Windows Live family are growing, and Windows Live Writer lets me connect to this Blog and do updates. The benefit of doing this is that it is easier to change the layout the way I want to without editing in HTML code. But I have not been able to find any spellchecker on Live Writer. If you happen to know why, and are reading my blog feel free to comment.
09 juli, 2009
How to save SAS
SAS carried 12,9% fewer passengers the first six month of 2009 compared to 2008. Total load factor was unchanged thanks to SAS grounding many airplanes this year. But SAS still loses money, and money and everyone are asking why they fail? The simples answer to this question is that SAS is a too complex airline.
SAS needs to simplifyTake a look at their fleet. As of March 2009 they have 7 different types of airplane. They have 14 different subtypes making their fleet very expensive. A result of this is that they need more pilots, more flight attendants, and more spare parts. SAS very complex fleet makes it harder to shuffle airplanes around. Because they would have to shuffle the staff around as well. A simpler fleet would make it easier to use staff more efficient. To simplify the fleet would cost a lot of money, but in SAS case it would be a worthwhile investment. SAS would be in a better position to compete.
UPDATE: Reply 54 illustrates how complex SAS fleet really is: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4994937/
What to do about Denmark?SAS needs to make money. The unions of Denmark are for various reasons difficult to negotiate with. As a result, SAS should look at how many routes should be taken away from Denmark and flown from Norway and Sweden. Some has expressed the idea of moving long haul Asian routes to Arlanda in Sweden and the North-American routes to Oslo in Norway. This would be a drastic measure, and neither SAS nor their employees would benefit this. But as long as some employees are threatening to take down the whole airline SAS has to adapt.
What about Blue1?Blue1 is in reality SAS Finland, but with a different Aircraft Operating Certificate (AOC). Their AOC is originally from Air Botnia, which SAS bought. Blue1’s fleet is making the SAS fleet even more complex. They add 4 new airplane types to SAS making it a total of 11 airplane types and 18 different sub types. In order to simplify SAS they should consider renaming Blue1 to SAS Finland and transferring their AOC into SAS AOC. SAS is a very strong brand, even though it would be in contrast to Finnair. Instead of fearing for Finnair stealing passengers, SAS should start a bigger offensive in Finland. It goes both ways.
How can SAS simplify?They should replace their MD-80, MD-90, Airbus A319/A321, ATR72, Arvro RJ85, their older 737 (The classic 737) as well as F50 and Saab2000 with an order for more CRJ-900, 737-700 and 737-800. Then they should replace their A340-300 with the A330-200IGW that would improve the performance of their long haul fleet. They should also consider increasing their intercontinental fleet to about 20in a 10 year period so they can capitalize on size. In this downturn I am sure Boeing, Bombardier and Airbus would be interested in such a deal. After every plane is delivered the new fleet would be down to three different types of airplanes with 6 different sub airplanes. If SAS decides to do this they will be able to use simplify their staff, and they will improve their bottom line. The way I see it simplifying the fleet is the only way for SAS to be effective.
SAS needs to simplifyTake a look at their fleet. As of March 2009 they have 7 different types of airplane. They have 14 different subtypes making their fleet very expensive. A result of this is that they need more pilots, more flight attendants, and more spare parts. SAS very complex fleet makes it harder to shuffle airplanes around. Because they would have to shuffle the staff around as well. A simpler fleet would make it easier to use staff more efficient. To simplify the fleet would cost a lot of money, but in SAS case it would be a worthwhile investment. SAS would be in a better position to compete.
UPDATE: Reply 54 illustrates how complex SAS fleet really is: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4994937/
What to do about Denmark?SAS needs to make money. The unions of Denmark are for various reasons difficult to negotiate with. As a result, SAS should look at how many routes should be taken away from Denmark and flown from Norway and Sweden. Some has expressed the idea of moving long haul Asian routes to Arlanda in Sweden and the North-American routes to Oslo in Norway. This would be a drastic measure, and neither SAS nor their employees would benefit this. But as long as some employees are threatening to take down the whole airline SAS has to adapt.
What about Blue1?Blue1 is in reality SAS Finland, but with a different Aircraft Operating Certificate (AOC). Their AOC is originally from Air Botnia, which SAS bought. Blue1’s fleet is making the SAS fleet even more complex. They add 4 new airplane types to SAS making it a total of 11 airplane types and 18 different sub types. In order to simplify SAS they should consider renaming Blue1 to SAS Finland and transferring their AOC into SAS AOC. SAS is a very strong brand, even though it would be in contrast to Finnair. Instead of fearing for Finnair stealing passengers, SAS should start a bigger offensive in Finland. It goes both ways.
How can SAS simplify?They should replace their MD-80, MD-90, Airbus A319/A321, ATR72, Arvro RJ85, their older 737 (The classic 737) as well as F50 and Saab2000 with an order for more CRJ-900, 737-700 and 737-800. Then they should replace their A340-300 with the A330-200IGW that would improve the performance of their long haul fleet. They should also consider increasing their intercontinental fleet to about 20in a 10 year period so they can capitalize on size. In this downturn I am sure Boeing, Bombardier and Airbus would be interested in such a deal. After every plane is delivered the new fleet would be down to three different types of airplanes with 6 different sub airplanes. If SAS decides to do this they will be able to use simplify their staff, and they will improve their bottom line. The way I see it simplifying the fleet is the only way for SAS to be effective.
There is a reason why SAS Norway shows the best results. Their only jetplane is the 737 in different sizes. SAS Sweden has both the MD-80 and the 737. SAS Denmark has both the 737 and the A319/A321. The simpler fleet of SAS Norway helps making SAS Norway a better performer.
The picture shown is from the newest SAS 737-800 at the Boeing factory, prior to delivery to SAS Norway. Picture is used with permition from Drewski2112's photostream on Flickr. Watch that and his other picture here. http://www.flickr.com/photos/smartjunco/
07 juli, 2009
Ryanair does it again
If there is something Ryanair is good at, it is to get high publicity now and then. Not Long ago CEO Michael O'Leary said that the airline was serious about charging for toilet visits. He stated that they could add some more rows of seats if they were able to remove some or all toilets.
This week O’Leary is in the news again stating that they would like to have people standing in the plane. O’Leary says they get 20 - 30 % more passengers into the plane. A spokesperson later on confirmed that they were in talks with Boeing about the idea, and that they would be offer a kind of bar stools.
Afraid you will be standing on your next flight or you will have to pay to go to the bathroom? Then you can relax. Ryanair flies the Boeing 737-800. The 737-800 is certified for 189 passengers. Ryanair has filled the 737-800 with 189 seats already. If they would like more seats into their current airplanes they would need more emergency exits. This would be so expensive that it would not be worth the investment.
For now, Ryanair is getting some free publicity. Boeing is in no hurry to replace their 737-800 as it is a very efficient plane already. And we have not yet started talking about the authorities. Will they allow passengers to stand in a plane? I have my doubts.
This week O’Leary is in the news again stating that they would like to have people standing in the plane. O’Leary says they get 20 - 30 % more passengers into the plane. A spokesperson later on confirmed that they were in talks with Boeing about the idea, and that they would be offer a kind of bar stools.
Afraid you will be standing on your next flight or you will have to pay to go to the bathroom? Then you can relax. Ryanair flies the Boeing 737-800. The 737-800 is certified for 189 passengers. Ryanair has filled the 737-800 with 189 seats already. If they would like more seats into their current airplanes they would need more emergency exits. This would be so expensive that it would not be worth the investment.
For now, Ryanair is getting some free publicity. Boeing is in no hurry to replace their 737-800 as it is a very efficient plane already. And we have not yet started talking about the authorities. Will they allow passengers to stand in a plane? I have my doubts.
04 juli, 2009
BMW lanserer 740d
BMW er et av mine favorittmerker. De har alltid ligget i forkant når det gjelder teknologi. Motorene til BMW er selve signaturen på ingeniørkunstens mesterverk. Ikke rart at BMW alltid har ligget langt foran med motorer som slipper ut lite C02. Gleden er derfor stor når BMW lanserer 740d. De viser at de nok en gang klarer å presse sine egne grenser for å gi bilen bedre ytelser, men også for å redusere forbruket ytterligere. Utgående modell het 745d og som modellnavnet indikerer så har den nye modellen litt lavere ytelse. Men den er allikevel ikke noen sinke. Forgjengeren hadde en V8 motor på 4,5 liter og en effekt på 330HK ved 3800 omdreininger. Sammen med et dreiemoment på 750Nm fra 1900 – 2500 omdreininger i minuttet gav det en akselerasjon fra 0-100km/t på 6,6 sekunder. Det resulterte i et snittforbruk på 0,95 liter på mila og et forbruk på 251 gram pr kjørte kilometer. For å få til en drastisk reduksjon i drivstofforbruket så er V8 motoren byttet ut med en rekkesekser på 3 liter. Takket være 2 turboer yter motoren hele 306HK og har et dreiemoment på 600Nm. Denne motoren gjør den nye 740d i stand til å akselerere i fra 0-100km/t på 6,3 sekunder. Dette er 0,3 sekunder raskere enn utgående modell. Til tross for høye ytelser så er forbruket redusert med 28 % og er nede i 181 gram CO2 pr kjørte kilometer. Snittforbruket er nede i 0,69 liter pr mil. CO2 forbruket er bedre enn de fleste Lexus hybridmodeller og matcher den hybridmodellen fra Lexus som har lavest forbruk. Lexus GS 450h har et forbruk på 181 gram pr km selv om forbruket på Lexusen er høyere på 0,79 liter i snittforbruk. BMW kaller det Efficient Dynamics. BMW satser enorme ressurser på å gjøre bilene miljøvennlige. De tilbyr allerede en hydrogenutgave av 7-serien med som ikke forurenser i det hele tatt. Det vil gå noen år før det finnes nok fyllestasjoner for slike biler og, og før biler på hydrogen blir vanlige så kan vi glede oss over at bensin og dieselmotorer vil redusere drivstofforbruket sitt betraktelig i årene som kommer.
03 juli, 2009
Dette koster en GTI MkV i USA
Bilrevyen hadde gleden av å kjøre nye Golf GTI nylig. Veiledende pris (eller burde det hete villedende pris?) på den nye toppmodellen til VW er 442 770 kroner. I USA er riktignok ikke versjon 6 kommet enda, men allikevel er sammenlikningen interessant. I USA er modellnavnet litt annerledes. Der heter den bare GTI. En vanlig Golf heter Rabbit. Med dagens kurs (3.7.2009) koster en GTI 153 281 kroner. Ved å legge til alt utstyr øker prisen til 209 000 kroner. En norsk Golf GTI er med andre ord mer enn dobbelt så dyr som en GTI solgt i USA. Dette er mindre enn laveste pris på en norsk Golf 212 610 kroner. Da får du en 80 HK Golf med standard utstyr. I USA selges ikke rimeligste norske variant. Der borte er rimeligste variant en Rabbit med 170 HK fra motor på 2,5 liter. Denne koster 105000 kroner.
Navneendring fra høsten. Høsten 2009 vil Golf 6 introduseres i USA. Med generasjon 6 endres navnet fra Rabbit til Golf. GTI MkVi blir navnet på neste Golf.
Vår prøvekjøring av Golf GTI finner du her.
http://bilrevyen.no/artikkel.aspx?artid=934
02 juli, 2009
Sosialistregjeringen ødelegger for Rygge
For at Rygge sivile lufthavn skal kunne drive lønnsomt mener de selv at de trenger 21 000 flyvninger i året. Dessverre så fikk de bare innvilget et tak på 15000. Forstår ikke regjeringen at de risikerer å påføre Rygge underskudd ved å komme med unaturlig lave grenser? Det hadde vært bedre for Rygge og for miljøet om regjeringen ikke stilte slik unaturlig lave grenser. Resultatet av det lave trafikktaket på Rygge er at de som bor i område nå må kjøre bil eller ta toget til Gardermoen for å fly derfra. Dette tjener ikke miljøet.
01 juli, 2009
Boeing 787 delay – Part of the McDonnell Douglas heritage?
The 787 is the first new plane to be developed since Boeing and McDonnell Douglas merged in 1997. It was said that the 787 would bring out the best from both companies. However, what should have been a dreamliner has turned into a nightmare for Boeing. The initial version is too heavy and it is running more than two years late. The resemblance between the 787 and the MD-11 is very similar.
First flight on the MD-11 should have occurred in March 1989. However problems with the manufacturing, suppliers and labor actions delayed the first flight to January 1990. After delivery to airlines it became apparent that the MD-11 failed to meet its performance target. McDonnell Douglas along with GE and P&W launched a Performance Improvement Program (PIP). The program lasted from 1990 to 1995 when the MD-11 finally met its performance.
By that time the 777 and A330/A340 had made the MD-11 obsolete. The main difference between now and then is that Boeing can afford the delay to get it right the first time and the 787 represent a bigger leap in technology than the MD-11 did represent. Even if the first planes fail to meet the performance guaranties, it will still be more efficient than today’s plane.
If the latest delay is the last and the plane perform as expected Boeing will manage well with their 787. If however they do not get rid of the MDC heritage for the 737 replacement or 777 replacement they might break their back eventually.
Behovet for fotobokser vitner om en feilslått samferdselspolitikk.
AP ønsker flere fotobokser slår nestleder Helga Pedersen fast. Med dette sier hun at AP viser solidaritet med de som har mistet sine kjære i trafikken. Men dette tiltaket vil ikke redde mange liv. En ulykke har mange årsaker. Noen sovner bak rattet, andre kjører i ruspåvirket tilstand. I tillegg skjer de fleste ulykker som en følge av at kapasiteten i veinettet er sprengt og at veinett tilgir ikke feil. Derfor bommer vi når vi kun ser på fart som årsak til ulykker. Fart alene er ikke et problem. Dersom vi virkelig skal nærme oss målet om 0 drepte i trafikken må vi gjøre noe med veinettet. Det viktigste bidraget for å få ned antall drepte i trafikken er å bygge sikrere veier med bedre kapasitet. Det er ikke uten grunn av motorveier er de sikreste veiene. De har midtdeler, en bred skulder og en støyskjerm på siden. Skulle noen miste kontrollen i disse omgivelsene vil ikke konsekvensene være fatale. Jeg mistenker at regjeringen har manglende kunnskap om samferdsel når de ikke evner å ta grep som monner.
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)