Aviation Flight and Management Opportunities

So far, through guest speakers and discussions, we have explored airlines, the cargo industry, airport management, air traffic control and a little but of general aviation. I would like you to explore some of the other sectors of aviation by answering the following questions:

1) Find a corporate aviation department. Give basic details about the company, including both flight and management opportunities for employment. List any current jobs that may be available with that company.

Before I can expound upon the Corporate Aviation department/company I selected for the purposes of this post, I am compelled to explain what Corporate aviation is and what it entails. By definition, Corporate aviation (also commonly referred to as Business aviation) is the use of aircraft by companies for the transport of passengers or goods for business purposes. The aircraft used in Corporate aviation operations are generally not available for public hire (McMurchie 2016). According to McMurchie (2016), the primary purpose Corporate aviation serves is to meet the needs of businesses (or business professionals) that utilize personal air transportation to travel from point A to B. Corporate aviation is unique in this regard because said businesses and business professionals utilize personal air transportation (usually small twin-engine aircraft and/or helicopters) as opposed to utilizing commercial air carriers for their traveling needs. The primary reason why Corporate aviation has gained an immense amount of popularity, specifically with businesses and associated professionals, is because of the ‘travel freedom’, flexibility, and convenience it provides them. In comparison to traveling via commercial air, which can cause unnecessary inconveniences, stress, and not to mention, does not allow much flight scheduling flexibility, Corporate aviation is ideal for businesses and business professionals who are ‘frequent flyers’ and possess irregular schedules.

As I mentioned previously, Corporate aviation is often called and/or synonymous with Business aviation. That said, Business aviation is defined as the use of any “general aviation” aircraft for a business purpose. Furthermore, the FAA defines General Aviation as all flights that are not conducted by the military or the scheduled airlines (i.e. Part 121 operators) (National Business Aviation Association [NBAA], 2017). Thereby, Corporate aviation is a facet of the General Aviation sector, which focuses on the business use of aircraft and helicopters. One of the most prominent and notable supporters and promoters of Corporate/Business aviation is the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). According to the NBAA (2017), the NBAA was founded in 1947, is based in Washington, D.C., and their purpose is to foster an environment that allows business (corporate) aviation to thrive within the United States and worldwide. Holistically speaking, the purpose of the NBAA is to lead the business/corporate sector of aviation in addition to supporting and promoting other General Aviation aircraft (or companies) to enhance their overall efficiency, productivity, safety, and success.

The Corporate aviation company I chose to focus this post on is Corporate Eagle. Corporate Eagle is a Michigan-based Corporate (Business) aviation company that was founded in 1982, by Rick Nini and another individual. Before founding Corporate Eagle, Rick Nini was a corporate pilot, and now he is the present-day President and CEO of the company (Corporate Eagle 2017). Corporate Eagle is the largest and longest-serving provider of fractional and managed business aviation in the state of Michigan. According to Corporate Eagle (2017), their vision is to create an exemplary experience for members, every time, without compromise. Corporate Eagle is a Southeast Michigan-based company composed of 57 full-time aviation professionals, 31 of which are pilots. Corporate Eagle initially started as a partnership known as Tradewinds Aircraft Sales, whose purpose was to purchase and sell used, light aircraft in 1980. In 1982, the partnership incorporated, becoming Tradewinds Aviation, Inc.; following the incorporation, the company acquired a (financially) struggling flight school known as Great Lakes Aero. It was with this acquisition of said flight school that the initial ‘vision’ or mission to become a top-tier aviation operation and the largest provider within Southeast Michigan was born (Corporate Eagle 2017). Three years later in 1985, Rick Nini transitioned out of his corporate piloting career to became the President of Tradewinds Aviation Inc. In 2008, Tradewinds Aviation Inc., was renamed to Corporate Eagle Management Services, Inc., or Corporate Eagle for short. According to Corporate Eagle (2017), the purpose of the name change was to better reflect the company’s service and vision for the future in efforts to adequately meet the increasing demand for the fractional share program. The most recent accomplishment and stride in the corporate sector and aviation industry the company has made occurred in 2015, with the launch of its first Falcon 200 fractional program aircraft.

Since Corporate Eagle is a prominent company with the Corporate/Business sector of aviation in addition to being both a supporter and promoter of General Aviation, the company always has job opportunities available, which are not only posted on their website, but are also disseminated to numerous collegiate aviation programs. Corporate Eagle offers employment opportunities for both aviation flight and management students, which are usually sent to the respective majors via email by the program advisor. Additionally, Corporate Eagle makes their various employment opportunities available during their attendance at collegiate career fairs. Last year (and I presume this year as well), Corporate Eagle (along with 40-50 other aviation organizations) were present at Western Michigan University’s (WMU) career fair, which is better known as ‘Aviation Outlook Day’. The purpose of ‘Aviation Outlook Day’ is to help students connect with various aviation organizations and professionals, discuss career options, and learn about the needs of the industry while having fun doing it (Western Michigan University [WMU], 2017). During this time, representatives from both the flight and management side of the company are present and talk to students about their future career goals, the company’s available employment opportunities, and even offer on-the-spot interviews for said opportunities. There are currently two employment opportunities (one for flight students and one for management students) being offered by Corporate Eagle, of which can be found on their website (and on WMU’s job blog). The two employment opportunities being offered as follows:

The employment opportunity suited more towards aviation management students is as follows:

·      Job Title: Aviation Company Parts and Supplies Purchasing Agent

o   Position Summary:

§  Our business is growing rapidly. We will be soon adding more aircraft to our fleet and are now seeking additional individuals to join our team.  Our fleet currently consists of 14 aircraft (3 x King Air B200, 1 Hawker 700, 4 x 800XP, 1 Hawker 900XP and 5 x Falcon 2000) with operations based at Oakland County International Airport (KPTK)

o   Responsibilities/Duties:

§  Purchasing parts and supplies for Corporate Eagle’s fleet of aircraft

§  Purchasing office and company supplies as needed

§  Maintain a clean and neat and organized parts room

§  Maintain accurate count of all parts and supplies

§  Maintain OSHA compliance an MSDS manuals

o   Location: Waterford, MI

o   Minimum Qualifications:

§  Great Plains accounting software knowledge

§  Computer and IT knowledge a plus

§  Must have a clean driving record

§  Must pass Drug and Alcohol screening

§  Must pass a criminal background check

The employment opportunity suited more towards aviation flight students is as follows:

·      Job Title: Flight Crewmember (First Officer)

o   Position Summary:

§  Our business is growing rapidly. We will be soon adding more aircraft to our fleet and are now seeking additional individuals to join our team of professional pilots for flight duty in unscheduled FARs 91K and 135 operations. Our fleet currently consists of 14 aircraft (3 x King Air B200, 1 x Hawker 700A, 4 x Hawker 800XP, 1 x Hawker 900XP and 4 x Falcon 2000) with operations based at Oakland County International Airport (KPTK). Responsibilities will include flight and ground duty as required flight crewmember (Second-In-Command) in domestic and international operations. Essential attributes candidate(s) must possess include the ability to provide exceptional personal concierge services to our private Members, maintain a high level of technical competence and professionalism, and perform nominal office duties as required/directed. Advancement to Captain occurs based on a scheduled pilot performance-based progression plan. All flight crewmembers are cross-qualified in two of the three types of aircraft we operate. Initial equipment training may be in any of the three aircraft types operated (dependent on immediate need), with training in a second type to follow six months later.

o   Location: Waterford, MI

o   Minimum Qualifications:

§  College Graduate

§  Bachelor’s Degree Pilot Certificate and Ratings

§  Commercial Pilot Certificate

§  Instrument Rating

§  Multi-Engine Rating 

§  Flight Instructor

§  Single Engine (airplane)

§  Instrument (airplane)

§  Multi-Engine (airplane)

§  FAA Second Class Medical Certificate (with ability to obtain First Class)

§  Flight Experience:

·      Total Time ≈ 1000 hours

·      Dual Given ≈ 250 hours

§  Other miscellaneous requirements:

·      Passport

·      FCC Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit

o   Preferred Qualifications:

§  College Graduate or Bachelor’s Degree

§  Aviation/Aeronautics related Major Pilot Certificates and Ratings

§  Airline Transport Pilot Certificate (or ATP written test and ability to immediately take Practical Test for ATP Certificate)

§  Flight Instructor or Single Engine (airplane) o Instrument (airplane) or Multi-Engine (airplane)

§  FAA First Class Medical Certificate (with ability to maintain) Flight Experience

§  Total Time ≈ 1200 hours • Dual Given o ≈ 500 hours ▪ Primary & Advanced ▪ ≈ 50-hour Multi-Engine

§  Other miscellaneous requirements:
• Passport
• FCC Restricted Radiotelephone Operator Permit

The aforementioned employment opportunities offered by Corporate Eagle were provided by and retrieved from websites operated by Corporate Eagle (2017) and Western Michigan University (2017); additional information pertaining to them can be found in the references section below.

3) For management students, describe a job that could be potential employment opportunities for you in the general aviation sector.

As opposed to the aviation flight students whose employment opportunities primarily emphasize in-flight operations or ‘flight-line’ responsibilities, there are a vast number of employment opportunities that aviation management students can pursue within the General Aviation sector. The aviation management major tends to provide more job flexibility and options than the flight major. For instance, as a management major, I can seek employment opportunities pertaining to aviation operations such as an Aircraft Dispatcher, Air Traffic Controller, or Crew Scheduler. As I stated earlier, the NBAA is an instrumental supporter and promoter of both Corporate/Business and General aviation. As a promoter of this sector, the NBAA posts yearly internships that are available for both flight and management students, which usually begin in May or June and last until August.

That said, a position that could transpire into a potential employment opportunity for me within the General aviation sector is as a Summer Operations Intern for the NBAA. The Summer Operations Intern is a full-time position, who reports to the Senior Manager of Security and Facilitation, is located in Washington D.C., and plays an integral role in the Operations division of the NBAA. According to the NBAA (2017), the purpose of the Operations Intern is to provide an undergraduate college student who possesses an interest in business (corporate) aviation with exposure to the various facets of NBAA operations. The primary role of the intern is to assist subject matter experts with research activities on regulatory and technical issues related to the operation of business aircraft in addition to performing other administrative tasks pertinent to business operations. Other essential duties and responsibilities associated with the internship position include, but are not limited to, the following:

·      Research with legislative, regulatory, technical, and aviation information to assist with responding to member inquiries or creating new resources for the NBAA website

·      Assists with special projects, including research and analysis of flight operations data, surveys of members and NBAA committee projects/deliverables

·      Assists Operations division with special projects as needed

·      Participates in customer service initiatives

·      Reviews NBAA website content for accuracy and makes suggestions for potential updates with direction from Operations division staff

There are several additional essential duties and responsibilities expected of the position, but the aforementioned responsibilities provide a sufficient scope of the day-to-day duties. The desired qualifications of an applicant consist of said applicant having business aviation experience in a flight department or charter operation, possessing an FAA private pilot or aircraft dispatcher’s certificate, and be an aviation major. Since I meet and/or exceed all the required and desired qualifications and have ample experience working for a Part 121 carrier, I strongly believe that this is a job that could transpire into a potential career (employment) opportunity if I am selected for the position.

An additional position I feel could transpire into a potential employment opportunity for me within the General aviation sector is as a Summer Conferences and Seminars Intern for the NBAA. The Summer Conferences and Seminars Intern is a full-time position, who reports to the Senior Manager of Conferences and Seminars, is located in Washington D.C., and plays an integral role in the Operations division, specifically supporting the Conferences and Seminars sector of the NBAA. According to the NBAA (2017), the purpose of the Conferences and Seminars Intern is to provide an undergraduate or graduate college student with exposure to the various aspects of working in a trade association. The Conferences and Seminars intern will work primarily with the NBAA’s Operations division to support the Senior Manager of Conferences and Seminars in addition to assisting in the completion of projects for other divisions. Other essential duties and responsibilities associated with the internship position include, but are not limited to, the following:

·      Provide administrative support to the Operations division

·      Coordinate request for proposal documents for conference hotels, city searches and/or AV needs

·      Order promotional items and supplies for events

·      Assist with the coordination of committee meetings

·      Provide research for future year budgeting

There are several additional essential duties and responsibilities expected of the position, but the aforementioned responsibilities provide a sufficient scope of the day-to-day duties. The only desired qualification consists of having experience in creating and/or editing promotional video content. Since I meet and/or exceed all the required and desired qualifications and have ample experience working for a Part 121 carrier, I strongly believe that this a job that could transpire into a potential career (employment) opportunity if I am selected for the position.

Both of the previously mentioned employment opportunities excite me because they are encompassed within the business/corporate aviation sector and are heavily associated with the NBAA. I am also excited because both positions appear to be very interesting and would provide me with the opportunity to network with aviation professionals and political officials in Washington D.C., which is an experience in and of itself. These opportunities, let alone anything the General aviation sector has to offer (especially those in Washington D.C.), appear to be extremely promising with respects to career perpetuation and longevity, ergo another reason why I am excited and feel they could transpire into potential employment opportunities. That said, I will more than likely pursue all the employment opportunities the NBAA has to offer with hopes of attaining at least one. If I am selected for a position, it would be a phenomenal way to end the winter semester and start my summer.

All the information related to the duties and responsibilities associated with the two previously mentioned employment opportunities were provided courtesy of the NBAA (2017); any additional information pertaining to them can be found within the references section below.

5) For management students, find two positions other than GA, airlines, airport management or corporate that you may be qualified for upon graduation.

Aside from General Aviation, the airlines, airport management, or corporate aviation that I may be qualified for upon graduation are a Remote Pilot Operator and Air Traffic Services intern.

The Remote Pilot Operator position is offered by a company named SAIC, located in Minneapolis, MN, and is a part-time position for the day-shift. The Remote Pilot Operator (RPO) job entails the operator utilizing a combination of Cathode Ray Tube (CRT), keyboard, and voice communication system (VCS) to simulate the actions and communication of pilots and remote ATC facilities during medium and high-fidelity training exercises. Additionally, RPOs receive voice commands from students input proper entries into the automated system to simulate pilot actions, translate displayed information into the appropriate ATC terminology, and respond to the operator via VCS (SAIC 2017). According to (SAIC 2017), to satisfy the basic qualifications for this position, a candidate must possess a high school diploma, demonstrate a minimum keyboard speed of 40wpm with 90% accuracy, the ability to read and interpret materials such as diagrams and manuals, and be able to speak clearly. The operator would work in air traffic facilities of varying sizes to safely separate more than 50,000 aircraft in and throughout the National Airspace System (NAS) each day. To ensure adequate training and efficiency as an air traffic service provider, the FAA trains new air traffic control specialists and provides recurrent training to said specialists to ensure proficiency.

An additional position I may be qualified for upon graduation is an internship offered by the NBAA, but is focused entirely on Air Traffic Services. According to the NBAA (2017), the purpose of the Air Traffic Services position is to provide an undergraduate college student with exposure to the various facets of Air Traffic Services holistically and within the NBAA. Primarily, the Air Traffic Services intern will assist with the day-to-day functions and air traffic issues that impact NBAA member companies as well as gain exposure to vast FAA and NBAA computer programs in efforts to gain proficiency working the National Airspace System. Upon completion of the internship, said student will possess a solid foundation and working knowledge of traffic flow management and the Collaborative Decision Making (CDM) process (NBAA 2017). The location of this internship is in an actual FAA Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) in Warrenton, VA. The desired qualifications an applicant should have wanting this positon include business aviation experience (in a flight department or charter operation), an FAA private pilot certificate or dispatcher’s license, and a major in aviation (preferably in an ATC or aircraft dispatch program). Since I meet and/or exceed all the desired qualifications and have a moderate interest in ATC, this position is a viable opportunity that I am qualified for.

6) For both flight and management students, has this assignment changed your current plans? Why or why not?

In all honesty, this assignment has not changed my current and/or post-graduation plans. I say this assignment has not changed my current plans because prior to completing this assignment I already knew and possessed a solid plan as to what my post-graduation plans/intentions were. In fact, I have been working on solidifying said plans since the beginning of the 2016-17 academic year. Thereby, since the start of the Winter 2017 semester, my plans have only altered slightly, but the sequence of events have not. However, I can say this assignment was beneficial as it allowed me to explore other areas of interest and unearth new information pertinent to the industry I would not have known or learned otherwise. This assignment also provided me with the opportunity to further research viable corporate/business companies and the employment opportunities they are offering to college students like myself, namely Corporate Eagle and the NBAA. I always possessed an interest in the corporate/business sector of aviation and would like to begin my career as a First Officer (FO) for a company similar to Corporate Eagle or Amway Aviation. The corporate/business sector of aviation has always intrigued me because of the sleekly unique aircraft, hospitable environment, and various travel locations (both domestic and international) it offers pilots.

My current post-graduation plans include beginning my MBA program at Central Michigan University in the summer (ideally in August/September) with hopes of completing it in one calendar year. Additionally, I plan to obtain employment with either Kalitta Air, USAJet, or a legacy carrier as an Aircraft Dispatcher to utilize my certificate, or as a management (operations) intern with an emphasis on Safety or Flight. Once I secure employment within one of the three previously mentioned air carriers, I plan to gain experience within the Part 121/135 environment and progress to attain an upper-level management positon such as the Director of Operations (DOO). Furthermore, I plan to work both my current job and any aviation-related intern position I am offered while going to graduate school so I can amass funds to continue my flight training and earn the remainder of my ratings. As I anticipate this process of earning money and ratings will take three to five years, I will gain the necessary experience, knowledge, and contacts within the industry to ensure a relatively easy transition into an FO position within the corporate/business sector, which is where I plan to retire. Therefore, to serve as a synopsis of my post-graduation plans (within the next 12-36 months), I plan to start my MBA program at CMU, obtain an internship at a Part 121/135 air carrier to gain experience, and continue my flight training so I can transition into the flight deck of a corporate carrier. Thus, albeit this assignment was both refreshing and interesting as it allowed me to extensively research opportunities outside of the ones covered by this course previously, my current (post-graduate) plans have not been altered.

References required. Most likely, they will be links to the companies.

References

Corporate Eagle. (2017). A history of excellence. Corporate Eagle. Retrieved from http://www.corporateeagle.com/

McMurchie, J. (2016). What is Corporate Aviation. eHow. Retrieved from http://www.ehow.com/facts_6849315_corporate-aviation_.html

National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). (2017). Career opportunities: summer intern, air traffic services (381). NBAA. Retrieved from https://career4.successfactors.com/career?career%5fns=job%5flisting&company=nbaa&navBarLevel=JOB%5fSEARCH&rcm%5fsite%5flocale=en%5fUS&career_job_req_id=381&selected_lang=en_US&jobAlertController_jobAlertId=&jobAlertController_jobAlertName=&_s.crb=66ABaHFQMsBBlils9HAkOHCjORE%3d

National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). (2017). Career opportunities: summer intern, conferences and seminars (401). NBAA. Retrieved from

National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). (2017). Career opportunities: summer intern, operations (301). NBAA. Retrieved from https://career4.successfactors.com/career?career%5fns=job%5flisting&company=nbaa&navBarLevel=JOB%5fSEARCH&rcm%5fsite%5flocale=en%5fUS&career_job_req_id=401&selected_lang=en_US&jobAlertController_jobAlertId=&jobAlertController_jobAlertName=&_s.crb=cTewO7gUyUVWMBdxWwgU2%2bks0Ko%3d https://career4.successfactors.com/career?career%5fns=job%5flisting&company=nbaa&navBarLevel=JOB%5fSEARCH&rcm%5fsite%5flocale=en%5fUS&career_job_req_id=301&selected_lang=en_US&jobAlertController_jobAlertId=&jobAlertController_jobAlertName=&_s.crb=bS72kMVGTzDW1yB7qrU219cXHqI%3d

National Business Aviation Association (NBAA). (2017). What is Business Aviation. National Business Aviation Association. Retrieved from https://www.nbaa.org/business-aviation/

SAIC. (2017). Remote pilot operator. SAIC. Retrieved from https://jobs.saic.com/job/Minneapolis-%28MSP%29-Remote-Pilot-Operator-M98-Job-MN-55401/391204500/?feedId=4&utm_source=Indeed

Western Michigan University (WMU). (2017). Aviation Outlook Day. College of Aviation. Retrieved from https://wmich.edu/aviation/jobs/aviationoutlookday

Western Michigan University (WMU). (2017). Newest postings!. Western Michigan University. Retrieved from http://hubspot.aviation.wmich.edu/jobs-scholarships-and-internship-postings

Global Airlines - Not A Fair Playing Ground, But Necessary

US Airlines are known for attacking foreign long-haul carriers, often attributing their success solely to the government subsidies that these carriers receive. Please answer the following questions:

1) Describe the US-UAE Open Skies Agreement. List and describe two long-haul carriers that are a part of this agreement that also receive government subsidies.

Open Skies agreements are bilateral agreements that the U.S. Government negotiates with other countries (and in this case the UAE) to provide rights for (typically foreign) airlines to offer air transportation services such as international passenger and cargo services (U.S. Department of State 2017). The overall goal of these Open Skies agreements are to promote consumerism, competition, and growth of both the air transportation industry and the U.S. economy. Currently, experts estimate that Open Skies agreements will increase the annual economic consumer gains by approximately $4 billion, which is a substantial increase and will only benefit the U.S. economy (U.S. Department of State 2017). This promotion and stimulation of the industry (and economy) is facilitated through the expansion of international passenger and cargo flights by eliminating the concept of governmental control in commercial airline decisions. These decisions made by the commercial airlines are focused around routes, capacity, and pricing. Thus, the reason why the commercial airlines want to remove the notion of governmental control in their decision-making process is so that they (the commercial airlines) can provide more affordable, passenger friendly and convenient, and efficient/effective air transport services to the traveling public. Consequently, (without government control), the promotion of increased travel and trade, high-quality job creation, and economic growth will transpire, ergo industry- and U.S. economy wide stimulation will occur. From a general perspective, Open Skies agreements serve many purposes that benefit the U.S. in terms of finances and safety. Specifically, these agreements assist in the expansion of cooperative marketing opportunities between airlines, aid in the liberalization of charter regulations, improve flexibility for airlines operations, and ensure both governments (e.g. the U.S. and UAE) commit and maintain to a high level of safety and security to sustain the air transport continuity (U.S. Department of State 2017).

Open Skies agreements have been in existence since 1992, and has grown significantly since then; currently, the U.S. has Open Skies agreements with 120 foreign partners. More recently, the U.S. finalized agreements with several counties such as Ukraine, Serbia, Cote d’ Ivoire, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and several other countries (U.S. Department of State 2017). Additionally, the U.S. finalized a modernized air transport agreement with Mexico, of which seems to be a promising feat and will potentially provide both an economic and working relationship benefit for the counties involved (i.e. U.S. and Mexico).

Traditionally, the U.S. Open Skies agreements have been directly correlated and/or associated with the concept of airline globalization, and for good reason. These agreements, at their essence, provide maximum operational flexibility for all airlines involved (U.S. Department of State 2017). Therefore, by allowing the involved airlines unlimited access to each other’s markets, which includes providing services to intermediate locations, airline globalization and foreign relations are enhanced because of this notion of ‘route flexibility’ that is created by the agreements. However, these bilateral Open Skies agreements are not the only ‘contracts’ the U.S. has established. The U.S. established and negotiated two multilateral agreements, one in 2001, and the other in 2007. The Multilateral Agreement on the Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT) occurred in 2001, and was formed with New Zealand, Singapore, Brunei, Chile, Samoa, Tonga, and Mongolia (U.S. Department of State 2017). The second multilateral agreement occurred in 2007, and is known as the Air Transport Agreement with the European Community. This agreement consists of negotiations between the U.S. and the European Community, including its 27 member states.

The US-UAE Open Skies Agreement is one that is causing a tremendous amount of controversy within the aviation industry, especially the commercial facet. The primary companies spearheading the US-UAE agreement are Delta Air Lines, United, and American, who are also known as the ‘Big 3’. The United Arab Emirates, or UAE, is a Constitutional Federation composed of seven emirates, which are as follows: Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm Al Quwain, Ras Al Khaimah, and Fujairah (UAE Government 2017). The US-UAE Open Skies Agreement is essentially a bilateral contract between the U.S. and the seven emirates previously mentioned. This agreement between these two governments allows their respective air carriers to travel in/through and provide air carrier services within each other’s country with no specified limit. Essentially, the US-UAE Open Skies agreement grants the U.S. unlimited access and the right to fly in/through, establish routes, and service the traveling public community within the seven emirates composing the UAE, and allows the three major UAE airlines to do the same in the U.S. The fact that the three major UAE airlines, namely Emirates, Etihad Airlines and Qatar Airways are given unlimited access in terms of ‘route freedom’ within the U.S. and are subsidized for it, is the primary reason why U.S carriers such as Delta Air Lines are opposing the Open Skies agreements.

Two long-haul carriers that are a part of the US-UAE Open Skies agreement and receive government subsidies are Emirates and Qatar Airways. As mentioned previously, because of the US-UAE agreement, long-haul carriers like Emirates and Qatar can fly into the U.S. and service the traveling public as much as they want as well as receive government subsidies for doing so, which has imposed an unfair advantage on U.S. carriers. For instance, because of the US-UAE agreement, Emirates can fly/service nine U.S. cities from its hub located in Dubai, while Delta Air Lines and United each only have one (daily) flight to Dubai and none to Abu Dhabi (Mouawad 2015). It is this significantly large 9:1 ratio that has U.S. carriers like Delta Air Lines and United extremely upset and leading the charge against the Open Skies agreement because of the disadvantage U.S. carriers are facing, primarily manifesting in the forms of financial decline and increased competition. According to Mouawad (2015), the first Open-Skies agreements formed between the U.S. and the UAE occurred in 1999. In 2014, the U.S. established a customs and immigration pre-clearance facility in the Abu Dhabi airport. The establishment of a customs facility enables passengers flying into the U.S. to clear immigration prior to the flight (Mouawad 2015). This decision to create a customs and pre-screening facility did not sit well with U.S. carriers, and is yet another reason for their opposition. Their frustration however, is warranted because the new facility essentially allows passengers to ‘circumvent’ TSA and/or other security protocol, which notably reduces the security and safety of the air carriers, airport personnel, and traveling public.

The first of the two long-haul carriers that are currently a part of the US-UAE Open-Skies agreement and receiving a government subsidy is Emirates. According to Culp (2016), Emirates Airlines is an airline that is (now) entirely owned and operated by the Government of Dubai, provides commercial passenger service, is based out of Dubai, and has been in existence since 1985. Emirates Airlines currently provides air transport services to numerous cities on six continents and offers nonstop flights from Dubai to several U.S. cities such as New York, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. To facilitate and accommodate the needs of its consumer base, Emirates Airlines uses a fleet composed of the Boeing 777, Airbus A330, and Airbus A340 (Culp 2016). The other, long-haul carrier that is currently a part of the US-UAE Open-Skies agreement and receives a government subsidy is Qatar Airways. Established in 1997, Qatar Airways is the national carrier for the State of Qatar in addition to being one of the fastest growing airlines operating one the youngest fleets in the world (Qatar Airways 2017). Qatar Airways provides air carrier services to over 150 destinations, some of which include South Asia, South America, and the Asian Pacific. To date, Qatar Airways fulfills its duties as an air carrier (both passenger and cargo) via operation of 194 total aircraft, 109 of which being Airbus aircraft, while the remaining 85 aircraft are Boeing. This number however, does not include the airlines 11 Bombardier and Gulfstream aircraft utilized for corporate purposes only (Qatar Airways 2017). With that many aircraft and destinations, a substantial number of employees are necessary to ensure smooth operations, of which Qatar Airways employs more than 44,000 employees (worldwide), 30,000 being airline personnel.

2) Do any long-haul US carriers receive subsidies or have received subsidies in the past? If so, which airlines? Why?

I do not believe that there are any current long-haul U.S. carriers receiving government subsidies, however the same cannot be said for those in the past. When the concept of commercial aviation first transpired, it was in the form of ‘air mail’. The Airmail, or Kelly Act of 1925, authorized the United States Postal Service (USPS) to contract air mail routes (CAM routes) to private airlines in order to deliver the mail (Leff 2016). The airlines were paid based off how much mail (in terms of weight) they could carry, which led to said airlines mailing object such as bricks, in efforts to increase their revenues. The most notable airlines that were awarded the initial CAM route contracts from the Airmail Act of 1925, were American Airways (later American Airlines) and United Aircraft (later United Airlines). After the Air Mail Act of 1930, and the subsequent ‘Spoils Conference’, the Postmaster General consolidated the various CAM routes and awarded the routes to only three carriers, which significantly reduced the competition. The airlines that were awarded the routes were as follows: United Airlines (northern route), Transcontinental and Western Air (TWA; mid-US route), and American Airways (later American Airlines; southern route) (AvStop.com 2017). Furthermore, according to Leff (2016), American Airlines received governmental support (i.e. a subsidy) from the Roosevelt Administration’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation during its first major aircraft order. Therefore, two of the three long-haul U.S. carriers, namely United and American Airlines were essentially born and nurtured from varying government subsidies during the 1930’s for operating the CAM routes and delivering mail (which at first was based on weight, then later, volume). The operation of the CAM routes back in the thirties by United and American airlines during their infancy denotes the origins of ‘commercial aviation’ as we know it today.

3) Another complaint is that long-haul foreign carriers have made aircraft purchases at "below market interest rates" that are unavailable to US carriers. How is this possible? Please discuss the Export-Import Bank.

Long-haul foreign carriers are able to make aircraft purchases at "below market interest rates" that are unavailable to U.S. carriers because of how the Export-Import Bank of the United States is set up regarding the exclusive allocation of ‘special interest rates’ to foreign carriers. The Export-Import Bank of the United States, or EXIM, is an independent, self-sustaining agency with an 82-year record of supporting American jobs via financing the export of U.S. goods and services (Export-Import Bank of the United States 2016). It is because of the policies and procedures governing the EXIM bank that foreign-owned carriers are able to purchase aircraft at rates that are significantly below the market interest rate (i.e. the rate U.S. carriers must pay). Specifically, the attainment of such low interest rates by foreign-carriers is made possible through the new aviation large aircraft policy. This policy enables EXIM to finance the export of U.S. produced goods (e.g. aircraft) and services for aftermarket (i.e. post-manufacturing) use on foreign-manufactured large aircraft for U.S. exporters of all sizes (Export-Import Bank of the United States 2016). In addition to receiving low market interest rates, foreign-owned carriers, especially those in the Gulf regions, do not pay taxes at all, as opposed to U.S. air carriers who pay relatively high tax rates (Harress 2013). Thus, because of EXIM policies, there are low rate interest loans that are only available to foreign-owned airlines, which U.S. carriers do not think is fair since they are not only required to pay a high tax rate (while foreign-carriers are not taxed), but they are also only eligible for the (relatively high) ‘market rate’ interest loans.

4) Are there any current issues with Norwegian International Airlines and the Open Skies Agreement?

Norwegian Air Shuttle (the parent company of Norwegian International Airlines) faced a tremendous amount of opposition from U.S. air carriers and their respective lobby groups during their request to expand low-cost flight from Europe and Asia (Mouawad 2015). Their appeal to the U.S. Department of State to be granted an Open Skies agreement received a considerable amount of pushback and negativity from U.S. carriers, primarily the ‘big 3’ (e.g. Delta Air Lines, United, and American), so much in fact that their application was delayed. Initially, Norwegian International Airlines applied to the U.S. Department of State for an Open Skies agreement in December 2013, as its parent company, Norwegian Air Shuttle (a low-cost carrier) already established several routes at U.S. airports (Jansen 2016). Typically, when a foreign-carrier applies for an agreement, the process is rather fastidious, but requires nothing out of the ordinary. However, in the case of Norwegian International Airlines (i.e. Norwegian Air Shuttle), this process was not seamless and was delayed by accusations from the ‘big 3’, who claimed the Norwegian airline was attempting to bypass labor and safety laws (Jansen 2016). According to Jansen (2016), this attempted ‘bypass’ would be accomplished by Norwegian International Airlines having their headquarters in Ireland and hiring Asian employees at a below-market wage. With such strong claims and detailed plans made by the big 3, the U.S. Department of State had no choice but to delay the agreement until the claims could be investigated and a conclusion reached. Obviously, if the U.S. were to disregard such a claim regarding a foreign-carrier, the integrity and reputation of the department would be damaged significantly, potentially causing any current (or future) Open Skies agreements to be suspended (or prevented). However, after thorough investigation and review of both Norwegian International Airlines policy/plan and the U.S. agreement, the U.S. Department of State concluded they had no reason to reject the application as the concerns regarding the hiring/employment practices were adequately addressed and no laws were being broken. Albeit Delta Air Lines, United, and American were strongly against and opposed Norwegian International Airlines application for an agreement, there efforts were to no avail.

5) Finally, critically analyzing the above information, do you feel that the global "playing field" of long-haul carriers is fair?

After critically analyzing the information above in conjunction with the numerous sources I conferred while conducting my research, I do not feel as if the global ‘playing field’ of long-haul carriers is fair. However, albeit I do not believe it is fair, I do believe it is necessary in stimulating (and improving) our economy.

Being able to purchase a wide-body aircraft at a ‘discounted’ price with no taxes is already unfair, but manageable/tolerable (by U.S. carriers). However, the fact that foreign carriers are doing so at an alarming rate to take advantage of the unlimited access to service the U.S. market is absurd. Subsequently, purchasing several aircraft at a time to increase the number of flights diminishes (or dilutes) the competition by beating U.S. carriers (air fares), thus placing said carriers (e.g. Delta Air Lines, United, and American) at a severe disadvantage via unfair competition. This dilution of competition is illustrated by a ratio I mentioned in an earlier response, specifically regarding the number of flights Emirates operates to that of Delta Air Lines and United. Emirates currently provides air service to nine U.S. cities from its hub located in Dubai, while Delta Air Lines and United each only have one (daily) flight to Dubai and none to Abu Dhabi. This 9:1 ratio denotes only one aspect of the unfair (competition) advantage foreign-carriers impose on U.S. carriers, ergo why I strongly believe the global ‘playing field’ is imbalanced.

The fact foreign-carriers are not taxed, but U.S. carriers are (at a high rate) is another unfair advantage imposed against U.S. carriers. This fact, in conjunction with ‘special interest rate loans’ (via EXIM) only applicable to foreign-owned carriers are primary reasons as to why the ‘playing field’ is tilted in favor of foreign-carriers. Therefore, to balance the ‘playing field’, I believe the tax rates accessed to U.S. carriers should be revised (slightly) or foreign-carriers should be taxed at least half of the current U.S. air carrier tax rate. Additionally, the policies governing the EXIM bank should be amended to allow U.S. carriers to be eligible for interest rate loans somewhat akin to those of foreign carriers. I realize the prescribed actions above may not transpire and/or solve anything, but they are more so a sign of good faith, demonstrate a willingness to resolve conflict and ease tensions, as well as denote an understanding of the sentiments expressed by both parties.

As I mentioned earlier, certain aspects of this ‘playing field’ are necessary as the US-UAE Open Skies agreement have promoted consumerism, competition, and (economic and aviation industry) growth. That said, this agreement may be one of the instance where U.S. carriers are forced to take the good with the bad and the ugly.

Enjoy!

References

AvStop.Com. (2017). The Airmail Act of 1930. Aviation Online Magazine. Retrieved from http://avstop.com/history/needregulations/act1930.htm

Culp, B. (2016). Information about Emirates Airline. USA Today. Retrieved from http://traveltips.usatoday.com/information-emirates-airline-21521.html

Export-Import Bank of the United States. (2016). The aviation exports policy. Export-Import Bank of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.exim.gov/policies/aviation-exports

Export-Import Bank of the United States. (2016). The facts about EXIM Bank. Export-Import Bank of the United States. Retrieved from http://www.exim.gov/about/facts-about-ex-im-bank

Harress, C. (2013). Why does Washington favor foreign airlines over US carriers? Low-interest-rate loans available only to non-US airlines hurt US carriers. IBTimes. Retrieved from http://www.ibtimes.com/why-does-washington-favor-foreign-airlines-over-us-carriers-low-interest-rate-loans-1474416

Jansen, B. (2016). DOT approves contested Norwegian Air flights. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/12/02/dot-approves-contested-norwegian-air-flights/94838292/

Leff, G. (2016). Total loss for heavily subsidized US airlines against the big Gulf carriers. View From The Wing. Retrieved from http://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2016/07/26/us-airlines-lose-case-against-gulf-carriers/

Mouawad, J. (2015). Open-skies agreements challenged. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/07/business/us-airlines-challenge-open-skies-agreements.html?_r=0

Qatar Airways. (2017). Qatar Airways fact sheet. Qatar Airways Media Release. Retrieved from https://www.qatarairways.com/iwov-resources/temp-docs/press-kit/Qatar%20Airways%20Factsheet%20-%20English.pdf

UAE Government. (2017). Seven Emirates. The Official Portal of the UAE Government. Retrieved from http://government.ae/en/seven-emirates

U.S. Department of State. (2017). Open skies agreements. Promoting Global Travel and Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/e/eb/tra/ata/

U.S. Department of State. (2017). Open skies partnerships: expanding the benefits of freer commercial aviation. Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/fs/2017/267131.htm

COMAC, A Chinese Competitor to Boeing and Airbus

On Monday, November 2, 2015, the first Chinese larger-airliner aircraft rolled out - the C919. This aircraft was built by COMAC (Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China) and will compete with the A320 and the B737, seating about 168 passengers. Although the hope is for western certification, the C919 has yet to be FAA-certified, currently limiting the countries where the aircraft can operate. Given this information, please answer the following questions:

1) Do you believe that the C919 will ever receive FAA certification? Why or why not?

Yes, I do believe the C919 will receive FAA certification, specifically 5-10 years from now, but no later than 2030. I believe the C919 will receive FAA certification because the Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China (COMAC) has put forth a tremendous amount of effort in creating this aircraft in accordance with the manufacturing and certification stipulations required by the FAA. The Chinese aviation authority is also viewed as being more stringent than the FAA.  therefore, by abiding by the heightened requirements established by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), the C919 should exceed FAA expectations with relative ease. This however, has not been the case.

I also believe the C919 will eventually receive FAA certification because the CAAC has a Bilateral Air Safety Agreement with the FAA that allows the FAA to coach, supervise, and guide the CAAC during their manufacturing and certification processes of the C919 (and ARJ21) (Perrett 2013). Since this agreement allows the FAA to provide extensive guidance throughout the entire certification process, the CAAC has all the tools and resources (both monetary and technical) at their disposal to comply with the FAA certification requirements. With this agreement in place, the CAAC essentially has ‘24/7 technical support’ in the form of the FAA since the FAA is partaking in an ‘oversight’ role during this certification process of the C919. Due to the fact the FAA is merely ‘overseeing’ the process, this means the CAAC is engaged in the ‘implementation’ role, or implementing the necessary corrective actions in accordance with FAA requirements to attain their certification. If an error, mistake, or other mishap occurs during the certification process, the CAAC has the freedom to contact the FAA rather quickly because of the Bilateral Air Safety Agreement, rather than having to wait for a response and further delay production. Therefore, with the FAA ‘overseeing’ and coaching the CAAC through their creation and certification of the C919, there is no reason why the aircraft should not become certified by the FAA.

China based C919 customers have also expressed an extreme desire for the aircraft to receive an FAA endorsement despite the fact the certification is not required for operation in China (Perrett 2013). This yearn for the FAA certification by Chinese based customers only strengthens my belief that the C919 will eventually receive certification. The strong support demonstrated from the various clientele and other lobby-groups based in China aids in their application for FAA certification because it shows faith in their country, air transport industry, and the CAAC. This strong sense of moral support can also transpire into financial support if additional monetary resources are required to attain said certification in the event of additional paperwork, component upgrades/tweaks, testing or inspections, etc. Furthermore, I believe the desire shown by C919 customers to attain this FAA certification stems from the belief that having it (and not needing it) will denote the aircraft (and airline) are extremely safe and reliable because of they hold the FAA’s ‘seal of approval’. Subsequently, the public perception in China and worldwide will shift towards the positive side as consumers will be more inclined to travel on an aircraft certified by more than one aviation authority, especially if it is the FAA. Therefore, I believe the C919 will eventually be certified due to the extensive support and rallying for it to happen because China realizes and understand the long-term benefit of doing so will have.

Recently, the C919 progressed towards attaining its FAA certification as its CFM Leap-1C engine received type certificates from both the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the FAA. In fact, the simultaneous certification awarded by both the EASA and the FAA to CFM for their engines was the first-time (simultaneous) dual certification to an engine company has occurred (Polek 2016). Typically, one type certification is awarded by one aviation agency/authority and the other agency/authority validates (or confirms) the initial type certificate (Polek 2016). Thus, this break in regulatory certification tradition is an indefinite (positive) accomplishment for CFM, CAAC, and the C919 as the increased reputation will assist with the remainder of the certification process. Even if the C919 is certified piece-by-piece, which would take much longer, the aircraft and the CAAC are making progress towards complete certification. Therefore, the fact the C919 (CFM) engines were simultaneously awarded type certificates from two notable aviation authorities, namely the EASA and FAA, is yet another (undeniable) reason why I believe the C919 will receive certification entirely.

2) For sake of argument, if the C919 receives FAA certification, what challenges do you see for US carriers? Look at various aspects - for example, what would in mean in terms of aircraft purchases? What would it mean in terms of public perception?

If the C919 receives FAA certification, the challenges I expect U.S. carrier to encounter are orientated around the relatively immediate competition the aircraft will create in terms of aircraft pricing and purchasing as well as operating costs. According to the SCMP Staff (2017), the average estimated cost of a C919 is $36 million, which is $9 million less than that of the cost of an Airbus 320 (or an akin B737) valued at $45 million. The C919 provides a cheaper alternative with relatively similar amenities such as passenger seating (approx. 168) to the aviation industry. This coupled with the fact that CAAC has a currency advantage over the United States, meaning that if the Yuan remains lower than the U.S. dollar, then the C919 (because it is manufactured in China) will have a significant cost-advantage over rival aircraft manufacturers, namely Airbus and Boeing (Mushaike 2015). Therefore, if major U.S. airlines can purchase an aircraft that offers a similar passenger carrying capacity, fly the same routes, and operate for relatively the same cost, but at a cheaper price ($36 million compared to $45 million), and still receive a ‘discount’ due to China’s currency advantage, there is no contest. Big businesses will always do what is most optimal for their bottom line, and if purchasing the C919 rather than an Airbus or Boeing aircraft will save them money, then U.S. carriers will inherit a dynamic challenge from the CAAC in terms of competition, viability, and manufacturing longevity. Consequently, U.S. carrier such as Airbus and Boeing will experience a decline in aircraft purchases because of the less expensive C919 alternative, and the only method to counter that is by ‘price matching’ the C919, which may prove to be extremely cost-ineffective for U.S. carriers.

Additionally, the birth and certification of the C919 will create another problem for U.S. carriers, primarily in the form of the hindrance of aviation growth potential in China. Since the C919 will have the ‘home-field advantage’ in China, U.S. carriers will already be at a disadvantage since Chinse carriers will innately want to buy and operate their own aircraft rather than a U.S. based one (Mushaike 2015). Furthermore, (if/when) the C919 receives its FAA certification, Chinese airlines will see no reason to buy from U.S. carriers because the C919 has received the FAA ‘seal of approval’ and will be viewed as just as good, if not better than its U.S. counterparts. Thus, as the C919 becomes widely accepted by the Chinese aviation industry and is utilized by other aviation organizations worldwide, its reputation will increase, further diminishing the growth potential in China (and potentially other countries) for U.S. carrier such as Boeing, resulting in a decline in their aircraft sales/purchases.

The concept of safety and the public’s perception of it will always be a challenge for air carriers, and if the C919 receives FAA certification and is adopted by U.S. carriers, said carriers may be placed at a disadvantage because of this (safety) challenge. Albeit the C919 was manufactured in China, most its core components were manufactured in 16 foreign companies (SCMP Staff 2017). Most U.S. citizens that travel via air frequently and/or have some knowledge regarding aviation or the FAA are innately skeptical of any aircraft not made in the U.S., or has not been in service for a long period of time. The fact the C919 has encountered numerous delays (translating into several years) to become certified, will create negative public perception regarding the integrity of the CAAC/COMAC and its ‘airworthiness’. Additionally, since the C919 contains core (or essential) components that were manufactured by 16 different companies, only heightens public skepticism and subsequent negative public perception of the aircraft. This sense of ‘skepticism’ is not unwarranted though because the manufacturing practices and policies can differ significantly across 16 companies, and if one company conforms to a lower manufacturing process than the others, the entire aircraft can be unsafe and fail. Despite the C919 receiving FAA certification, if the C919 is operated by U.S. carriers in the future, the traveling public will always maintain a negative perception of the aircraft’s integrity and airworthiness because it was not made in the U.S. and is composed of foreign components.

3) Discuss COMAC a little and its relationship with the Chinese airlines and the Chinese government. Are there other aircraft in the works? If so, what are the specifics?

The Commercial Aircraft Corporation of China, or COMAC, is stated-owed aerospace manufacturer that was established on May 11, 2008, and based out of Shanghai, China. The Chinese government consolidated its manufacturing efforts in 2008, with the establishment of COMAC (RAND Corporation 2014). The purpose of COMAC was two-fold: One, its creation was the Chinese government’s way to compete with Western aircraft manufacturers such as Airbus and Boeing in efforts to diversify the (commercial) market. The second being to not only prove that China’s aviation/aerospace programs and technology could more than compete with those of Western carriers and manufacturers, but to also build two aircraft that would domestically service China, namely the ARJ-21 and the more recent C919.

COMAC is a specific sector (i.e. commercial) of Chinese aviation. It is housed and regulated by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), who is subsequently governed by the Chinese government. The Chinese government currently oversees/governs/regulates the air transport industry and China’s three major airlines, namely Air China, China Southern Airlines Co., and Chine Eastern Airlines Corp (Kung & Kim 2016). COMAC has been applying to the FAA to receive certification because the FAA does not recognize the CAAC as an ‘aviation certifying organization’ because of their difference in manufacturing policies, safety protocol, and other aircraft related certification requirements. However, since the C919 does not require any special type certificates to fly/service domestically (i.e. in China), COMAC would only need to appeal/apply to the CAAC for aircraft certification, of which the CAAC could either issue or refuse (in this case issue) the proper certifications allowing the C919 to be used in Chinese air operations. To serve as a direct comparison, COMAC is akin to any U.S. commercial carrier (e.g. Delta Air Lines) operating under Part 121 regulations. COMAC being a commercial aviation entity is regulated or governed by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC). In the U.S., said commercial (Part 121) carriers are regulated by an aviation authority known as the FAA. Thereby, airlines operating within COMAC must seek certification from the CAAC, just as Delta Air Lines and other (Part 121) operators must seek certification from the FAA. Lastly, the Chinese government oversees and regulates the entire aviation industry, which is akin to how the Department of Transportation (DOT) is responsible for governing the FAA and U.S. aviation industry.

The other Chinese aircraft I discovered to be in the works (since it has yet to be certified by the FAA) is the ARJ21-700. Prior to the manufacturer and release of the C919, COMAC’s very first aircraft was a regional jet known as the ARJ21-700. The ARJ21-700 was China’s first modern commercial jet and was built primarily to empower China as key player in the commercial aircraft market (to compete with companies such as Airbus and Boeing). The aircraft conducted its maiden flight in June 2016, carrying 70 passengers on a two-hour flight (Mutzabaugh 2016).

According to Mutzabaugh (2016), the name ‘ARJ21’ is short for Asian Regional Jet for the 21^st Century. The ARJ21 can seat up to 90 passengers and travel a range of approximately 1,300 miles, which is common amongst other reputable regional jet aircraft. The body design of this particular aircraft was based off the McDonnell Douglas MD-90, which can be seen by the shape of the fuselage and twin, rear-mounted engines. Furthermore, the ARJ21 is primarily composed of foreign technology/avionics and other system components, which includes companies like Rockwell Collins, engines from General Electric, and wings (design) from Ukraine’s Antonov State Co (Mutzabaugh 2016).

4) If this aircraft were to receive FAA certification, do you feel that other companies would enter the market as competitors to Boeing and Airbus?

If this aircraft were to receive FAA certification, I feel that other companies would be extremely reluctant to enter the marker as competitors to Boeing and Airbus. The C919 (and ARJ21) and COMAC have struggled to receive type certifications from the FAA and EASA, which has caused numerous production setbacks and delays in the aircraft’s debut. In addition, the CAAC is not recognized by the FAA, which has only made attaining type certification more difficult and caused further delays. Within the past year, the C919 CFM engine received simultaneous type certificates from both the FAA and EASA, which until now, was an unheard feat for an engine company. However, the engines becoming type certified is only one piece of the puzzle as COMAC is still struggling to abide by the FAA requirements and get their aircraft certified by the Western aviation authority. With that said, I feel as if other companies that would potentially consider entering the market have become severely discouraged after witnessing the numerous the struggles and setbacks encountered by COMAC and CAAC regarding their C919. After witnessing delay after delay, I think any company that would want to enter the market will decide to either wait until the C919 is fully certified (to learn from its mistakes during the certification process) or ‘cut their losses’ early as they deem it not worth the hassle or (monetary) resources. Thus, I strongly believe that other companies wanting to enter the market will wait five to fifteen years to learn from COMAC’s struggles, see if/how the regulations or requirements change (for better or for worse), and only enter when the industry is optimal for their viability.

5) Finally, has Boeing or Airbus responded to this rollout in any way?

Both Boeing and Airbus have responded to the rollout of the C919 in an economically competitive manner, specifically by deciding to re-engine their respective aircraft. Both companies considered the idea to re-engine their aircraft around 2010, but decided not to, however due to the rollout of the C919, Airbus and Boeing changed their mind to remain competitive and demonstrate ‘air superiority’.

With respects to re-engine, Boeing is planning to place a larger engine on their 737, which will increase its range and capacity (Minkoff 2016). The re-engine of the 737 (to the 737 MAX) will be done to compete not only with the C919, but also with Airbus’s A321neo, which is currently outselling the 737 by a ratio of 4:1 (Minkoff 2016). To re-engine the 737, Boeing plans to swap the current CFM56 engines out for the LEAP-1A engine. Boeing however, has not committed to perform the re-engine process because doing so would require potential reconfiguration and re-certification of some of the 737’s components and a at a cost of approximately $1 billion - $2 billion (Minkoff 2016). Specifically, to fit the new LEAP-1A engines, Boeing would have to re-position the landing gear and conduct re-certification of the affected parts, which would cost them a significant amount of money (in terms of parts/labor and loss of revenues), time, and other resources.

Airbus has also opted to re-engine their family of aircraft, denoted by the name NEO, or New Engine Option. The new and improved A319, A320, and A321 will be equipped with either the Pratt & Whitney PurePower PW1100G-JM or the CFM International LEAP-1A, sharklet wingtip components, and contain additional cabin space (Airbus 2017). The type of engine (either a PW or CFM) will vary depending upon the purchasing air carrier. Additionally, the new engine options (NEO) equipped on the Airbus aircraft will cause air carrier’s utilizing the aircraft to save approximately 20% in fuel costs per seat by year 2020, in comparison to the current engines equipped on the Airbus aircraft (Airbus 2017). The NEO will also significantly increase Airbus aircraft performance, specifically in regards to their payload capacity, range, and engine noise and fume emissions. With the NEO equipped, the A319s, A320s, and A321s will increase their overall payloads by 2 tons, extend their range up to 500 nautical miles (NM), and reduce the amount of engine noise and emission(s), and lower operating costs (in terms of fuel and maintenance) for air carriers (Airbus 2017).

Therefore, unlike Boeing, Airbus has chosen to respond to the C919 rollout and Boeing’s re-engine process in a more holistic fashion, specifically through re-engine, enhanced wing tips and performance, increased cabin space and payload capacity, extended range, and reduced engine noise and fume emission at a lower cost to the carrier (and subsequent passengers). Airbus’s actions and design decisions will indefinitely increase their advantage over Boeing and the C919, allowing them to remain more than competitive in the aviation industry, and not to mention, was an excellent way to respond to the rollout.

References

Airbus. (2017). A320NEO. Airbus Commercial Aircraft. Retrieved from http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/hot-topics/a320neo/

Kung, M. C., & Kim, K. (2016). Three biggest China airlines face $1.3 billion currency hit. Bloomberg Markets. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-28/china-s-three-biggest-airlines-face-1-3-billion-currency-losses

Minkoff, Y. (2016). Boeing weighs new engine for biggest 737 max. Seeking Alpha. Retrieved from http://seekingalpha.com/news/3186189-boeing-weighs-new-engine-biggest-737-max

Mushaike, N. (2015). Why Boeing investors should worry over the COMAC C919?. Amigobulls. Retrieved from http://amigobulls.com/articles/why-boeing-investors-should-worry-over-the-comac-c919

Mutzabaugh, B. (2016). Now flying: China’s first modern passenger jet enters service. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/flights/todayinthesky/2016/06/30/now-flying-chinas-first-modern-passenger-jet-enters-service/86549178/

Perrett, B. (2013). C919 may be largely limited to Chinese market. AviationWeek & Space Technology. Retrieved from http://aviationweek.com/awin/c919-may-be-largely-limited-chinese-market

Polek, G. (2016). CFM leak-1C wins certification as C919 approaches first flight. AINonline. Retrieved from http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2016-12-21/cfm-leap-1c-wins-certification-c919-approaches-first-flight

RAND Corporation. (2014). China faces several obstacles to building successful domestic commercial aircraft industry. RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/news/press/2014/04/04.html

SCMP Staff. (2017). In pictures: C919, China’s answer to Airbus A320 and Boeing B737, set to make debut flight. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/news/china/policies-politics/article/2068527/pictures-c919-chinas-answer-airbus-a320-and-boeing-b737