Airlines grounding fleet to cut cost
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlines grounding fleet to cut cost
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...GAI&refer=home
Hi All,
With the current fuel prices, majority of airlines are grounding their fleet. Most commonly the 747's and 737's.
Are most airlines going to follow the same? Wont this be sort of beginning of end for the high fuel consuming airplanes like 747?
Also would like to know which are the most fuel efficient one's around?
Regards
Hi All,
With the current fuel prices, majority of airlines are grounding their fleet. Most commonly the 747's and 737's.
Are most airlines going to follow the same? Wont this be sort of beginning of end for the high fuel consuming airplanes like 747?
Also would like to know which are the most fuel efficient one's around?
Regards
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"majority of airlines grounding their fleet ...."
.... what ARE you talking about??? A FEW airlines have indicated they will be parking a FEW of their aircraft - thats all
Scourge of Bad Airline Management!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Global Nomad
Age: 55
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
majority of airlines are grounding their fleet
Wont this be sort of beginning of end for the high fuel consuming airplanes like 747?
We're potentially in a position where things are getting harder. As a result, some carriers that are in trouble now may get into worse trouble. I refuse point blank to speculate on who they may be, since I would hate to add to anyone else's woes...
Asking which is the most fuel efficient aircraft is akin to asking "which is the best car". It has to be qualified with "what do you want to do with it". Eg, many would say a Ferrari is better than a Renault people mover, but not if you have to get six kids to school in it every morning....
The only real certainty is - the newer the aircraft, generally the more efficient it is. But remember that fuel costs are only part of total cost of ownership....
The key message in my view is that fares are going to have to rise. Will that have a serious effect on the numbers of people travelling? Jury's out. The growth in air traffic has been pretty much a straight line since 1945, through booms, busts, oil crises, terrorist attacks etc etc. More and more people are getting a taste for travel, more and more of the world can afford to, and more and more people are moving travel from "discretionary spend" to "must have item".
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TwinAisle,
I read this news, while doing a search on google:
China Knowledge Online, Singapore - 3 Jun 2008
"Currently, Air China doesn't have any cutting plan but will adjust some planes such as Boeing 747, which will be replaced by A330"
Well yes may be.......its looking like airlines are moving towards temporarily / long term ground their 747 a/c.
I read this news, while doing a search on google:
China Knowledge Online, Singapore - 3 Jun 2008
"Currently, Air China doesn't have any cutting plan but will adjust some planes such as Boeing 747, which will be replaced by A330"
Well yes may be.......its looking like airlines are moving towards temporarily / long term ground their 747 a/c.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are similar threads running on different sub forums, and new threads are started almost every day. Maybe it is an idea to create an sub forum "Peak oil, the economy and the decline of aviation" ?
Scourge of Bad Airline Management!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Global Nomad
Age: 55
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - but the A330 is a completely different class of aircraft to the 747....
It may be that Air China have cut longer, denser routes, and just no longer require the 747 no matter what fuel costs.
The 747 is in, effectively, a class of its own (at least until A380 comes onto stream properly). It lifts lots of people a long way. If an airline wants that, it chooses the 747 - or if it can get them, and the aircraft fits the route, the 777. If it decides not to fly the long, heavy routes, it may well drop the 747 from its fleet.
As Eastern did with the J31, as bmibaby are doing with the 737-500, as Air France did with the Mercure, as BA did with the TriStar.....
It's just fleet tweaking. Don't read "they are dumping the 747 because they are financially stuffed/short of cash/can't pay the fuel bill" into it.
It may be that Air China have cut longer, denser routes, and just no longer require the 747 no matter what fuel costs.
The 747 is in, effectively, a class of its own (at least until A380 comes onto stream properly). It lifts lots of people a long way. If an airline wants that, it chooses the 747 - or if it can get them, and the aircraft fits the route, the 777. If it decides not to fly the long, heavy routes, it may well drop the 747 from its fleet.
Well yes may be.......its looking like airlines are moving towards temporarily / long term ground their 747 a/c.
It's just fleet tweaking. Don't read "they are dumping the 747 because they are financially stuffed/short of cash/can't pay the fuel bill" into it.
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is not necessarily the disaster some see. Fares have to go up, Airlines need to adjust. Not all change is bad, etc. Struggling carriers will disappear bigs will reduce and consolidate. Oil has dropped 8 dollars/ and there was NEVER a supply problem, OK? Does anybody know of a supply issue of which I am unaware? No empty Trucks/A/C parked for lack of Fuel, etc. no lines at Tesco/Cosco, Richmond, Venezuela, Sand City. Tankers backed up to unload from what I see. If you can sell your cupcakes for more and people don't squeal, well, this is capitalism. Where in the Social Contract does it obligate any business to make the customer wealthier than itself? There are too many passengers flying for too little gold, adjustments are in order.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fundamental problem in the current fuel fiasco is that the 747 is a 1960's/70's design with all that is inherently flawed with it. The 4 engine design that was required before the big twins got their ETOP's ratings was a requirement for trans atlantic routes. The wing is a high speed swept wing which is wonderful for cruising at .84 mach but it really gobbles the fuel!
As has been said previously, there is little to replace the Jumbo at the moment. The 777 is a good alternate but they can't build them quickly enough. A rough example is a round trip Heathrow to Sao Paulo where the 777 will burn as much as 40 tonnes less than the 744.
Drop to the SH routes and you will find the 737 fuel burn is, on average, 20% higher than the equivalent sized Airbus model. The 757 is a gas guzzler compared to a similarly configured A321.
Thus, most airlines operating the older aircraft, 744,757,767,733,734,735 etc will probably being laying them up later this year for a well earned rest over the leaner, winter season.
Good time to be owning newer Boeing's and Airbus's!
As has been said previously, there is little to replace the Jumbo at the moment. The 777 is a good alternate but they can't build them quickly enough. A rough example is a round trip Heathrow to Sao Paulo where the 777 will burn as much as 40 tonnes less than the 744.
Drop to the SH routes and you will find the 737 fuel burn is, on average, 20% higher than the equivalent sized Airbus model. The 757 is a gas guzzler compared to a similarly configured A321.
Thus, most airlines operating the older aircraft, 744,757,767,733,734,735 etc will probably being laying them up later this year for a well earned rest over the leaner, winter season.
Good time to be owning newer Boeing's and Airbus's!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ted reportedly discontinued
According to the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/bu.../05air.html?hp
in an article released on Wednesday (and datelined Thursday), "United Airlines said Wednesday that it would discontinue its low-fare airline, called Ted." Interestingly in connection with the discussion above, United will not ground its A320s, but instead the "aircraft used to carry passengers on Ted would be incorporated back into its main fleet," presumably replacing the B737s that it wishes to ground from that fleet. There will be substantial job loss trauma here -- it's a terrible business.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/bu.../05air.html?hp
in an article released on Wednesday (and datelined Thursday), "United Airlines said Wednesday that it would discontinue its low-fare airline, called Ted." Interestingly in connection with the discussion above, United will not ground its A320s, but instead the "aircraft used to carry passengers on Ted would be incorporated back into its main fleet," presumably replacing the B737s that it wishes to ground from that fleet. There will be substantial job loss trauma here -- it's a terrible business.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those not in the airline operating or leasing business quite frankly have no idea about various aircraft operating economics....and this includes many (but certainly not all) pilots.
The trend toward large twin engine aircraft for long-haul is unmistakeable, and has been for quite some time.
There are, however, routes that can best be served with 4-engine aircraft, where the cost of the equipment is noteworthy, as not all airlines can afford to use the latest and greatest fuel efficient aircraft.
Some newer aircraft parked by scheduled airlines will be used by charter carriers, to their obvious advantage....767's in particular.
747's (and yes, even the 'ole L1011) will still find useful work, mostly seasonal, the annual Hajj operation is one such example.
Many airlines are eliminating smaller (and less profitable) destinations, and parking the aircraft that serve them.
Expect more of the same in the coming months....it will get far worse, before it gets 'better'.
The trend toward large twin engine aircraft for long-haul is unmistakeable, and has been for quite some time.
There are, however, routes that can best be served with 4-engine aircraft, where the cost of the equipment is noteworthy, as not all airlines can afford to use the latest and greatest fuel efficient aircraft.
Some newer aircraft parked by scheduled airlines will be used by charter carriers, to their obvious advantage....767's in particular.
747's (and yes, even the 'ole L1011) will still find useful work, mostly seasonal, the annual Hajj operation is one such example.
Many airlines are eliminating smaller (and less profitable) destinations, and parking the aircraft that serve them.
Expect more of the same in the coming months....it will get far worse, before it gets 'better'.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Piggyback
411 logic compelling as usual. The trend was well established back in the 1980's, with ETOPS, we thought the FA was done. (Fat Al). So I still need to ask my almost 30 year old question again, Whence the 380? If Four are infinitessimally safer than Two, three would be about perfect. Why does the 380 have Four? It wants more than two, and where to put the Third little Pig? I don't see where all those seats pencil out, I just never did. Will they get Parked (Not Built)?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately the strict regulatory environment within the EU makes operating older aircraft types somewhat more expensive than other, less picky, areas. A quick trip down to Tripoli, Moscow etc shows that!
The huge amount of variables involved in aircraft lease/ownership are starting to pale in the EU and US next to the rising price of a barrel of oil. The rocketing economies of China and India are allowing their governments to subsidise the price of fuel both for aviation and the consumer, thus older aircraft may well be ferried out to those operating areas under wet lease. (eg Fly Globespans 767 operating out of LHR for Air India).
The sad truth is that as airframes get older they get exponentially more expensive to maintain. Less time between regulatory NDT and deep engineering checks are somewhat offset by cheaper spares, known expertise technically and various other factors including an established trained operator base for the type.
Unfortunately, in the areas I fly, fuel IS the crippling factor and aircraft will be laid off/leased based on those variables. The airbus fleet benefits from commonality of both piloting and engineering which helps and the 777/787 tie up shows that Boeing, from a piloting perspective, is going that way as well.
You would be surprised to know how much some stick monkeys understand about the economics of aircraft operating.
The huge amount of variables involved in aircraft lease/ownership are starting to pale in the EU and US next to the rising price of a barrel of oil. The rocketing economies of China and India are allowing their governments to subsidise the price of fuel both for aviation and the consumer, thus older aircraft may well be ferried out to those operating areas under wet lease. (eg Fly Globespans 767 operating out of LHR for Air India).
The sad truth is that as airframes get older they get exponentially more expensive to maintain. Less time between regulatory NDT and deep engineering checks are somewhat offset by cheaper spares, known expertise technically and various other factors including an established trained operator base for the type.
Unfortunately, in the areas I fly, fuel IS the crippling factor and aircraft will be laid off/leased based on those variables. The airbus fleet benefits from commonality of both piloting and engineering which helps and the 777/787 tie up shows that Boeing, from a piloting perspective, is going that way as well.
You would be surprised to know how much some stick monkeys understand about the economics of aircraft operating.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More pain......
BA to ground flights unless fuel costs fall
03.06.08
British Airways is ready to ground flights in an attempt to deal with the soaring cost of oil, Willie Walsh, the airline's chief executive, told delegates at the summit of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) yesterday. He said that BA will examine flights on a ‘route by route basis’.
Mr Walsh made clear that BA is prepared to follow the example of Qantas - and Ryanair who announced that they would ground 20 planes this winter today - and mothball aircraft if necessary. He said: ‘We will be looking at some routes to see if we can take out some frequency. We are in uncharted waters. I see no option but to take capacity out.'
'It doesn't make sense with oil at $130 a barrel to operate flights that have not made a contribution to our cash situation. We have a healthy balance sheet. But we can't afford to be complacent.’
Mr Walsh told Reuters: 'We will take capacity out during the winter so I think for the current year we'll probably be looking at flat capacity versus last year.' He said it was too early to say whether the airline would cut destinations as part of the move to reduce capacity, but said cutting the frequency of flights was more likely in the winter period which starts at the end of October.
The Telegraph reports that BA is trying to cut its fuel bill by making planes as light as possible. Following the lead of other airlines including American. The airline has cut the amount of ‘tap water’ it carries in its tanks, because of passengers' preference for the bottled alternative. It has also reduced the number of oxygen cylinders it keeps on board - although it still complies with the minimum set by standards set by the CAA.
BA has also decided to strip all paint off planes brought in for a refit, before respraying. According to an airline, this sheds 400 kilograms of the weight of a Boeing 747.
03.06.08
British Airways is ready to ground flights in an attempt to deal with the soaring cost of oil, Willie Walsh, the airline's chief executive, told delegates at the summit of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) yesterday. He said that BA will examine flights on a ‘route by route basis’.
Mr Walsh made clear that BA is prepared to follow the example of Qantas - and Ryanair who announced that they would ground 20 planes this winter today - and mothball aircraft if necessary. He said: ‘We will be looking at some routes to see if we can take out some frequency. We are in uncharted waters. I see no option but to take capacity out.'
'It doesn't make sense with oil at $130 a barrel to operate flights that have not made a contribution to our cash situation. We have a healthy balance sheet. But we can't afford to be complacent.’
Mr Walsh told Reuters: 'We will take capacity out during the winter so I think for the current year we'll probably be looking at flat capacity versus last year.' He said it was too early to say whether the airline would cut destinations as part of the move to reduce capacity, but said cutting the frequency of flights was more likely in the winter period which starts at the end of October.
The Telegraph reports that BA is trying to cut its fuel bill by making planes as light as possible. Following the lead of other airlines including American. The airline has cut the amount of ‘tap water’ it carries in its tanks, because of passengers' preference for the bottled alternative. It has also reduced the number of oxygen cylinders it keeps on board - although it still complies with the minimum set by standards set by the CAA.
BA has also decided to strip all paint off planes brought in for a refit, before respraying. According to an airline, this sheds 400 kilograms of the weight of a Boeing 747.
Scourge of Bad Airline Management!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Global Nomad
Age: 55
Posts: 1,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good lord. So BA is going to do what every airline does day in, day out, and not fly routes that don't make a profit?
Well, well....
This is a prime example of a journo talking us into recession....
Well, well....
This is a prime example of a journo talking us into recession....
