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 »

USA Today published an op-ed found HERE on the honesty of code shares that exist between major airlines and their regional partners.   Noting the safety issues that appear to exist in the regional airline industry, they call it a problem for truth in labeling.  Is it?

The truth is that the issues that the public has been focused on for the past several months with respect to regional airlines does and does not exist.  It depends entirely on the regional airline and the relationship it enjoys with its partners.

Certainly there exists an issue with fatigue and experience among airlines.  However, those problems don’t exist simply because regional airlines exist.   Even if regional airlines didn’t exist or if they were operated directly by major airlines, those problems would still exist.  The problem of fatigue exists because of the existing system of rules governing rest for pilots.  Even pilots working for major airlines are enduring more fatigue as a result of work rules.  

Experience does count but the perceived problem of experience is a greater problem because we put brand new pilots into situations that require them to fly schedules in and out of busy airline hubs as much as 5 times in a duty shift.   A new pilot is potentially flying more hours and flying in and out of busier hubs more often than an experienced pilot working for a major airline.   That will only be solved when we require more experience to become a captain. 

Unfortunately, pilots (and cabin crew) are tied to a legacy seniority system that they are unwilling to give up.  Pilots get upgraded to larger aircraft and into the position of captain on the basis of seniority rather than experience or merit.  

For more information on pilots, fatigue and the reason for regional airlines, read these posts HERE, HERE. HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Airlines use regional airlines differently and according to the agreements they have with their own unions as well as according to their needs for service in various areas.  Some airlines own their own regional airlines such as American Airlines who owns American Eagle and Delta/Northwest who owns regional airlines such as Comair, Mesaba and Compass.  Other airlines such as United or US Airways contract with independent companies more often. 

Now, I think *any* regional airline operating in the United States is operating to a fairly high degree of safety.  We have too many laws and regulations in place for any to slip too far down the ladder.  However, I do think that independent regional airlines operate with a bit more aggressiveness towards both their operations as well as their personnel.  I would point to the independents as having a bit more opportunity to fail in safety than those owned by the major airlines. 

In fact, I would regard our regional airlines as generally being more safe than the major were in the early 1980’s. 

To call code shares deceptive is a stretch in my opinion.  Airlines and travel websites do a pretty good job of revealing both the type of aircraft being used as well as the fact that regional flights are being operated by regional airlines in partnership with the major airlines.   A quick check on AA.com, Delta.com, Travelocity.com and Orbitz.com shows that to be true. 

If a problem exists, it really exists with the consumer who is either ignorant or unwilling to be an informed purchaser of the services being offered.  If the consumer is neither ignorant nor uninformed, then they may also be a bit selfish and lazy by choosing not to act in their own best interests when purchasing a flight.  

You really do invite trouble into your life when you purchase your travel based almost exclusively on price.  If you could pay $20 more to travel through a hub that is less congested or prone to trouble, wouldn’t that be a small price to pay?  If you could pay $20 more to travel on regional airline owned and operated by a major airline, wouldn’t that be a small price to pay? 

When you become a slave to one airline through frequent flier miles or the idea that a non-stop flight is always best, you put yourself at risk.   Consider whether or not it is better to fly on American Eagle from DFW to Milwaukee non-stop or if it might perhaps be better to do it via Southwest Airlines making one connection and only on a 737.   The American Eagle flight will be a cramped regional jet that is prone to being weight restricted operated by an airline that doesn’t exactly have a sterling record for caring for your baggage.  The Southwest flight will be flown by the most experienced pilots available in the US using a 737 and your baggage will be handled by people who have an excellent record and who care about their customers.  That Southwest flight might take add an extra 45 minutes to your trip and may even cost $20 more but your assurance of a positive experiences goes way up.

Sometimes taking the longer view when planning your travel is best.  Particularly when you plan your leisure travel. 

If safety is a concern, become an informed consumer.  Don’t become prejudiced on the basis of what kind of airplane you’re getting onto.  Become interested in what kind of airline is operating that aircraft.  There are fantastic regional airlines with fantastic safety records and there are major airlines who are marginal at best with merely OK safety records.   Be proactive and enjoy a better travel experience.

Filed under: Airline Service by ajax
No Comments »

That isn’t a big surprise to most readers of this blog and one very good reason why I’ve said little about the event.  Despite the long program delays and disappointing news of certain developments about this aircraft, I remain extremely excited about this aircraft.   Perhaps for different reasons than most, though.

Mainstream press continues to speak about the 787’s increased comfort potential for the passenger and sometimes mentions the efficiency the aircraft will offer airlines.  All that is true but it excites me for different and more specific reasons. 

First and foremost, it is the first truly new aircraft to come from Boeing since the 777 made it’s first flight in 1994.   Since then, there have been improved variants of the 737, 767 and 777 introduced but this is the first “from scratch” aircraft to show up in 15 years from Boeing.  That is exciting to me.

One of the most disappointing results from the Boeing / McDonnell Douglas merger is that, in many respects, Boeing was taken over by McDonnell Douglas managers rather than the other way around despite the fact that, for all intents and purposes, it was really a Boeing takeover of McDonnell Douglas.   Since that merger, Boeing has been much more intently focused on developing its defense businesses almost at the expense of investing in Boeing Commercial Aircraft.   That has been disappointing and a bit perplexing to me given Boeing’s ability to build fantastic aircraft for the commercial world.

So I hope that this aircraft, the 787, represents a return to innovation and development for Boeing Commercial Aircraft.   I hope that a new, younger group of managers is being born from this program that will lead Boeing’s development of new aircraft such as a 737 replacement, a 757/767 replacement and, yes, a new 777/747 replacement too.   But I remain concerned if for no other reason than Boeing seems to be ignoring new competition from Bombardier and EMBRAER who are now challenging the 100 to 130 seat domestic segment in the US and elsewhere.   If Bombardier can build its new C-Series aircraft with union labor in Canada, Boeing should be more than capable of developing a new family of aircraft to compete against those two companies.

While the first flight is truly on track to happen in the next two weeks, the burning anticipation of that first flight has, if anything, died down in many respects.  Those who have followed it tortuous path to first flight recognize that it isn’t the first flight that means anything now.  The aircraft is so mature in its development that we know it will not only fly but fly very successfully.  We know that the major teething problems are almost certainly over now.   There isn’t any need to speculate on its performance on a first flight and really nothing to wonder about for its testing over the next 12 months.

The real anticipation comes from seeing it perform with an airline.  We want to see it enter an airline’s fleet and see how it performs during real world use.   We want to see if airline CEOs proclaim it the game changer we all ferverently hope it is.  We even just want to see what the airlines’ liveries will really look like on it.  The real next “moment of truth” for the 787 is when it enters a fleet in its new livery.  The launch customer is All Nippon Airways (ANA) and we should see ANA put the 787 into service sometime in late 2010.

The 787 should see service with a US airline in late 2010 or early 2011 and it will be Delta Airlines who has the honor by virtue of inheriting Northwest Airlines’ orders.   I suspect we’ll see Delta order more shortly after the 787 begins operating in its fleet.  Continental Airlines will put the 787 into service a short while later.

This is the most anticipated large volume aircraft to be designed and built since the 1960’s.  That’s exciting. 

What’s also exciting is what this aircraft means to Boeing and its future development projects.   Will these same technologies be used on a 737/757 replacement?   Is it conceivable that they’ll be used for a Very Large Aircraft to replace the 777?  Both are possibilities.   Detractors say there isn’t as much “gain” to be had in using carbon fibre based fuselages for a 737 replacement with respect to efficiency and that is probably true.

However, these new techologies may mean that Boeing can produce the 737 replacement even faster.  The composite carbon fibre fuselages may mean less maintenance and longer maintenance intervals for airlines like Southwest and Ryanair.   The new engines coming into development will demand some changes too.  Larger by-pass ratio engines or, if developed, open rotor engines means more clearance will be needed between the wing and the ground.   The next aircraft will  have to stand taller and that might mean a little more time spent on ground handling.  

The next generation engines and Boeing decision to produce an “electric” airliner may see those approaches used in the 737 replacement.  Have we reached a point in reliability that we can expect these new systems to survive the punishing schedules of a domestic airline?  I think so but the 787 is the aircraft that must support that supposition. 

The 787 won’t be exciting because of what it potentially offers the customer in comforts.   Yes, no matter what we’ll have larger windows and a little bit more fresh air and pressurization in the cabin but if you think you’ll be getting more spacious seat pitch, you’ll be disappointed.   This new aircraft will be as packed as any in service now.   Overhead bins will still be crowded. 

My birthday is December 12th.  There is speculation that the 787 may fly as early as December 14th.  That’s close enough that I find myself kind of hoping that Boeing might pull a fast one and send it up into the sky 2 days early.  It would be exciting to have an airliner born on my birthdate.

Filed under: Aircraft Development, Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about Airtran’s decision to enter the Milwaukee – Dallas / Ft. Worth market using Skywest Airlines.  That post is HERE.

I noted that American Airlines has virtually owned this market with Midwest also having a nice chunk and AA hasn’t really had much in the way of competition for that route.  Well, the American Airlines of old has responded.  According to the Airline Biz Blog, AA is adding flights to that route using American Eagle and those flights match up closely to Airtran’s announced times.  No one should be too surprised that AA has responded this way since it’s been their strategy to flood new competition with capacity and frequency and to capitalize on their hub connections. 

Will it work?  Many would give AA the advantage in this battle because they do have a tremendous number of connections through Dallas.  The problem is, my sense is that the main part of this route is traffic that originates and ends at those two cities.   I’m not sure there is a whole lot of connecting traffic.  Certainly there is some. 

However, American Airlines has kind of abused Milwaukee for several years charging very high fares for that route and Midwest has never challenged them much instead choosing to enjoy an uneasy level of detente.  Now we see Midwest, Airtran, American Airlines and, indirectly, Southwest Airlines in this market.  Interesting. 

The next move is up to Airtran.  If they keep Skywest aircraft (50 seat CRJ-200)on this route and don’t upgrade it to their own aircraft, I suspect American Airlines will win this fight.  If Airtran chooses to move their B717 or even their B737 (I suspect the former is a better fit) on to the route, I think American Airlines might just see their traffic erode badly.  Milwaukee to Dallas consumers are accustomed to the B717 and, I think, would enjoy the relative comfort and opportunity to upgrade to Business Class (cheap and easy to do on Airtran). 

Midwest is the unknown.  Frankly, they are using their Embraer E-170 aircraft (76 seats, all coach) on this route now and while it is certainly better than American Eagle’s ERJ-145s (50 seats, cramped coach), they still aren’t what those customers are accustomed to enjoying on that route.   Until less than a year ago, Midwest flew very comfortable 717 aircraft that included both a comfortable business class as well as a comfortable coach seat.  Airtran can offer that now.

Would AA add MD-80 or B737 aircraft to the route?  No, they don’t have aircraft available and the best they could do is, perhaps, a CRJ-700 via American Eagle.  However, those aircraft are already very busy on other routes. 

American called Airtrans’ bluff and even raised the stakes, so to speak.  American Airlines is not in the habit of giving up either so we can expect that they’ll keep these frequencies (and the lower prices) as long as they think they can to preserve the market share.    Right now, they are offering a matching $89 fare (each way) for advance purchase.  However, their remaining economy fares are $678 and $863 each way (there is a First Class fare for over $1700 each way but which requires a connection to someplace like Chicago so you can fly on a mainline aircraft).   I think we see where Airtran can offer real value here. 

So, we know two things.  First, it is up to Airtran to make another move or accept the status quo.  Second, there is way too much competition going on for Milwaukee traffic.  Some airline will have to quit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you are ever at an airport and see an aircraft with the company name Capital Airways, you’ve just seen the US Justice Department’s own little airline for transporting prisoners.

This is an example of what it looks like.

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
2 Comments »

I’m glad that there has been a dialog on excessive flight delays for the past few years.  Just having the dialog has helped, I think.   But now people are starting to talk about real solutions as opposed to shouting out “there ought to be a law!”.  I agree, there should be a law but I also agree with airports and airlines that the law ought to be sensible too.

The cause of long delays on the tarmac derive from a variety of factors.  Certainly weather is the biggest one of all.  Severe weather is somewhat unpredictable both in timing and severity and I get that.  You just can’t always guess right.  But I think there are some issues that are getting ignored in the discussion.

First, I would ask why we allow airlines to board airplanes and send them out in droves when it is clear that airport operations are about to be impacted severely by an arriving storm?   I blame airlines, airport management and the FAA for that.  When an arriving severe storm is on the horizon, cramming people into the airplane and trying to rush it out for take-off before it (the storm) arrives is just a bad strategy.  Every airline is pursuing that at the same time and that means maybe 10% of all the aircraft are going to make their departures. 

Airlines have several incentives to behave that way.  One, if they leave the gate within 15 minutes of scheduled departure, they get to count that as an on time departure.  That counts in the evaluation(s) of virtually every airline employee working that particular flight.  Bad idea because it allows them to shove the problem on someone else without consequence.  Wouldn’t it be better for the Department of Transportation to set criteria for these “on time” departures that reflects both reality and common sense?  Isn’t it better to declare an amnesty on on time stats during severe weather on the part of airlines?  You need to dis-incentivize that behavior during those times.

The big unspoken problem that airlines haven’t really mentioned is the impact to their operations system wide.  If an airline starts canceling flights in a hub city, that impact will start to be felt all over the country in as little as 2 hours.   Canceling flights has an impact potential for creating disarray in airline operations for days.  Delaying them but ultimately getting them to their destinations that day has far less of an impact.   There could be a few solutions to this problem such as a mutual aid pact between airlines.  Why not consolidate 2 delayed flights onto one aircraft, share the revenue and return to normal asap rather than try to send 6 delayed flights to the same destination at the end of a storm?  There is a history of mutual aid pacts among airlines but they largely disappeared with deregulation.  However, that doesn’t mean they can’t be encouraged again. 

Airlines need flexibility but the drive to equip a fleet with as few different aircraft types as possible means that they lost some flexibility.  I wonder if the costs of sorting out a massive disruption aren’t worth an extra aircraft or two to mitigate against problems.  Again, airlines used to have a history of having backups for these kinds of problem but lean operations demanded by shareholders don’t really allow for proper risk mitigation.  Better fleet planning and utilization might allow an airline to fly a 767 with 2 flights of 737 passengers to a destination during a severe disruption to operations.  By consolidating the passengers into one flight, getting them to their destination instead of stranding them and eliminating some departure congestion, every one’s best interests and pocket book might be better served.  But it requires us to allow some cooperation among airlines and some long range planning too.

If you make it the law that a passenger must have the right to get off an airplane and abandon the flight after 3 or 4 hours, you won’t solve anything.  There will be as much congestion (and possibly more) and the potential for greater delays.  However, if you allow the FAA to “prioritize” departures under certain circumstances and meter the flow, airlines won’t be so quick to board airplanes and shove them out onto the taxiways.  Airports and airlines should be forced to consider the whole picture before boarding an aircraft.  If it has no opportunity to taxi to the runway and take off within one hour, it shouldn’t be leaving the gate in the first place. 

Airports could help better too.  You can’t expect them to accommodate every displaced passenger during a storm but you can expect them to have a good emergency plan that includes keeping restaurants and stores open, overflow areas for passengers to park themselves for longer durations and equipment that allows disembarkation during storms that keep ground personnel indoors. 

Right now, you have people saying that airlines should allow individual passengers off an airplane if they want off after three or four hours.  That potentially further delays 100+ passengers for the benefit of 5 or 10.  Instead, airlines should simply be required to return to a gate and accommodate passengers reasonably if they haven’t departed within 3 hours.  Like it or not, a flight should be an all or nothing proposition. 

Finally, airlines should be required to consider what the diversion options are.  Airlines have been increasingly using alternate cities that are close by but non-standard stops for their business.  Should American Airlines keep aircraft on the ground at an airport that doesn’t have proper ground handling equipment or facilities for those passengers?  Absolutely not.  The context of potential diversions should be considered when planning a flight.   If an airline is faced with potential diversions when flying to a particular area, it should carry enough fuel to divert outside of that area of disruption and to a location where they can reasonably accommodate the aircraft and passengers. 

It does absolutely no good to anyone to send flights to Rochester, MN when MSP is shutdown if the airport can’t accommodate the aircraft and passengers in the first place.  For that particular event, it would have been far better to send that aircraft to Milwaukee, Des Moines or Rockford where the airports were experienced in accommodating diverted flights late at night. 

Without genuine cooperation between airlines, empowering the FAA and air traffic control and requiring airports to plan for the worst rather than the best, this problem doesn’t get solved to any one’s satisfaction.

Filed under: Airline Service, Airports by ajax
1 Comment »

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 my last post, I mentioned that I was traveling Airtran.  My flight was from Dallas / Ft. Worth to Newport News, VA (Patrick Henry Field).  The Newport News airport is close to Williamsburg, VA where I have family and far more convenient than Richmond or Norfolk which are far more common for flying into that area. 

First, I’ll mention my booking and check-in experience.  Airtran’s website works pretty well these days and even accommodates the pre-payment of checked luggage when you do your online check-in.   My biggest criticism of the Airtran site is that you have to go through many different pages to complete the reservation and/or check-in process.  I suspect many airlines will be adding more pages to their processes if only because of the a la carte nature of the new airline business model.

I’ve mentioned in other, earlier posts that some airlines are developing and implementing electronic boarding passes to be carried on one’s PDA.  During my struggle to maintain 3 sheets of paper for each day of travel, I began to long for being able to use such a system on Airtran.   On my two leg trip from DFW to PHF via ATL, I had to have 2 different boarding passes on two separate pieces of paper (why, I don’t know since they are to be scanned) and I carried my receipt for pre-paying my checked baggage in case of trouble when I arrived at the airport.  Having those boarding passes and that receipt on a PDA would help immensely with simply managing the paperwork.

DFW to ATL (Boeing 737-700) Seat 18A:       This aircraft was clean and generally well cared for but my particular seat kept wanting to recline without being asked to do so.  As a consequence, I kept raising my seat back during the 2 hour flight and found my back feeling a bit strained after awhile.  As a rule, I don’t recline my seat when sitting in coach on such a flight simply because it’s truly discourteous to do given the little leg room and personal space that is afforded in coach.   Ordinarily, I enjoy the Airtran 737 because they use a nice Recaro seat that seems to fit my body very well.  This flight was an anomaly compared to previous experiences.

The gate agents loaded the plane quickly and efficiently and the flight attendants and other Airtran staff were quick to “solve” any passengers problems with stowing carryon luggage.  They did it politely but firmly and kept people moving.  As a result, the boarding process actually felt streamlined and we were able to push back precisely on time. 

Arriving in Atlanta, I remembered what I really don’t like about Atlanta’s airport.  It isn’t the terminals, the crowds or the often required dash to another concourse for your next flight.  It’s the taxi time from the terminal to the runway or vice versa.  It is as if you land and then travel another 40 miles to the terminal.  It feels excessively long and since your aircraft is usually behind another, you get the unpleasant aroma of burning kerosene to keep you company.  That isn’t Airtran’s fault though.

The Atlanta terminal is just as I’ve experienced it in the past.  Despite common complaints, you can actually move quite quickly from one gate to another as long as you’re sensible enough to get your info and read a terminal map.  If you can’t do that or won’t learn how, then you deserve what you get.   One thing I did notice about the ATL concourses was that the stores goods seemed to be priced much more fairly than usual.   They weren’t selling $3 bottles of water or $2 candy bars.  Yes, the prices were a little more expensive than the average convenience store but reasonably so.

ATL to PHF (Boeing 717-200) Seat 21F:  I like the Boeing 717.  Yes, it’s a tad smaller but there is something about that aircraft that suits me very well. Again, this aircraft was well cared for, staffed by flight attendants who acted as if they enjoyed going to work and my seat worked properly.  This flight had an even longer taxi time than my inbound flight but once it reached the runway, we took off quickly and seemed to get routed on a very direct path out of ATL. 

Both flights had a drink service with pretzels and both services were done with good cheer.  As we approached PHF, I remembered something peculiar about flying into that general area.  For some reason, the approaches feel like you arrive at high altitude and the pilot suddenly dives the airplane to the airport.  It seems as if every flight I’ve taken to that general area finds the aircraft shuddering and straining to slow down and lose enough altitude to land at the airport.  Touchdowns are always very firm and positive instead of being floating greasers. 

PHF is a great little airport.  It’s secondary to Norfolk but served regularly by both Airtran and Delta.  Airtran with mainline equipment and Delta by a mix mostly dominated by regional jets.  It’s convenient to most of the southern area of the peninsula bracketed by the York and James rivers.  Best of all, flights to PHF tend to be about $100 cheaper than similar flights to Norfolk or Richmond, VA.   The airport is very clean, feels very new and is easy to navigate.  You can get to I-64 in just a couple of minutes drive and be on your way to just about anywhere you need to go in the area. 

I’ve always liked Airtran.  They offer a superior coach product compared to most legacy airlines and they continue to adjust to the changing environment in ways that, if not exactly accomodating, are at least less punishing than most. 

Next post will be my return flight(s).

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service, Airports by ajax
2 Comments »

It feels like an odd pairing.  DFW to the new Branson, MO airport on Sun Country which is a Minneapolis / St. Paul based airline.  Well, maybe.  maybe not.

First, Branson has a new airport about to open.  It is unique in that it is a private airport built with private money.  You can view its website HERE.  Or, rather, you can kind of view it.  It really isn’t working very well as a website.  Not today anyway.

Second, it does kind of make sense.  Sun Country will be flying Mon-Wed-Fri from MSP to Branson.  Then, it appears, it will use the same aircraft to fly the DFW / Branson segments as well.  That means high utilization for the aircraft.  From what I can see, the flight will travel MSP to Branson, Branson to DFW, DFW to Branson, Branson to MSP on those days. 

Sun Country already flies in and out of DFW (and not just to MSP) and already understands how to fly to leisure destinations.   There should be enough traffic from both the DFW and MSP areas to feed to Branson (a kind of mid-western Las Vegas show theatre town if you are unfamiliar with it) and it should be able to do so very competitively against the bus excursions that already exist.  You see, there was no close by airport for Branson until now.  Previously, it means flying very expensive commuter flights to places such as Joplin, Fort Smith, Springfield or Fayetteville and you *still* had at least a 2 hour drive by bus or car to get there.

Not anymore.  These flights should do well and I will note that AirTran is another airline that will be flying to this new destination and Sun Country also has just added flights from Boston to Branson (I’m a little skeptical of that one being successful.)  Branson is offering incentives to these airlines to start these flights in the hopes of jump starting more growth of their tourism industry.    So far, you have to give them high marks for targeting the right kind of areas and the right kind of airlines.  If they had asked American Airlines to serve the destination, it would have been done with old regional jet aircraft and at high prices.  Instead, they picked airlines that understood the leisure business.  I would not be surprised to learn of Allegiant starting flights into Branson as well.

What’s more, it will be done with mainline aircraft such as the Boeing 737, 717 and, if Allegiant jumps into the game, the MD-80.  All aircraft much more suited to the demographics of the typical Branson traveler.

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

The Dallas Morning News is reporting that American Airlines has decided to close its operations at Dallas’ Love Field airport . . . again.   American has tried a number of different strategies at the airport including the most recent exercise of flying EMB-145 jets from DAL to ORD (Chicago).   By all reports, this latest strategy actually was successful but in a case of winning the battle and losing the war, those flights will now go away.

Why did they go away if successful?  Because they were only successful in a very small way.  AA never had much luck in operating any other flights from Dallas to other destinations including Austin, Kansas City or St. Louis.  They needed more than 6 successful round trip flights a day to make operating at Love Field a worthwhile enterprise.

Notably, AA has apparently signed a new long term lease that keeps keeps their 2 gates at Love Field in their hands.  Why sign a long term lease and then leave?  Because the brokered dissolution of the Wright Amendment gives 16 gates to Southwest and 2 each to American Airlines and Continental.  If AA were to give up those 2 gates, they would likely be snatched up by another low fare carrier to be used to further infiltrate AA’s routes.  My guess is that it is a blocking exercise.  Besides, they are valuable property and may offer AA the opportunity to sub-lease them to other airlines if they don’t use them.

Why didn’t AA stick with the Chicago flights?  Because while those flights were successful, they could only be flown with aircraft that have 56 seats or less (for now.)  That means that the only growth available was more frequency.  Airlines such as AA really can make much more profit by flying more capacity on such a route.  In other words, they could do much better if they were able to use MD-82 or Boeing 737-800 aircraft on the route.  They won’t be able to until 2014.

I would, however, speculate that AA could have made more money on this route using reconfigured CRJ-700 aircraft from American Eagle.  These aircraft could have been reconfigured with a business class and economy section down to 56 seats and probably flown much more profitably.  However, these aircraft probably don’t lend themselves to being reconfigured in such a way.  How do you efficiently place business class seating in an aircraft that is already limited to 2+2 seating in economy?

American is doing what is good for American.  However, what would be better for Dallas is another airline taking over and using those gates for a good purpose.  Yes, even Southwest Airlines could use a little competition these days.  Imagine jetBlue offering Austin / Dallas flights that connect back to the East coast through Austin.  Or how about Airtran connecting through Little Rock or Houston?

In the end, Love Field will not see much if any real competition develop.  Not while 3 very successful and very large airlines control all the gates there.

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

Update:  BBC reports that the flight number of this aircraft was TK Flight 1951.

CNN is reporting that a Turkish Airlines 737-800 crashed while on approach to land at Amsterdam’s Schipol Airport.  The plane broke or cracked into 3 distinct pieces after coming down in a farmer’s field near the airport. 

9 people are reported dead and as many as 50 people are reportedly injured.  The flight was carrying 127 passengers and 7 crew members.  At this time, there is little or no speculation on what may have caused this accident.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

I got a new Olympus SP550-UZ camera at Christmas time. With 18x optical zoom, it was a huge improvement over my previous camera, an Olympus C2100-UZ. But after testing it out at DFW at the end of December, I realized I needed just a hair more “oomph” and bought an Olympus TCON-17 1.7x teleconverter. That did it.

Plane spotting at DFW is always a bit boring for long stretches because you get to watch American Airlines’ MD-80 and B737 aircraft land all day long with very few other airlines to break things up. On this visit, I managed to catch the AA PinkRibbon Susan G. Komen Embraer RJ once more. I captured a Sun Country Airlines 737, an Airtran 717 and a Lufthansa A340 all taking off or landing on the far runway from Founder’s Plaza. Previously, they would have been a tiny spec in my camera.

I also saw a hawk standing in the field at the foot of the runway watching both us, the spotters, and the aircraft landing. It seemed like it wondered what the big deal was. One of the DFW fire trucks came by on the service road and goosed his fire pump as he went by much to my surprise. I just happened to be taking a photo of him anyway and got the water spraying out although only close up instead of from far away.

The other catch was a China Airlines Cargo B747-400. We visit a secluded area to shoot from that requires us to drive past the air cargo area on the west side of the airport. As we drove by, we saw this huge aircraft parked and pulled over to take photos. While doing so, I noticed it was buttoned up completely and running its APU and figured it would be taking off soon. It did but took nearly an hour to do so.

We also saw three corporate jets take off one after the other. You can see them HERE, HERE and HERE. Both my wife and I had the odd feeling of almost a race the way they took off and quickly turned south by southeast. About 20 minutes later, my wife guessed it. They were the wealthy taking off for Tampa and the Superbowl. I’m sure she is right. They took off so fast that I was only able to get one good photo of each.

Take a look at this PHOTO.  The aircraft seems to either be coming straight at me or aimed just to the left of me.  In fact, the runway was to the right of me.  The crosswinds for that runway (13R-31L) must have been pretty high today.

One final observation. I’ll be sorry to see the Northwest Airlines livery fade away into Delta. Northwest has, in my opinion, one of the handsomest liveries on a US Airliner and it is a shame that Delta isn’t even retaining some small portion of the logo.

You can view all of the photos HERE.

Filed under: Airplane Spotting by ajax
4 Comments »

It’s always fun to make predictions about the coming year, right?  Of course, I may well review my predictions in December of 2009 and decide against doing it again.

Boeing 787:

This aircraft will finally experience its first flight and I believe it will occur on or about its new scheduled time (early April).  For Boeing, credibility is now at stake and they really do have to begin meeting deadlines.  Financial analysts are becoming too skeptical of the company for comfort and airlines want their airliners.  Boeing does have a reputation for being able to pull itself together and get something done in a crisis and that should serve them here. 

I also believe we’ll see both static airframes begin their tests and new build airframes begin to flow from Boeing in about 6 months.  My prediction?  The 787 will prove to be a very capable aircraft and will meet or exceed its performance promises.

Airbus A380:

Airbus met its revised schedule of delivering 12 A380 airliners in 2008 . . . barely.  Originally it was scheduled to deliver 13 in 2008 and 25 in 2009.  Now Airbus says it will deliver 21 in 2009.  However, it is becoming clear that Airbus is now quickly learning how to build these aircraft and turn them out.  I predict they’ll exceed their 21 goal in 2009 by at least one aircraft.

Boeing and Airbus:

Both aircraft makers will begin to speak about the future of short to medium haul aircraft again.  With milestones for the 787 and A380 being met, I suspect they’ll become more comfortable in speaking of the future of their aircraft lines.  Look for discussions on both the 737 and A320 aircraft families and what interim technologies might be employed to improve their performance.  I suspect we’ll hear about both weight saving materials being adopted as well as the potential of new incremental improvements on existing engines.  Particularly the CFM-56 engines used by both makers. 

US Airlines:

First, let’s take a look at my deathwatch candidates.  The sudden and precipitous drop of oil prices allowed each of them to take a breather.  Midwest Airlines, however, continues to speak little, fly only a little and its investors have got to be running out of patience.  I still believe that they’ll ultimately go away.  How they do it is the question.  Rather than bankruptcy, I believe it will either be a sale or as a subsidiary airline of Delta/Northwest with the latter being most unlikely.  Who will they be sold to?  Good question.   Perhaps Airtran will get what they wished for and develop indigestion.

Frontier continues to muddle along but faces rather intense labor strife still.  I think their situation improved not only because oil prices dropped but because United continues to offer some of the worst product in the industry and because Southwest slowed its growth and took a breather.  While I firmly believe United will do nothing to improve its product, I do think Southwest will return to its goal of killing Frontier as a Denver competitor some time in the late spring.   I suspect Frontier will emerge from bankruptcy this year but I also firmly expect them to be out of business or acquired by December of 2009.  Who buys them?  I’ll bet on Jet Blue.  The aircraft fleets are compatible and Jet Blue has to start building a hub somewhere else in order to continue to experience strong growth.  Frontier gives them that chance.  The long shot?  American Airlines.  Why?  Because Frontier is working with AMR’s Sabre Reservations system now. 

United Airlines, my favorite airline to hate.  The Cranky Flier loves to rag on Alitalia and I love to rag on United.  United has lost a tremendous amount of value over the last year and continues to have some of the highest hourly costs of any US airline.   They’ve done nothing to improve labor relations, their service product or their fleet efficiency.  Glenn Tilton is hated by airline pilots but I predict he is goint to be hated by investors before the end of summer.   What happens?  I’m really not sure.  The best thing that could happen is for them to liquidate.  However, I think some airline will see some value there and attempt to buy United and make use of its assets.  Who?  The logical choice is Continental but I believe they’ll hold on to their independent streak.  So my next guess is a US Air / United V 2.0 merger will come about.  Could it work?  I doubt it but Doug Parker (CEO of US Air) wants another merger and United offers hubs he doesn’t have and some aircraft fleet compatibility.   I’ll go “all in” and bet that we see a US Air / United Airlines merger announcement by December of 2009.

Moving on from the death watch, let’s look at other US Airlines for a few minutes.

American Airlines will maintain its status quo but will begin to feel pressure to conclude some union contract negotiations this year as financial analysts begin to view their lack of progress less and less favorably.  CEO Gerard Arpey will begin to feel the heat but barring a large mistake on his part, will retain his position as CEO.  One possibility, however, will be bringing on a potential successor as President of the airline.

Southwest Airlines will also mostly maintain its status quo but I will predict that by late summer its new CEO Gary Kelly will be under fire from both employees and investors for his shotgun approach to growth.  It is beginning to look like it is unplanned and what people most value in Southwest is its ability to form and execute a coherent plan.   There will be no mergers, no real growth and a sinking stock price by December but I think Mr. Kelly will hold onto his position until 2010 barring a major unforeseen development. 

Continental, the best kept secret.  Continental will maintain its status quo with, perhaps, very moderate growth in the international sector while it waits to see what happens domestically.  They’ll enter the Star Alliance (exiting from SkyTeam) but discover it offers little value to them as well.   I don’t think they’ll seek to merge with anyone in the next year but if they did, I’d pick them for going after someone like Alaska Airlines rather than United or US Air. 

Stay tuned for Part II.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service, Airports, Death Watch by ajax
2 Comments »

I went to DFW Airport this afternoon to see a family member off on their flight home.  Since I was there, I decided to visit the Founder’s Plaza viewing center and take some photos with my new (to me) Olympus SP-550UZ camera.  It has a 18X optical zoom (equivalent to 28mm to 504mm 35mm lens) and a great reputation for its dual image stabilization.

Before anything else, let me comment on these photos.  First, this was my first practice run and there are some not so good ones.  Second, there are some worth pointing out as well. 

• It still excites me to catch a photo of tire smoke as an airplane lands.
• American Airline’s Susan G. Komen EMB-145 is one that I caught but, sadly, slightly out of frame.  When I shot it, I didn’t notice the pink ribbon or I would have shot another photo. 
• United Airlines has some of the dirtiest aircraft out there now and it is likely it isn’t noticed too much because they have that truly awful paint scheme to distract you from it.
• I got an AA B777 accidentally.  I literally just pointed and shot the photos without knowing what it was at first.
• The Alaska Airlines B737-900 is my family member departing.
• ATR-72 aircraft are very frequent visitors into DFW now.
• That Anubis Statue is still a very strange thing to have at Founder’s Plaza particularly since it was placed there to advertise the Dallas Museum of Art’s King Tut exhibit and it would do a far better job placed at the north or south entrance of the airport.
• DFW is still one of the more boring locations for airplane spotting simply because of the ubiquitous AA MD-80s.

So, without further ado, here are the PHOTOS.

Filed under: Airplane Spotting, Airports by ajax
1 Comment »

If Southwest gains those ATA slots and they do fly them all in and out of La Guardia, this does send an interesting message to those employees who are presently upset over the announcements of codeshares with both WestJet and Volaris.

You see, the big argument made for those codeshares was that it allowed Southwest to concentrate on its business model but enjoy the expanded business that those two airlines offered to Canada and Mexico.   It was an argument about focus and direction with the Southwest business model.  The employees, some of them at least and most important the pilots, have argued that with near zero growth planned for Southwest, these are routes (the international routes) that Southwest could fly with their own people and metal.

It’s an argument that I can see some truth in.   The flying remains a natural for Southwest.  After all, flying to either Canada or Mexico is not flying overseas.  Mostly it is flying to cities across a border in a manner that is quite consistent with the existing model.  While neither country would necessarily permit Southwest to build a network inside their country, there are plenty of provisions already in existence to fly to destinations in both countries. 

Southwest is perfectly capable of operating a website or websites that serve those countries as well.  Labor costs can’t be an issue because, frankly, they could literally outsource those functions to their two new codeshare partners.  WestJet knows how to turnaround a 737 and while Volaris owns A320 aircraft, they also know how to turnaround an airplane. 

Flying to either country does not require ETOPS aircraft and it doesn’t even necessarily mean overnighting aircraft and/or flight crew in either country.  Flights to either country can be “turns” that see no aircraft left overnight.   However, even if you did want to overnight staff in those countries, it isn’t logistically difficult.  Hotels are in abundance and all your staff need are passports.  Language really isn’t a problem either.  Oddly enough, Southwest flight crew speak English, a perfectly acceptable language for Canada, and I’ll bet that Southwest has plenty of crew capable of speaking Spanish already. 

Now La Guardia Airport does present some challenges that are contrary to the Southwest model.  It is a congested, expensive, weather affected airport with high labor costs and high costs to overnight aircraft.  I would wager that it is quite possibly MORE difficult to operate into and out of La Guardia than, say, Vancouver or Toronto or Monterrey or Gaudalajara.  

It also puts Southwest into one of the most competitive markets in the United States and while it does give them access to the business traveler, it does so in a major market where business travelers often expect and even demand creature comforts that Southwest doesn’t offer.   If you have the chance to fly 7 round trips to NYC, what cities do you connect NYC to?  This is mere speculation but I would guess that flights to Chicago’s Midway Airport are a given.  Possibly a flight to either Baltimore or Orlando or Houston or even Philadelphia.   I would actually bet heavily on Chicago, Baltimore, Orlando and Houston.  But even if it was Chicago only, you have, at best, 7 frequencies.  On that route, you would probably need a minimum of 7 frequencies. 

There is something that is unrevealed in this plan.  Certainly Southwest could boost frequencies by obtaining more slots in the future.  Maybe.  But that is historically difficult in a slot controlled airport and a market that rarely sees significant contraction in flight quantities.  It is even more difficult when you are entering a market that major legacy airlines will defend to the death.  No one has any incentive to cooperate with Southwest in making gate space or other facilities available. 

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

The current economic climate doesn’t speak well for airlines who depend upon business travelers to meet their expenses on a flight.  For the past several years, airlines have been introducing airline seating that specifically caters to the business traveler and, quite frankly, a product that meets or exceeds anything that represented First Class even in the 1990’s. 

The airlines are always faced with a difficult set of priorities to balance.  On the one hand, catering to the business traveler is essential because they do pay for a good portion of each flight and they must compete for those travelers very aggressively.  On the other hand, filling those last 100+ economy seats is also essential because that is the difference between profit and loss.   Typically, an airline will woo the business traveler with comfort and the economy flyer with price.  In order to compete on price, that means reducing your costs per seat to the lowest possible and offering a ticket price that bests anyone else on a route.

Or does it?  In the late 1990’s, American Airlines began a program of more space in coach.  MD-80 aircraft were reconfigured to offer as much as 34″ of seat pitch and as someone who was flying a great deal at that time, I can confirm that it made a huge amount of difference.   Unfortunately, the post September 11th terrorist disaster forced American to reconsider its configuration and the aircraft were reconfigured back to a 31/32″ pitch.   But how many seats did that gain them?  Only about 9 seats.

The one thing airlines never seem to try to differentiate themselves on is seating.  While some airlines have tried an economy plus seating (offering about 34″ to 36″ of seat pitch), no one really advertises the advantage of more seat room.  It is never heavily marketed like many other airline qualities.   That is a lost opportunity.   I do not believe people would necessarily choose a flight on an airline on the basis of only price if they were fully aware of a more comfortable option at a minor extra cost.   Airlines such as United Airlines often only take the opportunity to tell a customer of these seats after they’ve already made a purchase and only as an upgrade. 

Offering an increased seat pitch and explaining its comfort and, possibly, better position in the aircraft would, I think, be an attractive offer. 

The question is how much extra do you have to price that seat per leg?   I suspect about $20 per flight segment would work.   Possibly as much as $30.  But why not offer it by the hour?  Would you pay $10 / hour for a better seat?  Chances are you would.  However, that upgrade must be presented BEFORE the purchase to be attractive on price and that upgrade must be described in what it offers the customer.  More leg room, a better position in the cabin which makes for easier entry and exit from the aircraft. 

More room does not necessarily have to mean fewer seats either.  I’ve written before about Delta’s adoption of the Thompson Cozy Suite seats on their 767 aircraft.  There are other options as well.  Airtran offers a Recaro aircraft seat on the Boeing 737 aircraft that is unparalleled currently as an economy seat.  Its design offers just a tiny bit more leg room and yet configures easily to the same 31/32″ seat pitch airlines want to use.  It provides a more conventionally thick seat cushion on the bottom and upper half while offering a better contoured lumbar area that while thinner, is much more comfortable and yet offers the passenger behind you that little bit of extra room.

Sicma Aero is concentrating its efforts on a more ergonomic seat but I question that direction because how do you create an ergonomic seat that feels comfortable to both the 5′ tall 100lbs woman and the 6′ 2″ tall, 270lbs man?  It requires adjustability and that quite likely is going to cause trouble both with maintenance and the customer who doesn’t understand how to adjust the seat.

Avio Interiors has taken an approach more like Recaro by offering a seat that is properly cushioned in the right points but sculpted to again offer that small but important extra space for legs. 

 Thompson Solutions offers both the Cozy Suite as well as a more conventional but ergonomic economy seat.  The key to their offering is a staggered or herringbone style layout that allows airlines a 15″ gain in capacity or greater width and seat pitch.  Since aircraft are generally limited by either their load or the maximum seating they are certificated for, Thompson’s solutions (no pun intended) allow an airline to offer a new seat that is competitively priced, less maintenance intensive and vastly more comfortable than a conventional seat.  The key obstacle here is that airlines are afraid of making the investment and facing customer rejection of a design that is admittedly fairly radical in appearance.  With Delta introducing this on their 767 aircraft, I suspect the airline’s fears will be reduced and there will be a push to find similar solutions for new fleets.

Weber Aircraft, based in the United States, is offering a much more conventional product that, unfortunately, seems pointed towards high density seating without any emphasis of comfort.  Make of that what you will.

While airlines will no doubt seek to maximize their loads on aircraft and match pricing from their competitors, it becomes increasingly obvious that market capture can be based on these new seating options provided that the airlines themselves will actually market their product.  People still want comfort and the success of a la carte pricing indicates that people will still pay for what they want. 

The challenge is in airlines changing their marketing model both on their own websites as well as through popular travel sites.  When a customer can make their choices from an a la carte menu and choices include better, more comfortable seating that is well described, airlines will both differentiate and sell their product better.  Airlines even have the chance to sell such a product as a business offering to companies that do understand the value of taking care of their employees but who have to now measure that against the often 4 times greater cost of a business class seat.

Filed under: Airline Seating by ajax
1 Comment »

Southwest Airlines has just announced a new codeshare with Mexican airline Volaris (partially owned by billionaire Carlos Slim.)  Like Southwest’s codeshare agreement with WestJet, this allows Southwest to gain access to international markets.  With these agreements with WestJet and Volaris, Southwest gets access to all of North America and gets to work with two airlines that have similar (not the same) operating environments. 

I’m quite certain that these new codeshare routes will, in fact, boost Southwest’s revenues (as well as the revenues of these other participants) and I’m sure both relationships will prove to be rewarding in many ways other than just money.  If one airline could operate throughout North America, it really would look very similar to this codeshare arrangement.  

These two new arrangements for Southwest found me pondering how it could be done better than just a simple codeshare.  One way to further integrate without attempting a merger (something all three airline’s governments are very unlikely to allow) would be operating an interchange. 

An interchange was a fairly common tool in previous decades within the United States.  The idea is that two (or more) airlines operate the same equipment on a route that is shared.  One of the most famous interchanges was when Braniff operated the Concorde from Dallas to Washington D.C. where an Air France or British Airways crew would take over and fly the aircraft across the Atlantic to either London or Paris.  At the time, each time the Concorde arrived in Washington, the aircraft would be “sold” to Braniff who would then hang new ownership papers in the cabin and change the registration temporarily for operation in the United States.  Obviously that kind of inconvenience would not be tolerated today between airlines but there really isn’t a reason for it either.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see Southwest operate such an interchange with each of their partners.  A Southwest aircraft could be used to fly an international interchange between Canada, Mexico and the United States with only crews changing between focus cities for each airline.   For instance, imagine a B737 flown from Toronto to Chicago by a WestJet crew where a Southwest Airlines crew would take over and fly it from Chicago to Houston.  In Houston, a Volaris crew could take over and fly that same aircraft to Mexico City (Toluca) and then turn it around for a return trip.  

The advantage is that customers never have to leave the aircraft and it would therefore permit a more seemless network for transitioning from one country to another.  The only problem with that scenario is that Volaris has an Airbus A320/A319 fleet and while WestJet flies the 737, they are partial to the 737-800 type instead of the 737-700 aircraft preferred by Southwest.   Nonetheless, it does cause one to think about the possibilities that might exist between the three airlines. 

It also points to other opportunities for other airlines.  Codeshares are good and convenient for airlines but they still require a passenger to travel from one hub to another hub and when it comes to international connections, it does force the passenger to often de-plane, clear customs and transition to another part of an airport to continue on to a destination.  Sometimes that isn’t all that painful but more frequently it is a great inconvenience to the passenger and a barrier that many avoid.

With airline alliances relatively stable now, many could choose to adopt similar (if not the same) types of aircraft and offer trans-global interchanges for both companies and their passengers.  It also would allow them to further standardize their service and even possibly take advantage of fleet flexibility between partners.  For instance, what if QANTAS and American Airlines shared a portion of their 787 fleet and allowed it to “flex” between North America and Australia according to seasonal demands?

I suspect there are many more opportunities to be had from both codeshares and, possibly, a new version of interchanges between airlines. 

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

Every now and then you see an airline flying a flight to some very unusual destination.  Two Airtran aircraft were spotted flying to Keflavik, Iceland en route to Europe.  You can see HERE that the aircraft looks as if it departed the Miami area normally and just got lost. 

One reader of FLying Colors is a huge Airtran B737 fan.  Don’t worry.  They sell their aircraft relatively young and buy more.  The fleet will remain the same.

Filed under: Trivia by ajax
1 Comment »