Jump to content

Clive is becoming a liability


YYC I/C

Recommended Posts

Market fragmentation is also the oposite of market consolidation (hubbing).

If the YYZ-YQM route is successfull only because it consolidates all of the traffic from International, Transborder, Western Canada via YYZ, then what happens when an airline decides to offer YWG-YQM and hive off a chunk of traffic that makes the route profitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Market fragmentation is also the oposite of market consolidation (hubbing). 

If the YYZ-YQM route is successfull only because it consolidates all of the traffic from International, Transborder, Western Canada via YYZ, then what happens when an airline decides to offer YWG-YQM and hive off a chunk of traffic that makes the route profitable.

Gold star for FIDO. That's why you buy a lot of Embraers and CRJs! Better to be a fragmenter than be fragmented. Do I hear YQM-YOW with a 50-seater?

wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gold star for FIDO. That's why you buy a lot of Embraers and CRJs! Better to be a fragmenter than be fragmented. Do I hear YQM-YOW with a 50-seater?

wink.gif

The worry can be that you can fragment yourself!!! You end up diverting traffic away from your own flights and ruining the profitability.

When AC ran YYZ-HNL it was taking away valuable fill-up traffic on YVR-HNL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worry can be that you can fragment yourself!!! You end up diverting traffic away from your own flights and ruining the profitability.

When AC ran YYZ-HNL it was taking away valuable fill-up traffic on YVR-HNL.

It's a question of allocating resources. I think AC can make a go of YYZ-HNL if it ran one YYZ-HNL-MEL and crossed it with the YVR-HNL-SYD flight. Remember, when AC operated YYZ-HNL, it was in the early days after it revived Sydney. Or was it even before Sydney? But I digress.

Sure, you can fragment yourself, but let's take a practical example. Moncton-Ottawa. There is no nonstop ob any carrier. So if JAZZ were to launch a Moncton-Ottawa flight, it might take some people off of AC's Moncton-Montreal and Moncton-Toronto flights, but it would also take some business from WJ, SG and CJ. Perhaps it will be enough to chase one of those off the route. The more fragmented a market becomes, the more a few overflights can create a tipping point where a small loss becomes too great a loss to bear. Also, with a nonstop, the pricing wouldn't have to be so low. You get people to buy up for the nonstop to save all that travel time. So the net cost to AC in such a scenario might be zero. If AC were tight on that first flight of the day from Moncton to Toronto, then adding a YQM-YOW flight might open up a few seats to claw back business it was spilling to the other carriers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks read that and it seems to be similiar to what was released when it was approved. FI did a nice article on RNP as well.

I am still a little confused as to what WJ is planning on selling of this technology ?? Also wondering what an airport would purchase and what benefit an airport would get ??

I am all for advances in technology, and here comes the big BUT, in this case it seems to be contingent on getting help from our friends in ATC.

The article says this will save WJ 60 nm going into YXX, BUT that is only traffic permitting and ATC allowing it to happen.

I need only point out the famous FMS arrivals and how they were heralded as the end all and be all to help save money by increasing efficiencies during descent and approach. They are only as useful as the controller working the sector.

The selling of the technology to the airport, as I understand it, will be to share the costs of setting up the routes and approaches into each seperate airport. And the cost of setting up an RNP precision approach with the same minimums as an ILS is a fraction of the cost and upkeep of an ILS.

The sell to ATC, and I've heard that once they saw the possibilities, they were excited about it, is that an RNP arrival into any airport, to a specific runway at that airport would be flown exactly the same every time, same speeds, same altitudes, and same navigation(within .1nm accuracy), which means that for a busy vfr airport, the controllers would know exactly how long it takes the jet to get to waypoint X, and can move VFR traffic accordingly... which is less work for the controller.

What that article also doesn't really get into is that with rnp, the arrivals can be flown far more efficiently to line up with the approach, by being able to navigate valleys or around hills for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not revenue, it's cost savings. more efficient= less cost to do business=more money in the pocket at the end of the day.

Above, one of your colleagues stated that is was being looked at as a revenue source.

Your other post about how it all works is great, but a couple more questions come to mind, kind of in the same vein as I posted earlier.

The savings and time allotments that you speak of in regards to ATC, sound exactly like what is supposed to occur with an FMS Arrival. The exactness of RNP 0.1 is not alot of help in that regard as airspace protections requirements are significantly more than that and have to apply to every aircraft RNP or not.

Also, why would an airport spend money on an RNP approach when not every aircraft it serves is able to use it ?? They still need another IFR aid of some sorts.

I agree that where this technology is invaluable is in terrain avoidance and clearnce. This will significantly help with situational awareness as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be about as much of a revenue source as setting up the FMS procedures were for AC. WJ puts the time, effort and cost into developing the system, just as AC did with the FMS, and in the end is not proprietory, but open access.

Is there a cost saving? Maybe. But I figure that like the FMS, if the FMS gates are set up appropriately, for example. How many airports are the gates in goofy spots that actually add more time and distance?

Digressing --

Years back, in the 70's, Denver Stapleton had 4 profile descent posts that worked well. There are endemic problems in ATC, including fighting for turf between arrival and sectors, that keep the ATC system in the Dark Ages in Canada. Some of the problems relate directly to TC, CARs and the ATC Manops, too. There is a rigidly, lack of flexibility in the Canadian ATC, and a lack of willingness to provide a service to the customer that pays the bills. This is exactly what AC has been accused of, in the past.

Like AC, NavCan is not moving out of the government entity mode of thinking. Probably like AC, NavCan is having a very hard time becoming flexible. NavCan (probably managers and employees) appear to resist change (knowing a number of controllers personally). Managers (likely mostly middle managers) are protecting their "Naughty Word"es, and budget, they have internal empires that are being protected, too. The overall profitability, efficiency and service to the customer is seen as less important that protecting the status quo as I see it from the outside. There are more excuses made not to change and provide the service than there is a desire to change or find the ways to provide increasing more efficient better service to the customer.

There are many individual situations, where some may be excused or explained away, but the totality of the system in Canada is that there could be much better service to the customers if the system were more flexible and willing to embrace that idea. As AC has found, leaving the protection of the Crown Corporation mentality behind took CCAA to achieve. Maybe that will have to happen at NavCan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Above, one of your colleagues stated that is was being looked at as a revenue source.

Your other post about how it all works is great, but a couple more questions come to mind, kind of in the same vein as I posted earlier.

The savings and time allotments that you speak of in regards to ATC, sound exactly like what is supposed to occur with an FMS Arrival. The exactness of RNP 0.1 is not alot of help in that regard as airspace protections requirements are significantly more than that and have to apply to every aircraft RNP or not.

Also, why would an airport spend money on an RNP approach when not every aircraft it serves is able to use it ?? They still need another IFR aid of some sorts.

I agree that where this technology is invaluable is in terrain avoidance and clearnce. This will significantly help with situational awareness as well.

Both Canus and I have obviously heard the same stuff but from different people. I was told in an Ops Update (Also known as the "kool-Aid" chat) that RNP was a viable source of revenue to airports wishing to 'purchase' an approach. Possible Airports are places like Kamloops, Pemberton, and others. I'm not sure if it's to get the town in to bed with WestJet, which motivates local support of a new route, or something else. The revenue they speak of could be selling the research and approvals to other NG companies around the world. When I find out more I can post it here. As for the exactness on RNP, one thing that helps is we don't follow the traditional 'TERP'S for avoidance, our path becomes more of a 'tube'. This advantage starts to add up when we can lift more off of a runway because we no longer care about Uncle Bob's Barn which gets caught in the departure splay miles away.

None of these things ad up to zilleeions of bucks, I was pointing out that all of the projects WestJet works on usually have money in mind and can help recover the cost of our technology investment for our fleet or may help through the unexpected oil crunch to be healthy on the other side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Canus and I have obviously heard the same stuff but from different people. I was told in an Ops Update (Also known as the "kool-Aid" chat) that RNP was a viable source of revenue to airports wishing to 'purchase' an approach. Possible Airports are places like Kamloops, Pemberton, and others. I'm not sure if it's to get the town in to bed with WestJet, which motivates local support of a new route, or something else. The revenue they speak of could be selling the research and approvals to other NG companies around the world. When I find out more I can post it here. As for the exactness on RNP, one thing that helps is we don't follow the traditional 'TERP'S for avoidance, our path becomes more of a 'tube'. This advantage starts to add up when we can lift more off of a runway because we no longer care about Uncle Bob's Barn which gets caught in the departure splay miles away.

None of these things ad up to zilleeions of bucks, I was pointing out that all of the projects WestJet works on usually have money in mind and can help recover the cost of our technology investment for our fleet or may help through the unexpected oil crunch to be healthy on the other side.

Thanks for the update, But I still do not see what an airport has to gain from spending money on that only a very small portion of customers can use.

And again, this system is only as good as the support you get from ATC.

In Canada good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

The changes proposed by the technical committee will allow the sale of such information by others than Navcan but only at "cost"

Air Navigation Services (Part VIII)

(Technical Committee Meeting - May 5-6, 2004)

Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA 2004-033)

NPA / APM

2004-033

Reference / référence:

803.01 (3) & (4)

English Title / titre anglais:

Provision of aeronautical information services by a person

French Title / titre français:

Fourniture de service d’information aéronautique par une personne

Sponsor (indicate if not the OPI Branch or TC) /

AARN

Language (E – F - Both)

Both

Issue / Objet:

The provision of aeronautical information services (AIS) by a person, other than NAV CANADA (i.e. aeronautical information/data produced after having been published in the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package by NAV CANADA), is not currently captured under the Canadian Aviation Regulations. Organizations reproduce aeronautical information provided by States’ AIS Organizations without having to adhere to any regulations and standards. For safety reasons, aeronautical information products made available to users must all be provided to the same regulations and standards.

Justification for Change / Justification de la modification:

The provision of AIS is key to an air navigation system. The standards contained in Annexes 4 and 15 are self-explanatory. Chapter 1 of Annex 15 indicates the purpose of an aeronautical information service is as follows:

The object of the aeronautical information service is to ensure the flow of information necessary for the safety, regularity and efficiency of air navigation. The role and importance of aeronautical information/data changed significantly with the implementation of area navigation (RNAV), required navigation performance (RNP) and airborne computer-based navigation systems. Corrupt or erroneous aeronautical information/data can potentially affect the safety of air navigation.

To satisfy the uniformity and consistency in the provision of aeronautical information that is required for the operational use by computer-based navigation systems, States shall, as far as possible avoid standards and procedures other than those established for international use…

From an international standpoint, the provision of aeronautical information services (AIS) is a State responsibility. However, as per article 3.1.1 of the Annex 15 a State shall delegate the authority for the provision of the service to a non-governmental agency provided the standards of the Annex are adequately met.

Accordingly, since November 1st, 1996, the Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act (CANSCA) makes NAV CANADA responsible in Canada for the provision of aeronautical information services (AIS). "Aeronautical information services" is defined in the CANSCA and in CAR 803.01 (1) as:

In this subpart, " aeronautical information services" means the services necessary to meet the requirements of Annexes 4 and 15 to the Convention that relate to aeronautical information.

NAV CANADA is regulated through CAR 803.01 (2), which states:

No person shall provide aeronautical information services except in accordance with the standards set out in Annexes 4 and 15 to the Convention.

CANSCA also recognised that AIS commercialised entities reproduce the State source aeronautical information to make it available, at cost, to users. This aspect of provision of aeronautical information is not yet covered by any Canadian regulations. As NAV CANADA is held to ICAO standards, including a recognised quality management system, it is imperative that the provision of aeronautical information/data by third parties also be regulated to ensure that accuracy, integrity, completeness and timeliness of the aeronautical information/data is maintained thoughout the process until the information is made available to users. It is also important to ensure that third parties, no matter who they are, reproduce only aeronautical information that was first initially provided by NAV CANADA. As mentioned, CANSCA allows that aeronautical information services be provided by others than NAV CANADA in article 10 (4) which states:

A person may provide aeronautical information services if the person is disseminating aeronautical information

(a) that was initially disseminated by the Corporation.

There are more and more organizations reproducing for profit States’ source aeronautical information products either in paper or digital formats. These organizations are not subject to the ICAO Annexes 4 and 15 international standards which calls for aeronautical information to be adequate, of required quality, timely and be managed through a quality system.

There is a need to regulate the provision of AIS by third parties to the same standards that NAV CANADA is regulated. Not regulating that aspect of the provision of AIS could lead to the aeronautical information/data products being available on the market and not meeting the standards of Annexes 4 and 15 or missing aeronautical information necessary for the safe conduct of flight operations.

There is a need to ensure that users of the Canadian Air Navigation System have all the same updated aeronautical information and are referring to the same set of aeronautical information when using aeronautical information products (paper or digital).

In the past, there have been situations where aeronautical information published initially by NAV CANADA hadn’t been reproduced accordingly, leading to aeronautical publications (digital and paper) containing different and conflicting information, which is unsafe.

In addition, the processing of aeronautical information/data is crucial and is a key component to the provision of aeronautical information/data. The RTCA DO-200A/EUROCAE ED-76 – Standards for processing aeronautical data provides minimum standards for the processing of aeronautical information/data used for navigation, flight planning , terrain awareness, flight simulators and for other applications. Application of the standard will provide the user with assurance of the level of quality required.

Current Text / Texte actuel;

None

New Texte / Nouveau texte:

803.01 (3) - No person shall process aeronautical information/data except in accordance with the standards set out in RTCA DO-200A/EUROCAE ED-76 – Standards for processing aeronautical data.

803.01 (4) - No person shall provide aeronautical information/data except if

That aeronautical information/data was initially disseminated by NAV CANADA through the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package; and

That aeronautical information/data is provided in accordance with the standards of ICAO Annexes 4 and 15, and

The aeronautical information is managed through a quality management system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that the Westjet Flight Ops people that are going to 'sell' RNP have talked to your accounting department.

If a company starts to book revenue from a third party in association with a cost that they have incurred, then the cost cannot be capitalized. Thus if the RNP stuff has been capitalized (ie not taken as a direct expense immeadiately) then the full cost must be booked as the revenue is incurred. I suspect that RNP has been capitalized over life of the 737-700 fleet and not an immeadiate expense.

This is going to hurt the profit picture in the year this happens.

The same goes for Live TV. If the costs of getting it certified was not taken as a direct cost as it happened (I doubt that it was), then getting a 'royalty' down the line will trigger the expense to be immeadiately booked instead of being spread over many years.

You might get a few bucks of 'revenue', but watch out for the downside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that the Westjet Flight Ops people that are going to 'sell' RNP have talked to your accounting department.

If a company starts to book revenue from a third party in association with a cost that they have incurred, then the cost cannot be capitalized. Thus if the RNP stuff has been capitalized (ie not taken as a direct expense immeadiately) then the full cost must be booked as the revenue is incurred. I suspect that RNP has been capitalized over life of the 737-700 fleet and not an immeadiate expense.

This is going to hurt the profit picture in the year this happens.

The same goes for Live TV. If the costs of getting it certified was not taken as a direct cost as it happened (I doubt that it was), then getting a 'royalty' down the line will trigger the expense to be immeadiately booked instead of being spread over many years.

You might get a few bucks of 'revenue', but watch out for the downside.

Gee thanks, I'll forward your post to them.

(I'm sure they didn't think of any of this.)

blink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee thanks, I'll forward your post to them.

(I'm sure they didn't think of any of this.)

blink.gif

Well maybe you should.

But, since there has never been any mention of great new revenue streams in the quarterly reports, I suspect that most of these claims are water-cooler gossip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that the Westjet Flight Ops people that are going to 'sell' RNP have talked to your accounting department.

If a company starts to book revenue from a third party in association with a cost that they have incurred, then the cost cannot be capitalized.  Thus if the RNP stuff has been capitalized (ie not taken as a direct expense immeadiately) then the full cost must be booked as the revenue is incurred.  I suspect that RNP has been capitalized over life of the 737-700 fleet and not an immeadiate expense.

This is going to hurt the profit picture in the year this happens

..{and].. But, since there has never been any mention of great new revenue streams in the quarterly reports, I suspect that most of these claims are water-cooler gossip

Hi, Fido - Likely just gossip, but to your point on the books - I'm no CPA, but it seems to me it's simply taking the debits from one pocket [years] to another. While unscheduled write-downs are damaging, since those debits were not on the books at all beforehand, opportunities to accelerate any write-offs are generally a good thing during profitable years, and once accomplished will improve the books going forward, either with greater profit or, if all the warnings to the WJ'ers are to be believed, mitigating the losses wink.gif

Cheers, IFG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... that RNP was a viable source of revenue to airports wishing to 'purchase' an approach. Possible Airports are places like Kamloops, Pemberton, and others. I'm not sure if it's to get the town in to bed with WestJet, which motivates local support of a new route, or something else. The revenue they speak of could be selling the research and approvals to other NG companies around the world."

Just a shot in the dark here, but does anyone remember the old approach into Kelowna? Before the ILS that is there now?

We had done some work to reduce the minimums on the offset localizer approach. We sold the approach to Canadian Regional for a healthy amount. We made money by investing in the research to "build" and have approved a company approach and then sold it to the other airline.

Can we do the same with the RNP approaches we are developing now? They become "company" approaches and can be sold to other operators who do not wish to go through proceedure of "building" the approach on their own? The approaches developed on our behalf by Naverus become proprietary. They are confidental and all rights are reserved, as stated on the plate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...