The Dallas Morning News Aviation Blog has THIS story about Delta possibly deferring or cancelling its (inherited from Northwest) 787 orders for 18 aircraft (and 50 additional options.)  And this kind of makes sense to me. 

 

Northwest probably did need those 787 aircraft for its trans-pacific routes.  Its 747 fleet was adequate for some routes but others just couldn’t stand a 747 and Northwest doesn’t have any 777 aircraft.  The combined fleet of Delta and Northwest is a different matter, however. 

 

If anything, I think Delta might have one long haul aircraft type too many.  That said, they have 767 (Delta) and A330 (Northwest) aircraft for medium haul routes and configured so that each is nearly ideal for passenger density.  They have the 777 (Delta) and the 747 (Northwest) for long haul, high density routes as well.  Frankly, I think Delta might be better off adding the 777-300 to its fleet and retiring the 747 but that isn’t their plan.  They are refurbishing the 747 aircraft and extending leases on them.  Clearly Delta sees a profitable use for them at this time. 

 

The 787 isn’t going to be a trans-Atlantic aircraft.  Certainly not on the first routes for any airline.  A new(ish) build 767-300 or A330-300 can do those routes just as economically.  The 787 is better suited to routes like NYC to Tokyo or LA to Sydney or Atlanta to Rio de Janeiro or even the US to India.  Delta has the right sized aircraft for those routes.  

 

Delta can probably sell those orders profitably at this point.  There are a number of airlines who don’t have new(ish) 767s or A330s and there are several more who need to downsize from a 747 or 777 on long haul routes.  Airlines such as Continental and AA come to mind.  

 

Mind you, the enthusiast in me wishes all US airlines flew the latest and great aircraft.  The practical side of me says we’ll probably only see Continental take up its orders on schedule and even AA will likely take its time adding the 787.

Filed under: Airline Fees by ajax
1 Comment »

Both Boeing and Airbus have a great selection of single aisle aircraft for domestic/trans-continental service in their B737 and A320 series families.  Both have excellent widebody families for medium to long haul service too.  The single aisle families can carry anywhere from about 130 to 190 passengers and that’s a pretty nice cross-section.  The current widebody families (and I’m excluding the 767 from this characterization but you’ll see why in a few minutes) accomodate a broad range of passengers ranging from about 270 to 400+ passengers.  Each even has new widebody family aircraft being introduced now and over the next 5 to 7 years that promise fantastic efficiency at incredible ranges.

 

Where is the aircraft to serve the 200 to 250 passenger count on a trans-continental/trans-Atlantic system?  Yes, the A330 and B767 are there but they’re really not quite the aircraft for that anymore.  The A330 is best as a -300 series aircraft and that encroaches into the 270+ territory.  The 767 is still being built but it is, for all intent and purposes, a discontinued aircraft. 

 

Previously we had the 757 and 767 capable of carrying that 190 to 250 passenger range on routes ranging from 2800 to 5500 miles and that market remains very active.  But no one is building a new aircraft for that segment.  The 787 misses it by a touch too many passengers and the A350 misses it by much more.  Neither the 737-900ER nor the A321 is capable of traversing the Atlantic ocean from the east coast of the US to points inside the middle of Europe.   They can barely make it across the continental United States.

 

Everyone is interested in aircraft for long haul routes that are intercontinental / trans-Pacific routes that yield quite a bit of revenue but for which there remains a fairly limited market.   Who is going to build the aircraft capable of flying from Northeastern United States to Berlin or Rome or Athens or even Helsinki without being too much aircraft?  Yes, the 787-8 can handle that route and probably handle it pretty well but it offers only a small marginal improvement on efficiency for those routes. 

 

It would appear that the world market could stand to see another A300/767 sized aircraft that offers the kind of efficiency we see being promised in the 787/A350 aircraft being built today.  And that really shouldn’t be difficult at all for either manufacturer.  The fuselage sizes and engines necessary are known quantities.  The technologies to raise the efficiency needed for those routes are all available today.  There is no challenge to building this kind of aircraft but it doesn’t even appear to be on the drawing boards (or, rather, CAD screens) of either company. 

 

There are a lot of 757/767/A300/A330-200 aircraft still out there but they’re aging fast and have a limited lifecycle left at virtually any airline.  I do wonder why airlines aren’t pushing more for a 200 to 250 passenger, 5500nm aircraft particularly since we’re talking about routes that are medium haul, bread and butter routes for much of the global airline system.  It is a sweet spot being ignored and I think that the manufacturer that identifies it and addresses it sooner, rather than later, is the manufacturer who enjoys a healthy order book for the next 2 to 3 decades.

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »

There have been a few attempts to create long haul, low cost carriers over the past several decades.  Laker Airways and People Express were two examples of that from years past.  Neither succeeded in the long run due to competition but also because long haul flights are a different creature.

 

Now I’m beginning to think someone could do it.  It would require a few very special adjustments to make it successful and those adjustments would be a real challenge to accomodate but, yes, I think someone could do it.

 

Michael O’Leary of Ryanair has talked of doing this but his concept, at least how he has laid it out, is fraught with peril since it is based on a Ryanair strategy. 

 

Long haul flights really only work between two large population centers because they do depend a lot on airport infrastructure and originating traffic in those areas.   They are international and that requires airports that can accomodate customs and immigration facilities and airports that have runways that are long enough for long haul aircraft. 

 

They also can’t depart and arrive at just any time.  Not to be attractive anyway.  So schedules are much more important and frequency isn’t necessarily the key as much as finding routes that offer high aircraft utilization. 

 

Until recently, they also required really large aircraft such as the 747 or DC-10/MD-11 to lower the costs per available seat.   Filling those aircraft day in and day out is difficult on a point to point basis if you don’t have really large population centers to feed those aircraft.

 

Things have kind of changed though.  For one, there are aircraft that might be suited to such operations which offer very low CASM (cost available seat mile) but which aren’t so big that they become difficult to fill.  I’m thinking of the Boeing 787 and 777 and the Airbus A330 and A350. 

 

These aircraft are capable of long haul flight, offer enough capacity and the kind of operating costs that might just make such a venture possible.   In particular, the 787-8 and A330 make this look real attractive. 

 

The one twist that I think you would need is partnerships to feed these flights at major cities that would serve as the departure points for such flights.  In the past, I would be skeptical of this being possible.  Now, not so much.  Southwest Airlines is forging partnerships with LCC carriers in Canada and Mexico (WestJet and Volaris) and its just the kind of partnership that a long haul LCC venture could use.

 

Imagine an LCC carrier using the A330 or 787-8 flying routes such as DFW-London or Chicago-London or NYC-London.  Or even Portland, OR to Amsterdam or Denver to Germany.   Maybe even Salt Lake City to Japan. 

 

The best aircraft would be the 787-8.  It would accomodate medium to long haul flights perfectly with low enough CASMs for virtually any city pair.  Its expected to be more low maintenance than any other aircraft of its kind.  It could become the 737 of long haul quite easily. 

 

If you had partnerships with LCC carriers on both sides to feed connecting traffic (something else that Southwest has done a time or two with its relationships with ATA and Icelandair (which was actually an interline agreement), you might be able to do it. 

 

Imagine Southwest Airlines feeding such an LCC in places such as Denver, Baltimore, Pittsburgh,  Portland or Seattle and Ryanair feeding such a venture at airports such as Dublin, London-Standsted or Frankfurt-Hahn.  Or, perhaps, Airtran feeding such an airline from Atlanta to Rio de Janeiro with Azul providing the feed in Brazil. 

 

This new LCC would have to be the “codeshare” on the domestic/regional flights and its own entity on the long haul international portion.  Domestic/regional partners would benefit from the additional regional traffic but really should not be selling tickets from Kansas City to Rio de Janeiro via Atlanta.  It goes against their models.  These partnerships should be about each sticking to their models but providing some interlining between the two. 

 

Oddly enough, I see airlines in two parts of the world being able to do this.  The United States would be ideal because a US based long haul LCC carrier can reach around the world from the US borders.  The other area would be one based in the Middle East such as Dubai which could also reach around the world. 

 

With Open Skies agreements falling into place left and right, the right aircraft being available now and LCC IT infrastructures becoming flexible enough to enter into this kind of partnership, it might just be possible in the near future.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
3 Comments »

Let’s talk alliances before anything else.

 

There is a huge battle taking place over who gets to have Japan Air Lines (JAL) business.  The financially struggling airline has suddenly become a hot property and American Airlines (OneWorld) and Delta Airlines (SkyTeam) are fighting over JAL like it’s a supermodel.   Both airlines are offering hugely attractive financial packages to JAL and I suspect the poor airline has no idea of who to nod their head towards. 

 

Ultimately, I think JAL will stay in Oneworld.  There is more at stake here than what is offered as a financial rescue package.  Japan is still a very nationalistic country and keeping the identify of what is, for most purposes, its flag carrier will be important.  It has a solid relationship with Oneworld and American Airlines and compared to the risk of joining with SkyTeam and the possibility of being a second tier player in that relationship, JAL has a safer bet with Oneworld. 

 

In addition, I don’t think JAL can afford to wait for anti-trust immunity to act with airline partners and it won’t have to by staying with Oneworld. 

 

The Middle East:

 

I continue to think that the major international airlines (Emirates, Qatar, Etihad) of the Middle East are more at risk than they claim.  Yes, they’ve experienced phenomal growth and, yes, they continue to purchase aircraft like a 5 year old buys candy but what’s next for them and their route systems? 

 

The Middle East doesn’t offer a good connecting point for North or South America.   Airlines in North America can reach their markets non-stop with existing aircraft and why would a passenger choose to connect via an airport in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) when they can fly non-stop at a competitive price.  Better service product won’t attract these customers.  

 

There is very little business between South America and Africa, India, The Middle East or Southeast Asia and, so, South America isn’t a place that could serve as a growth area for those airlines. 

 

Emirates, Qatar and Etihad have succeeded by offering a hub between Europe and the Middle East, India, Southeast Asia and (to some extent) Australia/New Zealand.  However, even European airlines are adding longer range aircraft and are able to reach each of those destinations non-stop  more and more with the exception of Australia and New Zealand. 

 

In addition, each of those airlines is bankrolled to some extent with oil profits and the uncertainty of those profits and the uncertainty of other investments in the Middle East has to raise the risk for that continued bankrolling.   I don’t see any of these airlines failing in the next year but I do see them perhaps deferring orders and re-organising their fleets. 

 

India: 

 

What a catastrophe!  No airline in India will do well for now and there has to be some consolidation in this market in the near future.   Kingfisher and Jet Airways are both excellent candidates for takeovers and, perhaps, they are excellent candidates for each other.  Kingfisher bet on Airbus by ordering A330 and A340 aircraft first.  Their A330 fleet doesn’t quite have the range it really needs to expand outside of its current markets and the A340 was a terrible choice for long range flights.  So much so, it got rid of the aircraft on order. 

 

Now, Kingfisher has a few A350 and a few A380 aircraft on order for deliveries starting in 2014.  While it could desperately stand to have the A350 now, I don’t see how it can wait until 2014 for the aircraft.  I also seriously doubt it will ever take up the A380 both because of cost and an inability to fill the aircraft enough for regular flights. 

 

Jet Airways also has a great service product but bought too big of an aircraft for the routes it needed to compete on.  Jet Airways purchased the 777-300ER when it really needed the 777-200ER/LR for the international routes it proposed to serve.  Now 4 of the aircraft are leased to Turkish Airlines and 3 are going to Royal Brunei leaving just 3 for Jet Airways. 

 

Both Kingfisher and Jet Airways have a great service product and good networks across India and neighboring countries.  They would be better served by merging and using one brand for their national service and another for their international services.  Kingfisher for India and Jet Airways for international service. 

 

The Far East:

 

China has a lot of problems coming to roost with the inevitable decline in their economy which is heavily dependent on North America and Europe.    Look for some consolidation in this market.  I do think that Chinese airlines face potential issues from government mandates to purchase indignenous aircraft being developed now.  There is little chance that the aircraft being built will be competitive internally or externally.  At least for this first round of development.

 

While JAL is suffering and ANA (All Nippon Airlines) isn’t performing that great at present, I see no major changes in the Japanese markets.  This is an area that will bounce back but only after a long fight.    The same is true for Korea. 

 

Oceania: 

 

Australia will be interesting to watch.  I’m tempted to guess that the status quo will remain in most cases.  The competition between the US and Australia only continues to grow more fierce and something has to give.  I still think that United Airlines may well be the airline to withdraw from this market and only because of the rather unique market relationship formed between Delta and V Australia (and Virgin Blue). 

 

 QANTAS will continue to own a large piece of all air travel from its home nation and they could be helped along with some deliveries of the 787.  At some point, QANTAS must grow and growth means a lot of long and thin routes to be added. 

 

South America: 

 

I don’t think there will be any major news from this continent over the next year.  LAN will continue to succeed by operating smart and honest.   Brazilian airlines will continue to fight things out but there is enough international business for each of them and their real threat comes from Azul on a domestic basis. 

 

Look for Azul to consider adding a larger aircraft to its fleet and don’t count Boeing out on that deal.   It would be easier for David Neeleman to add the Boeing 737 to his fleet in Brazil because he could outsource maintenance more easily. 

 

Aerolineas Argentinas:  Well, what can I say?   This disaster is much like the country itself.  It won’t go away but it won’t perform either.  No outside airline will consider taking it over after what happened with Grupo Marsans’ ownership.   They lack an appropriate fleet for their flying, a strategic plan for stabilizing their revenues and no clear plan for future growth.  But the Argentinian government also won’t let them go away.  It is a matter of national pride.

 

LAN Argentina is growing in Argentina but somehow I remain skeptical that it will be allowed to succeed too well.  Why?  For one reason, the government of Argentina owns Aerolineas Argentinas and it has a vested interest in that airline earning money.  For another reason, LAN Argentina is owned by the LAN Group of Chile.  Look up how Chileans and Argentinians feel about each other.

 

Colombia and Venezuela: 

 

Avianca Airlines has joined hands with Grupo Taca and I suspect that will be a good thing for both airlines.  Avianca could benefit by the exellent managment of Grupo Taca and Grupo Taca could benefit from greater access to South American markets.   Its almost certain that the two will harmonize their fleets and service products for greater economies while maintaing the two identies for greater acceptance throughout Central and South America.

 

Venezuela:  All airlines erode further due to the increasing interference of the Venezuelan government and, more specifically, Hugo Chavez.  I lost hope for Venezuela’s airline industry when they forced Conviasa (in partnerhsip with Iran Air and originally using an Iran Air 747-SP) into a route between Caracas and Tehran with an intermediate stop in Damascus.  This is the ultimate in “this route makes no sense.”  If the government can do that, then they’ll do other things to damage the industry.

 

Europe:

 

The European continent’s airlines are hunkered down just as much as the US based airlines.   There isn’t much to be expected in Europe for the next 12 months but let’s look at it anyway.

 

British Airways is kind of the American Airlines of the UK.  They’ll always somehow manage to survive and generally pretty well.  They have their own labour troubles but, again, they seem to be capable winning these for now.  British Airways needs to cut costs a bit more so I wouldn’t be surprised at some order deferrals and/or hastening the exit of the 747-400. 

 

The one airline I continue to wonder about in Europe is Lufthansa.  While they have a good service product and an excellent reputation, they also seem to have some weaknesses.  Lufthansa continues to purchase weaker sisters in Europe such as SWISS, Brussels Airlines, Austrian Airlines, Lauda Air and, now, BMI.  

 

20 years ago, this would seem reasonable in that European countries were pretty nationalistic.  Now, not so much.  Yes, there are some pockets of nationalism that exist but I wonder at maintaining so many different brands, fleets and networks now.  It would seem that the brands could be pared down to 2 or 3 mainline airlines and 3 to 5 regional airlines.   BMI wasn’t an airline that was succeeding in any great way and what does Lufthansa get for their purchase?  I see little of value.   I don’t know that BMI gets Lufthansa an entry into the UK that is of any more value than the Lufthansa brand itself.

 

I also wonder about their fleet.  They have a large fleet of A340 aircraft serving medium to long haul routes and that cannot be very efficient or profit enhancing.  Yet, Lufthansa has made no real move to correct this problem.   Their one major aircraft order in the past several years was for the four engined 747-8i.  They have no orders for the 787 (although Boeing would no doubt happily accomodate them with early delivery positions) nor the A350 (and I’m certain Airbus ould love to add them to the order book as well.) 

 

This puts Lufthansa into competition with British Airways who has moved towards operating more twin engine, long haul aircraft (777 and 787) as well as KLM/Air France (777).   Yes, they do own some A330 aircraft but their true long haul equipment is the A340 and 747.

 

KLM / Air France:  Not much here.  I don’t see an order for aircraft coming from them unless Airbus magically announces a GE engine for the A350-1000.  Otherwise, I seem them holding their cards close to their vest and waiting to see what happens in Europe.

 

The BA/Iberia merger:  I never saw the attraction myself.  It’s a low rent copy of the KLM/Air France union and I suspect there are many issues to resolve before the two really combine.   Personally, I think the odds of this merger actually taking place is, at best, 50/50. 

 

 Their alliance with AA over the Atlantic will continue to be a strong issue for the US Justice Department.   The BA/AA strength on the US/UK routes and the the IB/AA strenght on the US/Spain routes is really a bit too much.   I think the DoT/FAA is willing to let this alliance go forward but I think the DoJ is going to speak loudly and force a request for concessions.   Concessions that I think, this time, BA and AA may meet with some negotiation.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
2 Comments »

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.

Filed under: Aircraft Development by ajax
2 Comments »

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.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
1 Comment »

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.

Filed under: Aircraft Development by ajax
No Comments »

At the first of the year, I wrote 3 blog posts shown HERE, HERE and HERE.  It was really just my random speculation on what to expect over the next 12 months.  Well, now it’s December of 2009.  Let’s see how I did.

 

Boeing 787:  I guessed at an April 2009 first flight.  It still hasn’t flown although speculation has it flying this month either by December 14th or December 22nd. 

 

Airbus A380:  I guessed they would make their goal of producing 21 aircraft this year.  As of November 30th, 2009, Airbus says they have delivered 7 A380 aircraft this year.  Ouch.  This is a program that is in financial trouble.  No, I don’t think it will be cancelled.  Not yet but please don’t try to tell me this program will make a profit. 

 

My deathwatch had Midwest Airlines going away most likely by a sale.  That did happen and while the airline has essentially evaporated (from its original form), it does remain as a brand being run by Republic Airways.  

 

I speculated that Frontier Airlines would be bought out of bankruptcy but I guessed that jetBlue would be the buyer.  In fact, Southwest Airlines and Republic Airways were the suitors and Republic won.

 

I thought that United Airlines and US Airways would announce a new merger with Continental a dark horse candidate for buying United.  In fact, Continental became a member of the Star Alliance and firmed its relationship up with United but wisely kept its distance otherwise. 

 

I said that Southwest Airlines would maintain its status quo but that Gary Kelly would be under fire from both employees and outsiders and he was.  However, that view is already being reversed again by Southwest’s resurgent strength in the business.

 

I thought that the Middle Eastern airlines such as Emirates, Etihad and Qatar wouldn’t see a bankruptcy or merger but would slow their growth and aircraft deliveries.  That, in fact, has happened and now we see Emirates working hard to distance itself from Dubai World’s financial woes.

 

China:  I said deferred orders.  Pretty much what happened.

 

The Far East:  I said airlines from that region would maintain their status quo, probably would not defer orders and might make new orders to replace existing equipment for greater effiency.  Again, pretty much what happened.

 

Australia:  I saw QANTAS slowing growth, deferring some orders and fighting hard against new entrants.  Again, that’s pretty much what happened.  I also saw two weak competitors on the US-Australia routes:  United and V Australia.  That is pretty much what is happening although V Australia has been pretty smart in working into a relationship with Delta where it appears the two airlines will cooperate with codeshares.  United remains alone and with weakening demand.

 

South America:  I said the Argentine government would take Aerolineas Argentinas back from Grupo Marsans and the airline itself would muddle along or contract rather severely in some areas.  Bingo.  Exactly what happened.  I also predicted Azul would become the jetBlue of Brazil and its not hard to guess that that airline is pummeling its competitors.  A future prediction was for the airline to fly internationally in 2014 with Airbus equipment.  We’ll see.

 

Africa:  I saw Delta continuing to pursue flights to major African cities (true) and SAA (South African Airways) issuing a small RFP for 777 aircraft to replace its rather inefficient A340 aircraft (didn’t happen.)

 

India:  I thought Jet Airways and Kingfisher might merge with the name Jet Airways being retained.  In fact, both airlines continue to exist but both are suffering severe financial problems, deferring aircraft deliveries and generally flailing about trying to find a way to continue.   One of these airlines will still ultimately have to exit the market and I continue to think it will be Kingfisher.  They have the wrong aircraft and the wrong aircraft on order.  However, Jet Airways is suffering badly from labor actions among its employees. 

 

United States:  I picked United to fail.  It hasn’t happened and while they continue to live, their cash holdings are being reduced, they still have severe labor issues, their service product continues to suffer and I still think they should be the ones to disappear.  I also thought Glenn Tilton would be ousted and, possibly, replaced by Doug Steenland.  That didn’t happen but John Tague has been groomed as Tilton’s replacement.  I still think Tilton should go if United can’t fail.

 

Europe:  I thought we would hear of a surprise from Lufthansa.  I didn’t like their purchase of SWISS and I didn’t like their flying the A340 in competition against the 777 being flown by many of their direct competitors.  They’re still here, still making money and they bought BMI.  I still think we’ll here of misfortune from them but apparently it will take a while longer. 

 

Random Speculations:

• I thought Southwest might add another aircraft type.  It didn’t happen but I think their interest got perked up when they looked at buying Frontier and saw the economics on the Q400.
• I thought Delta might order more Airbus A330 aircraft.  Instead, Delta is parking them in the desert for the winter season.
• I speculated that both China and Japan would defer or drop their regional jet programs.  That didn’t happen but the Chinese jet program appears to be a bad aircraft and unlikely to be used by anyone except Chinese airlines forced to buy it.
• I thought Bombardier would see a major order (20+) for their Q400 series aircraft from a US customer.  Horizon Airlines did up their orders  for 10 more but there were no other significant orders. 
• Airtran to form a small midwestern hub.  Yup, that happened.  In Milwaukee where they’ve taken over from Midwest Airlines and now face Midwest (brand owned by Republic) and Southwest Airlines entry into the market.  I think Airtran will hold on here and continue to develop business.
• Last, I hoped that jetBlue or Virgin America would enter the DFW market.  Virgin’s CEO, David Cush (formerly of American Airlines) did recently speculate about adding flights to either DFW or Austin.   I suspect they’ll choose Austin and DFW will remain a fortress for AA.

 

That’ s it for my 2009 predictions.  I’ll make more at the start of 2010.  On the whole, I probably did as well as anyone in making predictions in this business.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service, Death Watch by ajax
No Comments »

Michael O’Leary, CEO of Ryanair in Europe has been demanding a new deal for up to 200 Boeing 737 aircraft between 2013 and 2016 according to Reuters.  Keep in mind that up to 200 aircraft likely means a firm order for between 50 and 100 aircraft with options for more.   Boeing, on the other hand, has so far refused to negotiate what is by all accounts a rock bottom deal on their 737.   More amusing is that Airbus has so far refused to offer a better deal on their aircraft since they’re already familiar with Mr. O’Leary’s tactics when it comes to negotiating.  He likes to play one manufacturer off another.

 

There are likely several things at play here.  First, Ryanair has often made a profit by “turning” their aircraft rapidly and selling them for a profit to other, smaller players.  A situation that has no doubt irritated Boeing as they are looking to sell to users, not distributors.  The original pricing for Ryanair was negotiated at a time when commercial aircraft sales for the industry and Boeing in particular were pretty flat and there is no doubt that Ryanair offered a serious opportunity for cash flow at a time when Boeing was in need of filling slots in its delivery schedule.

 

Not so much anymore.  Boeing has a health backlog of orders and many of them for airlines who will pay more per aircraft and be happy to receive their 737s early.  American Airlines has continued to up its orders for the 737 in light of the fact that no new next generation 737 replacement is due anytime soon from either Airbus or Boeing.   Other airlines are likely to do the same over the next year or two.  There is no incentive for Boeing to make an even better price to Ryanair.

 

And I think Mr. O’Leary knows it.  But by making his threats and going public with them, he has begun to set an argument for why Ryanair will likely do a couple of things in the next few years.  One will be slowing their growth.  The truth is, growth opportunities for them in their market(s) are becoming few and far between.  Second, they really can’t continue to “flip” aircraft in the next few years as there are plenty of other sources developing  for second hand NG 737 aircraft.  Slowing their purchases will give them a public rationale for slowing growth and reduced profits from sales of the 737. 

 

I also doubt that Mr. O’Leary will distribute money to either his executives (in the form of bonuses) or to his shareholders.  If there is one thing he knows, it is that an airline lives and dies by its cash holdings.   It’s a weapon that I don’t believe he would give up.  Instead, they may choose to invest it.

 

Mr. O’Leary has publicly spoken about creating a new trans-Atlantic airline in the future.   Whether or not it is just talk, we’ll never know unless he does it.  However, he does need the right kind of aircraft for developing his self-described premium/economy airline for the markets he thinks he can access.  Part of his plan includes flying to secondary airports again in the US to save money.  A plan that, I think, he’ll learn isn’t nearly as feasible as it might be on the European continent.   There are no secondary airports with good transportation to their major market centers.   You can take passengers to Hartford, Connecticut, for instance, but there isn’t a cost effective way to get from there to Boston or NYC. 

 

However, that doesn’t mean Mr. O’Leary can’t access a number of markets and do so profitably.  He is a master negotiator and there are plenty of US airports that would potentially welcome such an airline.  With lots of cash, reduced capital requirements for the Ryanair fleet and good timing, they can establish such an airline if they can find the right equipment to use. 

 

And that leads us back to Boeing.  I think Mr. O’Leary recognizes that the 787 might be just the right equipment for such an airline.  Both the 787-8 and 787-9 offer the right kind of efficiency, size and economics for make such a venture a success.  There is no way that he’ll buy second hand aircraft such as the 767 or the A330 for such routes.  Its difficult to find new(ish) aircraft on the used market that are worth purchasing and the A-330 probably is just too big for the routes.  But the 787 potentially offers the right package.  And I wonder if the current bluster about a deal isn’t about getting Boeing “prepped” to do a deal on the 787 with earlier delivery slots at great prices. 

 

Time will tell.  One thing I’m entirely certain of is that Michael O’Leary doesn’t have nearly as much contempt for Boeing as his bluster indicates.  Both companies have done very well with each other and both understand that its in their interests to find a way to continue to do business.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

The Cranky Flier had a post today discussing Continental’s new moves in LAX which include new flights to Hawaii.   Continental will have an all 737 base in the Los Angeles area with two 737’s serving new flights from Orange County to Hawaii.  It made me think.

 

Back in the pre-regulatory days, flights from the mainland US to Hawaii were served by large aircraft such as the 707, DC-8 and, later, the 747, DC-10, L-1011 and even the 767.  The routes allowed airlines to serve huge numbers of customers with large aircraft and make money.  Braniff International had the franchise for Dallas to Honolulu in the 1970’s and served it with a 747 and an amazing 16 hours per day utilization.  

 

Then deregulation came and airlines slowly began to develop new routes.  It was no longer necessary to fly to a “gateway” city to catch a flight to Hawaii.  More and more cities found themselves being served with those routes to Hawaii.  Again, Braniff International, at one time, had a 747 flight from Portland, OR to Hawaii.  (It carried little traffic, however.)

 

There was some consolidation after airlines learned that not everyone in a particular city was dying to fly to Hawaii.  But the big change for Hawaii has been ETOPS or twin engine flights overseas.   This allowed airlines to serve smaller markets with aircraft both capable of the loads as well as the distance.  The truth is, when the airlines don’t have to feed 150 passengers a day to a gateway city but can fly them directly, they make more money.    20 years ago, I would have chuckled if someone told me that 737-700 aircraft would fly to Hawaii from the mainland. 

 

Boeing and Airbus have different views for the roles of widebody, large capacity aircraft.  10 years ago, Boeing forecast that the market would continue to fracture with more and more direct routes being employed as opposed to large capacity hub to hub flying.   Airbus, however, believed that the crowded skies would force more large capacity hub to hub flying onto the airlines.   It turns out that Boeing was more right. 

 

The markets drive these changes and when an airlines can make more pure profit using right sized aircraft flying direct, they will.  Yes, the legacy airlines of the US (and other parts of the world) continue to follow a hub and spoke model primarily but they’re all learning that more direct flying where the loads fully justify it is a good and profitable thing.

 

Accordingly, this is where I think Boeing continues to have a winning strategy with its 787/777 product line.  Yes, there are a few airlines capable of filling an A-380 and those airlines will make money from using that aircraft.  But as more and more nations open up their skies to more competition, that is going to change.   Having the right aircraft for the right route will be key to a manufacturer’s success and Boeing seems to have a better feel for the world market whereas Airbus seems more plugged into the Euro/Middle East markets they already do so well in. 

 

I’m no longer sure there is a real place for the new 747-8 aircraft.  Boeing’s 777-300 is just as capable in almost every case and carries a massive number of passengers without being so big that it adds risk during seasonal low periods.  The same is true for the 777-200. 

 

And what happens when aircraft such as the 787 family begin flying?  This family is roughly 767-sized in capacity but its range is far greater and that means even more markets can be accessed via long haul direct flying.   An international airline can probably make more money (through passengers *and* cargo) using the 787 and 777 families for more direct flying with aircraft that are “right sized” for the markets than they can using much of the Airbus family.

 

Airbus has one aircraft model suitable for this right now.  The A-330.  the A-340 is essentially dead since it under performs against the 777 in virtually any mission.  The A-330 is right sized for a number of the current markets and many more of the future markets.   The A-380 is suitable for only a few markets and those are already dwindling for some airlines.  For instance, QANTAS has introduced the A-380 on their routes to the US.  However, with a new Open Skies treaty between the two countries, there are also new entrants to the market like V Australia and Delta who are vying for customers with United and QANTAS very competively.  Those airlines understand that it will take a while to develop their routes and build relationships with airlines in both countries to feed traffic but it will happen.  As that traffic shifts from what was originally two airlines (QANTAS and United) to four airlines (QANTAS, United plus V Australia and Delta), what happens to each airlines’ loads? 

 

It’s notable that QANTAS flies the 747 and A380 to the US and United flies the 747 exclusively.  The new entrants are using the 777-300 and 777-200 for their flights.    The 787 and it’s longer range capabilities will quite possibly fracture that market even more by making it possible to fly from the interior of the US to Australia instead of having to use a west coast gateway city.  At that point, I don’t know that QANTAS has a use for very many A380s or 747s and, additionally, they don’t have any right sized aircraft for the route(s) until they start receiving their 787s which are late and somewhat deferred. 

 

The Airbus A350 is capable of competing on many 777 routes and while it does have slightly lower trip costs vs the 777, it also has less revenue capabilty because it can’t haul as much cargo on the same missions. 

 

The world’s airline routes are going to continue to expand internationally and at a far greater rate than traffic grows between any two nations.  Having the right equipment for the right moment is going to be key for any international airlines survival.  Those who don’t plan for it now and have it arriving in the next 5 to 10 years are going to wither to a slow death.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service, Airports, Deregulation by ajax
No Comments »

And now we come full circle back to the United States and Europe.  Both have highly developed, highly competitive airline markets.  Each has both LCC type carriers and legacy carriers (and Europe’s legacy carriers are the former national flag carriers in many respects.) 

 

This won’t be a rebuilding year.  To the contrary, both markets really need one large airline to be removed from the market.  In the case of the United States, I firmly think that should be United Airlines but in Europe that is a harder guess.  If I had to pick an large airline in Europe for the surprise of the year, it would be Lufthansa.  They are, by all accounts, a great airline but I smell trouble in that group.  First, they have been buying into airlines that have been unable to survive on their own.  That lack of survival, in many cases, isn’t because of poor management but just a lack of market share being available to them. 

 

Lufthansa has bought SWISS, for instance.  I’m not sure why and I’m not sure if they can tell us why.  They could have just as easily taken SWISS’ business  and left them in a heap.  Further, Lufthansa has a lot of Airbus A340 aircraft.  Those airplanes just don’t compete on high capacity, long haul routes anymore.  What’s more, they also have orders in for the Boeing 747-8, another large capacity, four engine aircraft.  Their competitors, Air France/KLM and British Airways, have seen the light in buying more and more Boeing 777 aircraft for their long haul, high capacity routes.  It costs less to operate them and they make more money as a consequence.  So, going out on a limb here, I say we’ll discover that Lufthansa is nearly insolvent some time by the end of 2009. 

 

Both markets in Europe and the US will continue to face challenges in costs (fuel and more particularly labor) and LCC competition will continue to press air fares downwards.  The real solution for large legacy carriers won’t be found this year.  Expect more losses (with some exceptions such as SWA and jetBlue) and more merger talk in general.

 

Here are a few more random predictions:

 

• United Airlines will ask Glenn Tilton to resign and hire an experienced airline executive.  One possibility will be Doug Steenland, most recently Northwest Airlines CEO and now Vice-Chairman of Delta.
• Southwest Airlines will, for the first time, examine adding another aircraft type to their fleet.  My guess is it will be the Embraer 170/190 series.
• Airbus will land a major order for aircraft from a traditional Boeing customer in the United States.  My bet is that Delta orders more Airbus A330 aircraft.
• China and Japan will drop their regional jet programs or, at the least, defer them for up to 5 years.
• Bombardier will announce a major order (more than 20 aircraft) for the Q400 Turbo-Prop from a US Airline.
• If fuel prices remain steady, Airtran will seek to form a small mid-western hub.
• Last but not least, one LCC type carrier such as jetBlue or Virgin America will attempt to fly to DFW Airport (wishful thinking on my part.)

 

 

Happy New Year Everyone.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service, Death Watch by ajax
No Comments »

Using FlightAware.Com, I’ve been able to see some (but I don’t think all) of the government flights from around the world heading to Washington D.C. for the G20 Economic Summit.  So far, I have identified these:

 

The British Prime Minister on British Airways Flight 001

 

The Indian Prime Minister on Air India Flight 001

 

The Argentinian President on Aerolineas Argentinas Flight 1001

 

The President of the Indonesian Republic on Garuda Indonesian Flight 001

 

The President of South Korea on Korean Airlines Flight 63

 

The Prime Minister and his government on Japanese Air Force Flights 1 and 2

 

The Russian President and his government is on the Russian State Transport Flight 9031 and Russian State Transport Flight 9001.

 

The Saudi Arabian government is flying in on Saudi Flight 1B

 

The Chinese government is flying in on Air China Flight 17

 

The President of Mexico is arrving on Mexican Air Force Flight 001.

 

No doubt there are others that are not being tracked inbound. The mix of aircraft will include a 777, several 747 aircraft, Airbus A330 and A340 aircraft, a 757, IL 76, IL 62 and IL 96 aircraft from Russia and even a 747-SP (Saudi Arabia).

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline News, Airplane Spotting, Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

Delta / Northwest is not only big with respect to the number and type of airplanes they have, they are also big for the number of hubs they are currently operating.  Conventional wisdom continues to bet that some of those hubs will be closed or rationalized just as it bets that the airline fleet will be reduced.

 

My guess is that there really won’t be a reduction in hubs of any real significance with the exception of two.  This new airline has two hubs in close proximity, Memphis and Covington/Cincinatti, and each serves similar markets.  However, rather than being combined into one, I suspect that Memphis will likely be de-emphasized into a “focus” city with more connecting traffic routed through Covington/Cincinatti.  The yields in each city are very good but Covington/Cincinatti is by far the city with the best yields.  Memphis is likely to remain as a focus city because it is a good gateway to the central midwest section of the US.

 

All other hubs in the US such as Atlanta, Minneapolis / St. Paul, Detroit, and Salt Lake City have the airline as a dominant carrier and there is no reason to combine any of them with respect to the routes they serve. 

 

Now, both airlines operate significant flights from gateway cities such as Los Angeles and New York and it is quite likely that the airline will work hard to combine some flights going to the same cities.   For instance, flights from the New York area going to the same destinations in Europe will be combined to raise the load factors on the equipment being used.  However, Europe presents an interesting problem because Northwest has been in a close relationship with KLM and has used Amsterdam as a “hub” to connect to other cities in Europe.  Delta, on the other hand, is used to flying direct flights to a variety of cities in Europe without a hub or close partner.  I suspect the relationship with KLM will be reduced so that Delta can raise the loads on its own flights to smaller European cities.

 

Northwest comes to the table with a hub in Tokyo, Japan and they have 5th Freedom Rights to pickup and carry traffic from Tokyo to other cities in Asia.   On the surface, that would appear to be a very valuable asset.  However, the value of that arrangement was far greater when the political climate in Asia was much different and the range of aircraft made it more convenient to fly to a central hub.   Today, it can be much more profitable to fly direct to a variety of Asian cities using newer, long range aircraft such as the Boeing 777 and the about to be introduced 787.  I have no doubt that the Tokyo hub will be retained in some form because the yields from traffic originating in Tokyo to other Asian cities is still well worth the effort but I suspect that there will be a renewed emphasis on point to point flying as things evolve in the new airline.

 

The thing most likely to change at Delta’s hubs will be the aircraft equipment.  With a wide variety of equipment to choose from, it would be unsurprising to see a shift of long haul aircraft between the hubs in order to improve yields, load factors and even to explore new routes.  That will be done slowly and carefully so that Delta doesn’t have to service too many different types of aircraft at each hub.  Once again, aircraft being used at various hubs to service various areas will probably be rationalized.  It would be unsurprising to see A330s shifted to longer South American and African routes with B767-400’s moved to trans-atlantic routes originating in MSP and DTW. 

 

Los Angeles will probably see a greater concentration of 747 aircraft being used on trans-Pacific flights.  New York and Atlanta will probably see 777 aircraft moved in for long range, point to point flying to destinations in India, South America and even Asia.  

 

At present, Delta has 4 different types of long range aircraft in the 747, 777, A330 and 767 with another on the the way (787).   Since Delta already operates GE powered 777-200ER/LR aircraft, they’ll likely place an order for some 777-300ER aircraft and use those to replace the aging 747 aircraft.  That will reduce flying by one type.  The A330 aircraft will be retained until a fleet of 787-9/10 aircraft can be purchased and then the A330 will likely be let go.   Delta’s 767-400 aircraft is fairly new but it will probably suffer the same fate as the A330 in being replaced by 787 aircraft in the future.  Suddenly, two basic types with 2 sub-types between them can service all the long haul routes and, at the same time, offer some harmony at each hub. 

 

I do wonder if Northwest’s 787 orders will be switched from Rolls Royce engines to GE GEnx engines.  That would permit Delta to operate two basic aircraft types that would use the same brand of engine and engines that share some basic design philosophy as well. 

 

The tricky part of managing all of these hubs for Delta will be the domestic fleet which is comprised of Airbus A320 series, Boeing 737 series, DC-9 series and MD80/90 series aircraft.  Because it is more efficient to perform maintenance on a domestic fleet that keeps the aircraft close to a maintenance center, I do wonder which hubs will get which aircraft.   Both Airbus and Boeing offer good choices for domestic fleets in the A320 and 737 series.  The DC-9 fleet is old and will be retired over the next couple of years so it isn’t a factor.  The MD-80/90 aircraft isn’t exactly old but it does become somewhat of an orphan and they don’t offer the fuel effiency that the A320 and 737 offer.  It’s quite possible that Delta will retain both the A320 and 737 series and simply order more of both until they can choose a next generation domestic fleet type from Boeing or Airbus.   I do believe that the MD80/90 fleet will be selected for retirement in the next 2 years. 

 

The exciting part of this merger will be watching the decisions that Delta makes about its new future. 

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

The US Justice Department approved the merger between Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines today.   The two companies will now begin to work on executing the combination as quickly as possible and it should culminate with a combined operating certificate in 1 to 2 years. 

 

In the meantime, Delta and Northwest have already made a great deal of progress towards completing the merger.  The executive team has been selected, agreements with pilots have been obtained and each company has been working pretty hard towards merging the culture of each airline together.  While no doubt there are bumps in the road still to be encountered, this particular merger shows great signs of being accomplished with relatively little strife. 

 

Flight Attendants are targeted for being a trouble area.  Delta’s flight attendants are non-union and while there have been a few votes over the years to unionize, all have failed pretty soundly.  Northwest’s flight attendants are unionized and have been characterized as even miitant.  Delta’s CEO, Richard Anderson, has urged that everyone work together and while his stated preference is for no further unionization (and he has backed that up by being very willing to negotiate differences), he also has said that he and the rest of the executive team will abide by whatever vote there is.  It is likely that the flight attendants will have a vote after the merger is officially executed and it is likely that it will be in favor of unionization since a combination of Northwest’s flight attendants with the minority of Delta flight attendants in favor of a union would win any vote.

 

While both CEOs of each airline have professed that such a diverse fleet of aircraft will permit them to “right size” aircraft to a particular route, it is highly likely that the fleet will be pared down over time.   Northwest’s youngest aircraft are manufactured by Airbus and Delta’s fleet is comprised entirely of Boeing products.   Certainly both major aircraft manufacturers will see an opportunity with this merger and both will be pitching their mainstay aircraft lines, the Airbus A320 series and the Boeing 737 series.  With an gentleman’s agreement in place between Delta and Boeing that gives Delta preferential delivery slots, this is Boeing’s opportunity to lose.

 

A good guess is that, initially, the Douglas DC-9 fleet will continue to be eliminated and bases for the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737 fleets will be established at selected hubs.   It is possible that the Airbus A330 fleet will be phased out in favor of more Boeing products such as the new 787 of which Northwest already has a significant order on.  The 747 fleet will most likely be phased out over time in favor of the 777-300 and which Delta already owns in the 200ER/LR version. 

 

The combination of these two airlines will form the world’s largest airline both by revenue and traffic.  This will even dwarf American Airlines by a significant degree.  However, because of industry contraction and the obvious economies and advantages to be gained by constraining capacity in markets that the new Delta will be dominant in, it is likely that the airline will actually contract both its fleet and, to some degree, its employees.  However, major layoffs of any significant numbers are very unlikely and most contraction is likely to be done through natural attrition.

 

 

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
2 Comments »

The Fort Worth Star Telegram Sky Talk blog reports today that American Airlines has, in fact, won a reprieve from starting their Chicago-Beijing flights until 2010.  While this approval wasn’t unexpected, it is disappointing.  I wrote about this in a previous entry  and detailed my own objections to granting these delays.  Citing economic conditions for a delay is not, in my opinion, a satisfactory justification.  These airlines made rosy promises and commitments to serve these routes and to simply throw up your hands and ask for the status quo to be maintained is both unjustified and unfair to other airlines.

 

There are plenty of airlines who wanted these authorities and, quite frankly, got shoved aside in favor of airlines already serving China.  I could certainly understand and approve of a short delay if planned equipment remained unavailable due to delivery problems from an aircraft manufacturer but that isn’t the case here. 

 

US Air has also asked for delays on their Philadelphia – China route (and cited economic conditions as well but I suspect that the fact that they have been unable to source aircraft for that route also plays a part in things.  The aircraft that makes the most sense for them, an A340, is an expensive and fuel inefficient aircraft (when compared to A330 and B777 aircraft.  They don’t want to add yet another aircraft type to their fleet and they don’t want to lose the route so they have approached the current economic climate in the airline industry as a blessing on this route.

 

When the Department of Transportation grants these requests for the stated reasons, they maintain the status quo and that means that airlines are not forced to either re-tune their operations and they are not required to truly compete with each other.  Neither consumers nor the nation have anything to lose by forcing the airlines to adopt business models that are realistic for themselves.  If they cannot serve the routes, someone else who is willing to try should be given a chance.

 

Filed under: Airline News, Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

In 1966, American Airlines released a set of specifications for a new kind of an airplane, an “air bus”.  This plane was to carry 250 to 300 people in a wide body configuration using two new, more powerful fan jets and it would be able to operate short to medium trunk routes such as Denver – Los Angeles or New York – Chicago.  Many enthusiasts will recognize that both McDonnel Douglas and Lockheed responded to this with the DC-10 and L1011 aircraft and both were to become rather legendary.

 

But while the DC-10 experienced great commercial success and the L1011 became the pilot’s airplane (reportedly one of the easiest planes to fly ever built), it was Airbus that got it right with their A300.  Both the DC-10 and L1011 were “compromise” aircraft in that they had 3, instead of two, engines to meet a specification that United Airlines issued:  the ability to take off with a full load from Denver’s mile high airport.

 

Airbus was originally formed between Aerospatiale and Deutch Aerospace with Spain’s CASA and England’s BAC joining later.  Their original aircraft utilized 2 GE CF-6 engines and had a range of about 1500 nm.  The A300 would later grow in both range and payload ultimately culminating in the A300-600R which was capable of carrying more than 260 passengers and a full cargo load for more than 4000 nautical miles.

 

At one point in the mid 1970’s, Airbus A300 sales were so bad that they had to just keep manufacturing airplanes in order to keep the assembly line open while betting that times would change and their aircraft might be adopted by others.  One landmark change in sales for Airbus was Eastern Airlines.  Frank Borman, President and CEO of Eastern, was searching for a replacement for Eastern’s Boeing 727-200 aircraft that would carry more passengers with better operating efficiencies on Eastern’s high density, East Coast routes. 

 

Borman, the former NASA astronaut, was a tough negotiator and ultimately got 4 Airbus A300s to try out for terms that amounted to the cost to operate the aircraft.  Eastern discovered that the aircraft was a huge moneymaker for those routes since it consumed 30% less fuel than the competing Lockheed L1011 that they also owned.

 

Ultimately, Boeing responded with the 767, also a twin engined aircraft, originally designed for much the same mission as the A300.  However, in many ways the two aircraft evolved to serve different missions.  The A300 thrived as a trunk airliner that could carry a massive amount of cargo easily (because its fuselage was designed to accomodate 2 side-by-side industry standard LD3 containers) and operate on high density routes with both speed and low seat costs.  While it was certified for ETOPS(Extended Twin Engine Operations over water or “Engines Turning Or Passengers Swimming) and was even ultimately used on over-water transatlantic routes, its specialty remained its original mission.

 

The Boeing 767 was built with a narrower fuselage that could not accomodate those same LD3 cargo containers two abreast but it did find its own mission in the transatlantic arena as it gained both range and capacity.  To use the similarly sized 767 on the same routes as the A300 was to set oneself up for failure.  The A300 was just too good at what it did.

 

American Airlines owns a number of A300 aircraft and while they were always used primarily for those same routes that Eastern once flew (NYC to Miami and the Caribbean), they also used the aircraft for transatlantic routes such as NYC to London. 

 

To date, there is no other better aircraft for that short to medium haul, high density mission that the A300 has served so perfectly.  Since many A300s are aging now, they are being withdrawn from service but there exists no true replacement for this marvel either.  Boeing 757/767 aircraft cannot carry either the same passengers or cargo efficiently and while the A330/340 aircraft use essentially the same fuselage, they only begin to show true efficiency on 4000nm or greater missions. 

 

In most markets where the A300 has been withdrawn, that capability has been replaced with greater frequency with airlines using B737-800/900 aircraft and A320/321 aircraft.  The Boeing 787 derivative 300 series does, at first glance, meet that mission profile carrying a great number of passengers (280 to 310) on routes as long as 3000 nm.  However, the only airlines to order the 787 are Japanese carriers ANA and Japan Airlines.   Many speculate that the 787-300, designed to replace the 767 and A300 on regional routes, will either have to grow in range (4500nm) or face being a Japan only aircraft.  Indeed, Boeing announced last year that the 787-300 won’t be certiied for use in the US although it could be done very easily should Boeing decide that there is a market in the US for such an airplane.

 

Sadly, Airbus does not have a new replacement on deck.  Their focus has been on the giant A380 and developing their new A350 series aircraft.  Sales of their A330 aircraft have been brisk still and Airbus will likely turn its focus to an A320 replacement aircraft once they have both time and resources. 

 

I have no doubt that Airbus will once more “get it right”.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Trivia by ajax
No Comments »

The Dallas Morning News reported that American Airlines will be both accelerating 737 deliveries as well as taking up new orders for the Boeing product.

 

As they replace MD-80 aircraft (The Boeing 737-800 is as much as 20% to 25% more fuel efficient than the equivalent MD-82/83), your chances of a middle seat go from 1 in 5 to 1 in 3.  That said, I still find the prospect of flying newer 737s more attractive than the alternative.

 

I remain completely puzzled that American Airlines and United Airlines have not ordered 787 aircraft.  The 787 fits into their fleet and routes very well and offers just that kind of gain in fuel and maintenance efficiency that both airlines desperately need.  Currently, only Northwest Airlines and Continental Airlines have the B787 on order among the legacy carriers although US Airways does have some A350 aircraft ordered.  Indeed, the A350 ordered by US Airways seems a bit too large for their needs even when the purchase is justified with the cross-cockpit qualifications that the Airbus product offers with US Airways existing A320/A330 products.

 

The new DeltaNorthWest Airlines will have Northwest’s B787 orders and will continue to take deliveries on the B777-200LR it already has ordered.  Those two aircraft come very close to each other in performance and seat-mile costs in the ultra-long haul market but the 777 has the advantage when it comes to cargo-carrying capabilities.

 

I cannot believe that for the foreseeable future, there will be no true 757/767 replacement and it is even more difficult to believe that airlines continue to make plans to retain most of those aircraft for the foreseeable future.  Both the 757 and 767 have AviationPartnersBoeing winglet programs in place now resulting in fuel efficiency gains as much as 6% on the 767 but they still remain older aircraft with ever increasing maintenance needs.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

The competition that exists between Boeing and Airbus has to be one of the fiercest fights ever seen in commercial aviation.  Among aviation enthusiasts, most are dedicated only to one or the other and just visit an aviation enthusiasts discussion website and you’ll discover debate that is even more heated than what exists between Airbus and Boeing.

 

Family and friends have, from time to time, asked me whose airplanes I like the most.  I probably lean towards Boeing more than anyone but for different reasons than many have.  Before going further, I should say that I think Airbus builds a modern, competitive airliner and is in no way materially inferior.

 

I like Boeing’s approach to an aircraft.  I think they value customer experience just a bit more whereas I think Airbus tends to value an airline just a bit more.  One example is the difference between the 737 and the A320 aircraft.  Both are made for the identitical market and both are modern, fuel efficient jets.  Both have had rough spots over the years and both companies work incredibly hard to sell these jets to all kinds of airlines.

 

I should say that I admire how well Airbus has done at making their aircraft families cross-compatible when it comes to flight crews.  A pilot for an A320 can upgrade to an A330/A340 with a lot less training than a similar upgrade from a B737 to B767/B777.  Airbus makes owning their entire aircraft family highly beneficial *if* their aircraft family can fill all of your missions. 

 

However, I do find the 737 just a hair more comfortable.  I’m a rather tall and big person with longish legs.  Having flown numerous examples of both aircraft, I find the aisle seat experience roughly similar and the window seat experience very different.  The A320’s fuselage is more “circular” and therefore curves inward more at the shoulder to head height of most people.  At the window, my perception is that my head must lean away from the fuselage and that feels uncomfortable.  The 737’s fuselage is more ovoid and that same curve is more gradual and starts more above the passenger than next to him. 

 

The seats should be roughly the same but my perception is, again, different.  This simply may be a function of what US airlnes are using for a seat on the Airbus vs the Boeing.  My perception is that the A320 class of aircraft typically have a seat that is a touch thinner, a touch harder and therefore a touch less comfortable on flight durations of 2+ hours.  I have felt it on America West aircraft, US Air aircraft, United Airlines aircraft and Northwest Airlines aircraft.

 

I once had a chance to fly from PDX (Portland) to DFW (Dallas / Fort Worth)  via DEN(Denver).  My flight from PDX to DEN was on a United Airlines A320 that appeared to be older but not “old”.  Within 1 hour, I found myself fidgeting and since I was in Economy Plus next to a window, I expected to feel more comfortable.  I didn’t.  The next segment was on a United Airlines 757 (not a 737 but it does have the same fuselage dimensions and uses the same seats) in plain old Economy rather than Economy Plus.  I was simply more comfortable.  The window seat felt more accomodating and I was finally able to relax enough to nap despite less legroom. 

 

Each aircraft manufacturer tries hard to find the right niche for aircraft and I would argue that as a result of this competition, they actually are more complimentary these days than directly competitive.  An airline could be well served by both Airbus and Boeing without sacrificing efficiency. 

 

If I were to pick a fleet for the upcoming Delta / Northwest merger, I would center on using the 737 family for domestic service (using a combination of 737-700 and 737-800 aircraft, the 767 (or 787-3)  for domestic transcontinental and Hawaii service, the A330 for trans-atlantic (Europe and Africa) and South American service, the 787 for South American / Southeast Asia and trans-pacific service and the 777-200LR and 777-300ER for long haul, high density international traffic from hubs like ATL (Atlanta), MSP (Minneapolis / St. Paul), DTW (Detroit), JFK (New York City) and LAX (Los Angeles). 

 

It’s hard to say where the new Airbus A350-XWB will fit in “mission-wise” when it comes to such an airline.  While it’s passenger economies may be a tad better than the 777, it won’t haul nearly as much cargo.   At present, it cannot quite adequately fill the 777 mission role and it might just be a tad too big to compete directly with a 787-9/10 either. 

 

One thing I admire about Boeing is that they tend to “right size” their aircraft for various markets.  Often people directly compare Boeing and Airbus aircraft on the criteria that one aircraft can carry more people on the same mission than another.  Occasionally, that’s valid.  More often, not.

 

An airline needs aircraft that “fit” the passenger and cargo demand of various routes.  Boeing has 40 years of experience helping airlines plan their fleet on these needs and does it well.  The 787 was never intended to be a 767 or 777 replacement.  It was developed to fit an emerging demand that really fell in between those two aircraft. 

 

The next replacement for the 737/757 series will fall somewhere new as well and probably will not fill a need below the 737-700 and probably will not fill a role that exceeds the 757-300.  That’s a 2 class aircraft that will probably have a family range accomodating from 150 passengers to 220 passengers.  Real aircraft range will probably include transcontinental capability for all variants at about 3500 to 4000 nm (nautical mile) max range.  Airbus will likely target a similar set of criteria with the next generation aircraft.

 

The discriminators in the next battle between Airbus and Boeing will be things like the best operating efficiency, dispatch rates and passenger comfort.   I would give the edge to Boeing when it comes to efficiency and dispatch rates and it is anyone’s guess on passenger comfort.  I’m certain that both companies will sell an amazing amount of the next generation single aisle aircraft and I’m equally certain that airlines will praise both.

 

 

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service by ajax
7 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

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »