Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion
Posted: 10 May 2017 15:07
It is also a base for 2 very popular tiger reserves.
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
In addition there are n number of trains between Nashik-Mumbai. Only 3-3.5hr journey. Air travel thing between Nashik-Mumbai makes sense only for those who would like to connect to some other flight from Mumbai or those who don't mind spending 10x more money for only a small time gain. Its really a very small customer base.amol wrote:The new UDAN route of Mumbai-Nashik is doomed to fail before it even gets off the ground. They've attempted this route multiple times in the past and it's failed each time. Wonder why anyone in their right mind thinks it'll succeed this time around.
The problem is that Nashik is located only 180km from Mumbai. It takes about 3.5 - 4 hours by road today. That's about the same time it'll take someone to get to their destination by air - About an hour to get to the airport, get there an hour before the flight, 40 minutes for the flight and another hour or so to get home from there. Plus its more expensive and timings will be not be flexible.
Instead, they should have started off connecting Nashik to other out-of-the way destinations like Nagpur, Indore, Ahmedabad etc. Even hopping flights like BOM-Nashik-Indore/Nagpur might work.
With an abundance of religious pilgrimage places (also wine tourism) in the vicinity, this is one city that could have been on the national air map a long time ago with some pragmatic planning, but alas!
govt enterprises cannot do it. this is why the pvt sector needs to be invited, but they also need to be assured of orders. if the govt said they would buy 250-500 small aircraft, pvt players would invest in it. This is the only way we can grow our MIC and commercial aircraft sector.Deans wrote:We can build a commercial aircraft if we want to. The problem is HAL will do it in twice the time that it would normally take and at a higher cost than existing alternatives. .
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Yes c919 may be importing parts, but 10yrs from now they will be building all the parts themselves. Secondly, i dont see why anyone would order those other than chinese airlines! they are not proven aircraft, give it a decade or two and other airlines will be confident in ordering their planes.For all China's ability, the C 919 is not really a success. All critical items are imported - from the same suppliers of Boeing and Airbus. The project was at least 3 years behind schedule. All the orders placed are only by Chinese carriers. The cost is whatever Eleven wants it to be
JohnTitor wrote:govt enterprises cannot do it. this is why the pvt sector needs to be invited, but they also need to be assured of orders. if the govt said they would buy 250-500 small aircraft, pvt players would invest in it. This is the only way we can grow our MIC and commercial aircraft sector.Deans wrote:We can build a commercial aircraft if we want to. The problem is HAL will do it in twice the time that it would normally take and at a higher cost than existing alternatives. .
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Yes c919 may be importing parts, but 10yrs from now they will be building all the parts themselves. Secondly, i dont see why anyone would order those other than chinese airlines! they are not proven aircraft, give it a decade or two and other airlines will be confident in ordering their planes.For all China's ability, the C 919 is not really a success. All critical items are imported - from the same suppliers of Boeing and Airbus. The project was at least 3 years behind schedule. All the orders placed are only by Chinese carriers. The cost is whatever Eleven wants it to be
problem is you cannot have instant success, but it has to be incremental. It takes years to grow the infrastructure and knowledge bases. But there has to be resource and willpower committed for it to happen.
Not necessarily. For instance, LCCs in Japan and Korea share the same airport and often the same terminal with the regular service airlines. Peach, a Japanese LCC for instance, has its own terminal at Kansai International airport (the key gateway out of west Japan), but flies into the regular airports and uses regular terminals elsewhere. Likewise, Korean LCC Jeju air too flies in and out of both Seoul Gimpo and Incheon airports.Deans wrote:LCC's internationally operate from airports in more remote areas and which have low operating costs.
That's because Japan, Korea (and Singapore) are smaller countries where land is very expensive and the cost of a 2nd airport (for LCC''s) would beKashi wrote:Not necessarily. For instance, LCCs in Japan and Korea share the same airport and often the same terminal with the regular service airlines. Peach, a Japanese LCC for instance, has its own terminal at Kansai International airport (the key gateway out of west Japan), but flies into the regular airports and uses regular terminals elsewhere. Likewise, Korean LCC Jeju air too flies in and out of both Seoul Gimpo and Incheon airports.Deans wrote:LCC's internationally operate from airports in more remote areas and which have low operating costs.
A different model perhaps?
That's correct. For e.g. ATF prices in India are among the highest in the world. LCC's cannot independently negotiate landing fees etc with airports, or ATF tax with State Govts.Singha wrote:air asia the biggest LCC in ASEAN region operates out of bangkok main airport and the LCC terminal in singapore(connected by a short monorail) not a separate airport.
in india I think aviation fuel cost + taxes, parking fees, AAI fees, security fees, terminal space rental, landing fees, UDF are quite high compared to low cost success stories abroad. everyone has their hooks into the airlines and LCCs are not given any concessions operationally.
Land cost is definitely a factor, but the big cities in Japan and Korea- Tokyo (Narita, Haneda) , Osaka (Kansai, Itami), Seoul (Incheon, Gimpo), have two airports anyway. It appears that LCCs in these countries have chosen to share the existing airports with other carriers or in a few case operate from dedicated terminals (Peach and Kansai). A few others such as Vanilla air, chose to fly to Kobe airport (a smaller airport on an artificial island) instead of Kansai.Deans wrote:That's because Japan, Korea (and Singapore) are smaller countries where land is very expensive and the cost of a 2nd airport (for LCC''s) would be higher than simply expanding existing infrastructure of the existing airport. LCC's are also not doing well in Asia (Air Asia only makes money in
Malaysia).
Peach is part of All Nippon Air and Jet Star the low cost division of Quantas. In such a situation a lot of overhead is shared and its difficult toKashi wrote: Land cost is definitely a factor, but the big cities in Japan and Korea- Tokyo (Narita, Haneda) , Osaka (Kansai, Itami), Seoul (Incheon, Gimpo), have two airports anyway. It appears that LCCs in these countries have chosen to share the existing airports with other carriers or in a few case operate from dedicated terminals (Peach and Kansai). A few others such as Vanilla air, chose to fly to Kobe airport (a smaller airport on an artificial island) instead of Kansai.
Regarding the LCCs not doing so well, I cannot say much about their financials, but it appears that Peach and Jet Star seem to be doing very well for themselves.
The highlighted part is not correct. The main airport in BKK is Suvarnabhumi, but Air Asia does not operate from here. They operate from the secondary airport Don Muang. Even this secondary airport has 2 runways (with a golf course b/w them!)Singha wrote:air asia the biggest LCC in ASEAN region operates out of bangkok main airport and the LCC terminal in singapore(connected by a short monorail) not a separate airport.
in india I think aviation fuel cost + taxes, parking fees, AAI fees, security fees, terminal space rental, landing fees, UDF are quite high compared to low cost success stories abroad. everyone has their hooks into the airlines and LCCs are not given any concessions operationally.
Not something to be proud of.Singha wrote:E.t. excerpt
The Economic TimesGET APP
With 1 flight in 65 secs, Mumbai busiest single-runway airport
By PTI | May 14, 2017, 02.15
Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway.
MUMBAI: The GVK group-run Mumbai airport has become the world's busiest amongst the single-runway facilities by handling 837 flights a day or one in 65 seconds on an average in fiscal 2017, taking over London's Gatwick airport that had 757 flights a day.
In terms of the number of passengers also, the city airport tops with 45.2 million people flying in and out in fiscal 2017 as against 44 million at Gatwick airport.
Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway. Besides, illegal squatters occupy nearly one-third of the airport land.
in 2008 when i visited , i took a air asia flight to phuket from suvarnabhumi. maybe things changed now.James wrote:The highlighted part is not correct. The main airport in BKK is Suvarnabhumi, but Air Asia does not operate from here. They operate from the secondary airport Don Muang. Even this secondary airport has 2 runways (with a golf course b/w them!)Singha wrote:air asia the biggest LCC in ASEAN region operates out of bangkok main airport and the LCC terminal in singapore(connected by a short monorail) not a separate airport.
in india I think aviation fuel cost + taxes, parking fees, AAI fees, security fees, terminal space rental, landing fees, UDF are quite high compared to low cost success stories abroad. everyone has their hooks into the airlines and LCCs are not given any concessions operationally.
The above article brakes my heart. The Chinese are doing everything they can to improve their foot print on major industries. I am sure India will sit back and watch the action as it unfolds. Since Khan/EU etc are clamping down on foreign labour heavily, perhaps it is time that folks in certain industries learn Mandarin so that we may try to gain employment in China in future!China’s Comac and Bombardier have held talks about a deal that could inject new life into the debt-laden Canadian company’s passenger jet business, several people familiar with the discussions said.
Comac is working with at least one bank on a tie-up that could involve China’s state-owned aircraft manufacturer making an investment in Bombardier’s commercial aerospace arm or taking a stake in the CSeries 100-150 seater passenger jet programme.
“Everything is on the table,” said a person with knowledge of the discussions.
The companies are understood to have been in discussions about a deal for some time, although no decision is imminent, the person said.
Comac did not respond to a request for comment. Bombardier also declined to comment.
The Canadian company, which has received nearly $3bn in publicly funded cash injections over the past two years, is exploring a similar industrial tie-up with Siemens for its rail business. An attempt in 2015 to rescue the costly CSeries programme by injecting it into a joint venture with Airbus collapsed in acrimony.
The Chinese approach to one of Canada’s most-prized industrial assets comes after at least one other government-controlled Chinese company launched talks with the group, which have since ended.
Bombardier has sought partners in its aerospace and transport divisions to mitigate the unexpectedly high costs of bringing its CSeries passenger jet into service, with the programme running billions over budget.
The jet is widely acknowledged to be highly efficient but it has struggled in recent months to win big new orders with both Boeing and Airbus cutting prices on their smallest aircraft.
The US Commerce Department on Thursday gave its go-ahead to an anti-dumping investigation against Bombardier requested by Boeing over the pricing of the Canadian company’s small single-aisle jet. The investigation could result in hefty tariffs and damage its appeal to the US market.
In recent weeks Comac has launched a test flight of its first short-haul commercial passenger aircraft aimed at competing with Airbus and Boeing. But the C919 is still mainly an assembly of parts from other foreign manufacturers.
Based on older-generation technology, and not yet certified by western aviation safety authorities, it is not expected to win many orders with airlines outside China in the near term.
Access to the CSeries programme and its new-generation aircraft technology would boost the development of Comac’s decades-long haul toward becoming an aviation giant.
Comac and Bombardier have been close for years. In 2012, the companies signed an agreement to find commonalities between the C919 and Bombardier’s CSeries to reduce training and maintenance costs.
The companies have floated the idea of co-operating to compete against Boeing and Airbus. Bombardier has also advised Comac on its smaller regional jet, the ARJ-21, which went into commercial operation last year following years of delay.
Comac is not the first Chinese group to pursue Bombardier. Avic, the state aerospace and defence group from which Comac was formed a decade ago, has held direct discussions with Bombardier in recent years, said one person involved in the talks.
Avic explored taking a stake in and a deal for control of the Canadian group but the discussions did not reach an advanced stage, partially due to leadership changes at Avic, the person said.
Regulatory problems also surfaced at the time “and there were concerns over how that would be navigated”, the person said. The apprehension probably stemmed from Avic’s deep ties to the Chinese military.
Comac was spun out of Avic in 2008 and Avic remains a significant shareholder in the company. Comac’s operations focus on civil aviation and it was unclear whether a potential deal between the two companies would be beset with similar problems.
Comac’s trajectory to the global market has been turbulent. The C919, the test flight of which came years behind schedule, is also 10-15 years behind the rest of the industry. Despite those problems, China is expected to become the world’s biggest aviation market by 2024. C919 already has 500 orders from Chinese airlines.
and some swiss aholes are allowed to shut down an operational airport in bangalore just to protect their revenue stream and better their business prospects by buggering an Indian public sector enterprise.??Neela wrote:Not something to be proud of.Singha wrote:E.t. excerpt
The Economic TimesGET APP
With 1 flight in 65 secs, Mumbai busiest single-runway airport
By PTI | May 14, 2017, 02.15
Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway.
MUMBAI: The GVK group-run Mumbai airport has become the world's busiest amongst the single-runway facilities by handling 837 flights a day or one in 65 seconds on an average in fiscal 2017, taking over London's Gatwick airport that had 757 flights a day.
In terms of the number of passengers also, the city airport tops with 45.2 million people flying in and out in fiscal 2017 as against 44 million at Gatwick airport.
Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway. Besides, illegal squatters occupy nearly one-third of the airport land.
Stress on aircraft crew, ground personnel, ATC etc. Wafer thin safety margins.
It would be interesting to see the safety & accident log at Mumbai Airport. And then compare with say Singapore.
Exactly! I don't even want to imagine the number of near-miss incidents in the skies around BOM. The sooner they build Navi Mumbai airport and now the Jewar airport that someone mentioned above the better. Cities with the population of Mumbai and Delhi+NCR having 1 airport is pathetic. Of course true to form we have started digging the well when we are dying of thirst.Neela wrote:Not something to be proud of.Singha wrote:E.t. excerpt
The Economic TimesGET APP
With 1 flight in 65 secs, Mumbai busiest single-runway airport
By PTI | May 14, 2017, 02.15
Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway.
MUMBAI: The GVK group-run Mumbai airport has become the world's busiest amongst the single-runway facilities by handling 837 flights a day or one in 65 seconds on an average in fiscal 2017, taking over London's Gatwick airport that had 757 flights a day.
In terms of the number of passengers also, the city airport tops with 45.2 million people flying in and out in fiscal 2017 as against 44 million at Gatwick airport.
Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway. Besides, illegal squatters occupy nearly one-third of the airport land.
Stress on aircraft crew, ground personnel, ATC etc. Wafer thin safety margins.
It would be interesting to see the safety & accident log at Mumbai Airport. And then compare with say Singapore.
The merged AI’s debt today stands at almost Rs50,000 crore. It reported a loss of about Rs3,587 crore in 2015-16. The employee ratio may have dipped to 120 per plane, but it’s still significantly higher than the global average of 100. AI spends almost a fifth of its revenue on pay and employee benefits while others like Jet Airways spend only about a tenth.
Welcome back, TF! Happy to see you back.Theo_Fidel wrote:If you truly love Air India, let it fly away
The merged AI’s debt today stands at almost Rs50,000 crore. It reported a loss of about Rs3,587 crore in 2015-16. The employee ratio may have dipped to 120 per plane, but it’s still significantly higher than the global average of 100. AI spends almost a fifth of its revenue on pay and employee benefits while others like Jet Airways spend only about a tenth.
welcome back. hope everything is fine.Singha wrote:a warm welcome Theo saar. a lot of people were asking about you post the flood in chennai and none could ever track you down.
You were in an Aspataal? What happened?Theo_Fidel wrote:Thx. Marten.
There is a 186 pages I have missed saar. What are you trying to do to me. I will need another 2 year vanvaas and another stay in aspatal to figure it all out.
Welcome Back Sir, Welcome back. Good to see you post. You had us worried. Hope all is fine?Theo_Fidel wrote:Thx. Marten.
There is a 186 pages I have missed saar. What are you trying to do to me. I will need another 2 year vanvaas and another stay in aspatal to figure it all out.
Ultimately money talks. It is high time we learn to channelize our economy strengths to help our interests advance. Indian aerospace industry (at least engineering & manf side) is on a recession or at least no growth since 2014...anyways, what is the point.Airbus and China intend to strengthen their technical and engineering ties following the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on aviation and aerospace.
Under the proposed deal, Airbus will help develop engineering skills and high-tech innovation in China, and further integrate Chinese suppliers into its supply chain.
That chain already includes a completion facility in Tianjin set to deliver its first A330 in September, and the A320 Family Aircraft Final Assembly Line Asia, which will start work on its first A320neo later this year.
Global supply chains have caused problems for airframers in the past, notably on the delayed 787 programme.
Yet Airbus would argue that, unlike Boeing, cross-border integration is in its DNA, given that the company was a multi-national project from the start.
Longer term, there is the question of technology transfer, and the extent to which Airbus is helping to create a rival by supporting Chinese aerospace development.
Here, current thinking seems to be that China is too large a market to ignore, and that some knowledge transfer is the price of access. Boeing is also constructing a completion and delivery centre, for the 737, in China.
“The success of the industrial cooperation between Airbus and China makes itself a model of high-tech and win-win partnership between China and Europe,” said Fabrice Brégier at the signing of the recent MoU.
Aviation Week’s 2017 Commercial Aviation Fleet & MRO Forecast predicts that the Chinese fleet will grow by 40% over the next five years to 4,900 aircraft, of which 48% will be Boeing and 41% Airbus.
Those aircraft are expected to generate $41 billion in MRO demand, with a heavy emphasis on component maintenance.