Airliners-India.com

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

@KCM: The rules of the game were changed to suit Boeing. Overnight a the "requirements" were changed to have a 9 across layout which Airbus didnt offer. So on and so forth. And these changes were made AFTER PP became Minister.

Whatever be the reasons: the fact remains that the ORIGINAL choice was the A340 and PP changed the rules and ensured that boeing got the deal. Infact the 77 even made a backdoor entry: with 3 rustbuckets beingpicked up from the desert so as to make the task of explaining the flip-flop to pArliament easier.

As for being "baised" towards IC: that is not the point. The point here is what is godd for India and Inidian aviation. PP's actions are designed to hurt the state-owned carriers and benefit the airline belonging to his chum Naresh Goyal. Similarly His acitons favoring Boeing have been to favor his other chum Dinesh Keskar. Is that correct? Lets stick to that part.

How are PP's actions benefitting the state owned carriers? Indeed why doesnt PP show the same large-heartedness towards the other pvt carriers? Is PP the minister for Civil Aviaiton or is he the Minister for Jet Airways?
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

Nimish · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject:

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

KCM: Another thing. AI had originally been swying towards the more obvious choice of the A32X for AIX. Changing the short-haul order to 737's was an attempt to balance out the politics.

And know how much that decision has cost AI? The 737's inability to carry cargo means that AI is loosing 23 crores EVERY WEEK as compared to if it had ordered A320's. In addition Kerala has virtually lost its cargo uplift ever since AI has shifted Kerala ops to 737's.

Many of us support the 777 because some members have carried on a relentless propaganda about the A340 being "underpowered" and the 777 being "much more cooler". The fact remains however that the A340 was a better choice for AI for a number reasons. AI cannot for eg operate over the Himalayas on its east-bound flights and has to per-force take a longer route because of 777's limitations on operating over the Himalayas. Even on benchmarks like fuel burn, the A340 was found to have benefits.

Spurious arguments like how the A340 would bnot be able to operate from DEL at noon were put forth to push the 777.

The friendly relations between PP and the chief of Boeing India need to be investigated as PP's partiality towards Boeing during his tenure have always raised suspicion.

I understand the point about competition. Can corruption and "crony capitalism" of the kind pushed by PP lead to fair competition between Airbus and Boeing, and thus ensure thebest deal for Indias carriers?
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

Niimish: Nobody said that the rustbuckets "wouldnt fly" that was never the point. That was entirely your own interpretation!

The point is that these 3 aircraft were rusting away in the desert and infact 3 airlines had rejected these aircraft on these very grounds until AI picked them up! And today AI's engg is going to great lengths to keep the maintenance record of these aircraft hidden from public view. And theonly reason these 3 aircraft were inducted in a hurry was to push the case for the 777 at a time when the airline itself had already chosen the A340. Even more significantly PP LIED to parliament when asked about this, claiming that A340's were not available and AI needed lift urgently. This was a blatant lie: because Jet Airways managed to find 3 A340-300's at the same time quite easily!

And get your facts right PP was NOT the man who opened up Indian aviation: that credit will have to go to Madhavrao Scindia. Infact PP has damaged the civil aviation market by favoring 9W and Boeing over others. And he has clearly done this because of his close firendship with NG and DK.

Are you denying that?

Are you denying that AI had originally chosen another aircraft and were forced to switch their choice in favor of Boeing by this minister? Are you denying that NG and PP and DK and PP are not family friends? Are you denying that 9W was not unduly favored vis-a-vis the other airlines?

You dont see a problem with the Minster for Civil Aviation behaving like the Minister for Jet Airways?

Ofcourse its my Opinion. But its a valid opinion.
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

Nimish · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:11 pm Post subject:

D-ABTH · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject:

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

you may not care Nimish. But a lot of people do.

AI/IC are state-owned carriers and PP's is more responsible for them than for 9W.

Nobody is arguing against a free market. infact PP's actions favoring one player 9W against all others (including Private players) is AGAINST the spirit of the free market.

His special relationship with NG and DK is not mere speculation. The following magazines/newspapers have run articles on this ever since a certain opposition MP used that famous "Minister for Jet airways" taunt: Indian Express, Financial Express, Business India, NDTV etc etc etc. Indeed we have one member here on this forum who can personally attest to the "special relationship" that PP shares with Naresh Goyal and Dinesh Keskar! Smile

Why other carriers chose the 777 is not under discussion here. We are referring to India here and specifically AI. The airline did not originally chose the 777: the ministry, led by PP, specifically asked AI to rexamine it original choice! Was this correct?

Imagine you were the babu running AI, and you made a certain decision. That very evening the minister asks you to rexamine your decision. What would that mean to you? Smile

_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

Nimish · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:19 pm Post subject:

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

D-ABTH: Twinjets have to be able to descend at any time to minimum safe operating altitude in case of failure of one-engine. The minimum sale altitude for operation with one-engine out is lower than the Himalayan range. Air Canada was one airline which ran into these issues.

Let me pull out an exceprt from a post I read about this issue:

It's an ETOPS issue.

With an engine out an ETOPS twin will in most cases lose redundancy on cabin pressure and air conditioning. It will therefore immediately descend to "safe altitude" which means FL100 when heading for an alternate airport. Simply because it takes only one single additional fault (a malfunctioning aircon pack) to cripple the plane.

Descending to FL100 you could get stuck in a valley with no way out.

A quad or tri-jet will with one engine shut down still have redundancy on cabin pressure and will therefore not descend to "safe altitude". In some very special cases it can therefore overfly the Himalayas in a more straight line.

All three or four engined long range airliners have at least three independant examples of all vital systems (electric, hydraulic, air, etc.) which for obvious reasons is impossible on a twin. Therefore stricter operational and maintenence rules (ETOPS rules) apply.
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

Yes Nimish: these are my opinions. But backed up by what we have all seen or read in the media about our "Minister for Jet Airways".

And yes as i said, we have one member here who can personally attest to the friendship that i was referring to.

Which brings up a very interesting question: Considering the special friendship that the Minister for Jet Airways ahres with the onwer of the airline and the business manager of an aircraft manufacturer, and considering his record during the period he was Minister, is it right for him to continue in the post?

Is it really a free market when the minister is heaily biased in favor of one player to the disadvtange of ALL others: pvt and state owned? THAT is the bigger question.
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

the_380 · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject:

D-ABTH · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject:

Nimish · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject:

Nimish · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject:

the_380 · Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:27 pm Post subject:

AKLDELNonstop · Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: Auckland

IMO they probably did a good thing by selecting the 777s over the 343. It would have been diff if AI ordered 345/6. But I cannot understand why the AI management could possibly want 343s???
_________________
Geniuses are always misunderstood in their lifetimes.

D-ABTH · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:24 am Post subject:

the A343s never made sense to me... it would mean a split fleet and related maintenance diversification in order to support any in-house servicing of the aircrafts... added costs that AI could do without..

that aside as far as operational advantages go i have been into a/c operations sufficiently to understand that the T7 has proven to be a better product over the A340s both in terms of fuel effeciency and operational advantages judging carefully by the way other airlines have opted and operated the T7
_________________
If it aint Boeing.. I aint going.

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

Split fleet? what do u mean?

The A340-300 would have been a first step towards the MCLR reqmt. The A330-200/300 which perfectly complements the A340 would have come in due course to address the MCMR requirement.

There are no reliable statistics to prove that the T7 has proved to be more economical than the A340. Manufacturers will tell you many things. And in this case, the AI mgmt has to work doubly hard to convince the public of its reasoning behind going for the T7's.

In any case its much too earl;y to comment. remember Pawan Hans and the Westland choppers? Wait and watch and see history repeat itself!
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

Nimish · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:07 am Post subject:

D-ABTH · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:22 am Post subject:

Jaysit · Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 4346

Nimish · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:44 am Post subject:

Prajay · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject:

About AI's fleet plan:

- AI 's choice for Boeing Airplanes. Since the 1960s or so AI has been using Boeing planes and ha been very successful and happy with them.

- The entrence of the 777 into AI by lease cannot be like a back door entry. At the time of lease according to me no A340s were availible so taking T7s was not a bad idea.

- The Boeing order can mainly be taken into account the pressence of the 787. AI was long waiting to replace aircraft in the A310 category. The A330 is according to me a bit to big for an A310 replacement although its a brilliant airplane. For matter of size the 787 complements the A310 even though the range shows its a long haul airplane, its economic are so attractive that in a short haul routes it still can be used efficiently. [eg. BOM-DXB]. The A310s are the backbone of AI's fleet thus the order matter much more on the short and medium haul aircraft [B737 and B787 or A320 and A350]

- AI is a loss making airline and would be considering the economical impacts of each aircraft they are evaluating. The A340 is not as economical as the T7 and this is a provn fact. The 787 furthers helps the order with economics it provides.

- The A330 was never part of the evaluation process for long haul aircraft.

- The A350 was hastly launched at the time of AI's evaluation process thus was not given that mch attention.

- Even if the A340 was ordered there would be lesser commonality between the A340 and A310 as the 310 uses the normal controls while the 340 uses the sidestick and more advanced avionics. That way the T7 and 744 are more common. The 787 is even better as pilots don't need too much additional training to switch planes.

- It could also be that AI's codeshare airlines prefered the T7 and thus recommended the a/c.

Hopefully this will help solve some problems.

Very Happy

Prajay

AKLDELNonstop · Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: Auckland

Minister,

You seem to have a lot of info on AI.

What is your take on long term replacements for the 744s? Are we to see 748I's in the medium term? If no? WIll the six owned 744s be enough to satisfy demand? If yes will the 380 also be evaluated as an option?

Furthermore, are you able to shed any light on the interiors of the new a/c coming in to fleet in April?

Cheers
_________________
Geniuses are always misunderstood in their lifetimes.

Nimish · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject:

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

D-ABTH: u say that AI has been a "Boeing Heavy" airline. FYI: for the past twenty years AI has operated more Airbuses than Boeings. Boeing Heavy? Yeah right!

If the Airbus deal had gone through there would have been no T7's! Also AI had a reqmt for MCLR's (T7's vs S340) and MCMR's (A330/T7s).

As for 10%-90% -You are no one to judge that! Your personal preference for T7's are one thing!
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

the_380 · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:45 pm Post subject:

AI might consider 748s as a replacement for their -400s ... atleast this is what i feel.

AKLDELNonstop · Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: Auckland

the_380 · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject:

the_380 · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 5:54 pm Post subject:

AKLDELNonstop · Member Joined: 19 Dec 2006 Posts: 1066 Location: Auckland

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

Jaysit: You have proved that you are simply incapable of conducting a decent discussion on ANY topic.

You attribute a number of statements to me.
1. IC is a marvellous airline.. which no NRI will fly etc.
Well! you may not fly IC because the uncles on IC are too old for u. But there are many in India and abroad who do. I dont say IC is the best. but it certainly isnt the worst!

2.A340-300 is superior to the T7: Again I dont say so. The airline itself chose the A340 and was latrer made to "reconsider" the decision. And dont you go about putting words in mouth.

3. There was a report in the Financial Express. And it was also mentioned in a sidebox along with an interview of Subroto Roy. Search for it. Jaysit wont see it ofcourse because he is too busy firing BS from all his guns.

4. Javed Akhtar - Do you even know who he is? Again BusinessWorld had a 20 page feature on Jet Airways which clearly speaks of how Javed Akhtar, a long time friend of Naresh Goyal, introduced Goyal to Madhavrao Scindia, who was Javeds friend, and helped push clearances for Jet through. But ofcourse Jay Sitlani knows more about Javed Akhtar than any BusinessWorld!

5. The rest of the Helen=-Bindu-Akshay Kumar crap is Jays attempt at being funny. Seriosuly, are u surprised you are still alone?
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

the_380 · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:03 pm Post subject:

Nimish · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject:

the_380 · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject:

COUGAR · Member Joined: 01 Jan 2007 Posts: 986 Location: Bangalore

Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 1:10 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About AI's fleet plan:

- AI 's choice for Boeing Airplanes. Since the 1960s or so AI has been using Boeing planes and ha been very successful and happy with them.

Ans: WRONG! Get your facts right "Mr.Minister". AI has actually been Airbus Heavy since 1985.

- The entrence of the 777 into AI by lease cannot be like a back door entry. At the time of lease according to me no A340s were availible so taking T7s was not a bad idea.
Ans; Wrong again. That was a blatant lie told by our minister to Parliament. Facts show that Jet Airways managed to pick up 3 A340-300's of the exact type from SAA at the same time. Go back and check the dates!! So it WAS a backdoor entry!

- The Boeing order can mainly be taken into account the pressence of the 787. AI was long waiting to replace aircraft in the A310 category. The A330 is according to me a bit to big for an A310 replacement although its a brilliant airplane. For matter of size the 787 complements the A310 even though the range shows its a long haul airplane, its economic are so attractive that in a short haul routes it still can be used efficiently. [eg. BOM-DXB]. The A310s are the backbone of AI's fleet thus the order matter much more on the short and medium haul aircraft [B737 and B787 or A320 and A350]
- The 787 was a paper plane at the time the switch was made. And the A310 replacement for AI is the 737-800 which is being used on most routes previously flown by A310's. The 787 argument is just another canard. There is no evidence to show that the 787 was what clinched the deal.

- AI is a loss making airline and would be considering the economical impacts of each aircraft they are evaluating. The A340 is not as economical as the T7 and this is a provn fact. The 787 furthers helps the order with economics it provides.
Ans: Again where is the evidence for this? On a flight of similar stage length what are the relative economics of both aircraft? Once again: the 787 was NOT in consideration at the time of the switch from A340 to B777. Once the switch was made, then ofcourse the 787 made better sense for the MCMR requirement. If however the A340 had been selected for the MCLR requirement, then the A330 and then the A350 would have been the logical choice for the MCMR requirement!

- The A330 was never part of the evaluation process for long haul aircraft.
ANs: NOT COMPLETELY TRUE. AI always had 3 types of requirements: MCLR(T7/340), MCMR(T7/330) and SCMR(737/320). The problem is the choice in one segment directly impacts the choices in the others due to factors like commonality. And there lies the problem. Our "Minister" helped to push the MCLR order towards his pal Dinesh Keskar, thuis affecting the whole process.

- The A350 was hastly launched at the time of AI's evaluation process thus was not given that mch attention.
ANS: The 787 was a paper plane as well at the time this decision was taken.

- Even if the A340 was ordered there would be lesser commonality between the A340 and A310 as the 310 uses the normal controls while the 340 uses the sidestick and more advanced avionics. That way the T7 and 744 are more common. The 787 is even better as pilots don't need too much additional training to switch planes.
Ans: The A310's dont share commonality with the T7's either so wahts your point? Smile

The A310's are eventually going to be phased out to be replaced by a mix of SCMR and MCMR aircraft.

The issue is not if Airbus is superior to Boeing: That is a decsion best taken by the airline.

In this case the airline decided on Airbus but was pushed by the minister to choose Boeing only to favor his family friend, perhaps even for pecuniary gain. THAT is the point. Can a minister be allowed to influence the process int his manner? Should a tainted minister like PP be allowed to continue in office?

Nimish: thanks for your suggestion on the PIL. But i am going one step further. I am emailing the relevant threads on this board to some people.
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
Live to Ride - Ride to Live

--

Prajay · Posted: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:17 pm Post subject: