Airlines establish call signs to identify themselves while on radio. Most airline call signs are fairly predictable. American Airlines, for instance, uses “American”. Delta Airlines uses “Delta”.
There is one New Mexican airline named New Mexico Airlines that uses “TSUNAMI”.
Boeing Commercial Aircraft President Jim Albaugh met with American Airlines executives, including CEO Gerard Arpey, a couple of days ago and I think, tentatively, this is a positive development with Boeing. On the surface, it certainly signals that Boeing does consider American Airlines a very important customer. It *might* signal that Boeing has started to realize that airlines really aren’t just poking at them over a new single aisle aircraft.
I say might because there is a tendency for Boeing to not always recognize that a customer really is at risk until the very last moment.
Nevertheless, Boeing presidents don’t go calling on just every airline executive team on a whim. It would be my hope that Boeing got an earful on what is needed and, more importantly, the timing for meeting that need. For about a year, all we’ve heard is trade studies about re-engining vs new single aisle aircraft and that things tilt a bit towards an all new aircraft for 2019.
I think airlines would like to hear about a new single aisle aircraft kicking off development asap with entry into service around 2017. There is probably some wiggle room there but only after commitments have been made.
While news reports say Albaugh visited American Airlines, I do wonder if Southwest wasn’t visitied as well. If not, I expect we’ll see another cannon shot across Boeing’s bow from SWA in the near future.
A reader wrote me yesterday about some pricing he saw between Kansas City and New York City (Newark Liberty International Airport aka EWR) recently. In the past, he’s always flown Continental on a regional jet non stop for a competitive price. Most recently, he saw the same flights for far higher prices than in the past with other airlines offering one stop pricing that reflected what he was used to. He asked if this was one effect of the recent Continental / United merger and I said that I didn’t think so.
I think the pricing were seeing from airlines today, particularly on non-stop exclusive routes, is reflective of just how hard it is to make money in this business today. In United’s case, they probably enjoy more competition into and out of Newark than they used to. However, they also need to earn more money and show promised profits. On exclusive non-stop routes, they’re going to price seats for the most they can get.
Business travelers do differentiate between non-stop and multi-stop flights. They may be closed off from traveling in business class these days but most aren’t being required to take the least expensive coach seat. In the reader’s particular market, they probably fill those regional jets with mostly business travelers and business travelers remain a big piece of profit for airlines.
I pointed out to the reader that he could probably enjoy almost as quick a flight on more comfortable equipment if he shopped Southwest Airlines but that points up another issue. With the conflicts going on with Global Distribution Systems and American Airlines as well as the fact that LCC carriers in many cases are using GDS companies and/or online travel agencies to advertise their fares. Absence of those fares being shown makes it possible for network carriers to raise prices on those GDS systems and earn more.
And this is why I would like to see LCC air fares start showing up on these travel websites. I think there is quite a bit of low hanging fruit for the LCCs to reach on these sites and I think the travel websites have the potential to continue on in the travel world if they find a way to embrace and entice LCC carriers. In addition, it narrows the fare gap we see between network carriers and LCCs.
Airbus has announced its plans for the A350-1000 and airlines have responded with yawns or, in the case of one airline, a bit of outrage. Airbus can still change their minds about the final definition of this airliner but not without more delay or a commitment from an engine maker that would be pretty unrealistic. So we know what the A350-1000 will look like, more or less.
And what is Boeing’s best response? I’m not sure the timing is right for an all new widebody large capacity airliners to sit just above the 777-200ER to just below the 747-8i. But I do think the timing is right to greatly improve the 777. Imagine the pain Airbus feels with a 777 update that provides a better wing constructed of composites, a fuselage that is slightly lighter due to some composite use and engines that are bit more fuel efficient as a function of incorporating GEnx engine technology. What if Boeing can offer a 777-250/777-350 that offers more seats, 500 to 1000nm range improvement and/or a slight upgrade in payload capacity?
That little squeak you heard is Airbus salesmen contemplating that scenario. I can see a strong business case for such aircraft and I think you would hear a lot of airlines bark out loud “sold!” if it was announced. Does it get announced this year? No. Boeing has got to figure out the 737 replacement family, finalize the 787-9 production, get the 787-10 kicked off and then contemplate the 777’s future. I wouldn’t expect anything developing on the 777 until 2014.
One consequence of the A321NEO is that everyone is talking about it being a Boeing 757 replacement. Everyone talks about how the 757 fleet needs to be replaced and I think quite a few people are missing the point on the 757.
It’s an aircraft conceived of in a regulated era, born in a deregulated era and an airplane that has never really been part of a family of aircraft. It’s a red headed step child that despite its status, airlines found a use for it. It was built with too much range, too much power and for an airline model that didn’t include hubs and frequency.
Everyone talks about airlines needing to replace their 757 fleets and its true that these airliners are now old by any standard and will need replacement in the fleet. But the one thing we shouldn’t do is assume that the mission being served by the 757 is the mission that airlines want to use their next aircraft for.
I’m not sure there needs to be a 757 replacement. I’m also not sure that we don’t need a 757 replacement. The original missions that Boeing conceived of for the 757 are not the missions that airliner served primarily. It would be a mistake to assume that airlines want to replace 1000 757s that are serving long, thin trans-Atlantic routes or trans-continental routes. They don’t. Airlines simply found that they could use that expensive asset on those routes and earn money.
But airlines may well have already identified how they want to serve that mission in the future and it may well not resemble anything close to the current 757.
Boeing is right to let the airlines define the missions. The next Boeing 757-like airliner to come from Boeing will be from a family of aircraft and it never really was the 737-900ER even though that airliner can serve in place of the 757 on most domestic routes.
I don’t think we’ll ever see such a hybrid airliner made again. Can you imagine Boeing or Airbus sizing an aircraft to fit a smallish market and then providing it with over-powered engines? I can’t. Building a family of airliners is about tailoring the aircraft to fit the missions very well and todays missions are very different than they were even in the 757s heyday.
Don’t expect the A321NEO to be a 757 replacement. Expect it to be an excellent coast to coast airliner for longer, thinner routes between those cities. I don’t think it will be used for Hawaiian and trans-Atlantic routes in great numbers although it may get employed on a few of those missions if it can work and make an airline money.
Who says airlines want to fly such an aircraft to all kinds of cities in Europe? I don’t. In fact, I think that airlines aren’t that interested in such routes (they may be profitable but only just so) being served by such small aircraft. Such routes don’t yield a very attractive number of dollars on a daily basis and they do come with risks to that profit that airlines don’t enjoy (fuel stops, for instance).
I would also point out that the engines needed for a “true” 757-like replacement don’t exist today. There are no new next generation engines in those thrust ranges at this time and I’m unaware of any real plans or needs for such in the next ten years either.
But if airlines want a 190 seat trans-Atlantic capable airliner that is efficient and reliable, they’ll communicate that to Boeing and Airbus. The fact that Airbus and Boeing aren’t running around and chatting up such an idea kind of indicates to me that that requirement really isn’t in the top 5 airline mission requirements being talked about today.
The next generation of single aisle airliners will be different than the current generations because those missions evolve. Airlines will be asking for something different than just a better 737-700 replacement. They’ll be asking for a range that will serve their current and projected future needs and that will define airliner families that look very different from the Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 series.
If anything, I think the mistake Airbus made with its NEO development is that it is only offering better engines, not a better aircraft. It won’t have a better cockpit, better seat layout and it won’t be lighter or more durable or more reliable. That’s where Boeing can really zing Airbus and where it should.
However, for Boeing to do so, they have to, you know, announce the damn project and get on with it.
American Eagle / American Airlines is being singled out for having (14) 3-hour delays out of a total of 16 in May. That’s quite a lot and they happened all on one day when there was, so to speak, a perfect storm of weather going on in Chicago. By all accounts, passengers held on board for 3+ hours were treated very well and that’s the good news from all of this.
Some would say that American had no choice in this particular instance but I ask everyone to consider what I think are interesting facts about this particular day in Chicago. First, it happened at one of the world’s busiest airports, Chicago. Second, the diversity of airlines at Chicago is exceptional for any airport. Third, not one but two airlines are hubbed at Chicago’s O’Hare airport: American and United.
I’m not sure I buy that all 14 were unavoidable since by all appearances, most every other airline managed to figure out their problems and take care of them. It’s worth looking into to find out why American Eagle was so much more impacted by this than, say, United Airlines or its regional airlines.
I also think that the conditions of weather at O’Hare are exactly what the 3-Hour rule has provided for when it comes to exceptions to it. The weather would not allow deplaning in several instances (and I do buy this) and the congestion wouldn’t necessarily allow safe and effective returns to the gates either.
This development isn’t a reason to revisit the rule although I’ve stated before and I’ll state it again: I think this should be a 4 hour rule. It would allow more flow of passengers through airports in these situations and fewer cancellations while stopping egregious delays that effectively end up trapping customers in long, thin, metal tubes.
While I think the rule would be better revised to 4 hours, I also think that before we give American Airlines a pass, a little investigation should be performed to see how the airline was addressing these delays and what, if any, real and practical alternatives were available.
American Airlines apparently is playing the Ryanair game with both Boeing and Airbus by using a 250 aircraft orders as both a carrot and a stick. And now we know why John Leahy was hinting at Boeing losing a major network carrier.
Make no mistake, this really would be a very big loss for Boeing. The question is whether or not Boeing is taking American seriously in this. Some might be tempted to think it’s a bluff, I do not think it is anything resembling a bluff. The A320NEO is something that American needs more than most network airlines.
Instead, this is a “put up or shut up” move to Boeing and I’ll wager that it won’t be the last. Airlines want to know what Boeing is going to do and waiting very much longer is likely going to result in either more orders for Airbus or renegade orders to Bombardier and Embraer.
And Boeing can’t be just a medium to large aircraft builder. It needs this single aisle market for many reasons and the airlines are dissatisfied with Boeing’s tentative approach to what it plans to offers airlines next. To be fair, even the 737NG is getting a bit long in the tooth and promising incremental improvements isn’t going to satisfy airlines anymore. Much like the new and improved A330 that Airbus tried to sell many years ago didn’t fly either.
When Vision Airlines announced it would start serving small cities and towns with service (primarily) to the Destin, Florida are a while back, I declared it a failed idea from the start. One of you even took issue with my assessment but I could not identify how an airline makes money serving Savannah, GA to Destin, FL with a 737 even if it was weekly service.
The markets they identified and started serving are too close, in most cases, to Destin, FL to make sense for a family to visit via airliner. A family of 4 will drive from Huntsville, Alabama to Destin, not fly. And apparently I was right because Huntsville is also on the kill list.
So are Baton Route, LA; Columbia, SC; and Greenville-Spartanburg, SC. This airline made bad decisions. It has flights from Tampa and Fort Myers to Destin and did not originally did not make it possible for people to automatically connect in Destin to flights elsewhere.
I predict we’ll see other cities cancelled such as Lafayette, Asheville, Shreveport, Little Rock, Knoxville, Chattanooga and Louisville. Ironically, this is an airline that *could* survive if it would serve major markets with non-daily flights to Destin. I don’t think the Atlanta to Destin route is a bad idea. Nor is the Houston to Destin or St. Louis to Destin routes either. Why they haven’t added cities such as DFW, Austin, Nashville, Cincinatti, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Minneapolis, or Kansas City?
Ultimately, I still predict that this airline will fail and I believe it will do so much sooner than later.
Spirit Airlines is definitely a different airline in this country and often its moves to add fees to its business model causes a lot of fear. In most respects, I’ve actually come to believe that Spirit is a good thing in the airline marketplace rather than bad. I certainly don’t blame them for their business model. If anything, they over-communicate that model and they over-sell their options. That’s fine and they’re doing nothing illegal or even illegitimate.
They’ve just added a $5 fee (starting in November) for printing your boarding pass at the airport. Once again, everyone is overreacting to this. However, this fits within their model and even their typical passenger. Spirit is for leisure passengers who typically *do* have the means and time to print a boarding pass prior to going to an airport.
What scares everyone is the idea that every time Spirit adds a fee, other airlines will follow them. That’s entirely possible when it comes to some fees and I even think the boarding pass printing fee might be one of them for some airlines. However, it will affect few people and it isn’t a burdensome fee that could cause trouble at an airport. Plenty of their fees won’t make with other airlines and that’s good, too. I honestly don’t see a fee developing among network carriers to carry on luggage, for instance.
But it’s good to have an airline press the issues now and then. It’s good to have one around that even puts the pressure on LCC carriers from time to time. I seriously doubt that I will ever fly Spirit Airlines myself. Their idea of seat pitch is daunting at best for someone who is 6′ 2″ with long legs (29″ seat pitch) and the simply don’t fly to destinations I’m interested in. I’ll likely stick to Southwest for my LCC needs and Continental for my network carrier needs.
At some point, there ought *not* to be a law against this stuff. The marketplace *will* settle these issues more often than not. It isn’t worth the stress thinking about them.
US Airways has been the focus of controversy for a few weeks since it banned a young man for inappropriate dress (he wore his pants extremely low with some underwear showing above his pant line which is a Hip Hop style.) We found out that just days earlier, a male cross dresser who was dressed mostly in lingerie was allowed to board another US Airways flight.
Now we see some claiming that US Airways was racially profiling people, sending mixed messages and other politically charged things.
Thing is, I think both should have been banned from flying. An airliner is not a public bus. It’s an environment where 100 or more people sit in close confines for multiple hours. It’s no more appropriate to dress in that manner (on either’s part) for an airliner than it would be for showing up to a court.
I don’t expect people to wear dress clothes. I don’t expect them to be uncomfortable or unable to access their own style. However, both parties should have known their dress was inappropriate for their travel and if they didn’t, shame on them for being clueless. I do expect people to dress somewhat properly for boarding an aircraft. In fact, if airlines would like to start banning pajamas and sweat suits, I would be fine with that, too.
At a minimum, I expect people to dress to a standard that would be expected for dining at a better restaurant. By restaurant, I don’t mean the luxury McDonald’s either. Furthermore, I don’t expect airlines to have to drive themselves crazy to administer such a dress code. If someone is inappropriately dressed, give them the opportunity to rectify it, let them travel on another flight, etc. This really isn’t any different than a hygiene issue.
Let me point out that while the inside of an airliner *feels* like a public space, it isn’t. Not quite. It’s no different an area than a restaurant and, yes, we allow restaurants to decide what is minimally accepted in how someone is dressed too.
People don’t own the airliners. Airlines own the airliners. Shame on US Airways for permitting the cross dresser on a flight. That man was dressed wholly inappropriately for man or woman . . . period.
And for those of you who think flying on an airliner is the equivalent of being in your bedroom in your own home, grow up. You know right from wrong and it’s up to you to act like an adult and show that you do.
Two young men who were stuck at DFW airport for several hours decided to spend their time in the American Airlines terminal having fun. Wheel chair races, esclator hijinx and even sneaking a beer from one of the closed restaurants are all a part of their video. Yes, they made a video of the thing. The 2 minute video actually is well produced and edited. View it here:
The DC-9 was, like many airliners designed in the early 1960’s, a bit of a revolution. It was the airliner that allowed airlines to serve smaller markets and small airports just as the BAC 1-11 and even the Sud Aviation Caravelle was.
Today, we would regard the original DC-9-10/20 as unusable in today’s markets but there exists another airline that is servicing the same markets and, remarkably, very similar specifications.
Hint: David Neeleman likes it.
Question: Can you name the airliner and tell which was/is faster?
Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic continue to examine their options when it comes to the sparky British airline that could. Deutsch Bank was hired to find Virgin some opportunities and there has been a great deal of speculation as to what will happen.
Some see Branson’s 51% shareholding a problem for potential partners. Others see Singapore Airlines’ 49% share a problem. I agree that there is a problem.
However, I don’t think the problem is with Branson. Singapore Airlines made an investment and they clearly want to find a return on this investment before considering letting it go. Despite rumours that Singapore wants out, I’ll point out that Singapore’s shareholding has allowed it to control what the Virgin airlines have done in its corner of the world.
Control that has had the Virgin airlines dancing to find a way around the constraints. Singapore is only going to let its investment go if it receives a healthy return on its investment and it doesn’t see another airline gaining the upper hand against it.
Virgin Atlantic needs some partnerships. There is no question of that. It’s unlikely that any one large airline will engage in such a partnership because it may well go against the interests of another partner airline.
A better strategy would be for Virgin to start exploring partnerships with relatively non-aligned airlines that fit strategically into Virgin’s network(s). What’s more, Virgin needs to align itself more with the daughter airlines that exist around the world (Virgin Australia and Virgin America, for instance.)
The brand is strong and Branson is a good leader for that brand. Moreover, he is not naive to the airline world. You don’t own a major airline for 20+ years and succeed by being stupid. Other airlines need to look past Branson’s theatrics and embrace the experienced aviation leader behind them.
The competitive spirit that Airbus engages in, particularly at air shows, always both impresses me and kind of repulses me. I admire the gusto in which they present themselves and the entreprenurial spirit with which they approach their brand management with. I dislike the bravado and somewhat cheap order tactics as well.
After this Paris Airshow, a few things occur to me when it comes to Airbus.
First, it is time to stop behaving like a teenager in this rivalry that exists with Boeing. Despite all the bravado, what we know is that both aircraft manufacturers pretty much compete evenly in the marketplace. Some years Airbus delivers more aircraft or sells more orders, other years it is Boeing that does so. The bravado always seems a little distasteful when you consider how Airbus got where it was and, at the same time, I’m glad for Airbus’ presence because it’s clear that it does motivate Boeing to do better.
That said, I also think Airbus is a bit reactive when it comes to competing. I don’t always sense that they’re defending the right things in the marketplace but, rather, defending their image against all comers. Reacting isn’t always good. Take the Bombardier CSeries vs Airbus A319NEO scenario that is unfolding. Airbus COO John Leahy has actually come out and called for Bombardier to cancel the airplane. Airbus has pitted its A319NEO against the CS300 as the better aircraft and I’d like to point something out. It’s a mainliner by any definition and one based on a design that is 20+ years old. Boeing/McDonnel Douglas pitted the 717 against the Embraer 170/190 and got its hat handed to them.
Picking your fights is an art. Some do it well, some don’t. Boeing has done pretty good until recently although I think the influx of McDonnel Douglas execs hurt them. McDonnel Douglas execs never could decide when to fight so ended up hardly ever fighting. Airbus execus fight like bulldogs even when someone just happens to walk nearby.
Airbus needs to understand that it isn’t going to compete everywhere all of the time. Fighting off Bombardier and Embraer just expends money on low return investments.
That said, Airbus also just racked up 700+ firm orders for the A320NEO and, that, my friends, is very healthy competition. Say what you want (like it doesn’t include any US network carriers or Boeing customers), they put it up there in 6 months and they did it much like Boeing did the 787 orders.
This is what you politely call a tap on the head for Boeing.
There is some rumbling out there about American Airlines’ decision to change their boarding process in the hopes of improving boarding throughout the cabin. The change reduces boarding groups from 10 to 6 and tries to spread people throughout the cabin in each group.
Anyone who has seen boarding on an airplane in the last two years would certainly have to agree that there has to be a better way. I’ll even admit that the current systems have every appearance of being chaotic and even unfair to many.
Whether or not American’s new system is creating chaos or just requiring an adjustment phase really isn’t to be determined yet. I will say that I applaud any airline attempting to make this process more harmonious I’m not sure if it can be made harmonious but I agree that different things should be tried.
And I have a suggestion. Board those who do not have carry-on luggage first. Allow those people a purse and/or briefcase but that’s it. They likely paid to have their luggage checked and ought to have access to bin space first.
There are those out there making political hay at Delta’s expense claiming they (Delta) are complicit in discrimination against Jews because of (at the core) Delta’s participation in the Sky Team alliance which Saudi Arabian Airlines is joining.
Let’s be clear about something at the outset. Saudi Arabia does not permit the issuance of visas to any Jew for travel to or transit through Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, airlines are required to not board people to travel to countries requiring visas when those people do not have the required visa. This is as true for travel to Australia as it is for travel to Saudi Arabia.
Is it discriminatory for Saudi Arabia to have its policites? In my opinion, yes. However, I’ll also point out that Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation that gets to make its own laws whether they are rational and sensible or not.
Is Delta discrminating? In my opinion, they are not. It’s notable that Delta, at present, has no flights to Saudi Arabia. Also notable is the fact that there are other nations that have similar laws with respect to Jews.
Delta isn’t a national flag airline. They are a US based airline complying with law. To make their operation about politics is bad on the part of everyone involved in this.
The rant that went out over air traffic airwaves by the Southwest Airline pilot in the Houston area has caused a lot of hurt feelings out there. It’s shockingly over the top to hear it from any pilot but especially so by a Southwest Airlines’ pilot. Even Southwest flight attendants are considering a complaint to the EEOC.
What can I say? It’s terrible to hear that. It is horrific to hear that being done by a Southwest pilot. In fact, the horror one feels is exactly why we need to understand that this isn’t a problem with Southwest. It’s a problem with the pilot.
One thing I learned many, many years ago when I worked at Love Field and had an altercation with an irate pilot (I towed his car from our freight dock area and he was parked in an area that was explicitly and prominently signed as being a no parking area for *anyone*.) The pilot threatened me, threatened our company and generally acted like an ass.
So I went and talked to someone at Southwest. That Southwest representative had the Chief Pilot call me and he listened very carefully. He also asked very careful questions and then he came over to see the signage His response?
He declared the pilot shameful in his behaviour, graciously apologized on behalf of the company and then suspended the pilot for his behaviour and made him come to our offices and apologize in person.
Make no mistake, Southwest will exact quite a bit from this pilot and they’ll do it like a family. That doesn’t mean the pilot will be fired (and I don’t think he should be fired myself) but it does mean he’ll answer for his actions in a meaningful manner. And it won’t be forgotten.
Take a look at this video of the 787 landing in Paris for the airshow. It was shot with a FLIR (Forward Looking InfraRed) camera and at various points it switches to infrared. At the very end, while taxiing, you can see just how hot the wheels and brakes are compared to the rest of the airframe. Only the engines are hotter.
