Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3696354/

Topic: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: A5XX
Posted 2007-11-09 14:18:45 and read 10918 times.

So, with oil nearing $100.00 per barrel.  Wow!  Wow!  Wow!

I'd say frequency is going to die.

I once said that the A380, would soon be too small....

Fewer flights, to fewer destinations... But using mammoth airplanes.

Unfortunately, I think this era is coming, much faster than I'd thought.  

A5XX

[Edited 2007-11-09 14:19:55]

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: RJNUT
Posted 2007-11-09 14:23:46 and read 10898 times.

i feel like everybody is just "whistling in the dark right now!"

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Futurecaptain
Posted 2007-11-09 14:35:36 and read 10812 times.

Mommoth airplanes can only be used on some routes. Sure they save fuel per pax but that only works if you keep the plane full. I'd put my money on new aircraft the same size as today's but which overall burn less fuel.
That and maybe some more consolodation and simplification of fleets will help.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: A5XX
Posted 2007-11-09 14:49:29 and read 10753 times.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Mommoth airplanes can only be used on some routes. Sure they save fuel per pax but that only works if you keep the plane full. I'd put my money on new aircraft the same size as today's but which overall burn less fuel.
That and maybe some more consolodation and simplification of fleets will help.

Airlines will have to reduce their costs, to be able to survive. They will, eventually, need to reduce the number of flights, reduce the number of aircrews.... well... reduce everything. This will lead to their using of bigger airplanes. And since the number of flights will be greatly reduced, the mammoth airplanes will still be full...

I think Boeing have something on the drawing board.

What about a HUGE trijet... a la L1011, with, let's say GE90-150 engines? 

I know Boeing is unlikely to develop a Trijet this big, because if you loose 150K lbs of thrust, due to an engine failure, on take off, hell can happen... They will probably develop a 4 engine mammoth airplane, just like the A380, but bigger.


A5XX (who is a fan of trijets like the L1011)  Big grin

[Edited 2007-11-09 14:58:18]

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: DL767captain
Posted 2007-11-09 15:16:28 and read 10619 times.

i dont think they will go as far as using A380s on domestic routes or anything, but we might see something like 777s replacing a route like San-atl, with dl combining a 757 and 767 (obviously I am just making an example) but I think we could see some 783 orders for airlines like UA who mostly uses A320s for domestic routes. Just combine a couple flights we dont need that much frequency, this will cut delays and congestion in the air

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Futurecaptain
Posted 2007-11-09 15:16:55 and read 10617 times.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 3):
Airlines will have to reduce their costs, to be able to survive.

Agreed, it is just my opinion that very large aircraft are not the answer. I think more efficient current sized jets will be part of the answer. Industry consolodation will be a part. Then more efficient fleet planning and simplification will be the final part.
For example. The 787 is similar in size to some 767's and A330's and is selling well. The A350 is similar in size to the current 777's and A340's and in time will probably sell well. That is step one, more efficiency from current sized planes.
Industry consolodation. America West already bought US Airways. Other airlines seem to always be looking for someone to buy. Perhaps some LCC's and regionals will merge along with majors. That's my step two.
Fleet simplification I believe to be step 3. For example, US Airways again. They have
B1900 at 19 seats.
Saab 340 (34 seats) and Q100/200 (37 seats). Choose one type.
ERJ-145 (50 seats), Q300 (50 seats), CRJ-200 (50 seats). Choose one type.
CRJ-700 (70 seats) and EMB 170 (72 seats). Choose one type.
CRJ-900 (86 seats) and EMB 190 (99 seats). Choose one type.
In just the US Airways regional fleet it is possible to go from 11 types to 5 with little or no change in capacity. Then there is simplification in training, spare parts, ect.

Just my opinion. My 3 step plan to industry profitability.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Allstarflyer
Posted 2007-11-09 15:45:49 and read 10509 times.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 5):
Choose one type.

   No kidding. United is a perfect example for this - they run the A319, A320, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777. They, IMO, could run two types of aircraft, and do just as well in maintaining routes and high loads. And, on a side note, those two would be the B777 and a choice between the A319 (or 320 - lots of the same parts) and the B737.

As far as frequency falling, I can imagine that happening. I could see at least one more regional buying another well within the next 12 months - so far we've seen SkyWest buy ASA awhile back and then Pinnacle bought Colgan. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Ornstein sell out, just to rid the airlines of Mesa (to whom he would do that, I have no idea).

As far as majors and LCC's merging - those threads appear in this forum seemingly often, and the possibilities get picked apart by the pros, so there's not many options (IMO) currently. Almost any that start with the majors, IMO, would include United (UA is an E-W carrier - the rest are mainly N-S, except perhaps the new Airways). But there could be one between an LCC and another major. It's fun to speculate on occasion.

Edited for spelling

[Edited 2007-11-09 15:46:26]

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Dw747400
Posted 2007-11-09 15:46:18 and read 10504 times.

As the volume of air travel increases, I think we will see an increase in VLAs, but frequency is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Time is money, and people are willing to pay for the added convenience of frequency and a broader choice of routes. While the CASM of a 787 might still be slightly higher than that of the A380, the revenue per seat mile will be higher as well.

Furthermore, as the 787 and A350 prove (or will soon prove), size is not the only way to increase eficiency over older aircraft. In fact, when compared to a 747, the A380 gains a CASM advantage due to new systems and better aerodynamics--the fact its larger is a small part of the equation.

Ultimately, big planes combat air traffic congestion, allowing a larger volume of passengers to move within the existing system. Economically, economies of scale show up in there operation (one flight crew, less MX expense than two planes of the same capacity, etc.) but the actual fuel burn per passenger is a very small part of this, and it will take a lot more than a $100 barrel of oil to make this small benefit a reason to change how the world flies.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: PanAm747
Posted 2007-11-09 16:22:06 and read 10372 times.

Frequency is in response to the demands of the business traveller, and, for the most part, price is NOT an object. Many companies have deals with airlines already for discounted travel, and flexibility is key - that is why business travellers pay for fully refundable/changeable tickets.

"The cost of doing business" is tax deductible, and in a global economy, travel is indispensable. It will continue, even with slow downs in certain routes.

For the U.S., domestic wide-bodies are almost gone - they are too important to be used on international routes (where the  dollarsign   dollarsign   dollarsign  is right now!), and routes once unthinkable for RJ's are now commonplace.

For all its problems, frequency is what drives the market now, and increases in prices won't change that.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: FutureFO
Posted 2007-11-09 19:02:21 and read 10132 times.

Actually in the US system the 170's have 76 seats and the 175's have 86 seats. And as far as comfort no competition the E-jets win hands down.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: A5XX
Posted 2007-11-09 19:16:41 and read 10093 times.

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 7):
As the volume of air travel increases, I think we will see an increase in VLAs, but frequency is here to stay for the foreseeable future. Time is money, and people are willing to pay for the added convenience of frequency and a broader choice of routes......

Ultimately, big planes combat air traffic congestion, allowing a larger volume of passengers to move within the existing system. Economically, economies of scale show up in there operation (one flight crew, less MX expense than two planes of the same capacity, etc.) but the actual fuel burn per passenger is a very small part of this, and it will take a lot more than a $100 barrel of oil to make this small benefit a reason to change how the world flies.

And what about videoconference technology? For a lot of companies, videoconference will kill air travel, in the foreseeable future. Frequency, in airline travel for businesses, might not be a requirement, anymore. Videoconference systems are getting more and more sophisticated, have higher image resolution, they use big monitors, and, in the end, after a videoconference, the only thing that's missing, is the hand shake...

A5XX

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: PSU.DTW.SCE
Posted 2007-11-09 19:24:54 and read 10055 times.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 10):
And what about videoconference technology?

Videoconferencing is not new technology at this point, it has been around for several years. Yes, it can take the place of certain meetings, as can a conference call. However, you cannot replace the need to go on a plant visit, multiple supplier visits, entertaining a client to dinner, and being in day(s) long meeting without actually traveling to a location.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: A5XX
Posted 2007-11-09 19:35:42 and read 10007 times.

Of course..

However, i'm talking about corporate meetings. Many big companies, are currently saving in excess of $5 000 000.00 in travel expenses/year, by using videoconferencing technology. So yes, videoconference is going to be a threat to air travel, in the future. Usually, the videoconference equipment pays for itself, within 2 months..

A5XX

[Edited 2007-11-09 19:43:06]

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: TOLtommy
Posted 2007-11-09 20:00:29 and read 9931 times.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 5):
Just my opinion. My 3 step plan to industry profitability.

Well, you'll be a great captain. Your knowledge of the financial side of the industry is sketchy at best, like many airline pilots. Yet they contine to spout of as if they know how to read a balance sheet. Lets examine your thoughts:

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 5):
B1900 at 19 seats.
Saab 340 (34 seats) and Q100/200 (37 seats). Choose one type.
ERJ-145 (50 seats), Q300 (50 seats), CRJ-200 (50 seats). Choose one type.
CRJ-700 (70 seats) and EMB 170 (72 seats). Choose one type.
CRJ-900 (86 seats) and EMB 190 (99 seats). Choose one type.
In just the US Airways regional fleet it is possible to go from 11 types to 5 with little or no change in capacity. Then there is simplification in training, spare parts, ect.

B1900, operated under contract by Colgan, US has no ownership issue. Colgan shares the risk of profit, many flown on EAS routes.
Saab, again operated under contract by Colgan. The Dash 8-100's (not Q model btw) are operated by Piedmont, a wholly owned subsidiary. Same with the -300's, common fleet type. The -200's have been retired.
ERJ-145, operated by Chatauqua, under contract, US has no ownership of fleet. CRJ-200, and some -700's are flown by PSA, another US wholly owned regional.
The 170's are flown by Republic (same ownership as CHQ), again no ownership.
CRJ-900's are flown by Mesa under contract. No ownership.
190's are flown by mainline, US owns/lease the planes.

In these cases, it's cheaper for US to farm out most of the regional flying to contract carriers. They hold responsibility for obtaining certificates, etc. In most cases US pays these carriers a fixed fee for departure. They don't need to worry about fleet type, just the number of seats and the bottom line. Since multiple regional carrier actually own and operate the planes, there is no real way to save money regarding training, spare parts, etc. Most of the back office operations of the two wholly owned regionals (PSA/Piedmont) have already been combined under the Special Services Operation, based at MDT.

On paper it looks smart to just have a few types of regional aircraft, bu tin reality it doesn't cost US any more to have a regional fleet, and by splitting it up amongst many partners, they can play the cost game, and get the lowest fee for departure.

Hope this helps, as you will likely be looking to work for one of these regionals one day.....

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Dw747400
Posted 2007-11-09 20:14:51 and read 9888 times.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 12):
So yes, videoconference is going to be a threat to air travel, in the future. Usually, the videoconference equipment pays for itself, within 2 months..

When I read that I immediately though you were a video conference salesman--and according to your profile I was half right--you work in that industry.

Let me make two quick points:

First, Private jet use is growing rapidly. This in itself is proof how much people value convenience. Even a low-end jet like a Citation 501 will run you $1300/hour, and most companies are happy to pay for aircraft much pricier than that.

Two, every market forecast out there indicates massive growth in air travel. Video conferencing is hardly a secret--were it poised to decimate commercial aviation you can be sure financial institutions and others investing in the airlines would be much more hesitant to predict growth.

Quoting A5XX (Thread starter):
I once said that the A380, would soon be too small....

Fewer flights, to fewer destinations... But using mammoth airplanes.

You don't even seem that certain about it yourself--if Video conferencing is going to have that much of an impact, why even bother with a bigger jet? Sure it might knock a few percent off the growth rate in certain segments, but for many applications it is a poor substitute.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Futurecaptain
Posted 2007-11-09 20:21:33 and read 9865 times.

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 13):

Thank you for that explaination of which regionals really operate the regional aircraft. I am well aware most regional flying is contracted out. It is appparent you missed step two of my plan and went straight to step 3. Step 2 was industry consolodation. This could mean regionals buying out other regionals. Majors buying regionals. Majors buying majors. LCC's buying anything, ect, ect, ect.
IF step 2 happens first it is wholly possible for US to not have contracts with every contract carrier that comes knocking at the door and perhaps fleet management will become more of an issue at that time.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Commavia
Posted 2007-11-09 20:41:02 and read 9796 times.

Frequency isn't going anywhere as long as people want it and continue to place value on it, which I don't see changing at all anytime soon.

I think the reports of frequency's death are highly exaggerated.  Smile

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: AirlineBrat
Posted 2007-11-09 20:44:48 and read 9783 times.

To be honest with you. Video conferencing works well to a point but you still need face to face meetings every so often. I have seen the dark side of video conferencing. The meeting often disintegrates when the mute button is enabled and chatter in the room not broadcasting starts in with "Those wingnuts down there have no clue......." You can't do that when everyone is in the same room. We just had a kickoff meeting using video conference technology with something like 12 different offices located all over the State of California participating. Usually there are only two or occasionally three offices in conference. It was interesting. We pulled it off but I don't think we got the quality of communication that we could have if we were in the same room. At least for the initial meeting. Some offices hogged airtime and others were rarely heard from. Most of our future meetings will be by video conference but we do plan on one or two face to face meetings. I'll be flying down to SMF for those. One day marathon... Leave ACV at 5:30am and return around 10pm.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: TOLtommy
Posted 2007-11-09 21:46:21 and read 9563 times.

With any acquisition, you'll run into issues. Thats why regional consolidation isn't very likely. The only one out there that was an easy purchase was Mesaba. They only flew for NW. Maybe Comair if DL can make a decision on it. But nowadays most of the regionals have mixed their flying to protect their revenue.

Regionals will have a hard time buying others due to restrictions in their contracts. Republic Holdings runs 3 tickets (Republic, Chatauqua, and Shuttle America) just to get around such restrictions. Purchasing a regional is no guarantee of flying. There are successorship clauses in each contract. Plus you will have labor issues (think HP/US) and the lack of fleet commonality will only increase costs.

But hey, what do I know, I've only been doing this for 20 years......

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Czbbflier
Posted 2007-11-09 21:51:03 and read 9529 times.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 10):
And what about videoconference technology?

Years ago the same was said for fax machines. Those who meet, meet in person for a reason. Yes there's dinner, entertainment etc in the offing, but in the final analysis, a face-to-face meeting allows the participants to judge body language and other subjective things that can be hidden from the camera.

Flying will be a part of our future... but will it be BIG and infrequent, or same-old, same-old?

IMO it'll be A380-sized planes for ordinary folk (800+ pax) and Gulfstream/Dassault/Challenger for those on the upper-side of the tracks. It doesn't matter the cost of oil for the rich ones, and economies of scale will keep aviation in the grasp of ordinary-folk....

In Europe and Asia, those who have had the foresight (and population density) to invest in (electric) high-speed rail, however, much of this debate is moot.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: LAXspotter
Posted 2007-11-09 22:25:27 and read 9248 times.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 16):
Frequency isn't going anywhere as long as people want it and continue to place value on it,

exactly, but I wish it were different from a Passenger POV, not a spotter  Big grin. It would do a lot to clear congestion if Airlines stopped flying multiple RJ flights instead of using a couple of 737's or A320's but like you said isnt going to happen. Now I'm not sure about this, but how are the frequencies in places were aviation is booming like China, Japan, Australia, India? I'm quite sure the frequencies here in the US are similar to those in Europe, but how are they in these other countries?

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: BlueSky1976
Posted 2007-11-10 02:50:23 and read 7937 times.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
I'd put my money on new aircraft the same size as today's but which overall burn less fuel.
That and maybe some more consolodation and simplification of fleets will help.

I'd put my money on the imminent death of 50 - 70 seat RJ. Those will be replaced by "next generation" turboprops. E-175/-190/-195s and CRJ-900/-100s will do OK until MRJ comes to the market. Everyone and their mother in the industry will be watching this one very closely and then if it is launched and its powerplant - the Pratt's GTF - is successfull, we could expect a "next generation" of jungle jets and hopefully the long-awaited launch of the CSeries.

And no, no mammoth planes in the future. A380-800 is as big as it will get. If anything, Airbus will probably do some sort of a mid-life update with GLARE skins replaced by composite panels a'la A350XWB, Trent 900/GP7200s replaced by Trent XWB/GENx and this sort of stuff.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: AlexPorter
Posted 2007-11-10 03:07:27 and read 7847 times.

It is often said that many routes can only exist because of multiple frequencies to attract the business traveler. That said, many routes that currently have tons of frequencies (i.e. once or twice per hour per airline) can probably generally still attract enough passengers using 3 or 4 times daily schedules. Case in point: LGA-ORD on American, a popular route involving two congested airspaces. Currently this route is flown with 17 MD-80s with a capacity of approx 138 each (I have figures stating 136 and 140 on AA MD80s so I just did the median), for a total of 2346 seats flying from La Guardia to O'Hare on American Airlines each day. This route can be reduced to something like 9 or 10 A300s, for instance. Other routes can work the same way. The main problem with this type of solution is that it is long-term, as attempting to shift all the schedules now means that the airlines would not have enough of the big planes and a surplus of the smaller mainliners.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2007-11-10 03:50:02 and read 7625 times.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 3):
I know Boeing is unlikely to develop a Trijet this big, because if you loose 150K lbs of thrust, due to an engine failure, on take off, hell can happen... They will probably develop a 4 engine mammoth airplane, just like the A380, but bigger.

That makes no sense. If you lose an engine on take off, you continue safely on the remaining engine(s) regardless of number or thrust rating. If the engines in question are 10k lb or 150k lb is irrelevant.

Quoting A5XX (Reply 10):
And what about videoconference technology? For a lot of companies, videoconference will kill air travel, in the foreseeable future. Frequency, in airline travel for businesses, might not be a requirement, anymore. Videoconference systems are getting more and more sophisticated, have higher image resolution, they use big monitors, and, in the end, after a videoconference, the only thing that's missing, is the hand shake...

People have been saying that for 20 years. I don't predict a real video conferencing revolution that will seriously threaten air travel until we have cheap wall sized screens with such high resolution that you can hardly distinguish it from reality, coupled with equivalent sound. Give it at the very least another 5-10 years. Probably more.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
And no, no mammoth planes in the future. A380-800 is as big as it will get.

Well, we might see the 380-900, but the design costs for a completely new type in this weight class are pretty gnarly as Airbus has discovered.

Quoting Czbbflier (Reply 19):

IMO it'll be A380-sized planes for ordinary folk (800+ pax) and Gulfstream/Dassault/Challenger for those on the upper-side of the tracks. It doesn't matter the cost of oil for the rich ones, and economies of scale will keep aviation in the grasp of ordinary-folk....

Where did all the ordinary biz travelers end up? Today, only the very top corporate tiers fly business jets. Most business people fly economy. Quite a few do fly long haul business class, way lower cost than a biz jet. There is and will always be a "middle ground" (using the term loosely).

Quoting A5XX (Reply 3):

What about a HUGE trijet... a la L1011, with, let's say GE90-150 engines?

Well it certainly is a cool idea, but since it's a trijet you don't need 150k engines unless we're talking much much larger than a 380. A trijet in the 380-800 weight class would "only" need roughly 100-110k lb thrust per engine. With 150k on a trijet you're talking 40-50% larger than a 380. If we see bigger jets there will be intermediate steps first.

And then you still have to solve the whole center engine conundrum.

[Edited 2007-11-10 03:55:53]

[Edited 2007-11-10 03:57:53]

[Edited 2007-11-10 03:59:26]

[Edited 2007-11-10 04:02:14]

[Edited 2007-11-10 04:08:03]

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Commavia
Posted 2007-11-10 03:58:11 and read 7570 times.

Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 22):
This route can be reduced to something like 9 or 10 A300s, for instance. Other routes can work the same way.

We've been through this before - in fact, there was an entire thread on this particular route, ORD-LGA. For an airline like AA, for which this is one of their most important, highest-yielding and most business-oriented routes, ORD-LGA is incredibly frequency-intensive.

Because business travelers frequent this market, they rely on a high-frequency shuttle and place extra value on it - and are willing to pay for it. They enjoy the flexibility of having a flight ever 45-60 minutes to choose from, so they can adjust their schedule flexibly as their business day progresses. That same thing could not be achieved with, say 10 A300s.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: RJ111
Posted 2007-11-10 04:06:18 and read 7535 times.

I don't think the habits of flying will really drastically change. You'll just see a slight reduction all over as prices go up. But this will be counteracted by the growth in demand anyway.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: MrPorter
Posted 2007-11-10 06:29:08 and read 6831 times.

What about GA? If fuel costs continue to go the way they are, fewer and fewer people will be able to afford to fly as a hobby. Flying clubs and schools will find it quite a challenge to attract people to fork out the cash to go flying. For those who want to make flying a career, it will be even more difficult to find the money to finance the training required to get an ATPL. If fuel - and therefore training - costs rise the pilot shortage could become more acute in the future. But then again, if frequencies decrease, as many have mentioned in this fourm, maybe this will eliminate a pilot shortage.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: SailorOrion
Posted 2007-11-10 08:44:10 and read 5653 times.

People have predicted the end of travel for centuries. The Telegraph was supposed to render traveling obsolete, then the telephone, the radio, the TV, videoconferencing (which is around for ages), e-mail, www .... Somehow people appear to travel more, not less...

SailorOrion

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: MMEPHX
Posted 2007-11-10 09:13:16 and read 5349 times.

Quoting A5XX (Thread starter):
So, with oil nearing $100.00 per barrel

Yet another bubble waiting to burst. Look at the growth of oil prices this year, it's eerily similar to the dot com prices and housing bubbles of the past few years. Driven by speculators more than real world supply/demand. That is to say, $100 is an immediate problem that can't be solved overnight by suddenly deciding to fly less frequently with larger aircraft that the airlines don't own. Having said that, I do think oil will be relatively more expensive in future years than in the past so new efficiencies of aircraft design, engine efficiency, operational patterns and air traffic will be needed to make the whole process of flying more fuel efficient. A nice side effect of that might just be less flights with larger aircraft that improves on time performance. Airlines are a business not a public service, they will all need to find ways to become more efficient, have some degree of pricing control and deliver a product people want to buy. A tough challenge.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Flyorski
Posted 2007-11-10 09:16:00 and read 5326 times.

Quoting MMEPHX (Reply 29):
do think oil will be relatively more expensive in future years than in the past

Why do you think this is? Do you think their is not enough oil going around to support the rise of China and India, and the consumption of the west?

If the oil companies would build more infrastructure, would the price go down?

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Threepoint
Posted 2007-11-10 09:24:24 and read 5192 times.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 16):
Frequency isn't going anywhere as long as people want it and continue to place value on it, which I don't see changing at all anytime soon.

When everything is running on time, I agree with your assertion. But as we all know, the delays that are mainly due to congestion in the terminal airspace and on the ground at saturated airports tend to eliminate any gains created by taking a flight as close as possible to your meeting/workday/whatever. At some point, frequent travelers are going to get fed up with finishing a meeting at 17:00, hopping on an 18:00 flight and sitting on the tarmac until 19:30.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 24):
Because business travelers frequent this market, they rely on a high-frequency shuttle and place extra value on it - and are willing to pay for it. They enjoy the flexibility of having a flight ever 45-60 minutes to choose from, so they can adjust their schedule flexibly as their business day progresses.

Would those same business travelers be satisfied with accepting say, 90 minute frequency instead of 45-60 min? Surely, 10-12 flights per day will fit into almost everybody's schedules.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Boeing7E7
Posted 2007-11-10 09:43:04 and read 4988 times.

Quoting A5XX (Thread starter):
I once said that the A380, would soon be too small....

And you're still wrong. If high cost of oil is going to have an any impact on air travel, it will cause a decline in air travel driving smaller aircraft, not larger aircraft that can no longer be filled up with pax.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: MMEPHX
Posted 2007-11-10 09:51:21 and read 4895 times.

Quoting Flyorski (Reply 30):
Why do you think this is? Do you think their is not enough oil going around to support the rise of China and India, and the consumption of the west?

If the oil companies would build more infrastructure, would the price go down?

Firstly, demand is increasing including from places like India and China so that will have some effect on price. Secondly, many of the existing supplies are getting towards the end of the "easy" phase of oil extraction, plenty of oil left, just that it will cost more to extract in the future with more complex technologies. Good news is that Brazil recently announced a massive find just offshore that has potential to rival the Saudi reserves. As it is under the seabed, it will cost a little more to extract but the technology is proven and the additional supply should moderate prices but combining all of these factors means I do doubt that we'll ever see $30/bbl (or the inflation adjusted equivalent) again anytime in the near future. .

Oil company infrastructure has 3 primary components 1) Upstream (exploration & extraction) 2) Downstream (refining) 3) Distribution (pipelines etc.) The need for 2 & 3 are driven in the most part by how much infrastructure is available in 1). The oil companies will build infrastructure at just the right pace to maintain a supply/demand price point that keeps them nicely profitable. Building a $3Bn refinery just to flood the market with product so that the prices have to fall so it can be sold makes no financial sense.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2007-11-10 09:53:46 and read 4881 times.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 6):
No kidding. United is a perfect example for this - they run the A319, A320, B737, B747, B757, B767, B777. They, IMO, could run two types of aircraft, and do just as well in maintaining routes and high loads. And, on a side note, those two would be the B777 and a choice between the A319 (or 320 - lots of the same parts) and the B737.

Can you cite some data that suggest that UA's diverse fleet, as well as their extensive use of subfleets (Ted 320s, P.S. 752s, 3 subfleets of 772s, 2 subfleets of 763s) has a negative effect on their bottom line? They differentiate the product extremely effectively.

Look at AA. They got rid of the F100 in the name of fleet simplification, and now there are dozens of routes begging for a 100-seater. Fleet simplification can be a good thing, but it can also be extremely shortsighted.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: SSTsomeday
Posted 2007-11-10 09:53:50 and read 4880 times.

Quoting A5XX (Thread starter):
Fewer flights, to fewer destinations... But using mammoth airplanes.

I would suggest that major strides in fuel efficiency can and are being made in other classes of A/C, especially mid-sized.

On routes where 737-sized A/C are making 15 or 30 trips a day (LAX-SFI, LHR-CDG), it seems to me that larger A/C could be used that would be more fuel efficient, and the loss in frequency would not constitute a great loss in convenience or competition.

Fuel efficient A/C in the medium sized categories are already becoming available (350, 787) and this trend will continue. It is the price of fuel, more than anything else, that is motivating much of the buzz we hear lately that airlines are looking for fuel efficient, next-generation alternatives to the 737/320 classes.

Also, the current spike in fuel prices is "fueled" by a few mitigating factors that are, hopefully, temporary. One being war in the Middle East, the other being the weak American dollar. Further, if the price of oil is sustained at this level for much longer, my understanding is that it will become commerically viable to develop some of our own oil reserves that would previously have been considered financially prohibitive to develop. When that development begins, OPEC will stabilize or even reduce prices in an effort to perpetuate our thirst for foreign oil.

Even so, you may be correct that we could eventually see the Japanese model of large, short range A/C being used on some ultra dense, short haul routes. What I think is more likely, is that "shuttles" will be replaced by high speed rail, from city center to city center...

In another market, however, perhaps BA will see a justification in operating 8 380s a day between LHR and JFK, rather than 12 747s. (or whatever the ratio is).

What I do predict is somewhat of a recession in the near future, and that will effect everything; less travel, downward pressure on airline ticket prices, postponment of A/C deliveries, postponment of green lighting new A/C types, etc.

(note: A.net spell check not available?)

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Aggieflyboi04
Posted 2007-11-10 09:56:40 and read 4832 times.

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 13):
CRJ-200, and some -700's are flown by PSA, another US wholly owned regional.

All the -700's are flow by PSA also Air Wisconsion flies the -200

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Jetdeltamsy
Posted 2007-11-10 13:13:10 and read 3513 times.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 8):
the most part, price is NOT an object

What nonsense. Since 9/11, price is ALWAYS an object. To individuals. To businesses. To everybody.

People flock to the lowest price regardless of who is operating it.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Caspritz78
Posted 2007-11-10 13:50:23 and read 3214 times.

I read somewhere that air traffic makes about 2%-3% of the world wide oil consumption. The whole vacation cruise industry burns more oil. So my guess is that since there are no technological alternatives to jet planes for long distance especially transatlantic and trans pacific travel that the airline industry will make sure that it will get the jet fuel it needs for a reasonable price with the help of politics. I also guess we all will be long driving electric cars and seeing ships pulled by newly designed kites long before jet planes are replaced. Right now I just don't' see any alternative reaching readiness within the next 20-50years to produce the trust and power you need to bring an large aircraft into the air without a jet engine.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: AlexPorter
Posted 2007-11-10 13:51:32 and read 3211 times.

Quoting Commavia (Reply 24):
They enjoy the flexibility of having a flight ever 45-60 minutes to choose from, so they can adjust their schedule flexibly as their business day progresses. That same thing could not be achieved with, say 10 A300s.

It's kind of interesting how the business travelers' inability to be satisfied by having a flight every two hours winds up clogging the airspace (and the taxiways) often leading to delays.

However, you're right in that if one airline chooses to do this but the others don't, then many of the business travelers would jump ship to another airline. This is one of the reasons why the FAA is trying to do something about it on the East Coast, because the airlines can't seem to do it on their own.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Threepoint
Posted 2007-11-10 13:56:24 and read 3147 times.

Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 37):
Since 9/11, price is ALWAYS an object.

I would argue that price has always been a prime consideration, before and since 9/11.

Quoting Caspritz78 (Reply 38):
The whole vacation cruise industry burns more oil.

Really? I'd love to see that stat. The sheer number of commercial aircraft leads me to speculate that air travel uses far more resources than cruise ships. Of course, I'll be the first to stand corrected if proven wrong.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: KarlB737
Posted 2007-11-10 14:05:39 and read 3059 times.

Quoting BlueSky1976 (Reply 21):
Those will be replaced by "next generation" turboprops.

Other than the newer Dash 8 aircraft and possibly a future newer ATR model do we see anything being developed? I say no. As has been pointed out in another thread what is being developed right now to replace the B1900D or the Saab 340? I think the regional airlines that have these aircraft and are thinking of letting them go should take another look.

What about the turboprops that are in the desert? I am not saying it is a good idea only that it is an idea to put on the table like everyone else here is doing. I say this knowing that there may not be many turboprops in the desert and that many of them might be L-188s and Convair 580s. But can or should they also be considered?

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: FUN2FLY
Posted 2007-11-10 14:10:18 and read 3003 times.

If this theory is true, folks will be lining up to buy the 783, right? Hasn't happened yet.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Avek00
Posted 2007-11-10 14:26:52 and read 2882 times.

I respectfully object to the OP's assertion -- carriers with frequency will likely have the upper hand, as they will be in a better position to seek and maintain price premiums for their services on account of offering a superior schedule to travelers, especially time-sensitive travelers who are not overly conscious of price.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: ANother
Posted 2007-11-10 14:42:56 and read 2826 times.

Quoting A5XX (Thread starter):
So, with oil nearing $100.00 per barrel.

Jet fuel is over $113 bbl. See http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economics/fuel_monitor/index.htm

Is it my imagination or is the crack-spread increasing. $15 bbl seems excessive, when it was only about $2 a few years ago.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Starlionblue
Posted 2007-11-10 15:56:04 and read 2715 times.

Quoting ANother (Reply 43):
$15 bbl seems excessive, when it was only about $2 a few years ago.

"excessive" is a very subjective statement. If the market value is 15, the market value is 15.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Allstarflyer
Posted 2007-11-10 17:17:10 and read 2603 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 33):
Can you cite some data that suggest that UA's diverse fleet, as well as their extensive use of subfleets (Ted 320s, P.S. 752s, 3 subfleets of 772s, 2 subfleets of 763s) has a negative effect on their bottom line?

Honestly, no, but I was thinking in broader terms concerning training costs, parts, etc. which could be trimmed down by having just two fleet-types. I agree in that UA does use their fleet effectively (like, for example, using the 767 on the SFO and LAX trips to and from Hawaii), but I think they could do just as well with another a/c type, even for that route (perhaps a 773ER). This, of course, would transpire over time - they could rid themselves eventually of their 757's (sell them off) as that's no longer in production and get more 737NG's. Their 747's do them well, but, at least from my limited experience (like on my LHR trips to and from the states), the 777 does those routes in conjunction with the 747.

So, basically I said that more in a macro scheme just citing obvious savings in only having to train and so forth for fewer fleet types.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Threepoint
Posted 2007-11-10 17:19:56 and read 2597 times.

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 40):
many of them might be L-188s and Convair 580s. But can or should they also be considered?

Would never happen. Which passengers are going to willingly step into a 50 year old airplane on a regional flight? Yes these planes could be flown as safely as any other, but the planes you mentioned are thirsty, loud, uncomfortable airplanes that make even the Dash 8 feel as smooth as silk. The future of the CV580 and L-188 remains in package cargo and firebombing I'm afraid.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 42):
offering a superior schedule to travelers, especially time-sensitive travelers who are not overly conscious of price.

Offering and delivering are two entirely different monsters. As mentioned above, those time-sensitve travelers are going to quickly tire of catching a flight so quickly after their work day ends, only to sit for an hour or two on the ground prior to takeoff due to delays caused primarily by congestion.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: CJAContinental
Posted 2007-11-10 17:47:52 and read 2531 times.

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Mommoth airplanes can only be used on some routes. Sure they save fuel per pax but that only works if you keep the plane full. I'd put my money on new aircraft the same size as today's but which overall burn less fuel.
That and maybe some more consolodation and simplification of fleets will help.

 checkmark 

The A380 has excellent potential to be a really green airplane, though only if you utilise it properly. To be honest, although airlines are taking advantage of the fact that they can put in suites in their aircraft, and other stuff, the layout allows less passengers on board. So in this sense, its not the airline's fault, as they want to give the passengers their money's worth, or the aircraft's fault, as airbus have to sell airplanes. Though still it can only be green if that fuel is wasted less

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Atmx2000
Posted 2007-11-10 18:10:54 and read 2483 times.

Quoting A5XX (Thread starter):
Fewer flights, to fewer destinations... But using mammoth airplanes.

Exactly how are people supposed to get to where they really want to?

Quoting Futurecaptain (Reply 2):
Mommoth airplanes can only be used on some routes. Sure they save fuel per pax but that only works if you keep the plane full. I'd put my money on new aircraft the same size as today's but which overall burn less fuel.

I can buy a reduction in frequency but not fewer destinations, given that there is a fuel cost to flying an indirect routing with one or more stops off the great circle route.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Avek00
Posted 2007-11-10 19:02:13 and read 2403 times.

Quoting Threepoint (Reply 46):
As mentioned above, those time-sensitve travelers are going to quickly tire of catching a flight so quickly after their work day ends, only to sit for an hour or two on the ground prior to takeoff due to delays caused primarily by congestion.

In the North American aviation market, that notion has not rung true with the sole exception of BOS-NYC-WAS. Travelers may gripe about delays, but flights are running record load factors full of many people who insist on leaving at a particular hour, and paying a premium to do so.

Topic: RE: Frequency..... The End Is Near.
Username: Threepoint
Posted 2007-11-11 01:33:39 and read 2239 times.

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 49):
Travelers may gripe about delays, but flights are running record load factors full of many people who insist on leaving at a particular hour, and paying a premium to do so.

Then aren't they the fools. I wouldn't pay a premium to leave on time as much as I would to arrive on time.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/