Tim Clark says Emirates wants more range from Airbus and its A350-1000 than it presently offers and it expects more from Boeing’s 777-300ER, too.  The airline is unsatisfied with the inability to serve ultra-long haul routes from Dubai with what it considers adequate payload.  Adequate payload is carrying 350 passengers from Dubai to Los Angeles with a full cargo/baggage load in about 16.5 hours. 

Frankly, that’s expecting a lot from even advanced technology.  We’re getting there but the big problem is how much fuel you have to carry to achieve those distances with those loads.   Those distances begin to require airliners to carry more fuel in order to carry more fuel for range and you can guess how quickly the diminishing returns show up on such a prospect. 

Lighter but stronger aircraft can solve that but we’ve already seen what a challenge  that can be with the 787.   There is no doubt that the manufacturers will figure out how to do it somewhere along the line but my gut tells me that this isn’t a problem solved with a better wing or better engine.  It’ll require re-thinking the large widebody airliner in a way that will require even better composites and other lightweight materials. 

It takes time to develop and test those materials.  It can take a lot of time to even figure out how to ramp up production on these exotic materials.   We still haven’t seen 787 partners prove they can meet production demands for CFRP fuselage barrels.  I think they can but the proof is in the pudding and we haven’t tasted the pudding yet.

My gut tells me we are at least 15 years away from producing a truly revolutionary widebody capable of carrying 40+ tons of payload for those ranges.  We’ll get there and it’s time to start thinking about it but don’t look for such an aircraft in the next 10 years.  It won’t be showing up. 

Besides, it’s a relatively limited market and it’s become clear that the manufacturers need to turn their resources towards producing a better short haul, single aisle airliner.  Frankly, that’s where the real money is at in the next 10 years.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
2 Comments »

It’s become more and more clear that airlines are going to likely have 3 or 4 basic categories of aircraft.  First, the 100 to 135 seat category with a range that isn’t transcontinental but which allows a full load fly 3 to 3.5 hours maximum. 

Second, the 150 to 210 category with a range that will include trans-continental routes.  This was previously served by the 757 and 767 but has seen today’s 737 and Airbus 320 families take over. 

Third, the 220 to 280 seat arena which includes flights ranging from trans-continental to trans-oceanic including both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.  We’ve seen the Airbus A330 and 767 and even the 777 in this area and that’ll continue for a bit longer too.  But it will be owned by the 787, 777 and A350 soon enough.

Finally, the very large aircraft on trunk routes that demand high capacity and high-ish frequency.  The 777-300ER, 747 (-400 and -8i) and A380 are the players here.  In the future, we’ll see more of the 777-300ER and A380 than the 747-8i and I think Boeing will have to come up with an aircraft that fits this area better both in economies as well as seat range. 

Nothing much has changed except that the models from Boeing and Airbus are getting freshened or replaced and their ceding the 100 to 135 seat market to Bombardier and Embraer.  The regional jet manufacturers are invading Boeing and Airbus territory and that’s brought along an interesting development. 

We can ignore the Comac efforts to date.  Their plans for a 150+ seat aircraft are just that, in my opinion, plans.  You don’t enter that arena without a lot of experience building something smaller and generally without experience being a partner on similar efforts for a while.  Those aircraft won’t fly, pun intended.

With a couple of exceptions, regional airlines are bringing those new 100 to 135 seat aircraft with them instead of that flying remaining with the majors.  Scope clauses continue to get revised to include larger aircraft and instead of major airlines adopting new equipment to serve those routes, they’re ceding that area largely to their regional airline partners.

The why involves what it always involves:  labor costs.  They can have it flown cheaper by someone else and earn more money.  As that scope increases, however, I do wonder why you would continue to contract that out to an independent airline instead of owning it and its revenue stream.  Why wouldn’t you want to vertically integrate and own that lower cost structure as well as control the service product?

Instead, we see SuperLegacies prepared to sell off their regional airlines and pretty cheaply at that.  Even new-ish ones with pretty low labor costs. 

At some point, these regional airlines are going to see that they can operate their own networks and while they may choose to remain partnered with majors, they’ll also see they can take on more of the risk and much more of the profit available. 

Yes, it’s been tried already a couple of times and while those efforts sputtered at the 50 seat jet level, they won’t necessarily sputter using 90 to 110 seat jets that are coming on line.  Republic may be the first to do it successfully by buying brands and working to build an integrated network while continuing to service partnerships with major airlines, time will tell.  If they are successful, will they one day leave their partnerships with the majors and become a force to content with on their own?

And where does that leave the SuperLegacies in the future?  Will they continue to walk away from the bottom end of flying when it comes to capacity?  Will they continue to cede that work to partner airlines while working to build their long haul flying?  Can they afford to cede that much control on what, today, feeds their networks for that long haul flying?

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »

A few days ago, I found THIS little news story about Thomson Airways and what they may choose to do with their 787 aircraft as they come online into their fleet.  Briefly, Thomson says they may choose to introduce a direct, non-stop flight from the United Kingdom to Hawaii.  Thomson is the third largest UK airline and focuses primarily on the leisure market. 

It interests me because it is more evidence of the direction I think airlines will take as they bring into their fleets aircraft that are more and more capable of long, thin routes.  The Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 will be those aircraft primarily although this new direction really started with the 777-200LR. 

It is also why I think ultra-large, long range aircraft have a limited market going forward.  Aircraft such as the A380 and 747-8i have the capacity to carry 400+ people over distances as long as 8000 nautical miles.  However, what has never been fully acknowledged is that previous large capacity aircraft, primarily the 747-400, were used as much for the range, if not more, than their total capacity. 

As airlines begin to explore more and more direct routes that by-pass traditional hubs, the efficacy of using an aircraft to transport 400+ people from hub to hub begins to wane.  Airlines such as Delta Airlines are already using the 777-200LR to fly routes such as Atlanta-South Africa and American Airlines (and others) are using the 777-200ER to fly routes from North America to India direct.  Those routes previously had stops in Europe or North Africa.   Emirates, the largest user of the A380 and who will by far have the largest fleet of A380s, has a model based on their mega-hub in Dubai.  The question is, is it better for a North American passenger to fly to Chicago, New York City or Atlanta and then take a direct flight to their destination or is it better to fly to Emirates’ hub and then onward on another long haul flight to their destination.

I think the former is the more likely model, particularly for the United States and Europe.  Witness the announcement that Continental plans to fly their first 787s to Auckland, New Zealand and Africa from Houston.  Routes that previously never existed and which previously required a stop in Los Angeles or New York or a European hub. 

That doesn’t mean the A380 and/or the 747-8i doesn’t have a place in the market place.  To the contrary, I think we’ll see aircraft such those on extremely dense routes of medium distance that are hub to hub as well as capital city to capital city.  The first, most logical route is NYC to London but there are others as well.  For instance, California to Japan is another great use for them.  Australia to the United States is another logical use as long as the competitors on those routes remain relatively few.  That could change as more airlines obtain the 787. 

At the end of the day, both the Airbus A350 and 787 (and the 777 for some time to come) will be the real players in long haul fleets over the next 20 years.  It’s notable that the 787 is the first long haul widebody aircraft that has the flexibility and economics to become attractive to forming a Low Cost Carrier that flies international routes.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

There are several reports out now that Emirates Airlines is going to announce an order for 30 Boeing 777 aircraft at this year’s Farnborough International Airshow in the United Kingdom this week.  I’m sure that this will further strike fear in the hearts of airline executives and I’ll repeat THIS response.  Just because they order it doesn’t mean they’ll know what to do with it when the time comes.

Another interesting piece of news is that Air France has invited Airbus and Boeing to respond with a proposal for supplying as many as 100 widebody aircraft over the next decade.  The assumption is a mix of both the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787.  I suspect conventional wisdom will give Airbus the upper hand (we are talking about Air France based in France where Airbus aircraft like the A350 will be made and where the French insist on buying local) but I like Boeing chances for this.  Boeing could win this order by offering a mix of 787 and 777 aircraft with GE engines.  Air France already has a large fleet of 777 aircraft, experience with the GE engines and may well be attracted by the expected quick and relatively cheap transition for pilots to move between the two aircraft.

Steven Udvar Hazy has his new company, Air Lease Company, and reportedly will be at Farnborough on the hunt for building his new portfolio of lease aircraft.  While money is starting to flow back into the lease business, I do wonder if the game hasn’t changed since the early 2000’s.  Airlines have seen the benefits of owning their aircraft because in bad times, they can leverage those aircraft for more operating capital in those bad times.  In addition, I don’t think Airbus and Boeing are in the mood to offer huge discounts to the lessors anymore.  If Michael O’Leary of Ryanair can’t get a deal for 200+ aircraft, why should we think lessors will?

Randy Tinseth, VP of Marketing for Boeing, will be releasing Boeing’s most recent current market outlook at Farnborough and it’s quite a positive one.  Boeing sees a need for 30,900 new aircraft between now and 2029 of which they expect 21,000 to be single aisle airliners.  They’re forecast is based on a growth rate of 5+% per year in the airline industry and that’s based growth rates since 1978 deregulation in the US (which have averaged 5% per year.) 

What’s interesting to me is that they see the regional jet share of that outlook as being significantly less than in the past.  I think that depends on what you call a regional jet.  If you’re speaking of 50 or less seats, I agree.  If we’re talking about 75 to 110 seats, I’m not sure I do agree.  Indeed, I think that the 90 to 130 seat market is going to be very hot and I think that Boeing and Airbus ceding that market is a mistake.  Even car manufacturers have discovered that it’s wise to cultivate customers at the entry level as opposed to waiting 20 years for them to be able to afford your product.

Finally, I understand that Boeing’s 787, ZA003, has landed in the UK and that marks its first appearance in Europe.  FleetBuzzEditorial.Com got some photos of the 787 landing at Farnborough which can be seen HERE.  I still really dislike the demo interior they’ve installed in that aircraft.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
2 Comments »

Since the widely known WTO ruling on Airbus and it’s launch aid from member countries came out, there has been a lot of speculation on its implications for the airliner market, Boeing, the KC-X tanker and what the WTO might rule against Boeing on in its counter-claim.  Conventional wisdom is that both parties will get slapped heartily and that might end up being somewhat true although I suspect that far less will be found against Boeing. 

The difference is in the business models.  In many respects, Airbus/EADS has been run much like a state owned entity and its financing has largely derived from loans from member countries or with member countries’ backing.  Boeing, on the other hand, operates much more as a commercial entity and while it does benefit from things like tax breaks (on a state and local community level) as well as from participating in research and development efforts on the part of the government, it’s primary method of financing its commercial product line is from the financial markets.

When Boeing needs money, it goes to the markets and obtains market rate financing in the form of loans, bonds or through stock sales.  That’s the key difference between Airbus and Boeing.   Boeing follows a traditional and, more importantly, acceptable model for its financing.  A model that makes it difficult to show harm to Airbus/EADS. 

I think both parties will have to modify their behaviour going forward but I think Airbus’ compliance will have far greater and far more long lasting effects on its business model than anything Boeing will have to do.  I also think that Airbus/EADS remains tied to answering to its member countries on things like exports and employment and that makes it much more difficult to outsource (a la Boeing) and/or manufacture their aircraft in other countries. 

In the long run, Airbus’ compliance will make them a stronger and more competitive business because they’ll retain the advantage of selling to their member nations but they’ll also understand how to respond to their financial needs as well as their customer markets. 

In the short run, it just got a lot more difficult for Airbus/EADS to launch new models because they’ll likely have to “pay back” that launch aid and obtain commercial rate financing.  In addition, their commitments to the A380, A350 and A400 projects make it very tough for them to obtain financing for and launch a new project such as an A320 replacement or a model that competes more effectively with the bottom end of the 787 model lineup. 

For Boeing, it probably means forgoing or even paying back tax incentives and it will mean Boeing having to examine where it builds its aircraft much more closely in the future.  Don’t be surprised if more of their production moves out of Washington State over the next 20 years.

Filed under: Aircraft Development by ajax
No Comments »

When Emirates announced its latest purchase of 30+ more A380 aircraft, a lot of carriers took notice, particularly in Europe.  The planned capacity increases that Emirates has put into place for the next 7 years is nothing short of baffling to most and it has made many airline CEOs wonder what they’re missing. 

Emirates operates on a model of being “hubbed” in the perfect place from traffic between Europe and India, Asia and Australia.  They compete with other international carriers on service and they compete with everyone with frequency and convenience.  Currently, many of those flights from Europe to those destinations require a fuel stop and Emirates uses Dubai for that fuel stop which allows them a big advantage on X things:  fuel is cheap, landing and taking off is cheap, Dubai is “on the way” to most of those destinations and isn’t much of a diversion for them, and they’re able to utilize their aircraft much more than some on a per day basis. 

That’s a powerful advantage.  Emirates has also kept many of the largest European governments (economies) from protesting much at all by being a huge customer of Airbus.  It’s very difficult for those governments to bite the hand that feeds their aerospace industry.  It’s notable that neither Canada nor the US have felt nearly as accomodating towards Emirates (and other UAE carriers) when it comes to access to their markets and in the case of the US, this is despite the fact that Emirates has also been a pretty good customer of Boeing’s. 

All of that scares the hell out of European international carriers.  Emirates also claims that these carriers are discovering that it takes an A380 to compete with an A380.   And then they went all in with their latest A380 order.   It’s very tough for those airlines to sit at the table and wonder if they can afford to go all in. 

I don’t think it takes an A380 to compete with an A380.  I think it takes an A380 to compete with an A380 on a few trunk routes and I think Emirates’ model crumbles with the 777LR, 787 and A350 for much of the destinations it serves.  

Right now, I think there is an attraction to the A380 on those routes for 2 reasons.  First, it’s the latest and greatest in long range aircraft.  Second, it has the freshest service product installed as a function of it being introduced by airlines for only the past 2 years.  Over time, the “newness” of the aircraft will go away (just as it did with other new aircraft introduced) and the service product will be matched by others on other aircraft. 

Right now, a lot of those legacy international carriers that are so worried are trying to compete with Emirates using 20 year old 747-400 aircraft with a service product that is, in many cases, a generation out of date.   If it isn’t a 747-400, it’s a 777-200/300 with a service product that was “copied” from the 747.  See where I’m going here?

Since we don’t have much visibility into the real financial picture of Emirates, a lot of analysis of them is speculative.  We don’t know where their financing comes from and at what terms.  We don’t know what their fuel prices are and we don’t know what their labor costs are either. 

That said, I don’t believe it is impossible to compete effectively with Emirates now and particularly in the future.   I believe those long, high capacity trunk routes that Emirates works so well are going to fracture with the next generation of jets. 

It’s already possible to use a 777LR to reach all of Asia from Europe and the 777-300ER will serve 90+% of Asia and do it point to point.  While Europe has traditionally been the transit point between Africa and the Americas, that’s already changing.  US airlines are now serving Africa more and more with smaller equipment that fits those long, thin routes pretty well.  South American airlines are initiating services to several parts of Africa with similar equipment.    and it only gets better as the 787 comes on line. 

So Emirates may capture some traffic for a while from the US but it is unlikely to dominate particularly in the future.  The magic routes to Singapore, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand are likely to remain an Emirates strength but take note that those same international carriers in Europe who are freaked out right now are also now taking delivery of their own A380s.  Air France has them, Lufthansa just took delivery of its first and British Airways has them on order.   They will have the aircraft to compete with Emirates.

Frankly, I don’t understand why someone such as British Airways doesn’t explore setting up a Dubai base to compete directly with Emirates.  Or any of the others, for that matter. 

Regardless, this belief that huge trunk routes will remain is, in my opinion, false.  Those trunk routes will fracture into more and more “point to point” routes that are longer and thinner than ever before and the airlines serving those will be the preferred airlines for that travel.  People just don’t like connections when they can go non-stop.  If they can’t go non-stop, they still prefer the fewest connections.  It’s the time saver and saving time is why we fly.

Frankly, I can see Emirates becoming a bigger player in its region of the Middle East/India/Northern Africa/South East Asia but I see them contracting over the next 15 to 20 years on those trunk routes provided those other international carriers step up and get to work on their fleet and service planning.

There isn’t anything magical about Emirates  and despite their potential advantages from being Dubai owned and based, that doesn’t make them the carrier that can’t be beat.  It takes work, investment and planning but it can be done.

The last thing those airlines want is their own governments becoming more restrictive of access to markets.  It’s a world where that game is tit for tat and that works to no one’s advantage.  They can all survive and prosper with the right combination of leadership, management, planning and investment.

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

Two days ago, Emirates announced an additional $11 Billion order for 32 more A380 aircraft.  If all of its orders are delivered, this means a fleet of 90 A380 aircraft by 2017 or just 7 years from now.  It’s an impressive order and no airline enthusiast can deny that such a fleet is kind of exciting.  But it doesn’t make sense. for either Emirates or Airbus.

This certainly allows Airbus to plunge ahead for a while longer manufacturing the A380 but it really doesn’t put them any further ahead on earning any real profit from the airliner when you consider the deferrals and (potential) cancellations from other airlines.  In addition, this adds risk to their orderbook rather than reduces it because this indicates a growing dependency on just one airline for this aircraft. 

Several airlines have the A380 and most indications are that while they can make money with it, it isn’t a game changer for the airlines.  As the world of airline routes continues to fracture due to aircraft like the A330, 777 and now the 787 and A350, more and more flying is becoming “point to point” in the international world.  There are a relatively few routes that can support the A380.

Even the largest 747 fleet operators such as British Airways and JAL have made moves to start replacing their largest aircraft with Boeing 777 aircraft on most routes.  Yes, British Airways has orders for the A380 but one has to question how many they can support even on their busiest routes such as London-NYC or London-Australia. 

If British Airways (at one time they had over 50 747 aircraft) can’t support a large fleet of 747s anymore, how can Emirates do so?  Emirates doesn’t have magic working for it.  They don’t know something that others don’t.  They do have some cost advantages on fuel and labor but as time goes by, even those advantages narrow considerably.   So how does Emirates justify a fleet of 90 A380 aircraft? 

They don’t.  A fleet of 90 A380s means ownership of that aircraft for the next 30 years at minimum.  30 years of operating such aircraft is a long time and let’s not lose sight of the fact that there isn’t exactly hot demand for used jumbos these days.  Even relatively new(ish) 747s are now being retired into a life as cargo aircraft as 777s replace them. 

Further, Airbus and Boeing aren’t a bunch of huckleberries when it comes to forecasting their markets.  In fact, their forecasts tend to agree in most areas except the concept of the super Jumbo.  Boeing doesn’t see that market growing and has chosen to focus on serving the fat middle section of the widebody market (220 to 350 seats) with their 787/777 family. 

Perhaps Emirates will prove me (and others) wrong.  But I’d bet large money against them at this point.

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »

No, seriously, where is it?  This is an aircraft that conversations began on in 2004.  It’s 2010 and I still don’t really know much about the aircraft despite being a keen industry observer. 

Mind you, I’ve heard the range promises and the seat costs promises but I haven’t seen the meat.  In fact, isn’t it a bit distressing that this aircraft is cloaked in so much secrecy that we still don’t know its final definition?  The few facts we have heard have actually originated from the few airlines that have ordered the aircraft in numbers.  Those facts haven’t been entirely good either. 

When Emirates starts talking about how the 777-300 still has an advantage, you might have a problem.  This is an airline that loves to play the two majors off each other.  Ordinarily, I’d expect Emirates to be trying to goad Boeing into building something new or something revised. 

Still, it’s time to start talking about this aircraft in more detail rather than with John Leahy’s rosy marketing promises.  It’s time to start hearing more about its real capabilities and how it will compete in the real world with the 787 and 777.   Right now, I really don’t know much at all and that really makes me question whether an entry into service for 2013 is even remotely possible at this point.

Filed under: Aircraft Development by ajax
No Comments »

Now that the 787 has entered into flight testing and has shown itself to be what was predicted and, possibly, even better, eyes are turning towards what happens next.   With entries into the market by Bombardier and Embraer with aircraft that isn’t quite a regional jet and almost a mainliner of today, new pressure is on Boeing and Airbus to start defining the future. 

 

New Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 replacements were expected to be announced by now originally and airlines were disappointed when both manufacturers stated in 2008/2009 that such aircraft won’t arrive before 2020 or beyond.  Airlines have asked that the next generation of aircraft have 20 to 30% better efficiency than the current aircraft or even more.  In the past, those kinds of gains were actually possible. 

 

Since both airlines feel that that date is so far in the distance, there has been new talk of re-engining both aircraft lines with new, more modern engines from Pratt & Whitney (GTF) or CFM (Leap-56).  Unlike many conversations, this isn’t about offering these engines on existing aircraft but about offering these engines on new build aircraft for the future. 

 

Everyone anticipated a CFRP Boeing being announced just 2 years ago.  Another blogger and journalist, Flightblogger, wrote this entry HERE about comments made by Boeing’s new Commercial Aircraft CEO, Jim Albaugh, about the difficulties in “scaling down” CFRP for smaller aircraft.  CFRP current requirements make it ideal for medium to large aircraft but present difficulties in making a smaller aircraft because you cannot “thin” the material as much. 

 

Both Boeing and Airbus are studying re-engine concepts at present and the Airbus A320 line is actually a better candidate for this since it stands a bit taller off the ground and is able to accommodate a new engine without necessarily re-designing landing gear, etc to fit a larger engine underneath the wing. 

 

I actually think we will hear about a new 737 replacement sooner than what Boeing has indicated.  It’s clear they’ve become more comfortable with the emerging engine technologies or they wouldn’t be talking about a re-engine effort.  They’ve also come a long way in using CFRP and learning about its properties and challenges than they were just 2 years ago as well. 

 

The truth is, there won’t be a 40 to 50% gain in efficiency in the next models.  Those kinds of gains were attained at a time when jet engine technology, wing technology and aerodynamics were still in their infancy relatively speaking.  With the passing of nearly 30 years since that phase, we’ve seen great gains in efficiency but nothing approaching what we saw prior to 1980 or so. 

 

I suspect that Boeing will identify what is straightforward engineering and what needs to be developed to bring an aircraft online sooner than later and may well make the investment.  Timing is everything on these efforts and the company is poised to complete two long, challenging projects in the near future (747-8 and 787).  What remains are derivative developments of the 787 (definitely a -9 and probably a -10) which will be reasonably easy jobs compared to the last 6 years.  Now there is room to work on the next big thing. 

 

Many have speculated that the next big thing is another widebody.  But with Boeing poised to continue to reap benefits from the 777 as it appears it will continue to outperform the A350 in many missions, a 737 replacement suddenly looks more logical.  More to the point, it’s a response that Airbus cannot afford to make at present given its heavy commitments to the A380 (can’t scale production up adequately), A350 (barely defined as the -900 and with almost no real definition for the -1000) and A400 (way over budget and potentially diminishing orders as they enter into flight test) development projects. 

 

I don’t think we’ll see this announcement this year or next.  I do think 2012 might be the year we begin to hear Boeing make noise about a new aircraft vs the Airbus A320.

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »

FlightGlobal has THIS story about Boeing considering a wing extension to improve the aerodynamic efficiency of the Boeing 777 and improve load and range.  How the 777 will sell against the Airbus A350 in development is a question everyone is asking these days even though the A350’s specifications and real performance definitions are, at best, still a bit murky. 

 

Although the A350 is definitely a competitor to the 777, engine thrust is really what reveals may be happening here.   So far, Airbus has been unable to grow its engine range into thrust ranges that approach what the 777 has with the GE90 engines.  Airbus remains at about 93Klbs of thrust from Rolls Royce and its two larger aircraft versions, the -900 and -1000 are, for the moment, have Rolls Royce as a sole source for engines.

 

Already airlines who are operating the 777 and who have ordered the A350 have said that the 777 will still have a significant payload advantage over the A350.  Payload advantages can translate into carrying more passengers, more cargo or more range.   In other words, the 777, on first glance, remains a very viable aircraft and with performance improvements, looks to remain so.

 

But what happens if Airbus is able to convince an engine maker to grow its thrust range into the 105K to 115K thrust range of the GE90?  That would probably mean a commitment to some kind of new engine from Rolls-Royce or a stunning reversal of position from GE on supply a version of the GE90 to Airbus.   Nonetheless, it’s a hard to ignore how such a development would change the viability of the 777 overnight. 

 

Incremental performance improvements are common on airliners and Boeing knows it can grow the distance between the two aircraft with these improvements but only if Airbus is denied a 100K+ thrust engine.  Since Rolls Royce has had quite some time to recoup investment on its large Trent engines and time to spend on research and development, I would not discount the possibility that they’ll commit to such an engine in the future but probably only if they retain some sort of exclusivity. 

 

I think the extended wing, engine performance improvements and other tweaks will keep the 777 in the sales game for the next 4 to 6 years but if Boeing wants to retain supremacy, it’s time to start asking what the follow on successor to the 777 might look like. 

 

Boeing has the 787 back on the right track and while they’ve got some work to do in getting the 787-9 and the speculated 787-10 into production, that has become straightforward engineering now.   The 747-8 has come into its own test program and since that is an incremental re-development of the 747, there isn’t much there that isn’t straightforward engineering as well. 

 

The 737 successor is by all accounts something to be deferred for development until late in this decade.  Instead, it will receive a new engine almost certainly which will require some changes to the existing design but nothing that would warrant calling it a new aircraft.  Instead, such an aircraft will be much like a 747-8 development. 

 

That means there is potentially a 5 to 6 year gap there in which a new development program can take place before the 737 development must start in earnest.  I rather think that’s the moment of opportunity for Boeing to go forward with that new large wide body replacement aircraft.  It will push the company, certainly, but that development, particularly with what they’ve learned in developing the 787, would almost certainly dominate the markets for 20 or more years if they were to make the commitment.

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »

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 »

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 »

The Associated Press is reporting that United has decided to order (25) Boeing 787-8 and (25) A350-900 aircraft with deliveries starting in 2016.   Options for 50 additional aircraft (of each type) are also included. 

 

The order isn’t a surprise in that it has been commonly known that United was considering a purchase.  Even the split between types doesn’t really come as a surprise.  United Airlines is already an Airbus customer and United Airlines is *not* a party to the gentleman’s agreement to buy only Boeing aircraft.  American Airlines, Delta Airlines and Continental Airlines are parties to that agreement which gives them access to early positions on the production line(s) and preferential pricing.   That is how AA managed to land early delivery slots when they made their order for the 787 earlier this year.

 

Some will be surprised that United didn’t buy more 777 aircraft but I’m not sure that would have made sense for them.  They don’t necessarily need the cargo lift that a 777 offers and, frankly, this order wasn’t for 777 replacement aircraft.   These aircraft will replace 747s (with more frequency) and 767s (one for one) as United retires those two types from its fleet. 

 

 I suspect United decided to not keep all their eggs in one basket and chose the A350 because it would be newer and more efficient for the type of routes United serves.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Lack of a firm offering for the 787-10 is starting to become visible.   This is the dawn of that omission and it will be a glaring one in another 12 to 18 months.   Airlines would like to have some confidence that they can purchase a fleet that spans the three basic types for various missions and which doesn’t require a different pilot rating for each type.   Confirming the 787-10 and preparing an offer to airlines wouldn’t be an unwise thing on Boeing’s part.

Filed under: Aircraft Development, 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 »

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 »