Airline Fleet/Management in a crisis

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Airbus was foolish to think an aircraft much bigger than a 747-400 would be very successful.

I wonder what was the demand for new 747s when the A380 was still on the 'drawing board' ?

Airports were foolish to spend big $$$ money to remodel for the A380. I knew when UPS and FedEx had no interest in this aircraft..... the A380 would have a short career with passenger airlines.



By the time AIrbus committed to the A380 Boeing had already replaced the 747 with its own 777.
The Airbus answer to the 747 was the A340 which the 777 killed in the market.
Both Airbus and Boeing forecast thousand frame markets in the VLA space and Airbus did gain ten orders each from Fedex and UPS for the proposed freighter.
Airbus saw a market of hub to hub or focus city to hub flying where a VLA would work well.
One airline built its operations around the A380 and trampled all of its competitors until the current crisis,
That the extant -800 version was built with greater structural weight and more wing than it needed to accomodate the anticipated freighter and -900 developments along with older generation engines did not help the program.
WRT airport mods, they would have made no sense at a place like MCO but were needed at airports like JFK, LAX and even LAS that saw multiple A380s each day,
We saw them in Ohio about as much as you would have in Florida, like never, but when connecting through or terminating in a large international airport, I can recall telling wife "wow, there's an A380 !" but then another couple of them would come.
Too bad the whole project didn't quite work out.

Not sure was it 777 or competition within the house in A330.


I don't think that the mid-nineties A330 had enough useful load or was capacious enough to obsolete the A340.
The 777 had more of both and the A340-500 and -600 programs proved to be expensive dead ends.

Yeah, 777 is bit larger than 330, but 330 proved to be bestseller same as 777. 340-500 and 600 were just inefficient. Plus, Airbus did not deliver even on promised fuel consumption with 346. The fact that Airbus can basically put bit of make up on 330, put new engines and find bunch of customers for 900 version, proves that this was jack pot for Airbus.

 

[fdcg27]

Airbus can also afford to offer the A330 at a compelling price and as such it can be a great alternative to the B787 for which Boeing has to get more money although this also means that it is an alternative to the A350.
For all but the longest routes, the A330 works just fine and we've found the type to be very comfortable if you grab a window pair of seats or even better if you can get a cheap upgrade to the front cabin.
The A330 program has had real legs.

 

[nthach]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
the A340-500 and -600 programs proved to be expensive dead ends.

I've read Airbus had to fire sale the A345/346 to Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways - which allowed SQ to fly a EWR-SIN route non-stop but those Rolls-Royce engines on them are pigs. There was a EU or Thai government investigation into Rolls-Royce I thought too?

 

[4WD]

Think it was the same as the LAX >>> SIN that I used to fly.
Only 100 business class seats and sometimes half full.
Great for passenger … not for airline …

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27
the A340-500 and -600 programs proved to be expensive dead ends.

I've read Airbus had to fire sale the A345/346 to Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways - which allowed SQ to fly a EWR-SIN route non-stop but those Rolls-Royce engines on them are pigs. There was a EU or Thai government investigation into Rolls-Royce I thought too?


OTOH, in fairness, no model of the A340 ever had optimized engines available while the 777 had state of the art offerings from the world's three principle producers of gas turbines at introduction.
Maybe the engine makers had figured out that the future was in large twins?
Also, a twin needs to have much more installed power than a four engine aircraft to meet engine out requirements on accelerating to takeoff and in the event that one is lost the crew and the passengers might get to enjoy as much as five hours of single engine flight to the nearest suitable field while the loss of one of four engines is but a minor concern and the aircraft can probably continue to its planned destination.
There are trade-offs involved and they aren't all about safety of flight.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27
the A340-500 and -600 programs proved to be expensive dead ends.

I've read Airbus had to fire sale the A345/346 to Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways - which allowed SQ to fly a EWR-SIN route non-stop but those Rolls-Royce engines on them are pigs. There was a EU or Thai government investigation into Rolls-Royce I thought too?

I think issue was also weight distribution, not sure. Airbus paid back some money to airlines.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27
the A340-500 and -600 programs proved to be expensive dead ends.

I've read Airbus had to fire sale the A345/346 to Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways - which allowed SQ to fly a EWR-SIN route non-stop but those Rolls-Royce engines on them are pigs. There was a EU or Thai government investigation into Rolls-Royce I thought too?


OTOH, in fairness, no model of the A340 ever had optimized engines available while the 777 had state of the art offerings from the world's three principle producers of gas turbines at introduction.
Maybe the engine makers had figured out that the future was in large twins?
Also, a twin needs to have much more installed power than a four engine aircraft to meet engine out requirements on accelerating to takeoff and in the event that one is lost the crew and the passengers might get to enjoy as much as five hours of single engine flight to the nearest suitable field while the loss of one of four engines is but a minor concern and the aircraft can probably continue to its planned destination.
There are trade-offs involved and they aren't all about safety of flight.

Four engines? Always remind me of Swiss German accent in this video where Germans cannot figure out what language they are speaking:

 

[4WD]

Late last year I got a nice upper deck business class seat in a BA 744 … I felt then it was the last time

End of the jumbo: British Airways retires 747 early due to coronavirus crisis

British Airways, the world's largest operator of Boeing 747s, will retire its entire jumbo jet fleet with immediate effect after the COVID-19 pandemic sent air travel into freefall.

www.reuters.com

 

[Dave Hess]

Government will extend grants for airlines in October cause the industry will be in shambles for the next few years.

 

[Astro14]

Government will extend grants for airlines in October cause the industry will be in shambles for the next few years.

I hope you’re right.

 

[edyvw]

Government will extend grants for airlines in October cause the industry will be in shambles for the next few years.

They should, but I am sceptic about process.

 

[wpod]

Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by nthach
Originally Posted by fdcg27
the A340-500 and -600 programs proved to be expensive dead ends.

I've read Airbus had to fire sale the A345/346 to Virgin Atlantic, Singapore Airlines and Thai Airways - which allowed SQ to fly a EWR-SIN route non-stop but those Rolls-Royce engines on them are pigs. There was a EU or Thai government investigation into Rolls-Royce I thought too?


OTOH, in fairness, no model of the A340 ever had optimized engines available while the 777 had state of the art offerings from the world's three principle producers of gas turbines at introduction.
Maybe the engine makers had figured out that the future was in large twins?
Also, a twin needs to have much more installed power than a four engine aircraft to meet engine out requirements on accelerating to takeoff and in the event that one is lost the crew and the passengers might get to enjoy as much as five hours of single engine flight to the nearest suitable field while the loss of one of four engines is but a minor concern and the aircraft can probably continue to its planned destination.
There are trade-offs involved and they aren't all about safety of flight.

Four engines? Always remind me of Swiss German accent in this video where Germans cannot figure out what language they are speaking:

The cockpit crew is up to their elbows in work !!

 

[wpod]

I hope you’re right.

The major Airlines are I would guess a national asset.

 

[edyvw]

The major Airlines are I would guess a national asset.

They are, especially after mergers and diminishing competition.

 

[edyvw]

Astro, what is the word on the street when it comes to UAL? Are you moving to 787? I know this is definitely something you did not want to hear.

 

[nthach]

I wonder if more long-haul airlines will consider the A350, given the quality control issues at Boeing. Read somewhere a few airlines weren’t happy with their 787-10s and Boeing announced this week all 787 production is moving to South Carolina where the -10 is made.

 

[Astro14]

Major airlines ARE a national asset.

The preponderance of air freight goes in the belly of passenger airliners. The majority of crisis response medical supplies was carried by airliners, the freight companies simply did not have the capacity. More than 70% of the air cargo going across the Pacific goes in the belly of passenger aircraft.

People love to hate the airlines, but if the airlines shrink and get smaller, it means that small cities will lose service. The big cities will continue to have big markets and healthy competition, but if you live in a city like Manchester New Hampshire, pullbacks by airlines mean you had better get used to driving down to Boston if you want to catch a reasonable flight.

 

[Astro14]

So, at my airline...

United announced, in July, plans to furlough 36,000 employees. 36% of the total.

Through early outs, voluntary leaves, and an extraordinary agreement with the pilot’s union, that
cut was dramatically reduced and United furloughed 13,000 this week. Still harsh, but 1/3 of what was anticipated.

Passenger traffic remains down 70%. Revenue is worse.

 

[Astro14]

So, for me, under the new agreement, I will take a 30% pay cut and move down from the 757/767 Captain to 737 Captain.

Our new agreement with the company sets lower minimum hours for pilots (less work, same rate, so less pay) in exchange for no furloughs.

The full agreement is 29 pages long, but that’s the core concept. It is dramatically different than the rest of the industry (who are furloughing pilots) as is United’s approach to this crisis.

Every other major international airline is reducing their fleet size, making the company permanently smaller, and reducing service across the globe. Everyone. Delta, American, BA, Lufthansa. some airlines have shut down, and many will never return to the skies. They have collapsed in light of an 85% drop in revenue.

United has not permanently retired a single aircraft, preserving their fleet size at 100% of pre-pandemic size. In addition, by keeping 100% of the pilots available, the airline can quickly add back capacity when their competitors will take years to buy new aircraft, and recall and re-train pilots who have been furloughed.

The retraining part is critical to understanding why the United pilots agreed to this. It takes several weeks to requalify a pilot on a new aircraft.

Even with the largest airline training center in the world, it would take United years to get thousands of pilots through a six week long course.

The training throughput limitation, and time, of course, includes laying off and re-shuffling pilots to lower paid and different seats, as well as re-growing and bringing pilots back.

It was once said that one retiring 777 captain creates six training events down stream, as pilots move up to fill the vacancies in staffing above them.

So, in avoiding any furloughs, and keeping United’s pilots (mostly, not all, but mostly) in their pre-pandemic seats, United avoids this slow, difficult process in shrinking or growing the airline.

It is my hope, that this will allow United to be agile and flexible, rapidly expanding into new markets and to leapfrog the competition, recovering faster than anyone else from the pandemic drop in traffic.

Time will tell.

 

[nthach]

if United isn’t retiring a plane yet, what happens to the parked ones that aren’t used but are up there in age like the 757s and older 777s? Speaking to the obvious but United does have/pay for a crew to maintain planes at a parked remote facility? I know SFO is a major United maintenance hub but last time I drove by there I didn’t see many planes parked there.