New airline concepts

      1) Describe two new airline business model concepts that are discussed in this article (excluding Norwegian).

One concept is that of taking an airplane and having only business class seats on board.  Although there are less overall seats, each customer gets more room and pays more for seats compared to economy seats.  Another concept is ultra-low-cost carriers, which is where airlines charge cheaper seats and add additional costs to customers based on what they would like, such as checked baggage, assigned seating. 

2) Do a little research and discuss two airlines (an airline for each concept) that are embracing these concepts. Give basic details of the airline, such as location, bases, destinations, equipment, etc.

Wizz Air is an ultra-low-cost airline concept.  They are based in hungry and operate into airports all over Europe among other places.  Wizz airline currently operates the Airbus A320 exclusively.  Their fleet is fairly new.

Business class airlines have come and gone in the past few years.  Eos airlines was one such airlines that operated Boeing 757s in business class configuration.  They went out of business in 2008.  They flew routes that were between London and New York City.  They expanded that service to include other cities on the East Coast.

3) Compare and contrast the two business models that you discussed. Which one do you think will be more successful? Why?

I believe that the Ultra-low-cost business model works better.  Even though it is less seats for the business class airlines to fill per flight, they rely solely on passengers paying for more expensive seats on an airline that has limited routes.  Even with more airlines charging for services like the ultra-low cost airlines do, passengers continue to pay these additional fees to get cheaper tickets to their destination. 

4) Discuss the global impact of these airlines? How will there innovative business ideas impact the overall global industry?

I think these concepts will have a positive impact on the industry.  It will force existing airlines to evaluate their current practices and see if they need to change anything to keep up with these new airline concepts.  The thing I hate seeing with these new airlines is when they do stop operations, most due to financial trouble, they often shut down operations with no advanced warning.  This often times strands many passengers away from home with no option but to buy a ticket at the last minute at an expensive price. 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101763454#.

Space Tourism

Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShip Two recently crashed while performing tests last week.  While it is still early to say exactly what happened, it is believed that the feathering system, which is used for the re-entry of SpaceShip Two was deployed too early causing the spacecraft to crash killing the co-pilot and injuring the pilot. 

Space travel has been a hot topic as of late.  There has been a shift of space travel from government programs such as NASA to private companies.  Space X has successfully launched a number of rockets to the international space station with supplies.  Virgin Galactic has been developing a couple of different spacecrafts that they hope will allow customers to buy a ticket into space.  Scaled Composites has been working with Virgin Galactic is designing the spacecraft.  Their first version SpaceShip One was the first private spacecraft that could be reused and won the X-Prize as a result.  Customers have been purchasing their spot with Virgin Galactic when it becomes operational for customers.

The FAA has some regulations when it comes to space travel.  Some of the regulations can be found in Title 14 CFR Chapter III- Commercial Space Transportation.  It deals with general definitions, procedures of space travel and licensing of space travel, including such things as launch license, safety and reentry sites that can be used.  https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/regulations/

I believe that with enough time there will be space tourism to the general public, however right now I am not entirely sure when it will happen.  Much like when passengers were flown on commercial aircraft, it was those individuals that were wealthy that enjoyed flights first.  As technology advanced and air travel became safer, more reliable and profitable more individuals could afford to fly.  This is bound to happen with space tourism as well.  Hopefully it will be affordable in my lifetime!

From the management side of the space tourism aspect the current job market is seeking individuals with engineering backgrounds for many of the jobs at hand.  Once there is a fleet of spacecraft for tourism there will be a need for managerial positions to organize flight schedules, crews, the required licenses and waivers, just to name a few

http://www.space.com/27651-space-tourism-virgin-galactic-spaceship-crash.html

Cargo Operations

1) As a result of the Colgan Air accident, the FAA institute new flight and duty regulations. Summarize  these new regulations and describe how they are different from the old flight and duty regulations.
Airlines had two years to start the new rest and duty rules of their pilots.  These new rules place more rules on the number of rest a pilot must have.  The new rule requires that pilots get at least 10 hours between their shifts.  Of those 10 hours of rest, 8 have to be uninterrupted rest.  This means that the 8 hours would not start until the flight crew is at the hotel and resting, unlike previously where the rest period would begin the second the pilots stepped off the aircraft.  In addition to these rules, pilots now must have 30 consecutive hours of rest each week that they work. 
2) Cargo carriers are exempt from the new rules. What are the current flight and duty limitations for cargo carriers?

Cargo pilots are currently operating on the older 8 hours of rest between shifts which could be interrupted rest unlike their commercial pilot friends. 

3) Why do you feel that cargo carriers have been excluded from the new changes? Value of life? Public perception? Too much money for the carrier? Other reasons? All the above?

I think the reason that the rules have not been applied to cargo pilots is the simple fact that cargo pilots are not carrying paying passengers but are instead simply flying boxes and pallets around.  I think if the public know exactly how many hours cargo pilots worked with little rest they would call for change.  I do not think the reason is too much money for the carrier because these new rules have cost the commercial airlines additional money to be in compliance with the new rules.

4) Do you believe cargo carriers should be included in the new rules? Why or why not?

I do believe that cargo carriers should be included in the new rules for the simple fact that they fly the same type of aircraft as many of the commercial airlines. They are flying these aircraft over the general population and are flying into the same airports that commercial aircraft fly into. 

5) Finally, what would be the impact to your career if cargo carriers were to be included in these new rules - Pilots, address this from a pilot perspective, management address from a management perspective.

From a management perspective including these rules would cost the company some time and money.  There would have to be additional employees hired to fill in the spots that pilots would be required to rest.  Additionally there would be a need to change the company OpSpecs to reflect these new changes.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/should-cargo-and-passenger-pilots-fly-with-different-rest-rules

Norwegian Air

Norwegian Air International is an airline company that is based in Ireland and operated in different locations than its base.  It uses this base of operations to get around certain labor laws that are in other countries.  While they have found a loop hole in the system they are possibly setting themselves up for failure in the future.  Currently Norwegian Air utilizes a Singapore based company that hires pilots in Thailand.  This creates an unfair advantage compared to other airlines around the world.  Currently Norwegian Air operates long haul flights across the Atlantic into certain parts of the United States and is looking to expand their operations further into the United States.  This has caused many of the U.S. domestic airlines to gather in protest of this. 

The domestic U.S. carriers are opposed to Norwegian Air operating in the U.S. because  Norwegian Air will be able to offer prices that are lower than the competitors because they employee workers that can be paid less and worked longer. 

The DOT denied NAI’s request to operate in the U.S. on the ground that NAI’s case is very complex and approval is only granted to cases where there is a clear-cut case.  I do agree with this, I feel that allowing Norwegian Air to operate in the U.S. would invite other companies to do the same thing.  This would drive domestic carriers out of business as they could not employ workers at such low rates.   Safety would also be a huge concern if NAI were allowed to fly domestic routes.  While people would love the ultra-cheap air fare, there would be a public outcry when an accident happened. 

I believe that if NAI were to be allowed to fly into the US it would be the end of domestic airlines as we know it.  Foreign airlines would pick and choose the flights that generate the most money and would drop those that did not.  This would cause many airports to shut down, especially regional airports where not as many passengers travel throughout the year. 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/2014/09/02/dot-norwegian-air-alpa-foxx/14810499/
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/business/international/long-haul-expansion-by-a-norwegian-carrier-upsets-us-airlines.html?_r=0

The application of UAVs

UAVs have been a hot topic in the aviation industry as of late.  What is their purpose? Are they safe? Who should regulate them?  These are some of the questions that have been brought to our attention.  Make no mistake, UAVs are here to stay and with more advanced technology they will continue to be more intertwined in our lives.  It is my belief that UAVs will be utilized in more applications in civilian aviation that do not involve carrying people.  For instance, UAVs could be used in police surveillance as well as photography.  In addition UAVs could be used to deliver supplies to job sites or customer’s homes.  If fact amazon.com was recently working on utilizing UAVs to deliver orders to customers that lived within a certain distance from amazon’s distribution centers. 

I think it will be a very long time before UAVs are used to shuttle passengers to locations around the world.  There will always be a need to have actual pilots on board for the foreseeable future, incase there is a situation onboard that the system fails and the need for pilots to take over. 

Right now UAVs are regulated by the FAA, which currently does not have many regulations that obtain specifically to UAVs.  What I believe will happen is that UAVs will be a gray area with the FAA regulations until there is a tragic accident at which time the FAA will over react and place too many regulations on UAVs.

I do foresee UAVs being integrated into the NAS for the simple fact that UAV usage will continue to increase not decrease.  Some of the problems with this will be who will be qualified to fly these UAVs.  Are the pilots going to need to have the same certifications as pilots who fly aircraft?  Who is responsible when a UAV crashes and causes damage?  Will there be enough network power to provide control over the increase UAV usage and what would happen if the system crashes?  With increase UAV usage, the general population will have problems with UAVs flying over their houses and “spying” on their private lives. 

UAVs have transformed the military strategy.  The military is now able to provide areal coverage for ground units as well as carry out missions without putting a pilot’s life in danger.  It costs the military less money to send UAVs into the air than traditional military aircraft.  From an ethical standpoint there has been some debates over their usage.  One of the more resent debates I heard was that military UAVs could be used to take out individuals and four American citizens have been killed by UAVs overseas.  This has caused some debate as these American citizens did not have a trail before these strikes there conducted.  faq/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/08/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-drone-debate-in-one-faq/

Right now there are few jobs in the aviation management side of UAV application.  There are many jobs posted that are looking for pilots to operate the UAVs as well as I.T. personnel to oversee and upkeep the intergraded systems of UAVs.  I do believe that the role in the aviation management will be much the same as it is for manned aircraft that is working at the airport that UAVs would be based out of.  Aviation management would also manage UAV stations in the same way that FBOs are used for traditional aircraft

Corporate Aviation...Is there a need?

Corporate Aviation makes up a good amount of the air travel at many airports around the United States as well as the world.  With struggling economic times and CEO’s getting larger payout than ever, corporate aviation has gotten a bad rap in the last few years, but the question remains…is corporate aviation justifiable for an organization, or is it just an excuse for CEO’s and other top management to fly in style. 

To gauge a sense if corporate aviation has a place, you must first figure out exactly what reason the company has a corporate aircraft.  Is it to fly management around to multiple factories to check on operations? Or is it to impress potential investors to join the organization?  These are just a few of the reasons that an organization utilizes aviation in its everyday operation.  Now there will always be organizations that will have an aircraft or two for the simple reason that the CEO wants to fly to destinations around the world for personal use such as play a round of golf in one location, or eat at a fancy restaurant in another.   I do agree that if used for the correct reasons, there is a justification for corporate aviation to help an organization grow.

To truly understand the importance of corporate aviation one must look at all the benefits it brings to the company.  Corporate aircrafts allow its members the ability to get to their locations faster than commercial aviation.  In addition, airports that might be closer to the final destination might be able to be utilized despite the fact that commercial air service is not offered there.  Case in point, if your ultimate destination is let’s say…. Worcester Massachusetts, your only option with commercial aviation is to fly into either Boston’s Logan airport or Providence Rhode Island and spend well over an hour in traffic to get to Worcester.  In a corporate aircraft setting, the aircraft is able to land in Worcester and only have a 10-15 minute car ride to your destination. 

Corporate aviation also allows for employees or board members to be much more rested in preparation for whatever official business they need to attend to.  There is no need to spend time waiting in lines to get past security only to wait even longer at the gate.  Corporate aircraft have a much less chance of delays that commercial aviation has.  Even if the aircraft has to be delayed by weather, corporate aircraft are able to pick alternate airports to fly into.  For example, if a commercial aircraft is scheduled to fly into Midway in Chicago and it is closed because of the weather, the flight will not be flown to Milwaukee and shuttle the passengers by bus to Midway.  In corporate aviation it would not be unfeasible to land in Milwaukee and find ground transportation to get to Chicago if needed. 

In my career in aviation management, corporate aviation will pay a role depending on where I end up working.  As I would currently like to work at a smaller reliever type airport, I could foresee an organization that might utilize the airport to conduct their operations out of.  As I am currently in the process of obtaining my dispatchers certification, I could see this as an added bonus if I was to ever management a corporate aviation department.  Being that corporate aviation falls under FAR Part 91, there is no need for the department to employ FAA certified dispatchers, having the knowledge gained in obtaining the dispatchers certification would help file flight plans and conduct proper weight and balance if that is what the company was looking for. 

A company that utilizes a large corporate aviation fleet, one that I feel it is essential for its operations, is Hendrick Motorsports.  Hendrick Motorsports is a NASCAR race team that is based just outside of Concord North Carolina.  With a fleet that consists of 3 Saab 2000, a Gulfstream V, a Falcon 900 and a Bell 430, they are able to transport many of its employees to racetracks all around the United States throughout the year.  With over 30 races each year, Hendrick Motorsports transports well over 50 employees that make up the four race teams under the Hendrick Motorsports umbrella.   With this many employees that have to travel each weekend, it would not make economical sense, but would be a logistical nightmare to rely on commercial aviation to get the job done.  The hiring requirements to manage such a fleet as Hendrick Motorsports has would require multiple years of experience.  Management experience would be a must as well as strong organizational qualities.  Depending on how exactly flights are conducted, management might have a major role in flight planning so experience in this would be highly sought after.   

Robert Crutchfield was a pilot at Hendrick Motorsports for a number of years and explained how the job had changed for him while working there.  His experiences can be found at http://www.hendrickmotorsports.com/news/article/2009/09/16/Getting-to-know-Robert-Crutchfield-Hendrick-Motorsports-aviation

Coming soon to an airport near you.....NextGen

NextGen, which is short for Next Generation Air Transportation System, is a program that is currently being implemented around the United States that is transiting older technology of ground based navigation, which has been in use for quite a while, to newer GPS based navigation.  This will allow ATC as well as aircraft to get a much better idea of their current position, speed and direction.  Airports will be able to have aircraft land in closer proximity to each other, which will allow more flights in and out of airports helping to relieve congestion in the ground and in the air.    

NextGen will have a large impact on both commercial as well as general aviation.  Both will be able to fly into weather conditions that older land based positioning systems might not allow them to fly into.  Both commercial and general aviation flights can be filed more direct which can save not only time, fuel as well help cut emissions.  With ATC being able to have a better fix on aircraft locations, the skies will be safer for all aircraft.  All aircraft that will use NextGen will have to have newer technology to allow it to communicate with the new system.  This should not be a problem with air carriers as the majority of their fleet is equipped with the newest technology.  Many general aviation aircraft owners will have to pay for their equipment to be updated for the NextGen system, which can be rather expensive.  

NextGen will impact my future job at airports all around the United States.  As an airport manager, depending on what type and how many new approaches will be installed at the airport, NextGen will have a direct effect on the type and number of aircrafts that can land at the airport in less than ideal conditions.  This would allow airports to stay in operations in more weather situations, which will help keep the air carriers and passengers getting to and from their destinations.  More information about how the FAA foresees NextGen working for airports can be found at: 
http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/media/nextgenForAirports.pdf

The debate as to who should fund the NextGen project has been a hot topic for a while now.  It is difficult to say exactly who should fund the project as it has such an impact on the whole aviation industry.  Commercial air carriers, corporate, cargo and general aviation will all benefit to the updated NextGen system so it would make logical sense to incorporate all the users of NextGen into the funding of the project.  There are many different options on how to fund NextGen, and personally I believe that federal funds should sponsor the largest portion of the project as the FAA will be the primarily agency overseeing the operation of the NextGen system.  The FAA could accomplish this by taxing all fuel sold a certain percent to aircrafts across the United States as well as taking a percent of aircraft registration towards funding.  Airports will be utilizing the NextGen system, so they should foot some of the bill as well.  Airports could raise these funds by increasing landing fees, as well as allocating some of their budget towards the NextGen project.