Is the Boeing Max ready to fly?

Courtesy Boeing

Airlines looking forward to fly their fleet of Boeing B737 Max 8 aircraft have just got their planned schedules jiggered up by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)’s announcement that it may take up to a year before the jet is cleared again for commercial flights.

According to the BBC, FAA chief Daniel Elwell said: “If it takes a year to find everything we need to give us the confidence to lift the (grounding) order so be it.”

It may be read that underlying this is the FAA’s understanding that time is needed to regain the world’s trust – in both the aircraft and the FAA as regulator. While Boeing seems ready to sign off the improved jet, saying it has finished updating the pertinent flight-control software, FAA in an apparent redeeming move following censure of its lax oversight is assuming control as the final authority to certify the jet’s safety.

According to Bloomberg, Mr Elwell added at a meeting with representation from across the globe, “If there is a crisis in confidence, we hope this will help to show the world that the world still talks together about aviation safety issues.”

In Boeing’s favour, some airlines have voiced their support of the Max. Understandably so, particularly if the airline owns a sizeable fleet of the jet. American Airlines (AA) for one is confident of an “absolute fix” but CEO Doug Parker was also quick to add, “But…it’s not for us to decide whether or not the aircraft flies. It needs to be safe for everyone.” The airline, which has a fleet of 24 Max jets, has cancelled thousands of flights and has now cancelled Max schedules through mid-August.

Another airline which has pledged its commitment to Boeing is Singapore Airlines (SIA). The airline is pledging its commitment to purchase 39 Dreamliner jets and its re-commitment for a previous order of 30 planes. Although this is not related to the Max aircraft of which its subsidiary SilkAir has six of them, it gives Boeing a boost of confidence after reports of shoddy production and poor oversight at the Boeing plant in North Charleston surfaced, and following grounding of some Dreamliner jets because of problems with the Rolls Royce Trent engine fitted to the aircraft.

Read also:

https://www.todayonline.com/commentary/grounding-boeing-max-and-dreamliner-planes-how-can-singapores-airlines-reassure-customers

It’s good to have friends, indeed. But while it’s not yet known if airlines such as AA and SIA have sought or will seek compensation from Boeing, others which have made known their intention include Norwegian Air Shuttle, Ryanair and the big three Chinese carriers of Air China, China Eastern Airlines and China Southern Airlines. A strongly worded report from the Chinese Global Times newspaper said: “We must use punishment and tell the Americans their practice of using concealment and fraud to extract benefits from others, while benefiting themselves, is unfair.”

Advertisements

Max Jet Grounding: Airlines feel the pinch

With no certainty as to when the grounding of the B737 Max 8 aircraft will be be lifted, airlines are feeling the pinch.

The ban took effect soon after the crash of a jet operated by Ethiopian Airlines in March which happened five months after the crash of a Lion Air jet under similar circumstances.

Boeing is developing a software fix to the anti-stall system known as the Manoeuvring Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS). It had hoped to implement this by May; this now looks unlikely.

Courtesy Boeing

Southwest Airlines, which is the biggest Max operator with a fleet of 34 jets, is extending Max cancellations through to August 5, and American Airlines with a fleet of 25 jets to August 19. Other airlines such as Air Canada which had expected to resume Max operations in July will have to follow suit.

Southwest which cancelled more than 10,000 flights reported a loss of US$200 million in revenue during the first quarter.

American Airlines, cancelling 155 flights a day, expected earnings to be hit by some US$350 million.

In a worse situation is Norwegian Air Shuttle which said its first quarter losses had widened to 1.49 billion kroners (US$172 million) from 46 million kroners a year ago. This is not helping the carrier’s plans to return to profitability as it has been forced to rebook passengers on other flights and rent alternative aircraft to maintain its schedule. Chief executive Bjoern Kjos expects the grounding to last till the end of August.

Now the question remains as to whether passengers will take readily to flying again the Max jet. More than 50 per cent of Americans had said they would not, even with the fix in place. It is not enough for Boeing to convince its airline customers. The bigger challenge lies in restoring the trust of the airline’s customers.

Southwest CEO Gary Kelly had said while Southwest is an “all-Boeing carrier”, it didn’t mean the airline would use the 737s in “perpetuity”.

Baggage Woes

Courtesy Ryanair

Ryanair

Ryanair flew into a rough patch with Italian antitrust lobbyists following its decision to levy new fees for hand luggage. Unless you pay €6 (US$7) for priority boarding, you will be allowed to carry only one piece of hand luggage, which must be able to fit the space under the seat in front. Any second piece (up to 10 kg) to be checked in will be at a cost of €8.

Antitrust advocates said this could amount to unfair commercial practice as hand luggage should be “an essential element of transport”. It would distort fares and make it difficult for comparison across the industry.

In defence Ryanair said its policy was intended to “improve punctuality and reduce boarding gate delays”. In fact, it maintained that it would not make any money out of it and may in fact lose revenue when more passengers switched to carrying smaller bags instead of the the normally larger suitcases which must be checked in at a higher fee.

However, research by US travel consultancy IdeaWorks suggests that a third of the airline’s profits came from so-called “ancillary revenue” comprising £1.7 billion (US$2.2 billion) from charges for add-ons such as checked baggage and seat selection last year.

Swoop

Across the pond in Canada, new Calgary-based budget carrier by WestJet is also facing complaints about fees charged for a carry-on bag. The fee is C$35 (US$27) if paid in advance, C$50 if paid at the time of check-in at the airport, and C$80 at the gate.

Passenger rights advocate Gabor Lukacs has filed a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency, claiming that this is unlawful since the Canada Transportation Act requires domestic airlines to offer a basic fare for travel within the country that has no restrictions with “reasonable baggage”.

As in the Italian argument, Lukacs finds Swoop’s practice “deceptive”. While what constitutes “reasonable” may be debatable, the general rule thus far has been that the allowable one piece has to fit in the overhead compartment or under the seat. Ryanair has restricted the carriage at no fee to the space under the seat, but Swoop is not even considering that. In defence, Swoop says it is “confident that Canadians are appreciative of the ability to be in control of what they pay for.”

American carriers

Meantime south of the border, American carriers are taking turns to up their checked baggage fees. American Airlines joined JetBlue, United Airlines and Delta Air Lines in raising their fees from US$25 to US$30 for the first bag, and from US$35 to US$40 for the second bag. Budget carriers Spirit and Frontier are already charging between US$40 and US$50 per bag. For now, Alaska Airlines has kept its fees at US$25 for the first and second bags, while Southwest Airlines still allows passengers to check in two bags for free.

These fees generally apply to travel within North America and to destinations in the Caribbean. Internationally, the likes of United Airlines cannot afford to ignore the competition especially in Asia where many legacy airlines such as Singapore Airlines and Cathay Pacific are still generous with free carriage of two checked bags.

Indeed, ancillary services have become a significant billion dollar business world-wide in an airline’s portfolio as more operators including legacy airlines go “a la carte” to keep the fare seemingly low but charge extra for features that used to be part and parcel of the normal ticket price. And the list is getting longer to include also priority check-in, priority seats (with more leg room), meals and headsets. It will not stop growing as the permutation multiplies, as can be seen in the different ways charges are applied even within the same service category, such as the baggage fees imposed by Ryanair.

News Update: US carriers abide by China’s Taiwan ruling

https://www.todayonline.com/world/us-airlines-plan-accept-china-demands-naming-taiwan?cid=emarsys-today_TODAY%27s%20evening%20briefing%20for%20July%2025,%202018%20%28ACTIVE%29_newsletter_25072018_today

Refer Much Ado About China’s Geography, June 30, 2018
https://airlinesairports.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/much-ado-about-chinas-geography/

Much Ado About China’s Geography

Since the United States (USA) have recognized the one-China policy (following a resolution of the United Nations in the early 1970s that legitimized the sole representation of the People’s Republic of China), it would appear groundless, even against logic, that it should protest the Chinese demand for US carriers to reflect Taiwan as a Chinese territory (this applies also to the autonomous regions of Hong Kong and Macau) on their websites.

While many airlines including British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa and Singapore Airlines have reflected the change in their booking itnerfaces to comply with the ruling, US carriers – United Airlines, American Airlines and Delta Air Lines – have yet to agree, apparently at the urging of the Trump administration. But China is not budging while extending the deadline from May 25 to July 25, at the same time rejecting the US request to discuss the issue.

It may be said that there’s a fine line between politics and business, that it is difficult to separate the two. Yet it seems only expected that any company that wishes to engage in business with a country should respect its sovereignty. A way out – even if it means turning a blind eye – is to recognize the independence of business operations, that the decision of the airlines concerned is purely commercial.

So it is with Qantas, which has decided to comply with Beijing’s request after the initial resistance. As with the USA, the Australian government, while embracing the one-China policy, was critical of the Chinese ruling, but conceded that how Qantas structured its website was a matter for the company. Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said: “Private companies should be free to conduct their usual business operations free from political pressure of governments.”

So, will US carriers comply or be prepared to stop flying to China?

Legacy airlines go the budget way

It’s yet another sign of how legacy airlines are feeling the heat of the competition posed by budget carriers.

Courtesy Getty Images

British Airways (BA) will operate planes for the short haul with seats in economy that cannot recline. The airline said the seats will be “pre-reclined at a comfortable angle”. Affected flights up to four hours include runs from Heathrow to Rome, Madrid and Paris.

BA which already ceased providing complimentary booze and meals for the short haul last year admitted to the pressure. It said the move will allow the airline to “be more competitive” as it will then be able to “offer more low fares”.

Many legacy airlines are already adopting the “pay for what you want” model of budget carriers, charging for extras such as checked luggage and seat selection at booking.

The big three US carriers of American, United and Delta have introduced “basic economy” fares which will board such ticket holders last with seat assignment only at boarding. There may be other restrictions.

Asian rivals Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines (SIA) are also moving in the same direction. Cathay’s economy supersaver and SIA’s economy lite do not permit seat selection at booking and do not accrue full mileage perks. SIA is also charging additionally a credit card service fee for tickets purchased out of certain ports. (See Same class, different fare conditions, Jan 5, 2018)

While legacy airlines are finding ways to cut costs to offer lower fares, this can be a double-edged sword that only serves to narrow the gap between them and budget carriers. What price, therefore, the differentiation? But, good news for travellers not too fussy about brands.

Same class, different fare conditions

Legacy airlines, faced with increased competition from no-frills operators, are going the budget way by restructuring their economy fares.

In the United States, the big three carriers of American, Delta and United have introduced basic economy fares, which are quite akin to the budget fare. Conditions include no pre-seat selection at the time of booking, seat assignment only at the gate, last to board and other restrictions that may concern baggage allowance and flight changes.

Courtesy Singapore Airlines

In Asia, rivals Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines (SIA) too have revised their fare structures. At the lowest level, Cathay’s economy supersaver and SIA’s economy lite may seem attractive, but travellers should check out the restrictions so as not to be disappointed or surprised by hidden costs. Such fares do not permit pre-seat selection at the time of booking, unless you are prepared to pay a fee for the privilege. Mile accruage has also been reduced – 50% in the case of SIA and 25% in the case of Cathay.

There may be other charges. Earlier in the week, SIA announced that it would levy a 1.3% credit card service fee maxing at S$50 for outgoing flights from Singapore from January 20 only to retract the policy before its implementation, following a public outcry. However, this fee has already been introduced for flights departing Australia since November 2016 and others departing New Zealand, Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom since April last year. SIA referred the fees to as “costs relating to the acceptance of credit cards” when really it is not a fee imposed directly on the consumer but rather the vendor. It brings to mind how airlines faced with rising fuel costs so adroitly levy additionally a fuel surcharge as if it was something between the fuel companies and the consumers.

True, whatever the costs incurred by the airlines, they are likely to be passed on to the consumer. How much is reasonable will be decided by the competition, given that there is indeed fair and open competition.

Many travellers may not be aware of the different tiers of fare and their conditions, and are consequently unhappy if they had to top up what they had initially thought was an attractive offer. Same class, but different fare conditions. So, as always, caveat emptor.