Boeing vs. Airbus

Boeing and Airbus have been fiercely battling each other for the past two decades for the most orders of aircraft to be filled. Boeing started in 1916 building Navy airplanes and has since moved up through to airline manufacturing. Today, they have tapped into multiple aviation markets in addition to the airlines, including military drone technology and fuel tankers. Airbus on the other hand only started building aircraft in the early 1970s with the introduction of the A300. They took hold of the market by incorporating an electronic flight computer or 'fly by wire' system into the cockpit which eliminated the need for a flight engineer. This was a great leap in technology that changed the industry forever, today there are very few aircraft that require a three person crew in all areas of aviation. Boeing is the type of company that is tried and true with thousands of aircraft being operated around the world for the past century while Airbus is only a recently serious competitor in the global airline market.

Boeing became the great company it is today by creating aircraft that have stood the test of time. They created the 707 which proved to be the first successful jet airliner and then again the 747 which is still being manufactured to this day. The 747 was the first double deck aircraft to be mass produced and was also the first wide body jet, meaning it has two aisles. Recently, they have released the 787 Dreamliner that drastically changed the way airliners could be manufactured, changing from aluminum towards mostly composite materials. They are hoping that this will be the next great aircraft that will launch their company into the future of air travel. Airbus has a very similar philosophy in the fact that they created this great 'fly by wire' technology that reduces workload for crew members and saves airlines money. They also hold the title of the largest airliner in production in the form of the A380. Although these manufacturers are in direct competition in the airline sector, Boeing has multiple types of aircraft that are not in direct competition with Airbus. One such example is the Boeing F/A-18E/F SuperHornet which is a variant of the F-18 fighter jet used by the U.S. Navy.

The numbers are very close across the board currently between the two aircraft manufacturers. Currently in the year of 2013, Airbus has an operating fleet of 6819 aircraft while Boeing airplanes still flying around the world number at 9180 (Flightglobal, 2013). Boeing currently employs 170,820 people across the entire company(Boeing, 2013). Airbus on the other hand only boasts 59,000 employees throughout their company(Airbus, n.d.). This great gap in numbers between the two companies can be the effect of Boeing competing in multiple markets in addition to large airline catergory aircraft. Although Airbus does do some military work, they do not have nearly the same reach as Boeing does with everything from drones to aerial refueling tankers. The reliability of both Airbus and Boeing airplanes are very much positive, although in the media lately is the 787. The Boeing 787 Dreamliner has seen many setbacks in its development and most recently has been plagued with an overheating battery system. On January 15th this year an ANA 787 was forced to land after takeoff from Yamaguchi Ube when the lithium ion battery caught fire (Wingfield-Hayes, 2013). This battery problem grounded the 787 fleet around the world for moths until a fix was created by Boeing. This is just a minor setback in the grand scope of things, in 10 years, nobody will remember the battery issues that are now plaguing the Dreamliner.

Flightglobal. (2013). World airliner census 2013 (Rep.). Retrieved October 28, 2013, from Flightglobal Insight website: http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/reports_pdf/emptys/106686/world-airliner-census-2013.pdf

Boeing. (2013, September 26). Boeing Employment Numbers. Boeing. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://www.boeing.com/boeing/aboutus/employment/employment_table.page

Airbus. (n.d.). People & culture. Airbus, a Leading Aircraft Manufacturer. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://www.airbus.com/company/people-culture/

Wingfield-Hayes, R. (2013, January 16). Top Japan airlines ground Boeing 787s after emergency. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21038128

Chinese General Aviation

Through recent history, there has been a large-scale shift in industry from the western nations such as the United States to eastern countries such as China. In every form, manufacturing has found a new home in China due to cheap labor in many cases. When shopping at a US store, it is almost impossible to find a product not made in China. The Toshiba computer I am using to type this blog is made in (you guessed it), China. With the global economy affecting domestic markets in this way, there are bound to be aviation manufacturers that are looking to cut costs by utilizing cheap Chinese labor as well.

This occurrence has already begun and is starting to threaten the jobs of millions of Americans. In 2009, Cessna released the 162 SkyCatcher as a light sport aircraft aimed mainly at flight schools for primary flight training. This American aircraft manufacturer decided to produce this SkyCatcher in China due to reduced costs. The  Shenyang Aircraft Corporation is solely responsible for the production of the 162 while Cessna provides only engineering support on-site in China (Textron, 2007). This is just one example of a great American aircraft producer that has completely outsourced its manufacturing of a product line to China for greater profitability. This new product from Cessna would have produced many jobs here in America, not to mention the fact that the product ultimately failed in part because of the perception Americans have towards foreign built vehicles, not to mention airplanes.

There has been a rapid growth in the Chinese general aviation industry due in part to the government making more airspace available for public use.  "The CAAC will start designating certain low-altitude general aviation corridors. The general aviation airspace will be restricted to below 1000 meters (DuBose, 2010)". This opening up of previously restricted airspace has allowed Chinese citizens that are well off, achieve a private pilot license. This has almost never been heard of until now, previously, one would only attempt flight training in order to fly for an airline. In addition to this, China's economy is booming, with industry ramping up to support American products being made, people are making money. When they start to make money, they want to spend that money, when they want to spend that money, they spend it on aviation (among other things). This growth in wealth is creating a thirst for aviation in China like no one has seen before. They have been sheltered in the past from this industry due to poverty and a nonexistent infrastructure. Now that there is movement, they want to travel, making airlines more in demand as well as general aviation.

The relationship between the U.S. general aviation manufacturers such as Cessna that have ties to China and the growth in the Chinese general aviation industry are not that significant. These maufacturers that include Hawker Beechcraft, Cessna, Cirrus and many others, are just using China as a production facility to assemble the craft cheaply, then ship them back to America and other western countries for use. This is due to the slow growth that is actually happening in China, although there have been movements to unrestrict airspace throughout the country, there is still only 25% usable airspace for civil use. This has caused this rapid growth in the general aviation sector in China to be stunted, without an infrastructure, this industry will be slow to develop throughout the country.  "Based on statistics on the number of aircraft and hours of use, there is a larger general aviation industry in North Dakota alone than in all of China (Jackson, 2012)."

What does this mean for Americans and opportunities in our own country for growth in the general aviation sector? The general aviation industry in the United States has been around and strong for many decades. Beginning after WWII, pilots returning home wanted a way to continue to fly so companies like Cessna and Piper produced affordable aircraft to these pilots in large quantities. This continued throughout the century and peaked in the 1980s just before falling flat on its face. Companies stopped producing light aircraft altogether due to liability costs, since then, the General Aviation Revitalization Act has helped GA back on its feet but it has never been the same since. Because of this and other factors such as 9/11, the general public has a negative view now of aviation saying that it is dangerous and costly. This shift in thinking has slowly caused less and less pilots to be certified each year across the country and threatens to end general aviation for good because no U.S. companies want to invest in the industry, but China does. Multiple companies are looking to invest further in technologies that will move general aviation forward such as Bin Ao Aircraft Industry Co. in the Shandong province, which has built 96 complete Diamond DA40D four-place single-engined diesel-powered light aircraft out of orders for 235, and is now supplying composite airframes to Austria-Diamond as required, and components to the European company’s Canadian operation (Morris, 2013). This is a good thing for people in America that still care about private flying, this means that all is not lost and there will still be growth and jobs available in the future. General aviation is and always has been an important part of the industrial strength in the United States, and it is China who will save this once great industry for Americans.

Textron, Cessna. (2007, November 27). Cessna chooses China's Shenyang Aircraft Corporation as manufacturing partner for model 162 SkyCatcher [Press release]. Retrieved from http://investor.textron.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=110047&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1081831&highlight=

DuBose, C. (2010, October 24). China designates low-altitude airspace for general aviation.China Aviation Law. Retrieved from http://www.chinaaviationlaw.com/tag/low-altitude-airspace/

Jackson, C. (2012, May 10). China's general-aviation flight of fancy. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304451104577391650977428024

Morris, J. (2013, July 30). Will China be the savior of U.S. general aviation? [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb

Corporate Aviation: A Political Punching Bag

Corporate aviation is an tool used by companies around the country, by having a businessjet, a company has proven themselves as being 'successful'. This has always been accepted by the public in the past until recent years. The 'Big Three' car manufacturers flew in their corporate jets to Washington to ask for 'bailout' money, when in a hearing they were confronted on the matter, they were embarrassed. Ever since then, the business jet has been, in the public's eyes, a sign of wasteful spending and many corporate fleets have since been sold. Here we will discuss this issue and break down the pros and cons of having a corporate aircraft.

Corporate aviation has a long-standing history in this great nation, when executives have to travel for business, they can quickly get to a customer when using a modern business jet. This is an unparalleled tool that has helped commerce and development throughout almost all industries. With an industry that relies on just in time deliveries and shipments to keep running smoothly and efficiently, there also needs to be quick response by management to keep ahead of the game when doing business. This can only be done through corporate aviation, the public thinks that these jets are used for leisurely vacations by the fat cats around the country, but they are in fact essential tools to do business. Growth of an economy can only be a reality with growth in commerce and the fastest way to achieve this trading and commerce is with the use of business aircraft. To break it down further, it would be wise for a company CEO to fly to a customer faster on the company jet so he can finish his business and travel to the next customer. This allows a company to do more business and grow, which in turn creates more jobs and therefore commerce. If he had flow on an airline, then he may have made it to one client in a day, instead of three or four meetings that would be made available by the use of a corporate jet. I do feel that  corporate aviation is vitally important for our economy due to these reasons.

PresidentObama argues that corporate aviation is a luxury for the rich people and that it should be taxed further in order to lower the debt limit. This is ludicrous, the fact that he would even put that into the minds of the public is downright despicable. "Studies show that closing the loophole would only generate about $3 billion over 10 years(Frank, 2013)." With our debt in the trillions of dollars, Obama is attacking an industry that will only bring in $3 billion over 10 years, this is just a political move on his part to say that he fought the good fight against all those 'fat cats with jets' and put the blame of the economy on someone else. Without business aviation, there will be no growth in the economy, everyone will be waiting to get through security at the major airports instead of making deals with a client. The NBAA has fought for this for years saying that "Business aviation is a time multiplier allowing key employees to do more, faster.  Much like an investment in state of the art computer software, a business airplane boosts employee efficiency and productivity(NBAA, n.d.)." The 'tax break' that the president speaks of is accelerated depreciation, this is when a company can use their aircraft to realize the depreciation benefits of it more quickly("Bonus Depreciation," n.d.). This means that the company gets to write off some of the costs of owning and operating the aircraft.

On the other side of this issue, there are some drawbacks to business aircraft, including high costs and misuse of the asset. Yes jets are not cheap to operate and yes sometimes the boss may take a vacation in Florida and use the jet to get there. This is no different than anything else that the government subsidizes. There is misuse and wasteful spending far more costly than this small percentage. The cost of the aircraft operation and maintenance far underweight the benefits of profit and growth that the company will see with its use.

Accelerated depreciation was part of the economic stimulus package in 2009 because it would encourage the use of more assets, such as business jets, by companies with this tax break. This was one great part of the package when most every other part was a complete disaster. Obama supported this until recently when he changed his tone on the matter. Bolen, National Business Aviation Association chief executive, accuses Obama of having "denigrated" an industry that is "responsible for 1.2 million American jobs and $150 billion in economic impact(Morrison, 2012)". Frankly I am sick and tired of our presidents two-faced lies for political gain toward the public and I believe that this affluence of aviation in business is entirely justified.

Bonus Depreciation. (n.d.). NBAA. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.nbaa.org/admin/taxes/depreciation/bonus/

Frank, R. (2013, February 6). New dogfight between Obama and private jet industry.CNBC. Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.com/id/100439712

Morrison, M. (2012, October 5). NBAA condemns President Obama for 'disparaging business aviation' NBAA Condemns President Obama for 'disparaging Business Aviation' Retrieved from http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nbaa-condemns-president-obama-for-disparaging-business-aviation-377305/

NBAA. (n.d.). Warren Buffet And Business Aviation Facts | No Plane No Gain. Warren Buffet And Business Aviation Facts | No Plane No Gain. Retrieved October 13, 2013, from http://www.noplanenogain.org/index.php?m=47

UAVs: A Commercial Future?

Throughout the years, aviation has seen many changes, from the basic 'rag wing' two seat airplane, to large sophisticated carbon fiber airliners capable of carrying hundreds of passengers. Although not always welcome at the time, these and other technological advancements have revolutionized air transportation. Today, the aviation industry faces another leap in technology, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or UAVs. Over the past decade, the United States military has utilized UAVs for various roles on the battlefield. These 'drones' can contrast from a small hand launched plane with a camera attached used for reconnaissance, to a full size aircraft that can launch missiles onto ground targets. This proves that the technology has advanced greatly in order to develop these sophisticated aircraft that have this great ability to strike someone on the other side of the world from where the 'pilot' is located. As expected, this technology that was created through the military for use in war, is now looking to be utilized in a civilian capacity. This has happened throughout aviation history, various examples are radar, VORs, and more recently, GPS. Although these past changes affected the aviation industry greatly, they were more of an improvement for the pilot and airplane, making flights safer. This new development is very different from any previously employed into the world of civil aviation.

These UAVs have the potential to completely alter the face of commercial aviation. Just imagine, you get on an airliner first class and have a front row seat to the flight with forward looking windows because there is no cockpit. Although fascinating at first, the thought of not having a human being at the controls and instead having your life cradled by a computer can be utterly terrifying as a passenger. Computers are exploited throughout our everyday lives, most of the public carries a computer in their pocket everyday as a convenience. The technology is brilliant and assists us in our lives, but this comes to a screeching halt every time the technology fails. There are very few who have not experienced a crashed computer, or a smart phone that freezes while performing an important task. This technological use is very familiar to the flying public and they know all too well the down falls of this technology and what happens when it fails. This creates a mistrust of the equipment, but this is only our phones and personal computers we are discussing! If a person cannot trust the technology in their phone, how are they supposed to accept it to get them safely from point A to point B? The public perception of UAVs will be the deciding factor as to whether or not they will be fully implemented. It won't matter how great or capable the technology is, if the consumer doesn't trust it, it will not make use of it. Already the public is almost trained by the media to fear flying, will they ever bring themselves to be perfectly okay with a computer flying them around? I seriously doubt this.

I believe that the technology will always be ahead of the industry because of this reason. Right now, we have the ability to completely eliminate the pilot from the equation and fly autonomously. The benefits are endless, airlines would have much less cost due to greatly reduced personnel and human error would be completely eliminated. Located here is an article in the Smithsonian Air and Space magazine website outlining some of the possible uses for UAVs. Aircraft could operate much closer together and therefore reducing traffic congestion due to the lack of human mistakes when flying certain altitudes and headings. The aircraft would be constantly talking to each other reporting their positions so there would be no doubt as to whether or not the flights would be completely safe. These are all great reasons to use UAVs in commercial transportation, but let's look at what scenarios may happen when an emergency situation exists. For this I will cite a widely recognized commercial accident in which many died but even more were saved due to quick thinking on the part of the crew. On July 19th, 1989, a Douglas DC-10 crash landed in Sioux City Iowa after an uncontained engine failure that severed all hydraulic lines on the aircraft. With hydraulics eliminated, the crew had to think on their feet and come up with a solution on how to control the aircraft. In the end, the crew controlled the plane with differential thrust from the remaining two engines and crash landed onto a runway at Sioux Gateway Airport killing 111 people, but saving 185. If a situation such as this happened to a drone, there would be little if no hope for the passengers. A computer thinks in one direction only, using controls as they were meant to and can provide no insight as to fixing an unexpected problem. The human element is both a liability and a sense of security. I believe that integration of the pilot and automation is a good thing, which is what we are already doing.

Today, we are already starting to integrate drones into the national airspace system. This implementation is being done in areas with little civil air traffic. "In a statement after it certified the Boeing and AeroVironment drones, the FAA said a major energy company plans to fly the ScanEagle off the Alaska coast in August to survey ice flows and whale migration in Arctic oil exploration areas (Haldane, 2013)." After they have been implemented on a smaller scale to see the effects on civil aviation, they will be further utilized on a larger scale. This integration of the UAVs into the system will be very difficult, pilots are very skeptical as to whether or not they prove a hazard to flight for other aircraft. Also, the lack of regulations on the part of the FAA is making it an unpredictable industry. "Up until now, most nonmilitary use of UAVs in the U.S. has been limited to police and other government agencies (The Associated Press, 2013)." Many are questioning whether or not our safety is a concern when implementing these drones into the national airspace. Aeronautics is a company that claims that all of these safety concerns for the flying public will be answered here. Building the trust of the public is a tall order, but this will have to be done in order to commence with widespread UAV use throughout the country.

Haldane, M. (2013, August 08). U.S. slowly opening up commercial drone industry. Reuters. Retrieved October 6, 2013, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/08/us-usa-drones-commercial-idUSBRE97715U20130808

The Associated Press. (2013, July 26). Drones to fly U.S. skies, FAA approves 1st civilian UAVs. CBC News. Retrieved October 6, 2013, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/drones-to-fly-u-s-skies-faa-approves-1st-civilian-uavs-1.1377778