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?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
