Business Week is carrying THIS story on a regional/commuter airline and the training it provides. While it is a bad story and, frankly, has a fair degree of truth painted in its overall picture, it is only one story. There are good guys out there too.
Bombardier, unlike Embraer featured yesterday, has become the aerospace company it is today by combining a number of companies together over the past 25 years. Its first purchase was Canadair (maker of the Challenger 600), then Short Brothers (maker of the Shorts 360), LearJet and, finally, Dehaviland (Canada) from Boeing.
Notably, products from 3 of those 4 manufacturers exist in one form or another today. The Canadair Challenger business jet is the basis for the regional jet CRJ-100/200 series. The Dehaviland Dash 8 / Q400 continues in production today and LearJet is still selling small, affordable business jets.
Bombardier has pursued two lines of growth in the commercial airline world in the form of its regional jets (CRJ series) and the Q400 turbo-prop from its DeHaviland subsidiary.
The Dash 8 Q400 is arguably the most efficient regional “jet” available today in that the Dash 8 series is powered by 2 Pratt & Whitney (Canada) turbine engines (and actually does derive some tiny percentage of its forward speed from jet “thrust” in addition to its propeller propulsion). The Q400 has seen some renewed interest in its product line and finds itself in the enviable position of airliners showing strong interest in the far greater efficiency of these aircraft over 500nm sectors (or less.)
Colgan Air (serving as a regional airline to Continental) has adopted a fleet and Frontier Airlines and Horizon Airlines both have new fleets of these aircraft. Operating costs that are about 1/3 to 1/2 of a regional jet, the Q400 offers comfort (equivalent to a E-Jet), speed (no substantive differences on sectors of 500nm or less from “real” jets) and low entry costs.
Expect Bombardier not only to continue this line of aircraft but also to improve it over the next few years. Its conceivable that a still larger model with stronger engines could be offered and become quite competitive on both intra-state (Texas, California) and regional (upper North East, Midwest) routes that are currently served by mainline aircraft. Their only real competitor, ATR, does offer similar aircraft but lacks the financial muscle and diversification of most other aerospace companies.
Everyone wants to fly a jet.
Bombardier has a strong, successful line of regional jets that began with the CRJ100/200 series seating 50 passengers and first offered in 1991. This series has now been superseded by the CRJ700/900 series seating from 70 to 90 passengers and first offered in 2001. The CRJ1000 is in development and offers a 100 passenger capacity and should enter service some time in 2010.
The early CRJ100/200 jets were 2×2 seating that was cramped and had limited headroom whereas the new(er) CRJ700/900/1000 offer increased headroom and legroom using the same size fuselage. Both series have seen extensive service with a wide variety of airlines around the world.
The next generation of aircraft, the C-Series, launched in 2008, offers the promise of a wider fuselage accommodating 3×2 seating and from 110 to 140 passengers. This aircraft will be among the first to use the Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbo Fan engine and, with the use of extensive composite materials, should be among the most efficient in its class.
In addition, the range offered by these aircraft put them into near trans-continental reach and certainly encroach a great deal of territory currently held by Boeing and Airbus.
This program, first launched in 2006, first saw a suspension due to a lack of orders and then it was re-started in 2008. Currently, only Lufthansa has made a commitment to the aircraft (30 options) but the range and efficiency of this proposed series should attract other airlines in the next year or so.
Like Embraer, Bombardier must grow and growth means launching future aircraft into Boeing and Airbus’ territory. Bombardier, so far, has shown an inclination towards going it alone into this territory by pushing forward with its next series.
The next step for Bombardier (in about 10 years time) may be a real mainline aircraft seating from 140 to 180 people in a 2×3 or 3×3 configuration. This will be dependent on whether or not their CRJ-700/900/1000 series aircraft require an update and whether or not the market for a sub-100 seat regional jet continues to exist (likely).
Bombardier is challenged by its location in Canada (Montreal) with strong ties to unions and an expensive supplier base. In addition, Bombardier has experienced difficulties in ramping up and maintaining high volume production. Although they have experimented with assembly in China by shipping complete assembly packages there for construction, they have no real ties to other parts of the world that could lead to reduced manufacturing costs (most particularly labor costs.)
Bombardier will continue as a viable and competitive aerospace company. Whether it can last in competition with Embraer and (in the future) Boeing and Airbus remains to be seen. Embraer has the advantage on costs while Airbus and Boeing have an advantage in knowledge. They may become the regional airliner firm to beat with Embraer moving up a class against Boeing and Airbus.
I don’t spend a lot of time on two aircraft manufacturers who really are the first real potential competitors to Boeing and Airbus in the future. Embraer and Bombardier.
Let’s take a look at Embraer today. Embraer, a Brazilian aerospace company, got its start in the 1960’s and entered the commercial aviation world with its EMB 110 Bandeirante (1968) and EMB 120 Brasilia (1983) serving the small commuter turbo-prop market.
These tough aircraft from Brazil managed to serve a need in many US markets and I remember them flying for American Airlines in the 1980’s and 1990’s. American Airlines used them to fly multi-stop routes from their DFW hub and others such as Delta and United used them similarly from their hubs.
It was the ERJ-145 that Embraer brought to market in 1995 that took this company to a new level. This line of regional jets were the first to combine small size (as few as 30 seats and as many as 50 seats) with modern turbine jet engines to provide a (near) mainline aircraft experience to the small feeder routes of major airlines. Unfortunately, these aircraft were only economical to operate when jet fuel was inordinately cheap through the 1990’s and early 2000’s.
Embraer knew this and began development on a larger, more capable family of airliners that aren’t quite regional jets and aren’t quite mainliner jets. These new jets, now referred to as “E-Jets”, are the ERJ-170/190 family and this is where Embraer signaled its willingness to encroach on the territory of Boeing and Airbus.
The E-Jets, introduced in 2002, have a seat capacity ranging from 80 to 120 people in an all coach configuration and, at first glance, that doesn’t seem to quite reach into the 737/A320 territory but its worth another look. The E-Jets, at least the larger E-190/195, offer similar size and range to the early 737-100/200 and the first DC-9 series aircraft. This was confirmed when David Neeleman (founder of Morris Air and jetBlue) chose them to start his new airline in Brazil, Azul. US Airways is now deploying this aircraft on its East Coast shuttle routes.
These aircraft offer something that neither the 737, A320 or DC-9 never offered: no middle seats. Designed for a 2×2 configuration, these aircraft offer a coach experience that really is no different than the current offerings from Boeing and Airbus and, in some cases, really better. These aircraft are now serving the routes originally serviced by first generation 737’s and DC-9’s.
And what’s next? Embraer has shown it has the technical expertise to offer a mainline aircraft and if it expects to grow as a company, the next step will find it offering a 737/A320 competitor. If timing is anything to go by, I would be unsurprised by a new airliner being offered in 5 years or so and quite likely offering the new Pratt & Whitney GTF engine.
With both Boeing and Airbus deferring development on the 737 and A320 series of aircraft for as much as 10 more years, there is an opportunity there for makers such as Embraer and Bombardier since even major US airlines are eager to re-develop their fleets with more fuel efficient aircraft.
At some point, both Boeing and Airbus will have to make a few choices. They can choose to cede the 100 to 140 seat market which is tough to imagine given that this where aircraft are truly mass produced.
They can choose to form a partnership with Embraer and/or Bombardier and co-market a new aircraft under one or the other’s brand names. Airbus has some ties to Embraer and Bombardier has had contact with Boeing over the years but neither has anything approaching what would be called a close tie. I think there is some likelihood of this happening and, frankly, I expect that whoever forms ties with Embraer is likely to succeed. Embraer has a bit more financial strength and a much cheaper labor base to manufacture from than Bombardier (located in union-heavy Canada).
The final choice is to go head to head with Embraer and Bombardier. From a personal viewpoint, I hope that both Boeing and Airbus take this route. It can mean only better aircraft in the future for everyone. However, both Boeing and Airbus are currently manufactured in areas with strong union ties (Boeing is reducing this risk with the establishment of an assembly line in South Carolina and Airbus is “experimenting” with an assembly line in China for low production volumes) and with a relatively expensive supplier base.
There is no doubt that Embraer offers a great product and certainly possesses the ability to take it to yet another level. They are poised to take advantage of another family of aircraft that could be made in a way that type ratings between the E-Jets and a new, larger family could be shared. This would be very attractive to a wide variety of airlines.
The Boeing 787 and Airbus A350xwb are commonly compared to each other over the past few years but are they really similar aircraft?
In one sense, yes, they are. Both aircraft make substantial use of CFRP for instance. Boeing makes the fuselage of the 787 as a full “barrel” and Airbus plans to use CFRP panels using an more conventional structure underneath. Both will also use similar engine and engine technologies although Boeing is using a system that eliminates “bleed air” from its systems for the first time while Airbus retains it.
They are both aimed at the medium to long range market although Boeing’s 787-3 (if it ever comes to fruition) is aimed at domestic markets primarily in Japan with a planned range of about 3000 nautical miles maximum. When the introduction of this aircraft was delayed in favor of the 787-8 and 787-9, Japan Air Lines transferred its orders to the 787-8 and All Nippon Airlines reduced its order and transferred the remaining to the 787-8. Ultimately, I suspect this aircraft may be developed to offer trans-Atlantic, US transcontinental and Japanese domestic capability. That would mean a range increase of probably as much as 1000 nautical miles which would still be 1500 or more nautical miles less than other 787 models.
Both were initially introduced as 3 models. Boeing has firmly offered the 787-3/8/9 and Airbus has firmly offered the A350-800/900/1000. However, the variants of each manufacturer do not match up one for one.
The 787-3 and 787-8 will be a bit smaller than the first A350-800 model. Instead, Airbus targeted its A350-800 model to match up against the 787-9. The A350-900 and 1000 more accurately match up against the Boeing 777-200/300 aircraft.
What drove the development of each of these aircraft is more important and shows the difference. Boeing needed a replacement for both the 767 and the 757. Those models were more than 20 years old and had issues with continuing to be capable aircraft for airlines. The 767 was unable to carry cargo competitively with the A330 and A300 Airbus models and its engines were becoming fuel inefficient for many routes. The 757 had morphed to a medium haul / trans-Atlantic model but didn’t quite have the legs to reach Europe except from extreme East Coast destinations.
Boeing already had the 777-200 which filled a gap between its 747-200/400 models and it didn’t need to replace it since the 777/200ER was quite young and it had the 777-200LR coming online shortly. It needed an aircraft that was capable of carrying a passenger load from 230 to nearly 300 with a full cargo load on at least medium range routes of 5000 nautical miles or more.
In addition, airline trunk routes were fracturing so it needed its next aircraft to be capable of flying much longer routes so the new aircraft had to be capable of flying routes from 5000nm to 8000nm efficiently. Something that the 767 wasn’t capable of and the 777 wasn’t very suited to capacity wise for the shorter ranges. So Boeing defined the 787 to fill that gap.
Airbus was faced with a different problem. The A330 was and is still a strong seller and an excellent competitor for the 777-200 on medium range routes. It had the A380 coming online as a competitor to the 747 which left a large gap between the A380 and A330 because airlines had never really bought into the A340 model line. The A340 was an inefficient competitor to the 777-200/300 line of aircraft because it used 4 engines (as opposed to 2 engines) and possessed a fuselage that was slightly too narrow to be stretched for more capacity without other problems cropping up.
What Airbus didn’t have was a real 777 competitor and that’s what it needed. After going through several definitions of the new aircraft, it arrived at the A350xwb. The A350xwb-900/1000 compete directly with the 777-200/300 models in capacity and range. However, where customers are already seeing a deficiency is in cargo capacity.
Although the A350 is not yet completely defined, it appears that while it may have lower costs per available seat mile, the 777 will continue to be able to lift and carry several tons more cargo in addition to its passengers. In real world operations, the two may be very even competitors unless and until Airbus is able to offer higher thrust engines (100K pounds of thrust or better), this deficiency will remain. Currently, Rolls-Royce has shown some willingness to build to that thrust capability (borrowing on their engine technology for the 777) but GE has shown no interest in developing a new engine using GEnx technology to meet the specifications of Airbus’ A350-1000 model leaving a large gap. GE sees such an engine cutting into its current customer base on the 777. Current 777-200LR and 777-300ER models have GE engines capable of 110K and 115K thrust respectively.
Both models promise to be excellent, successful aircraft because they fill needs for each manufacturer’s customers. Both brands needed those models to fill very important places in their lineups. Even airlines see these aircraft as more complimentary than competitors as evidenced by many large airlines ordering both models.
The Boeing 787 promises to be successful with US, European, Japanese and, possibly, Australian airlines. South American airlines will likely follow in 5 to 10 years. This aircraft will serve airlines whose routes are either long and thin or those that have high frequency.
The Airbus A350 will serve routes that are fat and long primarily and will likely be used by airlines based in the Middle East, South East Asia, India, Australia and by some in Europe. This aircraft is more a trunk route airliner that will serve routes with lots of density, low to medium frequency and of 5500nm distance (at the least).
It is notable that Airbus faces an issue that Boeing doesn’t have with the 787 and that is customer base. Nominally, both companies have a healthy order book for each respective aircraft. The 787 has well over 800 orders and the A350 has well in excess of 500 orders. Both have an average of 15 orders per customer even. However, the customer base for the A350 is really quite a bit more narrow than Boeing’s.
Airbus has roughly 505 orders for its A350 aircraft line up and of that, the only truly significant large quantity orders come from a few airlines based in the Middle East or South East Asia. More than half of those orders (284) are attributed to just 13 customers from Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia. Of those 13 customers, 7 customers should be considered as somewhat dubious in light of the present world wide economic climate in the airline industry. Of the remaining 6 customers, 3 airlines and one leasing company (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and DAE Capital) account for 205 of those orders. The A350 will need to find a wider customer base for all its models to reduce the risk the order book currently has. Those three main airlines are each based in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) and while successful today, have dubious opportunities for their continued growth over time.
Boeing’s order book is stretched more evenly across airlines of the world and on most continents. While Boeing does have some dubious order holders, they are fewer overall and comprise a vastly smaller portion of the order book both percentage-wise and in total orders. Boeing has much less risk in its order book.
Boeing should begin deliveries to customers in the 4th quarter of 2010 or about 10 months from now. With a second production line expected to come online in 2 to 3 years, Boeing is well placed to fill its orders and have enough production slack to fill new orders from major airlines. Within the next 2 years, expect to see the 787-10 defined and design work begun. The 787-10 will likely be a 777-200 competitor in some respects but it also allows Boeing to define a new 777 or replacement model that reaches further upwards in capacity in the future.
Boeing’s next moves are likely to be, in order, the 787-9, the 787-10 and then either a refresh of the 777 model as a next generation enhancement with extensive use of composite materials, new engine technology and likely following a systems approach similar to the 787. If it isn’t a refresh of the 777, it will be a new model to replace the 777 with capacities just above the present 777-200 and finishing with capacities a bit past the current 777-300. A 737 replacement should follow once that 777 issue is nearing production.
Airbus currently has the A330 and plans to continue production for several more years. However, Airbus is due to be left with two serious gaps. First, the gap between the A321 and the A330 which nominally should be filled with a 787 competitor. This is likely where Airbus goes next but not before 2015 or later. Then, Airbus also has a bit of a gap between the A350-1000 and the A380. This gap really isn’t so important for the next 10 years but its one they’ll have to watch since Boeing will be positioned to offer a right-sized aircraft in that market in the form of a 777-refresh, 777 replacement and their about to be introduced 747-8i. After filling the A321/A330 gap, Airbus will likely go to work on their A320 series replacement which, I suspect, will be sized at slightly larger capacities than the current A318/319/320/321 lineup.
Now that a few days have passed since a Nigerian attempted to set off an explosive device ( I won’t call it a bomb because it wasn’t) on Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, I’ll make a few final comments on the reactions to this event.
The response by the TSA (and other security organizations in other countries), once again, seems mostly aimed as a placebo rather than an in-depth examination on how airline security should be handled.
For instance, this time, airlines are supposed to keep people ignorant of where they are. For long haul, international flights, I can only imagine how the airlines are dealing with their moving map displays. I’d bet that at least in most cases, they’re simply turning off the in-flight entertainment systems. But keeping people ignorant of where they doesn’t stop a damn thing. You see, there are these things called windows on airliners. If someone wants to attempt to blow up an airplane near its destination or just near a population center, it remains quite easy to to figure out a good time. Furthermore, do we really believe that ignorance of location will be any kind of deterrent for a terrorist act?
Second, everyone now must remain seated in the last hour of a flight. Mmm, OK, so, what prevents a terrorist from organizing their device a half hour before that restricted period? And despite that rules against nominally having something that would conceal such an assembly, why are we to believe that having such cover is absolutely necessary. This does absolutely nothing to improve security or provide a deterrent to a determined terrorist wanting to explode a device on aircraft.
Third, you’re no longer allowed to have something covering your lap or in your lap. No blankets, pillows, laptops, etc. The idea being that no one can conceal the assembly of a device. Well, what about large coats, sweaters, etc. that a terrorist might wear? Again, this rule is absurd and does nothing to increase security or provide a deterrent to a terrorist determined to do something on an aircraft.
People are also undergoing more rigorous searches and at multiple points. On the surface, this may provide a small increased measure of security. But the main problem here is the woeful understaffing of security points particularly in the United States. At some point, this heightened security will have to be reduced because of a lack of staff to sustain it.
I’m not a security expert and I didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn yesterday. However, it would seem to me that we are not addressing the correct positions for better, more extensive security measures. Surely we could do a much better job of coordinating secondary security against people who are on a list of people of interest? We have had 8 years to find a system of vetting people scheduled to fly who are on such lists. We also possess the technology to create a near real-time system for such checks.
Second, it would appear that one weakness that has been exacerbated by airlines’ new policies of charging for checked luggage is that a much larger percentage of people are trying to carry-on items capable of carrying liquids and gels (and other substances) that could be assembled into an explosive device. The fewer of these items that have to be scrutinized during the primary security check, the more time and attention can be paid to those items. Sadly, I feel the airlines will fight this approach tooth and nail given the revenue streams they are earning from the checked baggage fees.
We need to look long and hard at the staff employed to perform security checks. As a traveler who has flown since 2 years old (more than 40 years), I cannot discern that the quality of staff doing these security checks (at least in the United States) has really improved at all. Even after the events of September 11th, 2001. I’d far rather pay a $5 or $10 fee for improved security and see a dramatic improvement in the quality of security both in staff as well as servicing the number of people having to go through security. It’s a fee I could pay in good conscience and sense real value from.
I also wonder if we couldn’t do a much better job of closing gaps in security at airports when it comes to airline and other service staff at those locations. All too often, I myself see these gaps as I walk through an airport. Background checks at hiring and occasionally afterwards are important, yes. However, I’ve observed no great increase in security at the non-public points of entry into airport infrastructure.
Finally, it is time we realized that there is some inherent risk involved in traveling by aircraft no matter what. Airplanes are (and have been) popular targets for terrorist attacks because, by definition, success results in horrific results. However, as inherent that risk is, let’s also realize that the probabilities for being on an airliner attacked are so small that they are nearly insignificant.
Terrorists are not lined up by the thousands just looking for an opportunity. In fact, terrorists willing to (almost) certainly kill themselves in an attack are very few in number and rather hard to coordinate. Yes, they exist and they will continue to exist and should be considered the risk that they are. However, the notion that armies of terrorists are ready to board aircraft and create multi-airliner havoc is rather silly. Fly in peace because you are probably *more* likely to experience a non-terrorist event on an airliner than anything else.
It is time that governments get their act together on real security and its time for airlines to cooperate with each other and governments rather than act against those measures that may impede their ability to earn yet another dollar. It is against our interests to have private contractors provide security at $10 / hr. What we want (and need) is trained law enforcement officers performing this role. What we want ( and need) is real security measures designed to address the issue before a terrorist passes that security line and which provides a real deterrent in the form of detection.
After the events of September 11, 2001, I said that in the future, it will be very difficult to take control of or even act against an airliner. Prior to that day, protocol for such situations had universally been to cooperate. After that day, it became clear that crew and passenger action against such people would not just be tolerated but welcomed. That has been true ever since.
It’s a lot harder to take down an airliner than most people realize. Even with bombs. It takes a powerful punch to put a hole into an airframe and, even then, commercial airframes are very strong and an explosion doesn’t necessarily mean that aircraft is automatically coming down. Particularly with respect to today’s airliners.
I’m sure there will be a lot of speculation on how this Nigerian national managed to conceal an explosive device and carry it onboard an aircraft from, of all places, Amsterdam. If you’ve ever traveled from Europe, then you know just how strict security procedures are there and, in particular, in national airline hubs such as Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfort, and London. Right now, it would appear the device was created from items that would nominally pass security although how he concealed PETN explosive sufficiently to pass security remains to be revealed.
I’m equally sure we’ll learn that it was done in a manner that hadn’t received much consideration. Possibly it was that bad a lapse in security but I somehow find that hard to believe. I think we’ll learn something new and then we’ll see another round of procedures against attempts such as this one.
I’m sure we’ll not see the removal of the 3oz. rule for carry-on liquids. Indeed, I wonder if all liquids won’t be banned which potentially causes a huge problem for the airlines since that would likely cause many more passengers to want to check their luggage and airlines are now charging exorbitant fees for such service.
In the meantime, I remain confident that our airlines are safe. If anything, this event is a great demonstration at just how much safer we are today with people acting quickly than we were 10 years ago.
For more than 10 years, much has been made of the “launch aid” given to EADS/Airbus for producing new aircraft. A recent preliminary WTO (World Trade Organization) ruling has said that the aid given for launching and producing the A330 was illegal.
Europe/Airbus has prosecuted a counter-claim to Boeing stating that the tax incentives given by both states and the federal government as well as defense industry contracts illegally aids Boeing.
To a lot of people, it seems as if both sides have a point. To Louis Gallois, CEO of EADS/Airbus, it certainly seems that way. He’s actively pursued independent negotiations to settle the issues away from the WTO. Boeing, on the other hand, has remained steadfast.
Like a lot of conflicts such as these, there are valid points on both sides. I think the best way to look at the issue(s) is to test them according to a standard of transparency and economic competitiveness.
Airbus actively competes with Boeing around the world and does a fine job of it as well. There is no doubt that their aircraft are world class and quite capable of competing in the marketplace against Boeing’s products. An airline who buys Airbus isn’t putting itself at a disadvantage.
It’s how Airbus got there that rankles most. Originally a state financed consortium of aerospace manufacturers, Airbus received open funding from national governments to produce aircraft. Ordinarily, this tends to be a bad idea since the product produced is often not market competitive. That certainly wasn’t the case with Airbus’ products. They sell on features and capability. The A320 series can be considered the equal of the Boeing 737 series. The same is true across the line.
It was important to Europe to find a way to continue building airliners and there is a good argument that the rise of Airbus has kept Boeing (and, previously, McDonnell Douglas) honest. I would certainly agree with that. Indeed, one could say that the demise of McDonnell Douglas’ commercial aircraft business was due, in part, to the rise of Airbus since MD found it very difficult to compete against Airbus’ aggressive pricing strategies in markets where McDonnell Douglas was the legacy supplier (Europe and parts of Asia as well as the United States.)
The line was crossed when Airbus didn’t transition to a self financing entity as the A330/A340 aircraft were being developed. Airbus didn’t have to go to the market to borrow money, they went back to the respective European governments for more “aid”. And the biggest part of the problem is that the aid wasn’t exactly required to be paid back. The conditions were that *if* Airbus sold that line into profitability, the governments would start receiving a portion of those profits.
That’s a big if. Indeed, the current Airbus A380 program points to the problem with such a murky requirements. This is an aircraft that, at best, has an extremely limited market and continues to struggle even with low volume production. Deliveries are massively delayed and Airbus continues to depend on orders from a relatively few airlines to support the production. At the same time, there is no pressure from the financial markets and/or shareholders to justify the production with potential profits. Lacking that pressure, Airbus continues with a program that could never last in the United States.
The same was true for the A330/A340 program. While the A330 is an unqualified success, the A340 never was. The problem with this program is that the A330 succeeded not just on capability but price. Airbus didn’t have to pay the rent on the money it borrowed to develop and sell the aircraft and was able to offer a capable aircraft at a price competitive with the Boeing 767. It’s notable that, in many respects, it should have been competing on price with the Boeing 777 instead.
In the United States, it’s true that we do support our manufacturing base with certain tax incentives. However, it is notable that while Boeing might not have kept its production in Washington state, its laughable to believe it would have traveled outside of the United States. Those tax incentives merely kept production where it was inside the US and even those incentives no longer seem to be enough. Witness Boeing setting up a second production line for the 787 in South Carolina.
When Boeing needs to raise money to launch such a venture, it has to go to the international capital markets and borrow money. Boeing must pay market interest rates for that money and, most importantly, it must make a solid case for the product they want to produce and its potential profitability. I assure you that capital markets are an unforgiving place and without justification for their request for money, no one would loan it to them.
Boeing does receive research and development funds for defense work that does contribute to its body of knowledge for building commercial aircraft. Boeing’s capability in manufacturing CFRP (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic) derives from such defense programs. However, there is a difference in how Boeing gets those funds.
Boeing must compete with a number of aerospace companies for those funds and justify its ability to deliver. Those aerospace companies are largely US based but also include companies from Europe such as BAE, Airbus and others. In order to receive that funding, the companies must make a financial case for them being the best to receive funding and if those companies prove incapable of delivering results on a funded program, it usually is terminated by the government. The US Defense Department doesn’t just continue to fund a program for the sake of funding it.
The difference in these arguments about illegal funding between Boeing and Airbus is really about transparency and competitiveness. Boeing must be transparent and routinely demonstrate to the markets and the US government that it is not only doing what it said it would do but also succeeding in the world market place. Airbus, on the other hand, answers to governments whose prime interest is in supporting an aerospace industry and has yet to have to justify itself to the world marketplace.
I suspect that if the European governments involved in Airbus had adopted a hands off approach with the A380 program, the US government and Boeing would have declined to pursue a WTO case against Airbus. I think some sort of arrangement would have still been possible if Airbus had justified their new A350 program in the world marketplace but they once again gratuitously accepted launch aid from governments who brazenly offered it in spite of their pledge to be fair participants within the WTO.
Both France and Germany have been particularly bad in their behaviour on all things Airbus. National leaders of both governments have been known to fly to countries where Airbus is competing for a sale and nakedly pitch the Airbus product as a national interest priority and make the sale with inducements such as defense sales and other side trade agreements. The United States has been known to flirt with this but never has engaged in such open pimping of their own industries.
The KC-X tanker program is the next battlefield. Pitched against the DoD’s desire to have a real competition for the program (there are only two remaining manufacturers in the world capable of producing the aircraft: Boeing and Airbus) and the fact supported case that the Airbus A330 derived tanker was and continues to receive state sponsored support and aid.*
What happens? The United States has a decision to make in the next 2 to 3 years. It either aggressively stops the unfair trade practices of the European governments (primarily France and Germany) or it must decide to fight fire with fire. Wisely, the US government wants to avoid having to resort to the same tactics to support the US aerospace industry because they know the consequences are potentially very bad. Competitiveness in our aerospace industry is, quite literally, what has kept us on the top of the hill when its comes to our nation’s defense.
Those same European aerospace industries supporting Airbus, also participate in the US defense contracts and have become essential to the US defense. Companies such as BAE Systems are now prime contractors producing for the US and to ban them from competition is both bad for the US as well as the US industries. Such is the web a global marketplace produces.
My guess is that the US will seek to defend its ground by offering even more support to businesses and governments around the world in the form of low cost or no cost financing. US Trade Representatives will be empowered to offer better and better terms to facilitate those sales and its hard to compete with the financial might of the US government.
Until the US starts to aggressively combat EADS/Airbus and their supporting governments, the practices won’t stop. Those governments have always pursued such policies and have never stopped engaging them until it became unprofitable to do so. There is no historical precedent for them to play “fair” with, possibly, the exception of the UK.
* Nominally the KC-X tanker program is a competition between Boeing and Northrup Grumman. However, Northrup Grumman essentially is the “front” for Airbus where Airbus will produce the base airframe and Northrup Grumman will do the conversion modifications in Alabama. NG and Airbus have promised to ultimately produce the A330 in Alabama after the first 20 or so airframes are built. However, the A330 airframe isn’t that much younger than the 767 and the market for the aircraft is already quickly diminishing with the rise of the 787, A350 and even the 777. The idea that a single tanker program could justify setting up such an assembly line without commercial demand is far fetched at best. It’s a promise that is easily taken back after production started.
CNN is reporting that a passenger on a flight between Amsterdam and Detroit set off fireworks during the flight resulting in at least one passenger going to a hospital. The story is HERE.
Update 01: Government officials are now calling this incident an terrorist attempt. Apparently a Nigerian national set off an explosive device rather than fireworks in an attempt to blow up the phone. Read the update HERE.
Update 02: This Nigerian apparently used PETN, an explosive used as a “booster” for other explosives and also what was used by terrorist Richard Reid in his attempt to bring down an airliner traveling from Paris to Miami. He was in possession of only a quantity small enough to be in a syringe. My guess is his carried it in a small carry-on container and extracted it with the syringe. You can read the criminal complaint filed against him HERE.
It would appear that I was wrong about recommending DFW as an alternate hub. We should see ice and snow at that airport within the next couple of hours. I’ve lived in this area for 40 years and can’t remember even a potential white Christmas approaching. Delays are already showing up in DFW. Oops.
From Denver across the upper 2/3’s of the heartland to as far east as Ohio or Pennsylvania will be suffering from building weather.
Travel Hint: If you need to re-plan a flight, look for unusual connections. See if your airline flies to a city where you can take another direct flight to your destination by-passing a hub. Airlines won’t show the connection in their system but if you ask for it and there are seats, you have an excellent chance of getting the connection.
Example: If you were traveling from Virginia to the western half of the United States via Chicago, you may be able to connect to a different flight via ATL, Orlando, Houston, Charlotte, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, San Francisco or even Seattle. Yes, you may spend as much as 3 or 4 extra hours of traveling but you’ll raise your chances of arriving at your destination tremendously.
Due to the building midestern winter storm that is already gaining strength, airlines are, once again, waiving change fees to diminish the impact of looming cancellations and delays.
For a list of airlines and details on their current policies, visit USA Today’s Today in the Sky blog HERE.
If you have any flexibility at all, consider attempting to depart on your flight early or, perhaps, re-routing yourself through a connection in a city likely to be unaffected by the weather. Considering the current weather picture and current forecast, hub cities such as DFW, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Denver.
Hub cities such as Denver, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, Cincinatti, and Cleveland are all likely to be affected at least somewhat by the looming weather over the next few days. Based on that, airlines likely to be most affected might be Delta / Northwest Airlines (Minneapolis, Detroit), United Airlines (Chicago and Denver), American Airlines (Chicago), Airtran (Milwaukee), Southwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, Michigan), and Continental (Cleveland).
Hint: If you are a member of a frequent flier program, see if there is a dedicated phone number you can call.
Hint: Make sure your cellular phone is charged and you have your charger in your carry on luggage.
Hint: If you have a laptop computer, consider traveling with it in your carry on luggage.
Hint: If you are seeking to re-route yourself, explore options among codeshare partners with your airline when speaking to a reservations agent.
Hint: If you must board and travel on a flight in a city being affected by the storm, purchase some snacks and water in the terminal to take on the aircraft with you.
British Airways cabin crew (aka “the flight attendants”) were going to go on strike this holiday season believing it best for everyone concerned that they get their way on everything. The British courts nixed that idea.
HERE is an entertaining essay by Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear television fame on Christmas Travel.
From time to time, people send travel and airline related websites to me and inevitably I’ve already seen them. Well, for the first time in a long time, someone surprised me.
Tarmac delays seem to produce lots of passion on both sides of the debate. Consumers are very attracted to this issue, in part, because they’re often abused by airlines in so many different ways. This is one issue where the consumers can get together on their outrage. Industry insiders and airlines are vehemently against this kind of rule frequently citing conditions that aren’t addressed by it or pointing to certain conditions of the rule as being silly.
This morning, I had 2 emails asking my opinion and I’ve been engaged in a debate with two other people on the subject as well. What do I think? I think the rule is a good idea.
Not because it solves tarmac delay problems. It doesn’t. Not because it strikes a blow for consumers across the country, it really doesn’t. I like it because it sets some sort of criteria for a situation that needed to be addressed. It’s a start, not a finish.
Lots of issues related to airline traffic, delays and congestion have been deferred for years by a debate on how to render a solution for everything. That’s never going to happen. However, it is possible to address certain issues and this new rule is simply a limit on some egregious behavior.
Let’s look at some of the arguments against this rule:
If a pilot is next to take off and hits his 3 hour window, he has to turn and head back to the gate immediately! Balderdash. If a pilot is next in line to take-off, ATC can give the aircraft an exception because it *will* disrupt airport operations if that pilot has to now taxi down the runway to get back to the gate. For that matter, do we really believe that the FAA is going to fine an airline for waiting an extra 5 minutes to complete a take-off at that point? Really? I don’t. The FAA is many things but they grant variances to certain conditions all the time already (including safety related items.) They understand that those situations are not always black and white.
Food and water are required after two hours. Well, personally, I agree with the Cranky Flier that the food requirement after two hours is a bit silly. However, is this a reason not to have a rule setting a standard? No, of course not. What this food requirement really means is that airlines will need to stock some snacks on those bad days and distribute them after 2 hours. When you think about it, distributing a small snack and some water after two hours isn’t exactly a bad business decision anyway. Doing that should help keep some tempers cooler. And think about this: What if the delay isn’t a take-off delay but a diversion delay? What is that aircraft was flying for 3.5 hours, landed at a diversion airport and two more hours have passed? That’s a minimum of 5.5 hours since departing a gate and, yeah, feeding some people at that point is probably a good idea again, isn’t it? Could the requirement be written better? Certainly. On the other hand, it’s not a good argument against a 3 hour rule.
What if everyone wants to stay on board after 3 hours and continue to try to take-off? What if almost everyone want to keep trying and just a couple of people want off? Well, in theory, that sounds like a real moral dilemma. let’s take a look at what reality is more likely to be. If an aircraft hits its 3 hour point and isn’t anywhere close to taking off, it’s time to give it up anyway. If it is near taking off, then almost by definition this aircraft won’t be able to “leave the line” without massively disrupting airport operations and under that circumstance, the ground controller is going to issue an exception and keep them there.
This wouldn’t have fixed the Rochester incident. Granted, that ugly incident was more a result of an uncooperative party than anything else. However, the fines issued in that incident and this new rule clearly communicate that airlines need to do better and cooperate more with each other. The FAA fined all three parties to that incident and made it clear that while Mesaba was the obstacle, neither ExpressJet nor Continental exactly wielded their influence in that situation either. More could have and should have been done. Airlines are getting that message and acting accordingly now. Regardless if this would have or would not have fixed that particular incident, it still isn’t an argument against doing something and setting some standard to live by.
Airlines are doing better now anyway! Maybe. Maybe not. We’ve only just entered this winter season and while I grant that the airlines in the NYC area did *much* better with last weekend’s storm, it doesn’t mean it can’t happen again. Most people would agree that those airlines acted as they did last weekend because of public backlash. They cancelled flights earlier and managed their loads with larger equipment. Something they should have always been doing but didn’t. Let me also point out that airline capacity has been dramatically reduced over the past 18 months and it’s no wonder that there was less of an issue. That capacity will come back someday, however. So, if they’re doing better, how does this rule harm them? It doesn’t and it’s not a good argument against a standard.
This rule means that with more cancellations, more people won’t get home for the holidays. Again, maybe. Maybe not. First, it will depend on whether or not there are delays during the holidays. Last year, major holiday periods didn’t see any severe weather. This year, we will see some. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, passengers can be much better consumers in most cases and plan their travel to reduce their delay and cancellation risk. Just as airlines need to do better, so do customers. But this rule doesn’t arbitrarily mean that more people don’t get where they’re going for the holidays. And, so, again, it really isn’t an argument against a standard or rule. And, let me point out again that airlines coped with the last storm by *cancelling* earlier and more flights than they would have originally be inclined to do so. In other words, even the airlines who claims they’ve fixed it, fixed it essentially the same way this rule forced them to do.
I do think the rule could be a tad better. I do think that we need more solutions to more of the problems that contribute to these delays. This isn’t an end to the problem. It’s the beginning of finding a solution to just one of those problems. And after 10 or more years of egregious tarmac delays*, it’s time to try something. So we’ll try this for a while. You can be sure that no one is going to go bankrupt from this rule and the delays certainly aren’t going to get worse because of this rule so let’s see how this works out.
* Most people date tarmac delays to the infamous 2006 Kate Hanni in Austin on American Airlines incident. Well, these delays were going on for a lot longer than that. I can recall delays in the Chicago area for summer storms reaching 5 and 6 hours back in ’98 or ’99. I remember horrific tarmac delays in Detroit (and nearby cities) in the summer of 2000, too. The pot simply boiled over in 2006.
If you followed the blizzard that clobbered the Northeastern United States, you may have noticed that airlines began suggesting that you could change your flight and leave *early* to avoid the disruptions and without penalty. While I believe this has been done before, airlines clearly got the message out much better and in a much more timely fashion than in the past.
The new DOT rule limiting tarmac delays to 3 hours or less (with exceptions for safety or in the event a return to gate would massively disrupt airport operations) was announced Monday and takes effect 120 days after being published in the Federal Register.
The movements against the airlines for these lengthy delays on tarmac have gained considerable momentum and airline have taken a real hit publicity-wise over these disruptions. Combine that with the message that the DOT sent by fining Continental, ExpressJet and Mesaba over the lengthy delay in Rochester, MN earlier this year, and you’ve got a lot of pressure on the airlines to do the right thing in advance of problems.
Take advantage of it and be creative. If you see the potential to be delayed or stuck in an unfamiliar city trying to travel somewhere, call the airline and re-book your travel through cities likely to be unaffected by the weather. If you were in Virginia and scheduled to fly to Europe via a northeastern gateway city such as Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., New York City or Boston, you could have re-booked to travel via Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas or Houston. Now, that seems like going out of your way but is it? Not really. Travel to any one of those other gateway cities would take about as long as it would to go to your original gateway city. Travel to Europe from one of those other gateway cities isn’t substantively longer than traveling from the northeast. Yes, you’ll spend, perhaps, another hour or two in the air in total time but you’ll get to your destination and you won’t lose the use of that valuable vacation time.
Flexibility is the number one solution to problems that arise from weather. With the airlines’ willingness to accomodate you that much earlier with a change in flight plans, you can beat the odds and still make your trip.
USA Today published an op-ed found HERE on the honesty of code shares that exist between major airlines and their regional partners. Noting the safety issues that appear to exist in the regional airline industry, they call it a problem for truth in labeling. Is it?
The truth is that the issues that the public has been focused on for the past several months with respect to regional airlines does and does not exist. It depends entirely on the regional airline and the relationship it enjoys with its partners.
Certainly there exists an issue with fatigue and experience among airlines. However, those problems don’t exist simply because regional airlines exist. Even if regional airlines didn’t exist or if they were operated directly by major airlines, those problems would still exist. The problem of fatigue exists because of the existing system of rules governing rest for pilots. Even pilots working for major airlines are enduring more fatigue as a result of work rules.
Experience does count but the perceived problem of experience is a greater problem because we put brand new pilots into situations that require them to fly schedules in and out of busy airline hubs as much as 5 times in a duty shift. A new pilot is potentially flying more hours and flying in and out of busier hubs more often than an experienced pilot working for a major airline. That will only be solved when we require more experience to become a captain.
Unfortunately, pilots (and cabin crew) are tied to a legacy seniority system that they are unwilling to give up. Pilots get upgraded to larger aircraft and into the position of captain on the basis of seniority rather than experience or merit.
For more information on pilots, fatigue and the reason for regional airlines, read these posts HERE, HERE. HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.
Airlines use regional airlines differently and according to the agreements they have with their own unions as well as according to their needs for service in various areas. Some airlines own their own regional airlines such as American Airlines who owns American Eagle and Delta/Northwest who owns regional airlines such as Comair, Mesaba and Compass. Other airlines such as United or US Airways contract with independent companies more often.
Now, I think *any* regional airline operating in the United States is operating to a fairly high degree of safety. We have too many laws and regulations in place for any to slip too far down the ladder. However, I do think that independent regional airlines operate with a bit more aggressiveness towards both their operations as well as their personnel. I would point to the independents as having a bit more opportunity to fail in safety than those owned by the major airlines.
In fact, I would regard our regional airlines as generally being more safe than the major were in the early 1980’s.
To call code shares deceptive is a stretch in my opinion. Airlines and travel websites do a pretty good job of revealing both the type of aircraft being used as well as the fact that regional flights are being operated by regional airlines in partnership with the major airlines. A quick check on AA.com, Delta.com, Travelocity.com and Orbitz.com shows that to be true.
If a problem exists, it really exists with the consumer who is either ignorant or unwilling to be an informed purchaser of the services being offered. If the consumer is neither ignorant nor uninformed, then they may also be a bit selfish and lazy by choosing not to act in their own best interests when purchasing a flight.
You really do invite trouble into your life when you purchase your travel based almost exclusively on price. If you could pay $20 more to travel through a hub that is less congested or prone to trouble, wouldn’t that be a small price to pay? If you could pay $20 more to travel on regional airline owned and operated by a major airline, wouldn’t that be a small price to pay?
When you become a slave to one airline through frequent flier miles or the idea that a non-stop flight is always best, you put yourself at risk. Consider whether or not it is better to fly on American Eagle from DFW to Milwaukee non-stop or if it might perhaps be better to do it via Southwest Airlines making one connection and only on a 737. The American Eagle flight will be a cramped regional jet that is prone to being weight restricted operated by an airline that doesn’t exactly have a sterling record for caring for your baggage. The Southwest flight will be flown by the most experienced pilots available in the US using a 737 and your baggage will be handled by people who have an excellent record and who care about their customers. That Southwest flight might take add an extra 45 minutes to your trip and may even cost $20 more but your assurance of a positive experiences goes way up.
Sometimes taking the longer view when planning your travel is best. Particularly when you plan your leisure travel.
If safety is a concern, become an informed consumer. Don’t become prejudiced on the basis of what kind of airplane you’re getting onto. Become interested in what kind of airline is operating that aircraft. There are fantastic regional airlines with fantastic safety records and there are major airlines who are marginal at best with merely OK safety records. Be proactive and enjoy a better travel experience.
Before anything else, I’d like to announce that this is my 200th post to this blog. Quite the milestone all in all.
USA Today’s Today in the Sky Blog is reporting that several airlines have removed their advance purchase requirement for bargain fares this holiday season. Their source, Tom Parsons (CEO of BestFares.com), says that airlines such as American Airlines, Delta, United, Northwest, US Airways, Frontier, Airtran and Midwest have all removed the advance purchase requirement through January 4th. Continental still has a 3-day advance purchase requirement. This would seem to imply that holiday travel is extremely soft this season so far.
CNN is reporting that British Airways has won an injunction against a 12 day holiday strike planned by the labor union representing cabin crew called Unite. More on Unite and its recent actions in a post for tomorrow. I suspect there are a few european airlines who are moving quickly to adjust their plans (again) for accomodating extra passengers.
It’s been two days since the 787 took flight for the first time and it certainly was one of the most anticipated first flights of an aircraft. Anyone who has followed the development of the 787 program certainly knew that it would indeed be a special aircraft and no one would doubt that there is a lot of promise in it.
Although I’ve seen countless photographs of the first aircraft, ZA001, I was pretty surprised by a couple of things. First, the wing flex. All the promotional photos for the airplane showed it but , intellectually, I didn’t believe it would look like that. But it was, if anything, even more dramatic than renderings in my opinion.
Second, if you saw video of the take-off, how about how they time the chase planes? Those T-33 jets were just the right whipped cream for that take-off.
At some angles, the 787 reminds me more of the 757 than the 767. At others, it reminds me of the 777. Those huge Rolls-Royce engines throw me off because they are much larger in proportion to the airplane than any other common aircraft. They look larger than the 777 engines (but aren’t.)
Here are two the better videos I could find of the take-off:
I genuinely look forward to seeing that airplane land at DFW airport one day.
One note: My wife and a couple of friends commented on the fact that all photos of the plane show its landing gear extended. Typically the landing gear is left deployed on a first flight simply because it provides a little extra margin of safety. Most likely, the gear was left deployed the entire first flight or, at best, cycled once and then left deployed again. As the testing continues, the gear will be retracted and the normal “envelope” of handling for the aircraft will be found through more and more tests.
Edit #01: Depending on the weather, this flight may be cut short. Currently it is scheduled for 5 hours with the initial circuit being north of Everett, Washington. However, with weather closing in, the flight could be cut short at any time. The 787 will be landing at Boeing Field when it does return.
Edit #02: A few moments ago (It’s 1:18pm CST), Flightaware.com showed the 787 slowing to just 87 kts (100mph) and then speeding up again, slowly, to nearly 200kts. Ordinarily, I’d be inclined to think that speed reading a fluke. Today, I think they really did slow it down that much. I can only imagine what it must be like to be the test pilot that takes those chances with an aircraft that cost billions (with a “B”) to develop on its first flight.
Edit #03: The 787 is flying patterns that take it over I-5 over and over again at relatively low altitude. Anyone traveling on that highway may be getting quite a surprise now and then.
Edit #04: Boeing is now saying that the 787 may land in about 30 minutes. This would result in a 2.5 hours first flight and given the weather, a complete success.
Edit #05: The 787 has nosed towards the south and should make a long loop heading south to approach Boeing Field from the south and land.
Edit #06: Matt Cawby’s website has a photo of the 787 Dreamliner lifting off in the rain HERE.
Edit #07: The 787 Dreamliner has landed at Boeing Field now. There is a rumour that the second aircraft, ZA002, will fly on or about December 22.
Edit #08: You can watch a short video clip of the 787 taking off HERE. Notice the wing flex and the chase plane that flies right above/beside the 787 as it rotates.
