mid-west, central / northwestern United States and Hawaii. Northwest flies to Europe and Asia. It certainly looks like United Airlines' route structure when it took over PanAm years ago.
While Delta has its hubs in Atlanta, Cincinnati, JFK and Salt Lake City, Northwest has its hub in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Detroit and Memphis. There is no common hub between the two. It will certainly make it difficult to feed traffic from one route structure to the other. In its new setting, does it make sense to have so many hubs in the U.S.? It certainly does not make sense to me to have two close-by hubs such as Detroit and Cincinnati. Right?
What about the types of aircraft that are in their current fleets? As a new carrier, they will have a mix of many aircraft types: Airbus A320, Airbus Airbus A330, Boeing 737, Boeing 747, Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Boeing 777, McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and McDonnell Douglas MD-88. There are other commuter airliners as well. In my opinion, they need to trim down the variety of aircrafts in their combined fleet. It is simply too expensive to keep so many types in their combined fleet. Do you share my opinion?
Continental Airlines used to have quite a variety of aircraft types in its fleet. It retired few aircraft types: Boeing 747, MD-11, MD-80 and MD-90. Now, Continental places emphasis on the Boeing family: Boeing 737, Boeing 757, Boeing 767 and Boeing 777. It is simply cost effective to maintain few aircraft types in an airline's fleet.
I welcome your comments.
I am a programmer by trade and have never worked in the aviation industry. In my spare time, I am a keen observer of the aviation industry and try to make some sense out of all the news that surface from time to time.
I create this blog to widen my reach to those who share my interest in the aviation industry. It is a vast subject and should be interesting. I welcome postings from web users of different backgrounds.
It is my intention to keep this blog as clean as possible. As the administrator of this Blog, I reserve the right to remove any postings that I deem to be improper.
Today, we wake up to the merger news between Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines. Newspapers cover most if not all the conventional wisdom that associate with all airline mergers, e.g. reshaping the airline industry, becoming a more efficient airlines, etc. They totaled up the airplanes in their fleets and concluded that Delta Northwest merger will create the largest airline in the world. What about their combined route structures? What about their existing hubs?
The combined route structure between Delta and Northwest will be far reaching. Aside from its southern focus, Delta has its reach in Europe, Japan, India, South America and Carribean. Northwest's main focus is in the mid-west, central / northwestern United States and Hawaii. Northwest flies to Europe and Asia. It certainly looks like United Airlines' route structure when it took over PanAm years ago.
While Delta has its hubs in Atlanta, Cincinnati, JFK and Salt Lake City, Northwest has its hub in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Detroit and Memphis. There is no common hub between the two. It will certainly make it difficult to feed traffic from one route structure to the other. In its new setting, does it make sense to have so many hubs in the U.S.? It certainly does not make sense to me to have two close-by hubs such as Detroit and Cincinnati. Right?
What about the types of aircraft that are in their current fleets? As a new carrier, they will have a mix of many aircraft types: Airbus A320, Airbus Airbus A330, Boeing 737, Boeing 747, Boeing 757, Boeing 767, Boeing 777, McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and McDonnell Douglas MD-88. There are other commuter airliners as well. In my opinion, they need to trim down the variety of aircrafts in their combined fleet. It is simply too expensive to keep so many types in their combined fleet. Do you share my opinion?
Continental Airlines used to have quite a variety of aircraft types in its fleet. It retired few aircraft types: Boeing 747, MD-11, MD-80 and MD-90. Now, Continental places emphasis on the Boeing family: Boeing 737, Boeing 757, Boeing 767 and Boeing 777. It is simply cost effective to maintain few aircraft types in an airline's fleet.
I welcome your comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
