3 Links I Love: A 5 Year Recovery, Mitsubishi Hurting, Ryanair Denies Airbus

Airbus, Alaska Airlines, Links I Love, Mitsubishi, Ryanair

This week’s featured link

COVID-19 Outlook for air travel in the next 5 yearsIATA
This presentation has all kinds of interesting tidbits around how IATA came to the conclusion that the industry will go back to normal in 3 to 5 years, lagging the rest of the economy. In particular, the comparison between Chinese business confidence and air traffic is concerning.

Image of the Week: Nothing really grabbed me this week, so I decided I’d put up a t-shirt reminder. The Airport Collection continues to grow, and I’ve added everything from Anchorage and Nashville to Tampa and, as you can see above, Sydney. More are on the way every day. Note that there are several colors available and not just the gray I showed on Wednesday.

Two for the road

Analysis: Mitsubishi suspends development of M100, continues M90 due to COVIDLeeham News and Analysis
Well, Embraer could use a little good news, and this is it. If Mitsubishi ends up shelving the M100, that means Embraer has the only 76-seater flying that regionals can fly for US partners. Strategically, this seems like a big miss for Mitsubishi, but on the other hand, this does require big money. And then again, who knows what pilot scope clauses will look like down the road.

Ryanair to axe Lauda’s Airbus leases in favour of Boeingch-aviation
Ryanair was pretty excited about bringing Airbuses into the fleet with its acquisition of Lauda, but now the airline appears to have soured on the idea and will scale back plans dramatically. I just assume that everything Ryanair does is a negotiation of some sort, so if Airbus wants to come play ball, Ryanair won’t turn them away. But this sounds like Airbus isn’t particularly interested… at least not enough to price the airplanes where Ryanair wants them.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox!

The airline industry moves fast. Sign up and get every Cranky post in your inbox for free.

17 comments on “3 Links I Love: A 5 Year Recovery, Mitsubishi Hurting, Ryanair Denies Airbus

  1. Bit disappointed the T-shirts don’t have the runway layout as well. I worked on the business case for the third runway (16L/34R) at SYD in the late 80’s (showing my age!). Getting that sucker approved was one of my proudest career achievements.

    P.S. That SYD terminal layout shows why it’s one of the worst airports from international/domestic connections. Terminals on opposite sides of the airport with nothing but buses to connect them.

  2. I’m being a bit facetious with my first comment, but maybe Mitsubishi should consider buying Embraer. There are a lot of economic and cultural ties between Japan and Brazil. Heck, maybe Mitsubishi should consider buying into Boeing while it’s at it. Again, given the cash constraints during this situation, my “suggestions” (which, again, are tongue-in-cheek) are extremely unlikely to occur. Business transactions cost money. Speculation is free.

    On a slightly more serious note, I’m wondering about the future of the U.S. regional airline industry and scope clauses given the new realities. Regional airlines were shrinking before COVID-19, and two quit flying entirely. The lack of any new regional aircraft with fewer than 76 seats will impact both the industry and service to smaller communities. I know this probably won’t happen, but maybe the legacy airlines, regional carriers, and their pilots’ unions should seriously reconsider their various scope clauses in light of the new realities. Whether they believe it or not, there are solutions that will allow all sides (airlines, pilots, and the flying public) to benefit.

    1. > Regional airlines were shrinking before COVID-19

      After a massive growth period, I think?

      > The lack of any new regional aircraft with fewer than 76 seats will impact both the
      > industry and service to smaller communities

      I have flown way too many miles in CR2 aircraft to feel bad about that :)

      1. I can’t argue. One other reason why my facetious (and kinda dumb) suggestion won’t “fly” (did I really write that?) is that there would only be one regional jet manufacturer.

  3. I’m surprised for STL that you didn’t include the Arch over the iconic Yamasaki terminal as well.

  4. Crank,
    How could anyone fund a project like Mitsubishi for small jets when you had Bombardier and Embraer owning most of the market. Example is Sukhoi

    1. Well, Mitsubishi was a big company, so at least it wasn’t a startup. But it saw opportunity for some unknown reason. But now that Bombardier is out and Mitsubishi has bought the remains, it seems like a no-brainer to do something.

  5. If you do a Tucson (TUS) shirt, you need to put this on it somewhere: “Yes, the code is TUS, but the city name is TUCSON, not TUSCON.

  6. The AUS tee shows just how boring our terminal layout is, and I say this despite loving the heck out of the east extension of the airport that’s now a bit over a year old.

    Our master plan would make things interesting, but who knows when that’ll happen now. My prediction is Southwest will gain market share, and nobody puts baby in a cor…er…nobody puts Southwest at remote gates (unless you’re MSP). And they don’t exactly have to coordinate gate usage to feed hubs elsewhere.

    On the regional side, things’ll get interesting if/when airlines end up in bankruptcy. Maybe they wind up with enough scope relief to pull in the M90, possibly in exchange for adding the E95-E2 or A220 as mainline. With the pay reset that’ll happen in bankruptcy, maybe those smaller planes make sense for not-just-Delta, and I’m sure Embraer would be willing to make a deal on the E2s Azul isn’t taking.

    Finally, Boeing should merge its defense unit with Lockheed and sell its commercial aircraft division to Mitsubishi. For reasons.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cranky Flier