Boeing selects 7E7 engines

Bob Myers wrote:
How is it, exactly, that you think the US is "retreating
into isolationism" in any way that will affect its travel
patterns?

It has already happened. The USA has dropped to 3rd place as the nation
generating the most overseas tourism. Look at the health of US airlines.

"devil" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 17:08:42 +0800, Nik wrote:


"devil" wrote in message
news

The 747 was a disaster to all parties involved. Until late in the game
when Boeing finally managed to get a postive cash flow from the white
elephant.

A 767 would then have been much preferable. It's largley the 747 which
produced the unbalanced business model that is now plaguing the
industry.

Those airlines that are either still buying 747s or 380 are by and
large
operating in areas where the prevailing conditions really belong in the
past when countries had a single gateway, flying was a status symbol
and
so were big planes.

Hong Kong is an artificiality that's bound to eventually shrink to its
natural size when airlines diversify to the actualy destinations.
Starting with Shanghai.

You certainly hasn't been in Asia lately! Why mention Shanghai?
Absolutely
irrelevant in this context!

I mentioned Shanghai as one of potentially many entry points that will
progressively take away market share from HKG.

Potential market that is - the market will grow so much due to the economic
growth in China (you'll see it yourself when you get there) that it will
more than outstrip the loss of business due to more entry points in China.



I plan to go to China this summer. Probably a week in Xiamen followed by
a week in Beijing. I imagine I'll fly to Shanghai an on to
XMN, rather than through HKG, seems more convenient. Connections from
both destinations to Canada are viable only because they operate on 767s.

In the next decade or two there will be about 40
to 50 million people living in the Pearl River delta alone. There will
be
one or two major airports serving this population.

Why only one or two, not 10 or so?

The are we are talking about is roughly the triangle Guangzhou, Hong Kong
and Macao. There might be a major international (that is inter continental
connected) international airport in HK and in Guangzhou and a few domestic
and intra continental airports some other places.


There will be plenty of
need for 380 in and out of here - Shanghai or not. Now, having Shanghai
with
a population in its hinterland along the Yangtze about the same,
Shanghai
with the present speed of economic development will be in need of
several
380 on its own right! Remember both Shanghai and The Pearl Delta are
possibly the two most important places of production of mass consumer
goods
in the world today.

I never saw the 767 doing anything significantly in Asia. SAS stopped
using
them to HK allegedly because it was far too small to make a profit in
spit
of always being full to the brim and being at least 30 to 40 percent
more
expensive between CPH and HK than almost everybody else.

No Canada is not typical for the rest of the world.

Not Canada, North America, South America, most of Europe except France
which needs to pay back their high speed rail, and to some extent the UK
which benefits from LHR being a European hub.

High speed train connections might well promote few but large airports
served by A380 in Europe as a mile/seat price on this plane is supposed to
be significantly lower than on the alternatives. And I strongly believe that
price and nothing but the price for the vast majority of the market is going
to be the name of the game in the future. Extra costs for better service or
higher frequency is a thing of yesterday. Air travel is going to become more
and more of a commodity.


And my guess is, a good chunk of Asia too. A 747 is probably too big for
connections from Canada to KIX or NGO, for instance. And the same is
likely true from most US points.

Forget the dinosaurs. The business model is changing.



Yeps - better service, direct flights etc. to a premium is the game of
yesterday. Cheapest from A to B is what it will be all about in the future.
And nothing but...


Nik

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:05:02 +0200, AJC wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:51:24 GMT, devil wrote:

I mentioned Shanghai as one of potentially many entry points that will
progressively take away market share from HKG.

I plan to go to China this summer. Probably a week in Xiamen followed by
a week in Beijing. I imagine I'll fly to Shanghai an on to
XMN, rather than through HKG, seems more convenient.


In what way do you think it is more convenient to transfer in Shanghai
(immigration, claim baggage, customs, check baggage) rather than Hong
Kong (airside transfer)?

My understanding is that domestic fares are much less if purchased there
than abroad. And since my wife will be using a FF award, we have little
choice but buying separate tickets anyway. So, no difference, except I
think (but I should check) Shanghai is closer to XMN. Also, possibly
cheaper than HKG from here (again, subject to checking).

Connections from
both destinations to Canada are viable only because they operate on
767s.

In the next decade or two there will be about 40 to 50 million people
living in the Pearl River delta alone. There will be one or two major
airports serving this population.

Why only one or two, not 10 or so?


Because these people will be travelling to a relatively few number of
destinations. Their travelling needs will (have to be) served by high
density aircraft that will be operating in some of the most crowded air
lanes and in to some of the most congested airports in the world. There
are going to be phenomenal numbers of Chinese taking long-haul overseas
holidays. Their destinations are going to be the standard destinations
of choice for other Asians, that means they are going to be flying in to
LHR, FRA, CDG, SYD, AKL, LAX, NYC, etc. Their long-haul flights are not
going to be in low-capacity aircraft from every provincial town in
China, they are going to be in high-capacity aircraft operating from a
few select hubs.

Again, why? #0 years ago, anyone flying from Europe to the US would fly
into JFK as a gateway. big pain in the butt. Nowadays, they spread into
20 US airports. Only reason that should not happen is some artificialism
or another.

What may be true is that large urban areas such as the Tokyo-Yokohama
corridor do concnetrate a huge population over a small area.

But if you take Australia for instance, one would think that as traffic
grows, it will spread over a number of destination airports rather than
seeing everyone flying into SYD and then backtracking into Cairns.



As has already been said, forget Canada, it is a disaster area as far as
commercial aviation is concerned, and as for the US, as it retreats
further in to isolationism it is not representative of the forthcoming
travel patterns in the growth areas of the world.

But the US before 9/11 and the current recession was a good model of
what's going to happen.

devil wrote:
But the US before 9/11 and the current recession was a good model of
what's going to happen.

Oh yes, before the bush recession. Don't you remember how well things were
going ? There were so many flights in the USA that none of them got to
destination on-time due to excessive congestion at airports, causing hige
delays in the trickjel down effect.

So much so that SFO asked airlines to use bigger planes and lower frequencies
to relieve the congestion. (Remember the plans to fill the bay to add a new
runway because the airport was so congested ?

Does that bring back memories ?

"nobody" wrote in message
...
Bob Myers wrote:
How is it, exactly, that you think the US is "retreating
into isolationism" in any way that will affect its travel
patterns?

It has already happened. The USA has dropped to 3rd place as the nation
generating the most overseas tourism. Look at the health of US airlines.

As the old saw goes, "correlation is not causation."
What reason to you have for believing that this change in the
U.S. ranking re overseas tourism has anything to do with
"retreating into isolationism." Just a little evidence and
reasoning would be greatly appreciated here...

Bob M.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:13:05 GMT, devil wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:05:02 +0200, AJC wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:51:24 GMT, devil wrote:

I mentioned Shanghai as one of potentially many entry points that will
progressively take away market share from HKG.

I plan to go to China this summer. Probably a week in Xiamen followed by
a week in Beijing. I imagine I'll fly to Shanghai an on to
XMN, rather than through HKG, seems more convenient.


In what way do you think it is more convenient to transfer in Shanghai
(immigration, claim baggage, customs, check baggage) rather than Hong
Kong (airside transfer)?

My understanding is that domestic fares are much less if purchased there
than abroad. And since my wife will be using a FF award, we have little
choice but buying separate tickets anyway. So, no difference, except I
think (but I should check) Shanghai is closer to XMN. Also, possibly
cheaper than HKG from here (again, subject to checking).


So you didn't really mean convenient, more price-friendly, which is
fair enough. If it had been a paid through ticket, the fare would
likely be similar through HKG, Beijing, or Shanghai. The first two are
the ones that tend to appear on booking sysems as transfer point from
YVR, and because HKG is considered a separate jurisdiction it will be
the easier transfer.





Connections from
both destinations to Canada are viable only because they operate on
767s.

In the next decade or two there will be about 40 to 50 million people
living in the Pearl River delta alone. There will be one or two major
airports serving this population.

Why only one or two, not 10 or so?


Because these people will be travelling to a relatively few number of
destinations. Their travelling needs will (have to be) served by high
density aircraft that will be operating in some of the most crowded air
lanes and in to some of the most congested airports in the world. There
are going to be phenomenal numbers of Chinese taking long-haul overseas
holidays. Their destinations are going to be the standard destinations
of choice for other Asians, that means they are going to be flying in to
LHR, FRA, CDG, SYD, AKL, LAX, NYC, etc. Their long-haul flights are not
going to be in low-capacity aircraft from every provincial town in
China, they are going to be in high-capacity aircraft operating from a
few select hubs.

Again, why? #0 years ago, anyone flying from Europe to the US would fly
into JFK as a gateway. big pain in the butt. Nowadays, they spread into
20 US airports. Only reason that should not happen is some artificialism
or another.


But is JFK now a ghost airport as flights started up to the 20 other
US airports? Of course not. It is not an either/or situation, that is
a nonsense Boeingism they put out as a spoiler against the 380, and to
try to promote their sonic dreamcruiser or whatever the latest
incarnation is called! New city-pairs are not being opened up at the
expense of the hubs, growth will be in both sides of the market. Look
at Emirates in the UK. They started with LHR and LGW, over the years
they have added service to MAN, BHX, GLA, but in tandem with expansion
at LON. LHR is now up to 3 (or is it 4?) per day. Expansion is going
to be primarily at the hubs, even more certainly as the 3 airline
alliances are further consolidated.



What may be true is that large urban areas such as the Tokyo-Yokohama
corridor do concnetrate a huge population over a small area.

But if you take Australia for instance, one would think that as traffic
grows, it will spread over a number of destination airports rather than
seeing everyone flying into SYD and then backtracking into Cairns.



Again it is not either/or. Every first time tourist from the PRC and
other Asian countries is going to want to see Sydney and Queensland.
As anyone who has flown in to SYD a few times knows, at times the
airport is full. You sit on the ground in MEL waiting for a slot at
SYD. They have been years trying to find a location for a second or
alternative airport, with little progress. Even look at little New
Zealand. It's a favourite destination for Asians, more and more
flights are going in to CHC, but not at the expense of AKL. AKL's
international terminal seems to be rebuilt and expanded every few
years. Last time I was there, there were planes parked all over the
place (including 2 KE 747s) because there is such a shortage of gates,
I had a bus on both arrival and departure this time.




As has already been said, forget Canada, it is a disaster area as far as
commercial aviation is concerned, and as for the US, as it retreats
further in to isolationism it is not representative of the forthcoming
travel patterns in the growth areas of the world.

But the US before 9/11 and the current recession was a good model of
what's going to happen.


The model was congestion, ( from my own experience the absurdity of
sitting in a queue of 40 aircraft waiting to take-off), and poorly run
airlines.
--==++AJC++==--

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:41:28 +0800, Nik wrote:


Yeps - better service, direct flights etc. to a premium is the game of
yesterday. Cheapest from A to B is what it will be all about in the future.
And nothing but...

I am not convinced about that. Rather, the opposite, I think. We have
had a period over which a mix of expensive fares and very low ones,
way below costs, was prevalent. This is disappearing, with market
segmentation and low costs operators eating away at the low end. This
should result in fares more in line with costs. Low or not so low,
depending upon service.

However, none of this should necessarily result in a big increase for
large white elephants. Most low costs airlines like relatively small
planes. 737s, 319/320. Most European low fare charters still operate
767s, or an occasional 330.

I suspect there is a degree of fallacy in the assumption that large planes
and large gateways is inherently cheaper. For one thing, beyond a
certain point, a large airport is surely a more expensive proposition than
a mid-sized one. Cost of infrastructure, roads and the like, becomes
prohibitive beyond a certain point, so economies of scale go negative.

The irritation factor also is a hidden cost, both about large planes and
airports.

Even about planes, that a white elephant might have a lower theoretical
cost/passenger-mile is often a bit of a fallacy. Only true if full. But
take your average load on a given route, and the figures start changing.
This is where operating smaller planes becomes more advantageous, as AA
has shown. With smaller planes, you can adjust your schedule to match the
anticipated demand better and optimize your yield.

Now, I am not saying there aren't a couple of routes which can support the
380. But expect nowhere near enough for AB to recoup their development
costs. It's also pretty clear that at least some of the airlines buying
it are still lost in the "status symbol" mode. Which belongs in the past.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:43:21 -0400, nobody wrote:

devil wrote:
But the US before 9/11 and the current recession was a good model of
what's going to happen.

Oh yes, before the bush recession. Don't you remember how well things were
going ? There were so many flights in the USA that none of them got to
destination on-time due to excessive congestion at airports, causing hige
delays in the trickjel down effect.

So much so that SFO asked airlines to use bigger planes and lower frequencies
to relieve the congestion. (Remember the plans to fill the bay to add a new
runway because the airport was so congested ?

Does that bring back memories ?

Nothing there that a move to smaller, more regional hubs wouldn't solve.

Places such as YUL or YYC are much nicer to connect than YYZ and their Taj
Mahal connection tax. The other day, back from FRA, I noticed there were
a number of people on our flight actually continuing to the US.

devil wrote:
way below costs, was prevalent. This is disappearing, with market
segmentation and low costs operators eating away at the low end. This
should result in fares more in line with costs. Low or not so low,
depending upon service.

Correct. And oddities such as NYC-Akron via Detroit costing less than
NYC-Detroit should also disapear. What this means is that the legacy airlines
will have to start charging what it costs to carry a pax on a particular
route. Instead of charging less to connect and a "premium" for a non-stop,
the opposite will happen.

And what this also means is that cities that are too small to be served by a
low cost carrier will have to rely on a regional carrier to bring them to a
gateway city. HUBs will go back to being regional hubs, not transcontinental hubs.

However, for overseas flights, airlines will have to look at the REAL numbers
and decide what is best. The additional cost of a gateway HUB may be more than
offset by greater efficiency of using bigger planes.

Also, if you consider Chicago as collecting all overseas traffic from the
midwest, such numbers would not only warrant larger, more efficient aircraft,
but perhaps also allow greater frequencies. If, on the other hand, you
fragment the midwest, then mid-sized town might get a single 767 every day,
Chicago wouldn't get as much service, and smaller towns would still have to
rely on Chicago.

Another consideration is whether legacy airlines will have domestic ops
totally separate (from cost/unions point of view). If that is the case, then
it may end up being far cheaper to concerntrate the more expensive overseas
flights into fewer flights from a hub and use the cheaper domestic network to
feed it, as opposed to running a grater number of high cost overseas flights.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:57:53 +0200, AJC wrote:

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 02:13:05 GMT, devil wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 22:05:02 +0200, AJC wrote:

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:51:24 GMT, devil wrote:

I mentioned Shanghai as one of potentially many entry points that will
progressively take away market share from HKG.

I plan to go to China this summer. Probably a week in Xiamen followed by
a week in Beijing. I imagine I'll fly to Shanghai an on to
XMN, rather than through HKG, seems more convenient.


In what way do you think it is more convenient to transfer in Shanghai
(immigration, claim baggage, customs, check baggage) rather than Hong
Kong (airside transfer)?

My understanding is that domestic fares are much less if purchased there
than abroad. And since my wife will be using a FF award, we have little
choice but buying separate tickets anyway. So, no difference, except I
think (but I should check) Shanghai is closer to XMN. Also, possibly
cheaper than HKG from here (again, subject to checking).


So you didn't really mean convenient, more price-friendly, which is
fair enough. If it had been a paid through ticket, the fare would
likely be similar through HKG, Beijing, or Shanghai. The first two are
the ones that tend to appear on booking sysems as transfer point from
YVR, and because HKG is considered a separate jurisdiction it will be
the easier transfer.

Actually, checking schedules, fares etc. the whole thing sounds
complicated. Most domestic flights in China don't seem to appear on major
reservation systems. This is for instance the case of Xiamen Airline,
and additionally, their web site seems not to have been updated in the
last year or so.

And through fares appear to be quite a bit more expensive.