Bombardier, unlike Embraer featured yesterday, has become the aerospace company it is today by combining a number of companies together over the past 25 years.   Its first purchase was Canadair (maker of the Challenger 600), then Short Brothers (maker of the Shorts 360), LearJet and, finally, Dehaviland (Canada) from Boeing. 

Notably, products from 3 of those 4 manufacturers exist in one form or another today.  The Canadair Challenger business jet is the basis for the regional jet CRJ-100/200 series.  The Dehaviland Dash 8 / Q400 continues in production today and LearJet is still selling small, affordable business jets.

Bombardier has pursued two lines of growth in the commercial airline world in the form of its regional jets (CRJ series) and the Q400 turbo-prop from its DeHaviland subsidiary.   

The Dash 8 Q400 is arguably the most efficient regional “jet” available today in that the Dash 8 series is powered by 2 Pratt & Whitney (Canada) turbine engines (and actually does derive some tiny percentage of its forward speed from jet “thrust” in addition to its propeller propulsion).   The Q400 has seen some renewed interest in its product line and finds itself in the enviable position of airliners showing strong interest in the far greater efficiency of these aircraft over 500nm sectors (or less.)

Colgan Air (serving as a regional airline to Continental) has adopted a fleet and Frontier Airlines and Horizon Airlines both have new fleets of these aircraft.  Operating costs that are about 1/3 to 1/2 of a regional jet, the Q400 offers comfort (equivalent to a E-Jet), speed (no substantive differences on sectors of 500nm or less from “real” jets) and low entry costs. 

Expect Bombardier not only to continue this line of aircraft but also to improve it over the next few years.  Its conceivable that a still larger model with stronger engines could be offered and become quite competitive on both intra-state (Texas, California) and regional (upper North East, Midwest) routes that are currently served by mainline aircraft.   Their only real competitor, ATR, does offer similar aircraft but lacks the financial muscle and diversification of most other aerospace companies. 

Everyone wants to fly a jet.

Bombardier has a strong, successful line of regional jets that began with the CRJ100/200 series seating 50 passengers and first offered in 1991.  This series has now been superseded by the CRJ700/900 series seating from 70 to 90 passengers and first offered in 2001.  The CRJ1000 is in development and offers a 100 passenger capacity and should enter service some time in 2010. 

The early CRJ100/200 jets were 2×2 seating that was cramped and had limited headroom whereas the new(er) CRJ700/900/1000 offer increased headroom and legroom using the same size fuselage.    Both series have seen extensive service with a wide variety of airlines around the world. 

The next generation of aircraft, the C-Series, launched in 2008, offers the promise of a wider fuselage accommodating 3×2 seating and from 110 to 140 passengers.  This aircraft will be among the first to use the Pratt & Whitney Geared Turbo Fan engine and,  with the use of extensive composite materials, should be among the most efficient in its class. 

In addition, the range offered by these aircraft put them into near trans-continental reach and certainly encroach a great deal of territory currently held by Boeing and Airbus. 

This program, first launched in 2006, first saw a suspension due to a lack of orders and then it was re-started in 2008.  Currently, only Lufthansa has made a commitment to the aircraft (30 options) but the range and efficiency of this proposed series should attract other airlines in the next year or so. 

Like Embraer, Bombardier must grow and growth means launching future aircraft into Boeing and Airbus’ territory.   Bombardier, so far, has shown an inclination towards going it alone into this territory by pushing forward with its next series. 

The next step for Bombardier (in about 10 years time) may be a real mainline aircraft seating from 140 to 180 people in a 2×3 or 3×3 configuration.  This will be dependent on whether or not their CRJ-700/900/1000 series aircraft require an update and whether or not the market for a sub-100 seat regional jet continues to exist (likely). 

Bombardier is challenged by its location in Canada (Montreal) with strong ties to unions and an expensive supplier base.  In addition, Bombardier has experienced difficulties in ramping up and maintaining high volume production.  Although they have experimented with assembly in China by shipping complete assembly packages there for construction, they have no real ties to other parts of the world that could lead to reduced manufacturing costs (most particularly labor costs.)

Bombardier will continue as a viable and competitive aerospace company.  Whether it can last in competition with Embraer and (in the future) Boeing and Airbus remains to be seen.  Embraer has the advantage on costs while Airbus and Boeing have an advantage in knowledge.  They may become the regional airliner firm to beat with Embraer moving up a class against Boeing and Airbus.

Filed under: Aircraft Development by ajax
No Comments »

I don’t spend a lot of time on two aircraft manufacturers who really are the first real potential competitors to Boeing and Airbus in the future.  Embraer and Bombardier. 

Let’s take a look at Embraer today.  Embraer, a Brazilian aerospace company, got its start in the 1960’s and entered the commercial aviation world with its EMB 110 Bandeirante (1968) and EMB 120 Brasilia (1983) serving the small commuter turbo-prop market. 

These tough aircraft from Brazil managed to serve a need in many US markets and I remember them flying for American Airlines in the 1980’s and 1990’s.  American Airlines used them to fly multi-stop routes from their DFW hub and others such as Delta and United used them similarly from their hubs.

It was the ERJ-145 that Embraer brought to market in 1995 that took this company to a new level.   This line of regional jets were the first to combine small size (as few as 30 seats and as many as 50 seats) with modern turbine jet engines to provide a (near) mainline aircraft experience to the small feeder routes of major airlines.   Unfortunately, these aircraft were only economical to operate when jet fuel was inordinately cheap through the 1990’s and early 2000’s. 

Embraer knew this and began development on a larger, more capable family of airliners that aren’t quite regional jets and aren’t quite mainliner jets.  These new jets, now referred to as “E-Jets”, are the ERJ-170/190 family and this is where Embraer signaled its willingness to encroach on the territory of Boeing and Airbus. 

The E-Jets, introduced in 2002, have a seat capacity ranging from 80 to 120 people in an all coach configuration and, at first glance, that doesn’t seem to quite reach into the 737/A320 territory but its worth another look.  The E-Jets, at least the larger E-190/195, offer similar size and range to the early 737-100/200 and the first DC-9 series aircraft.   This was confirmed when David Neeleman (founder of Morris Air and jetBlue) chose them to start his new airline in Brazil, Azul.   US Airways is now deploying this aircraft on its East Coast shuttle routes. 

These aircraft offer something that neither the 737, A320 or DC-9 never offered:  no middle seats.   Designed for a 2×2 configuration, these aircraft offer a coach experience that really is no different than the current offerings from Boeing and Airbus and, in some cases, really better.   These aircraft are now serving the routes originally serviced by first generation 737’s and DC-9’s. 

And what’s next?  Embraer has shown it has the technical expertise to offer a mainline aircraft and if it expects to grow as a company, the next step will find it offering a 737/A320 competitor.  If timing is anything to go by, I would be unsurprised by a new airliner being offered in 5 years or so and quite likely offering the new Pratt & Whitney GTF engine.  

With both Boeing and Airbus deferring development on the 737 and A320 series of aircraft for as much as 10 more years, there is an opportunity there for makers such as Embraer and Bombardier since even major US airlines are eager to re-develop their fleets with more fuel efficient aircraft.

At some point, both Boeing and Airbus will have to make a few choices.  They can choose to cede the 100 to 140 seat market which is tough to imagine given that this where aircraft are truly mass produced. 

They can choose to form a partnership with Embraer and/or Bombardier and co-market a new aircraft under one or the other’s brand names.  Airbus has some ties to Embraer and Bombardier has had contact with Boeing over the years but neither has anything approaching what would be called a close tie.  I think there is some likelihood of this happening and, frankly, I expect that whoever forms ties with Embraer is likely to succeed.  Embraer has a bit more financial strength and a much cheaper labor base to manufacture from than Bombardier (located in union-heavy Canada).

The final choice is to go head to head with Embraer and Bombardier.  From a personal viewpoint, I hope that both Boeing and Airbus take this route.  It can mean only better aircraft in the future for everyone.  However, both Boeing and Airbus are currently manufactured in areas with strong union ties (Boeing is reducing this risk with the establishment of an assembly line in South Carolina and Airbus is “experimenting” with an assembly line in China for low production volumes) and with a relatively expensive supplier base. 

There is no doubt that Embraer offers a great product and certainly possesses the ability to take it to yet another level.  They are poised to take advantage of another family of aircraft that could be made in a way that type ratings between the E-Jets and a new, larger family could be shared.  This would be very attractive to a wide variety of airlines.  

Whatever their choice, Embraer is one to watch.

Filed under: Aircraft Development by ajax
1 Comment »

The Boeing 787 and Airbus A350xwb are commonly compared to each other over the past few years but are they really similar aircraft?

In one sense, yes, they are.  Both aircraft make substantial use of CFRP for instance.  Boeing makes the fuselage of the 787 as a full “barrel” and Airbus plans to use CFRP panels using an more conventional structure underneath.  Both will also use similar engine and engine technologies although Boeing is using a system that eliminates “bleed air” from its systems for the first time while Airbus retains it. 

They are both aimed at the medium to long range market although Boeing’s 787-3 (if it ever comes to fruition) is aimed at domestic markets primarily in Japan with a planned range of about 3000 nautical miles maximum.  When the introduction of this aircraft was delayed in favor of the 787-8 and 787-9, Japan Air Lines transferred its orders to the 787-8 and All Nippon Airlines reduced its order and transferred the remaining to the 787-8.  Ultimately, I suspect this aircraft may be developed to offer trans-Atlantic, US transcontinental and Japanese domestic capability.   That would mean a range increase of probably as much as 1000 nautical miles which would still be 1500 or more nautical miles less than other 787 models.

Both were initially introduced as 3 models.  Boeing has firmly offered the 787-3/8/9 and Airbus has firmly offered the A350-800/900/1000.   However, the variants of each manufacturer do not match up one for one.

The 787-3 and 787-8 will be a bit smaller than the first A350-800 model.  Instead, Airbus targeted its A350-800 model to match up against the 787-9.  The A350-900 and 1000 more accurately match up against the Boeing 777-200/300 aircraft. 

What drove the development of each of these aircraft is more important and shows the difference.  Boeing needed a replacement for both the 767 and the 757.  Those models were more than 20 years old and had issues with continuing to be capable aircraft for airlines.  The 767 was unable to carry cargo competitively with the A330 and A300 Airbus models and its engines were becoming fuel inefficient for many routes.  The 757 had morphed to a medium haul / trans-Atlantic model but didn’t quite have the legs to reach Europe except from extreme East Coast destinations. 

Boeing already had the 777-200 which filled a gap between its 747-200/400 models and it didn’t need to replace it since the 777/200ER was quite young and it had the 777-200LR coming online shortly.  It needed an aircraft that was capable of carrying a passenger load from 230 to nearly 300 with a full cargo load on at least medium range routes of 5000 nautical miles or more. 

In addition, airline trunk routes were fracturing so it needed its next aircraft to be capable of flying much longer routes so the new aircraft had to be capable of flying routes from 5000nm to 8000nm efficiently.  Something that the 767 wasn’t capable of and the 777 wasn’t very suited to capacity wise for the shorter ranges.   So Boeing defined the 787 to fill that gap.

Airbus was faced with a different problem.  The A330 was and is still a strong seller and an excellent competitor for the 777-200 on medium range routes.  It had the A380 coming online as a competitor to the 747 which left a large gap between the A380 and A330 because airlines had never really bought into the A340 model line.  The A340 was an inefficient competitor to the 777-200/300 line of aircraft because it used 4 engines (as opposed to 2 engines) and possessed a fuselage that was slightly too narrow to be stretched for more capacity without other problems cropping up. 

What Airbus didn’t have was a real 777 competitor and that’s what it needed.  After going through several definitions of the new aircraft, it arrived at the A350xwb.  The A350xwb-900/1000 compete directly with the 777-200/300 models in capacity and range.   However, where customers are already seeing a deficiency is in cargo capacity. 

Although the A350 is not yet completely defined, it appears that while it may have lower costs per available seat mile, the 777 will continue to be able to lift and carry several tons more cargo in addition to its passengers.  In real world operations, the two may be very even competitors unless and until Airbus is able to offer higher thrust engines (100K pounds of thrust or better), this deficiency will remain.  Currently, Rolls-Royce has shown some willingness to build to that thrust capability (borrowing on their engine technology for the 777) but GE has shown no interest in developing a new engine using GEnx technology to meet the specifications of Airbus’ A350-1000 model leaving a large gap.  GE sees such an engine cutting into its current customer base on the 777.  Current 777-200LR and 777-300ER models have GE engines capable of 110K and 115K thrust respectively.

Both models promise to be excellent, successful aircraft because they fill needs for each manufacturer’s customers.  Both brands needed those models to fill very important places in their lineups.   Even airlines see these aircraft as more complimentary than competitors as evidenced by many large airlines ordering both models. 

The Boeing 787 promises to be successful with US, European, Japanese and, possibly, Australian airlines.  South American airlines will likely follow in 5 to 10 years.   This aircraft will serve airlines whose routes are either long and thin or those that have high frequency. 

The Airbus A350 will serve routes that are fat and long primarily and will likely be used by airlines based in the Middle East, South East Asia, India, Australia and by some in Europe.   This aircraft is more a trunk route airliner that will serve routes with lots of density, low to medium frequency and of 5500nm distance (at the least).

It is notable that Airbus faces an issue that Boeing doesn’t have with the 787 and that is customer base.  Nominally, both companies have a healthy order book for each respective aircraft.  The 787 has well over 800 orders and the A350 has well in excess of 500 orders.   Both have an average of 15 orders per customer even.  However, the customer base for the A350 is really quite a bit more narrow than Boeing’s.

Airbus has roughly 505 orders for its A350 aircraft line up and of that, the only truly significant large quantity orders come from a few airlines based in the Middle East or South East Asia.  More than half of those orders (284) are attributed to just 13 customers from Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia.  Of those 13 customers, 7 customers should be considered as somewhat dubious in light of the present world wide economic climate in the airline industry.  Of the remaining 6 customers, 3 airlines and one leasing company (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar and DAE Capital) account for 205 of those orders.  The A350 will need to find a wider customer base for all its models to reduce the risk the order book currently has.   Those three main airlines are each based in the UAE (United Arab Emirates) and while successful today, have dubious opportunities for their continued growth over time. 

Boeing’s order book is stretched more evenly across airlines of the world and on most continents.  While Boeing does have some dubious order holders, they are fewer overall and comprise a vastly smaller portion of the order book both percentage-wise and in total orders.   Boeing has much less risk in its order book.

Boeing should begin deliveries to customers in the 4th quarter of 2010 or about 10 months from now.  With a second production line expected to come online in 2 to 3 years, Boeing is well placed to fill its orders and have enough production slack to fill new orders from major airlines.   Within the next 2 years, expect to see the 787-10 defined and design work begun.  The 787-10 will likely be a 777-200 competitor in some respects but it also allows Boeing to define a new 777 or replacement model that reaches further upwards in capacity in the future.

Boeing’s next moves are likely to be, in order, the 787-9, the 787-10 and then either a refresh of the 777 model as a next generation enhancement with extensive use of composite materials, new engine technology and likely following a systems approach similar to the 787.  If it isn’t a refresh of the 777, it will be a new model to replace the 777 with capacities just above the present 777-200 and finishing with capacities a bit past the current 777-300.   A 737 replacement should follow once that 777 issue is nearing production.

Airbus currently has the A330 and plans to continue production for several more years.  However, Airbus is due to be left with two serious gaps.  First, the gap between the A321 and the A330 which nominally should be filled with a 787 competitor.   This is likely where Airbus goes next but not before 2015 or later.  Then, Airbus also has a bit of a gap between the A350-1000 and the A380.  This gap really isn’t so important for the next 10 years but its one they’ll have to watch since Boeing will be positioned to offer a right-sized aircraft in that market in the form of a 777-refresh, 777 replacement and their about to be introduced 747-8i.  After filling the A321/A330 gap, Airbus will likely go to work on their A320 series replacement which, I suspect, will be sized at slightly larger capacities than the current A318/319/320/321 lineup.

Filed under: Aircraft Development by ajax
2 Comments »

For more than 10 years, much has been made of the “launch aid” given to EADS/Airbus for producing new aircraft.  A recent preliminary WTO (World Trade Organization) ruling has said that the aid given for launching and producing the A330 was illegal. 

Europe/Airbus has prosecuted a counter-claim to Boeing stating that the tax incentives given by both states and the federal government as well as defense industry contracts illegally aids Boeing.

To a lot of people, it seems as if both sides have a point.  To Louis Gallois, CEO of EADS/Airbus, it certainly seems that way.  He’s actively pursued independent negotiations to settle the issues away from the WTO.   Boeing, on the other hand, has remained steadfast.

Like a lot of conflicts such as these, there are valid points on both sides.  I think the best way to look at the issue(s) is to test them according to a standard of transparency and economic competitiveness.

Airbus actively competes with Boeing around the world and does a fine job of it as well.  There is no doubt that their aircraft are world class and quite capable of competing in the marketplace against Boeing’s products.  An airline who buys Airbus isn’t putting itself at a disadvantage. 

It’s how Airbus got there that rankles most.  Originally a state financed consortium of aerospace manufacturers, Airbus received open funding from national governments to produce aircraft.  Ordinarily, this tends to be a bad idea since the product produced is often not market competitive.  That certainly wasn’t the case with Airbus’ products.  They sell on features and capability.  The A320 series can be considered the equal of the Boeing 737 series.  The same is true across the line.

It was important to Europe to find a way to continue building airliners and there is a good argument that the rise of Airbus has kept Boeing (and, previously, McDonnell Douglas) honest.  I would certainly agree with that.   Indeed, one could say that the demise of McDonnell Douglas’ commercial aircraft business was due, in part, to the rise of Airbus since MD found it very difficult to compete against Airbus’ aggressive pricing strategies in markets where McDonnell Douglas was the legacy supplier (Europe and parts of Asia as well as the United States.)

The line was crossed when Airbus didn’t transition to a self financing entity as the A330/A340 aircraft were being developed.   Airbus didn’t have to go to the market to borrow money, they went back to the respective European governments for more “aid”.   And the biggest part of the problem is that the aid wasn’t exactly required to be paid back.  The conditions were that *if* Airbus sold that line into profitability, the governments would start receiving a portion of those profits. 

That’s a big if.   Indeed, the current Airbus A380 program points to the problem with such a murky requirements.   This is an aircraft that, at best, has an extremely limited market and continues to struggle even with low volume production.  Deliveries are massively delayed and Airbus continues to depend on orders from a relatively few airlines to support the production.  At the same time, there is no pressure from the financial markets and/or shareholders to justify the production with potential profits.  Lacking that pressure, Airbus continues with a program that could never last in the United States.

The same was true for the A330/A340 program.  While the A330 is an unqualified success, the A340 never was.   The problem with this program is that the A330 succeeded not just on capability but price.  Airbus didn’t have to pay the rent on the money it borrowed to develop and sell the aircraft and was able to offer a capable aircraft at a price competitive with the Boeing 767.  It’s notable that, in many respects, it should have been competing on price with the Boeing 777 instead. 

In the United States, it’s true that we do support our manufacturing base with certain tax incentives.  However, it is notable that while Boeing might not have kept its production in Washington state, its laughable to believe it would have traveled outside of the United States.  Those tax incentives merely kept production where it was inside the US and even those incentives no longer seem to be enough.  Witness Boeing setting up a second production line for the 787 in South Carolina.

When Boeing needs to raise money to launch such a venture, it has to go to the international capital markets and borrow money.  Boeing must pay market interest rates for that money and, most importantly, it must make a solid case for the product they want to produce and its potential profitability.  I assure you that capital markets are an unforgiving place and without justification for their request for money, no one would loan it to them.

Boeing does receive research and development funds for defense work that does contribute to its body of knowledge for building commercial aircraft.  Boeing’s capability in manufacturing CFRP (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic) derives from such defense programs.  However, there is a difference in how Boeing gets those funds.

Boeing must compete with a number of aerospace companies for those funds and justify its ability to deliver.  Those aerospace companies are largely US based but also include companies from Europe such as BAE, Airbus and others.   In order to receive that funding, the companies must make a financial case for them being the best to receive funding and if those companies prove incapable of delivering results on a funded program, it usually is terminated by the government.  The US Defense Department doesn’t just continue to fund a program for the sake of funding it. 

The difference in these arguments about illegal funding between Boeing and Airbus is really about transparency and competitiveness.  Boeing must be transparent and routinely demonstrate to the markets and the US government that it is not only doing what it said it would do but also succeeding in the world market place.  Airbus, on the other hand, answers to governments whose prime interest is in supporting an aerospace industry and has yet to have to justify itself to the world marketplace. 

I suspect that if the European governments involved in Airbus had adopted a hands off approach with the A380 program, the US government and Boeing would have declined to pursue a WTO case against Airbus.   I think some sort of arrangement would have still been possible if Airbus had justified their new A350 program in the world marketplace but they once again gratuitously accepted launch aid from governments who brazenly offered it in spite of their pledge to be fair participants within the WTO.

Both France and Germany have been particularly bad in their behaviour on all things Airbus.  National leaders of both governments have been known to fly to countries where Airbus is competing for a sale and nakedly pitch the Airbus product as a national interest priority and make the sale with inducements such as defense sales and other side trade agreements.  The United States has been known to flirt with this but never has engaged in such open pimping of their own industries.

The KC-X tanker program is the next battlefield.  Pitched against the DoD’s desire to have a real competition for the program (there are only two remaining manufacturers in the world capable of producing the aircraft:  Boeing and Airbus) and the fact supported case that the Airbus A330 derived tanker was and continues to receive state sponsored support and aid.*

What happens?  The United States has a decision to make in the next 2 to 3 years.  It either aggressively stops the unfair trade practices of the European governments (primarily France and Germany) or it must decide to fight fire with fire.   Wisely, the US government wants to avoid having to resort to the same tactics to support the US aerospace industry because they know the consequences are potentially very bad.  Competitiveness in our aerospace industry is, quite literally, what has kept us on the top of the hill when its comes to our nation’s defense.

Those same European aerospace industries supporting Airbus, also participate in the US defense contracts and have become essential to the US defense.  Companies such as BAE Systems are now prime contractors producing for the US and to ban them from competition is both bad for the US as well as the US industries.   Such is the web a global marketplace produces. 

My guess is that the US will seek to defend its ground by offering even more support to businesses and governments around the world in the form of low cost or no cost financing.   US Trade Representatives will be empowered to offer better and better terms to facilitate those sales and its hard to compete with the financial might of the US government.  

Until the US starts to aggressively combat EADS/Airbus and their supporting governments, the practices won’t stop.   Those governments have always pursued such policies and have never stopped engaging them until it became unprofitable to do so.   There is no historical precedent for them to play “fair” with, possibly, the exception of the UK.

*  Nominally the KC-X tanker program is a competition between Boeing and Northrup Grumman.  However, Northrup Grumman essentially is the “front” for Airbus where Airbus will produce the base airframe and Northrup Grumman will do the conversion modifications in Alabama.  NG and Airbus have promised to ultimately produce the A330 in Alabama after the first 20 or so airframes are built.  However, the A330 airframe isn’t that much younger than the 767 and the market for the aircraft is already quickly diminishing with the rise of the 787, A350 and even the 777.  The idea that a single tanker program could justify setting up such an assembly line without commercial demand is far fetched at best.   It’s a promise that is easily taken back after production started.

Filed under: Aircraft Development by ajax
No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Random Speculations:

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

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

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

The Seattle Times is reporting that Korean Air Lines has signed a Memorandum of Understanding to purchase five 747-8 Intercontinental aircraft, the passenger version of the 747-8.

Amazingly enough, it’s been 3 years since Boeing landed an order for the passenger version of the aircraft and while this signals some movement on that model, all is not what it seems here.  You see, without background, this is an order that should have been Airbus’ to lose given the density of many of Korean Air Lines routes. 

Does it make a difference that Korean Air Lines also makes part of the Boeing 747-8?  I’m sure it does.  While I’m confident Korean Air Lines wouldn’t make an order for an aircraft that was fundamentally unsuitable for the airline’s routes, I’m equally sure that this was Boeing’s to lose.

Nonetheless, it’s nice to see the passenger version notch up another 5 orders.   Presently there are 32 orders for the passenger version comprised of a Lufthansa order for 20, Korean Air Lines order for another 5 and 7 unidentified VIP orders.   An additional 78 orders for the freighter version exist and first flight of the 747-8F is expected sometime soon.

Filed under: Aircraft Development 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 »

USA Today’s Today in the Sky blog is reporting that Vietnam Airlines is ordering 4 A-380 and 2 A-350XWB aircraft from Airbus and this strikes me as a bit odd.   The airline says it will use the aircraft for possible long haul routes to the United States and Europe but a little background into the airline tells me this might either be a vanity order or a political order.

First, while Vietnam Airlines does own and operate Airbus aircraft already (A-320 series and A-330 series), it’s chosen high capacity, long haul aircraft is the 777-200 at present (it owns 12) and has orders for the 787-800 and 787-900 (16 total with an original entry into service of 2010).   The 777-200 is an excellent aircraft for the airline for long haul, high capacity routes it might fly to both Europe and the United States already and if additional range or capacity is needed, they could add the 777-200LR or 777-300ER to the fleet and keep commonality in their fleet.  In addition, their soon to be arriving 787 aircraft are also already capable of the distances needed and engine type selections (not yet indicated) could already permit them to experience savings from similar (although not exactly the same) types being operated between the two aircraft (GE or RR).

In addition, the current economy has reduced leisure travel to Vietnam from both Europe and North America so much that one really does wonder how Vietnam Airlines expects to keep those A-380 aircraft full year round.  It is an aircraft that best serves high density, long haul routes that see lots of traffic all year.  In addition, the A350-900XWB doesn’t really offer them more in capacity over the 777 and offers less lift for cargo on similar long haul routes.   The kinds of routes that Vietnam Airlines is most likely to fly are already best served with a fleet in place (777) and a fleet about to arrive (787).

I have an odd feeling that this order is political.   Airbus hasn’t seen a new order for the A-380 since 2006 and its been a very dry season for the A-350 as well.  With the political ties that exist between France and Vietnam and the report that Vietnam will also see Airbus contract to have certain parts made in Vietnam, this feels like France once again bolstering Airbus and a much smaller state with economic ties to France giving in to pressure.  I suspect the likelihood of an Airbus A-380 ever showing up in Vietnam Airlines blue livery is very small if at all.  

France is one of Vietnam’s largest trade partners at present and it’s notable that this order came after France’s Prime Minister made a personal visit to Vietnam to promote trade between the two countries.  It has been quite common for French Prime Minister and French President to make visits to seal deals on behalf of Airbus in the past.

Filed under: Airline Fleets, Airline News by ajax
5 Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Wallace of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reporting today on Airbus and notes a Wall Street Journal report that quotes Tom Enders of Airbus saying:

 

He disclosed that the A380 superjumbo program remains troubled by teething problems in its industrial phase, and that the company now expects just 18 deliveries of the world’s largest passenger aircraft this year, down from a previous target of 21 that was revised from 24 last year.

I optimistically forecast that Airbus would *increase* its deliveries over their projected schedule in this post. 

That’s a significant reduction in deliveries for Airbus and the A380.  What it means is that Airbus will suffer financially on that program even more now that they will be unable to receive the forecasted revenue for 3 of the A380 deliveries.  The list price fo the A380 is about $320 million for each aircraft.  Even with significant discounts, that 3 aircraft reduction in the schedule means reduced revenue of nearly $1billion. 

It would seem that, this time, the problems are that the computer models for production of the aircraft did not take into account the effects of gravity on the aircraft structure itself and, accordingly, some assemblies and parts won’t fit correctly on production aircraft. 

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

Here is an image of the area where US Airways Flt 1549 went down. It landed somewhere in the middle of the river just a hair south of where the Hoboken label is. It has since floated to near the Battery Park Pier shown in the lower right of the image.

CLICK HERE FOR IMAGE.

Filed under: Airline News by ajax
No Comments »

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

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

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

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

Here are a few more random predictions:

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

Happy New Year Everyone.

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

In keeping with the theme set with yesterday’s post, let’s continue on with some predictions.

The MIddle East

Emirates, Qatar and Etihad:  All airlines that have aggressive growth plans (both in fleet size and the capacity of their aircraft) that don’t seem to be based in reality.  While each of those airlines has successfully developed themselves into eastern hemisphere global airlines, what’s next?  There are few opportunities to grow to the United States or the Far East (both range and regional prejudices apply there) and that leaves Europe (somewhat saturated already) and Africa (not a real place to grow due to low demand).   But they have to fill an amazing number of widebody aircraft they’ve ordered.  We won’t see a merger or a bankruptcy here but I do believe we’ll see these airlines start to reconsider the orders they have on the books and they will slow their growth by deferring these orders.

China

China’s airlines have been on a buying binge as well but, again, with a weakening domestic economy as well as a weakening international economy, they have no place to go.  Like the Middle East contenders, they are likely going to start deferring orders as well. 

The Far East

Airlines based in Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia and Singapore will all maintain their status quo more or less.  There is some possibility that some orders may be deferred but I will bet that some airlines will actually make new orders for new aircraft although not for growth but for greater operating efficiency.

Australia

QANTAS and its affiliate Jetstar have made major investments in new aircraft and major plans in new market development.  However, development of new routes in the Far East and Southeast Asia will slow or even contract as reduced demand continues.  What’s worse is the new competition they’ll experience on their routes to both Europe and the United States.  I expect some order deferrals (probably for the 787) and growth plans will be slowed or deferred altogether as they retrench in the face of competition.

Virgin Blue / V Australia will be challenged in several ways.   They’ll likely continue to do well in the Australian domestic market but now they face competition in the Australia / United States market not only from QANTAS, Air New Zealand and United Airlines but also from Delta.  There will be too many airlines chasing too few seats in this market and the two most vulnerable airlines, in my opinion, are United and V Australia.  United because its service product pales in comparison to any of the other airlines and V Australia because their business model is based more on economy travel than business and first class.

South America

We’ll not see any real growth (with one exception) and we’ll likely not see any real failures here either.  The governments of South American countries tend to jump in and save their national airlines when doom is near. 

Aerolineas Argentinas should be Argentina’s Alitalia but I suspect a takeover of this airline from Grupo Marsans (a Spanish conglomerate) by the Argentine government will happen sometime this year.   Aerlineas Argentinas will continue to muddle through with a incoherent fleet of Airbus aircraft funded by the government and Argentina will see no growth and possibly some severe contraction in their markets because of a failed air traffic system and a very weak economy.

Brazil will continue to be stable more or less but existing Brazilian airlines will have to now contend with David Neeleman’s new airline, Azul.  Neeleman (who holds dual citizenship in Brazil and the United States) understands Brazil and will be offering a highly competitive, high service airline founded with Embraer E-190 aircraft that are very well suited to the Brazilian market.  It will be jetBlue all over again in Brazil for the next 5 years.  However, I expect this new Neeleman airline will one day become an international airline flying both in South America as well as to Europe and the United States.  I’ll go ahead and predict this development for 2014 and they will use Airbus equipment.

Africa

Not much to say here.  African airlines come and go with stunning frequency and usually without much notice.  Delta will continue to develop routes to Africa but this will be aimed towards the very few, relatively stable, major cities Africa has.  South African Airways will find someway to continue to exist but I expect a switch from Airbus aircraft in their long haul services (A340 aircraft currently) to a Boeing fleet using the 777-200LR and 777-300ER and GE engines.  This switch alone could make them profitable.   My prediction is that we’ll hear about a Request For Information (RFI) or a Request For Proposal (RFP) by the end of the year but more likely at this year’s summer airshow in Paris.  It will be a small order, at first, and quite possibly contingent upon Boeing finding new owners for the A340 aircraft they already own.

India

With their new, highly competitive market, India has become a rather intense version of the US market.   With a weakening economy here as well, I look for consolidation and liquidation as the answer.  Look for Kingfisher to merge with someone else such as Jet Airways with Jet Airways being the name retained by the end of 2009.  Another possibility will be forced mergers and/or liquidations by the Indian government particularly if the current party loses power.  The rather laissez faire experiment in airline deregulation in India has left a bad taste in many people’s mouths, most particularly in the opposition parties not currently in power.  India’s current Prime Minister Singh holds degrees in economics and is widely credited with economic reforms in India but the fractured and unsuccessful airline industry is something for the opposition to make a point of.

Stay Tuned for Part III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 »

An Emirates Airbus A-380 is landing at JFK airport for the first time today.  The flight is scheduled to arrive at around 4:45pm EDT.  As big as that aircraft is, I actually think it would be worth looking up now and then from 4:00pm on just in case.

Filed under: Airplane Spotting by ajax
No Comments »