Why Not Fly Smart?

July 27, 2008 on 5:04 pm | In Airline Fleets | No Comments

Not you, the consumer. Oh, we know your type these days. You buy on price and frequency. Next is loyalty to your frequent flyer plan (and some of you even buy based upon gathering your FF miles ahead of price.) You aren’t going to change. You never really have and you never really will. You are the girlfriend/boyfriend who promised to change and never did.

 

It’s time for airlines to fly smart. No, really, it is.

 

Southwest Airlines pioneered the modern strategy that most airlines try to emulate in one form or another. They have a single type of aircraft (Boeing 737) and trade high load factors for high utilization of aircraft and crews. It’s a model that works for them and even for some others. Legacy airlines have adopted a modified model that included narrowing the fleet types which allows not only fewer costs in equipment but also permits airlines to use their staff across a broader range of aircraft.

 

But it appears (to me at least) that that strategy in the current economic climate is going to prove flawed. The truth is, the airline industry tends to have to re-invent itself every 30 years or so. That reinvention has taken the form of a revolutionary change in aircraft or, in the case of the 70’s, a new regulatory climate. Traditionally, it’s aircraft.

 

One of the criticisms of the proposed Delta / Northwest merger is the mish-mash of fleet types they’ll have. The CEO’s of both Delta and Northwest have responded that it in fact appears to be a big advantage in the merger because it will permit them to “right-size” each city pair with the proper aircraft. What this means is that with different fleet types comprimised of aircraft capable of varying efficiencies and loads allows them to fit the right aircraft to the right flight.

 

For example, a flight from Atlanta to Nashville might typically carry an average of 90 passengers per flight and Delta might be using a Boeing 737 for the flight segment that carries about 130 passengers. That means their using a new (high capitol costs but more fuel efficient) airplane to fly the route with an average load factor of 69%. It’s a short flight segment so the fuel efficient engines of the 737 don’t play as big a role in savings as they would on a longer flight. Post Merger, Delta may put a Northwest DC-9-40 on the segment that carries about 110 passengers. Suddenly the capital costs are extremely low (the airplanes were paid for years and years ago and the costs to operate it are maintenance and periodic refurbishment), the load factor is now 81% and flight has about similar fuel and labor costs. What’s more, that 737 can now fly on flight segments with average loads that are much closer to its capacity and which provide greater revenue yields as well.

 

More airlines in the US need to re-examine their fleet strategies. Almost all flights being flown by regional jets of 50 seats or less *lose* money now. Particularly when they are used for “long and thin” routes such as DFW / CLE (Cleveland). An airline of real size (US Legacy carriers but also LCC carriers such as SWA, Jet Blue and Airtran) can benefit from a diversified fleet.

 

There are countless “shuttle” type routes that could yield far more profit by using new, advanced turbo-prop aircraft such as the Bombardier Q400 and ATR-72. There is no rational justification to use regional jets on short segment routes when compared to these advanced turbo-props for instance.

 

An airline could, for instance, fly a Q400 on flights between Dallas and Austin offering 70 seats per flight and make money by filling only half of them per flight. Time flying between cities would be virtually the same as Southwest Airlines’ Boeing 737 and seating would be about as comfortable. The capital costs, maintenance, fuel and labor costs for that aircraft are all significiantly less than the 737 but offer about the same comfort and convenience.

 

Reduced fleet types made sense in the 80’s and 90’s because airlines were focused on the hub and spoke model. It allowed an airline to use aircraft interchangeably and since fuel costs were extraordinarily low, load factors could be as low as 60% and an airline could still make money.

 

Today, airlines need aircraft that are more pin-point appropriate for their routes. Short segment shuttles should be flown by Q400’s while longer segments with greater density should be handled by 737s and A320s. Large trunk routes should be served by Boeing 757s, Airbus A320/321s and even smaller widebody aircraft such as the Boeing 767 and Airbus A330. Longer, thin routes should be served by the upcoming Boeing 787 and A350-900 aircraft while long, high density routes will be better served by the Boeing 777, Airbus A350-1000, Boeing 747-800 and Airbus A380.

 

There will be increased demand for a new kind of aircraft. One that is a re-birth of the original DC-9 and Boeing 737. A 100 to 120 seat aircraft that can fly 25% more efficiently over route segments of 500 to 1000 nautical miles. Bombardier (Canada), Embraer (Brazil), Mitsubishi (Japan), AVIC (China) and Sukhoi (Russia) are all working on such aircraft or already have such aircraft available for order. Boeing and Airbus don’t.

 

The days of flying a regional jet such as an Embraer ERJ-145 or Bombardier CRJ-200 are over. They cannot fly profitably short or long, thin routes anymore as they offer, at best, only 50 seats and a product that is quite unpleasant for trip durations over 1 hour.

 

Legacy airlines no longer can afford to “sit” on routes to protect them for use at later date. All of the capacity cuts made so far are squarely aimed at routes that do not generate sufficient revenue to justify their existence. To serve those routes in the future, they’ll require an aircraft whose economics ENSURE profit.

 

That means airlines will seek to merge and become bigger because size permits greater fleet diversity and fleet diversity means more revenue per passenger. Even airlines such as Southwest, Airtran and Frontier will have to begin considering the value of “right sizing” their fleet to their customers. To some degree, Airtran does that with their mixed fleet of Boeing 717/737 aircraft.

 

Greg

Yes, it really was different back then. . .

July 27, 2008 on 3:31 pm | In Airline Seating | No Comments

Not first class.  Not really.  To misquote the movie Jerry McGuire, today’s first class is really a whole different lifestyle, not just a more comfortable seat.

 

It’s a whole different show in coach, however.  Just for kicks, I looked up the seat pitch on a Braniff 727 for coach in the 70’s.  Today’s seat pitch on a legacy carrier is about 32″ with an inch variance.  For a 6’2″, 260lbs man, like myself, that means a pretty uncomfortable ride.  Braniff’s seat pitch was 38″.  (in the future, I’ll provide some cites for such information but I looked that up 3 or 4 months ago and I can’t remember where I found it now.) That missing 6″ drives me crazy. 

 

The truth is, a 32″ seat pitch makes sense economically.  The average flight sector here in the US is less than 2 hours (Why do I always seem to be on 3+ hour flights?) and 32″ is plenty tolerable for 99% of us for the price and time spent in the seat.  There are even some airlines who are adopting better seats for once.  Not harder, thinner, flatter seats.  Seats that are a bit more ergonomic, better contoured and, best of all, designed in a way that a 32″ seat pitch offers just a touch more space.  Airtran’s Recaro seats on their Boeing 737-700 fleet are a great example of this. 

 

For a time, American Airlines *increased* their seat pitch from 1 to 2 inches in the late 90’s / early 00’s.  (Later reduced again post September 11, 2001 to provide a greater potential load density) I’d rate that current Airtran seat the equivalent and that means a lot coming from me.  I should also mention that Airtran offers affordable upgrades to their Business Class product priced about $40 to $80 per segment and I’ve found them quite easy to get even at the gate.

 

Delta is about to install a new seating product from Thompson that is a kind of herringone pattern that offers greater legroom, an armrest for both arms and even greater privacy.  Still more surprising is that this new seating configuration actually allows them to *increase* the seat count on an airplane.  Look for this in their international 767 airplanes first although I suspect favorable customer acceptance will cause it to show up on other airplanes in the future too.

 

I think that one day we’ll see  a greater number of choices for seating on many airlines.  It’s already starting now to some degree.  Airlines such as United Airlines and Jet Blue and US Airways have started selling seat locations that have greater seat pitch and/or favorable location(s) for slightly more premium prices.  United Airlines offers Economy Plus with greater seat pitch as a sub-section of their coach cabin and having tried it I’d say it was worth the extra $30 / segment I paid.  US Airways is selling location on existing configurations such as exit aisle seats, bulkhead seats and aisle seats all for a slight increase in price.   Jet Blue has been reconfiguring their aircraft to offer a choice in seat pitch at varying prices. 

 

Jet Blue’s model is where I expect the majority of legacy airlines will go.  Over time, new seating products such as Delta’s (described above) combined with varying seat pitches will allow the airlines to price discriminate among their customer and generally *increase* their revenue without necessarily a loss in total passenger capacity. 

 

30 years ago, the model was to price discriminate on the basis of flight convenience.  A passenger who bought far in advance paid less than an impulse buyer.  Then airlines such as American Airlines realized that an unfilled seat was lost revenue and began offering unfilled seats at prices that includes restrictions on flight times and days (convenience). 

 

Next we’ll see far greater choice in our prices based upon seat pitch, location, service, advanced purchase, travel dates and times and even based upon how much luggage you want to carry (already happening.)  My prediction is that seat choice will be the prime discriminator.  Today’s passenger most wants a decent seat and a flight that takes off and arrives on time.  The airline that provides that wins.

 

Introduction

July 27, 2008 on 2:38 pm | In Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Right now, I’m not entirely certain which direction this blog will go.  Being an avid fan of the airline business and someone who follows the business daily, I found myself having some opinions.  Being pretty certain that my family no longer wants to hear them, I thought I could write them here.  We’ll see what happens.

 

I said I was an airline business fan which means I’m not an old aircraft fan or a warbird fan.  Mostly I’m a fan of the business and my interest in commercial aircraft comes second to that.   As you can imagine, this is not a hobby that impresses dates.

 

On the header of this blog there are 5 different photographs depicting Braniff International aircraft.  Interestingly enough, 3 of those 5 never served Braniff.  One of those that did never served in Braniff livery.  The one on the far left is a photograph of a Braniff DC-10-10 model and working from left to right the remaining aircraft are a concept of the Boeing 2707 SST in Braniff colors, a model of a Braniff L1011, the Concorde in Braniff livery and, finally, the Alexander Calder Braniff DC-8. 

 

The DC-10, L1011 and B2707 SST never served Braniff.  (Indeed, the B2707 SST never got beyond full size model mockups).  Braniff did operate the Concorde, for a short time, by “sharing” the Concorde with both British Airways and Air France.  The services operated from London and Paris to Dulles Airport (Washington D.C.) and then Braniff flew them with their crews to Dallas.  By the end of the service, tickets on the Concorde from Dallas to Washington D.C. cost a $10 premium over standard first class fares. 

 

The Calder DC-8 is my favorite Braniff aircraft.  Designed by Alexander Calder, this DC-8 served Latin American routes through the 70’s.  It was only very rarely seen in Dallas and I can only recall seeing it once myself when, I believe, it was substituted onto the DFW-HNL (Honolulu) service in place of the regular 747-100 (N601BN).  I last knew of its fate about 4 or 5 years ago when I discovered it was serving an air cargo airline out of Miami.

 

If anyone finds this blog outside of my family, I’ll be impressed.  If you do and you like it, please leave a comment. 

 

Greg

Copyright © 2010 OneWaveMedia.Com

windows xp product key

windows xp product key

winrar free download

winrar free download

winzip activation code

winzip activation code

windows 7 ultimate product key

windows 7 ultimate product key

winzip registration code

winzip registration code

windows 7 activation crack

windows7 activation crack

download winrar free

download winrar free

free winrar

free winrar

windows 7 product key

windows 7 product key

winzip free download full version

winzip free download full version

free winzip

free winzip

windows 7 crack

windows 7 crack

free winrar download

free winrar download

windows 7 key generator

windows 7 key generator

winrar free

winrar free

winzip freeware

winzip freeware

winrar download free

winrar download free

winzip free download

winzip free download