AirlineCrazy Update: iOS App and Fear of Flying Series

AirlineCrazy.com iOS App (iPhone, iPad, & iPod Touch)

AirlineCrazy iOS App "Teaser"

iOS Application: I love the feedback we get from our readers, and to prove that we’re more than just a sounding board, we have elected to move forward on something that we’ve been hoping to release for some time: an iOS app for our iPhone, iPad (and possibly iPod Touch) users out there!  The app has been developed in response to high feedback from our readers, and will include a mobile article reader, as well as embedded widgets to provide you with the latest AirlineCrazy social networking data.  We’ve exited the alpha stage of development, and have just entered the beta testing stage.  According to Shiny Development, the App Store app review time is approximately 5 days based upon crowd-sourcing data they’ve analyzed.  Granted this seems a bit on the quick side, so it could be a while before the app is approved by Apple and available for download in the store.  We’ll be sure to post when it does here and across our various feeds on Twitter, Google+ and Facebook.  Stay tuned!

Fear of Flying Series: We’d posted in December that we were looking closely at a Fear of Flying course, which we’ve elected to move forward with.  Granted this program is likely to take a significant amount of time to develop, so we expect that it will be released in stages.  As mentioned  before, we have first-hand experience with the sort of anxiety that plagues fliers (even frequent fliers), and we’ll be building this series around these first-hand experiences and potential solutions for dealing with them.  Your feedback is absolutely welcome as we look closer towards the growth of this series—perhaps we’ll find a way to integrate your stories and solutions as well.  If you have any feedback, don’t hesitate to click the “contact us” pull-out tab on the top-left of this page and send us a note.

Share
Categories: AirlineCrazy Blog Update, Fear of Flying Series, Just Because | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Soda cans? There’s another alternative for retired passenger jets.

Boeing 737-200 freighter in flight

Boeing 737-200 freighter in landing configuration

We talk a lot about the business of flying passengers, but there’s two sides of the commercial airline market and its only fair if we shine a light once in a while on the often-neglected dark corner of air freight.  Many are familiar with the “big haul” freight airlines such as FedEx, UPS, DHL, Polar Air, Atlas Air, Kalitta, and Cargolux.  Yet just a cut below these airlines is an entirely unfamiliar segment of the commercial airline business—the mid-sized mid-range independent air freight operators.  It’s not uncommon to see these companies operating out of your airport’s “corrosion corner,” and piloted by almost dangerous-looking disheveled crews with a permanent 5 o’clock shadow on their chins.  While that last statement might be a bit more on the dramatic side, it’s also not very far from the truth.

Kittyhawk Air Cargo is a great example of this often eccentric niche, and like so many others, Kittyhawk is no longer in business.  The dark corners of the midsize air freight world are an important and largely unrecognized part of the global economy, but they also operate in a segment which suffers from wild gyrations in demand.  Kittyhawk managed to ride these waves by utilizing what most would now consider to be “classic” airliners such as the Boeing 727.  Freight doesn’t complain, so amenities aboard these former passenger workhorses were quite sparse.  Amerijet was recently exposed by their frustrated flight crews when they made public the lack of a sanitary work environment (believe it or not, management issued plastic bags for the flight crew to “do their business” when on the job and up in the air).

An engine-less Kittyhawk 727 awaits its future as soda cans

Sadly, this ex-Kittyhawk Boeing 727's days of carrying freight are behind it.

Today’s retiring commercial passenger aircraft are tomorrow’s next big thing in the air freight market.

Why do older airliners continue to fly freight while the passenger airlines piloted by the same crews and burning the same fuel continue to modernize their fleets?  Passenger airlines operate on very thin margins in frequent and predictable scheduled service, which is why there’s a higher demand for more efficient aircraft.  In most cases, the small-to-medium freight business operates an on-demand low-utilization service which doesn’t require such strict adherence to aircraft efficiency due largely to the cost differential between say, a $2M USD 737-200F and a $7M 737-300F.  The $5M difference between these aircraft is only a few months of fuel burn for a passenger airliner, but could represent 2 years worth for an infrequent on-demand freight airline operating the same aircraft.

Commercial Aircraft Boneyard

The desert is filled with the last generation's airliners

Following the recession of 2008-2010, many classic aircraft (especially 737-300/400s, DC-9s and MD-80s) were parked in favor of more efficient aircraft.  This reaction to the poor condition of the economy provided for a boom in demand for more efficient passenger airliners to replace them, such as the A320NEO and the 737MAX.  The resulting availability of retired aircraft provided a fresh supply of second-hand airliners from which smaller freight operators could procure and retrofit for freight use.  On the cutting edge of this market are a slew of aircraft conversion companies which specialize in the rebirth of former passenger airliners for freight use.  One of these companies Aeronautical Engineers, Inc. (AEI) is known as one of the most efficient and reliable conversion houses, and has been winning plenty of recent orders to convert retired passenger 737 classics to air freighters.

A330 conversion in progress

Freighter modifications are actually quite complex

A typical conversion at AEI or ST Aero involves the removal of passenger amenities and replacement with a 9G barrier, cargo door, reinforced floor, and other refinements.  In order to remain competitive, many freight conversion companies maintain STC’s to modify a variety of aircraft for freight-hauling.  AEI for example, owns 120 different STCs and is actively marketing modifications for 737-200, -300, -400, and MD-80 series aircraft.  Once a conversion company is finished with a modification, the aircraft which emerges looks largely the same on the outside (passenger windows are plugged either from the outside or inside but still very visible).  If you’re lucky enough to catch an aircraft post-modifications before it’s rolled in to the paint shop, you can begin to appreciate the amount of work involved and why the FAA takes these modifications so seriously.

The funny thing about the air freight industry is the cycle in which it repeats.  Names and aspirations come and go, but the flight crews and their aircraft remain largely the same—repainted or re-decaled to match their current operator.  In fact, it is not uncommon for a skilled pilot working in similar segments to have been employed by 10 or more airlines in an equal number of years.  [Recommended Reading: "The Rogue Aviator" by Ace Abbott]  Some pilots jumping between operators have jokingly commented on the occasion where they have flown the exact same aircraft for as many as three different companies in three different livery brands!

AEI Boeing 737-300 conversion diagram complete with pallet positions and cargo door placement

While those in the industry often comment that today’s retiring aircraft are likely to be reborn as soda cans, that may not be entirely true.  It is also entirely likely that the aging aircraft you are flying on today will soon return to your home airport with a much larger door and pallets full of freight!

Share
Categories: And Now You Know, Just Because | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Airlines in India have an appetite for losing money

KingFisher Airlines' CEO Vijay Mallya speaks through a seatback IFE display during a flight

Kingfisher CEO V. Mallya on a seatback screen

It’s no surprise to those close to the airline industry—the news in India is grim.  However, much of that news is not being broadcast at large to the western nations, and as a result many are largely unaware of the dire situation currently affecting the airline industry in India and the resulting effect it is having on the world economy. The largest airlines in India are Jet Airways, Kingfisher Airlines, and Air India. Jet Airways now operates 100 aircraft to 76 destinations.  Kingfisher operates 66 aircraft to 71 destinations.  Air India, the oldest airline of the top three, operates 100 aircraft to 75 destinations and has been in service since 1932.  All told, these three airlines represented approximately five-and-a-half billion US dollars in revenue throughout the 2011 period, and each of these airlines are in financially-dire straits.

India (officially the Republic of India) is enduring a massive state of economic growth.  It’s the 7th largest country by geographical area, the second most populated country (1.2B people), and the largest democracy in the world.    India’s economy is the 9th largest in the world by nominal GDP and the 4th largest in purchasing power parity.  In layman’s terms, India’s an economic powerhouse.  Following economic reforms 2 decades ago, India became one of the most rapidly-growing economies in the world and is largely considered a newly industrialized nation, despite having the largest worldwide concentration of citizens living below the World Bank’s poverty line of $1.24 USD per day.  What does all of that have to do with the airline business?  Quite a bit.

Indians are not squeamish about stretching a rupee, but travel by train is not economically sustainable on a global scale.

This is not economically sustainable on a global level..

There are differing arguments regarding the overall economic impact that airline travel has on any respective country, so for the purpose of brevity and simplicity it is key to note that any boom in economic growth is usually either the cause or the result of an equivalent growth in trade.  A growth in trade usually results in the travel of people, goods or both, which is where the airlines come in.  A few years ago, India was noted as the world’s 15th-largest importer and the 18th-largest exporter of goods.  Despite this,  7 of the world’s top 15 information technology outsourcing companies are based in India, which has led to India being viewed as the second-most favorable outsourcing destination after the United States.  The impact this growth has on the demand for air travel is staggering.  Yet despite this, the nation’s three largest airlines—Air India, Kingfisher, and Jet Airways—are all suffering financially (to say nothing of the 15 other airlines also based within India’s borders).

Despite carrying approximately 49 million passengers annually, load factors among the largest domestic carriers have swayed wildly over the past few years.  Recent reports from the CAPA consulting firm indicate that India’s airlines lose at least $25 on average each time a passenger boards an aircraft in the country and were set to post a record loss of $2.5 billion in the 2011 fiscal year.

Seems a bit paradoxical, doesn’t it?  With one of the fastest growing economies in the world posting major growth in demand for air travel, how is it India’s airlines are performing so poorly?  The answer may be as simple as it is puzzling.  Fragmentation.  Believe it or not, the nation’s state-sponsored airline Air India had an average passenger load on  domestic flights of 22.2% in 2010!  In other cases, some flights have operated closer to 70-75% passenger load factor, or PLF.  PLF at crisis-ridden Kingfisher has recently dropped more than 20% from it’s 69% average.  Jet Airways is presently strongest with an average of approximately 70-80% passengers on every flight.  Nonetheless, the current position could change at any of the country’s airlines at a moment’s notice.  Demand for aviation is high, but it appears India simply has more available airline seats than it does demand for those seats.  As a result, India’s airlines continue to trade blows in an attempt to pull passengers from one carrier to another.  Airline travel is absolutely essential to the continued socioeconomic growth of the country, yet the airlines themselves seem to be unable to turn a profit thanks to extreme competition and a surplus of seats for sale.

MumbaiAirport_Busy

A busy Mumbai Airport after a heavy rain — Air India, Jet Airways and Kingfisher Airlines aircraft pictured.

So what needs to change?  Most likely a proverbial “thinning of the herd” is necessary to improve the situation in the short term.  As happened elsewhere in the world during the global economic recession of 2008-2010, excess aircraft must be parked.  ”An airline seat is highly perishable, it is worse than fruits and vegetables,” said a top airline official at Air India, and he’s absolutely right.  A reduction in collective capacity will reduce operating costs and allow passenger load factors to stabilize, paving the way for organic growth vs. competitive reactionary growth.  In the longer term, improvements in efficiency will also be important—especially where the cost of fuel is concerned.  More fuel-efficient airliners are costly, but could eventually prove to be one of the key factors to a reorganization of the airline business in India.

Despite the crisis and the various reactions of India’s airlines, the situation shows few signs of improvement any time soon.  “The appetite for losing money is the highest in India” [among airline owners], said K. Kaul, CEO of the Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation. “We expect a very, very tough 2012.”

Share
Categories: In the News | Tags: , , , , | 3 Comments

What does Kenny G (the saxophonist) have to do with airplanes? A lot, it turns out.

A buddy of mine works for Boeing, but doesn’t know a whole lot about planes.  I like to tease him about it, as its akin to being a sailor who can’t swim or a skyscraper builder who is afraid of heights.  In his defense, he doesn’t work for a division of Boeing that’s related to the manufacturing of commercial aircraft, but still.  Thankfully he is looking to change that, and has turned to me for guidance.

Camarillo Airport, California (KCMA)

Camarillo Airport, California (KCMA)

I took him down to Camarillo Airport today to start with the basics.  I was actually planning to take him to the Sepulveda In-and-Out at LAX, but we didn’t want to commit that much time to the trip this afternoon.  It turned out to be fortuitous, because Camarillo is a general aviation airport which sees plenty of smaller prop-driven aircraft vs. the big passenger airliners you’d see at a large airport like LAX.  After a delicious burger and a beer at the Waypoint Cafe, we ventured out on to the ramp so I could give him a closer look and brief tour of the various aircraft.  Camarillo is located south of Santa Barbara, north of Los Angeles, and is the closest airport to Malibu.  Despite being smack in the middle of an agricultural community, it has quite the variety of people and aircraft.

While I was explaining the differences between the Cessna 172 (CIA had a lovely Garmin 1000-equipped 172 on the ramp for rent) and the Cessna 337 next it, an aircraft caught my eye.  It took me only a second to recognize it as a DeHavilland DHC-2 Beaver.  Painted in a green and white livery, it was very clean and clearly well cared-for.  Most DHC-2s I see are A) not located in Camarillo, B) dirty workhorses and C) not float-equipped.  We quickly diverted across the ramp to take a closer look when a black Mercedez shot up to it, and a fellow hopped out to load up for departure.  As he conducted his walk-around, I commented to him that it was a “lovely aircraft,” and he responded in kind with a “hey, thanks!”  We were standing in the shade of his right wing, and decided that it would be appropriate to give him some space, so we stepped away.

As we were walking away, it occurred to me that this pilot/owner was familiar.  He looked like the famous saxophonist Kenny G.  My buddy Googled him on his iPhone as we looked at a nraby KingAir, and confirmed the similarities.  On our way back to the Waypoint, we decided to see if we could catch the registration number before he powered that lovely radial up and sped off.  My suspicions were confirmed when we squinted to make out the small N-number decal: “N6653K”  The K to me seemed indicative of Kenny, so I Googled it and confirmed it’s owner “Gorelick Kenneth B.”  I was right!

Kenny G's Beautiful de Havilland DHC-2 N6653K, Photo by M. Russell (MrSkyGuy) via iPhone

I had my Canon DSLR camera with me, but I felt it would be too intrusive to start snapping away as he fired up the massive radial engine for a warm up and mag check.  Instead, my buddy and I quickly snapped 1 shot each on our iPhones, and put them away.  Ken’s DHC-2 was simply amazing.  It’s important to keep in mind that a fellow like Kenny G could essentially choose any aircraft he liked.. but he decided to choose one of the most famous and capable bush planes ever constructed.  And his model had retractable wheel floats fitted!  The DHC-2 is a man’s airplane, as they say.. built to haul people, buck meat, supplies, fuel barrels.. just about anything you can imagine.  It’s a bush plane too, which means it was built to haul all of those things from some of the most inhospitable territory in the world–the Canadian outback.

I’ve got to hand it to Kenny G.  Of all the planes out there, this one of the coolest and most capable aircraft to own.  It’s not fast, but it makes up for it with extra capability.  At a moment’s notice he could depart from a sophisticated general aviation airport like Camarillo, and land it less than an hour later on some obscure  lake somewhere in the Sierra Nevadas.  Now that is the definition of freedom.  Judging from the condition of the aircraft, it’s pretty clear that Ken loves his DHC-2 as much as we do.  He even featured it in his music video for his famous hit “The Moment” which I have provided below.

Kenny, if you happen upon this article, we’d love to get the back-story on your DHC-2!  We’re only a short drive from your home, so if you’re open for an interview on your passion for aviation, please send us a note.  We’d be honored.

Kenny rocks his Alto Sax with his de Havilland DHC-2 N6653K

Share
Categories: Just Because, Notable Aircraft | Tags: , , , , | 3 Comments

Is CrankyConcierge.com’s real-time airline travel management service worth it?

Click to visit Cranky Concierge's websiteThis month I had the opportunity to utilize a service I’d been watching with interest―Brett Snyder’s Cranky Concierge.  Cranky Concierge is an extension of the goodwill Brett has established over the years as a top [if not the top] airline blogger worldwide on CrankyFlier.com.  The concierge service is something he developed as an answer to the “what do I do now” question travelers frequently ask when things don’t go as planned.  They’re also there to provide personal feedback on seating, route planning and other pre-trip advice to help make the airline experience just a little less frustrating.

Virgin America's Meal & In-Seat Power

It's hard not to enjoy Virgin America's product, especially at economy-seat pricing.

Enter the opportunity.  I had a business trip planned for the first week of December to fly from Los Angeles to Seattle.  I’d be flying with my wife (10 year wedding anniversary) for a 2-day company-sponsored weekend, primarily to participate in an annual holiday party.  As usual, I had the option to select my preferred carrier, and I selected Virgin America.  Many of you know me as a “Southwest” nerd, but even I have to admit that Virgin’s got a good thing going with the mood lighting, quieter cabin, comfortable leather seats, seatback IFE with in-seat food and beverage ordering, live Dish Network programming, in-seat power and Gogo-powered WiFi.  That’s hard to beat.  Given the fact that I wouldn’t be as “travel flexible” as I usually am (due to us having only 2 days of arrangements for our family to watch the kids while we were away), I thought it would be an excellent opportunity to give Cranky Concierge a shot.

It cost $30 for the regional roundtrip, and about 2 minutes of my time to complete the form on the website.  A few minutes later, the team had assigned Nate Vallier to my itinerary, and he emailed me only a few minutes afterward confirming my details.  He locked down my quick contact data and informed me that he’d take the role of “big brother” for the rest of my trip.  From that point on, Cranky’s work was on autopilot, at least from my perspective.  As a kicker, Cranky has a deal worked out with Gogo which granted me a 24-hour pass on each of my flights―something I ended up taking major advantage of during the trip.  I should point out that Cranky Concierge doesn’t usually assign concierges right away.  They typically load us in to the system and then assign the concierge a couple weeks in advance of the trip.  Any questions before this point are answered directly by Brett himself or his sidekick concierge Dave.  Because I signed up closer to departure, it all happened at once.

Virgin's Website Problems

Virgin was having a rough go of it following the transfer to Sabre

We hit our first snag 24 hours before departure when we attempted to check in.  Due to the nature of the trip, my wife and I were booked on separate confirmation numbers which required 2 check-ins.  Having been accustomed to flying Southwest so often, it’s an impossible habit to break the itch I get to check in exactly 24 hours before a flight.  When we visited Virgin’s website to check in, we encountered a plethora of inexplicable errors.  Nate and Brett were quick to point out that Virgin was [and sadly still is] suffering from major pains following their switch from aiRES to Sabre.  The only solution was checking in at the airport when we arrived for our flights.  This was a non-issue due to our confirmed assigned seating.. I just felt bare not going to sleep that night without the warm blanket of a confirmed ticket in my hand.

My wife and I arrived at LAX about 2 hours prior to our evening departure, parked at WallyPark as usual, had a quick dinner at Gladstone’s in LAX’s terminal 3 and headed up north to Seattle. The flight was smooth, the service good and the wi-fi code provided by CrankyConcierge worked flawlessly.  The 2 day stint in Seattle was very relaxing, if not a little cold.  For the flight home, we ran in to the same check-in situation we’d encountered a few days prior.  Because we’d probably be cutting it close on our arrival at Seatac, I was trying to avoid checking in at the airport kiosk.  Unfortunately this was unavoidable, though I must admit I was impressed at Nate’s thoroughness in trying the Virgin system utilizing a variety of computers and browsers both at his location and elsewhere, all while my wife and I were tied up during a cocktail party. (Thanks Nate!)

In retrospect, my personal review of Cranky Concierge is a bit weak due entirely to the fact that nothing serious went wrong during our trip.  Despite the relative ease through which we flew to and from Seattle from Los Angeles, Cranky Concierge’s Nate was always on the lookout.  I received frequent emails on the status of my inbound aircraft, weather expected en route, and of course the unexpected but treasured free Gogo access key (which came in handy when the IFE on our flight home failed).  He jumped on the check-in issues within a matter of minutes, and made my wife and I feel like everything was under control.  Sometimes that’s all you need.

Brett "CrankyFlier" Synder

Brett "CrankyFlier" Snyder

Naturally, for the purposes of this review, it would have been better for if our trip degenerated into a mess of delays, cancellations, and all that so Cranky Concierge could really shine.  Our trip was certainly better off with that not happening, but to fill in the blanks I turned directly to the President and Chief Airline Dork of Cranky Concierge, Mr. Brett Snyder himself for a one-on-one interview.

MrSkyGuy: As an avid “Crankster,” I learned about CrankyConcierge (CC) through the self-advertising you dropped as the program was being developed.  Given your extensive aviation footprint, word-of-mouth appears to be one of the most popular forms of marketing you have used to get the word out on CC.  What other areas or incentives are you utilizing to draw more people in to CC?

Cranky:  We actually don’t really go out and recruit business, believe it or not.  We tried a little advertising via Google AdWords but had little success.  Ultimately, we found that we were able to grow primarily through referrals and blog readers.  It’s important for us to grow slowly, because we need to make sure we can continue to deliver the service properly.  Fast growth would put that at risk, so we continue on the path we’re on, taking advantage of new opportunities as we can.  For example, having been recently listed as a top travel specialist with Conde Nast has opened up new opportunities for us in the way of partnering with other specialists to help their clients.

MrSkyGuy: For our flight to Seattle, we flew Virgin America which utilizes the ground-based Gogo internet service aboard all flights.  I noticed during the pre-briefing for our flight that Cranky had a free 24-hour pass for my day’s flights with Gogo.  I found this to be especially worthwhile considering how plugged in I am when I travel.  Is this a temporary promotion available for CC?  How did this promotion come in to being?

Cranky:  This isn’t temporary, and in fact, we just received our allotment for 2012 so we can continue to offer the service through next year.  Whether we can offer it beyond that depends upon our discussions with Gogo each year, but we really think it’s a great thing for our customers.  It actually came about after discussions with people I knew at Gogo.

MrSkyGuy: Virgin America is an “assigned seat” airline, which negates most of the need to rapidly sign-in precisely 24 hours before flight time (eg. Southwest).  Do you provide check-in services for travelers flying Southwest to aid them in getting an A-boarding group when they fly?

Cranky:  This is something we’ve actually been considering.  We do offer this to our small business customers if they’re interested in the service, but it’s not something that we’ve yet offered to everyone else.  It would require some potentially early wake up calls, so I think it might end up being an add-on service that we might offer.

MrSkyGuy: It’s clear that the benefit of CC increases with the complexity of the reservation.  My flight to Seattle from LAX and back was simple, but international travelers (or travelers who must fly during peak periods) are often those facing the most issues during their travel.  Can you share some of the crazy situations you and your team have been able to muscle through where your customer was stranded?  Any CC war stories you can share?

Cranky:  Oh sure, we’ve had some fantastic stories.  I think one of my favorites was someone who was stranded in London during the ice problems last December.  He had already been delayed a couple of days, but his new flight plan was to fly BA to Paris and then Air Tahiti Nui back to LA.  BA ended up canceling his flight, but he was determined to still get to Paris for that trip despite no chance of getting on the Eurostar (which was operating a reduced schedule thanks to the ice) or on another flight.  We went to work.

He left his hotel at 930p in central London via taxi.  He went to St. Pancras where he caught a train down to Dover.  From there, he had to take a shuttle of some sort to the dock and he took a late night ferry across to Calais.  He then walked to the train station where he found a train to Lille.  He switched stations there and took his last train to de Gaulle.  He made it around 7a and hopped his flight home.  He was obviously willing to get to his destination no matter the physical toll on his body, and we were able to make it happen.

Of course, that’s a pretty extreme example.  I mean, we help people all the time with more minor issues.  Just the other day, one of our small business clients was flying Pittsburgh-Midway-Nashville.  We had alerted them that there were big delays in Chicago (even at Midway), but they weren’t delayed yet.  Having finished up their work early, they asked for options.  We found them a great connecting option on US Airways for only $173.  This kept them away from the weather and got them home earlier than planned.  And since they’re original ticket was refundable, this was a great option.

Sometimes even when we can’t help, we still provide great value.  A couple weeks ago, we had clients going Newark-LA-Maui and the Newark flight was delayed to the point where they had a 5 minute connection in LA.  Obviously that wasn’t going to work.  While they were in the air, we did the research and tried to get them on a Delta flight going 30 minutes later.  It would have been tight but there was a chance.  The problem was that the Continental people said they’d have to print out the ticket, so she had to see a gate agent.  The res agents said it wouldn’t be a problem, but the gate agent refused to help and sent them to customer service.  They obviously missed the flight at that point and had to stay overnight.  But the clients were really happy to have someone looking at options and guiding them along the way.  They would have been far more confused and frustrated had we not been there to help them and were really pleased with the service.

MrSkyGuy: If you could give an unseasoned airline (domestic and international) traveler 5 brief tips or points of advice, what would they be?

Cranky:  Hmm, that’s always a tough one.  How about these: 1) Leave yourself extra time throughout the process.  You might try to cut it close getting to the airport or have a really short layover, but building in a buffer can help a lot if things go wrong and there are delays.  2)  Know your options.  If your flight is running late, try to have some knowledge about what other connecting options might be available.  Just having that kind of knowledge might get you the last seat over someone else who is relying on others to give information.  3)  Be flexible.  When things go wrong, people want the airline to just put them on the next nonstop flight.  That’s ideal, but it’s not always possible.  If you’re willing to consider crazy connections, that creativity might get you far.  4) Don’t pack important stuff.  When things go wrong, you might not be able to be reunited with your checked bags for awhile, so definitely keep the most important stuff with you in a carry on bag.  5)  Keep things in perspective.  Flying can be really stressful for people, especially those who don’t do it often.  If you are able to just back up and take a deep breath, often the problems you’re faced with aren’t that horrible.  Even if they are bad, getting all wound up is only going to make things worse, so try to relax as best you can.

MrSkyGuy: My wife didn’t fully understand the sort of value CC held until she witnessed CC [Nate] working to check us in while we were unavailable during a company function.  Had we flown Southwest, check-in would have been paramount and CC’s service in that regard would have been critical.  What other behind-the scenes items are you and your team working on while your customers are out and about during their trips?

Cranky: Much of the behind the scenes work is really on a case by case basis.  Some people just want to know that we’re watching their flights and sending them updates.  We’ve had clients who don’t respond to any updates we send, and that’s perfectly fine.  We know that if something goes wrong, then we’ll hear from them.  But it’s amazing how often some little things go wrong.  A great example just happened yesterday.  We had a client flying on Air France/Delta who was relying on online check in to get the 20% discount on checked bags.  She had 9 excess bags, so that was big money.  The website wouldn’t check her in, so while she slept, we were trying to figure out the problem.  After several iterations, Air France told us that it couldn’t be done, but they said that when she handled it at the airport, Air France would then go back and refund the difference to her.  She probably wouldn’t have been able to get that kind of resolution on her own, at least not without significant investment of her time.

MrSkyGuy: The connected traveler has multiple tools today which weren’t available to the public at large even 3 years ago, such as smartphone-based apps like TripIt, TripCase, FlightCaster, and more.  These services have allowed savvy travelers to put more information at their fingertips and bring along some of the services CC provides.  Where to these apps/tools leave off and where does CC pick up the most slack?

Cranky:  We find those apps to be complementary to our services in most cases.  They are great for people who want to do it themselves, but they can’t match the collective brain power of a team of airline dorks in getting things done.  They might be able to give alternates if you have a missed connection, but they won’t be very creative.  Also, they all require the traveler to take action whereas our service really makes it so the traveler can just hand things off to us and not worry.  Here’s a great example of how these work together.

We had a client a couple weeks ago who was on Delta from Phoenix to Orlando via Atlanta.  His flight from Phoenix posted a four hour delay in the middle of the night, and he would have missed his connection.  Now, these services like TripIt can alert the client to the problem, but then he’ll have to go to the airline himself and get it fixed.  In this case, he can sleep through the night, only to wake up in the morning to find that we’ve already had him booked on the next best connecting option.  By the time he work up, that option was completely full, so we really did add value.  And to talk more about technology, Delta allowed us to rebook him using the website – we didn’t eve have to talk to an agent to get it done.  So our services really do work well together.

MrSkyGuy: There are companies such as Medex and others which big companies utilize to ensure that employees have extra options available to them in the event of an emergency, such as medical evacuation, repatriation, etc.  What sort of emergency services is CC prepared to provide in similar emergency-related events?

Cranky: We do not provide any sort of evacuation or medical insurance.  We can certainly help people pick the right policy for themselves if they’d like such an option, but that is beyond our abilities to deal with situations like that.  What we can do, however, is if someone calls and says they need to get a flight out quickly, we can certainly help with that.

We had someone call from Egypt during the uprising there saying that flights had been canceled and he needed to find a way out.  We were able to see that Alitalia was still operating a flight to Rome, so we booked him on that flight and he got out of there while others were stuck.  So if people want to take their transportation into their own hands, we can do it.  But in terms of formal medical or evacuation insurance providers, that’s not our business.

MrSkyGuy: I’d like to personally thank you for allowing us the opportunity to take a deeper look in to CrankyConcierge.  Any parting thoughts to leave our readers with?  Any promotions we can share for the 2011 holiday season?

Cranky:  Thanks, MrSkyGuy.  I’d encourage readers to check out our website at CrankyConcierge.com and call us if they have questions at 888-747-1011 (or +1 707-797-7474 outside the US).  It’s a service that a lot of people don’t know about, but it can provide a lot of great value.  We understand that means there’s an education process, so calls are always welcome.  We don’t have any particular promotions for the holiday season.  This is our peak time, and we’re already pretty busy.  But if people get stuck, then we can always help.

Crazy Airport - This is avoidable!

This is avoidable. Say no to travel madness!

In closing, I’d like to thank Brett and Nate for both their diligence in looking out for us during our trip, and the extra time they committed this review.  In a stormy world of complicated airline rules, fees, procedures and unknowns, CrankyConcierge provides safe harbor.  Is Cranky Concirge’s real-time airline travel management service worth it?  I sure think so.  My semi-unbiased advice?  Give em’ a  shot.  The $30 you spend on a round-trip for Cranky’s travel monitoring and advice could save you hundreds, days of travel, and perhaps prevent you from blowing a mental fuse.

Any questions or comments are most certainly welcome!  Feel free to click the ‘Contact Us’ pull-out tab in the upper right or simply reply directly to this article via the ‘comments’ section below.

Share
Categories: Review | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

Christmas-themed British Airways Boeing 737-236/Adv

As we roll in to Christmas Eve tomorrow, I was thinking about additional content for AirlineCrazy.com to meet the demand from my fellow readers.  Being a big “aviation geek,” I find it especially interesting to look at photos and videos of airliners (especially old airliners), and trace their history and current whereabouts.  Certain aircraft are especially notable for a variety of reasons, while others are interesting due to relatively unknown tidbits of information known to a select few.  As an addition in article content, every once in a while I will choose a notable aircraft to review and discuss, beginning today.  As always, your suggestions are welcome via the contact us pull-out tab or the article comments section at the bottom!

To kick off this new article category, I have opted to review a Boeing 737-236/Adv aircraft bearing the serial and manufacturing numbers 23169/1081.  I selected this aircraft because it A) is my favorite airliner of all time, B) popped up in the top 50 photos on Airliners.net today thanks to the photo below by photographer Richard Vandervord, and C) is applicably themed for the Christmas holiday.

Boeing 737-236/Adv aircraft G-BKYK (cn 23169/1081), Photographed by Richard Vandervord, all rights Richard Vandervord.

Boeing 737-236/Adv G-BKYK (cn 23169/1081) in British Airways "Christmas livery" by Richard Vandervord

The 737-100/200/200Adv Series: The Boeing 737-200 was one of Boeing’s most popular aircraft ever built.  It was superseded by the “Classic” series -300/400/500, the “Next Generation” series (-600/700/800/900) and now the “MAX” series (-MAX7/MAX8/MAX9).  The -200 series was a “stretched” version of the -100 series, which was originally launched by Lufthansa in 1965.  United Airlines is notable for originally popularizing the -200 series in the United States, when they approached Boeing around the same time and expressed interested in a “slightly larger -100.”  The “Advanced” 737-200 series (written as 737-200Adv or B732Adv) was launched by All Nippon Airways in 1971 and includes improved aerodynamics, automatic wheel brakes, more powerful engines, more fuel capacity, and longer range.

Boeing 737-200 External View by M. Ferriera

Boeing 737-200 External View

The 737-200 series of airliners is unique in that it was the first commercial jetliner produced by Boeing to utilize a flight crew of only two.  The Flight Engineer’s position was eliminated through improvements in automation and technology, which caused an uproar from the major pilot unions who were accustomed to the style and safety benefits of a third pilot in the cockpit.  So serious was this frustration that United Airlines was initially forced by the unions to put a 3rd pilot aboard every 737-200 flight as a “jumpseat backup.”  Anyone who has ever flown aboard a 737-200 in the jumpseat can attest to the fact that the “coolness factor” wears off quickly once your body begins to complain from the discomfort of the military-esque foldout seat.  Imagine flying in that seat for a few hours a day or longer?  Thankfully that didn’t last very long, as even United’s pilots eventually came around to the new age of dual-pilot cockpits.

Despite the 737′s popularity today, Boeing wasn’t entirely sure how successful the original 737 program was initially going to be, so they built it to operate a wide variety of mission profiles.  A number of aircraft were purpose-built to serve as navigation trainers for the US Air Force, while others were built to serve in dual freight/passenger roles.  Others were built to operate safely and reliably from gravel runways (and continue to do so today in arctic climates–see the video below).  The variety of 737-200 mission profiles allowed for greater proliferation of the airliner worldwide, which was largely responsible (due to commonalities) for the later successes of the 737 Classics, Next Generations and now MAX’s.

A gravelkit-equipped Boeing 737-200 landing on a gravel runway

G-BKYK cn 23169 in British Airways livery by Javier Rodriguez

British Airways "G-BKYK"

CN 23169′s Operational History: CN 23169 is one of the last Boeing 737-200 series airliners to be manufactured.  Constructed by at Boeing’s Renton facility in  Washington state, CN 23169 was originally ordered by and delivered to British Airways in 1985 and registered G-BKYK (the G- indicates a British-registered aircraft and the BKYK is the specific registration code assigned to this aircraft by the British aviation authorities in 1985).  She flew under the British Airways banner for 14 years, and was then sold to Pegasus Aviation Finance Company (now Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services, aka AWAC) in 1999 who re-registered CN 23169 with the FAA as N938PG.

LV-ZTG cn 23169 in British Airways livery by BAIRES Aviation Photography

Aerolineas Argentinas "LV-ZTG"

Pegasus secured a lease  for CN 23169 with famous B732 operator Aerolineas Argentinas (ARG) 10 months later, who re-registered this aircraft LV-ZTG.  Aerolineas Argentinas put CN 23169 through her paces from Buenos Aires for 5 years, until ARG began retiring their -200 series 737s in favor of more modern and fuel-efficient models.  ARG’s lessor Pegasus/AWAC then sold CN 23169 to her final owner Finova Capital in 2005, who re-registered  the aircraft again with the FAA as N151FV.  Finova put CN 23169 through heavy maintenance at Coopesa in Costa Rica, before delivering the aircraft to her final operator Aloha Airlines.

N837AL cn 23169 in Aloha Airlines livery by Anthony Jackson

Aloha Airlines "N837AL"

Aloha took delivery of CN 23169 in 2006 and re-registered the aircraft for the final time to N837AL.  Ironically, CN 231689 likely flew more often during her final 2 years of service than with either of her previous 2 operators, as Aloha was known for the high-frequency high-cycle inter-island schedule they flew utilizing only Boeing 737-200 aircraft (mainland Aloha flights were conducted with 737-700NG series aircraft).  Sadly Aloha ceased operations in March of 2008, and CN 23169 was ferried to Victorville, California for storage where she remains today with the rest of Aloha’s passenger-configured Boeing 737-200′s (Aloha lives on today as the all-freight carrier Aloha Air Cargo, based in Honolulu, Hawaii).

CN 23169′s “Christmas” Livery Background: The story here is actually pretty simple and straight-forward.  CN 23169 is pictured above in a very child-like “Happy Christmas” theme as the result of the British Airways’ children’s ‘Paint a Plane’ competition in 1994, with each side featuring an age-group winner’s design.  The side pictured above is one winner’s selection, and the other side was painted in a winter’s night “Merry Christmas” theme, as pictured below.  I am not certain if the competition is still alive today, bu the selections were designed to be announced in the first quarter of the year, and the winner’s selections would be painted to a British Airways jet which would then operate with that livery for 12 months.  As pictured above, usually enough of the current British Airways livery remains with the theme to help identify the carrier (see “Landor” livery retained on the tail of CN 23169 in the image below).

Boeing 737-236/Adv G-BKYK (cn 23169/1081) in British Airways "Christmas livery" by Ian Gater

Boeing 737-236/Adv G-BKYK (cn 23169/1081) in British Airways "Merry Christmas livery" by Ian Gater

Victorville Airport aircraft boneyard viewed through Google Earth

Victorville Airport Boneyard

CN 23169 “Bonus” Information: CN 23169 is currently parked in California at the Victorville aircraft boneyard, in position PK760.  While she last flew with Pratt & Whitney JT8D-15A engines in a Stage II noise configuration, she sits today without these engines.  The residual value of aging commercial jetliners lies most heavily in the powerplants, which are often quickly sold off if the aircraft’s future life expectancy is minimal.  The status of the APU is uncertain, but it was parked with a Garrett GTCP85-129 unit installed.  When parked, CN 23169 had tallied up a total “Hobbs” time of 37,262 hours flown in 31,545 flight cycles.   The average flight time of the aircraft throughout its operational history was 1.18 hours, which is precisely the sort of mission profile the 737-200 was built by Boeing to fly.

The chance that CN 23169 will fly again is remote, despite being one of the lowest-time and cycle Boeing 737-200′s around today.  Much of the reason for this is the recent economic crisis which forced most of the world’s airlines to abandon their older aircraft in favor of more modern and fuel-efficient airliners.  The resulting influx of Boeing 737-300, -400, and -500 aircraft essentially doomed the few remaining 737-200′s to futures in scrap metal.  With any hope, a few will be preserved in museum condition for future generations to enjoy and learn from.

Boeing 737-236/Adv N837AL (cn 23169/1081) in Aloha Airlineslivery by Stefan Sonnenberg

N837AL's final resting place at the Victorville airport (KVCV) boneyard

Share
Categories: Just Because, Notable Aircraft | Tags: , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Deconstructing Boeing’s Commercial Jet Aircraft Lineage

Many of you mentioned that you enjoyed my article about the sawing/barking sound heard aboard the Airbus A320, and asked me for more educational articles of a similar style.  I’ve been repeatedly asked recently to help deconstruct the various commercial aircraft models over the years produced by Boeing Commercial Airplanes.  As a result, I’ve spent a few days preparing this article to help better explain the lineage and connections between the various aircraft Boeing has manufactured over the years.  The article is a little longer than usual, but has been written in a style that should allow you to skip around to the parts that interest you quickly.  You can read through normally, or simply scroll down to the image of the aircraft you are interested in and read those sections.

NOTE: This article is purely topical, and does not specifically drill down to every single nuance of each aircraft type.  If you are looking for more details, I have hot-linked each aircraft type to its corresponding Wikipedia article in BOLD.  Also, due to the complexity of the 737 lineup, I may consider “drilling down” in a later article to address those differences at a deeper level.

Photo Credit: Boeing Photo

The Boeing 707 Prototype

The Boeing 707: It all started with Boeing’s 367-80 (known simply as the “Dash 80″), which was quickly developed from the proof-of-concept design to the slightly larger 707.  As pictured here, the Boeing 707 was a four-engined narowbody aircraft whose direct competition at the time was the Douglas DC-8.  The 707 was the aircraft that began Boeing’s famous 7X7 numbering scheme. This revolutionary aircraft was Boeing’s answer to the “jet age,” and was actually birthed from the US Air Force’s request for a jet-powered mid-air refueling aircraft to replace its slow piston-powered KC-97 fleet.  The 707′s first orders came in 1955 from Pan Am, who ordered 20 of the aircraft (a large aircraft order for the era).  The 707 flew in US commercial airline service until 1983, having been replaced by a wide variety of aircraft developed to respond to the demand the 707 created.  While the Boeing 707 was not the first jet airliner to fly worldwide, it was the most successful of the early jets.  Of the 855 built, 151 are still active (mostly US Air Force KC-135s).  The 707 was so successful, that it helped the airlines who flew it become more intelligent about streamlining their route structure to take advantage of multiple-sized population centers of which the 707 was not capable of serving.  In many cases, it was learned through trial and error that while impressive, the 707 was not a one-size-fits-all airplane.  NO LONGER IN PRODUCTION.

Though the Boeing 717 naming scheme was eventually given to the McDonnell-Douglas MD-90 after Boeing acquired the company, the 717 designation was actually used to refer to the stratotanker version of the 707 (military mid-air refuler still in use today).  This is why many begin to get confused as to which aircraft came after the 707, etc.  Because the later Boeing 717 was ultimately a McDonnell-Douglas aircraft, I have elected not to cover it in-depth within this article.

Photo Credit: Boeing Photo

The Boeing 727 Prototype

The Boeing 727 is perhaps one of the most versatile commercial jet aircraft ever built, and while it does share some limited commonality with the 707, the 727 was a departure from the 707.  The 727 boasted a 3 engine rear-mounted T-tailed configuration along with one of the most complex wing flap systems ever developed.  The major airlines of the time (American, United and Eastern) all approached Boeing looking for an aircraft that was capable of operating from fields smaller than the 707 was designed for.  American wanted a twin-jet design not unlike the Douglas DC-9, United wanted a four-engined design, and Eastern wanted the best of both worlds.  Eventually the three settled on a compromise for a three-engined jet and the 727 was born.  Seating anywhere from 149 to 189 passengers per aircraft, the 727 was enormously successful and became the mainstay of many airline’s fleets for decades even after production was halted in 1984.  NO LONGER IN PRODUCTION.

Photo Credit: Boeing Photo

The Boeing 737 Prototype

The Boeing 737: Now enter the most popular aircraft ever built–the Boeing 737.  In fact, if the entire production line of the 727 is considered, the 737 may actually take the 727′s title as the most versatile series of commercial jets built.  Developed at almost the same time as the 727, the 737 was originally designed to support short-range low-yield route structures.  As a twin-engined jet with a then-unheard-of flight crew of only two, the 737 was seen as a money maker and money saver by airline managers, and a threat by pilots who were used to the three-crew layouts of other aircraft.  Lufthansa launched the design with an order for 22 of the 85-124 seat (depending on cabin configuration) 737-100 design.  Shortly thereafter United placed an order for 40 stretched 737-100s, which became known as the 737-200.  Boeing improved upon the 737-200 design in 1971, which they called the 737-200 Advanced.  The -200 Advanced series had improved aerodynamics, automatic wheel brakes, more powerful engines, more fuel capacity, and longer range than the original stretched -200s.  Despite the success of the 737 program today, initially the 737 was plagued by slow sales after the early initial interest died down.  In 1970 Boeing received only 37 orders for the -200, which was seen as the proverbial “writing on the wall” to initiate development of a more competitive product.  BOEING 737-100/200 NO LONGER IN PRODUCTION.

Photo Credit: Boeing Photo

The Boeing 737-300 Prototype

Boeing’s answer to the slump in sales was essentially a refined, re-engine version of the 737-200.  The most notable feature of the then-new 737-300 (and later -400, -500 aircraft) is the large and flat-bottom-shaped CFM-56 high-bypass turbofans. These engines along with other less-noticeable refinements in the aircraft allowed the 737-300/400/500 series to burn less fuel than the -200, while providing greater thrust and better overall performance.  The 737-300 was launched n 1981 and originally introduced as the “new generation” of the 737 (which is confusing today as the same original name was eventually given to the following version of 737s made available in the 1990s).  Today the 737-300, -400 and -500 series are referred to as the “737 Classics,” while the 737-100 and -200 series  called the “737 Original.”  Some jokingly call the 737-100/200 the “737 Jurassics,” but that nickname is applied only in jest.  BOEING 737-300/400/500 NO LONGER IN PRODUCTION.

Boeing later refined the 737 Classics with a new variant of the series, and called it the “New Generation” or “NG” for short. Instead of adding an NG to the end of the 737-300/400/500 series, Boeing opted to give these refined 737s new dash numbers.  This resulted in the development of the 737-600, -700, -800, and eventually -900 NG series.  The NG 737 was a response by Boeing to address the serious threat that Airbus’ A320 product family presented to the 737 lineup.  As a result, Boeing kept many cockpit commonalities with the 737 Classic series in order to retain the common type certificate for pilots, but essentially re-designed this version of the 737 to compete toe-to-toe with Airbus’ A320-family.  BOEING 737-600/700/800/900 IN PRODUCTION.

The Boeing 737 Family (up to the New Generation)

Photo Credit: Boeing Photo

The Boeing 737-MAX7 (artistic illustration)

Announced in July this year, Boeing has agreed to continue the 737 for at least another generation with the announcement of the 737 MAX.  The 737 MAX is a further refinement of the “New Generation” series of aircraft, primarily incorporating new more fuel-efficient CFM Leap 1B engines as well as aerodynamic changes to improve the aircraft’s performance.  Despite being announced less than 6  months ago, Boeing has secured orders for well over 900+ 737MAX series supporting the worldwide demand for improved technology to better mitigate the rising costs of fuel.  BOEING 737MAX PRODUCTION PLANNED.

The multiple versions of the 737 have been largely responsible for confusion where replacement models are concerned. To simplify this, I will plan on detailing this particular family of Boeing aircraft in a future article.  In the meantime, here’s a quick cheat-sheet to help break down how the various versions of the 737 have replaced each other over the years.

  • 737-100 … replaced by … 737-200
  • 737-200 … replaced by … 737-300/400/500 Classic; later replaced by the 737-600/700/800NG 
  • 737-600 … replaced by … no direct replacement planned
  • 737-700/800/900 … replaced by … 737-MAX7/MAX8/MAX9
Photo Credit: Boeing Photo

The Boeing 747 Prototype

The Boeing 747:  The success of the Boeing 707 in commercial service led Pan Am to conclude that a much larger aircraft was needed to support the anticipated growth expected worldwide.  Pan Am was right.  The famous Boeing 747 “Jumbo Jet” was developed shortly after the 707, and was two-and-a-half times larger.  First commercially flown in 1970, the 747 was the largest commercial jet aircraft in service until it was usurped by Airbus’ massive A380 Super Jumbo.  The 747 was originally built to carry 366-452 passengers 5,300 nautical miles at a blistering 84% of Mach 1 (the speed of sound).  The “Jumbo Jet” is most characteristically known for its double-decker “hump” at the front of the aircraft.  Since entry in to service in the early 1970s, the 747 has seen a number of upgrades/modifications from the 747-100 to the latest model, the 747-8.  BOEING 747-8 IN PRODUCTION.

Source unknown; public domain

The Boeing 757 and 767 Prototypes

The Boeing 757 and 767:  Following the early 737, Boeing electred to refine the product family through the joint-development of the 757 and 767 at the same time.  Unlike any previous aircraft developed before by Boeing, the 757 and 767 were designed to share an identical cockpit and type rating.  The 757 was designed as a powerful replacement for Boeing’s 727, with a still-unmatched power to weight ratio.  Due to the mission profile of the aircraft, Boeing designed the 757 with the same fuselage cross-section as the 707, 727, and 737 family of jets but stretched it to seat anywhere between 186-289 passengers depending on configuration.  The 767 was Boeing’s first twin-engined widebody jetliner, built to fly 181 to 375 people anywhere from 3,800 to 6,300 nautical miles depending on configuration and loading.  Production of the 757 ceased in 2004, however the 767 is still available for orders.  BOEING 757 NO LONGER IN PRODUCTION, BOEING 767 IN PRODUCTION.

Photo Credit: Boeing Photo

The Boeing 777

The Boeing 777 or “triple seven” as she is known, is a long-range widebody jet built to fulfill a different profile than the 767 or 747.  Unlike the four-engined 747, the 777 takes advantage of improvements in reliability and technology to give airlines access to the significant cost savings expected from a twin-engined jet, while also merging these capabilities with those formerly expected of a 4-engined aircraft.  On the surface, the 777 looks like just another twin-widebody, but the reality is that the 777 was both a game-changer and a sign of growth away from massive 4-engined long-haul airliners to more operationally-sensible twin-engined designs.  The twin-engined layout of the aircraft is cheaper to own, cheaper to maintain, and cheaper to operate.  Since the first aircraft were delivered in 1995, well over 1,300 aircraft have been ordered and the aircraft is still selling strong.  BOEING 777 IN PRODUCTION.

Photo Credit: Boeing Image

The Boeing 787

The Boeing 787 is the manufacturer’s most technologically advanced commercial aircraft ever constructed.  From the outside the aircraft looks similar to many other older commercial aircraft models, but that is where the similarities end.  Unlike almost all commercial aircraft before it, the 787 has been largely manufactured from composite materials, nose-to-tail.  In addition, where most commercial aircraft are internally pressurized to an elevation of roughly 8,000′, the 787 is pressurized to 6,000′.  It has a more humid atmosphere and larger, electronically dimmed windows amongst other passenger-focused amenities.  Most importantly, the aircraft allows airlines to finally utilize a long-range fuel-efficient airliner for medium-density routes, such as Houst0n-Auckland (Continental, now United) or Tokyo-San Jose, CA (ANA).  BOEING 787 IN PRODUCTION.

Boeing’s commercial aircraft lineup today consists of the Boeing 737 New Generation, the future Boeing 737MAX, the Boeing 747-8, the Boeing 767, the Boeing 777 and the Boeing 787.  It can be said that Boeing has a knack for developing well-engineered aircraft, as only 3 commercial aircraft types within Boeing’s original lineup since the 707 are out of production (707, 727, and 757).  The Boeing 707 was replaced with more efficient airliners better suited to specific mission profiles.  The Boeing 727 was replaced by later versions of the entire 737 family, including the 737-200 and 737 classics.  The Boeing 757 was replaced (in range and seating) by the massively-stretched Boeing 737-900ER series—though the B739ER doesn’t have the 757′s famous hot-and-high power-to-weight ratios.  The Boeing 737, 747, 767, 777, and 787 families are all still in production in various forms and options as of December 2011.

Photo Credit: Boeing Photo

Boeing's simplified future product portfolio

Going forward, the trend at Boeing is relatively straight-forward.  The manufacturer has reached the point where they feel that a simplified product offering is the best way to proceed.  Towards that effort, Boeing has been steadily condensing its product family and replacing products where more recent and simplified offerings overlap in capability.  An example of this strategy is the replacement of the 757 line with the similarly-capable 737-900ER.  In the future, it is expected that the 767 will be the next product line retired leaving the multiple variations of the 737, 747, 777, and 787 available for future customers.

Should you have any questions or comments, don’t hesitate to contact me or reply directly to this article via the form below.  Suggestions for future articles are always welcome.

Share
Categories: And Now You Know | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 9 Comments