The Boeing 787 is a wide body, long-range commercial airliner aimed as a replacement for the 767, A300, and A330 families. The first 787 entered into service with All Nippon Airways on October 26, 2011. The 787 is the first airliner built out of a majority of composites and Boeing claims it to be 20% more fuel efficient than the aging 767.
The Airbus A380 is the largest passenger airliner in the world. Entering into service in October of 2007 with Singapore Airlines, the A380 is a long-range, wide body, complete double deck airliner that can carry between 525 and 853 passengers. Airbus was aiming to break Boeing's monopoly on the Ultra High Capacity market with the A380.
The Boeing 747-8 is an Ultra High Capacity revamped version of the 747-400. The first delivery of the 747-8F Freighter was made in October of 2011. The 747-8 features a fuselage stretch of 18 feet over the 747-400 to increase its passenger capacity and help it compete with the A380. It is now the longest passenger airliner in the world. The 747-8 features a redesigned wing, new flight control systems and flight deck technology, and new 787 engines to make it more efficient.
The A350 is a wide body long-range airliner currently in its design phase with Airbus. The A350 project was started in reaction to the 787. The two are very similar aircraft. The A350 also will be built out of a majority of composite materials, and offers up to an 8% increase in fuel efficiency over the 787. The A350 is slightly larger than the 787, offering 270-440 seats as opposed to 210-330 with the 787. It is scheduled for entry into service sometime in 2014.
Based on the current status of Boeing and Airbus and the current amount of orders for each, I am sad to say that I see Airbus taking the lead in the commercial jet industry. The first reason that I see Airbus taking the lead is due to the current status of the maunufacturers' real money makers- narrow body, single aisle, short to medium range airliners. Airbus is currently designing the A320neo. Virtually the only change from the traditional A320s is new upgraded engines. The new engines will offer a 15% increase in fuel efficiency over the current A320s. Since the A320 is in direct competition with the 737, it has already gained a huge lead in orders over the 737-900 and MAX series. Some loyal Boeing customers have placed orders for the A320neo. The A320neo family has become the fastest selling, most popular airliner in commercial aircraft history with nearly 1,200 orders since being introduced. After hesitating for some time on whether redesigning the 737 would be cost effective relative to a marginal increases in fuel efficiency over the current 737s, Boeing announced the 737 MAX in August 2011. The 737 MAX will directly compete with the A320neo. The 737 MAX is advertised to be 6% more fuel efficient than the A320neo. Boeing has already received 250 orders for the aircraft, but is far behind Airbus who already has 1,200 orders for the new A320. In the narrow body, revenue generating arena: advantage Airbus.
I would consider Boeing's 787 and Airbus' A350 to be evenly matched in their competition. While the 787 has about a 5 year head start on the A350, orders for the A350 are currently at about the same number that the 787 had at this point in its design. With the A350 being up to 100 seats larger than the rival 787, it could potentially compete with Boeing's 777 line as well. Other than the size difference though, the A350 and 787 are pretty much the same airplane, and the 787 is considerable cheaper (~$200 million vs. ~$260 million). I don't see the A350 taking a lead over the 787 unless you truly are getting THAT much more for your money. In the new long-range, composite wide body niche: slight advantage to Boeing.
In the jumbo-jet competition between the new 747-8 and the A380-800, I expect the A380-800 to outsell the 747-8I (passenger version) easily. The 747-8I has only 36 orders thus far as opposed to 253 for the A380-800. Even though Airbus has a head start over Boeing on this project, Airbus has a runaway lead with the A380. Boeing is advertising a 6% cost savings per seat-mile over the A380, but it appears the airlines would still rather have the extra passenger seating of the A380. Where Boeing is winning in this match-up is with the 747-8F, the freighter version. With the 747 being a long respected cargo workhorse and production of the A380-800F being delayed indefinitely, Boeing as a runaway lead with 70 orders, as opposed to 0 for the A380-800F. Airbus still wins the jumbo jet category, however. A more in depth analysis can be found here.
As I began this topic saying and now am supported with the above evidence, Airbus is already taking the lead in commercial jet manufacturing. In the years to come Airbus will surpass Boeing with the majority of the world's airliner fleet.
Comac is a Chinese government corporation aimed at building large airliners that will relieve the country's dependency on Airbus and Boeing. It is a brand new corporation founded in May of 2008. Its launch aircraft is the ARJ21, a short-range regional jet. The ARJ21 has been test flying already for a few years, and is planned to enter into service this year. The ARJ21 is essentially a small MD-90. Its design was derived from McDonnell Douglas' MD-90. Comac is also developing the C919, a narrow body mid range airliner most comparable to the 737 MAX and A320neo. The C919 is scheduled to make its first flight in 2014 and to enter into service in 2016.
If Comac ever does become a direct competitor with Boeing and Airbus, I don't believe it will be any time soon. Comac is still in its infant stages and has a lot to prove. In the short term, Comac's goal is to relieve China's dependency on foreign built aircraft. I think it will take many years for Comac to prove themselves safe within their own country in order for its aircraft to start selling in the global market. With their first aircraft, the ARJ21, Comac is not even competing with Airbus or Boeing, rather the ARJ21 will be taking sales away from Bombardier and Embraer within China. Thus far, only Chinese airlines have ordered any Comac aircraft. There is a lot to prove safety wise and reliability wise to the world's air carriers. Comac is also not coming out with any innovative new products. The ARJ21 is essentially using a shortened design of the MD-80 and 90 series airliners over 20 years later. The C919 is designed to be only as good as the A320neo and 737 MAX at best. Until they develop new innovative aircraft and prove the reliability of their already existing products, Comac will not be a competitor of either of the two giants. I do no believe that Comac is even on Airbus' or Boeing's horizon yet.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Saturday, January 21, 2012
FAA's New Pilot Fatigue Regulations
The FAA's new flight and duty time regulations issued in December of 2011 encompass a number of new safety requirements that will help to combat pilot fatigue for Part 121 passenger operations. The new 10 hour minimum rest period will have the largest impact on safety, in my opinion. The existing regulations require only an 8 hour rest period for pilots before they have to report for duty again. This time period begins about 15-20 minutes after arrival once the crew is released from duty, depending on the airline. It does not include time to get out of the airport, transportation time to the hotel or your home, winding down time, or time to eat. On a R.O.N. (Remain Over Night) trip, this can easily leave the pilots with 5 hours or less to sleep. This is a huge issue in the regional airline industry. Currently, regional airline management is often giving flight crews the bare minimum amount of rest time legally required in order to get the aircraft flying again as soon as possible and to avoid higher costs. A flight crew may pull into the gate at 8:45 pm and have a 6:00 flight the following morning. The airline would probably require them to report by 5:00 am or so, perfectly legal. This requires the flight crew to wake up at, say, 4:00 am. They may have finally gotten to sleep at 11 o'clock or later the previous night. While many people may be able to function without a problem on 5 hours of sleep or less, I would hate to test out the sleep deprivation coping abilities of the crew while they are flying a highly sophisticated aircraft for up to 8 hours of flight time that day, and an even longer duty day.
To me, the new regulations for crew rest are a significant improvement over the current ones. The new regs will call for a 2 hour increase over the current amount of rest time required, bringing the total to 10 hours. The clock will still start after the crew is released from duty, but it also requires "an opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep within the 10-hour rest period." This last statement will assure that pilots are better rested before taking the controls again. With a guaranteed 8 hour sleep period (ultimately optional to the pilot of course), the way I see it, there is a minimum gain of 2 hours of sleep per night which WILL make a huge difference. The full 10 hour period allows the pilot the opportunity to get to the hotel, eat, and relax for a little while and still get about 7 hours of sleep. The additional time will improve both mental and physical health. Although not ideal after one long stressful day and before another, this still meets the lower end of the average sleep requirements and is a major improvement over the current rules
While I have not been able to find any cost numbers specifically attributed to the increased rest period, the total cost to airlines is estimated to be $297 million. In the long run the benefits are estimated to be a median of $360 million. While the cost and benefit numbers seem arbitrarily created for those who only see dollar signs, I do believe that most of the cost will come from the increased rest period. Regional airlines will need to hire potentially 2-3,000 more pilots to fill the holes left in the schedule by the increasing rest demands and the hiring trend projected in the majors. Another effect that it may have on the airlines are less flights per day. With more required rest after a duty day is over, airlines will not be able to get airplanes in as late at night and out as early in the morning on a R.O.N. trip. Unless drastically increasing costs and wasting resources by coordinating additional flight crews and/or aircraft, this may lead to a small decrease in the number of flights operated per day, and would thus tighten the airline's profit margins. I do believe that these factors will have an impact on the traveler. The average airfare rose 8.5% in 2011, and further increases are expected this year. It is a reasonable guess that the hiring, training, and pay of these new pilots has been playing and will continue to play some role in these price increases.
I agree with the exemption of cargo carriers from these regulations. The regulations were created as a reaction to the fury of the general public after the Colgan crash in 2009, and was never intended to be aimed at cargo carriers as well. While pilots for on-demand cargo carriers work some of the hardest schedules on earth, the costs associated with implementing this new rule for such a carrier would be monumental. So many on-demand operations are struggling as it is and would not survive such a huge amount of hiring and training costs. It is the lack of a set schedule in on-demand operations that would make it near impossible to implement this rule. Each pilot would have such a narrow window to fly in with these regulations. Scheduled operators such as FedEx and UPS usually operate overnight during the body's circadian low points, but most of these pilots are used to that set schedule and theoretically it will not be a big fatigue problem.
By flying while fatigued, cargo pilots are putting a lot less at risk than if they were on a passenger airplane loaded with 150 passengers. A cargo plane that crashes due to pilot fatigue is only taking out the flight crew and the airplane (and hopefully no neighborhoods), and not putting so many passengers' lives at risk. The passenger airlines' monetary benefits from the increased crew rest are mostly attributed to the value of a human life, thus creating a large savings when not crashing. The same monetary benefits cannot be applied to a cargo airline carrying generally much less valuable cargo. This is a bit of a sick way to look at things, but it is the way the industry looks at it.
I have a solution to the fatigue problems in the cargo industry that would increase airline flight crew costs by less than one third, as opposed to twice the amount or more for the proposed regulation. In an on-demand operation when a flight crew is called to fly late in their on call time, or if a certain amount of flight time or legs are planned for, one additional pilot will be required for the flight. This allows each pilot to rest for about 1/3 of the flight time-a significant increase over no rest time. This regulation could include a table with such contributing factors as: hours into on call/duty time, total flight planned time, and number of legs planned for. I initially got this idea from trans-oceanic airline operations: Generally at least one extra flight crew member is required in order to reduce pilot fatigue.
To me, the new regulations for crew rest are a significant improvement over the current ones. The new regs will call for a 2 hour increase over the current amount of rest time required, bringing the total to 10 hours. The clock will still start after the crew is released from duty, but it also requires "an opportunity for 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep within the 10-hour rest period." This last statement will assure that pilots are better rested before taking the controls again. With a guaranteed 8 hour sleep period (ultimately optional to the pilot of course), the way I see it, there is a minimum gain of 2 hours of sleep per night which WILL make a huge difference. The full 10 hour period allows the pilot the opportunity to get to the hotel, eat, and relax for a little while and still get about 7 hours of sleep. The additional time will improve both mental and physical health. Although not ideal after one long stressful day and before another, this still meets the lower end of the average sleep requirements and is a major improvement over the current rules
While I have not been able to find any cost numbers specifically attributed to the increased rest period, the total cost to airlines is estimated to be $297 million. In the long run the benefits are estimated to be a median of $360 million. While the cost and benefit numbers seem arbitrarily created for those who only see dollar signs, I do believe that most of the cost will come from the increased rest period. Regional airlines will need to hire potentially 2-3,000 more pilots to fill the holes left in the schedule by the increasing rest demands and the hiring trend projected in the majors. Another effect that it may have on the airlines are less flights per day. With more required rest after a duty day is over, airlines will not be able to get airplanes in as late at night and out as early in the morning on a R.O.N. trip. Unless drastically increasing costs and wasting resources by coordinating additional flight crews and/or aircraft, this may lead to a small decrease in the number of flights operated per day, and would thus tighten the airline's profit margins. I do believe that these factors will have an impact on the traveler. The average airfare rose 8.5% in 2011, and further increases are expected this year. It is a reasonable guess that the hiring, training, and pay of these new pilots has been playing and will continue to play some role in these price increases.
I agree with the exemption of cargo carriers from these regulations. The regulations were created as a reaction to the fury of the general public after the Colgan crash in 2009, and was never intended to be aimed at cargo carriers as well. While pilots for on-demand cargo carriers work some of the hardest schedules on earth, the costs associated with implementing this new rule for such a carrier would be monumental. So many on-demand operations are struggling as it is and would not survive such a huge amount of hiring and training costs. It is the lack of a set schedule in on-demand operations that would make it near impossible to implement this rule. Each pilot would have such a narrow window to fly in with these regulations. Scheduled operators such as FedEx and UPS usually operate overnight during the body's circadian low points, but most of these pilots are used to that set schedule and theoretically it will not be a big fatigue problem.
By flying while fatigued, cargo pilots are putting a lot less at risk than if they were on a passenger airplane loaded with 150 passengers. A cargo plane that crashes due to pilot fatigue is only taking out the flight crew and the airplane (and hopefully no neighborhoods), and not putting so many passengers' lives at risk. The passenger airlines' monetary benefits from the increased crew rest are mostly attributed to the value of a human life, thus creating a large savings when not crashing. The same monetary benefits cannot be applied to a cargo airline carrying generally much less valuable cargo. This is a bit of a sick way to look at things, but it is the way the industry looks at it.
I have a solution to the fatigue problems in the cargo industry that would increase airline flight crew costs by less than one third, as opposed to twice the amount or more for the proposed regulation. In an on-demand operation when a flight crew is called to fly late in their on call time, or if a certain amount of flight time or legs are planned for, one additional pilot will be required for the flight. This allows each pilot to rest for about 1/3 of the flight time-a significant increase over no rest time. This regulation could include a table with such contributing factors as: hours into on call/duty time, total flight planned time, and number of legs planned for. I initially got this idea from trans-oceanic airline operations: Generally at least one extra flight crew member is required in order to reduce pilot fatigue.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Introductory Post
Things that make a lot of noise, go fast, and are complex in nature have fascinated me ever since I can remember. Also, operating machines and going through the procedures to do so have always been an interest of mine. Throw in the thrill and freedom of leaving the earth's surface, and the challenge that flying and learning to fly presents, and you have my passion for the only thing I can see myself doing for a living for the rest of my life: flying airplanes.
Several events quickly brought me to realize my passion for aviation. First, I took a sort of industrial technology class in the 7th grade which sampled several different technologies in numerous modules throughout the course of the semester. The module that I enjoyed the most was the one about airplanes. I learned the basic parts of an airplane and some basic aerodynamics. We also got to spend time flying an airplane on Microsoft Flight Simulator, which was very fun for me. Secondly, my dad started to rent an office at Grosse Ile Municipal Airport that overlooks the airfield. I started hanging around there a lot and making some pilot friends. My aunt and uncle also own a couple of airplanes, so I started to fly with them from time to time and I loved it. They have always been there to answer questions and promote aviation for me. Anyway I began to fly with a few other people at the airport and realized that I would like to get my private pilot certificate when I would be old enough, and in high school I realized that I would love flying as a profession.
Despite all of the uncertainty of the airline industry and all of the jokes I hear about flying for an airline, this is the type of flying I want to do. I like the structure of the airline world and the idea of fly for an airline, and I eventually would like to fly large aircraft to destinations around the world. The flight benefits aren't a bad perk either! Unless something drastically changes, I would like to spend my career working for the airlines.
My plan is like most other collegiate flight students these days. Once my flight training is complete I will probably flight instruct somewhere to build time (although bypassing this is very much a welcome idea). I would then like to get hired at a regional airline and fly there until I have enough time and experience to start applying to mainline carriers.
I would, however, like to remain active in the general aviation world. Flying small aircraft recreationally seems like it will be a nice, fun change of pace from the airline world. It provides an opportunity for some "real" flying and a good way to keep some of your skills and basic knowledge. It is always nice to go where you want when you want, and maybe have a little fun along the way. Although I would love to fly a big jet, there is nothing like flying a small single engine aircraft.
Some current topics that interest me are the new regulations coming into effect regarding crew rest and duty time, but more so the new regulations coming in regards to airline hiring minimums. It is something that will probably be affecting me in the not too distant future, so I would like to know all of the current information about it. Also I am interested in the NextGen air traffic control system and the progress the FAA is making with it. I can imagine that I will spend much of my career flying on the NextGen system. I am interested in the hiring boom that is supposed to be occurring over the next several years in the airlines, and how the bankruptcy of American Airlines and American Eagle, as well as other rumored bankruptcies expected in the regional airline world might effect that.
Several events quickly brought me to realize my passion for aviation. First, I took a sort of industrial technology class in the 7th grade which sampled several different technologies in numerous modules throughout the course of the semester. The module that I enjoyed the most was the one about airplanes. I learned the basic parts of an airplane and some basic aerodynamics. We also got to spend time flying an airplane on Microsoft Flight Simulator, which was very fun for me. Secondly, my dad started to rent an office at Grosse Ile Municipal Airport that overlooks the airfield. I started hanging around there a lot and making some pilot friends. My aunt and uncle also own a couple of airplanes, so I started to fly with them from time to time and I loved it. They have always been there to answer questions and promote aviation for me. Anyway I began to fly with a few other people at the airport and realized that I would like to get my private pilot certificate when I would be old enough, and in high school I realized that I would love flying as a profession.
Despite all of the uncertainty of the airline industry and all of the jokes I hear about flying for an airline, this is the type of flying I want to do. I like the structure of the airline world and the idea of fly for an airline, and I eventually would like to fly large aircraft to destinations around the world. The flight benefits aren't a bad perk either! Unless something drastically changes, I would like to spend my career working for the airlines.
My plan is like most other collegiate flight students these days. Once my flight training is complete I will probably flight instruct somewhere to build time (although bypassing this is very much a welcome idea). I would then like to get hired at a regional airline and fly there until I have enough time and experience to start applying to mainline carriers.
I would, however, like to remain active in the general aviation world. Flying small aircraft recreationally seems like it will be a nice, fun change of pace from the airline world. It provides an opportunity for some "real" flying and a good way to keep some of your skills and basic knowledge. It is always nice to go where you want when you want, and maybe have a little fun along the way. Although I would love to fly a big jet, there is nothing like flying a small single engine aircraft.
Some current topics that interest me are the new regulations coming into effect regarding crew rest and duty time, but more so the new regulations coming in regards to airline hiring minimums. It is something that will probably be affecting me in the not too distant future, so I would like to know all of the current information about it. Also I am interested in the NextGen air traffic control system and the progress the FAA is making with it. I can imagine that I will spend much of my career flying on the NextGen system. I am interested in the hiring boom that is supposed to be occurring over the next several years in the airlines, and how the bankruptcy of American Airlines and American Eagle, as well as other rumored bankruptcies expected in the regional airline world might effect that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)