Passenger carrying Aviation in the US has been a fragile operation ever since gas prices dragged down price margins for the major carriers. Because of this, we have seen the fall of quite a few players in the market and even more so we have seen builders of aircraft go from at least a dozen different companies to effectively two. An issue that appears to have been overlooked is the Export-Import Bank of the United States and their role in today's aviation world
The Export-Import Bank, or EX-IM for short is in a nutshell a export credit agency that assists in financing the export of US goods to places around the world. The way they go about this is offering foreign companies great financing on products in order to promote US production overseas, as well as insurance, loan guarantees and direct loans. www.exim.gov/about/. On the governments website they claim to have "supported more then 600 billon dollars of exports"
The specific issues with US carriers is that this has resulted in huge orders for large jets from Boeing, including 777's and 787's, Boeings most expensive products from foreign carriers. This allows them to have the newest and up to date aircraft, while due to the global recession and the shockwaves from 9/11, and including the after mentioned fuel prices puts US carriers at a distinct disadvantage on international flights. ALPA and the US carriers have both pointed this problem out repeatedly http://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ata-criticises-us-ex-in-bank-support-for-foreign-carriers-singling-out-air-india-loan-guarantees-63548
ALPA: http://www.alpa.org/Portals/Alpa/PressRoom/PressReleases/2013/11-17-13_13.62.htm
With that being laid out, my input into the matter is that the playing field is clearly not leveled and we are not doing ourselves any favors. The basic structure of the EX-IM is sound, it helps US companies compete with other producers overseas and that is good for US manufacturing jobs, and is great for Boeing but its a great harm to our own carriers. It doesn't make sense to offer such steep discounts and funding to foreign carriers at a time when US carriers need to both get back on their feet and have nearly no support from the US government to run their routes. Its a bad position to put ourselves into because if we don't offer the loans or financing, then we lose manufacturing jobs, but if we do we lose airline market share, which represents even more jobs and additionally is one of the few ways left in the world that America is still a leader in
The best way to solve this in my eyes would be not the elimination of the financing for foreign companies but to give every US carrier the same options. It doesn't make any sense to give the foreign carriers huge advantages when they are also state operated and as a result can theoretically operate at a loss just to force others out of the market. Not only would giving US carriers the same options re-level this problem, it could result in the sales of even more aircraft to US carriers to replace their old ones. This would be a great boon for manufactures, it would directly impact the use of less fossil fuels due to more efficient designs and may even lead to a reduction of pricing, thereby increasing profits even more. The biggest hurdle would be implementing this sort of deal however, as Airbus would need to be granted the same sort of deal Boeing would be offering and it would need to be done on a semi-quiet basis, something very difficult in todays world.
It is something that needs to be done however. Most of the big US carriers make huge profits on their overseas routes and while we need not protect their routes from other carriers, we shouldn't start them off on a huge disadvantage as well.
Monday, March 31, 2014
Monday, March 10, 2014
UAV roles in todays aviation world
As time moves forward, we continue to create more and more advanced technology. Aviation in particular has always had a fast track of technology, as in a mere century we have seen the first true manned flight, to the invention of the jet engine, and now the rise of UAV's. Today's UAV world is still a complicated one, as the FAA has yet to allow them fly legally. Currently, that means that there are no official civilian users in the US but it they have been reported to be used by law enforcement for surveillance, for farmers to keep track of crops, and there is currently a program at University of North Dakota, one of the prominent aviation colleges in the US that teaches students on the use of drones. That being said, drones have been used around the rest of the world, such as in Canada for search and rescues use.
While this paints a somewhat gloomy picture on the current state of UAV use, the reality is that they will be part of our skies in the near future. The FAA is open to discussion to limited drone use being possible in 2015 and that will only be the beginning. There are many roles that UAV's can play in our world, and the cost savings, as well as the job creation is endless. The question is how can they be integrated in our current airspace. The most likely scenario that I can conceive is the creation of a new airspace (Hotel airspace?), a separate airspace that has a very limited ceiling as to not interfere with current GA traffic. If a drone were to say fly above this airspace, there must be some sort of beacon, either radio, visual or both to show exactly where it is. The problem is how small some of these drones can get might mean that GA aircraft will inevitability collide, causing a crash or even a death that would not have happened. The other big issue has to be privacy. While privacy is currently protected under law, its going to be hard to enforce if a drone can fly from nearly anywhere in a local area, spy on whomever they want to and return to either the owner, or even just crash the drone in a remote location to deny any evidence of use. As far as logistical problems, it seems like there are quite a few producers out there just waiting for the official word, so there will be no problems of getting ahold of a UAV
Military aviation, in contrast to the civilian side has been booming. Initial UAV use, starting during the first Gulf War was limited to spotting targets, and being a new technology was costly. Fast forward 20 years and now a drone strike is a common occurrence nearly every day. Drones can be flown from one spot in California, by a two man crew, who are controlling a UAV nearly six thousand miles away, for a fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft. This also allows for the crew to remain in a safe area and if the aircraft is lost then its as simple as buying another one. There are many ethical questions that have been linked to drone use, but the way I see it is that drone or not if the USAF or CIA is trying to kill somebody, they will use anyway possible and currently the best technology today is a drone.
I think a better ethical question would be the removal of man from conflict. Losses in war is something that is always considered, and sending people on dangerous missions can result in their death. The removal of a pilot means that this mission can be taken on without worrying about the loss of a solider. I'm all for ensuring any and all of our soldiers come home to their family safe and sound and this is a huge advantage for the US, but if there are no men fighting wars, does that mean that the world will see more conflict? Does that mean one nation can inflict horrible losses on their enemy with no repercussion, and therefor assume an overwhelming power to hold nations effectively hostage. Its a difficult question to answer, as we have already seen in human conflict throughout history that old men are willing to send their young men to die in wars, and to be specific World War I but could this result in a willingness to start conflict as opposed to avoiding it? The world has had a unprecedented period of peace in terms of actual world wars, but if the balance of power is tipped could this mean another arms race?
Lastly, it doesn't appear there are many civilian jobs that involve UAV's. Its mostly military, or training military pilots or testing military drones for future operations. As far as future jobs however, this article looks like there are some promising fields for UAV use http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130606-drone-uav-surveillance-unmanned-domicopter-flight-civilian-helicopter/
UAVs will be a part of aviation, it may take a good amount of time for UAV use to reach what some are predicting, or it may only take a few years for UAV's to be used in our everyday life. Only time will tell on how fast the future of aviation evolves.
While this paints a somewhat gloomy picture on the current state of UAV use, the reality is that they will be part of our skies in the near future. The FAA is open to discussion to limited drone use being possible in 2015 and that will only be the beginning. There are many roles that UAV's can play in our world, and the cost savings, as well as the job creation is endless. The question is how can they be integrated in our current airspace. The most likely scenario that I can conceive is the creation of a new airspace (Hotel airspace?), a separate airspace that has a very limited ceiling as to not interfere with current GA traffic. If a drone were to say fly above this airspace, there must be some sort of beacon, either radio, visual or both to show exactly where it is. The problem is how small some of these drones can get might mean that GA aircraft will inevitability collide, causing a crash or even a death that would not have happened. The other big issue has to be privacy. While privacy is currently protected under law, its going to be hard to enforce if a drone can fly from nearly anywhere in a local area, spy on whomever they want to and return to either the owner, or even just crash the drone in a remote location to deny any evidence of use. As far as logistical problems, it seems like there are quite a few producers out there just waiting for the official word, so there will be no problems of getting ahold of a UAV
Military aviation, in contrast to the civilian side has been booming. Initial UAV use, starting during the first Gulf War was limited to spotting targets, and being a new technology was costly. Fast forward 20 years and now a drone strike is a common occurrence nearly every day. Drones can be flown from one spot in California, by a two man crew, who are controlling a UAV nearly six thousand miles away, for a fraction of the cost of a manned aircraft. This also allows for the crew to remain in a safe area and if the aircraft is lost then its as simple as buying another one. There are many ethical questions that have been linked to drone use, but the way I see it is that drone or not if the USAF or CIA is trying to kill somebody, they will use anyway possible and currently the best technology today is a drone.
I think a better ethical question would be the removal of man from conflict. Losses in war is something that is always considered, and sending people on dangerous missions can result in their death. The removal of a pilot means that this mission can be taken on without worrying about the loss of a solider. I'm all for ensuring any and all of our soldiers come home to their family safe and sound and this is a huge advantage for the US, but if there are no men fighting wars, does that mean that the world will see more conflict? Does that mean one nation can inflict horrible losses on their enemy with no repercussion, and therefor assume an overwhelming power to hold nations effectively hostage. Its a difficult question to answer, as we have already seen in human conflict throughout history that old men are willing to send their young men to die in wars, and to be specific World War I but could this result in a willingness to start conflict as opposed to avoiding it? The world has had a unprecedented period of peace in terms of actual world wars, but if the balance of power is tipped could this mean another arms race?
Lastly, it doesn't appear there are many civilian jobs that involve UAV's. Its mostly military, or training military pilots or testing military drones for future operations. As far as future jobs however, this article looks like there are some promising fields for UAV use http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130606-drone-uav-surveillance-unmanned-domicopter-flight-civilian-helicopter/
UAVs will be a part of aviation, it may take a good amount of time for UAV use to reach what some are predicting, or it may only take a few years for UAV's to be used in our everyday life. Only time will tell on how fast the future of aviation evolves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)