Ship 741Oh yeah, one last item. I had an Airbus employee mention to me ten-ish years ago that they primarly had three customers:
1. Subsidized (indirectly and directly) European carriers.
2. Third world carriers, often Muslim countries, some unfriendly to the U.S.
3. Struggling and desperate U. S. carriers.
The point of the thread is that USAirways has now cemented itself in the third category. I guess it’s “stupid and useless,” perhaps “monumentally” so to point out things haven’t changed much in the last 10 years……..it isn’t really that much trouble to pass on without resorting to name calling, is it?
Ship 7411. There is a difference between bankruptcy and going out of business. Can anyone deny that Airbus has historically come up with sweetheart deals for failing U.S. carriers? The successful ones order Boeing, and only small numbers of Airbus’s for political reasons (ala Lufthansa in reverse).
2. Can anyone deny that USAirways is in the “lower tier” of U. S. carriers? IMHO they will eventually either go out of business or be merged into another, more successful, carrier. In the meantime, they will continue to be desperate, and desperate carriers in the U.S. have a history of Airbus orders. Their recent bid for Delta was an act of desperation, their desperation.
3. AA only had a paltry 35 A300’s, compared to (give or take) around 100 767’s. Why order “duplicate” airplanes if not for politics? I think most would agree they haven’t had the best relations with AI since the finger pointing after the unfortunate crash in NYC.
4. Its a shame that anyone can reference a crash in which many people died in, shall we say, such an eiskalt manner.
Ship 741Thats fine , but the are totally different market . EK , SQ etc arent competing with ryanair customers. Moreover look at these airlines , there books are becoming better , they are posting nice results , there yeilds on most routes are awsome and they are givng an excellent product. Everytime i have traveled SQ buisness class its been nearly full . Also i have travelled SQ economy on many occasions from Singapore to LAX and there economy product is very good , Not bad price and is usually is full .
For fun sake i did a quick search on JFK – PEK flights (because i might have to go there for buisness) and i can get EK going on 26th economy and comming back 29th june for 2000$ with taxes , and about 7500 for buisness product. I would love if you could do a search for AA , US , CO , DL and what they are asking for this trip .
Plus they are also very competitive
apologies, i haven’t done the requested comparison, but right off the top of my head i know that dl has applied for china twice and lost, due to politics (they are now overhauling domestic 767s at HAECO and re-applying, coincidence?). aa was awarded a china route and their idiot apa pilots caused them to lose it (they are now asking for a 30% raise!!). I would submit that china is a special case due to limited slots, like lhr, but that is changing.
Ship 741As long as they have a good product and are competitive !
Thats great , next time i fly premium i will factor in that delta flight , however it would only take me one thousand”th of a second to decide that emirates has a better product.
Delta is not the only one doing such expansion. However, from Delta’s point of view, would you rather live off the crumbs of an elite international competitor or compete against Air Tran? I think I’d rather be the lean competitor, albeit with less service, but at MUCH less price/cost.
Average yeild for Buisness class travel isnt expected to drop by any significant ammount..Most buisness folks that fly dont use BBJ’s or G4’s . I am amongst the top 5 in my company (private aviation,production line, manufactering consultancy) yet my contract only allows me buisness class , i wish i had a personal G5 though . Ofcourse all of the people working under me fly Either premium economy , economy or buisness themselves.
How bout a job? 🙂
I hope you’ll grant that there are many companies who aren’t so liberal with their travel policies, especially for the non-executives. Many look for a safe, cheaper alternative that has “reasonable” levels of service.
I guess I view airlines like Singapore and the others named as being similar to Pan Am in the 50’s, they are offering premium products against limited competition. Invariably, such a market will attract leaner competitors, and then they had better adapt quick. (unless the total market grows so quick it is able to support both.)
Ship 741Comming back , also yeilds are important but remember airlines like SQ , EK , QR etc charge a premium for the First and buisness class , so they can make healthy profits even if they are only managing to fill 390 seats .
True enough but for how long? I wonder if their yields will disappear, they are gonna get squeezed. On the low end, they will face competition from other carriers, for example, Delta started ATL-DXB yesterday. On the high end, the super rich are going to get on ACJ’s and BBJ’s while the merely hugely rich get on Frax G5’s and Global Express aircraft.
Ship 741The airlines dont give a damn . All they are interested is in low CASM , and if the market , route sructure etc support the size and PAX count then they will buy the aircraft . In practicality the fleet descisions arent made by top airliner enthusiast and technology geek , but are made by financial bean counters so if the no.s add up then they will consider buying the aircraft provided that the no.s add up ofcourse 😉
Ya still gotta fill all those seats to get the yield. Increasingly bottom line focused airline managers have been trying to take seats off the market in recent years to get the price versus demand equation back a little in their favor.
What has a lower CASM in reality: A 748 with 360 pax or an A380 with 390?
Ship 741[QUOTE=bring_it_on;1121558]competitive the aircraft has the LOWEST CASM out of any aircraft currently flying or envisioned ( including the 787,350etc) . QUOTE]
The oft quoted LOWEST CASM is strictly due to number of seats. The efficiency comes from the size, not the technology.
The myth that the low casm comes from anything else is taking on it’s own life, similar to the “767 can’t carry LD-3 containers” myth. Funny how the casm efficiency experts never talk about the fact that the 767 was more efficient than it’s competitor because of the narrower fuselage, nor the fact that it was able to carry LD-3s comfortably, easily facilitating all the bags, it just couldn’t carry them side by side.
Ship 741Not true , the A380 is a very modern aircraft , with very effeceint engines , High use of composites , GLARE , and very modern construction and production proccesses . The A380-800 will have the lowest CASM in the market , once it enters service so it will be very economical .
I guess will have to agree to disagree. I don’t see how anyone can seriously say the A380 is very modern. To me, it is much closer to the 747 than to a truly all new, ground breaking, design like the 787.
I was under the impression that the “very efficient engines” you spoke of were not ground breaking technologically speaking, being basically tweaked versions of earlier engines, or a tweaked amalgamation in the GP case.
Further, I understand that only about 25% of the A380 is composite (not sure if that includes the GLARE), whereas the 787 is slightly more than 50%. What would be the efficiency gains if Boeing were to apply that 50% to a super long range, very heavy, airplane? Also, AI has been building vertical stabs out of kevlar for a long time, the A380 has only slightly more composite content than other recent AI products.
WRT to construction and production processes, I think (please correct me if i am wrong) that the A380 production line is static. Furthermore, I’ve read allegations of inefficient work/share arrangements that were executed for political reasons. I admit this is difficult to quantify.
Ship 741You can dress it up all you like.. the fact remains it’s a forty year old design
And what, pray tell, would make it a “modern” design? Composite fuselage? Truly all new engines? Making the systems “more electric/electronic?” Oh, wait, Boeing is doing all that with the 787…..while the A380 is using 40 year old systems and structures. It’s just bigger 40 year old technology slightly tweaked with stuff like GLARE.
Seems to me AI is going to be in a world of hurt with their white elephant if/when Boeing decides to apply revolutionary 787 technology to their next VLA. Then again, maybe the VLA market is so small that it won’t justify the expense. Maybe demand can be met with 40 year old technology like the A380 and B748.
Ship 741Thanks to all who have responded.
Its a good point that there are bugs that must be worked out once the systems are integrated, but gosh, 2011 seems a long way off. Imagine how much the state of the art in electronics will have progressed in that time, not to mention how much Chinese capabilities will have grown.
Ship 741The money is repayable whether or not the aircaft is making a profit – I’m pretty sure you’ll be able to find some docs on the web about the paying back of the loans. I daresay Airbus would love it if they didn’t have to keep on forking out money on A320s as I’m led to believe that they have repaid substantially more than the amount of money lent to them for that project (err..that sentiment seems rather reminiscent of the company I work for!) .
Several points/questions:
1. How can Airbus continue to pay back if the product is unprofitable? This seems illogical to me, its not as if they can just print money. Doesn’t everyone have to pay back their loans, or declare bankruptcy?
2. If one product is unprofitable, they have to steal assets from another product line, or borrow more money, or get a golden investor, etc. But at some point most real companies have to macroeconomically generate cash.
3. You say Airbus would love it if they didn’t have to repay more than the amount lent to them…….well wouldn’t any borrower love it if they didn’t have to pay interest? Are you saying that they have to pay back more than they would have had to pay if they had borrowed via conventional means? If that is so, what was the benefit of the government backing? Surely they could have attracted private capital at some point.
Please elucidate.
Ship 741It’s worth remembering that the B747 almost broke Boeing in 1969, but turned out to be both a classic design and an absolute money-spinner.
“Wait and see” seems to be very sound advice indeed.
It’s worth remembering that Boeing delivered ninety three (93) 747s in 1970, the second year of deliveries. This huge influx of cash early in the program paid down a lot of the development costs.
By comparison, the A380 EIS is delayed significantly and the early years of deliveries are slow, I think only 24 a year is projected. Meanwhile the interest on the initial investment keeps compounding with no paydown on the principal. (as if Airbus were a real company and not a social progam). At some point, the numbers compound to such an extent that thay can never be paid down.
Ship 741found the B-17 pic with turboprop in nose….not sure which engine this is, there were apparently 4 flown in the nose of the B-17.
Note that all 4 of the conventional piston engines appear to be feathered, B-17 flying on the power of the nose engine alone.
Ship 741Anyone have a picture of the T56 (C-130 engine) mounted in the nose of the B-17 for test flying in 1954?
Ship 741And there will probably be more orders soon from a large airline based in the Southern U.S. which should emerge from bankruptcy within the next 30-60 days.
The only question is whether or not said airline is part of the previously announced orders from unspecified buyers.
Sign In
