^ I can't believe after nearly three decades that people still don't understand the key to the success of the ME3. There was even a new term coined for them: the "superconnectors". Over a decade ago, the Economist was talking about them as masters of the new Silk Road.

ME2 tickets now and have been more more expensive on the N. America to India sector for the last few years. They charge a premium to fly them. Obviously they can do that because people prefer convenience over price. Sometimes they are more expensive than UA or AI nonstop. Going via European airlines via DEL is now cheaper than ME2 (Etihad barely flies to many cities in US).

Yep. Both EK and QR serve 10-12 destinations in each of the US and India. That's somewhere around 130-150 city pairs possible on just US-India through DXB or DOH. And they have more than just the US feeding their hubs from the West and North.

I'm pretty sure that upthread someone pointed out that actually 300 aircraft is what their current fleets amount to, and most of them are getting quite old, so by and large they seem to be doing a one for one replacement with a standardised fleet.

DartHerald wrote:

I'm pretty sure that upthread someone pointed out that actually 300 aircraft is what their current fleets amount to, and most of them are getting quite old, so by and large they seem to be doing a one for one replacement with a standardised fleet.

Just checked the respective fleets (AI,UK, IX, I5) - there are 178 planes currently.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

I'm pretty sure that upthread someone pointed out that actually 300 aircraft is what their current fleets amount to, and most of them are getting quite old, so by and large they seem to be doing a one for one replacement with a standardised fleet.

Just checked the respective fleets (AI,UK, IX, I5) - there are 178 planes currently.

Here's an extract from the post I was thinking of: (#13, page 1 of this thread)

As I understood the full "leak", plan is for 300 total aircraft for delivery from 2024 onwards, 70% of which will be narrowbody - thats 210 narrowbodies and 70-80 widebodies.

AI operates 49 widebodies as of now so 80 widebodies will completely replace the current widebody fleet and account for growth. The 210 narrowbodies will be used to replace the A320ceo fleet of both Air India(70), Air India Express (40), Air Asia India(50) and Vistara(50) in the future. Number sounds about right when seen as a combined fleet.

So if this is correct, along with the 300NB figure, some of the proposed NB fleet will be for growth, not just replacement. We'll just have to wait for the order announcement to find out the real numbers!

DartHerald wrote:

Spiderguy252 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

I'm pretty sure that upthread someone pointed out that actually 300 aircraft is what their current fleets amount to, and most of them are getting quite old, so by and large they seem to be doing a one for one replacement with a standardised fleet.

Just checked the respective fleets (AI,UK, IX, I5) - there are 178 planes currently.

Here's an extract from the post I was thinking of: (#13, page 1 of this thread)

As I understood the full "leak", plan is for 300 total aircraft for delivery from 2024 onwards, 70% of which will be narrowbody - thats 210 narrowbodies and 70-80 widebodies.

AI operates 49 widebodies as of now so 80 widebodies will completely replace the current widebody fleet and account for growth. The 210 narrowbodies will be used to replace the A320ceo fleet of both Air India(70), Air India Express (40), Air Asia India(50) and Vistara(50) in the future. Number sounds about right when seen as a combined fleet.

So if this is correct, along with the 300NB figure, some of the proposed NB fleet will be for growth, not just replacement. We'll just have to wait for the order announcement to find out the real numbers!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Regarding "AI operates 49 widebodies as of now" above, just for clarity, AI has 43 widebodies (27 * 787-8 + 13 * 777-300ER + 3 * 777-200LR), out of which atleast 3 * 787 and 3 * 777-300 have been grounded for months, if not years

Thanks

142857 wrote:

Regarding "AI operates 49 widebodies as of now" above, just for clarity, AI has 43 widebodies (27 * 787-8 + 13 * 777-300ER + 3 * 777-200LR), out of which atleast 3 * 787 and 3 * 777-300 have been grounded for months, if not years

Can you provide the identity of these six planes?

scbriml wrote:

142857 wrote:

Regarding "AI operates 49 widebodies as of now" above, just for clarity, AI has 43 widebodies (27 * 787-8 + 13 * 777-300ER + 3 * 777-200LR), out of which atleast 3 * 787 and 3 * 777-300 have been grounded for months, if not years

Can you provide the identity of these six planes?

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Air-India
Out of the 4 77Ws marked as parked, one of them (VT-ALS) was ferried to SIN probably for interior refits. Rest have actually been grounded for probably more than a year.

yashk wrote:

scbriml wrote:

142857 wrote:

Regarding "AI operates 49 widebodies as of now" above, just for clarity, AI has 43 widebodies (27 * 787-8 + 13 * 777-300ER + 3 * 777-200LR), out of which atleast 3 * 787 and 3 * 777-300 have been grounded for months, if not years

Can you provide the identity of these six planes?

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Air-India
Out of the 4 77Ws marked as parked, one of them (VT-ALS) was ferried to SIN probably for interior refits. Rest have actually been grounded for probably more than a year.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And last flight of the following Air-India 788s, per Flightaware:
VT-ANX : Sep 2021
VT-ANL : Dec 2021
VT-ANH : Jan 2022
VT-ANI : Feb 2022

Thanks

VTORD wrote:

yashk wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Can you provide the identity of these six planes?

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Air-India
Out of the 4 77Ws marked as parked, one of them (VT-ALS) was ferried to SIN probably for interior refits. Rest have actually been grounded for probably more than a year.

AI not back to their pre-Covid utilization I suppose? Or are we still talking persistent maintenance bottlenecks? I saw that 7 B788s are parked as well (2 since 2021 and rest in 2022).

VT-ALS is in SIN as you rightly mentioned. There are 3 other 77Ws grounded, VT-ALL, ALO, ALP. Out of these, ALO and ALP have been grounded since Aug and Oct last year for lack of spares. The idea is to get them back ASAP. The Tatas have enabled buying spares which the Govt wasn't prioritizing. Once these aircraft are repaired, expect them to join the fleet. On the other hand, ALL has been grounded since the pandemic began and hasn't flown in more than 2 years. It is also waiting for spares but is in bad shape so will take a bit longer to get back to flying. Hopefully all 3 will start flying in the next few months.

Let's assume the market can support Tata buying 300 frames and move on. That horse has been beaten to death.

The question is how does Tata restructure what is effectively a portfolio of 3 airline companies with 5 brands. I would argue that they need one full service carrier (FSC) and one Low Cost Carrier (LC). I would move regional carrier. So the LCC replaces Air India Express, Air Asia India and Alliance Air. The FSC replaces/merges Air India and Vistara. Maybe bring back the "Indian" brand or redeploy the Vistara brand (though I think they should save this for their business class and lounge brands at the FSC).

I have suggested in the A220 markets thread that they should build an LCC around the 223 (with the regional operating 221s). This might be a way to outflank IndiGo. Slightly smaller planes would let them offer more flights for a similar operating cost from more cities. Would also offer a differentiated experience, rather than going toe-to-toe with the same 186Y 320N. The 220 has the legs to reach just about any city in the Gulf and Southeast Asia from India. It can be certified for steep approaches to short runways (done at LCY) solving the tabletop runway problem. I think they need something like 80 223s and 20 221s to launch. That is about 10% more seat count than what IX, I5 and 9I have today. Yet, this comes with a reduction from 4 families (I count 320 and 320NEO as same family) and 7 subtypes to one family and two subtypes.

Put all the existing Airbus narrow bodies in the new FSC (probably with AI branding). Retire the 738s at IX and UK. This gives them a current generation fleet of 66 320Ns (with 19 on order) and 4 321Ns (with 2 on order). They also have a legacy fleet of 21 319s, 43 320s, 15 321s and 5 738s that should be replaced over the next 10-15 years. I would think the sensible option to replace all of that, while adding about 10-15% capacity, would be an order of about 80-85 321Ns. Over time, that would reduce the complexity of the FSC narrowbody fleet from two families and 6 subtypes to one family with 3 subtypes (320N, 321N, 321XLR).

To address long haul, the XLR is absolutely perfect. Enough range to cover almost all of Europe from DEL and BOM and even BLR. Enough range to hit every major centre in Asia. I would argue for at least 60 frames to start, to let them target a whole bunch of non-hub cities from at least 1-2 of the FSC hubs (BOM, DEL, BLR, CCU) each. I imagine pairs like BLR-BER, DEL-BHX, and BOM-LIS.

That leaves room for 55 widebodies. I would have picked 789s and 78Js for commonality. But I imagine the 35Js are preferred for availability and the capacity to eventually replace the 777s. Whatever they buy, this fleet has to have range and capacity. The bulk of this fleet's lift will be about serving North America and Australia on long haul. It's only being employed for capacity at a handful of Asian and European destinations where additional lift is needed.

Fleet standardization should let them also move to product standardization. The FSC will always have J/Y+/Y on every aircraft. The LCC will always be 100% Y. None of this stuff where a full service carrier operates all economy aircraft, like both AI and UK today. The addition of the XLR would also mean the FSC could guarantee a lie-flat in J for any international flight. Even if it's just a flight to Dubai.

The FSC will always operate from 3-4 major hubs (my suggestion is BOM, DEL, BLR and CCU). No multi-stop flights. The LCC should add about 8-10 more bases (places like HYD, MAA, TRV, COK, etc) in addition to the above (kinda like the Ryanair/easyJet model), operate regional flights from primary hubs and do multi-stop routes. All those secondary bases will allow the LCC to offer up a whole lot of direct flights (especially to the Gulf), in direct competition to 6E and SG.

This kind of consolidation should lead to AI building its own decent lounge network too, starting with the primary FSC hubs, LCC secondary operating base and domestic focus cities. But eventually at major international destinations like LHR and DXB. I'd personally love to see Vistara retained as their lounge and maybe business class brand. Might even want to deploy the Vistara brand for their frequent flyer program.

TLDR; I'm a daydreaming avgeek who sees real potential in consolidation here. Especially given the number of types and number of brands they have. I think 300 is about the minimum frames they need to order just to cover retirements and to grow into key markets like North America. I think they need to use the fleet order to build real differentiation. Both between full service mainline and the low cost carrier, and from other carriers in India. I think the 223 is a good fit to build an LCC around.

His broad contention is that India can't absorb a large 300 frame order, because of a lack of growth or yield.

I would argue that a good rough corollary to project sustainable traffic growth is real GDP growth. If anything this is a bit of a conservative indicator. But in general, a richer population travels more and is less price sensitive (leading to higher yields). With this in mind, a 300 frame order (with 20-25% widebodies) is rather conservative. Deduct projected retirements from AI, IX, I5 and UK over the next 15 years. And then you end up with something like a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in capacity of maybe about 5% in the widebody fleet and 2-3% in the narrowbody fleet. It's not very aggressive at all. It's a plan that lags broader economic growth. And it's a plan that focuses on growing long haul substantially while keeping a viable minimum (for the business and to feed the long haul network) domestic marketshare.

TObound wrote:

His broad contention is that India can't absorb a large 300 frame order, because of a lack of growth or yield.

I would argue that a good rough corollary to project sustainable traffic growth is real GDP growth. If anything this is a bit of a conservative indicator. But in general, a richer population travels more and is less price sensitive (leading to higher yields). With this in mind, a 300 frame order (with 20-25% widebodies) is rather conservative. Deduct projected retirements from AI, IX, I5 and UK over the next 15 years. And then you end up with something like a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in capacity of maybe about 5% in the widebody fleet and 2-3% in the narrowbody fleet. It's not very aggressive at all. It's a plan that lags broader economic growth. And it's a plan that focuses on growing long haul substantially while keeping a viable minimum (for the business and to feed the long haul network) domestic marketshare.

I would agree entirely and certainly, like yourself, feel an order for 300 is actually quite conservative and will need more eventually.

Vicenza wrote:

TObound wrote:

His broad contention is that India can't absorb a large 300 frame order, because of a lack of growth or yield.

I would argue that a good rough corollary to project sustainable traffic growth is real GDP growth. If anything this is a bit of a conservative indicator. But in general, a richer population travels more and is less price sensitive (leading to higher yields). With this in mind, a 300 frame order (with 20-25% widebodies) is rather conservative. Deduct projected retirements from AI, IX, I5 and UK over the next 15 years. And then you end up with something like a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in capacity of maybe about 5% in the widebody fleet and 2-3% in the narrowbody fleet. It's not very aggressive at all. It's a plan that lags broader economic growth. And it's a plan that focuses on growing long haul substantially while keeping a viable minimum (for the business and to feed the long haul network) domestic marketshare.

I would agree entirely and certainly, like yourself, feel an order for 300 is actually quite conservative and will need more eventually.

I will admit to thinking 300 was a large number. Until I started looking at what that meant in terms of actual growth. The narrowbody growth is rather unambitious. Especially when you compare to say 6E that is planning to at least double in size by the end of the decade. The combined Tata narrowbody fleet (AI/IX/I5/UK) with 250 new frame would still be a good bit (~30-40%) smaller than 6E in 2030, once the older frames are parted out this decade.

They've also not said anything at all about the LR/XLR while 6E is planning to jump into the long haul market. So if say 20% of this order goes to the XLR (as per my daydreaming analysis earlier), that means they have an even larger gap on domestic capacity.

Presuming the mergers with I5 and UK are sorted out, I would argue the combined group needs something like 400 narrowbodies by 2035, with 300 of those arriving by the end of this decade. And about 100 widebodies with about half delivered by 2030. And given inflation and supply chain issues, it's best to lock in earlier than wait.

Something to keep in mind in these discussions about demand for air travel is how concentrated Indian passenger aviation still is. 1% of the population is responsible for 45% of the passengers.



As the country develops and the middle class broadens, this should widen demand the number of people flying, while increasing the flights that frequent flyers themselves take. That should lead to a larger market. But also one that is less concentrated and hence price sensitive. We should see at least some slight shift to preferences for frequency and direct connections, with a willingness to pay a small premium for those preferences.

DartHerald wrote:

Spiderguy252 wrote:

DartHerald wrote:

I'm pretty sure that upthread someone pointed out that actually 300 aircraft is what their current fleets amount to, and most of them are getting quite old, so by and large they seem to be doing a one for one replacement with a standardised fleet.

Just checked the respective fleets (AI,UK, IX, I5) - there are 178 planes currently.

Here's an extract from the post I was thinking of: (#13, page 1 of this thread)

As I understood the full "leak", plan is for 300 total aircraft for delivery from 2024 onwards, 70% of which will be narrowbody - thats 210 narrowbodies and 70-80 widebodies.

AI operates 49 widebodies as of now so 80 widebodies will completely replace the current widebody fleet and account for growth. The 210 narrowbodies will be used to replace the A320ceo fleet of both Air India(70), Air India Express (40), Air Asia India(50) and Vistara(50) in the future. Number sounds about right when seen as a combined fleet.

So if this is correct, along with the 300NB figure, some of the proposed NB fleet will be for growth, not just replacement. We'll just have to wait for the order announcement to find out the real numbers!

As I stated in the original post, there is some misunderstanding about the wording. As I understood the PR leak that Indian newspapers are referring to, the total plan is to order 300 aircraft, 70% of which will be narrowbodies. The latter part of the sentence seems to have gotten lost in most of the media reports though atleast one journalist on Twitter got it right. 70% = 210 which sounds about right to replace 180 odd narrowbodies currently in combined fleet.

TObound wrote:

Something to keep in mind in these discussions about demand for air travel is how concentrated Indian passenger aviation still is. 1% of the population is responsible for 45% of the passengers.



As the country develops and the middle class broadens, this should widen demand the number of people flying, while increasing the flights that frequent flyers themselves take. That should lead to a larger market. But also one that is less concentrated and hence price sensitive. We should see at least some slight shift to preferences for frequency and direct connections, with a willingness to pay a small premium for those preferences.

While that is interesting, the real kicker is the growth speed of the market. From 2016 to 2019 RPK almost doubled. The forecast predict that this market will be the biggest on 2030. Due to economic causes you mentioned and a complete lack of other mobility options like train or road. The plane will be the only viable mode of travel for the years to come for the middle class Indian…

Source: https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-aviation

JonesNL wrote:

TObound wrote:

Something to keep in mind in these discussions about demand for air travel is how concentrated Indian passenger aviation still is. 1% of the population is responsible for 45% of the passengers.



As the country develops and the middle class broadens, this should widen demand the number of people flying, while increasing the flights that frequent flyers themselves take. That should lead to a larger market. But also one that is less concentrated and hence price sensitive. We should see at least some slight shift to preferences for frequency and direct connections, with a willingness to pay a small premium for those preferences.

While that is interesting, the real kicker is the growth speed of the market. From 2016 to 2019 RPK almost doubled. The forecast predict that this market will be the biggest on 2030. Due to economic causes you mentioned and a complete lack of other mobility options like train or road. The plane will be the only viable mode of travel for the years to come for the middle class Indian…

Source: https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-aviation

Amazing data. Thanks for sharing.

And it also shows why priors about Indian aviation are rather useless to judge what is coming up.

JonesNL wrote:

and a complete lack of other mobility options like train or road. The plane will be the only viable mode of travel for the years to come for the middle class Indian…

Source: https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-aviation

India has an extensive train network with trains catering to a whole gamut of options in terms of speed, comfort and costs. You can travel by train from Kanyakumari in the south to Jammu Tawi in the north by the Himsagar Express. You have the slowest "Passenger" Trains, Express, Superfast Express, Duronto, Shatabdi and Rajdhani trains. Plus in Express and Superfast trains you can choose between II Class (non-AC), 3A and 2A (AC). Not to mention the Konkan Railway.

And each state has their own ST (State Transport) Bus Service inter city again with multiple comfort and cost levels.

VTORD wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

and a complete lack of other mobility options like train or road. The plane will be the only viable mode of travel for the years to come for the middle class Indian…

Source: https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-aviation

India has an extensive train network with trains catering to a whole gamut of options in terms of speed, comfort and costs. You can travel by train from Kanyakumari in the south to Jammu Tawi in the north by the Himsagar Express. You have the slowest "Passenger" Trains, Express, Superfast Express, Duronto, Shatabdi and Rajdhani trains. Plus in Express and Superfast trains you can choose between II Class (non-AC), 3A and 2A (AC). Not to mention the Konkan Railway.

And each state has their own ST (State Transport) Bus Service inter city again with multiple comfort and cost levels.

I am not completely sure, but are they comparable with planes in terms of speed?

Amsterdam to Lyon is already though competition with a TGV that is 300kmh…

VTORD wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

and a complete lack of other mobility options like train or road. The plane will be the only viable mode of travel for the years to come for the middle class Indian…

Source: https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-aviation

India has an extensive train network with trains catering to a whole gamut of options in terms of speed, comfort and costs. You can travel by train from Kanyakumari in the south to Jammu Tawi in the north by the Himsagar Express. You have the slowest "Passenger" Trains, Express, Superfast Express, Duronto, Shatabdi and Rajdhani trains. Plus in Express and Superfast trains you can choose between II Class (non-AC), 3A and 2A (AC). Not to mention the Konkan Railway.

And each state has their own ST (State Transport) Bus Service inter city again with multiple comfort and cost levels.

Indian railways and roads are NOT good substitution for air transport. When I was planning a trip to India and mentioned trains my Indian colleagues laughed at me. Most of the trains are old and due to infrastructure limitations travel below 130km/h with a few exceptions up 160 on short sections. The new Vande Bharat trains improve the hardware a bit but they are still much slower compared to HSR of other countries. There are only two current VB routes+the Gaatiman to Agra and Jhansi, and they are only going to replace the top Shatabdi and Rajdhani routes. Did I mention severe delays which are commonplace?

Due to poor road conditions the realistic average speed between most cities are 60-70km/h. I will use the example of Delhi to Amritsar. You can either drive for 7 hrs or sit on a dated Shatabdi (2 train/day, other trains are even slower)which takes 6 hrs minimum to cover a distance of 450km, or you can fly for just over 1hr (6 flights/day from 8am to 10pm, add 2 hrs of check in, getting to and from airport etc). I know what I would choose.

TObound wrote:

Something to keep in mind in these discussions about demand for air travel is how concentrated Indian passenger aviation still is. 1% of the population is responsible for 45% of the passengers.

That must be one of the worst statistical charts I have ever seen.

In the UK 15% of the population is responsible for 70% of the flights
In India 1% is responsible for 45% of the flights

How am I supposed to compare those numbers? Based on this chart, 1% of the UK population could be responsible for 45% of the flights, and 15% of the Indian population could be responsible for 70% of the flights. If the chart would have shown what percentage of the population is responsible for 45% or 70% of the flights in each country then it would actually have been informative.

AeroVega wrote:

TObound wrote:

Something to keep in mind in these discussions about demand for air travel is how concentrated Indian passenger aviation still is. 1% of the population is responsible for 45% of the passengers.

That must be one of the worst statistical charts I have ever seen.

In the UK 15% of the population is responsible for 70% of the flights
In India 1% is responsible for 45% of the flights

How am I supposed to compare those numbers? Based on this chart, 1% of the UK population could be responsible for 45% of the flights, and 15% of the Indian population could be responsible for 70% of the flights. If the chart would have shown what percentage of the population is responsible for 45% or 70% of the flights in each country then it would actually have been informative.

I agree. Very odd how they are mutating the "independent" variable... total share of flights should stay the same, while % of population should be the sole data value to change from country to country.

For example: In country X, 5% of people are responsible for 70% of all flights vs in country Y, 20% of people are responsible for 70% of all flights. This would acutally allow the data to be interpreted, compared, and understood in a clear manner.

Cerecl wrote:

Indian railways and roads are NOT good substitution for air transport. When I was planning a trip to India and mentioned trains my Indian colleagues laughed at me. Most of the trains are old and due to infrastructure limitations travel below 130km/h with a few exceptions up 160 on short sections. The new Vande Bharat trains improve the hardware a bit but they are still much slower compared to HSR of other countries. There are only two current VB routes+the Gaatiman to Agra and Jhansi, and they are only going to replace the top Shatabdi and Rajdhani routes. Did I mention severe delays which are commonplace?

Due to poor road conditions the realistic average speed between most cities are 60-70km/h. I will use the example of Delhi to Amritsar. You can either drive for 7 hrs or sit on a dated Shatabdi (2 train/day, other trains are even slower)which takes 6 hrs minimum to cover a distance of 450km, or you can fly for just over 1hr (6 flights/day from 8am to 10pm, add 2 hrs of check in, getting to and from airport etc). I know what I would choose.

I was merely disagreeing with the statement that there are no viable modes of transport in India and that the airplane is the only viable option. That's simply not true. Even as more and more people become upwardly mobile. Personally I prefer flying, but some of my family prefer the train. I have a cousin who travels a lot between HYD and BOM. She finds it more convenient to sleep on the train overnight to HYD reaching early morning rather than wake up at 3:00 AM for 6:00 AM flight. And I know that affordability is not a problem. And this is not a person who doesn't like to fly either. It is a choice. I have not been to India last 3 years so I cannot comment on the state of the trains but from what little I do talk to my family, they don't seem to share the same laughable impression your Indian colleagues seem to have.

Is the plane a faster, more convenient option? IMO Yes. Is it the only option? No.

JonesNL wrote:

I am not completely sure, but are they comparable with planes in terms of speed?

Amsterdam to Lyon is already though competition with a TGV that is 300kmh…

No. BOM-DEL flight is 2 hours, Rajdhani Express takes 14 I believe for the same journey.

Cerecl wrote:

VTORD wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

and a complete lack of other mobility options like train or road. The plane will be the only viable mode of travel for the years to come for the middle class Indian…

Source: https://www.ibef.org/industry/indian-aviation

India has an extensive train network with trains catering to a whole gamut of options in terms of speed, comfort and costs. You can travel by train from Kanyakumari in the south to Jammu Tawi in the north by the Himsagar Express. You have the slowest "Passenger" Trains, Express, Superfast Express, Duronto, Shatabdi and Rajdhani trains. Plus in Express and Superfast trains you can choose between II Class (non-AC), 3A and 2A (AC). Not to mention the Konkan Railway.


Due to poor road conditions the realistic average speed between most cities are 60-70km/h. I will use the example of Delhi to Amritsar. You can either drive for 7 hrs or sit on a dated Shatabdi (2 train/day, other trains are even slower)which takes 6 hrs minimum to cover a distance of 450km, or you can fly for just over 1hr (6 flights/day from 8am to 10pm, add 2 hrs of check in, getting to and from airport etc). I know what I would choose.

Actually its the contrary GOI has been heavily investing in road infra which is tipping the scales in the favor of roads. Post covid people have embraced roads. I cannot say about other cities but will talk about Delhi. Flights primarily work in your favor if only 1 or 2 individuals are travelling. Moment we have 3 or more you may have variety of other options. For example If i have to go to Lucknow by flight. Looking at the traffic in Delhi i would least have to start 1.5-2 hours ahead of check in time assuming i am staying in Noida/North Delhi/Central Delhi . Then reporting 2 hours ahead of flight departure for check in formalities and security. 1 hour for flight. Another 30 mins for baggage and finally 1 hour for drop to home. So the sum total still is 6-7 odd hours. Shatabdi is still relevant with similar timelines. If family of 4 drives down to Lucknow (using expressway ) its the same number of hours. with 5k worth of fuel and 1k of toll taxes. While by air i would end up spending 4kx4=16K (air fare) +2K(for cab transfers) and maybe 1K misc. Devil lies in details and numbers.

Just a question: Are there good maintenance / technical facilities for Boeing and Airbus in India?

What is the reason for the high rate of aircraft being used as spare parts?

India has been focused on high quality software and some hardware industry, educating their citizens. But has it done the same for aviation?
I know that India does quite a lot of military aviation "in house", but what about civil aviation?

JetBuddy wrote:

Just a question: Are there good maintenance / technical facilities for Boeing and Airbus in India?

What is the reason for the high rate of aircraft being used as spare parts?

India has been focused on high quality software and some hardware industry, educating their citizens. But has it done the same for aviation?
I know that India does quite a lot of military aviation "in house", but what about civil aviation?

I'm gonna try and answer this the best I can but I might get it wrong. I don't have the answer to question 3 though.

1. Are there good maintenance / technical facilities for Boeing and Airbus in India?

Airbus: should be since there's 300 a320's alone there

Boeing: not sure

2. What is the reason for the high rate of aircraft being used as spare parts?

previous mismanagement and corruption

sfojvjets wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

TObound wrote:

Something to keep in mind in these discussions about demand for air travel is how concentrated Indian passenger aviation still is. 1% of the population is responsible for 45% of the passengers.

That must be one of the worst statistical charts I have ever seen.

In the UK 15% of the population is responsible for 70% of the flights
In India 1% is responsible for 45% of the flights

How am I supposed to compare those numbers? Based on this chart, 1% of the UK population could be responsible for 45% of the flights, and 15% of the Indian population could be responsible for 70% of the flights. If the chart would have shown what percentage of the population is responsible for 45% or 70% of the flights in each country then it would actually have been informative.

I agree. Very odd how they are mutating the "independent" variable... total share of flights should stay the same, while % of population should be the sole data value to change from country to country.

For example: In country X, 5% of people are responsible for 70% of all flights vs in country Y, 20% of people are responsible for 70% of all flights. This would acutally allow the data to be interpreted, compared, and understood in a clear manner.

Keep in mind that the original purpose of the chart was to show the disproportionate impact of frequent flyers. It was put together by environmental campaigners. I do think the concentration is revealing though. In general, the more developed a country the less concentrated their passenger bookings among a small percentage of the population. I suspect this is because the class that can access aviation grows. And the shift to higher value economic activities, including more services economy, probably drives more business travel. The only exceptions I see with this trend are countries with highly developed HSR networks, which can capture a significant amount of business travel. France, for example.

sfojvjets wrote:

Holy crap. That's a big order.

I'm thinking it will either be a single type narrowbody fleet of A320neo family aircraft or a mix of MAXes and neos. Since they already have neos, it won't make sense for them to just order MAXes only.

I think that when you're talking about such vast numbers of aircraft, economies of scale go out the window. The additional cost per aircraft of operating, say, 200 A320-family and 200 737-family isn't that much higher than operating a single type. Sure, if you're a smaller airline with, say, 50 AC then those economies of scale now become more relevant.

DocLightning wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Holy crap. That's a big order.

I'm thinking it will either be a single type narrowbody fleet of A320neo family aircraft or a mix of MAXes and neos. Since they already have neos, it won't make sense for them to just order MAXes only.

I think that when you're talking about such vast numbers of aircraft, economies of scale go out the window. The additional cost per aircraft of operating, say, 200 A320-family and 200 737-family isn't that much higher than operating a single type. Sure, if you're a smaller airline with, say, 50 AC then those economies of scale now become more relevant.

Gotta think about Delivery scheduling too.

DocLightning wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Holy crap. That's a big order.

I'm thinking it will either be a single type narrowbody fleet of A320neo family aircraft or a mix of MAXes and neos. Since they already have neos, it won't make sense for them to just order MAXes only.

I think that when you're talking about such vast numbers of aircraft, economies of scale go out the window. The additional cost per aircraft of operating, say, 200 A320-family and 200 737-family isn't that much higher than operating a single type. Sure, if you're a smaller airline with, say, 50 AC then those economies of scale now become more relevant.

Sure. It's all about finding the sweet "range" (I say sweet range instead of sweet spot because it isn't super black and white).

For example, for EK, it doesn't make sense for them to have significantly more A380s because that amount of capacity isn't necessary. But to have significantly less would impact their economies of scale of the 380 fleet.

With AI, I think a mixed fleet could definitely make sense. We've seen how IX has successfully used the 737 family as a way to haul travelers between India and the gulf–so there's definitely a place for the 737 MAX, whether that's in the mainline fleet along with 320neos, or in an expansion of one of the other fleets such as IX. However, I was more so considering delivery slots when I said that the 737 MAX would make sense in a mixed fleet. Airbus's success with the 320 family has bitten them in the butt with customers incentivized to go to Boeing for quicker delivery times. Yes, we've seen traditional Boeing customers switch to Airbus such as Jet2, KLM, and Qantas (the common denominator is that all of these will have the 321neo in their fleet). But we've also seen other kinds of switches with Allegiant, who went for the MAX, and with Porter, who cancelled their 220 order and went with Embraer E2s instead because they could get them within two years.

Keep in mind that this is basically for a group that includes AI, IX, 9I, I5 and UK. That group is heavily skewed towards the 320. Very few NGs in operation. The group is also rather short on higher capacity narrowbodies (739/321 size). That said they need to consolidate and reduce the number of families and types they operate in their narrowbody fleet. It's essential given that their largest competitors are single family LCCs.

Delivery slots may be important. But for the most part, they can wait a year or two to start taking deliveries, in favour of their overall strategy. And this order is so large and will be spread over enough years that whoever wins would gladly hike production rates to accomodate the order.

TObound wrote:

Keep in mind that this is basically for a group that includes AI, IX, 9I, I5 and UK. That group is heavily skewed towards the 320. Very few NGs in operation. The group is also rather short on higher capacity narrowbodies (739/321 size). That said they need to consolidate and reduce the number of families and types they operate in their narrowbody fleet. It's essential given that their largest competitors are single family LCCs.

Delivery slots may be important. But for the most part, they can wait a year or two to start taking deliveries, in favour of their overall strategy. And this order is so large and will be spread over enough years that whoever wins would gladly hike production rates to accomodate the order.

1 year ago suppliers were crying murder for hiking the A32x production to 75 a month. With the latest batch of orders it seems that the hike is probably the bare minimum and they should already lay the ground works for a further hike. Just this order and the one from China makes up for around 500 A32x. Won't be surprised if they end this year with 1000+ orders, which means with 75 per month production they would have added 1+ year on the already full backlog...

TObound wrote:

Keep in mind that this is basically for a group that includes AI, IX, 9I, I5 and UK.

9I (Alliance Air) is still owned by the govt. and wasn't handed over to the Tata's.

JonesNL wrote:

TObound wrote:

Keep in mind that this is basically for a group that includes AI, IX, 9I, I5 and UK. That group is heavily skewed towards the 320. Very few NGs in operation. The group is also rather short on higher capacity narrowbodies (739/321 size). That said they need to consolidate and reduce the number of families and types they operate in their narrowbody fleet. It's essential given that their largest competitors are single family LCCs.

Delivery slots may be important. But for the most part, they can wait a year or two to start taking deliveries, in favour of their overall strategy. And this order is so large and will be spread over enough years that whoever wins would gladly hike production rates to accomodate the order.

1 year ago suppliers were crying murder for hiking the A32x production to 75 a month. With the latest batch of orders it seems that the hike is probably the bare minimum and they should already lay the ground works for a further hike. Just this order and the one from China makes up for around 500 A32x. Won't be surprised if they end this year with 1000+ orders, which means with 75 per month production they would have added 1+ year on the already full backlog...

To be fair, 500 frames over 8-10 years is about 4-5 frames per month. And a chunk of those probably will be 220s. It's a challenge, but not a huge lift for Airbus. And heck, the coming recession is likely to going free up room too.

TObound wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

TObound wrote:

Keep in mind that this is basically for a group that includes AI, IX, 9I, I5 and UK. That group is heavily skewed towards the 320. Very few NGs in operation. The group is also rather short on higher capacity narrowbodies (739/321 size). That said they need to consolidate and reduce the number of families and types they operate in their narrowbody fleet. It's essential given that their largest competitors are single family LCCs.

Delivery slots may be important. But for the most part, they can wait a year or two to start taking deliveries, in favour of their overall strategy. And this order is so large and will be spread over enough years that whoever wins would gladly hike production rates to accomodate the order.

1 year ago suppliers were crying murder for hiking the A32x production to 75 a month. With the latest batch of orders it seems that the hike is probably the bare minimum and they should already lay the ground works for a further hike. Just this order and the one from China makes up for around 500 A32x. Won't be surprised if they end this year with 1000+ orders, which means with 75 per month production they would have added 1+ year on the already full backlog...

To be fair, 500 frames over 8-10 years is about 4-5 frames per month. And a chunk of those probably will be 220s. It's a challenge, but not a huge lift for Airbus. And heck, the coming recession is likely to going free up room too.

Average recession duration is 10 months. The last one we had was a great exception.
I agree that over 8-10 years the impact is less, but this is just 2 orders, both not even the biggest and at a time where airlines are needing to offload a lot of debt. Just looking at the growth prospects in India alone and I can see all Indian orders doubling by 2025...

VTORD wrote:

Cerecl wrote:

Indian railways and roads are NOT good substitution for air transport. When I was planning a trip to India and mentioned trains my Indian colleagues laughed at me. Most of the trains are old and due to infrastructure limitations travel below 130km/h with a few exceptions up 160 on short sections. The new Vande Bharat trains improve the hardware a bit but they are still much slower compared to HSR of other countries. There are only two current VB routes+the Gaatiman to Agra and Jhansi, and they are only going to replace the top Shatabdi and Rajdhani routes. Did I mention severe delays which are commonplace?

Due to poor road conditions the realistic average speed between most cities are 60-70km/h. I will use the example of Delhi to Amritsar. You can either drive for 7 hrs or sit on a dated Shatabdi (2 train/day, other trains are even slower)which takes 6 hrs minimum to cover a distance of 450km, or you can fly for just over 1hr (6 flights/day from 8am to 10pm, add 2 hrs of check in, getting to and from airport etc). I know what I would choose.

I was merely disagreeing with the statement that there are no viable modes of transport in India and that the airplane is the only viable option. That's simply not true. Even as more and more people become upwardly mobile. Personally I prefer flying, but some of my family prefer the train. I have a cousin who travels a lot between HYD and BOM. She finds it more convenient to sleep on the train overnight to HYD reaching early morning rather than wake up at 3:00 AM for 6:00 AM flight. And I know that affordability is not a problem. And this is not a person who doesn't like to fly either. It is a choice. I have not been to India last 3 years so I cannot comment on the state of the trains but from what little I do talk to my family, they don't seem to share the same laughable impression your Indian colleagues seem to have.

Is the plane a faster, more convenient option? IMO Yes. Is it the only option? No.

JonesNL wrote:

I am not completely sure, but are they comparable with planes in terms of speed?

Amsterdam to Lyon is already though competition with a TGV that is 300kmh…

No. BOM-DEL flight is 2 hours, Rajdhani Express takes 14 I believe for the same journey.

Plane has become a viable option for middle class and certainly for upper middle class especially for travel which takes 13 + hours on trains. The above example HYD to BOM, takes an average of 17 hours and trains are often late, so for many planes are a good option and certainly is now even for small business travellers (previously they were going by trains, but now most of them go by plane). Also on trains hygiene is an issue even on super fast express trains.

JonesNL wrote:

TObound wrote:

JonesNL wrote:

1 year ago suppliers were crying murder for hiking the A32x production to 75 a month. With the latest batch of orders it seems that the hike is probably the bare minimum and they should already lay the ground works for a further hike. Just this order and the one from China makes up for around 500 A32x. Won't be surprised if they end this year with 1000+ orders, which means with 75 per month production they would have added 1+ year on the already full backlog...

To be fair, 500 frames over 8-10 years is about 4-5 frames per month. And a chunk of those probably will be 220s. It's a challenge, but not a huge lift for Airbus. And heck, the coming recession is likely to going free up room too.

Average recession duration is 10 months. The last one we had was a great exception.
I agree that over 8-10 years the impact is less, but this is just 2 orders, both not even the biggest and at a time where airlines are needing to offload a lot of debt. Just looking at the growth prospects in India alone and I can see all Indian orders doubling by 2025...

There's no telling how long a recession we will face given that several major economic crises are coming to a head at the same time. Also, no telling how much commercial aviation leads or lags the economy. The 2008 recession officially lasted two years. However, revenue passenger miles in the US didn't recover from pre-recession peak (March 2008) till Feb 2013. So about 5 years. I'm personally skeptical that we won't see major order cancellations and deferrals coming up. But the OEMs can't say that out loud.



https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RPMD11

Risk of recession aside, the Tata family of carriers needs orders for recapitalization and growth. And they need to position themselves to take advantage of the rebound following any recession.

VTORD wrote:

I was merely disagreeing with the statement that there are no viable modes of transport in India and that the airplane is the only viable option. That's simply not true. Even as more and more people become upwardly mobile. Personally I prefer flying, but some of my family prefer the train. I have a cousin who travels a lot between HYD and BOM. She finds it more convenient to sleep on the train overnight to HYD reaching early morning rather than wake up at 3:00 AM for 6:00 AM flight. And I know that affordability is not a problem. And this is not a person who doesn't like to fly either. It is a choice. I have not been to India last 3 years so I cannot comment on the state of the trains but from what little I do talk to my family, they don't seem to share the same laughable impression your Indian colleagues seem to have.

Is the plane a faster, more convenient option? IMO Yes. Is it the only option? No.

Of course I am not suggesting that the only way to travel in India is by plane. There are situations road/train makes more sense. Your cousin's example is a bit special in that she needs to be at the destination early in morning. Would a typical middle class person choose a 15 hours train trip over a 1.5 hr flight? As to the general condition of Indian trains, with due respect to your family members and the exception of a handful of routes, let's not go there.

Cerecl wrote:

Of course I am not suggesting that the only way to travel in India is by plane. There are situations road/train makes more sense. Your cousin's example is a bit special in that she needs to be at the destination early in morning. Would a typical middle class person choose a 15 hours train trip over a 1.5 hr flight? As to the general condition of Indian trains, with due respect to your family members and the exception of a handful of routes, let's not go there.

hohd wrote:

Plane has become a viable option for middle class and certainly for upper middle class especially for travel which takes 13 + hours on trains. The above example HYD to BOM, takes an average of 17 hours and trains are often late, so for many planes are a good option and certainly is now even for small business travellers (previously they were going by trains, but now most of them go by plane). Also on trains hygiene is an issue even on super fast express trains.

I don't disagree with what either of you are saying nor do I wish to imply that my family is representative of the broader travel choices that majority Indians make. Will the middle class Indian choose a 15 hour train ride over a 1.5 hour flight? I don't know. I have traveled from Mumbai to Hyderabad by train a lot and the only reason I would do so now is if I wanted to sample the Diwadkar Vada-pav at Karjat or the Puri-Bhaaji at Solapur station. And I agree that this conversation has run its course.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-07-17/

Update here for you all:

Airbus and Boeing officials flew to India ahead of the show chasing a potential $50 billion blockbuster from Air India owner Tata Group. It is studying 200-300 narrowbodies and 30-70 wide-bodies split between suppliers, but hopes of a sizzling order to match this week's temperature are on hold for now, sources said.

So it looks like as of now. Both Boeing AND airbus are going to get a nice piece of the pie. Now the split figures will be the detail but at least nobody gets frozen out

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/delta-announce-deal-100-boeing-max-10-planes-sources-2022-07-17/

Update here for you all:

Airbus and Boeing officials flew to India ahead of the show chasing a potential $50 billion blockbuster from Air India owner Tata Group. It is studying 200-300 narrowbodies and 30-70 wide-bodies split between suppliers, but hopes of a sizzling order to match this week's temperature are on hold for now, sources said.

So it looks like as of now. Both Boeing AND airbus are going to get a nice piece of the pie. Now the split figures will be the detail but at least nobody gets frozen out

That is great to know and I do hope that the order is split. Whichever plane they choose from either manufacturer, it would be great to get a great deal from both manufacturers and keep them happy and interested in future needs.

Too bad they never ordered the 737-700 so they would have a 737-737.

I'm going to bet the narrowbodies to Airbus and the widebodies to Boeing. Narrowbodies will be 233, 321N and XLR. And widebodies will be 787 and 779.

I have a different fleet mix, but I don't think they'll be able to ignore the allure of the 779.

I am low-key excited to see what direction the new Air India will take. I suspect, A320neo family for Air India, B737-8200 or -10 for Air India express (probably 125/150-75/50 split)

Widebody is going to be interesting, you would think B787-9/10 should have an upper hand, however, India to California and Texas would be better covered by A350-900 and thats a growing market which need a smaller widebody with a lot of range. Not to mention A350 might have earlier slots.

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/delta-announce-deal-100-boeing-max-10-planes-sources-2022-07-17/

Update here for you all:

Airbus and Boeing officials flew to India ahead of the show chasing a potential $50 billion blockbuster from Air India owner Tata Group. It is studying 200-300 narrowbodies and 30-70 wide-bodies split between suppliers, but hopes of a sizzling order to match this week's temperature are on hold for now, sources said.

So it looks like as of now. Both Boeing AND airbus are going to get a nice piece of the pie. Now the split figures will be the detail but at least nobody gets frozen out

That'll probably be the end result, but there's nothing in that article that confirms, or even mentions, a split order. All it says is that both manufacturers have been in India. Even if it were an all Airbus order it would hardly be a surprise for Boeing to send a delegation to try and change their mind.

Opus99 wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/delta-announce-deal-100-boeing-max-10-planes-sources-2022-07-17/

Update here for you all:

Airbus and Boeing officials flew to India ahead of the show chasing a potential $50 billion blockbuster from Air India owner Tata Group. It is studying 200-300 narrowbodies and 30-70 wide-bodies split between suppliers, but hopes of a sizzling order to match this week's temperature are on hold for now, sources said.

So it looks like as of now. Both Boeing AND airbus are going to get a nice piece of the pie. Now the split figures will be the detail but at least nobody gets frozen out

Does this mean there won't be an announcement during the show?

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 430_1.html

This means that the A350s are almost a certainty in AI's fleet

yashk wrote:

https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/air-india-appoints-sandeep-gupta-as-chief-pilot-for-airbus-a350-fleet-122071801430_1.html

This means that the A350s are almost a certainty in AI's fleet

I'm sure it's a negotiating tactic to get a better price from Boeing.