The Fort Worth Star-Telegram is hosting a video produced by American Airlines to show their idea of the 787 flying in AA colors.  You can watch it HERE.

 

Apparently someone in the media department of AA doesn’t know about the inability to have a “polished” fuselage yet.

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

American Airlines just announced that it intends to purchase up to 100 Boeing 787 aircraft between 2012 and 2020 reports the Dallas Morning News Aviation Blog.

 

What I’m most curious about is this:  What color will they paint them?  American has had the tradition of not painting their aircraft although they have painted American Eagle aircraft white (they had to since most of the regional jet aircraft *must* be painted due to the alloy used for their skin) and they did paint their A300 aircraft grey (for the same reason as the regional jet aircraft). 

 

The 787 is made primarily of carbon fibre reinforced plastics and will not be able to be polished.  So, what color will they paint them?  Grey?  Doubtful just because grey doesn’t really represent their image well.  White?  Possibly but then they begin to blend in with several other airlines.   Could this force the introduction of a modified or new identity for American Airlines?

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline Service by ajax
7 Comments »

Not you, the consumer. Oh, we know your type these days. You buy on price and frequency. Next is loyalty to your frequent flyer plan (and some of you even buy based upon gathering your FF miles ahead of price.) You aren’t going to change. You never really have and you never really will. You are the girlfriend/boyfriend who promised to change and never did.

 

It’s time for airlines to fly smart. No, really, it is.

 

Southwest Airlines pioneered the modern strategy that most airlines try to emulate in one form or another. They have a single type of aircraft (Boeing 737) and trade high load factors for high utilization of aircraft and crews. It’s a model that works for them and even for some others. Legacy airlines have adopted a modified model that included narrowing the fleet types which allows not only fewer costs in equipment but also permits airlines to use their staff across a broader range of aircraft.

 

But it appears (to me at least) that that strategy in the current economic climate is going to prove flawed. The truth is, the airline industry tends to have to re-invent itself every 30 years or so. That reinvention has taken the form of a revolutionary change in aircraft or, in the case of the 70’s, a new regulatory climate. Traditionally, it’s aircraft.

 

One of the criticisms of the proposed Delta / Northwest merger is the mish-mash of fleet types they’ll have. The CEO’s of both Delta and Northwest have responded that it in fact appears to be a big advantage in the merger because it will permit them to “right-size” each city pair with the proper aircraft. What this means is that with different fleet types comprimised of aircraft capable of varying efficiencies and loads allows them to fit the right aircraft to the right flight.

 

For example, a flight from Atlanta to Nashville might typically carry an average of 90 passengers per flight and Delta might be using a Boeing 737 for the flight segment that carries about 130 passengers. That means their using a new (high capitol costs but more fuel efficient) airplane to fly the route with an average load factor of 69%. It’s a short flight segment so the fuel efficient engines of the 737 don’t play as big a role in savings as they would on a longer flight. Post Merger, Delta may put a Northwest DC-9-40 on the segment that carries about 110 passengers. Suddenly the capital costs are extremely low (the airplanes were paid for years and years ago and the costs to operate it are maintenance and periodic refurbishment), the load factor is now 81% and flight has about similar fuel and labor costs. What’s more, that 737 can now fly on flight segments with average loads that are much closer to its capacity and which provide greater revenue yields as well.

 

More airlines in the US need to re-examine their fleet strategies. Almost all flights being flown by regional jets of 50 seats or less *lose* money now. Particularly when they are used for “long and thin” routes such as DFW / CLE (Cleveland). An airline of real size (US Legacy carriers but also LCC carriers such as SWA, Jet Blue and Airtran) can benefit from a diversified fleet.

 

There are countless “shuttle” type routes that could yield far more profit by using new, advanced turbo-prop aircraft such as the Bombardier Q400 and ATR-72. There is no rational justification to use regional jets on short segment routes when compared to these advanced turbo-props for instance.

 

An airline could, for instance, fly a Q400 on flights between Dallas and Austin offering 70 seats per flight and make money by filling only half of them per flight. Time flying between cities would be virtually the same as Southwest Airlines’ Boeing 737 and seating would be about as comfortable. The capital costs, maintenance, fuel and labor costs for that aircraft are all significiantly less than the 737 but offer about the same comfort and convenience.

 

Reduced fleet types made sense in the 80’s and 90’s because airlines were focused on the hub and spoke model. It allowed an airline to use aircraft interchangeably and since fuel costs were extraordinarily low, load factors could be as low as 60% and an airline could still make money.

 

Today, airlines need aircraft that are more pin-point appropriate for their routes. Short segment shuttles should be flown by Q400’s while longer segments with greater density should be handled by 737s and A320s. Large trunk routes should be served by Boeing 757s, Airbus A320/321s and even smaller widebody aircraft such as the Boeing 767 and Airbus A330. Longer, thin routes should be served by the upcoming Boeing 787 and A350-900 aircraft while long, high density routes will be better served by the Boeing 777, Airbus A350-1000, Boeing 747-800 and Airbus A380.

 

There will be increased demand for a new kind of aircraft. One that is a re-birth of the original DC-9 and Boeing 737. A 100 to 120 seat aircraft that can fly 25% more efficiently over route segments of 500 to 1000 nautical miles. Bombardier (Canada), Embraer (Brazil), Mitsubishi (Japan), AVIC (China) and Sukhoi (Russia) are all working on such aircraft or already have such aircraft available for order. Boeing and Airbus don’t.

 

The days of flying a regional jet such as an Embraer ERJ-145 or Bombardier CRJ-200 are over. They cannot fly profitably short or long, thin routes anymore as they offer, at best, only 50 seats and a product that is quite unpleasant for trip durations over 1 hour.

 

Legacy airlines no longer can afford to “sit” on routes to protect them for use at later date. All of the capacity cuts made so far are squarely aimed at routes that do not generate sufficient revenue to justify their existence. To serve those routes in the future, they’ll require an aircraft whose economics ENSURE profit.

 

That means airlines will seek to merge and become bigger because size permits greater fleet diversity and fleet diversity means more revenue per passenger. Even airlines such as Southwest, Airtran and Frontier will have to begin considering the value of “right sizing” their fleet to their customers. To some degree, Airtran does that with their mixed fleet of Boeing 717/737 aircraft.

 

Greg

Filed under: Airline Fleets by ajax
No Comments »