Jump to content

deicer

Donating Member
  • Posts

    10,766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    129

Posts posted by deicer

  1. Looks like it's been a bad weekend at AMS.

    https://news.klm.com/update-on-klm-operations-on-whit-monday-weekend/

    Amstelveen,
    04
    June
    2022

    Update on KLM operations on Whit Monday weekend

    At the end of Saturday afternoon, 4 June, KLM was regrettably compelled to decide that passengers at European destinations would no longer be allowed to board flights to Amsterdam. Although a substantial package of measures was taken before the weekend, KLM has faced unforeseen and urgent circumstances that are beyond its control. Due to unfavourable weather conditions and runway maintenance at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, many aircraft couldn’t land or take off in Amsterdam.

    This means a large number of KLM flights on Saturday were delayed or even cancelled. The number of passengers who were unable to depart from Amsterdam due to these external factors has increased sharply.
    To ensure safe and workable operations at Schiphol for passengers and crew, KLM took the far-reaching decision that no further passengers would be brought to Amsterdam. This decision was taken to ensure that as many stranded passengers as possible can depart from Schiphol on Saturday and that KLM can operate as many flights as possible on Sunday.

    It’s incredibly unfortunate that on top of everything else today, we’re also dealing with reduced runway capacity at Schiphol as a result of unfavourable winds and runway maintenance. Despite intervening earlier to ensure workable operations this weekend, today has been another extremely difficult day for our passengers and crew. We are apologizing to our customers for the inconvenience and doing our utmost to ensure that we can return to workable operations as swiftly as possible.”

    Rene de Groot - Chief Operating Officer
     
     
     

    The decision to stop bringing passengers from European destinations to or via Amsterdam remained in force for the whole of Saturday. Looking at the current weather forecasts, KLM does not expect to continue stopping passengers flying from European destinations into Amsterdam on Sunday and expects to run the operation as planned. 

    KLM offers its sincere apologies to passengers who were unable to travel to Amsterdam from certain European destinations, as well as those who were unable to transfer via Amsterdam to other final destinations.

    We understand that this decision has great impact on passengers, particularly during the Whit Monday weekend. KLM would like to stress that it is doing its utmost to offer passengers alternative flights as quickly as possible.

  2. https://www.autotrader.ca/editorial/20170302/how-much-does-it-really-cost-to-charge-that-electric-vehicle/

    How Much Does It Really Cost to Charge That Electric Vehicle?

    CAR BUYING TIPS
    March 01, 2022
    By Evan Williams
     

    Update (February 28, 2022): With more EVs on the road in 2022 than in 2017, along with big changes in the cost of energy, we’ve updated this guide for 2022 with new vehicles and updated power and fuel rates.

    Just about every article or news piece about an electric car that we do – and there is a lot of EV news lately – gets a comment thread filled with people debating the price of charging an EV. “Hydro rates are so high,” “maybe when electricity is cheaper,” “who can afford to drive one when I can use cheaper gas,” and best of all “filling a tank with fuel is half the price of plugging in a car.”

    What we realized is buyers don’t seem to know just how much it costs to charge an EV. I realized I didn’t know how much it would cost to charge an EV either. But I wanted to find out. We all know exactly how much it costs to put gas in the tank – look at the lines if there is a one-cent price jump expected overnight – but electricity is more stable and more predictable. So how much does it cost to “fill up” an electric car?

    2019hondaclarityelectric01_2-source.jpg?

    The Price of Power

    The first step is finding the cost of electricity. In most provinces, it’s easy. Most provinces have a set rate and tax. In New Brunswick, for example, power costs $0.1076/kWh and then gets a 15 percent tax. In provinces with a flat service fee, we have ignored that cost. Since you have to pay that anyway, EV or not, we didn’t count it. One province, however, is a little more tricky.

    Ontario has not just three time-of-day rates (and a new but little-used tiered system), but a patchwork of electric providers. Each has a different fee to get the power to your door, with some having multiple rates depending on where you live. That makes it difficult to calculate for every person in the province, but we can get an idea of the range for the province using a best case and a worst case. For the worst case, we used rural delivery fees and peak time rates. For the best case, we used nighttime rates with an urban delivery fee rate.

    In provinces that use a different rate for your first bundle of kWh, we’ve used that lower rate. Our reasoning is that it’s impossible to say which kilowatts went where and that the differences aren’t significant to our calculations.

    EV Charge Cost

    The next step is finding out how much electricity a car takes to charge up. Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), the same agency that handles fuel economy ratings, does consumption ratings for electric cars. Part of their estimates is a kWh/100 km rating for all electric cars. We’ll use their city/highway combined rating as the amount of electricity used to drive 100 km.

    For our calculations, we’re using two electric vehicles. The 2022 Hyundai Kona Electric and the 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E Long Range AWD. An average BEV compact, and a more premium longer-range electric SUV. For gasoline equivalents, we have chosen the 2022 Honda Civic sedan to put next to the Kona EV. It’s the best-selling car in Canada, offering a similar cabin and footprint. To pair up with the Mach-E, we picked one of the most popular midsize crossovers in Canada. The Hyundai Santa Fe (2.5T) is a popular SUV that offers good fuel economy as well as similar overall length, width, and height.

    Fuelling up our Calculators

    cost-of-driving-100-km-compact.png?width

    The Honda Civic is rated to get 6.9 L/100 km in combined driving (with either of its available engines). The average price of regular gasoline in Canada at the time of writing is $1.585/L. Multiplying the two numbers together gives the cost of driving 100 km – roughly $10.94 – assuming the Civic achieves its official mileage figure (rare for any gas car, but let’s assume so throughout for comparison purposes). British Columbians and Newfoundlanders, your gas is significantly more expensive than the rest of the country, so your costs would be $12.28 and $11.94 per 100 km, respectively (Alberta is the cheapest at $10.01).

    A Hyundai Kona EV uses 17.4 kWh to drive 100 km. This is where the math gets trickier.

    In Quebec, that’s 6.159 ¢/kWh plus eight per cent tax and it will run the meter to a total of $1.23 – almost a 90 per cent savings versus the cost of gas, in theory. But Quebec does have the cheapest rates in the country so let’s look at the worst case in rural Ontario. The highest main grid electric cost in the country is in rural areas of Ontario at peak time. Power then and there costs 20.67 ¢/kWh plus tax. Again, that’s on top of the large fixed charges, but since you aren’t unplugging your fridge anytime soon we won’t count those. So in rural Ontario, the most expensive part of the country for electricity, 100 km in a Kona EV will cost $4.06. That’s about a third of the cost to fill a gas car.

    But wait, charge that car at night or any time on off-peak weekends, as most EV owners do, and the Ontario worst-case cost drops to just $2.33. If you aren’t in a rural area, the cost is just $2.03.

    MORE RELATED ARTICLES

    So in the best case, the Kona EV costs less than 11 per cent as much to fill as a Civic, worst case is around 38 per cent. Averaging costs across the nation, charging an electric vehicle is about 78 per cent less expensive than fuelling up a similar gasoline vehicle.

    What About Bigger Vehicles?

    cost-of-driving-100-km-suv.png?width=855

    What about the SUVs? A Hyundai Santa Fe with the 2.5L turbo-four engine makes 277 hp and uses an estimated 9.9 L/100 km. That works out to $15.69 to drive 100 km on average ($17.62 in BC, $17.13 in NL, and $14.36 in AB). The Ford Mustang Mach-E uses 23.1 kWh/100 km, which works out to $1.64 in Quebec, $5.40 in worst case Ontario, and a national average of $3.24. Here the situation is much the same, with the cost of charging the Mach-E 79 per cent less expensive than fuelling the Santa Fe on average.

    So now we know how much electric cars should cost to charge. Most EV’s come within a few cents of the cost of the two we’ve used as well because they’re all shockingly (zing!) efficient and group similarly based on their physical size and weight. They have some other tricks up their cords as well.

    What About Paid Chargers?

    For a start, there are thousands of chargers spread around the country. It takes some effort to find somewhere rural enough that there isn’t one nearby. Many of those chargers are Level 2 plugs that cost nothing to use. So with some planning, patience and luck, you could reduce the yearly fuelling bill to zero. Zip, zilch, nada. Many others charge by the hour, often $1 or $2 per hour. $2 per hour and an approximate rate of 30 km per hour puts the cost at around $5 for 100 km of driving.

    Charging at pay-to-use Level 3 charging varies wildly. You’re charged based on time, but how much charge your vehicle can accept in that time changes based on the temperature, your current charge level, and several other factors. Because of this variability, and because several studies have shown 80 percent or more charging is done at home, we’re not going in depth on L3 charging. But, a 50-kW fast charger will add around 100 km of range in about 20 minutes, at a cost of approximately $4.50. A 350-kW charger, the fastest currently offered, can add 100 km in as little as four minutes, at a price of less than $3.

    Hybrids and PHEVs Compared

    gas-hybrid-phev-comparison.png?width=855

    How do plug-in hybrids compare? For these calculations, we’ve used a model that is offered in gas, hybrid, and PHEV drivelines: the Toyota RAV4. It’s also Canada’s best-selling crossover, making it an even better example. The gas-powered AWD RAV4 can travel 100 km on 8.4 L of regular gas, according to NRCan. The hybrid and PHEV RAV4 Prime both use 6.0 L of regular gas to travel 100 km. But the Prime has an advantage: it can travel for the first 68 km of that trip on electric power instead, using gasoline for only the final 32 km. Measured that way, it uses 15.2 kWh of electricity and just 1.9 L of fuel.

    With those figures, and the Canadian gas price average, a gas RAV4 will cost $13.31 in fuel to drive 100 km. The RAV4 Hybrid should cost $9.51, and the RAV4 Prime PHEV just $5.17.

    So a 100-km trip in that plug-in hybrid would still cost more than a fully electric car, but a look at our chart shows the overall fuelling costs are definitely less than their conventional gas versions. Since most drivers only occasionally travel more than 40 km per day, the potential cost savings is even greater.

    What’s the Payback?

    That’s how much it costs to charge that electric car. It’s not a surprise that the EV will cost less to drive 100 km than a gas car, but it is a surprise how quickly it adds up. The savings in a single year comparing our two compacts (and the average Canadian’s 20,000 km per year distance travelled) is a worst case of $1,374 per year and a best case of $1,941. For our SUVs, the potential savings is as much as $2,811.

    Add that to current federal EV incentives of up to $5,000, combined with provincial incentives as high as $8,000, and an EV can pay for itself in just a few years. Our compact car examples could reach parity in just three and a half years for buyers living in Quebec.

    The best part of an EV? You’ll never have to stand beside a pump at -30°C ever again. You can even program the car to warm up while it’s still on the charger. That’s something to think about the next time you’re shopping for a new car.

    Home EV Charging Cost for 100 km Range, Alphabetically by Province

    Derived from NRCan data retrieved on 2022-02-25

    1 2022 Hyundai Kona Electric: 17.4 kWh/100 km combined

    2 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E: 23.1 kWh/100 km combined

    3 2022 Toyota RAV4 Prime (PHEV): 22.3 kWh/100 km combined, 68 km range; 6.0 L/100 km combined. Calculation assumes 68 km of pure electric operation per 100 km travelled.

    4 2022 Honda Civic Sedan: 6.9 L/100 km combined

    5 2022 Hyundai Santa Fe: 9.9 L/100 km combined

    6 2022 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid: 6.0 L/100 km combined

      Kona Electric1 Mustang Mach-E2 RAV4 Prime3
    AB $3.03   $4.03   $5.43  
    BC $1.72   $2.28   $4.91  
    MB $1.82   $2.41   $4.43  
    NB $2.28   $3.02   $4.98  
    NL $2.51   $3.33   $5.50  
    NS $2.96   $3.93   $5.58  
    ON (average) $3.05   $4.05   $5.67  
      Toronto off-peak   $2.03   $2.70   $4.78
      Toronto on-peak   $3.76   $4.99   $6.29
      Rural off-peak   $2.33   $3.10   $5.05
      Rural on-peak   $4.06   $5.40   $6.56
    PEI $2.99   $3.96   $5.64  
    QC $1.23   $1.64   $4.28  
    SK $2.85   $3.78   $5.30  
    National average $2.44   $3.24   $5.17  
    Gas comparison $10.944 $15.695 $9.516
    Annual Home EV Charging Cost, from Lowest to Highest Cost

    Derived from NRCan data retrieved on 2022-02-25

    1 2022 Hyundai Kona Electric: 17.4 kWh/100 km combined

    2 2022 Ford Mustang Mach-E: 23.1 kWh/100 km combined

    3 2022 Toyota RAV4 Prime (PHEV): 22.3 kWh/100 km combined, 68 km range; 6.0 L/100 km combined. Calculation assumes 68 km of pure electric operation per 100 km travelled.

    4 2022 Honda Civic Sedan: 6.9 L/100 km combined

    5 2022 Hyundai Santa Fe: 9.9 L/100 km combined

    6 2022 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid: 6.0 L/100 km combined

      Kona Electric1 Mustang Mach-E2 RAV4 Prime3
    QC $246   $327   $856  
    BC $343   $456   $983  
    MB $363   $482   $885  
    NB $455   $605   $996  
    NL $501   $665   $1,101  
    SK $569   $756   $1,060  
    NS $592   $787   $1,115  
    PEI $597   $793   $1,127  
    AB $607   $805   $1,085  
    ON (average) $609   $809   $1,134  
      Toronto off-peak   $406   $539   $957
      Rural off-peak   $467   $620   $1,010
      Toronto on-peak   $752   $998   $1,258
      Rural on-peak   $813   $1,079   $1,311
    National average $488   $648   $1,034  
    Gas Comparison $2,1874 $3,1385 $1,9026
  3. 1 hour ago, Kip Powick said:

    I'd rather paddle ..😉

    I remember decades ago watching a beautiful cruiser going across the Bay of Quinte, the vessel was about 40-45 feet long. I causally asked the guy I was with, "I wonder how many miles to the gallon he gets?"

    His reply was, " If that is your biggest concern, you can't afford the boat"

    He was/is  correct,

    How about this mod?

     

    boat invited.jpg

  4. Hope this helps...

    https://airinsight.com/fuel-burn-numbers-max-vs-neo/

    Fuel burn numbers – MAX vs NEO

    by Addison Schonland | May 28, 2019 | Fuel Burn | 1 comment

    2019-05-28_12-01-46.jpg?resize=267%2C187

    The US DoT data for 2018 has been published.  Analyzing the numbers we generated preliminary data comparing fuel cost numbers for the MAX and NEO.  (There may still be some gaps to fill) We stuck to fuel costs to minimize the chance of airline creative accounting.   This is not a dig at the airline industry.

    The DoT advised us as follows when we found some numbers to be odd: “While DOT has followed GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) since 1989, there are a number of instances where we don’t.  Our Chart of Accounts is pretty rigid.  It does not change, to do so would require a Rulemaking.  Air carriers will follow FASB pronouncements when reporting to the SEC, but we may instruct them differently.   Case in point, FASB ASU No. 2014-09 told air carriers to record all ancillary fees as passenger revenue.  We instructed the carriers not to.  GAAP tells business entities (air carriers) to show “Other Comprehensive Income” below “Net Income” and specifically states “not to post to Retained Earnings on the balance sheet, but to create a new line item for it”.   We do not have new line items and instruct the carriers to record it in Retain Earnings.”

    Back to the MAX vs NEO numbers.  The chart shows the rise in fuel costs as oil prices have risen.   We took the fuel costs and air hours from Form 41 table 5.2 and took ASMs divided by mile flown to get average seats from the T-2.  The chart is a combination of data points.

    2019-05-28_12-02-34-580x307.jpg?resize=5

    The interesting item here is clearly the MAX8 curve.  In 2017 the A320neo had a lower number and by 2018 they are about the same.  Next, we go into the details.

    2019-05-28_12-01-46.jpg?resize=267%2C187

     

    • In 2018 the MAX8 we see fuel costs per hour per seat over 20% better than the 737-800.
    • The MAX9 shows an improvement in fuel costs of nearly 12% over the 737-900ER.
    • An item worth noting – the 737-900ER numbers look very competitive with those of the A321neo.  This is not because the 737-900ER has equally compelling economics –   it doesn’t.  The Boeing is used more extensively on longer hauls and its fuel numbers benefit from this.  The largest A321neo fleet in the US belongs to Alaska (flying them transcon) and it is too small to make a dent, for now. As American and Delta start getting their deliveries, we expect to see the A321neo fuel costs drop considerably compared to the 737-900ER.
    • No data was published allowing for a comparison between the A321neo and MAX9.
    • The A321ceo to A321neo fuel costs decline nearly 12% – which we think underscores the relative “misuse” of the A321neos at present.  These aircraft need to have their legs stretched.
    • Next note that the A320ceo to A320neo shows a fuel cost drop of 25.5% in 2018.  This is quite a bit better than the MAX improvement over the NG.
  5. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2022/covered-static-ports/

    787’s covered fan cowl static ports highlights importance of clear and unambiguous procedures

    ao-2021-040-news-story.jpg?width=670&hei

    Key points:

    • Boeing 787 being used for freight operations flew from Melbourne to Los Angeles with tape covering its engine cowl fan static ports;
    • While the flight was uneventful, the covered ports meant redundancy for the engine electronic control system was reduced;
    • Job instruction card for restoring a 787 to service did not link to Boeing’s recommended procedures;
    • Qantas has amended its engineering instructions to properly reference Boeing’s recommended procedures.


    A Boeing 787 being used for a freight flight flew from Melbourne to Los Angeles with tape over four of its static ports, a new ATSB investigation report details.

    After the Qantas 787-9 aircraft, registered VH-ZNJ, landed in Los Angeles on the morning of 22 September 2021, a Qantas engineer found tape covering the four static ports on the aircraft’s engine fan cowls.

    Static ports provide important air pressure data to aircraft systems. Boeing recommends they be covered, to avoid contamination, when the aircraft is parked for periods up to 7 days, and Qantas incorporated this instruction into its ‘normal’ parking procedure.

    The ATSB investigation details that on the day before the incident flight, an engineer undertook the parking procedure on the aircraft, which included covering the engine cowl static ports with ‘remove before flight’ barricade streamer tape.

    “Later that day, another engineer was tasked to conduct the ‘restore’ procedure to return the aircraft to flight status,” ATSB Director Transport Safety Stuart Macleod explained.

    “The tape on the engine fan cowls was not removed by that engineer, as per the manufacturer’s procedures, and this wasn’t identified by flight crew or dispatch during pre-departure checks.”

    VH-ZNJ subsequently took off with the tape still on its engine fan cowl static ports.

    “While the flight was uneventful, the covered ports meant redundancy for the engine electronic control system was reduced,” Mr Macleod noted.

    The ATSB found that while the job instruction card (JIC) developed by Qantas for parking a 787 did link to Boeing’s recommended procedures, the JIC for restoring it back to service did not.

    “This was a missed opportunity to assist engineers to readily access the current procedures and determine which ports were covered, and also allowed for different interpretations of which ports could be covered,” Mr Macleod said.

    “When performing safety‑critical tasks like aircraft maintenance, it is very important that procedures are clear and unambiguous to avoid misinterpretation and error such as occurred in this incident.”

    At interview, the flight crew’s second officer, who conducted an exterior inspection of VH-ZNJ before the flight, reported they were aware of the fan cowl ports, but not that they could be covered by tape.

    The second officer also reported they were somewhat distracted during the inspection, as they had found a pitot tube cover on the ground, and were trying to hand it off to an engineering staff member at that time.

    “The second officer also believed Qantas engineering had conducted a pre-flight inspection prior to the flight crew arriving at the aircraft,” Mr Macleod added.

    Following the occurrence, Qantas distributed memos to engineering, and flight and ramp crew, highlighting the location of the fan cowl static ports and that they may be covered.

    In addition, the airline amended its ‘park’ and ‘restore’ engineering instructions to both reference Boeing’s procedures.

    The investigation report also notes the metre-long tail of the ‘remove before flight’ tape covering the static ports was stuck down, to prevent it being torn from the fuselage in strong winds, as per Boeing’s recommended procedure.

    “This likely reduced the visibility of it covering the fan cowl static port covers,” Mr Macleod said.

    “Targeted inspection of locations and components, rather than relying on streamers, which can detach, can help to identify when these covers or devices have not been removed.”

    Read the report: AO-2021-040 Aircraft flight preparation occurrence involving Boeing 787-9, VH‑ZNJ Melbourne Airport, Victoria on 22 September 2021

  6. Taxes aren't the problem.  It's greed...

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-05-09/crude-hovers-at-110-a-barrel-but-the-refinery-margin-makes-us-pay-a-lot-more?sref=5dj0X2VO

    Sorry, But for You, Oil Trades at $250 a Barrel

    The culprit is the refinery margin and the consequences are huge for global inflation.

    May 9, 2022, 1:48 AM EDT

    Listen to this article

    6:22

    Share this article

    Follow the authors
    headshot of Javier Blas
    Javier Blas is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering energy and commodities. A former reporter for Bloomberg News and commodities editor at the Financial Times, he is coauthor of “The World for Sale: Money, Power and the Traders Who Barter the Earth’s Resources.” @JavierBlas
    + Get alerts forJavier Blas
     

    If you are the owner of an oil refinery, then crude is trading happily just a little above $110 a barrel — expensive, but not extortionate. If you aren’t an oil baron, I have bad news: it's as if oil is trading somewhere between $150 and $275 a barrel.

    The oil market is projecting a false sense of stability when it comes to energy inflation. Instead, the real economy is suffering a much stronger price shock than it appears, because fuel prices are rising much faster than crude, and that matters for monetary policy.

    Petroleum Shock

    Refined oil products have risen between 30% and nearly 140% since Russia invaded Ukraine in late February, compared to less than 15% for crude.

    Source: Bloomberg

     

    To understand why, let’s examine the guts of the oil market: the refining industry. 

    Wall Street closely monitors the price of crude, particularly a grade called West Texas Intermediate traded in New York. It’s a benchmark followed by everyone, from bond investors to central bankers. But only oil refiners buy crude — and therefore, are exposed to its price. The rest of us — the real economy — purchase refined petroleum products like gasoline, diesel and jet-fuel that we can use to run cars, trucks and airplanes. It’s those post-refinery prices that matter to us. 

    Typically, the price of crude and the price of refined products go up and down in tandem, almost symmetrically. What’s in between is a refining margin. In normal times, WTI is a handy price shorthand for the entirety of the petroleum market. So when, say, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell looks at WTI, he gets a neat picture of the whole energy market. 

    But we aren’t in normal times. Right now, the traditional relationship between crude and refined products is broken. WTI is anchored around $100-$110 a barrel, suggesting that — in barrel terms — gasoline, diesel and jet-fuel prices shouldn’t be much higher, once you add the average refining margin. 

    In reality, they are a lot more expensive. Take jet-fuel: in New York harbor, a key hub, it’s changing hands at the equivalent to $275 per barrel. Diesel isn’t far away, at about $175 a barrel. And gasoline is at about $155 a barrel. Those are wholesale prices, before you add taxes and marketing margins. 

    What’s changed? Refining margins have exploded. And that means energy inflation is far stronger than it appears. 

    Oil refineries are complex machines, capable of processing multiple streams of crude into dozens of different petroleum products. For simplicity’s sake, the industry measures refining margins using a rough calculation called the “3-2-1 crack spread”: for every three barrels of WTI crude oil the refinery processes, it makes two barrels of gasoline and one barrel of distillate fuel like diesel and jet-fuel. 

    Cracking Profits

    Oil refiners are enjoying the best ever processing margins, lifting the cost of fuels such as gasoline, diesel and jet-fuel well above that of crude

    Source: Bloomberg

    Note: WTI 3-2-1 cracking margin

    From 1985 to 2021, the crack spread averaged about $10.50 a barrel. Even between 2004 and 2008, during the so-called golden age of refining, the crack spread never surpassed $30. It rarely spent more than a few weeks above $20. Last week, however, the margin jumped to a record high of nearly $55. Crack margins for diesel and other petroleum products surged much higher. 

    There are four main reasons behind the explosion in refining margins. 

     

    First, demand — particularly for diesel —  has rebounded strongly, depleting global inventories. In some markets, like the U.S. East Coast, diesel stocks have fallen to a 30-year low. Despite rising prices and fears of an economic slowdown later this year, oil executive say they see strong consumption for now. “Demand is not that easily destroyed,” Shell Plc Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden told investors last week.

    Second, the U.S. and its allies have tapped their strategic petroleum reserves to cap the rally in oil prices. That has provided extra crude, which has put a lid on WTI prices, but it hasn’t addressed the tightness in refined products. Only a small fraction of the emergency release is in the form of refined products, and only in Europe. 

    Third, and perhaps most importantly, refining capacity has declined where it matters for the market now, and the plants that are operating are struggling to process enough crude to satisfy the demand for fuel. Martijn Rats, an oil analyst at Morgan Stanley, estimates that outside China and the Middle East, oil distillation capacity fell by 1.9 million barrels a day from the end of 2019 to today — that’s the largest decline in 30 years.

    Opinion. Data. More Data.
     
    Get the most important Bloomberg Opinion pieces in one email.
     
    Email
     
    Sign Up
     
    Bloomberg may send me offers and promotions.
     
    By submitting my information, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

    The downward trend started well before the pandemic hit, as old Western refineries struggled to compete, environmental regulations increased costs and the unfounded fear of peak oil demand amid the energy transition prompted some companies to close plants. The fuel-demand collapse triggered by Covid-19 only turbo-charged the trend, resulting in dozens of refinery operations shutting down for good in Europe and the U.S. in 2020 and 2021. New capacity has emerged in China. However, Beijing tightly controls how much fuel its refiners can export so that capacity is effectively out of reach of the global market. 

     

    “Has the oil market hit the refinery wall?,” Rats asked in a note to clients last week. “Unusually, the answer appears to be yes.”

    Fourth, are the sanctions and unilateral embargos — also known as self-sanctions — on Russian oil. Before the invasion of Ukraine, Russia was a major exporter not just of crude, but also of diesel and semi-processed oil that Western refiners turned into fuel. Europe, in particular, relied on Russian refineries for a significant chunk of its diesel imports. The flow has now dried.

    Europe not only needs to find extra crude to produce the diesel and other fuels it’s not buying from Russia, but, crucially, it needs the refining capacity to do so, too. It’s a double blow. Oil traders estimate that Russia has shut down 1.3 million to 1.5 million barrels a day of refining capacity as result of the self-sanctions. 

    Who’s benefiting? The pure-play oil refiners, which are quietly enjoying record-high profit margins. While OPEC and Big Oil get the blame, independent refiners are cashing-in. The sky-high crack margins explains why the share prices of U.S. refining giants Marathon Petroleum Corp. and Valero Energy Corp. have surged to all-time highs. The longer the refiners make super-profits, the harder the energy shock will hit the economy. The only solution is to lower demand. For that, however, a recession will be necessary. 

  7. https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/16/business/ryanair-ceo-boeing-attack/index.html

    Boeing needs to get its 's*** together,' Ryanair CEO says

    New York (CNN Business)The CEO of Ryanair let loose a scathing, obscenity-laden attack on Boeing management Monday, saying company executives need either an immediate "reboot, or a boot up the a**."

    "At the moment we think Boeing management is running around like headless chickens, not able to sell aircraft, and then even the aircraft they deliver, they're not able to deliver them on time," said Michael O'Leary, CEO of Ryanair, Europe's largest discount carrier, which has ordered nearly 400 jets from Boeing since 2010.
    O'Leary and Boeing had an unusually public dispute last fall about negotiations on a possible order for the next generation of the 737 Max, with Ireland-based Ryanair breaking off talks because of a pricing squabble.
    The CEO's unusually blunt comments Monday were focused on Boeing's delayed deliveries of planes. O'Leary said Ryanair had to scale back its spring and summer schedules because planes it had expected the aircraft maker to deliver by the end of April probably won't arrive until the end of June.
     
     
    He was livid about the delays, especially because Ryanair is purchasing planes known as white tails, which Boeing had built for other airlines. The original purchaser of those planes canceled the order during a prolonged 20-month grounding of the 737 Max that followed two fatal crashes.
    "I can understand why there may be various challenges manufacturing new aircraft, but aircraft that you built and made two years ago that all you had ... to do was put petrol in them and f***ing fly them to Dublin, really I don't understand why you're taking two to three month delays on that," he said on a conference call with investors about the airline's financial results. "It is redolent of very poor management performance in Seattle."
    Boeing did not respond to a request for comment on O'Leary's remarks.

    Criticizing management

     
    O'Leary said Boeing makes great planes, but it might be time to change management.
    "Either the existing management needs to up its game, or they need to change the existing management, would be our view of life," he said. "We're very happy to work with existing management but they need to bloody well improve on what they've been doing delivering to us over the last 12 months. ... We're a willing customer, but we're struggling with slow deliveries and an inability to do a deal on new aircraft despite the number of white tails they have sitting on the f***ing ground in Seattle."
    Boeing has faced numerous problems in recent years, including the 737 Max crisis that cost it more than $20 billion. The company also was hit with an FAA-ordered halt of deliveries of its 787 Dreamliner last June due to quality control problems. And it faced delays winning approval for its next-generation widebody jet, the 777X, that forced Boeing to push back the first deliveries of the plane by two years to at least 2025.
    Boeing also took substantial losses in its military and space businesses, including a recent $660 million charge on the two planes it is completing that will be used as the new Air Force Ones. It's also combating delays in building a spacecraft to carry US astronauts to the International Space Station.
    "If they get their s*** together, we'd be willing to take more aircraft for summer '23 and summer '24," O'Leary said. "There's growth there to be won."
    He also said the airline is willing to restart negotiations on an order for the new generation of the 737 Max, although he pointed out that has yet to win FAA approval, making it risky to depend upon. So Ryanair is also looking at possibly purchasing 50 jets on the second hand market instead. And he had choice words for Boeing's sales staff.
    "You wonder what the hell their sales team has done in the last two years," O'Leary said. "Frankly most of them seem to sitting at home in their f***ing jimjams working from home instead of being out there selling planes to customers."
    O'Leary also criticized Boeing's recently announced plan to move its corporate headquarters from Chicago to Arlington, Virginia, a suburb of Washington.
    "Moving the headquarters to Virginia from Chicago, while it may be good for the defense side of the business, doesn't fix the fundamental underlying problems on the civilian aircraft side in Seattle," he said.

    Other customer criticism

    In addition to O'Leary, several other airlines have complained on recent conference calls — although in far less colorful language — about the problems they face from the 787 or 777X delays.
    Domhnal Slattery, the CEO of Avolon, one of the world's leading aircraft leasing companies, suggested earlier this month that Boeing needs a change in culture — and maybe leadership.
    "I think it's fair to say that Boeing has lost its way," Slattery said at the Airfinance Journal conference, in comments first reported by Reuters and confirmed by Avolon. "Boeing has a storied history ... They build great airplanes. But it's said that culture eats strategy for breakfast and that is what has happened at Boeing."
  8. https://flyer.co.uk/junkers-shows-new-a60-two-seater-and-reveals-ju-52-project/

    Junkers shows new A60 two-seater and reveals JU-52 project

    Junkers A60 Junkers A60 proof of concept aircraft shown at AERO. Photos: Ed Hicks

    The new Junkers Aircraft Company sprang two early surprises at the AERO General Aviation show being staged at Friedrichshafen, Germany this week.

    The first was the A60, a two-seater with side-by-side seating and retractable undercarriage which will go into production next year. Like its stablemate, the Junior A50, the A60 meets the criteria for the 600kg microlight class and is powered by a 100hp Rotax 912iS engine. It can be operated with an open cockpit or enclosed.

    Junkers A60 and A50

    Junkers A50 and A60

    The 1930s inspired A50 meanwhile is expected to receive approval from the German aviation authority, the DULV, as a 600kg microlight this summer. The first 29 aircraft will be priced at €179,000 and one-third have already been sold.

    The second big surprise was the announcement of a new project to build replicas of the famous three-engine Junkers JU-52, reengined with three RED A03-005 V12 diesels each producing 550hp.

    Junkers JU-52 replica

    Yes, Junkers is planning to develop a three-engine JU-52 NG

    The JU-52 NG, will be built using the same corrugated aluminium sheet metal skin over a hollow frame. The fuselage can be configured to hold six cargo pallets or 14 passengers, or a mix of the two. Avionics will also be modern, from Garmin and include both VFR and IFR options.

    Figures released so far by Junkers Flugzeugwerke AG, claim a max take-off weight of 8,616kg, cruise speed of 180km/h (97kt) and a fuel burn of 77 litres/hour for each engine.

    RED V12 engine

    The JU-52 NG will have modern engines – the 550hp RED A03-005 V12 diesel

    “This aircraft is simpler in operational handling than any other of its kind,” said a Junkers statement.

    “No complex systems for refueling, no special equipment for loading and unloading, and flight characteristics that allow take-off and landings on short and unpaved areas.

    “The absolute highlight, however, is the use of the JU-52 NG for sightseeing flights. There is no better aircraft than the JU-52 NG for this type of flight.

    “Imagine sitting as one of 14 passengers in the JU-52 NG, each with their own window seat, flying slow and low in front of the New York skyline. An experience you will never forget!”

    • Thanks 2
  9. Generals gathered in their masses
    Just like witches at black masses
    Evil minds that plot destruction
    Sorcerer of death's construction
    In the fields, the bodies burning
    As the war machine keeps turning
    Death and hatred to mankind
    Poisoning their brainwashed minds
    Oh lord, yeah!
    Politicians hide themselves away
    They only started the war
    Why should they go out to fight?
    They leave that role to the poor, yeah
    Time will tell on their power minds
    Making war just for fun
    Treating people just like pawns in chess
    Wait till their judgement day comes, yeah!
    Now in darkness, world stops turning
    Ashes where their bodies burning
    No more war pigs have the power
    Hand of God has struck the hour
    Day of judgement, God is calling
    On their knees, the war pigs crawling
    Begging mercy for their sins
    Satan laughing, spreads his wings
    Oh lord, yeah!
     
×
×
  • Create New...