The End of Senior Seminar

My career plan seems unlike most others in this program.  My career does not involve aviation, and the future of my career may not either.  I love aviation, and I have worked on this degree to explore new interests.  I plan to work part time as a flight instructor one day, and I am always open to new opportunities.  This plan has not changed during senior seminar.

This class has been fun and interesting.   The guest speakers have brought a sense of reality to our classroom environment.  The blog topics have discussed topics that have been well covered over the years, but it was great reading the responses from classmates.  We have a great group of intelligent students, and it is rewarding to read what others have to say.  The most interesting blog topic for me was the response to the article "How Can We Compete - 7+ Ways To Level The Playing Field."  I enjoy the business side of the discussion, I wish we spent more time on that topic.  The least interesting blog topic was either the discussion about China, or the NPRM that will make changes because of the Buffalo New York accident.  Some of the blog topics have been thoroughly covered in other classes, which makes them less exciting to cover again.

There were two guest speakers I retained the most from.  Mark Johnson gave a great presentation over material that I relate to the most.  I have been involved in business for most of my career, and I would enjoy the career that he has.
The second guest speaker(s) that I retained the most from was the FAA air traffic controller(s).  It was fun to hear about the aviation world from her perspective.  I look forward to a tour of their facility.

I'm not sure what my plans are for professional development after graduation.  Although my required classroom classes are now finished, I have a lot of flight training to finish before I graduate.  I MIGHT begin working on a Master's program, or more likely, I will continue to work hard in my existing career.

EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is a policy of the European Union designed to help reduce industrial emissions.  "The EU ETS covers some 11,000 power stations and industrial plants in 30 countries."  Companies are given a certain number of "allowances" each year, the majority of which are given out for free.  Each company self monitors and reports the amount of green house emissions it produces each year.  If they go over their allowance, they must purchase additional allowances.  The allowances may be purchased from a different company that did not use all of their own.  If a company doesn't use all of its allowances, it may keep them for future use, or sell them to other companies.

Aviation was brought into this system in the beginning of 2012, however the EU has postponed enforcement on flights into and out of countries not within the EU.  There has been a large protest by non-EU countries over the implementation of the EU ETS.  The United States has been opposed to it as well, mostly because the EU would be charging flights from start to finish.  This would include time flights spent in airspace over the United States.  Many feel this is unfair.

On November 27, 2012, President Obama signed a law enabling the transportation secretary to prohibit US airlines from participating in the EU ETS.  These clearly demonstrates that the United States is opposed, and will not participate.

The EU has postponed the ETS on flights into and out of the EU while a more "global friendly" solution is reached.  What should this solution be?  If I knew the answer, I would be working on a formal report for ICAO instead of typing a blog.  I think that we all have a responsibility to reduce our impact on the environment, and I also believe that companies rarely put restrictions on themselves to reduce their own impact.  I don't think it is Europe's responsibility to regulate the globe.  Europe should try to encourage others to follow their lead.  They can have global influence just by setting the standard. 

NextGen

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) is a new way to control traffic in our national airspace.  This plan will control air traffic with satellite based equipment instead of radar based equipment.  According to the FAA, "new, satellite-based technologies will significantly improve safety, capacity and efficiency on runways and in the nation’s skies while providing environmentally friendly procedures and technologies that reduce fuel burn, carbon emissions and noise."  NextGen will take many years to implement, and a hybrid system will most likely be used for a long time.

The FAA has built the NextGen system on four major pillars:  economic impact, sustainability, flexibility, and safety.  I feel safety is the most important pillar, as does the FAA.  It seems obvious that a change this large should make our system safer, or not take place at all.  I feel safety during the change is also important, and users must be educated well during the process.  The new technology promises many advantages, some of which include less spacing between traffic.  Well educated pilots are mandatory to keep the skies safe.  Closer spacing of traffic will offer less room for pilot error.

Sustainability of NextGen would be the next important pillar, in a close tie with economic impact.  I feel the two are somewhat tied together.  The system will be very expensive, both for the government, and the users.  If the economic impact is not great enough, it will not be sustainable.  The economic impact is hard to predict at this point.  There are many statistics and predictions about how beneficial NextGen will be, but it will be nice to see the results as it is implemented.  The FAA predicts the NextGen will help sustain the growth of aviation.  This will happen if the FAA's promises come true.

Flexibility is important to continue the growth of aviation.  The NextGen system is supposed to increase the flexibility of routes, and provide better alternatives for routing around airspace disruptions.  This also contributes to the economic impact.  If the flexibility can help bring down costs of aviation, more people and businesses will find uses for aviation.

The topic of user fees to help fund air traffic control and NextGen is a very difficult topic.  Our systems needs a way of raising funds, but I do not feel implementing user fees is the best way to do it.  I think fuel taxes provide a better way of spreading the cost more fairly.  I also think the general public should help fund the system.  People who never fly still benefit from aviation, and could help with the expenses.

NextGen could potentially affect me in a few ways.  I look forward to being able to use some of its advantages, and experience the benefits the FAA describes.  It will add more technology and automation to the cockpit.  It will make flying safer for those who are properly trained.  It will also create more jobs, some of which are with FAA.  Maybe it would be fun to work on the NextGen system with the FAA......

Business Aviation

It is difficult for me to form an opinion about the financial benefits of business aviation departments.  Joe Moore had discussed a Forbes article about business aviation, and it drew a comparison between share holder returns for companies with and without flight departments.  The article didn't really explain why AVIATION helped produce more profit for the shareholders, it only mentioned why having a flight program could be convenient.

While reading the National Business Aviation Association's website, I was able to find even more conveniences for a company having a flight department.  It really seems like any organization doing research to figure out if an aviation department is beneficial for a company develops an opinion first (either for it or against it) and then finds ways of supporting their opinion by any means necessary.  There are some facts that cannot be argued.  Business aviation can save a TON of time.  Businesses can travel whenever they want, and often to airports closer to their final destination.  Their is also opportunity for companies to lease their aircraft, providing an additional source of income.  However, it is difficult to find a source that outlines the exact costs, side by side, for a company's expenses if they were to use commercial aviation versus having their own airplane.


My personal opinion is a mixture of viewpoints.  I am in support of a company spending money on a flight department for any reason at all (to increase efficiency, cut down on travel time, or just have fun) if the company can support it financially, even if it costs the company MORE than traveling on commercial aviation.  However, I feel it was very irresponsible for the auto company's executives to fly to Washington when they asked for taxpayer bailout money.  There were other means of transportation that would have cost less, and any company asking for a bailout should be saving money in any way necessary.  This doesn't necessarily mean their flight programs should be shut down, but they should only be used when it saves the company money.

Aviation User Fees

Aviation is an expensive industry.  The FAA is responsible for regulating and promoting aviation, and this is an expensive task.  The FAA is funded by tax payers, and this has been a recent source of controversy.  Dana Hyde, associate director for general government programs, Office of Management and Budget, feels that an aviation user fee is the best way to make sure everyone pays their "fair share," according to a recent AVWeb article.  Her proposal is to assess a $100 per flight fee for using the air traffic control system.  The current proposal would exclude piston aircraft.

The public seems to have many different ideas on who will have to pay what if user fees are ever established.  User fees will definitely have an impact on an industry that relies on very slim profit margins.  Many people involved in the industry, including AOPA, feel that a fuel based tax (in addition to the taxes already on fuel) is a better answer.  Their argument is that a longer flight that uses the air traffic control system for an extended time should have to pay more than a flight making a shorter trip.  They feel that the fuel used during a flight is more representative of how long that specific flight used air traffic control services.  The airlines are opposed to that argument.  They don't feel like they should have to pay more for a flight because they operate larger aircraft.  They would use an equal amount of air traffic control services as a business jet flying the same route, but would use a much greater amount of fuel.  

There isn't a good prediction about what will happen in the future, especially 5 years out.  There have been talks about adding aviation user fees in past years, but it seems to be materializing more.  The impact user fees could have on aviation will depend on if they are ever added in the first place.  If user fees become a reality, some fear that piston aircraft will not be excluded forever.  This would greatly affect flight training, especially for those training for an instrument rating.  Currently, there is no talk about that happening.

General Aviation in China

The aviation industry in China has drastically changed in the last decade.  The reasons for the change include some of the demands that have created a large aviation industry in the United States.  Here in the US, we use aviation for the movement of goods and people, medical purposes, and pure enjoyment.  Unfortunately, the people of China are not able to make decisions for themselves.  The government (more specifically the military) of China has always been in control of aviation and the country's airspace.  In the last decade, the government has decided that they would like to develop a general aviation industry.  The military has worked on opening and redeveloping airspace.  The most likely reason for this change is the government's interest in making more money, and growing their country and economy.  In 2003, China ended their ban on private airplane ownership, opening a whole new world for the country of China.
As everyone knows, people and companies in the United States ARE free to make their own decisions.  Several aviation companies in the United States have used the Chinese aviation boom to their advantage.  Hard times in the US economy have severely hurt our aviation industry.  A few general aviation companies have been near bankruptcy, or have already filed bankruptcy.  Hawker Beechcraft filed bankruptcy in May, 2012, and shortly after, engaged in talks to sell to a Chinese company.  The sale DID NOT happen, and Hawker Beechcraft is still a US based company.  This attempted sale is just another example of a relationship that has been created between the United States and China.  The economy in the United States has been hurt, and the economy in China is growing.  Companies in the United States are in need of money, and have technology that Chinese companies are looking for.  Chinese companies can buy American companies, and their technology, for a lot less than doing research to develop their own technology.

The development of general aviation in China has affected other companies based in the United States.  A few companies in the United States are developing relationships with China, and will begin to manufacture airplanes in China.  Other US companies are being sold entirely to Chinese companies.  One such example is the United States kit plane company, Glasair.  Glasair was sold to the Chinese company, Fang Tieji, on July 20, 2012.  Fang Tieji plans to keep Glasair based in Arlington, Washington.  The Chinese company also plans to fully certify the Glasair Sportsman airplane.  The purchase of this company will allow Fang Tieji to bring this technology to their country as well.

This activity creates opportunity for the US general aviation sector.  Companies can help rebound financially by getting involved in the Chinese market.  This can be done in a few ways.  Companies can sell all or part of their business.  There are Chinese buyers, and it might be a great way to stop losing money.  US companies that do not want to sell could try and get involved with sales in China.  Individuals could also find creative ways to make a profit.  Working in China might be a great way to find a job.  Transporting general aviation airplanes to China might eventually create a job market.  There are many opportunities to make money for both companies, and individuals looking for jobs.

Comair

This week's post is about Comair, a company I know little about.  I've heard bits and pieces about Comair over the past few years, and have studied the unfortunate accident of Comair Flight 5191.  A few of our classmates have also posted blogs about the airline before this assignment was due.  Wikipedia has been my friend for this post, and I am regurgitating their information.  Comair started as a private operation in 1977 by four guys in Cincinnati, Ohio.  They began scheduled service with two Piper Navajo, but in 1981, made the company public to raise funds to update their fleet.  In 1984 Comair became a Delta Connections carrier.  Things worked out well, and Delta purchased 20% of Comair in 1986.  Finally, in 1999, Delta purchased the rest of Comair for over two billion dollars.

Since 1999 Comair has been owned by Delta, and has ridden the waves of the airline industry.  They have experienced a strike, bankruptcy, poor management, and even two years of having the lowest percentage on on-time flights.  The industry has changed, and Comair's practices and fleet of airplanes have not kept up with the times.  Their fleet of 50 passenger jets was finally deemed inadequate to do business, and on July 27, 2012, Delta announced the closure of Comair.  Crain's Detroit reported that federal law requires companies to give 60 days notice to state and local governments before closing companies that will affect 50 employees or more.  Crain's also reported that Delta plans to reduce their 50-seat regional jet fleet from 350 to 125.  The 50-seat jets will be leased to other airlines and will be replaced with 76-seat regional jets.

The outlook for regional carriers is grim.  According to Reuters, there are currently 61 regional carriers.  This is down from 247 three decades ago.  Earlier this year, both Pinnacle Airlines, and American Eagle Airlines filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Most of this business shifting is due to the rising costs of fuel.  It is causing airlines to focus more on longer routes.  Larger airports are seeing an increase in travel, and smaller hubs are seeing the opposite.  More people are flying to larger airports and then commuting the rest of the way.

Regional airlines have typically relied on contracts from major carriers.  Regional carriers will need to update their fleets in order to stay in business.  They might also want to think about operating as their own company, and scheduling their own routes.  Maybe it is time for airlines to operate all of their own flights, and regional carriers to be out on their own.

ExpressJet is currently hiring pilots.  It doesn't list the starting pay, but an inside source says the first year pay for a first officer is $23.00 per hour.