BOEING vs. AIRBUS

Whose plane is better?  For quite some time now, Boeing and Airbus have been providing the best flying jets for transporting passengers around the globe.  Both companies are one of the corporate world's greatest and most visible corporate rivalries, a set-to between manufacturers of world-class aircraft.  Since these two companies have dominant control over the aviation market, competition has been surely intense since the 1990s and that Airbus and Boeing will continue on with competing with building better efficient jets in every aspect. 
 
With Boeing and Airbus, duopoly will always remain in constant competition with their different builds of aircrafts.  The competition can be seen at any major airport on any given day: Boeing 747 jets take off while an A380 taxis in a few hundred yards away, or an easy Jet-owned A320 comes into land while one of Boeing 737s rapidly unloads its passengers in preparation for yet another return flight (Milmo, 2012).    The Boeing 737 is the U.S. company's most popular aircraft and competes with the Airbus A320 in the largest segment of the aircraft market, estimated at $2 trillion over 20 years (2012, Reuters).   However, not only these 4 jets have competition, but others as well.  Boeing 787 is the first commercial jet to use the lightweight but powerful batteries, which discharge a large amount of energy to support an increasing array of electrical equipment on modern aircraft but must be shielded from the risk of overcharging.  Airbus executives defended the use of lithium-ion batteries on the company's A350 passenger jet which is currently in development, saying its rival to the Dreamliner is designed differently.  The 787 relies on electrical power rather than traditional hydraulic and pneumatic systems for a larger number of aircraft systems.  Airbus are developing and releasing 3 models of their new A350 XWB in which is to be fuel efficient, light-weight designed and will also replace its own jets; A330-300, A320-200 and A340-600.  These new developments will take on Boeings 777 and 787 production line (2013, Terdiman).

Unlike Boeing, Airbus has its operating automated systems to fly its aircrafts using fly-by-wire technology through a side-stick controller; referencing a joystick.  Most likely, Airbus jets fly on its own and automatically knows what is needed for safety purposes.  Boeing will always have its manual operated systems but also with advanced technology to support them.  Pilots who fly Boeing jets will at least have the option to control the aircraft manually if needed.

With Airbus and Boeing manufacturing nearly all aircrafts for current merged airlines, they're both build for safety flying which is top priority.  Its hard to tell which aircraft is better built due to their technology incorporate into the systems each aircraft have for pilots and passengers.  In all, market wise, I think both companies has the opportunity advance further in the future with building different jets for certain purposes for each country, always compete-no matter what other company may come in to try compete against them and will always please the aviation industry for the air traveling public. 
 
Sources:

Airbus.  (2013).  Retrieved from:  http://www.airbus.com/innovation/proven-concepts/in-operations/fly-by-wire/

CNN.com (2013).  Boeing 747-8 vs. Airbus A390-- the airline giants face off.  Retrieved from:  http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/life/boeing-747-8-and-airbus-a380-death-match-152563

Milmo, D. (2012, July 7).  Boeing hard on the tail of Airbus in race for orders.  Retrieved from:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/08/boeing-hard-tail-airbus

Terdiman, D.  (2013, March 20).  It's airbus a350 vs. boeing's dreamliner in the war of wide-bodies.  Retrieved from:  http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57575248-235/its-airbus-a350-vs-boeings-dreamliner-in-the-war-of-the-wide-bodies/ 

Sequestration for better or worse...

Sequestration will soon be a plan if not done so already for numerous of agencies and departments within the U.S. for budget and debt issues through Congress.  With United States fiscal cliff, sequestration is a good place to start in cutting federal budget.  However, it will cause many furloughs in certain industries.  With that being said, the aviation industry will most likely be the 1st to get severely sequestered. 

According to a USA Governemnt article, sequestration, sometimes called the sequester, is a process that automatically cuts the federal budget across most departments and agencies.  Congress included the threat of sequestration in the Budget Control Act of 2011 as a way to encourage compromise on deficit reduction efforts.  "The President and Congress have had a year and a half to come up with a smarter way to reduce spending, and they have failed" (Widom, 2013).  With no solution in sight after March 1st 2013, the U.S. is now stuck with sequestration, which is likely to result in $85 billion in cuts over the next year alone, with reductions being split equally between defense and domestic spending (USA.gov, 2013).  In my opinion, I think that sequestration should have taken place years ago so that we would not be in so much debt crisis in today’s society.  As Charles Spence stated in his article, “FAA spending over the past few years has shown several areas where belts could be tightened to prevent any cuts in more important places. These include $179 million for FAA employee travel and $143 million a year to maintain a fleet of 46 aircraft. Thune and Shuster say the FAA has $2.7 billion in non-personnel operations costs that should have been examined before furloughs were even considered.”

While cuts are being made progressively in certain industries, sequestration has definitely become a plan for the the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to take advantage of for the aviation world. The FAA is planning for over $600 million in spending cuts for the 2013 fiscal year. The government agency will not only be furloughing workers, but will also be reducing funding and closing over 100 air traffic control facilities, eliminate the overnight shift for at least 60 facilities, and reduce preventive maintenance and support for all air traffic control equipment. The high standards of safety in the aviation industry will also be affected (Matteson, 2013). This will not only affect the efficiency of the aviation industry, but also the safety, aircraft operations and maintenance.  This will also include aviation managers as well in which I am a bit concerned about due to being a avaiation management graduate:

"The furloughs will include all management and non-management employees working within the Air Traffic Organization" (Matterson, 2013).

 

Sequestration will also cause more delays and higher airfare. The reduced number of ATC facilities limits the amount of aircraft that can be safely followed by the controllers. This will create more delays during peak times. These delays could regularly reach 90 minutes during peak times. The FAA expects that airlines will estimate these delays and will change their schedules and cancel flights so they do not go bankrupt. The consequence of these changes will be a rise in airline tickets to compensate for lost revenues.

From what I've gathered, I think the sequestration will not benefit the industries including aviation.   If the government  stop wasting billions of dollars on unnecessary needs, maybe the U.S. wouldn't be facing budgeting and furloughs in the U.S.  It’s obvious that aviation will take a big hit and that there will be a lot of disappointed employees losing their jobs and that I now will have to be cautious on what organization, department, and facility I choose to work in.

 

Sources:

Matteson, C.  (2013, March 9).  How sequestration affects aviation industry.  Retrieved from: http://voices.yahoo.com/how-sequestration-affects-aviation-industry-12040508.html

Spence, C.  (2013, March 2013).  Some question faa’s selection of sequestion cuts.  Retrieved from:  http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2013/03/some-question-faas-selection-of-sequestration-cuts/

Widom, W.  (2013, February 28). What is Sequestration & Why Politicians Are a Bunch of Windbags.  Retrieved from: http://www.chicagonow.com/families-in-the-loop/2013/02/what-is-sequestration-and-why-partisan-politics-is-wrong/

USA.gov.  (2013, February 26).  What is Sequestration?  Retrieved from:  http://blog.usa.gov/post/44071444149/what-is-sequestration

 

EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS)

Burning less fossil fuels is definitely something to be concerned about in the future.  Looking for cost efficient traveling is always in research to find ways to reduce the amount carbon emissions produced. However, in the aviation world (planes), I honestly think that there should be a solution for carbon emissions due to the fact that flying is one major choice from all travelers for fast arrivals to their destinations.  But the question is, do we yet have the proper technology to reduce air traffic carbon emissions?  Meanwhile, airlines may get taxed for and may cause downfalls of passengers and flight crew.

The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is the first international trading system for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the world and is a cornerstone of the EU’s efforts to address the issue of climate change.  EU-ETS is a cap-trade system that the principle of operations involves the allocation and trading of emission allowances. Every one allowance represents one ton of carbon dioxide. The capping, or maximum, of emissions is set and regulated by the European government. Most airlines will get an allotted amount accordingly.  Additional allowances are distributed to operators through trade. The EU-ETS is designed to reduce the total amount of emissions in multiple industries across the European continent (European Commission, 2013)). The goal is to successfully do this in a cost effective way and by allowing numerous companies to trade allowances, they will be able to potentially generate income and competition between joining countries.  With that being said, its hard to see how the ETS helps the environment when there is no mandate on how the funds collected can be spent.

President has made it clear that he wants change in the aviation world facing EU-ETS.  According to Aaron Karp article, President Obama signed into law last year prohibiting US airlines from participating in the European Union’s (EU) Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).  It states:

"the transportation secretary can bar US carriers from participating in the EU ETS if doing so would be “in the public interest,” particularly taking into account “the impacts on US consumers, US carriers and US operators; the impacts on the economic, energy and environmental security of the United States; and the impacts on US foreign relations, including existing international commitments.” (Karp, 2012)

The U.S. and other countries are opposed in the Emissions Trading System because of taxes and other fees added to air carriers for flying. This will cause airlines to not make much profit and travelers will not considering traveling as much as they use to.  Starting from an airport that may be outside of Europe by a great distance and charging the airline for that trip if they enter European airspace. Many nations, including the US, have opposed this idea. This shows that their is a common goal for all to reduce the total amount of emissions throughout globe.

Solutions from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) should involve in a precise way of charging the allocations globally. If EU-ETS would want reduction in emissions through their airspace, then i think it should be their airspace and their airspace ONLY that should be charged. I think the difficult part will be when different nations will required different charges based on traffic, aircraft, and capabilities. Another way to possibly make a positive change will be to continue the development of reduce carbon-emitting engines. We have made great advances in limiting the total amount of emissions and I feel that the major countries of the world should focus on cleaner developments of their aircraft, rather than a focus on increasing profits.  The only issue now is not having the technology to to create a more efficient, quiet and cleaner burning engine in which I think we do but maybe too costly to have it done as of yet.


Sources: