The Press, The A380, And Washington Traffic

[Ukridge]

Number of various questions.

1. A few weeks ago, I jumped to a conclusion that United was pulling in its shingle after an article I had read in the FT. Cosmo suggested that I needed to be careful as there is within that odd binary star orbit of the airlines and media some rather aggressive petitioning and posturing going on. I should have realized this. For some reason I thought that the dire straights of the air carriers would have prevented such machinations. Chatting about Cosmo’s words with some friends in the print trade, they actually stressed that now more than ever, is the time when these games would be played at their fevered pitch. Although I have a strong respect for the “goodâ€￾ press, I realize that the media corps (one of the binary stars) needs access. The other star of course (the airlines) need to push through their plans via a number of fronts. Sort of a match made in heaven no?

2. This leads to the question then, is it perhaps possible that United is indeed making strides to recover but these efforts are overshadowed by the fact that it is 10 versus 1 in the press? All these words just to think out loud the interesting situation that Cosmo mentioned. Just really where is this shaking out under the fluff of the print? Just last week I read in article in the respected finance section of the Suddeutsche Zeitung that mentioned none other than United. They took great pains to explain the seat per mile cost of Jet Blue (5.9 if I remember?) and United (10.0+ according to the article). We have hashed this out a million times already – does anyone know how much it costs to alight on a runway at Heathrow? A lot! Why this reliance on facts that are trotted out by the unknowing for the unknowing?

3. Why is the U.S. business press so disinclined to dismiss the A380 as a state bankrolled folly? Again why this binary approach? Is there not perhaps room for both a 7E7 and an A380 size aircraft? Richard Carcaillet of Airbus has stated that 80% of all 747 flights are among 37 world airports with over 1100 747 flights per week that are by the same airline, within 2 hours of each other, to the same destination. Can the 7E7 really expect to split this demand apart into a strict point-to-point market? I agree the A380 looks like a fat sausage – frankly I expected better from the French.

4. Tell me again please when the Metro is going to run from Dulles into D.C.? Within the next 50 years? This has be the only 1st world country that does not have rail transport from its international airport into the city. It seems as if rail would be a better way to beat the traffic.

Cheers

 

[whlinder]

4. Tell me again please when the Metro is going to run from Dulles into D.C.? Within the next 50 years? This has be the only 1st world country that does not have rail transport from its international airport into the city. It seems as if rail would be a better way to beat the traffic.

Cheers

[post="241932"][/post]​

Lol. It is supposed to be expanded to IAD sometime in the next 10 years. But like all transportation projects in DC, there are no guarantees.

 

[Cosmo]

Ukridge:

The Metro extension to Dulles is planned to be built in 2 phases and is currently expected to be completed by 2015, as whlinder mentions above. You can check out the project website here for more details.

 

[Ukridge]

Thank you Cosmo. Just a little venting on my part - not that I have ever had to sit in traffic in any other city ( London as you know if traffic free!) - I was just curious how it fit into the plans for the airport proper. I hear that there is much construction in progress at the moment. The link that you posted a few months past was quite informative about what the finsihed product shouyld ook like.
Cheers

 

[jimntx]

Ukridge:

The Metro extension to Dulles is planned to be built in 2 phases and is currently expected to be completed by 2015, as whlinder mentions above. You can check out the project website here for more details.

[post="241944"][/post]​

The delay so far has been in finding a way to award a no-bid contract to Halliburton for the work.

 

[jimntx]

Richard Carcaillet of Airbus has stated that 80% of all 747 flights are among 37 world airports with over 1100 747 flights per week that are by the same airline, within 2 hours of each other, to the same destination.

[post="241932"][/post]​

I always enjoy your cogent musings; however, I am having trouble mentally parsing the quoted sentence.

1100 flights per week = 157 per day (assuming an equal number each day).

By the same airline? Within 2 hours of each other? To the same destination?

I'm sure this doesn't mean (for instance) 157 747 flights/day to LHR by BA alone, or does it?

 

[JetClipper]

3. Why is the U.S. business press so disinclined to dismiss the A380 as a state bankrolled folly? Again why this binary approach? Is there not perhaps room for both a 7E7 and an A380 size aircraft? Richard Carcaillet of Airbus has stated that 80% of all 747 flights are among 37 world airports with over 1100 747 flights per week that are by the same airline, within 2 hours of each other, to the same destination. Can the 7E7 really expect to split this demand apart into a strict point-to-point market? I agree the A380 looks like a fat sausage – frankly I expected better from the French.

Ukridge:

I agree that the U.S. business press has been a bit overzealous in writing-off the A380. However, I think Airbus and its A380 customers have unwittingly given the journalists a decent cache of ammunition.

First is the question of subsidies. While there’s no doubt that Boeing’s commercial aircraft development is funded at least indirectly by the U.S. government through military programs, it’s also fair to assume that Airbus could not have launched the A380 without a great deal of assistance from its home countries’ treasuries as well. To use government money to fund what many see as essentially a European effort to prove that “mine’s bigger than yours†is just asking for trouble.

Second, let’s look at who has ordered the A380.

While the Asian carriers that have committed to the A380 probably have the route networks to support this aircraft, the rest (other than maybe FedEx) are suspect at best.

1. Air France: probably got a severe arm-twisting from the French government to support this “important national programâ€

2. Lufthansa: ditto, just substitute “German†for “Frenchâ€

3. Emirates: just an oil-rich sheik trying to show off what his money can buy. Honestly, how do they expect to fill 22 of these things flying to and from a couple hundred square miles of oil-soaked sand? Not to mention 777-300ERs, A340-600s, etc.

4. Qatar Airways: ditto (this one’s even better, considering they only had a couple of beat-up A300s and A310s a few years ago)

5. Etihad: ditto again (how long has this carrier even been around?)

6. UPS: possibly, but I’m not dismissing that they’re just “keeping up with the Joneses†(or maybe the Smiths), either

7. Virgin: the ultimate expression of “mines bigger than yoursâ€

I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point; probably half the orders are from carriers who are buying the plane for reasons other than a real need for it. This is particularly interesting in light of the fact that neither ANA nor JAL has placed orders, nor has BA (although Rod Eddington has not completely dismissed it from the airlines long-term fleet planning).

 

[mweiss]

...is it perhaps possible that United is indeed making strides to recover but these efforts are overshadowed by the fact that it is 10 versus 1 in the press?

Of course it is possible. It is difficult for anyone outside of UA's inner circle to accurately ascertain the future strategic direction of the company. Nonetheless, one can reasonably expect any wholesale change of a company as large as UA to be a difficult undertaking. The bigger the ship, the larger the turn radius.

...the seat per mile cost of Jet Blue (5.9 if I remember?) and United (10.0+ according to the article). We have hashed this out a million times already – does anyone know how much it costs to alight on a runway at Heathrow? A lot! Why this reliance on facts that are trotted out by the unknowing for the unknowing?

To explain in simple terms an industry as complex as airlines is an exercise in futility. Yet even such respected institutions as the Financial Times have limits to both the square inches of available print and attention spans of their clientele. This necessitates the occasional (nay, frequent) use of shorthand, painting the complexities with brush strokes sufficiently broad as to render much of the discussion inscrutible.

So, to be sure, some of UA's CASM can be attributed to such factors as the increased costs associated with supplying transportation to destinations with high demand, and correspondingly high fees. However, these are sufficiently amortized to come nowhere near a 40% increase over B6. In other words, this is a case where the broad brush does not obscure the larger point.

Why is the U.S. business press so disinclined to dismiss the A380 as a state bankrolled folly?

I presume you intended "inclined," rather than "disinclined," based on the context of the text that followed your question. Please correct me if I was improperly presumptuous.

The reason you would find business press in this country being dismissive of the 380 boils down to two factors.

First of all, people's typical inclination is to root for the home team. As the 380 is built by those crazies across the pond, support in the land of Boeing may be a bit much to expect.

Secondly, people write about things they know. The 380 is poorly suited to air travel within the United States due to relatively low population density throughout most of the domestic travel network. The relative costs of supporting another fleet type are not offset by the demand profiles of the few markets that would support such a monstrous aircraft. Since the 380 doesn't make sense for the ten US-based airlines, it is hard for the authors of those articles to comprehend the sensibility of the very same aircraft for other markets, such as intra-Japan.

Is there not perhaps room for both a 7E7 and an A380 size aircraft?

I'm inclined to believe that there is. Most likely, far more 7E7s will be sold than 380s, but that should come as no surprise; more 737s have flown from Renton than 747s from Everett, by an order of magnitude.

Richard Carcaillet of Airbus has stated that 80% of all 747 flights are among 37 world airports with over 1100 747 flights per week that are by the same airline, within 2 hours of each other, to the same destination. Can the 7E7 really expect to split this demand apart into a strict point-to-point market?

Why not? Do you believe that these 747s are carrying mostly passengers originating at one airport, and destined for the other? In some markets, I'd say the answer is yes. In many others, however, the answer would be no. The 380 is targeting the former, while the 7E7 is targeting the latter.

Tell me again please when the Metro is going to run from Dulles into D.C.? Within the next 50 years? This has be the only 1st world country that does not have rail transport from its international airport into the city.

[post="241932"][/post]​

"Its international airport." Unlike the UK, which has one clearly dominant international gateway, the US has several. Most have rail connectivity to the central business districts, including BOS, JFK, EWR, ATL, ORD, SFO, and LAX.

Granted, this is a recent phenomenon; its tardy application can be attributed to the now-waning political influence that the automobile industry has had over this nation for the past semicentury.

 

[whlinder]

3. Emirates: just an oil-rich sheik trying to show off what his money can buy.  Honestly, how do they expect to fill 22 of these things flying to and from a couple hundred square miles of oil-soaked sand?  Not to mention 777-300ERs, A340-600s, etc.

[post="241962"][/post]​

The Times online has a very interesting article about what Emirates plans to do with those monsters.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/...1446256,00.html

I don't pay as much attention to European aviation as I should, and this article is pretty over the top ("The 550-seater A380 could well be the Trojan horse that brings down the airlines of Europe) but it is interesting none-the-less.

 

[mweiss]

Emirates ... next step is to use the long-range A340-500 to pick up stray passengers on America’s West coast, fly them direct to Dubai and on to the Far East.

Now that's just silly. LAX-DXB-HKG is 12,000 miles, more than a 70% increase over LAX-HKG nonstop. I realize that people are willing to go a little out of their way to save some money, but not that far. And going from the west coast through DXB to places like NRT is even sillier.

 

[Ukridge]

mweiss: Yes, my mistake with "disinclined." Now, I could change that to "not disinclined" which borders on the use of the double negative. However, had we all been in Toulouse, the French would have been quite at home with this construction. B)
You make very valid points. My remark about Dulles being "its international airport" is made more in reference that Washington is the capital city of the FCs. Your mention of other cities being international entry points into the U.S. is apt but if you think of England (London in this case) and Northern Europe as a geographical outlay comparative in span and density to the Eastern and Middle U.S., then this speaks well for a rail system to the Dulles airport. Your point about outside influences though, is well taken and probably had a lot to do with the decision making in not extending what appears to be a rather extensive rail network the last few kilometres to the airport.
I asked the question of the need for both a 7E7 and A380 type aicraft in a musing manner as I indeed do believe that there is room for both. It will be interesting to see how the "splitting" takes place. Yes more point to point, but cities and their exburbia are only growing denser.

jimntx - Sorry about my translation on the quick and indeed upon re-reading the orginal quote from FlugRevue there may be a discrepency. No problem with the 8-0% of all 747 flights going to 37 differerent airports. The next submission of R. Caraillet is however, a bit problematic. He contends that there are 1,100 Jumbo flights per week that fall into the category of the same airline sending two or more Jumbos to the same destination. I now read this to mean that BA will send a 747 from New York and Washington to the same destination (London in this case) for arrival within two hours of each other. Your good observation makes me question his point. We have passangers from Chicago and passangers from New York. How an A380 would change this calculus is not clear. Now, if we had two Jumbos starting from the same place i.e. two 747s from Chicago to London within two hours, then I could understand his point. He needs to be a little more dicriminatory is his statement - good catch on your part.

JetClipper - I also see the following orders

Qantas - 12 firm, 12 options. Trent 900
Singapore - 10 firm, 15 options. Trent 900
Thai - 6 possible with no engine choice yet
Malaysia 6 firm with the Trent 900
Korean 5 firm, 3 options no engine choice yet
IFLC 10 firm (of which 5 are cargo). GP7200

You are correct about the Japaneese carriers having made no decisions although I would imagine that they wil take the bait. I will be anxious to see where Eddington hangs his hat on this one. BTW Eddington is a man of serious academic rigour, but I always preferred when Lord King was at the helm of BA. Eddington may be a much more capable manager (he certainly operates in a much different environment than did King) but it always sounded so regal when Lord King's name and title were announced. Just think of the difference between "is Lester giving the keynote at the conference this week?" and "Lord King spoke today...."

Cheers

 

[mweiss]

My remark about Dulles being "its international airport" is made more in reference that Washington is the capital city of the FCs.

True enough, though London and New York are probably the more apt comparisons insofar as examining air traffic patterns.

I asked the question of the need for both a 7E7 and A380 type aicraft in a musing manner as I indeed do believe that there is room for both. It will be interesting to see how the "splitting" takes place. Yes more point to point, but cities and their exburbia are only growing denser.

Yes, though most of these density changes will result in moving from RJs to 737s, or 737-700s to 737-900s, etc. There are only a handful of markets in the US that could support 777s, let alone a 380.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

4. Tell me again please when the Metro is going to run from Dulles into D.C.? Within the next 50 years? This has be the only 1st world country that does not have rail transport from its international airport into the city. It seems as if rail would be a better way to beat the traffic.

[post="241932"][/post]​

YYZ, Canada's international airport, also does not have a rail link into the city.

 

[Bear96]

Does Canberra have a rail link to its airport?

Anyway I think mweiss is correct. A more useful comparison to LHR is JFK. NYC is the main financial and cultural capitol of the US, as well as (arguably) the major center for international relations, with the UN. DC is just a bunch of government buildings and lobbyists.

Besides, the Texans currently in charge of DC don't like to travel that much, especially internationally!

 

[TechBoy]

Anyway I think mweiss is correct. A more useful comparison to LHR is JFK. NYC is the main financial and cultural capitol of the US, as well as (arguably) the major center for international relations, with the UN. DC is just a bunch of government buildings and lobbyists.

[post="242107"][/post]​

I agree that NYC and LA are the most important cities in the US, but don't discount DC so easily. It's the 4th largest metro area in the country with well over 7 million (very wealthy) people. Probably only 300,000 work for the federal government. I'll bet that London has at least that many government employees.

Come visit sometime Bear and see what we've got.