General Aviation Thread

Blackshoe

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Example of New Normal on airlines traveling. This one from KLM. Besides procedures of physical distancing in airport and aboard, more disinfectant cleaning and using masks for crew and customers. They are also using more filters in air circulation system and pumping fresh air more.
Masks on a plane definitely strike me as something to make people feel better and safer without any real protective value.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
If it is just business travellers and millennials, many airlines will not survive
True, that's why some Airlines just like KLM video example before, try to convince more customers back to flying. Most Gen X have more money than millennials for example, that Gen X can bring their family and buying premium tickets then most millennials that will try to find budget offer.

However, the tendencies of Millennials to travel so far being shown their willingness to book tickets and hotels to tourists destinations area after lock down. Talking to Travels Industry in SEA region for example, shown bookings that begin flowing back on tourists area in Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia dominated by millennials segment. In fact data from Bali for example shown tourists that choose to stay in Bali during the lock down mostly are millennials. Some of them choose to "work from home" from Bali.

Millennials will be like "show case" for Gen X and Boomers to see if traveling already safe or not, in my opinion. The tendencies of this population segment to be more 'daring' make them perfect 'baits' by Airlines and Hotels to attract bigger pockets segment to back on traveling.
For that if you see the offering from Airlines and Hotels right now on onlines are shown more budget 'concius' offering to attract more millennials back first. Cause the industry knows it will take more time for 'more mature' customers back on traveling.

They have to start somewhere on attracting customers back.


Masks on a plane definitely strike me as something to make people feel better and safer without any real protective value.
That's why they are showing something else, their effort to produce better air circulation system (as they claimed). Most customers worries are on safety of the airline air circulation for filtering potential patogens during hours on board. If some segment of travellers begin to come back and they manage to shown the effort by Airliners for 'new normal' travels are relatively save, than more segment of population will be back on traveling with Airlines.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
All these plans and inducements for stimulating future air travel are reasonable but a couple of superspreader events resulting in multiple infections on a flight would result in another dive in air travel IMHO.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Supersonic flight, will it make a comeback? The need for speed hasn’t really ever gone away for some since Concord. With COVID, speed should be replaced by duration. Shorter duration confined in a tube could be marketed as reducing the chances of infection. Reports mention exposure time as a factor in contracting COVID. However, I doubt there would be much difference between 3 hours and 8 hours unfortunately.

 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Supersonic flight, will it make a comeback? The need for speed hasn’t really ever gone away for some since Concord. With COVID, speed should be replaced by duration. Shorter duration confined in a tube could be marketed as reducing the chances of infection. Reports mention exposure time as a factor in contracting COVID. However, I doubt there would be much difference between 3 hours and 8 hours unfortunately.

Nope, high costs. Concorde was quite expensive to operate. The fuel companies just loved her.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yet another solution for conversion from passenger to cargo. This solution offers passengers and cargo in the flight cabin. Instead of empty seats for passenger social distancing, cargo occupies the seats. Better economically but the air circulation concerns are still an issue. As the ideas keep coming perhaps normal air travel will resume sooner rather than later. HAECO rolls out passenger cabin freight stowage solution
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Testing has begun on the MAX fixes. Will be good news for current customers but I doubt many future sales will happen between COVID and all the bad press about Boeing.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
Well I guess it was inevitable, the 747 production line will close. I thought the freighter version could keep it going a while longer given the expanded operations of UPS, FedEx and others due to online orders.
Sad but true, A380 ends in 2021, 747 in 2022....
Even before this whole Covid-stuff, there were no new orders anymore...
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Just comes down to tech and economics. Small to medium sized planes can reach the same distances as the larger aircraft. Easier to fill a smaller to medium sized aircraft then larger. 747F wouldn't have been able to keep the line going with the number of medium to large aircraft being retired. Spend hundreds of millions on a new 747F or pick up a used one for under $10m USD and convert it for around $25m and still get around 15 years of use out of it.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
747-400 used price ironically fetch more now in used market compared to used A380. Regardless the used 747-400 has in average 10-15 years age more than used A380. Simply because A380 has difficulty to be converted to Freighter relative to Boeing.

Seems the Construct of whole double deckers make it less flexibility in conversion, compared to semi double deckers that 747 do.
COVID or not, the question of Mega Hub practice compared to city to city practice seems give preference to later one. This where Boeing 787 bet win over Airbus A380 bet.

If Boeing handle MAX program better, they actually will be in much better position then Airbus. Ironically Boeing getting right on 787 but did not take a move on 797 that supposedly replacing both 737 and 757. They should never go with MAX even without this 'software' fiasco. MAX simply less competitive products toward A320 family even if they manage to provide good software.

Even A220 that supposedly just regional jets now can be used for 6000km+ range. Thus provide more economical city to city strategy for Airlines on those 'thin' routes. After all people I'm the end prefer more direct flight than stuck hours in mega hub.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Yes, the 737 max was a big mistake. The basic design is too old. Boeing was caught on the hop by A320neo. Should have a clean sheet new design 737 replacement by now. They'll be playing catch-up in small airliners for a while.

It'll be interesting to see what Airbus does next. What niches does Boeing fill better that Airbus could target? How long can they keep tweakingA320 & A330? What comes after A320neo? Something bigger, vacating the bottom end to A220 developments? What comes between that & A350?
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Yes, the 737 max was a big mistake. The basic design is too old. Boeing was caught on the hop by A320neo. Should have a clean sheet new design 737 replacement by now. They'll be playing catch-up in small airliners for a while.

It'll be interesting to see what Airbus does next. What niches does Boeing fill better that Airbus could target? How long can they keep tweakingA320 & A330? What comes after A320neo? Something bigger, vacating the bottom end to A220 developments? What comes between that & A350?
The niche that Airbus has that Boeing lacks is the a220. It has the economics of a regional jet with the range almost of a 737/A320. Airbus early on seen the threat of it hence why they bought out the program. It is an airplane that can fill many of the routes that the 737/a320 had tight margins on eating into future sales of both.

That said on future aircraft Airbus has come out stating the plane to fly the future A320 replacement around 2026-2028 and for it to be hydrogen powered. France Plans To Make Airbus A320 Successor By 2030 - Simple Flying

I imagine all future aircraft if goes to plan for them will be hydrogen powered from 2035. They won't need a new aircraft between the a330 and a350. Between largest and smallest respectively they fit in nicely. Anything in between would just be a big R&D expense with few sales. Further R&D is taking place around engines, wings, body shape, material etc by Boeing and Airbus.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Yes, the 737 max was a big mistake. The basic design is too old. Boeing was caught on the hop by A320neo. Should have a clean sheet new design 737 replacement by now. They'll be playing catch-up in small airliners for a while.

It'll be interesting to see what Airbus does next. What niches does Boeing fill better that Airbus could target? How long can they keep tweakingA320 & A330? What comes after A320neo? Something bigger, vacating the bottom end to A220 developments? What comes between that & A350?
Absolutely agree, Boeing truly clustered with the 737 MAX, a bridge (way too) far! That being said, both Airbus and Boeing had huge pressures with their widebody and military projects resulting in a less than idea response to the C-Series( ( now A220). Fortunately for the duopoly, Bombardier screwed up in not making their design larger and along with horrible management they weren’t really a threat but still managed to freak the duopoly out. The A321LR and XLR family will eat Boeing’s lunch for 10-20 years, they have no fiscal resources to counter IMO.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Absolutely agree, Boeing truly clustered with the 737 MAX, a bridge (way too) far! That being said, both Airbus and Boeing had huge pressures with their widebody and military projects resulting in a less than idea response to the C-Series( ( now A220). Fortunately for the duopoly, Bombardier screwed up in not making their design larger and along with horrible management they weren’t really a threat but still managed to freak the duopoly out. The A321LR and XLR family will eat Boeing’s lunch for 10-20 years, they have no fiscal resources to counter IMO.
While having no love for bombardier how exactly did they screw up by not making the design larger? They where targeting a particular market segment in the 100-150 seat range with future room to grow or shrink the aircraft. Airbus has not changed the aircraft design, they have brought in their market power to lower costs from suppliers but overall bombardier designed and built a solid aircraft to fill a position that Boeing and Airbus only gave marginal attention. With a market of give or take 6,000 100-150 seat aircraft over 20 years it was a smart move by bombardier compared to making it larger and trying to compete directly with the 737 and A320. Can fault bombardier for many things but the business case and final product was on point.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
747-400 used price ironically fetch more now in used market compared to used A380. Regardless the used 747-400 has in average 10-15 years age more than used A380. Simply because A380 has difficulty to be converted to Freighter relative to Boeing.
Did you know that the 747 was developed from the unsuccessful Boeing bid for the USAF Large Strategic Airlifter of the early 60s won by LM with the C-5 Galaxy?
 

swerve

Super Moderator
Absolutely agree, Boeing truly clustered with the 737 MAX, a bridge (way too) far! That being said, both Airbus and Boeing had huge pressures with their widebody and military projects resulting in a less than idea response to the C-Series( ( now A220). Fortunately for the duopoly, Bombardier screwed up in not making their design larger and along with horrible management they weren’t really a threat but still managed to freak the duopoly out. The A321LR and XLR family will eat Boeing’s lunch for 10-20 years, they have no fiscal resources to counter IMO.
It looks to me as if Bombardier was aiming for a niche where A320 & B737 variants were sub-optimal shrunken versions of the standard aircraft, & standard A320s & B737s were a bit too big & expensive to operate. It thought there was an opportunity to grab that niche from under the noses of the big two.

And Airbus agreed, so when Boeing attacked Bombardier (presumably because it also agreed) & threatened to block it from the US market via the US courts & a Boeing-friendly US legislature, Airbus came to the rescue. The A220 provides a nice new design at the bottom end of a range which the A321LR/XLR are at the top of. I think it may also free up Airbus to replace the A320 with something slightly larger.

The reaction of Boeing suggests that the A220 scared it.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
A220-300 already make A318 or perhaps A319 redundant, and this shown with continue decreasing number of order from those two smaller A320 family.

Most of the order come from A320 family recently seems coming from A321 Neo, LR, and XLR. Which basically taking 757 slots. Read in media on Boeing thinking of reopening 757 line and build 757NG or what ever they want to call.
Is reborn 757 going to be new 797 ? Well what's clear so far the order for MAX 10 is not taking on as expected. Boeing hoping MAX 10 will be the answer for A321Neo, but if the idea to reopening 757 line happen or even this 797 clearly shown Boeing bets on MAX to take over 737NG and 757 slots is not working.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If Boeing are going to reopen the B757 line, then that will be the first decent decision that they have made in a while. It will be costly though.
 

Ananda

Well-Known Member
Opening new line whether it's for completely new design or upgrade on existing design actually will not differ much. Both will be very costly.
However the advantage on opening new line based on improvement of existing design, will be more on time schedule.

Boeing facing both costs and time table to face Airbus A321 Neo/LR/XLR if they don't want to lose the market momentum. This COVID situation in my opinion can also be seen as blessing in disguise for Boeing. The market momentum on new procurement will be halt or reduce for few years. It should give bit time reprieve for Boeing to find something for 757 alternative.

The business model on city to city routes seems going to challenge much predicament of Mega Hub business model. I don't think city to city business model will completely change Mega Hub business model, but it will dampened the growth of Mega Hub.
There're the needs for long range single aisle for city to city thin routes business model.

6000km-8000+km or 4000-6000 miles is the range that Airbus A321 LR/XLR offering to take offer 757 market. That market in my opinion will be more open in the future between secondary cities throughout North America and Europe and even Asia Pacific.

Imagine using A330 Neo or 787 between say Adelaide to Chiang Mai or Surabaya to Bengalore. There will be no enough market for that. Using MAX8 or 320 Neo will be bit overstreatch. However using A321 LR/XLR can be provided for the size of market saying for twice or thrice a week schedules.

So, talking to some Travel agencies clients on my bank, they're also agree on the potential secondary cities routes. The Airlines seems agree also on that potential, and Boeing with Max 10 simply do not have products that can compete on all factors with A321 LR/XLR. They need 757 replacement and not overgrown and overstreatch 737.

Question now, will Boeing will be able to react fast ?

Add:
Talking on single aisles market, will be interesting to see how C919 and MC-21 acceptance with big market in North America, Europe, and As-Pac. Those two are new design and also being designed to take both China and Russia market from 737 and 320.

My personal opinion, MC-21 based on specs and since it's build using more composite then C919 will potentially more attractive between the two for non Russian users. However China do have more money to pump to give incentives to Airlines.
 
Last edited:
Top