So, this is it, my last week of college classes for the foreseeable future. I may end up taking more classes later on down the road if needed, or if payed for by an employer, but right now I am happy to get my bachelors degree and to enter the professional world. Obviously this is not the end of my learning about aviation, it is most likely just the beginning...
At the beginning of the semester I had the intentions of getting a job in airport operations and moving up the ladder, and at this point that is still my goal. I think operations sounds like a very fun job and would be a good stepping stone to higher positions for me. I am not the kind of person that wants to sit behind a desk and make decisions, I want to be very involved in the work I do and want to feel like I am making a difference. I have been searching for jobs online and through the AAAE job search with little luck, and I am starting to wonder if I may have to do something else first. I am very willing to relocate for work, and would actually prefer it, which is something that should make finding a job easier.
I have really enjoyed all of the guest speakers that came in to speak to our class. They all had good information to pass on, even though a lot of their presentations seemed to be tailored to the pilot side of the program. The two speakers that really stick out in my mind are Mark Johnson and Aubrey Grohowski. Mark's presentation was very interesting to me because he is an airport manager and showed us the pros and cons of being in that position and what all an airport manager actually does at a small airport. I am not sure if being an airport manager is something that I want to end up doing in the long run, but he had a lot of good information on what it is all about. Aubrey's Skype session was also very interesting to me because while I was still a flight major, I wanted to get into corporate aviation after graduation. I have always thought, and still do think, that it would be better than an airline job. The way that she achieved her current position is also very interesting and vastly different from the traditional way of doing things. I think her "go getter" attitude has stuck with me the most, and has made me want to put myself out there more than before.
As far as the blog topics for this semester go, I enjoyed researching and writing about UAVs and whether or not they have a commercial future the most. I have always been intrigued by UAVs and think that they have incredible potential. I am not sure how far they will actually become integrated into the aviation industry, but there are so many opportunities out there for them right now it will be interesting to see. Maybe one day UAVs will be conducting passenger operations across the globe! The blog that I least enjoyed researching and writing was the aviation business models blog. I found this blog the least interesting because I am not very interested in the business aspect of things. The information was rather unexciting and I did not feel like I learned anything after writing it. Some of the other blogs were rather uninteresting to me as well, but after researching and writing them I felt like I had learned something.
After graduation, I plan to continue my professional development by becoming more involved in the aviation community through attending seminars, conventions and meetings. While going to school I have been very busy and unable to attend any of these things, including the Great Lakes Conference at EMU, because I have held two jobs and had a full time class schedule here at Eastern. My goal after graduation is to find a job full time airport operations job within six months. If anyone hears of any opportunities or knows someone who can help me out, please let me know!
Thank you, as always, for reading and good luck to everyone! I look forward to seeing you on the professional side of things!
Kyle Wagenknecht
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Monday, April 8, 2013
Topic 11: Aviation Organizations: Who to Join and Why
In any career path, it is important to network with people in the industry and stay up-to-date with current advancements. Aviation is no exception, in fact, it may be more important since it is such a small and quickly advancing field. Professional organizations are a great way to meet other people that share common interests and to keep up with important events and information specific to your career path. Here is a nice list of professional aviation organizations put together by Embry-Riddle (Embry, 2013).
As a senior that is going to graduate in three weeks, a lot of thoughts about my future and where I want to end up have been flowing through my head. Finding a job that I am going to like, and thrive in, is very important to me. After searching online through google and not having a lot of luck, I remembered one of my professors mentioning that many professional organizations have job postings and are great to help you see what is out there and available. The organization that he was a part of and specifically told us about was the American Association of Airport Executives, or the AAAE. Each week he would print out the email newsletter that they sent him with current news and jobs postings in it. That email newsletter alone had a lot of great information in it, and it is only one small benefit of being a member. After many wasted hours with no luck of finding a job online, I decided that joining the AAAE would be a good idea.
The AAAE membership offers many benefits beyond just helping someone like me find a job. The membership includes subscriptions to Airport Magazine and Airport Report Today, which are two key industry information sources. These two subscriptions provide information on the latest news and developments in the airport industry as well as classified ads, job postings and more. The membership also allows the user access to the AAAE membership directory, which contains a complete list of all of the organizations members and their contact information allowing ample networking opportunities. Access to many technical reports, accreditation papers and other airport publications is also included. The AAAE hosts over 80 meetings, seminars and workshops all over the world each year, and members receive reduced registration fees and updates about the events. Professional development opportunities are also provided to members who seek to advance their career to the next level (AAAE, 2013). As you can see, there are many benefits to joining the AAAE. I was able to join this organization for only $40/year, which I thought was incredible.
I am currently only a member of one professional organization, and am content with that right now. While I was still training to be a pilot and going to school for flight, I was a member of another professional organization called the Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association (AOPA). This organization is great for people who own an airplane or who are pilots, as well as anyone who is interested in aviation in my opinion.
AOPA's membership fee is very reasonable and offers many great benefits. AOPA strongly fights to protect general aviation, pilots' rights, user fees, airport closings, etc. Anything that threatens someones right to fly, they will fight against. The membership allows you to choose to receive one monthly magazine, either Flight Training or AOPA Pilot, both include many hot safety topics and tips for pilots along with some current news. An aviation specialist hotline is available for members to call with any questions they may have. Access to AOPA's website offers pilots many flight planning tools and other services. There are a variety of safety courses and seminars that are available online, or in-person, through AOPA (AOPA, 2013).
The direct benefits that professional organizations give to you and allow you to use are great in themselves, but the benefits do not end there. Being a part of a professional organization is a great thing to put on a resume and shows your current, or future, employers that you are dedicated to the industry. Being part of an organization may be what sets you apart from all of the other applicants, and that alone would be worth the annual fee. All of the knowledge that you can learn from the websites and publications will only help you to advance to whatever you want to do (Cherwin, n.d.).
If you are like me, having many people tell you how important it is to join a professional organization and to be part of something may not be enough to actually make you join. It may take hours of wasted time searching for jobs, or the realization that you do not know anyone in the field of work that you are going into. Whatever it takes, at some point you will realize that joining a professional organization will benefit you in many ways and is completely worth the price.
References
AAAE. (2013). Membership benefits. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from, http://aaae.org/membersh ip/membership_benefits/
AOPA. (2013). Member benefits. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from, http://www.aopa.org/join/benefi ts.html
Cherwin, K. (n.d.). Why join a professional association? Retrieved April 8, 2013, from, http://ww w.higheredjobs.com/articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=157
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. (2013). Professional organizations. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from, http://careers.erau.edu/find-job/networking/professional-organizations/index.html
As a senior that is going to graduate in three weeks, a lot of thoughts about my future and where I want to end up have been flowing through my head. Finding a job that I am going to like, and thrive in, is very important to me. After searching online through google and not having a lot of luck, I remembered one of my professors mentioning that many professional organizations have job postings and are great to help you see what is out there and available. The organization that he was a part of and specifically told us about was the American Association of Airport Executives, or the AAAE. Each week he would print out the email newsletter that they sent him with current news and jobs postings in it. That email newsletter alone had a lot of great information in it, and it is only one small benefit of being a member. After many wasted hours with no luck of finding a job online, I decided that joining the AAAE would be a good idea.
The AAAE membership offers many benefits beyond just helping someone like me find a job. The membership includes subscriptions to Airport Magazine and Airport Report Today, which are two key industry information sources. These two subscriptions provide information on the latest news and developments in the airport industry as well as classified ads, job postings and more. The membership also allows the user access to the AAAE membership directory, which contains a complete list of all of the organizations members and their contact information allowing ample networking opportunities. Access to many technical reports, accreditation papers and other airport publications is also included. The AAAE hosts over 80 meetings, seminars and workshops all over the world each year, and members receive reduced registration fees and updates about the events. Professional development opportunities are also provided to members who seek to advance their career to the next level (AAAE, 2013). As you can see, there are many benefits to joining the AAAE. I was able to join this organization for only $40/year, which I thought was incredible.
I am currently only a member of one professional organization, and am content with that right now. While I was still training to be a pilot and going to school for flight, I was a member of another professional organization called the Aircraft Owners and Pilot Association (AOPA). This organization is great for people who own an airplane or who are pilots, as well as anyone who is interested in aviation in my opinion.
AOPA's membership fee is very reasonable and offers many great benefits. AOPA strongly fights to protect general aviation, pilots' rights, user fees, airport closings, etc. Anything that threatens someones right to fly, they will fight against. The membership allows you to choose to receive one monthly magazine, either Flight Training or AOPA Pilot, both include many hot safety topics and tips for pilots along with some current news. An aviation specialist hotline is available for members to call with any questions they may have. Access to AOPA's website offers pilots many flight planning tools and other services. There are a variety of safety courses and seminars that are available online, or in-person, through AOPA (AOPA, 2013).
The direct benefits that professional organizations give to you and allow you to use are great in themselves, but the benefits do not end there. Being a part of a professional organization is a great thing to put on a resume and shows your current, or future, employers that you are dedicated to the industry. Being part of an organization may be what sets you apart from all of the other applicants, and that alone would be worth the annual fee. All of the knowledge that you can learn from the websites and publications will only help you to advance to whatever you want to do (Cherwin, n.d.).
If you are like me, having many people tell you how important it is to join a professional organization and to be part of something may not be enough to actually make you join. It may take hours of wasted time searching for jobs, or the realization that you do not know anyone in the field of work that you are going into. Whatever it takes, at some point you will realize that joining a professional organization will benefit you in many ways and is completely worth the price.
References
AAAE. (2013). Membership benefits. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from, http://aaae.org/membersh ip/membership_benefits/
AOPA. (2013). Member benefits. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from, http://www.aopa.org/join/benefi ts.html
Cherwin, K. (n.d.). Why join a professional association? Retrieved April 8, 2013, from, http://ww w.higheredjobs.com/articles/articleDisplay.cfm?ID=157
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. (2013). Professional organizations. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from, http://careers.erau.edu/find-job/networking/professional-organizations/index.html
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Topic 10: Aviation Business Models
The adage, "How do you make a small fortune in aviation? Start with a very large fortune." would probably have a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why people would want to start a business in aviation. It is very true that to make any money in aviation industry, you must first spend a great deal of money to get started and then hope that your business can sustain for long enough to turn a profit over time. I think that this phrase came about from people realizing the fact that in order to start an aviation business, it takes a very large amount of money and a lot of times it does not work out in the end. If it does work out, the money that you make may not seem to be worth all of the work in the end.
In the commercial aviation industry, there are six different types of business models out there. You have the full service network carries (legacy carriers), low cost carriers, regional, traditional freight, integrators and hybrid carriers (German Aerospace, 2008). I will give a brief overview of each one and then name two examples of each, one success and the other not successful.
The full service network carriers are also known as the legacy carriers and are airlines that focus on providing customers with many pre-flight and onboard services. Most legacy carriers operate off of a hub-and-spoke system. They usually have different types of aircraft ranging from large to small and operate both domestically and internationally (German Aerospace, 2008). United airlines is an example of a legacy carrier that is still operating and is the first U.S. network carrier to fly the Boeing 787 (Chandler, 2012). TWA is an example of a legacy carrier that is no longer in existence (Harrison, 2012).
Low cost carriers focus on reducing their costs so that they can use a price leadership strategy on the markets they serve. Low cost carriers typically use a young and homogeneous fleet of medium sized aircraft which allows less fuel burn, maintenance, staff and overheads. These aircraft are usually configured to seat as many people as possible. Low cost carriers reduce ground times and delays by utilizing smaller, less congested airports and by using point to point flights without connections. This strategy allows the carrier to maximize the number of hours in and day and the aircraft that they have. These carriers usually do not offer free inflight services, and instead charge passengers if they would like these services. More strict baggage fee structures are implemented, as well as other fees to help these companies earn a profit (German Aerospace, 2008). Allegiant Air is a low cost carrier that is still in operation today and is doing quite well (Burkey, 2012.) ValuJet is an example of a low cost carrier that is no longer in operation (AvStop, n.d.).
Regional carriers, also known as commuter airlines or feeder airlines, typically use smaller aircraft with seating for 20-100 passengers and limit their flight routes to a geographically restricted area. Some regionals operate independently while others work as feeder airlines for legacy carriers connecting their partner airlines hub with smaller regional airports (German Aerospace, 2008). Mesa Airlines is a regional carrier that currently provides services for Delta Airlines (Grossman, 2009). Colgan Air is a regional airline that is no longer in operation (Peterson, 2012).
Traditional freight carriers typically work closely with freight forwarder companies and schedule cargo capacity with the company scheduling pick-up and delivery services on the ground. There are a few different types of traditional freight carriers and not all carry solely cargo. Some passenger airlines also actively market the belly of their aircraft for cargo services. Other airlines offer both passenger and all-cargo operations utilizing different aircraft. All-cargo operations often fly international routes delivering goods with the use of large aircraft such as Boeing 747s to carry out their duties. There are also smaller on demand cargo companies that operate smaller aircraft and provide short notice pick-ups and deliveries (German Aerospace, 2008). Delta Airlines has an all cargo operation that is still in existence in the U.S. today (Skyteam, 2013). Air Alaksa Cargo was an all cargo operation that is no longer in existence (Airlinehistory, n.d.).
The integrators are also cargo based operations, but offer hardly any ground services and focus primarily on selling air transport capacities to forwarders. Integrators use door-to-door services to control all aspects of the sales channel and the transportation process. Unlike the traditional cargo carriers, integrators do not transport all kinds of products. Instead they focus on time sensitive transportation of documents and smaller goods to ensure worldwide delivers in short, pre-defined time frames. Integrators typically operate using the hub-and-spoke network and nightly hubbing is crucial to their timely operations (German Aerospace, 2008). DHL is an active integrator type operation that is currently in existence (Rodrigue, 2013). I was not able to find a defunct U.S. integrator airline that I was sure operated under the integrator business model.
The last type of business model is the hybrid carrier model. The idea behind this model is to offer low cost flights that are not just point to point along with offering connections flights also. These type of airlines also offer services for an additional fee if the passenger choses to purchase them such as seat reservations, catering and frequent flyer programs. Some hybrid carriers offer passenger services during the day and commence cargo operations at night by utilizing convertible quick change aircraft. This allows them to get as much use out of their aircraft as possible (German Aerospace, 2008). JetBlue is a U.S. airline that uses the hybrid business model and is currently in operation (Winship, 2004). I was unable to find a defunct hybrid air carrier company, I believe this is due to the fact that this type of business model is pretty new and hard to differentiate from low cost carries at the current time.
I believe that new start up businesses would be wise to follow the low cost carrier or hybrid model of business. Some of the most successful, current businesses are low cost carriers and hybrid carriers. I believe that these models are so successful because they offer the customer many options at a very low base cost. I think that these two business models are the most progressive at the time and will continue to change to stay ahead of the pack.
References
Airlinehistory. (n.d.). All of the inactive airlines in the USA. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.airlinehistory.co.uk/americas/usa/Extras/Defunct.asp
AvStop. (n.d.). History of ValuJet airlines. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://avstop.com/history/historyofairlines/valuejet.html
Burkey, B. (2012). Low-cost carrier Allegiant Air coming to HIA. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.centralpennbusiness.com/article/20120816/CPBJ01/120819853/Low-cost-carrier-Allegiant-Air-coming-to-HIA
Chandler, J. G. (2012). U.S. legacy carriers strike fleet update balance. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_05_2012_p50-508587.xml
German Aerospace Center. (2008). Analysis of the European air transport market. Airline business models. Retrieved March 30, 2013, from, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/a ir/doc/abm_report_2008.pdf
Grossman, D. (2009). Regional airlines thrive while big boys cut back. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/grossman/2009-11-03-regional-airlines_N.htm
Harrison, J. S., Kalburgi, S., Reed, C. K. (2012). American airlines 2012: Bankrupt, like every other legacy airline. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://robins.richmond.edu/d ocuments/cases/AmericanAirlines2012.pdf
Peterson, K., Prasad, S. (2012). Pinnacle airlines files for bankruptcy in US. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/uk-pinnacleairlines-idUSLNE83102K20120402
Rodrigue, J. P. (2013). Hubs of major air freight integrators. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/upshubs.html
SkyTeam. (2013). Delta cargo. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.skyteamcargo .com/en/About-us/Our-members/Delta-Cargo/
Winship, T. (2004). JetBlue's hybrid model has potential, problems. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.smartertravel.com/travel-advice/JetBlue-hybrid-model-potential.html?id=11627
In the commercial aviation industry, there are six different types of business models out there. You have the full service network carries (legacy carriers), low cost carriers, regional, traditional freight, integrators and hybrid carriers (German Aerospace, 2008). I will give a brief overview of each one and then name two examples of each, one success and the other not successful.
The full service network carriers are also known as the legacy carriers and are airlines that focus on providing customers with many pre-flight and onboard services. Most legacy carriers operate off of a hub-and-spoke system. They usually have different types of aircraft ranging from large to small and operate both domestically and internationally (German Aerospace, 2008). United airlines is an example of a legacy carrier that is still operating and is the first U.S. network carrier to fly the Boeing 787 (Chandler, 2012). TWA is an example of a legacy carrier that is no longer in existence (Harrison, 2012).
Low cost carriers focus on reducing their costs so that they can use a price leadership strategy on the markets they serve. Low cost carriers typically use a young and homogeneous fleet of medium sized aircraft which allows less fuel burn, maintenance, staff and overheads. These aircraft are usually configured to seat as many people as possible. Low cost carriers reduce ground times and delays by utilizing smaller, less congested airports and by using point to point flights without connections. This strategy allows the carrier to maximize the number of hours in and day and the aircraft that they have. These carriers usually do not offer free inflight services, and instead charge passengers if they would like these services. More strict baggage fee structures are implemented, as well as other fees to help these companies earn a profit (German Aerospace, 2008). Allegiant Air is a low cost carrier that is still in operation today and is doing quite well (Burkey, 2012.) ValuJet is an example of a low cost carrier that is no longer in operation (AvStop, n.d.).
Regional carriers, also known as commuter airlines or feeder airlines, typically use smaller aircraft with seating for 20-100 passengers and limit their flight routes to a geographically restricted area. Some regionals operate independently while others work as feeder airlines for legacy carriers connecting their partner airlines hub with smaller regional airports (German Aerospace, 2008). Mesa Airlines is a regional carrier that currently provides services for Delta Airlines (Grossman, 2009). Colgan Air is a regional airline that is no longer in operation (Peterson, 2012).
Traditional freight carriers typically work closely with freight forwarder companies and schedule cargo capacity with the company scheduling pick-up and delivery services on the ground. There are a few different types of traditional freight carriers and not all carry solely cargo. Some passenger airlines also actively market the belly of their aircraft for cargo services. Other airlines offer both passenger and all-cargo operations utilizing different aircraft. All-cargo operations often fly international routes delivering goods with the use of large aircraft such as Boeing 747s to carry out their duties. There are also smaller on demand cargo companies that operate smaller aircraft and provide short notice pick-ups and deliveries (German Aerospace, 2008). Delta Airlines has an all cargo operation that is still in existence in the U.S. today (Skyteam, 2013). Air Alaksa Cargo was an all cargo operation that is no longer in existence (Airlinehistory, n.d.).
The integrators are also cargo based operations, but offer hardly any ground services and focus primarily on selling air transport capacities to forwarders. Integrators use door-to-door services to control all aspects of the sales channel and the transportation process. Unlike the traditional cargo carriers, integrators do not transport all kinds of products. Instead they focus on time sensitive transportation of documents and smaller goods to ensure worldwide delivers in short, pre-defined time frames. Integrators typically operate using the hub-and-spoke network and nightly hubbing is crucial to their timely operations (German Aerospace, 2008). DHL is an active integrator type operation that is currently in existence (Rodrigue, 2013). I was not able to find a defunct U.S. integrator airline that I was sure operated under the integrator business model.
The last type of business model is the hybrid carrier model. The idea behind this model is to offer low cost flights that are not just point to point along with offering connections flights also. These type of airlines also offer services for an additional fee if the passenger choses to purchase them such as seat reservations, catering and frequent flyer programs. Some hybrid carriers offer passenger services during the day and commence cargo operations at night by utilizing convertible quick change aircraft. This allows them to get as much use out of their aircraft as possible (German Aerospace, 2008). JetBlue is a U.S. airline that uses the hybrid business model and is currently in operation (Winship, 2004). I was unable to find a defunct hybrid air carrier company, I believe this is due to the fact that this type of business model is pretty new and hard to differentiate from low cost carries at the current time.
I believe that new start up businesses would be wise to follow the low cost carrier or hybrid model of business. Some of the most successful, current businesses are low cost carriers and hybrid carriers. I believe that these models are so successful because they offer the customer many options at a very low base cost. I think that these two business models are the most progressive at the time and will continue to change to stay ahead of the pack.
References
Airlinehistory. (n.d.). All of the inactive airlines in the USA. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.airlinehistory.co.uk/americas/usa/Extras/Defunct.asp
AvStop. (n.d.). History of ValuJet airlines. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://avstop.com/history/historyofairlines/valuejet.html
Burkey, B. (2012). Low-cost carrier Allegiant Air coming to HIA. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.centralpennbusiness.com/article/20120816/CPBJ01/120819853/Low-cost-carrier-Allegiant-Air-coming-to-HIA
Chandler, J. G. (2012). U.S. legacy carriers strike fleet update balance. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_11_05_2012_p50-508587.xml
German Aerospace Center. (2008). Analysis of the European air transport market. Airline business models. Retrieved March 30, 2013, from, http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/a ir/doc/abm_report_2008.pdf
Grossman, D. (2009). Regional airlines thrive while big boys cut back. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/grossman/2009-11-03-regional-airlines_N.htm
Harrison, J. S., Kalburgi, S., Reed, C. K. (2012). American airlines 2012: Bankrupt, like every other legacy airline. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://robins.richmond.edu/d ocuments/cases/AmericanAirlines2012.pdf
Peterson, K., Prasad, S. (2012). Pinnacle airlines files for bankruptcy in US. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/uk-pinnacleairlines-idUSLNE83102K20120402
Rodrigue, J. P. (2013). Hubs of major air freight integrators. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/upshubs.html
SkyTeam. (2013). Delta cargo. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.skyteamcargo .com/en/About-us/Our-members/Delta-Cargo/
Winship, T. (2004). JetBlue's hybrid model has potential, problems. Retrieved March 31, 2013, from, http://www.smartertravel.com/travel-advice/JetBlue-hybrid-model-potential.html?id=11627
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Topic 9: Boeing vs. Airbus
When it comes to commercial airliners there are most likely two names that people have heard of before, Boeing and Airbus. Both companies have a wide variety of aircraft which they produce and many of them compare very closely to the rival companies aircraft. Since there are only two aircraft manufacturers that dominate the market, the two companies are considered a duopoly. While Boeing and Airbus have very similar aircraft as far as capacity, structure and range, the two companies have two different approaches to their aircraft.
Boeing tends to do things the more traditional way, with a conventional yolk that hydraulically actuates the control surfaces and allows the pilot the ultimate say in what the airplane does. This system allows the pilots to feel what they are doing through the yoke. The planes computers still have built in soft limits, which warn the pilot when certain flight parameters are close to being exceeded, but the pilot continues to have control over the airplane. Airbus aircraft operate by a fly-by-wire system which is controlled through a side-stick controller. This fly-by-wire system takes inputs from a side stick and relays them through computers to hydraulically move the control surfaces. This system provides no feedback through the side stick to the pilot and requires the same amount of resistance to move the stick at all times. These computers have built-in hard limitations, or protections. These limitations do not allow the aircraft to: pitch nose-up more than 30 degrees or nose-down more than 15 degrees, bank more than 67 degrees, exceed 2.5 times the force of gravity and also has protections against overspeed. There are benefits to both the Airbus and Boeing systems. Both manufacturers have proven to be equally as safe as far as crash statistics indicate (Wallace, 2000). Boeing does have two airplanes that are completely fly-by-wire, the 777 and the 787 (Airliners, 2006). Unlike the Airbus fly-by-wire systems, Boeing's system allows the pilot to override the system in the event of an emergency if needed (Wallace, 2000).
Since the duopoly is in constant competition, the two companies different sizes of aircraft compete directly with one another. The Boeing 747-8 competes directly with the Airbus A380. Boeing's 747-8 can seat 467 passengers in a three-class configuration, cruises at a speed of Mach 0.855, has a range of 8,000 nautical miles and uses 2.8 liters of fuel per seat per 100 kilometers. The Airbus A380 is very similar except that it can seat more passengers. The A380 can seat 525 passengers in a three-class configuration, cruises at Mach 0.85, has a range of 8,300 nautical miles and burns 2.9 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers. One large difference between the two planes is the cost to purchase the aircraft, with the 747-8 costing $317.5 million and the A380 being $375.3 million (CNN, 2011). These are not the only two aircraft between the two companies which compete directly with one another. The Boeing 777 is in competition with the A330, the 737 line of aircraft compete with the A320 line and the 787 competes with the A350 (Rajagopal, 2010). As you can see, the two companies cover the entire commercial passenger aircraft market and are continuously battling for sales.
As far as marketing here in the United States, I believe the both manufacturers appeal to the same audience and when it comes down to the airlines personal preference and which they want to operate. I think that Airbus tries to promote a safer, more automated aircraft with the implementation of their fly-by-wire system and its computerized oversight, while Boeing is tries to stick with a more traditional approach that is not as automated. I personally, as a pilot, want to have complete control over what is happening with the aircraft rather than having a computer interject and only allow the inputs to do so much. This is not to say that I would not enjoy flying an Airbus plane because they are very nice planes, I just tend to favor Boeing and their whole philosophy.
References
Airliners.net. (2006). Better fly by wire philosophy: Boeing or Airbus? Retrieved March 24, 2013, from, http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3018977/
CNN. (2011). Boeing 747-8 vs. Airbus A380 -- the airline giants face off. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from, http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life/boeing-747-8-and-airbus-a380-death-match-152563
Rajagopal, A. (2010). How to know your Airbus from Boeing. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from, http://arunrajagopal.com/2010/08/12/identify-airbus-from-boeing/
Wallace, J. (2000). Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology. Retrieved March 24, 2013, from, http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/unlike-airbus-boeing-lets-aviator-override-fly-by-wire-tech.111456/
Boeing tends to do things the more traditional way, with a conventional yolk that hydraulically actuates the control surfaces and allows the pilot the ultimate say in what the airplane does. This system allows the pilots to feel what they are doing through the yoke. The planes computers still have built in soft limits, which warn the pilot when certain flight parameters are close to being exceeded, but the pilot continues to have control over the airplane. Airbus aircraft operate by a fly-by-wire system which is controlled through a side-stick controller. This fly-by-wire system takes inputs from a side stick and relays them through computers to hydraulically move the control surfaces. This system provides no feedback through the side stick to the pilot and requires the same amount of resistance to move the stick at all times. These computers have built-in hard limitations, or protections. These limitations do not allow the aircraft to: pitch nose-up more than 30 degrees or nose-down more than 15 degrees, bank more than 67 degrees, exceed 2.5 times the force of gravity and also has protections against overspeed. There are benefits to both the Airbus and Boeing systems. Both manufacturers have proven to be equally as safe as far as crash statistics indicate (Wallace, 2000). Boeing does have two airplanes that are completely fly-by-wire, the 777 and the 787 (Airliners, 2006). Unlike the Airbus fly-by-wire systems, Boeing's system allows the pilot to override the system in the event of an emergency if needed (Wallace, 2000).
Since the duopoly is in constant competition, the two companies different sizes of aircraft compete directly with one another. The Boeing 747-8 competes directly with the Airbus A380. Boeing's 747-8 can seat 467 passengers in a three-class configuration, cruises at a speed of Mach 0.855, has a range of 8,000 nautical miles and uses 2.8 liters of fuel per seat per 100 kilometers. The Airbus A380 is very similar except that it can seat more passengers. The A380 can seat 525 passengers in a three-class configuration, cruises at Mach 0.85, has a range of 8,300 nautical miles and burns 2.9 liters per passenger per 100 kilometers. One large difference between the two planes is the cost to purchase the aircraft, with the 747-8 costing $317.5 million and the A380 being $375.3 million (CNN, 2011). These are not the only two aircraft between the two companies which compete directly with one another. The Boeing 777 is in competition with the A330, the 737 line of aircraft compete with the A320 line and the 787 competes with the A350 (Rajagopal, 2010). As you can see, the two companies cover the entire commercial passenger aircraft market and are continuously battling for sales.
As far as marketing here in the United States, I believe the both manufacturers appeal to the same audience and when it comes down to the airlines personal preference and which they want to operate. I think that Airbus tries to promote a safer, more automated aircraft with the implementation of their fly-by-wire system and its computerized oversight, while Boeing is tries to stick with a more traditional approach that is not as automated. I personally, as a pilot, want to have complete control over what is happening with the aircraft rather than having a computer interject and only allow the inputs to do so much. This is not to say that I would not enjoy flying an Airbus plane because they are very nice planes, I just tend to favor Boeing and their whole philosophy.
References
Airliners.net. (2006). Better fly by wire philosophy: Boeing or Airbus? Retrieved March 24, 2013, from, http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3018977/
CNN. (2011). Boeing 747-8 vs. Airbus A380 -- the airline giants face off. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from, http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life/boeing-747-8-and-airbus-a380-death-match-152563
Rajagopal, A. (2010). How to know your Airbus from Boeing. Retrieved March 25, 2013, from, http://arunrajagopal.com/2010/08/12/identify-airbus-from-boeing/
Wallace, J. (2000). Unlike Airbus, Boeing lets aviator override fly-by-wire technology. Retrieved March 24, 2013, from, http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/unlike-airbus-boeing-lets-aviator-override-fly-by-wire-tech.111456/
Monday, March 18, 2013
Topic 8: Sequestration and How it is Impacting Aviation
As everyone knows, our nation is in a great amount of debt and is constantly trying to find ways to be more efficient and to cut into the deficit. Sequestration is one solution that has been brought up several times in the past, and it appears it is the approach the government is taking to try and turn things around.
Sequestration is the idea to cut budgets across all federal agencies. With budget cuts being placed on all federal agencies, the plan is supposed to be an indiscriminate way to lower costs with a very broad stroke. Sequestration was basically supposed to be a back up plan if other solutions were not formed, and since no other plan was made it is the only solution left for a problem that requires prompt action. Looked at from an aviation standpoint, the FAA will be required to cut millions of dollars from its budget and no one is too sure what the outcome and its affects to the aviation industry will be (NBAA, 2013).
These cuts imposed by sequestration are not a short term solution as they are laid out, they are long term plans that will have lasting effects. Although most of the FAA's budget is exempt from the sequester by law, they will still need to cut their budget elsewhere. The areas of the FAA's budget that are not exempt from the cuts include: scheduling of personnel, contract work being conducted for the FAA and preventative maintenance and repair work done to facilities and equipment used by the FAA and the aviation community. As you can imagine, cuts to these areas in such a 'safety first' arena could lead to problems in the future. The FAA has said time and time again that safety will not be compromised, but that the cuts will definitely affect day to day operations (NBAA, 2013).
Their plans to cope with the budget cuts include employee furloughs at least one day of every pay period. They also plan to cut air traffic control towers managed under the Federal Contract Tower Program, as well as government run towers, which serve less than 150,000 total operations or less than 10,000 commercial operations per year. An unofficial list of the towers to be cut has been constructed and is being discussed continually before making a final decision (FAA, 2013). This has the potential to greatly impact general aviation in a bad way. The agency expects problems with providing upkeep on its services and facilities. Navigational aids are one of the biggest concerns because they will be forced into scheduling preventative maintenance with longer intervals and in some cases not even servicing them at all if they are not a high priority (NBAA, 2013).
The sequester may lead to the customers losing their ability to fly when they want and how they want it like they can now. According to a study done by the Office of Management and Budget, the cuts could delay the implementation of NextGen by at least a decade. This will definitely cause ticket prices to increase as the airlines will incur greater costs and pass those expenses onto their customers. That along with cutting air traffic control towers and controllers, security screeners and customs officers leads many to be concerned for the future of an already stressed aviation industry. The airline industry is not the only section of aviation that will be affected. As I mentioned earlier, general aviation will take on some challenges in safety and efficiency with the closing of air traffic control towers and cutting the weather and navigational aid services that they rely on (Patterson, 2012).
Cutting air traffic control towers and allowing navigational aids to deteriorate will have a large impact on general aviation operations. The negative consequences that the general aviation community will face will be passed down to the airports that they fly into and the communities around those airports. Some communities rely on their local airport because general aviation supports business, agriculture, law enforcement and medical access and provides important economic support for these communities. These cuts will have a trickle down affect to many other things linked to aviation in one way or another and there may be many other unforeseeable implications (Fuller, 2013).
So is sequestration bad for the entire aviation industry and all related fields? To look at it optimistically, no, it is not all bad for everyone that is involved with aviation. Since long delays are bound to happen, airport vendors may benefit greatly from the budget cuts. It is hard to say if this will actually be the case or not, but it is one outcome that may be positive for at least on player in the aviation arena (Katz, 2013).
Overall, I am pretty worried to see how the aviation industry responds to the cuts enacted by the sequester. I think that it could be an incredibly different industry in the next ten years if nothing is done to reform the plan. It has potential to be extremely detrimental to the aviation industry and all other industries that rely on aviation in any form. Hopefully my pessimistic outlook will be completely invalid and the aviation industry will find a way to pull through this tough road ahead.
Thank you for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
FAA. (2013). Air traffic control facilities that could be closed. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf
Fuller, C. (2013). Letter to FAA administrator. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2013/pdfs/1303012letter-to-huerta.pdf
Katz, E. (2013). Not everyone hates sequestration. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/pay-benefits-watch/2013/03/not-everyone-hates-sequestration/61858/
NBAA. (2013). How 'sequestration' will impact the aviation community. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.nbaa.org/ops/201302-how-sequestration-will-impact-the-aviation-community.php
Patterson, T. (2012). Will potential FAA cuts hurt fliers? Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/travel/faa-budget-cuts
Sequestration is the idea to cut budgets across all federal agencies. With budget cuts being placed on all federal agencies, the plan is supposed to be an indiscriminate way to lower costs with a very broad stroke. Sequestration was basically supposed to be a back up plan if other solutions were not formed, and since no other plan was made it is the only solution left for a problem that requires prompt action. Looked at from an aviation standpoint, the FAA will be required to cut millions of dollars from its budget and no one is too sure what the outcome and its affects to the aviation industry will be (NBAA, 2013).
These cuts imposed by sequestration are not a short term solution as they are laid out, they are long term plans that will have lasting effects. Although most of the FAA's budget is exempt from the sequester by law, they will still need to cut their budget elsewhere. The areas of the FAA's budget that are not exempt from the cuts include: scheduling of personnel, contract work being conducted for the FAA and preventative maintenance and repair work done to facilities and equipment used by the FAA and the aviation community. As you can imagine, cuts to these areas in such a 'safety first' arena could lead to problems in the future. The FAA has said time and time again that safety will not be compromised, but that the cuts will definitely affect day to day operations (NBAA, 2013).
Their plans to cope with the budget cuts include employee furloughs at least one day of every pay period. They also plan to cut air traffic control towers managed under the Federal Contract Tower Program, as well as government run towers, which serve less than 150,000 total operations or less than 10,000 commercial operations per year. An unofficial list of the towers to be cut has been constructed and is being discussed continually before making a final decision (FAA, 2013). This has the potential to greatly impact general aviation in a bad way. The agency expects problems with providing upkeep on its services and facilities. Navigational aids are one of the biggest concerns because they will be forced into scheduling preventative maintenance with longer intervals and in some cases not even servicing them at all if they are not a high priority (NBAA, 2013).
The sequester may lead to the customers losing their ability to fly when they want and how they want it like they can now. According to a study done by the Office of Management and Budget, the cuts could delay the implementation of NextGen by at least a decade. This will definitely cause ticket prices to increase as the airlines will incur greater costs and pass those expenses onto their customers. That along with cutting air traffic control towers and controllers, security screeners and customs officers leads many to be concerned for the future of an already stressed aviation industry. The airline industry is not the only section of aviation that will be affected. As I mentioned earlier, general aviation will take on some challenges in safety and efficiency with the closing of air traffic control towers and cutting the weather and navigational aid services that they rely on (Patterson, 2012).
Cutting air traffic control towers and allowing navigational aids to deteriorate will have a large impact on general aviation operations. The negative consequences that the general aviation community will face will be passed down to the airports that they fly into and the communities around those airports. Some communities rely on their local airport because general aviation supports business, agriculture, law enforcement and medical access and provides important economic support for these communities. These cuts will have a trickle down affect to many other things linked to aviation in one way or another and there may be many other unforeseeable implications (Fuller, 2013).
So is sequestration bad for the entire aviation industry and all related fields? To look at it optimistically, no, it is not all bad for everyone that is involved with aviation. Since long delays are bound to happen, airport vendors may benefit greatly from the budget cuts. It is hard to say if this will actually be the case or not, but it is one outcome that may be positive for at least on player in the aviation arena (Katz, 2013).
Overall, I am pretty worried to see how the aviation industry responds to the cuts enacted by the sequester. I think that it could be an incredibly different industry in the next ten years if nothing is done to reform the plan. It has potential to be extremely detrimental to the aviation industry and all other industries that rely on aviation in any form. Hopefully my pessimistic outlook will be completely invalid and the aviation industry will find a way to pull through this tough road ahead.
Thank you for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
FAA. (2013). Air traffic control facilities that could be closed. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/Facilities_Could_Be_Closed.pdf
Fuller, C. (2013). Letter to FAA administrator. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2013/pdfs/1303012letter-to-huerta.pdf
Katz, E. (2013). Not everyone hates sequestration. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/pay-benefits-watch/2013/03/not-everyone-hates-sequestration/61858/
NBAA. (2013). How 'sequestration' will impact the aviation community. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.nbaa.org/ops/201302-how-sequestration-will-impact-the-aviation-community.php
Patterson, T. (2012). Will potential FAA cuts hurt fliers? Retrieved March 18, 2013, from, http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/travel/faa-budget-cuts
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Topic 7: European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme
In a world where the two words "global warming" are a part of everyday language, carbon emissions and other contributing factors are continually scrutinized and combatted. Air travel is one area that carbon emissions, along with greenhouse gases, are looked to be reduced. Each day thousands of planes take to the skies to transport things from place to place, making it a prime target to aim reduction of emissions at.
The European Union has developed a plan called the Emissions Trading System that will help to reduce certain greenhouse gas emission across a few of the most 'guilty' industries. This scheme looks at three major greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The industries that are required to participate in this system are energy-intensive industries such as: power and heat generation, oil refineries, steel works, production of iron, aluminum, cement, etc, and commercial aviation (European Commission, 2013).
The system works off of a "cap and trade" idea, where there is a limit set on the total amount of emissions of the green house gases listed above. This total amount will be lowered over time so that total emissions fall. Once the cap is set, companies required to follow the plan can then purchase emission allowances and trade them with other companies as needed. At the end of the year the companies will have to give up enough of their allowances to cover their emissions, and if they did not purchase enough of these allowances to cover their emissions they will receive a heavy fine. By 2020, the overall expected reduction of emissions due to this system will be 21% lower than in 2005 (European Commission, 2013).
The idea of the whole structure and plan sounds very good from an environmental standpoint and will definitely help reduce harmful emissions in the long run, but from a business standpoint it is not as appealing. The arguments in this post will be viewed from solely the aviation industry standpoint.
Many countries, including the United States, are opposed to participating in the Emissions Trading System because it will add yet another fee to an already heavily feed industry. Consumers already feel that they are hit with enough fees and costs when traveling with the commercial airline industry, adding another fee may cause customers to reconsider going on vacations or traveling if more fees are added. If the cost is relatively low to the consumer they may not mind as much, but there has to be a breaking point for people and once that point is crossed they will no longer fly. The European scheme would cost United States airlines approximately $3.1 billion from 2012 and 2020. That is a lot of money to ask from an already struggling industry (New York, 2013).
Some analysts believe that the U.S., and other countries, are making it sound like it will be extremely difficult, when really it will not be that bad. According to their calculations, the program would add around $5 to the price of a trans-Atlantic flight. Which does not sounds like much, but when airlines are already operating with almost nil margins as is, it is a lot. It could ultimately be the difference between making profit or suffering a loss. Others believe that since the price of these 'carbon credits' are like a stock, the prices could increase dramatically over time and cause prices to rise even more than anticipated (Rosenthal, 2013).
Since this plan affects international travel, the ICAO has been involved. They have been trying to come up with a solution to implement this plan worldwide. They have until fall 2013 to come up with a plan, and until then the Emissions Trading System is inactive and on the back burner. I do not know that the ICAO will be able to come up with something by this fall because it is a very difficult task. I believe that when the deadline approaches they will either ask for an extension of time, or simply say that they do not believe that the proposed system will work at the current time and state of the industry. I think that enough countries, and ones with reasonable power, are opposed to it and that the ICAO will realize that applying the system would have an overall negative effect on the industry and its progression (Keating, 2012).
While I believe that a solution to aviation emissions is a good idea and something that the industry should continue to improve on, as they have, I do not believe that we need further regulation to do so. Aviation power plant companies are always competing to create a more efficient, quiet and cleaner burning engine. I think that as long as the industry is working to improve on things through competition and is not content with keeping things as they are we will be okay. Throwing more regulation on companies that are already having a difficult time is not a good idea at all in my opinion.
References
European Commission. (2013). The EU emissions trading system (EU ETS). Retrieved March 10, 2013, from, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm
Keating, D. (2012). EU exempt foreign airlines from ETS. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from, http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2012/november/eu-to-exempt-foreign-airlines-from-ets/75653.aspx
Rosenthal, E. (2013). Your biggest carbon sin may be air travel. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html?_r=0
The European Union has developed a plan called the Emissions Trading System that will help to reduce certain greenhouse gas emission across a few of the most 'guilty' industries. This scheme looks at three major greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The industries that are required to participate in this system are energy-intensive industries such as: power and heat generation, oil refineries, steel works, production of iron, aluminum, cement, etc, and commercial aviation (European Commission, 2013).
The system works off of a "cap and trade" idea, where there is a limit set on the total amount of emissions of the green house gases listed above. This total amount will be lowered over time so that total emissions fall. Once the cap is set, companies required to follow the plan can then purchase emission allowances and trade them with other companies as needed. At the end of the year the companies will have to give up enough of their allowances to cover their emissions, and if they did not purchase enough of these allowances to cover their emissions they will receive a heavy fine. By 2020, the overall expected reduction of emissions due to this system will be 21% lower than in 2005 (European Commission, 2013).
The idea of the whole structure and plan sounds very good from an environmental standpoint and will definitely help reduce harmful emissions in the long run, but from a business standpoint it is not as appealing. The arguments in this post will be viewed from solely the aviation industry standpoint.
Many countries, including the United States, are opposed to participating in the Emissions Trading System because it will add yet another fee to an already heavily feed industry. Consumers already feel that they are hit with enough fees and costs when traveling with the commercial airline industry, adding another fee may cause customers to reconsider going on vacations or traveling if more fees are added. If the cost is relatively low to the consumer they may not mind as much, but there has to be a breaking point for people and once that point is crossed they will no longer fly. The European scheme would cost United States airlines approximately $3.1 billion from 2012 and 2020. That is a lot of money to ask from an already struggling industry (New York, 2013).
Some analysts believe that the U.S., and other countries, are making it sound like it will be extremely difficult, when really it will not be that bad. According to their calculations, the program would add around $5 to the price of a trans-Atlantic flight. Which does not sounds like much, but when airlines are already operating with almost nil margins as is, it is a lot. It could ultimately be the difference between making profit or suffering a loss. Others believe that since the price of these 'carbon credits' are like a stock, the prices could increase dramatically over time and cause prices to rise even more than anticipated (Rosenthal, 2013).
Since this plan affects international travel, the ICAO has been involved. They have been trying to come up with a solution to implement this plan worldwide. They have until fall 2013 to come up with a plan, and until then the Emissions Trading System is inactive and on the back burner. I do not know that the ICAO will be able to come up with something by this fall because it is a very difficult task. I believe that when the deadline approaches they will either ask for an extension of time, or simply say that they do not believe that the proposed system will work at the current time and state of the industry. I think that enough countries, and ones with reasonable power, are opposed to it and that the ICAO will realize that applying the system would have an overall negative effect on the industry and its progression (Keating, 2012).
While I believe that a solution to aviation emissions is a good idea and something that the industry should continue to improve on, as they have, I do not believe that we need further regulation to do so. Aviation power plant companies are always competing to create a more efficient, quiet and cleaner burning engine. I think that as long as the industry is working to improve on things through competition and is not content with keeping things as they are we will be okay. Throwing more regulation on companies that are already having a difficult time is not a good idea at all in my opinion.
References
European Commission. (2013). The EU emissions trading system (EU ETS). Retrieved March 10, 2013, from, http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm
Keating, D. (2012). EU exempt foreign airlines from ETS. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from, http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2012/november/eu-to-exempt-foreign-airlines-from-ets/75653.aspx
Rosenthal, E. (2013). Your biggest carbon sin may be air travel. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/sunday-review/the-biggest-carbon-sin-air-travel.html?_r=0
Monday, February 25, 2013
Topic 6: General Aviation in China
As I stated in my first blog topic a few weeks ago, China's aviation industry is experiencing a large amount of growth at a quick rate, but what about their general aviation sector?
When talking about China's general aviation sector, there is not too much going on. In 2012, there were still fewer than 200 business jets and just over 1,500 general aviation aircraft registered in the country. These numbers include turbine jets, propeller driven aircraft and rotorcraft. Most of the aircraft registered are not modern imports either, they are mainly crop-dusting aircraft, poorly built old domestic planes and run down Soviet-era trainers. With so few general aviation airplanes, there are not many flights that take place from day-to-day. More general aviation aircraft operations occur in one minute here in the U.S. than occur in a whole day in China. To further break it down, there is a larger general aviation industry in North Dakota alone than in all of China (Jackson, 2012).
Another big limiting factor for general aviation in China is the number of airports for general aviation aircraft to use. According to a Civil Aviation Administration of China report, at the end of 2011 there were only 70 airports and 216 landing points for general aviation in China. The CAAC is said to be working on subsides including grants for airport building and pilot training to help boost the general aviation industry (Wen, 2012).
Recently a few things have occurred to get China's general aviation industry moving. Airspace regulations had previously been a huge limiting factor for general aviation in China. As of late November in 2012, approximately 36 percent of airspace below 4,000 meters is open to general aviation. This was a huge step forward and one that was needed to allow general aviation to get a start (NBAA, 2012).
In June 2011, Cirrus and the China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co., Ltd. (CAIGA) announced that the merger between the two companies was complete. The deal was not a very popular one here in the U.S. because people were afraid that Cirrus would close down its U.S. operations in Minnesota and North Dakota, putting many people out of work in an already struggling economy. A Minnesota congressman also raised concerns that it may lead to national security concerns, but all of these factors were negated by Cirrus' co-founder Dale Klapmeler. The partnership will benefit the customers and the business, according to Cirrus CEO Brent Woulters, because Cirrus and CAIGA both have a vision of worldwide growth. He also says that CIAGA has resources which will allow them to accelerate global expansion and to possibly expand its facilities and staff in the U.S. (Grady, 2011).
I believe that Cirrus merging with this Chinese company is a good strategic move as long as they do not start doing all of their production in China. As long as they keep people here in the U.S. at work, as well as employing people overseas, I think it is a good thing. As the CEO said, merging with CIAGA allows them to utilize more resources and expand more quickly, both here and there. I also believe that Cirrus, and other U.S. companies, merging with chinese companies is a good thing. Not only will it help to get China's general aviation sector going, but it also provides a good foot in the door for other American companies and people to the Chinese aviation industry. If the Chinese benefit from and enjoy the relationships they make with American companies, it may open doors in other areas of the industry as well.
Thanks for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
Grady, M. (2011). Cirrus finalizes China deal. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from, http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/CirrusFinalizesChinaDeal_204886-1.html
Jackson, C. (2012). China's general-aviation flight of fancy. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304451104577391650977428024.html
NBAA. (2012). China accelerates opening of low-level airspace. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from, http://www.nbaa.org/ops/intl/mid/20121126-china-accelerates-opening-of-low-level-airspace.php
Wen, W. (2012). Sky's the limit for booming general aviation sector. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from, http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-11/27/content_15962670.htm
When talking about China's general aviation sector, there is not too much going on. In 2012, there were still fewer than 200 business jets and just over 1,500 general aviation aircraft registered in the country. These numbers include turbine jets, propeller driven aircraft and rotorcraft. Most of the aircraft registered are not modern imports either, they are mainly crop-dusting aircraft, poorly built old domestic planes and run down Soviet-era trainers. With so few general aviation airplanes, there are not many flights that take place from day-to-day. More general aviation aircraft operations occur in one minute here in the U.S. than occur in a whole day in China. To further break it down, there is a larger general aviation industry in North Dakota alone than in all of China (Jackson, 2012).
Another big limiting factor for general aviation in China is the number of airports for general aviation aircraft to use. According to a Civil Aviation Administration of China report, at the end of 2011 there were only 70 airports and 216 landing points for general aviation in China. The CAAC is said to be working on subsides including grants for airport building and pilot training to help boost the general aviation industry (Wen, 2012).
Recently a few things have occurred to get China's general aviation industry moving. Airspace regulations had previously been a huge limiting factor for general aviation in China. As of late November in 2012, approximately 36 percent of airspace below 4,000 meters is open to general aviation. This was a huge step forward and one that was needed to allow general aviation to get a start (NBAA, 2012).
In June 2011, Cirrus and the China Aviation Industry General Aircraft Co., Ltd. (CAIGA) announced that the merger between the two companies was complete. The deal was not a very popular one here in the U.S. because people were afraid that Cirrus would close down its U.S. operations in Minnesota and North Dakota, putting many people out of work in an already struggling economy. A Minnesota congressman also raised concerns that it may lead to national security concerns, but all of these factors were negated by Cirrus' co-founder Dale Klapmeler. The partnership will benefit the customers and the business, according to Cirrus CEO Brent Woulters, because Cirrus and CAIGA both have a vision of worldwide growth. He also says that CIAGA has resources which will allow them to accelerate global expansion and to possibly expand its facilities and staff in the U.S. (Grady, 2011).
I believe that Cirrus merging with this Chinese company is a good strategic move as long as they do not start doing all of their production in China. As long as they keep people here in the U.S. at work, as well as employing people overseas, I think it is a good thing. As the CEO said, merging with CIAGA allows them to utilize more resources and expand more quickly, both here and there. I also believe that Cirrus, and other U.S. companies, merging with chinese companies is a good thing. Not only will it help to get China's general aviation sector going, but it also provides a good foot in the door for other American companies and people to the Chinese aviation industry. If the Chinese benefit from and enjoy the relationships they make with American companies, it may open doors in other areas of the industry as well.
Thanks for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
Grady, M. (2011). Cirrus finalizes China deal. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from, http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/CirrusFinalizesChinaDeal_204886-1.html
Jackson, C. (2012). China's general-aviation flight of fancy. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304451104577391650977428024.html
NBAA. (2012). China accelerates opening of low-level airspace. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from, http://www.nbaa.org/ops/intl/mid/20121126-china-accelerates-opening-of-low-level-airspace.php
Wen, W. (2012). Sky's the limit for booming general aviation sector. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from, http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2012-11/27/content_15962670.htm
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Topic 5: The Merger of American Airlines and US Airways
This Thursday American Airlines and US Airways announced that they are going to merge which will create the worlds largest airline. What does this mean for consumers? It can be argued two ways. The first argument is that larger airlines can better serve their customers overall than can two smaller airlines. The second, is that while the first side may be true, customers do not care as much about the benefits they receive as they do about prices and this merger will decrease competition and raise ticket prices in the long run (New York, 2013).
The two airlines are going with the first argument and saying that it will be good for passengers because it will allow the "New" American to better compete with Delta and United. There are also some analysts that say the deal should not result in higher fares because most of the routes of each airline complement each other (New York, 2013).
In the same article in The New York Times, it is stated that even though the route overlaps are not too large, it would still almost eliminate competition in certain cities such as Dallas, Phoenix, Philadelphia and Miami which are all hub airports for both airlines. Another concern that will cause a larger impact on competition is the dominance the "New" American will have over the percent of total flights out of large airports. At Dallas-Fort Worth they will control 86 percent of all the flights, 78 percent at Philadelphia, 60 percent at Washington's National Airport and 92 percent out of Charlotte. These percentages are kind of intimidating in a current airline system where control of major hubs is everything (New York, 2013).
I believe that when it comes to mergers, customers are more concerned with their bottom line and want cheaper prices. Decreasing competition, in my opinion, is never a good thing. As Joe Cahill (2013) states, "The merger of American and US Airways ... means three things for consumers: fewer choices, poorer service and higher prices. We're already suffering from all three." Once there is little to no competition left, companies are free do to whatever they want and the customer is left with no decisions and is at the mercy of whatever the one company is offering.
Customers are not the only people who have concerns when it comes to a merger, the pilots of the two airlines have a lot at stake. Each airline has a pilot seniority list which determines how much money they make, which airplanes they fly and what schedules they get. Another factor that is determined by the seniority list is who loses their job if/when the new airline downsizes. When you combine two airlines, with two different seniority lists, things tend to get messy. Someone who was at the top of a seniority list in one airline may end up closer to the middle once the merger happens. This is often one of the most difficult things to deal with during a merger (Kaufman, 2013).
ALPA has a manual that can help with the merger process, but each merger is different and may require different steps to come to a final conclusion (ALPA, 2006). If I were in charge of creating an industry standard for merging pilot seniority lists, I would make it very simple. Whoever has the earlier hire date has higher seniority. People that were hired on the same date would be further distinguished by alphabetical order of their last name. There truly is no good way to merge seniority lists because no matter what you come up with, there will be people who are unhappy. By using the pilots hire dates as the primary factor in determining seniority there is nothing to argue about, either you were hired before or after the next guy. When it comes to two pilots hired on the same date, the alphabetical system is something used in many applications and is something you can not argue. As I said earlier, you are not going to make everyone happy but you have to be as fair as possible about it.
Even though American and US Airways have stated they are going to merge, there are a few steps left in the process to make it final. One of these steps is the review by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. The goal of the Antitrust Division is to protect consumers by making sure that competitive markets continue to exist which create high quality and low prices. This review is done to determine whether or not it will lessen competition. They do not look at the entire industry to see how it will affect competition, they look at relevant markets to make a more accurate assessment (Department of Justice, 2005).
After doing a little bit of research and looking at some of the numbers I stated earlier, I think that at certain airports, such as Dallas-Fort Worth and Charlotte specifically, this merger may lessen competition and creates the potential to affect the consumer. Obviously I do not know all of what the Antitrust Division looks at when making their final decision, but based on their statement of what they do this merger may raise a red flag in my opinion.
If this merger does get approved, which is the current prediction, then 70 percent of the domestic market will be controlled by four airlines. I believe that this has the potential to affect my future career by lessening the amount of jobs available through consolidation. With the merger of each airline comes the eradication of jobs. I am not sure that I intend on working in the domestic airline industry but if jobs are being cut there, those people will be looking for work elsewhere which will increase competition across the board.
Thanks for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
ALPA. (2006). Merger and fragmentation policy. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from, http://www.wearealpa.org/about/adminmanual/Section_045_Merger_and_Fragmentation_Policy.pdf
Cahill, J. (2013). Why this airline merger is a bad deal. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from, http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130216/ISSUE10/302169983/why-this-airline-merger-is-a-bad-deal
Department of Justice. (2005). Antitrust for airlines. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/217987.htm
Kaufman, W. (2013). Airline mega-mergers: 'Good, bad and ugly'. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from, http://www.npr.org/2013/02/14/172018757/airline-mega-mergers-good-bad-and-ugly
New York Times. (2013). American Airlines bulks up. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opinion/american-airlines-bulks-up.html
The two airlines are going with the first argument and saying that it will be good for passengers because it will allow the "New" American to better compete with Delta and United. There are also some analysts that say the deal should not result in higher fares because most of the routes of each airline complement each other (New York, 2013).
In the same article in The New York Times, it is stated that even though the route overlaps are not too large, it would still almost eliminate competition in certain cities such as Dallas, Phoenix, Philadelphia and Miami which are all hub airports for both airlines. Another concern that will cause a larger impact on competition is the dominance the "New" American will have over the percent of total flights out of large airports. At Dallas-Fort Worth they will control 86 percent of all the flights, 78 percent at Philadelphia, 60 percent at Washington's National Airport and 92 percent out of Charlotte. These percentages are kind of intimidating in a current airline system where control of major hubs is everything (New York, 2013).
I believe that when it comes to mergers, customers are more concerned with their bottom line and want cheaper prices. Decreasing competition, in my opinion, is never a good thing. As Joe Cahill (2013) states, "The merger of American and US Airways ... means three things for consumers: fewer choices, poorer service and higher prices. We're already suffering from all three." Once there is little to no competition left, companies are free do to whatever they want and the customer is left with no decisions and is at the mercy of whatever the one company is offering.
Customers are not the only people who have concerns when it comes to a merger, the pilots of the two airlines have a lot at stake. Each airline has a pilot seniority list which determines how much money they make, which airplanes they fly and what schedules they get. Another factor that is determined by the seniority list is who loses their job if/when the new airline downsizes. When you combine two airlines, with two different seniority lists, things tend to get messy. Someone who was at the top of a seniority list in one airline may end up closer to the middle once the merger happens. This is often one of the most difficult things to deal with during a merger (Kaufman, 2013).
ALPA has a manual that can help with the merger process, but each merger is different and may require different steps to come to a final conclusion (ALPA, 2006). If I were in charge of creating an industry standard for merging pilot seniority lists, I would make it very simple. Whoever has the earlier hire date has higher seniority. People that were hired on the same date would be further distinguished by alphabetical order of their last name. There truly is no good way to merge seniority lists because no matter what you come up with, there will be people who are unhappy. By using the pilots hire dates as the primary factor in determining seniority there is nothing to argue about, either you were hired before or after the next guy. When it comes to two pilots hired on the same date, the alphabetical system is something used in many applications and is something you can not argue. As I said earlier, you are not going to make everyone happy but you have to be as fair as possible about it.
Even though American and US Airways have stated they are going to merge, there are a few steps left in the process to make it final. One of these steps is the review by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. The goal of the Antitrust Division is to protect consumers by making sure that competitive markets continue to exist which create high quality and low prices. This review is done to determine whether or not it will lessen competition. They do not look at the entire industry to see how it will affect competition, they look at relevant markets to make a more accurate assessment (Department of Justice, 2005).
After doing a little bit of research and looking at some of the numbers I stated earlier, I think that at certain airports, such as Dallas-Fort Worth and Charlotte specifically, this merger may lessen competition and creates the potential to affect the consumer. Obviously I do not know all of what the Antitrust Division looks at when making their final decision, but based on their statement of what they do this merger may raise a red flag in my opinion.
If this merger does get approved, which is the current prediction, then 70 percent of the domestic market will be controlled by four airlines. I believe that this has the potential to affect my future career by lessening the amount of jobs available through consolidation. With the merger of each airline comes the eradication of jobs. I am not sure that I intend on working in the domestic airline industry but if jobs are being cut there, those people will be looking for work elsewhere which will increase competition across the board.
Thanks for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
ALPA. (2006). Merger and fragmentation policy. Retrieved February 17, 2013, from, http://www.wearealpa.org/about/adminmanual/Section_045_Merger_and_Fragmentation_Policy.pdf
Cahill, J. (2013). Why this airline merger is a bad deal. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from, http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130216/ISSUE10/302169983/why-this-airline-merger-is-a-bad-deal
Department of Justice. (2005). Antitrust for airlines. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from, http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/217987.htm
Kaufman, W. (2013). Airline mega-mergers: 'Good, bad and ugly'. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from, http://www.npr.org/2013/02/14/172018757/airline-mega-mergers-good-bad-and-ugly
New York Times. (2013). American Airlines bulks up. Retrieved February 16, 2013, from, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opinion/american-airlines-bulks-up.html
Monday, February 11, 2013
Topic 4: Corporate Aviation: A Political Punching Bag
Corporate aviation has been under a lot of scrutiny the past five to ten years. Many believe that companies do not need their own airplanes to fly executives and other employees around. I understand why people think it is a source of money that could be better spent on other things, but at the same time I do not think people understand all of the benefits that corporate aviation offers. As most people know, aircraft are not cheap to purchase, maintain, and fly, which I believe is the first, and only, thing they think about when hearing or talking about a businesses aviation department. When used correctly, these corporate aircraft can save a company a good bit of money in the long run.
Everyone has heard the saying "time is money", and downtime is one problem that corporate aviation aims to solve. Think of the different times you have flown on a domestic airline, I am sure there is one instance that you can remember where you were stuck in an airport because of some sort of delay. Think of the long lines at security checkpoints and while waiting to board the plane. Remember sleeping in the hotel room bed the night before your flight because you had to be at the airport at five in the morning? All of these things cost a business money when it is their executives or employees involved. These are all areas that corporate aviation can improve upon (Donnelly, 2012).
It is understandable that airplanes occasionally break down and require maintenance, but delays due to transporting mass numbers of people and congestion at airports is an area that can be targeted. Business aviation allows people to go where they want to go, when they want to go there, that is the beauty of it. No need to worry about making your connecting flight in Atlanta. Business aircraft can get into significantly more airports than commercial passenger jets can, which takes out the need to stop at unnecessary points along the way. All of the meals and hotel rooms that employees require while on the trip are payed for by the company, so less nights in hotels and less meals on the road means more money for the company. Many companies conduct meetings while they are in the air traveling from one place to another, this is another advantage that flying on a business plane has over flying commercially. "Business aviation has simply become a way of life for the successful, thriving business of today," says Kim Showalter, the president of Showalter Flying Services (Donnelly, 2012).
I agree that corporate aviation is a very important tool that businesses can take advantage of. Any downtime that the business person faces while on the road is not only a hassle for the traveler, but it is also time that they could spend being productive which costs the company money in the long run. I do think that corporate aircraft have been used for the wrong reasons in the past, but when used in the right way they are a great tool for companies to utilize.
President Obama made comments that if business can afford corporate aircraft, then they can afford the elimination of accelerated depreciation for purchasing the plane. Accelerated depreciation allows companies to account for most of the depreciation expense the first year the asset is used. This lowers the amount of depreciation that the company has to pay in future years (Murray, n.d.), Obama's comment refers to a very small number of the businesses that actually use corporate aircraft. Sure the huge multimillion dollar corporations could afford this elimination of tax break. But what about the small to mid-sized businesses, which are the largest number of companies that use corporate aviation, that cannot afford to lose this tax break? Not only would eliminating this procedure hurt the small to mid-sized companies, but it would also hurt the smaller less traveled airports that these planes fly into (Loyd, 2012).
I agree with president Obama when referring to those very large businesses that have a lot of money to spend, but I disagree completely with eliminating the tax break for the small to mid-sized companies. If it is cut these companies aviation departments would most likely be gotten rid of or receive smaller funding. If their aviation departments were to get cut, it would make them much less competitive in their market and would only stimulate the large corporations even more. Eliminating this tax break would affect the small airports that these business planes fly into as well. If an airport gets one of these business planes every week, they will lose out on that money which the plane brought in.
The NBAA does not agree with president Obama's plans and Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the NBAA, has written to Obama letting him know that he does not agree. In his letter to the president of the United States he explains that Obama illustrates a complete "lack of understanding" about the role corporate aviation plays in business in the United States. Bolen brought up that business aviation accounts for 1.2 million American jobs and contributes around $150 billion annually to the U.S. economy. During the debates, Obama was quick to point out the auto industry in Detroit and how it is helping to re-build America. Bolen pointed out to the president that the business aviation workers deserve his support as well and concludes his letter with, "Please consider promoting, rather than disparaging, business aviation -- it's a great American industry," (Patiky, 2012).
In conclusion, I believe that corporate aviation is a good thing when used correctly. By correctly, I mean for businesses to send employees to meet with potential/current customers to discuss business, for sending officials to meetings, etc. I do not agree with how fancy some corporate planes are or when corporate officials use company planes to go on vacation with their families or to travel the world, that is not how they are intended to be used. I believe that president Obama's plan to cut accelerated depreciation for companies that buy business aircraft will only hurt the business that benefit the most from having these aircraft. I think that when used properly and effectively, corporate aviation planes can be a great tool for companies to use.
Thanks for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
Donnelly, B. (2012) Business aviation: The unfair advantage. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/08/06/business-aviation-the-unfair-advantage/
Loyd, L. (2012) Aviation group: Obama off base on corporate jet breaks. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-06/business/34280737_1_business-jets-corporate-jet-national-business-aviation-association
Murray, J. (n.d.) Business tax savings using accelerated depreciation. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/businesstaxes/a/acceldeprec.htm
Patiky, M. (2012) Zinger from the president stings business aviation. Retrieved February 11, 2013 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/10/05/zinger-from-the-president-stings-business-aviation/
Everyone has heard the saying "time is money", and downtime is one problem that corporate aviation aims to solve. Think of the different times you have flown on a domestic airline, I am sure there is one instance that you can remember where you were stuck in an airport because of some sort of delay. Think of the long lines at security checkpoints and while waiting to board the plane. Remember sleeping in the hotel room bed the night before your flight because you had to be at the airport at five in the morning? All of these things cost a business money when it is their executives or employees involved. These are all areas that corporate aviation can improve upon (Donnelly, 2012).
It is understandable that airplanes occasionally break down and require maintenance, but delays due to transporting mass numbers of people and congestion at airports is an area that can be targeted. Business aviation allows people to go where they want to go, when they want to go there, that is the beauty of it. No need to worry about making your connecting flight in Atlanta. Business aircraft can get into significantly more airports than commercial passenger jets can, which takes out the need to stop at unnecessary points along the way. All of the meals and hotel rooms that employees require while on the trip are payed for by the company, so less nights in hotels and less meals on the road means more money for the company. Many companies conduct meetings while they are in the air traveling from one place to another, this is another advantage that flying on a business plane has over flying commercially. "Business aviation has simply become a way of life for the successful, thriving business of today," says Kim Showalter, the president of Showalter Flying Services (Donnelly, 2012).
I agree that corporate aviation is a very important tool that businesses can take advantage of. Any downtime that the business person faces while on the road is not only a hassle for the traveler, but it is also time that they could spend being productive which costs the company money in the long run. I do think that corporate aircraft have been used for the wrong reasons in the past, but when used in the right way they are a great tool for companies to utilize.
President Obama made comments that if business can afford corporate aircraft, then they can afford the elimination of accelerated depreciation for purchasing the plane. Accelerated depreciation allows companies to account for most of the depreciation expense the first year the asset is used. This lowers the amount of depreciation that the company has to pay in future years (Murray, n.d.), Obama's comment refers to a very small number of the businesses that actually use corporate aircraft. Sure the huge multimillion dollar corporations could afford this elimination of tax break. But what about the small to mid-sized businesses, which are the largest number of companies that use corporate aviation, that cannot afford to lose this tax break? Not only would eliminating this procedure hurt the small to mid-sized companies, but it would also hurt the smaller less traveled airports that these planes fly into (Loyd, 2012).
I agree with president Obama when referring to those very large businesses that have a lot of money to spend, but I disagree completely with eliminating the tax break for the small to mid-sized companies. If it is cut these companies aviation departments would most likely be gotten rid of or receive smaller funding. If their aviation departments were to get cut, it would make them much less competitive in their market and would only stimulate the large corporations even more. Eliminating this tax break would affect the small airports that these business planes fly into as well. If an airport gets one of these business planes every week, they will lose out on that money which the plane brought in.
The NBAA does not agree with president Obama's plans and Ed Bolen, president and CEO of the NBAA, has written to Obama letting him know that he does not agree. In his letter to the president of the United States he explains that Obama illustrates a complete "lack of understanding" about the role corporate aviation plays in business in the United States. Bolen brought up that business aviation accounts for 1.2 million American jobs and contributes around $150 billion annually to the U.S. economy. During the debates, Obama was quick to point out the auto industry in Detroit and how it is helping to re-build America. Bolen pointed out to the president that the business aviation workers deserve his support as well and concludes his letter with, "Please consider promoting, rather than disparaging, business aviation -- it's a great American industry," (Patiky, 2012).
In conclusion, I believe that corporate aviation is a good thing when used correctly. By correctly, I mean for businesses to send employees to meet with potential/current customers to discuss business, for sending officials to meetings, etc. I do not agree with how fancy some corporate planes are or when corporate officials use company planes to go on vacation with their families or to travel the world, that is not how they are intended to be used. I believe that president Obama's plan to cut accelerated depreciation for companies that buy business aircraft will only hurt the business that benefit the most from having these aircraft. I think that when used properly and effectively, corporate aviation planes can be a great tool for companies to use.
Thanks for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
Donnelly, B. (2012) Business aviation: The unfair advantage. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/08/06/business-aviation-the-unfair-advantage/
Loyd, L. (2012) Aviation group: Obama off base on corporate jet breaks. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://articles.philly.com/2012-10-06/business/34280737_1_business-jets-corporate-jet-national-business-aviation-association
Murray, J. (n.d.) Business tax savings using accelerated depreciation. Retrieved February 11, 2013, from http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/businesstaxes/a/acceldeprec.htm
Patiky, M. (2012) Zinger from the president stings business aviation. Retrieved February 11, 2013 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/10/05/zinger-from-the-president-stings-business-aviation/
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Topic 3: UAVs: A Commercial Future?
The idea of having Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) flying alongside commercial passenger jets and other aircraft seems like something out of a sci-fy movie, but this idea is actually becoming a reality. UAVs have become a popular topic in recent years and the potential commercial uses of these aircraft have created a lot of excitement and questions.
UAVs are not a new idea by any means, in fact, during World War I the Navy funded research to develop an unmanned aircraft that was essentially a flying bomb. The military continues to use UAVs today for surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as combat missions. The military frequently operates unmanned aircraft in U.S. airspace for research, development, testing and training (Elias, 2012). Using UAVs inside the United States for a variety of reasons has been a hot topic along with the issues involved with doing so.
One of the issues involved with using these UAVs in the United States is how to integrate them into flying in the National Airspace System (NAS) with other manned aircraft. Obviously having unmanned aircraft flying around amongst all of the manned aircraft could create some safety issues. Other concerns include airspace restrictions, security risks and disrupting manned flight operations (Elias, 2012).
The first and most obvious safety issue is the ability of the UAV to sense and avoid other aircraft. To date, there is no suitable technology available that will allow UAVs the ability to sense and avoid other aircraft. This lack of available technology limits unmanned aircraft to line-of-sight scenarios where operators on the ground provide the see and avoid capabilities. The creation of Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology, which is required to be installed on all manned aircraft by 2020, may be the future in detect and avoid technology for UAVs (Elias, 2012).
Once that issue is resolved, the next focus needs to be on reducing risks to people and property on the ground. If communications with the UAV are lost, the aircraft needs to be able to realize this and automatically return to its' base so that it does not run out of fuel and crash into a populated area (Elias, 2012).
Even though these aircraft are unmanned, human factors still plays a huge role in the safety of their operation. The most important human factors related issues are operator interfaces and controls and the training and qualification requirements of pilots, among other involved personnel. Currently the Air Force requires their drone pilots to be pilot-rated military officers, while the other branches of the military do not require their operators to be pilot-rated (Elias, 2012).
NASA is leading a project called the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System which is intended to contribute capabilities designed at reducing technical barriers related to safety and the operation challenges of UAVs routinely accessing the NAS (NASA, 2011).
Once the technology that allows these UAVs to detect and avoid other aircraft is developed and ready for implementation, I believe we will begin to see unmanned aircraft slowly be put to use in certain applications. I think that the FAA will create a certain set of regulations that pertain to UAVs and that pilot, and other personnel, training standards will be similar to that of which exist for current manned aircraft. I believe that the implementation of NextGen technology will help the advancement of UAVs and their uses in our NAS. I think that within the next ten years or so the use of UAVs inside the United States NAS will be extensive and may replace some current manned aircraft operations and create a more cost effective alternative.
Another issue that is popular when talking about UAVs and the practicability of their use in the United States, is the lack of regulation that exists to govern flight safety. Currently there are very few countries that have regulations which pertain specifically to UAV operations. With the idea of UAVs entering the commercial market and serving other purposes, regulations will need to be put in place to provide a safe operating environment. These regulations will set the tone for the UAV market and determine how their uses will be implemented (DeGarmo, 2004).
Currently in the United States, UAV flights that occur in the NAS that are not operated as model aircraft or under FAR part 101 (Moored Balloons, Kites, Unmanned Rockets, and Unmanned Free Balloons) must be approved under a certificate of authorization (COA) from the FAA. These COA guidelines were formed for the military to use when conducting their flights with UAVs in the NAS, but are now being applied to civil UAV operations. The process of obtaining a COA is a lengthy process and requires a lot of planning prior to the UAV mission. Each COA is reviewed by the regional FAA authority which results in differences in standards between the approving authority. More information on COAs, and how to obtain one, can be found here. Differences between civil and military procedures are also approved through separate FAA departments. With there being so much difference in approval standards, there is no clearly defined standard for users to follow when developing UAV applications. Without standards, the formation of regulations will be difficult (Weibel, 2005).
Another thing that is important to the formation of regulations for unmanned aircraft is development of the definition of a UAV and different types of classification. There is no universally accepted definition or standard classification for UAVs and without these, it will be difficult to make regulations and apply them. The formation of regulations related to UAV air traffic management, airworthiness and flight operations is another vital step that needs to be completed in order to enable the successful UAV integration in the NAS (Weibel, 2005).
I think that once these regulations are formed, UAV operation in the NAS will follow closely behind. This is assuming that the safety issues concerning UAV flight alongside other manned aircraft are taken care of and no longer a problem. I think the topic of UAVs is very interesting and I am excited to see how they are implemented in our industry in the future. I think that there is a lot of potential for the use of these aircraft, but it may come at the cost of replacing human jobs with computers.
Thank you for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
DeGarmo, M. T. (2004). Issues concerning integration of unmanned aerial vehicles in civil airspace. Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_04/04_12 32/04_1232.pdf
Elias, B. (2012). Pilotless drones: Background and considerations for Congress regarding unmanned aircraft operations in the National Airspace System. Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42718.pdf
NASA. (2011). Unmanned aircraft systems integration in the National Airspace System. Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-075-DFRC.html
Weibel, R. E. (2005). Safety considerations for operation of different classes of unmanned aerial vehicles in the National Airspace System. Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://dspace.mi t.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/30364/61751476.pdf?sequence=1
UAVs are not a new idea by any means, in fact, during World War I the Navy funded research to develop an unmanned aircraft that was essentially a flying bomb. The military continues to use UAVs today for surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as combat missions. The military frequently operates unmanned aircraft in U.S. airspace for research, development, testing and training (Elias, 2012). Using UAVs inside the United States for a variety of reasons has been a hot topic along with the issues involved with doing so.
One of the issues involved with using these UAVs in the United States is how to integrate them into flying in the National Airspace System (NAS) with other manned aircraft. Obviously having unmanned aircraft flying around amongst all of the manned aircraft could create some safety issues. Other concerns include airspace restrictions, security risks and disrupting manned flight operations (Elias, 2012).
The first and most obvious safety issue is the ability of the UAV to sense and avoid other aircraft. To date, there is no suitable technology available that will allow UAVs the ability to sense and avoid other aircraft. This lack of available technology limits unmanned aircraft to line-of-sight scenarios where operators on the ground provide the see and avoid capabilities. The creation of Automated Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology, which is required to be installed on all manned aircraft by 2020, may be the future in detect and avoid technology for UAVs (Elias, 2012).
Once that issue is resolved, the next focus needs to be on reducing risks to people and property on the ground. If communications with the UAV are lost, the aircraft needs to be able to realize this and automatically return to its' base so that it does not run out of fuel and crash into a populated area (Elias, 2012).
Even though these aircraft are unmanned, human factors still plays a huge role in the safety of their operation. The most important human factors related issues are operator interfaces and controls and the training and qualification requirements of pilots, among other involved personnel. Currently the Air Force requires their drone pilots to be pilot-rated military officers, while the other branches of the military do not require their operators to be pilot-rated (Elias, 2012).
NASA is leading a project called the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration in the National Airspace System which is intended to contribute capabilities designed at reducing technical barriers related to safety and the operation challenges of UAVs routinely accessing the NAS (NASA, 2011).
Once the technology that allows these UAVs to detect and avoid other aircraft is developed and ready for implementation, I believe we will begin to see unmanned aircraft slowly be put to use in certain applications. I think that the FAA will create a certain set of regulations that pertain to UAVs and that pilot, and other personnel, training standards will be similar to that of which exist for current manned aircraft. I believe that the implementation of NextGen technology will help the advancement of UAVs and their uses in our NAS. I think that within the next ten years or so the use of UAVs inside the United States NAS will be extensive and may replace some current manned aircraft operations and create a more cost effective alternative.
Another issue that is popular when talking about UAVs and the practicability of their use in the United States, is the lack of regulation that exists to govern flight safety. Currently there are very few countries that have regulations which pertain specifically to UAV operations. With the idea of UAVs entering the commercial market and serving other purposes, regulations will need to be put in place to provide a safe operating environment. These regulations will set the tone for the UAV market and determine how their uses will be implemented (DeGarmo, 2004).
Currently in the United States, UAV flights that occur in the NAS that are not operated as model aircraft or under FAR part 101 (Moored Balloons, Kites, Unmanned Rockets, and Unmanned Free Balloons) must be approved under a certificate of authorization (COA) from the FAA. These COA guidelines were formed for the military to use when conducting their flights with UAVs in the NAS, but are now being applied to civil UAV operations. The process of obtaining a COA is a lengthy process and requires a lot of planning prior to the UAV mission. Each COA is reviewed by the regional FAA authority which results in differences in standards between the approving authority. More information on COAs, and how to obtain one, can be found here. Differences between civil and military procedures are also approved through separate FAA departments. With there being so much difference in approval standards, there is no clearly defined standard for users to follow when developing UAV applications. Without standards, the formation of regulations will be difficult (Weibel, 2005).
Another thing that is important to the formation of regulations for unmanned aircraft is development of the definition of a UAV and different types of classification. There is no universally accepted definition or standard classification for UAVs and without these, it will be difficult to make regulations and apply them. The formation of regulations related to UAV air traffic management, airworthiness and flight operations is another vital step that needs to be completed in order to enable the successful UAV integration in the NAS (Weibel, 2005).
I think that once these regulations are formed, UAV operation in the NAS will follow closely behind. This is assuming that the safety issues concerning UAV flight alongside other manned aircraft are taken care of and no longer a problem. I think the topic of UAVs is very interesting and I am excited to see how they are implemented in our industry in the future. I think that there is a lot of potential for the use of these aircraft, but it may come at the cost of replacing human jobs with computers.
Thank you for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
DeGarmo, M. T. (2004). Issues concerning integration of unmanned aerial vehicles in civil airspace. Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_04/04_12 32/04_1232.pdf
Elias, B. (2012). Pilotless drones: Background and considerations for Congress regarding unmanned aircraft operations in the National Airspace System. Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42718.pdf
NASA. (2011). Unmanned aircraft systems integration in the National Airspace System. Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-075-DFRC.html
Weibel, R. E. (2005). Safety considerations for operation of different classes of unmanned aerial vehicles in the National Airspace System. Retrieved February 02, 2013, from http://dspace.mi t.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/30364/61751476.pdf?sequence=1
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Topic 2: Individual and Industry Ramifications of Flight/Duty Regulations
The Colgan Air accident that occurred in 2009 gained a lot of attention from Congress, and the public, questioning whether training and experience levels of 121 carrier pilots are sufficient enough or not. This accident also brought up questions as to whether or not second in command pilots (SICs) and pilots in command (PICs) should be required to have the same number of flight hours and flight training requirements. Since this event received so much attention, President Obama signed a public law into effect on August 1, 2010 to try and prevent future incidents of the same nature from occurring, and in my opinion, to simply make people feel safer when flying on a 121 carrier. (Pilot Cerfication, 2012).
This public law 111-216, known as the "Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010", was signed into effect on August 1, 2010 and contains two titles which each include multiple sections. The first title, Title I-- Airport and Airway Extension, has seven different sections that it addresses which range from funding, to air navigation facilities and research and development. The second title, Title II-- Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement, is more extensive and covers seventeen different sections expanding on ways to improve safety and training (Airline Safety, 2010).
Title II of this law has gotten the most attention because it affects a large number of people that are currently in the industry, and many that are seeking to join the workforce in the near future. Section 212 Pilot Fatigue., is one section of the law that I feel has the potential to affect me in my future career. One outcome of section 212 is the notice of proposed ruled making (NPRM) that the FAA released on February 27, 2012. This NPRM, if created into a final rule, would require SICs to hold an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate (which training is also being modified to include 50 hours of multi-engine flight experience and completion of a new FAA-approved training program) with a type rating in their aircraft and also require 1,500 hours of pilot flight time. PICs will also be required to have a minimum of 1,000 hours of flight time as a pilot in U.S. air carrier operations. Currently SICs are only required to hold a commercial pilot certificate which requires just 250 hours of flight time and PICs are not required to have 1,000 hours of flight time as a pilot in U.S. air carrier operations (International, 2012).
I believe that this has the potential to affect my career in the future due to the increasing difficulty it will take to find pilots that meet these demanding requirements. I am not sure what position I will end up doing after I graduate, but if there is a shortage of pilots that meet the requirements to fill the slots, I believe the entire industry will be affected. I do not believe that raising the minimums for SICs is an entirely bad idea. I think that it is a good idea for all 121 pilots to have an ATP and a type rating for the aircraft in which they are flying. While I think requiring 1,500 hours is a little extreme, I do think that more than 250 hours should be a requirement. I know that most, if not all, airlines require more than 250 hours to become one of their pilots but putting it into the regulations is not a bad idea. Making the requirements for PICs more stringent also seems a little extreme to me.
This NPRM also has the potential to affect EMU's future in flight training. It states that the FAA is going to allow different hour requirements for a restricted privilege ATP certificate with airplane category multiengine class rating or type rating. It will allow military pilots to get their ATP with 750 hours, which does not benefit EMU, but it will also allow an ATP certificate to be achieved after 1000 hours for a graduate of a four-year aviation program who has received their commercial certificate and instrument rating from an affiliated part 141 program (Pilot Certification, 2012). This is where EMU can reap benefits from the NPRM. Since Eastern's aviation flight program is now operating under a 141 certificate, its' students will be eligible for this lower hour requirement. If this NPRM is signed into a final rule, EMU may see an increase in students attending for aviation degrees. I believe that this is a good move by the FAA. Having gone through some flight training at the eagle flight center, and almost the entirety of EMU's aviation management program now, I can say that I have been exposed to and educated in a lot of important aspects of the aviation environment. This is not to say that pilots who get their certificates and ratings from an FBO are not as good at flying as pilots who come out of a four-year program, but they do not have the thorough education in the other elements that are so important to aviation safety.
It will be interesting to see if this NPRM, that came about from Public Law 111-216, is accepted or not and how the industry responds to it.
Thank you for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
Federal Aviation Administration. (2012, February 29). Pilot certification and qualification requirements for air carrier operations. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-29/pdf/2012-4627.pdf
International Association of Flight Training Professionals. (2012, March 21). The global impact of the FAA NPRM regarding pilot certification and qualification requirements for air carrier operations (U.S.). Retrieved January 25, 2013 from http://iaftp.org/2012/03/the-global-impact-of-the-faa-nprm-regarding-pilot-certification-and-qualification-requirements-for-air-carrier-operations-u-s/
U.S. Congress. (2010, August 1). Airline safety and federal aviation administration expansion act of 2010. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ216/pdf/PLAW-111publ216.pdf
This public law 111-216, known as the "Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010", was signed into effect on August 1, 2010 and contains two titles which each include multiple sections. The first title, Title I-- Airport and Airway Extension, has seven different sections that it addresses which range from funding, to air navigation facilities and research and development. The second title, Title II-- Airline Safety and Pilot Training Improvement, is more extensive and covers seventeen different sections expanding on ways to improve safety and training (Airline Safety, 2010).
Title II of this law has gotten the most attention because it affects a large number of people that are currently in the industry, and many that are seeking to join the workforce in the near future. Section 212 Pilot Fatigue., is one section of the law that I feel has the potential to affect me in my future career. One outcome of section 212 is the notice of proposed ruled making (NPRM) that the FAA released on February 27, 2012. This NPRM, if created into a final rule, would require SICs to hold an airline transport pilot (ATP) certificate (which training is also being modified to include 50 hours of multi-engine flight experience and completion of a new FAA-approved training program) with a type rating in their aircraft and also require 1,500 hours of pilot flight time. PICs will also be required to have a minimum of 1,000 hours of flight time as a pilot in U.S. air carrier operations. Currently SICs are only required to hold a commercial pilot certificate which requires just 250 hours of flight time and PICs are not required to have 1,000 hours of flight time as a pilot in U.S. air carrier operations (International, 2012).
I believe that this has the potential to affect my career in the future due to the increasing difficulty it will take to find pilots that meet these demanding requirements. I am not sure what position I will end up doing after I graduate, but if there is a shortage of pilots that meet the requirements to fill the slots, I believe the entire industry will be affected. I do not believe that raising the minimums for SICs is an entirely bad idea. I think that it is a good idea for all 121 pilots to have an ATP and a type rating for the aircraft in which they are flying. While I think requiring 1,500 hours is a little extreme, I do think that more than 250 hours should be a requirement. I know that most, if not all, airlines require more than 250 hours to become one of their pilots but putting it into the regulations is not a bad idea. Making the requirements for PICs more stringent also seems a little extreme to me.
This NPRM also has the potential to affect EMU's future in flight training. It states that the FAA is going to allow different hour requirements for a restricted privilege ATP certificate with airplane category multiengine class rating or type rating. It will allow military pilots to get their ATP with 750 hours, which does not benefit EMU, but it will also allow an ATP certificate to be achieved after 1000 hours for a graduate of a four-year aviation program who has received their commercial certificate and instrument rating from an affiliated part 141 program (Pilot Certification, 2012). This is where EMU can reap benefits from the NPRM. Since Eastern's aviation flight program is now operating under a 141 certificate, its' students will be eligible for this lower hour requirement. If this NPRM is signed into a final rule, EMU may see an increase in students attending for aviation degrees. I believe that this is a good move by the FAA. Having gone through some flight training at the eagle flight center, and almost the entirety of EMU's aviation management program now, I can say that I have been exposed to and educated in a lot of important aspects of the aviation environment. This is not to say that pilots who get their certificates and ratings from an FBO are not as good at flying as pilots who come out of a four-year program, but they do not have the thorough education in the other elements that are so important to aviation safety.
It will be interesting to see if this NPRM, that came about from Public Law 111-216, is accepted or not and how the industry responds to it.
Thank you for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
Federal Aviation Administration. (2012, February 29). Pilot certification and qualification requirements for air carrier operations. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-02-29/pdf/2012-4627.pdf
International Association of Flight Training Professionals. (2012, March 21). The global impact of the FAA NPRM regarding pilot certification and qualification requirements for air carrier operations (U.S.). Retrieved January 25, 2013 from http://iaftp.org/2012/03/the-global-impact-of-the-faa-nprm-regarding-pilot-certification-and-qualification-requirements-for-air-carrier-operations-u-s/
U.S. Congress. (2010, August 1). Airline safety and federal aviation administration expansion act of 2010. Retrieved January 25, 2013, from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ216/pdf/PLAW-111publ216.pdf
Monday, January 21, 2013
Topic 1: Leveling the Global Aviation Playing Field
With the United States in its' current economic situation, our aviation industry is definitely taking a hit. It has been difficult enough for the industry to regain the trust of its' passengers after the events of September 11, among other terrorist attacks, and adding economic stress to the nation only amplifies the difficulty of the current state of the industry. Fuel prices continue to increase, which is a very large cost for airlines to overcome. I have heard that the industry is starting to make a recovery, and hope this is the case, but what have you heard or witnessed?
A few countries elsewhere in the world seem to be doing remarkably well, and show no signs of letting up. I found a USA Today article titled 'China's set to rule the skies of air travel' written by Charisse Jones (2013) who starts the article with, "Beijing Capital International is poised to become the world's busiest airport by the end of this year, toppling Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson". This is not the only statement in the article that proves that the Chinese aviation industry is flourishing, she also says that industry analysts expect China's market for air travel to overcome that of the U.S. in the next two decades. This information is not entirely bad news for the U.S. though, it creates a perfect opportunity for our industry to take advantage of the increasing demand for international travel (Jones, 2013).
How is our industry struggling and barely sustaining itself while China's is growing and doing so well? There are a few things that are helping them. First off, China's economy is now the second largest in the world and with a population that is much larger than ours, supplemented with an economy that is growing, it makes sense that their aviation industry would also be doing well. The second reason that their aviation industry is doing so well is because they have a growing middle class who now wants to travel (Jones, 2013).
United and other U.S. airlines have been increasing their services to China and trying to form relationships with the airlines there to tap into this growing demand. International travel is not the only type of travel that is increasing and helping their aviation industry outlook, between 2008-2012 there were twenty four commercial airports that were built in China. The Chinese domestic air travel is also expected to increase greatly in the coming years (Jones, 2013).
With all of this growth, there will also be an increasing demand for pilots and other aviation personnel. In fact, a forecast from Boeing last year estimated that China will need 71,300 pilots over the next twenty years. The country is offering many perks and is easing the requirements to try and get more candidates to apply, but is having some difficulty (Jones, 2013).
With all of this opportunity on the horizon, would you be willing to move to China to start your career? With their aviation industry growing so rapidly and their economy doing well, do you believe that their industry will soon be the most dominant in the world or do you think that it will stumble because the infrastructure will not be able to keep up and will not have a proper means to support it?
China is not the only place that is experiencing growth in their aviation industry. Kazakhstan's passenger market is expected to be the fastest growing over the next five years according to an IATA projection. This projection is expected to hold true for both international and domestic traffic, and by a wide margin (CAPA, 2013).
Kazakhstan is positioned well geographically since it is located just south of Russia and is in the north end of Central Asia. It is in a perfect position to connect Central Asia, as well as Russia. It is also in an area that could facilitate connection of China with Central Asia. Another benefit of Kazakhstan's location is that it happens to be halfway between the Far East and Europe, with all of these growing markets around, there are a lot of opportunities to continue to grow (CAPA, 2013).
There are concerns that lack of airport growth at Kazakhstan's largest international airport, along with others, will limit the growth potential of this industry. If the airports are able to get the funding they need and are able to expand as needed, their industry looks like it will continue to grow (CAPA, 2013).
Obviously there are other countries that are experiencing increased growth in the aviation industry as well, but these are just two examples. I believe that the U.S. industry will rebound within the next five to ten years as the economy improves, and hopefully we will be back to where we were prior to 9/11. I believe that this stimulation will have to start with the economy turning around which will allow people to travel like they did in the past. What do you believe the state of the aviation industry in the U.S. will be in the next five to ten years?
Thank you for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
CAPA Center for Aviation (2013). Air Astana plans for more rapid regional growth as Kazakhstan emerges as world's fastest growing market. Retrieved January 21, 2013, from http://centrefor aviation.com/analysis/air-astana-plans-more-rapid-regional-growth-as-kazakhstan-emerges-as-worlds-fastest-growing-market-94225
Jones, C. (2013). China's set to rule the skies of air travel. Retrieved January 21, 2013, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/01/20/china-air-travel/1846595/
A few countries elsewhere in the world seem to be doing remarkably well, and show no signs of letting up. I found a USA Today article titled 'China's set to rule the skies of air travel' written by Charisse Jones (2013) who starts the article with, "Beijing Capital International is poised to become the world's busiest airport by the end of this year, toppling Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson". This is not the only statement in the article that proves that the Chinese aviation industry is flourishing, she also says that industry analysts expect China's market for air travel to overcome that of the U.S. in the next two decades. This information is not entirely bad news for the U.S. though, it creates a perfect opportunity for our industry to take advantage of the increasing demand for international travel (Jones, 2013).
How is our industry struggling and barely sustaining itself while China's is growing and doing so well? There are a few things that are helping them. First off, China's economy is now the second largest in the world and with a population that is much larger than ours, supplemented with an economy that is growing, it makes sense that their aviation industry would also be doing well. The second reason that their aviation industry is doing so well is because they have a growing middle class who now wants to travel (Jones, 2013).
United and other U.S. airlines have been increasing their services to China and trying to form relationships with the airlines there to tap into this growing demand. International travel is not the only type of travel that is increasing and helping their aviation industry outlook, between 2008-2012 there were twenty four commercial airports that were built in China. The Chinese domestic air travel is also expected to increase greatly in the coming years (Jones, 2013).
With all of this growth, there will also be an increasing demand for pilots and other aviation personnel. In fact, a forecast from Boeing last year estimated that China will need 71,300 pilots over the next twenty years. The country is offering many perks and is easing the requirements to try and get more candidates to apply, but is having some difficulty (Jones, 2013).
With all of this opportunity on the horizon, would you be willing to move to China to start your career? With their aviation industry growing so rapidly and their economy doing well, do you believe that their industry will soon be the most dominant in the world or do you think that it will stumble because the infrastructure will not be able to keep up and will not have a proper means to support it?
China is not the only place that is experiencing growth in their aviation industry. Kazakhstan's passenger market is expected to be the fastest growing over the next five years according to an IATA projection. This projection is expected to hold true for both international and domestic traffic, and by a wide margin (CAPA, 2013).
Kazakhstan is positioned well geographically since it is located just south of Russia and is in the north end of Central Asia. It is in a perfect position to connect Central Asia, as well as Russia. It is also in an area that could facilitate connection of China with Central Asia. Another benefit of Kazakhstan's location is that it happens to be halfway between the Far East and Europe, with all of these growing markets around, there are a lot of opportunities to continue to grow (CAPA, 2013).
There are concerns that lack of airport growth at Kazakhstan's largest international airport, along with others, will limit the growth potential of this industry. If the airports are able to get the funding they need and are able to expand as needed, their industry looks like it will continue to grow (CAPA, 2013).
Obviously there are other countries that are experiencing increased growth in the aviation industry as well, but these are just two examples. I believe that the U.S. industry will rebound within the next five to ten years as the economy improves, and hopefully we will be back to where we were prior to 9/11. I believe that this stimulation will have to start with the economy turning around which will allow people to travel like they did in the past. What do you believe the state of the aviation industry in the U.S. will be in the next five to ten years?
Thank you for reading,
Kyle Wagenknecht
References
CAPA Center for Aviation (2013). Air Astana plans for more rapid regional growth as Kazakhstan emerges as world's fastest growing market. Retrieved January 21, 2013, from http://centrefor aviation.com/analysis/air-astana-plans-more-rapid-regional-growth-as-kazakhstan-emerges-as-worlds-fastest-growing-market-94225
Jones, C. (2013). China's set to rule the skies of air travel. Retrieved January 21, 2013, from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2013/01/20/china-air-travel/1846595/
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Personal Introduction
Hello everyone, welcome to my blog!
Since this is a personal introduction, let me explain a little bit about myself. I am a senior at Eastern Michigan University majoring in aviation management technology. I originally began studying aviation flight technology at Eastern, but had to switch to management because I could not keep my medical. I am looking forward to graduating this spring and entering the professional world.
While going to school full time, I work two part time jobs. During the golfing season I work at Deme Acres Golf Course as a greenskeeper. I also work at Toledo Express airport doing ramp, ticket counter and gate services for Allegiant Air. I really enjoy working both jobs and hope that my experiences at both places will lead me to success after graduation from Eastern.
Other than all of those educational and work related things, I keep busy by playing guitar and singing backup vocals in a pop-punk band. I also love to play sports including: golf, basketball, tennis, disc golf, football and any other sport really. I try to stay as active as possible while balancing my work and school schedule. As with everyone else my age, I enjoy hanging out with my friends and having a good time. Another hobby that I have is keeping freshwater aquariums.
That pretty much sums up my personal introduction, I hope that you have learned something new about me and that you are looking forward to my future posts!
Thanks for reading,
-Kyle Wagenknecht
Since this is a personal introduction, let me explain a little bit about myself. I am a senior at Eastern Michigan University majoring in aviation management technology. I originally began studying aviation flight technology at Eastern, but had to switch to management because I could not keep my medical. I am looking forward to graduating this spring and entering the professional world.
While going to school full time, I work two part time jobs. During the golfing season I work at Deme Acres Golf Course as a greenskeeper. I also work at Toledo Express airport doing ramp, ticket counter and gate services for Allegiant Air. I really enjoy working both jobs and hope that my experiences at both places will lead me to success after graduation from Eastern.
Other than all of those educational and work related things, I keep busy by playing guitar and singing backup vocals in a pop-punk band. I also love to play sports including: golf, basketball, tennis, disc golf, football and any other sport really. I try to stay as active as possible while balancing my work and school schedule. As with everyone else my age, I enjoy hanging out with my friends and having a good time. Another hobby that I have is keeping freshwater aquariums.
That pretty much sums up my personal introduction, I hope that you have learned something new about me and that you are looking forward to my future posts!
Thanks for reading,
-Kyle Wagenknecht
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)