The phantom seats

There is it again – the stand-up-seat for the ultra high density cabin. This time you can see it at the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Long Beach, a design from the Italian company Aviointeriors. The “SkyRider” is Michael O’Leary’s dream and passengers nightmare. Media outlets around the world are picking the story as one of the highlights of this trade show.

These 23” pitch seat would be the perfect tool to turn A320s and 737s into cattle transports. Fortunately it is more than unlikely, they will make it from the drawing board into the real world. The reason is simple; an airliner’s maximum passenger capacity is not defined by the floor space available, but by the number of emergency exits. People need to be able to leave the airplane within 90 seconds. That’s the rule and that has to be demonstrated.

So if you want to go beyond 189 pax in a 737 you would have to cut additional holes in the fuselage. Boeing had to do this exercise when it made the 737-900 with its 189 seats limit the 737-900ER with 215 seats. Even if you find the place where you can put those exits you have to strengthen the airframe. All together you will add some four or five tons of structural weight to the airplane, which will ruin its performance and economics. A high price for beeing able to sell a few 29 Euro tickets more.

I am wondering, whether the seat designers, who are proposing those ideas, don’t know the basic rules of airplane certification. That would be bad. Or they don’t mind looking stupid, because it’s just about publicity. Wouldn’t be much better either.

Heinrich Grossbongardt 
h.grossbongardt@expairtise.com 
Follow me on Twitter

Stop casting blame on each other, sit down and talk - finally

When Airbus and Boeing gave their interpretation of the WTO ruling on European Airbus subsidies on June 30th, 2010 , it was hard to believe that they were talking about the same document. I bet you dollars to doughnuts, it won’t be any different, when we finally get the ruling on the United State’s financial support for Boeing. Lots of word, but no victory nowhere.

It’s about time, that the U.S. and the Europeans finally end this fruitless game and agree on a new set of rules with significantly lower subsidies – or even better no subsidies at all. Everything beyond basic research and the development of basic technologies should to be industry funded. 

Don’t tell me, that it’s impossible to launch a new airplane program like the A350XWB or the 787 without subsidies and generous tax breaks when you have orders worth five or six times times the expected development cost long before you start building the first airplane. Especially when you have a duopoly and a market so big that no one of the two competitors can serve it alone.

Subsidies reduces the economic risks of an aircraft program. Good for the shareholders, you might think. But state money tends to raise white elephants. Or does anybody believe the Airbus A340-500/-600 program would have been launched on purely economic terms? We won’t even have an A380. Both programs have been a huge cash drain and have undermined Airbus’s competitive position for years to come. The attempt to counter Boeing’s innovative 787 with a low effort A330 makeover has been proof of that fundamental weakness.

While Europe and the U.S are loosing years and years in exchanging accusations, others have started  pouring billions of tax money in their aerospace sectors. They are creating competitors, which are going be even heavier subsidised.

But who can demand playing to the rules who doesn’t stick to them himself?

Heinrich Grossbongardt 
h.grossbongardt@expairtise.com 
Follow me on Twitter

Don’t look behind the shiny storefront

A couple of days ago Lufthansa CEO Wolgfang Mayrhuber used an interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung  to complain about unfair competition from  by Emirates & friends. Whenever European airlines do so, they claim subsidized fuel, state money for aircraft financing and tax breaks. This may or may not be true; at least they won’t be able to prove it. Plus it misses the most important point.

The strongest competitive advantage comes from the framework conditions the Sheikh’s airlines enjoy. Emirates can undercut the prices of European airlines, because it runs a hub operation which is virtually free of social and environmental standards. There are no communities around World Central who have delayed the project by endless lawsuits or who oppose a 24hrs operation. 

And there are no unions the management has to deal with. The guys in the front row and the ladies in the restaurant behind them may be well paid (however are unprotected), but don't take a look behind the shiny storefront. There you will find, that a 21st century airline is being run with 19th century conditions of work. The thousands of unskilled workers on the apron loading and unloading the airplanes, sorting luggage, cleaning everything or cooking the meals for the passengers are from Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Philippines. Payment and labour conditions are below any standard including virtually no social security. It’s the sweatshop of the airline business.

 

That's a point nobody talks about, but it's a competitive advantage which is worth hundreds of millions a year.

Heinrich Grossbongardt 
h.grossbongardt@expairtise.com 
Follow me on Twitter