RR vs Air France: We’ve written about this before–Air France wants to maintain the Rolls-Royce Trent XWB engines on the Airbus A350s it wants to buy, but RR wants to maintain the engines. The dispute has been holding up confirming the order for a year. The Wall Street Journal has this update.
Kingfisher Airlines: The carrier continues its long spiral down. Lessors want airplanes back. The government is holding onto the airplanes in lieu of the airlines’ airport payments which are in default. ATR long ago canceled the orders it had with Kingfisher. Airbus is the other big loser.
Phuket: Emirates Airlines adds Phuket, Thailand, to its route network. We’ve always loved this name. But we’ve always wondered: is it pronounced with a soft U or a hard U? Fokker is a close runner-up.
Update, 1:30 PM PDT: One of the first images from Mars, courtesy of Mr. Sulu (George Takei on Facebook):
Phuket is pronounced with a hard P and a soft breath added to an OO-like U. It’s not Fukket but more like Pooket.
Fokker actually means “breeder” in Dutch as well. Dutch has a surprising number of influences on English, mostly sailing terms (therefore many aeronautical words) which then got adopted in the mainstream language (gangplank, dike, deck, dock, iceberg, skipper, stern, trigger, yacht…)
“Fokker actually means “breeder” in Dutch as well.”
Interesting. “Fugger” ( the related word in german, obscure ) is someone who is good a fitting things together 😉 While “breeder” ~= “Züchter” ( i.e looking towards the orderly aspect of controlled breeding )
Rearding the influences on English, I would venture that some sailing terms come from old Norse (present day Swedish, Norwegian, Danish): starboard, iceberg, mast, deck, knot, etc
The sailing vikings came to Lindisfarne and then settled and blended with the saxons, the resulting language having vocabulary from both. English was later born after 1066 when William the Conqueror came to England bringing new French vocabulary, the grammar and syntax mostly using the Saxon, Norse influence.
Well not to nitpick, but all the English words I quoted are supposed to be directly descended from the Dutch since it was a common language of the sailing community – a *lot* of other English words are generally Germanic in origin, so there are many cases where you find similarities with Germanic and Scandinavian versions.
Smorgasbord, that must be a word americans have picked up from us swedes? There are many words that have gone into english and now back, swedes are mixing english words into the swedish language, I dont like it but that is how it is.
Well, I guess we will have to disagree then… iceberg does come from the norse isberg and starboard is from the norse longships which had the steering oar on the right hand side, this being styrbord with “styr” meaning “to steer”. As it happens the Dutch equivalents are virtually identical as well, but as far as I know they were already in the English language by the time Dutch was recognized as a language of its own (rather than being a German dialect) during the Renaissance (16th century). I find it more likely that the Dutch picked it up from the Saxons directly (in Saxony) more or less at the same time the Saxons and Danes (Jutes etc) moved into England.
The Dutch were masters of the oceans in the 17th century (1600’s), and at that time spread both the language as such and sailing vocabulary around, but by that time the Norse had been already sailed all over the North Sea, settling in England, Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland (Vinland), etc spreading their culture and language.
Can recomment this excellent reading:
And “Rudder” meant “Pilot” in Dutch.
We should have two Rudders in the cockpit and one “Styrbord” at the rear.
Airbus hasn’t shown very much public concern about the Kingfisher situation so far. Maybe having 70-odd additional slots open for 320 CEO production is a good thing?
I should imagine that Leahy has long ago read these tea leaves and already sold those slots. Not that it won’t be a blow to the A350 and A380 programs, but when it’s a company failure, it can’t be helped and isn’t the fault of the aircraft OEM.
Don’t OEMs gauge their potential customers from a few perspectives before issuing a response to an RFP? Knowing a businesses’ financial background, experience, etc assists assessing risk.
In some cases, OEM’s stay away simply because the boss is nuts, but the business may be fine.
Our family have been friends from Thai’s for over 40 years and I can say with certainty, they pronounce it basically as SomeoneInT has stated.
To further add: I would say its pronounced as Winnie the “Poohket”…that’s at least the way I say Phuket and our Thai friends see (hear) it perfectly correct.
Regarding the AF order, I think at the end of the day, AF-KL will finalize their order.
KF-they are just about finished…bottom line.
I am not sure about the AF/RR talks about engine MRO. AF, IIRC, makes big money off their MRO, and this makes sense for them to want to continue that.
The Kingfisher (IT) situation will be settled sooner if notlater and the lessors will get their airplanes back.
Even though IT owes some 300 crore to AAI, it is doubtful they will ever get paid, from Kingfisher. I can see some type of deal between the lessors and AAI, where the lessors pay some of the debt to get their airplanes back. Kingfisher is done for anyway. Airbus is the big looser in all of this as IT has about 70 production slots for the A-320OEO, as well as another 15 for the A-332, 5 for the A-358, and another 5 or 6 for the A-388.
I believe IT currently has a fleet of about 70 aircraft, about 55 are parked, and at least one A-330 (of 4 in the fleet) was repossed at LHR last year by RBS. Almost all of their fleet is Airbus or ATR, and most of the ‘Buses are relitively new being produced in 2009 and later. They currently fly a fleet of just 16 aircraft, 4 A-320s, 2 A-321s, 8 ATR-72s, and two VIP aircraft, a B-727 and an A-319 for the UB Group.
Yes, MRO work is a big part of AF/KLM’s restructuring and return to profitability plan. AF and Rolls have never really gotten on very well. Mainly because AF is extremely loyal to GE/CFM, well more to Snecma, but there it is. Bear in mind that AF didn’t want to order A350, and were only pushed into this LOI in pre-election politics. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a lot like the Virgin A380 order that never gets placed. The A350 would be an orphan in the AF/KLM fleet. Unless Rolls gives AF the MX rights, it won’t happen. It MIGHT happen if Rolls gives them MX rights on their own planes, but not 3rd party.
I guess the AF 787 order is with GE engines? GE and France has a tight history as I understand?
interesting definition of “orphan” meseems.
AF/KLM has not yet selected engines for the 787s, but considering they don’t operate anything but GE/CFM engines, it’s highly likely they will stick with them. AF has a track record of pushing for GE/CFM. Prime example is A318, originally only offered with PW6000, but AF refused to buy unless it came with CFM. Airbus added CFM, and unwittingly saved the program from complete disaster. It was still a disaster, but could have been worse.
Yes, Uwe… an orphan is something with out a family… such as a Rolls engine in a wholly GE/CFM fleet. What else would you call it?
Depends. Airbus and Boeing have very different mindsets on this issue. Airbus is willing to gamble on “loose cannons” to sell airplanes, even if they will never deliver. Examples abound, Flyington, Kingfisher, and of course Skybus. All of which I’m sure were double booked delivery slots.
The WSJ article’s example on AF vs. RR, “It is a trick that makers of computer printers, razors and coffee machines learned long ago: Sell the equipment cheaply but mark up supplies like ink,…” is a bit off. It suggests engine makers virtually give away the engines for the sale of expendables like fuel, when really it’s a package engine/service/repair deal for oil level check & change to complete overhaul.
A better example might be IBM. Over the past decade, its services arm, IBM Global Business Services, surpassed its equipment revenue, now 41% vs. 16% from 38% vs. 35%. RR’s 2011 services vs equipment revenue was 55% vs 45%.
Then, these days we can wonder if there is a link at RR between this shift and their engine quality.
It is obvious, that the Indian government wishes to see the state run companies (as Air India and Indian Airlines) profitable at any cost.
Not so obvious. There are other privately run airlines in India. Rather this seems to be yet another in a long line of people who think since they are successful in one business, they will be successful in ALL businesses. Selling beer is nothing like running an airline. KFR made many mistakes, trying to grow too fast being the most obvious. Failure to understand Indian law, in particular the buying of a long range fleet when you have to operate domestically for 5 years before you can be authorized to operate internationally; for instance. Then there is the ever present bogyman of flat out incompetence. There is an old saying, never assume foul play for something that can be accredited to simple incompetence.
The kingfisher was the biggest carrier 9 months ago. The Air India and Indian Airlines are the biggest gainer on the collapse, as well as state run airports. I agree that Kingfisher made stupid mistakes. The IngiGo is the only profitable carrier, SpiceJet and Jet Airways lose money as well. Part of the problem is connected to the aviation policy of the Indian Government and their inability to create competitive environment. How about foreign investment in the sector?
AirFrance would do better changing engine to other supplier when available and not have the engines maintained by RR. Qantas has done this mistake and is paying for it. I have written on the problems on the Trent engine on my article “ROLLS-ROYCE ENGINE FAILURE ON A QANTAS FLIGHT. WHEN WILL IT FINISH?” (http://www.engineerstoolkit.net/rolls-royce-uncontained-engine-failure-on-a-qantas-a380)
Qantas current management does not understand the “trust” thing.
You can not write trust into a contract.
If someone else does your work you have to supervise them competently.
( See Boeing. )
Boeing has been expanding the service side of their business. They have packages that enable carriers to turn over a large amount of the maintenance, inventory control, servicing and even provide programs to enhance and make flight navigation more efficient and fuel saving.
Unlike some other business models where the product is sold inexpensively to provide the flow of supply sales, this model is to maintain the high quality of the product and assure the Carriers that their equiptment is being properly attended to so as to enhance the long term efficiency and improve the revenue stream.
LOL! Never let it be said you have no sense of humor!
Mike, I understand your response, but, in actuality, these services become part of the negotiated package in the sale of aircraft. They all have a monetary value and are used to create a more competitive price.
If you purchased a car and received various warranties and were given free maintenance service for a specified period, you would be saving both cost and trouble that would otherwise come out of your pocket. These can be estimated or calculated and serve as financial incentive
@Balkan-Jet Airways and SpiceJet both made a profit.
You proved some of my points….
After witnessing SURPRISE profits by two of the three listed airlines, Jet Airways and Spicejet,….
… as drastic flight cuts by embattled former No.2 Kingfisher Airlines has enabled them to RAISE TICKET PRICES…..
I don’t think the Indian airlines will make a sustained profit soon, as overcapacity is not the main problem. Lack of vision from the government, willingness to promote state run and incumbent carries, fuel taxes, outdated infrastructure and even unwillingness from the management of the carries to control the growth are the main problems
The reason for mention IndiGo is that the transfer of good practices seems to work even in Indian market.
Sorry BA Investor. Actually the comment was for Scott and the JPL picture! I should have been more specific.
(Sorry everyone for being off-topic…)
According to the “Germanic family of languages” diagram in the article you linked, English is next to Dutch on the “west” branch, while Norwegian split off further back from “Germanic” in the “north” branch – that seems to support my statement rather than yours!
As I said before, there are similarities across all the Germanic-based languages – which is exactly why English iceberg is related to Dutch ijsberg which *is similar to* the Norwegian isberg. However, the 16th, 17th and 18th century wars / trade / co-operation between the Dutch and English is alleged to be the reason for a stronger (more recent) link between certain words than simply their earlier Germanic roots.
Note, I’m not actually disagreeing with you here – just reporting what I’ve read several times in the past.
I guess it comes down to were the words “inherited” or “adopted”. I doubt the terms existed at the time of the split in the Germanic languages, and given how wide the Viking trade was in 800-1200 it probably was adopted. The Vikings also gave us the city names of Dublin and Kiev.
@ Someone and mneja,
Keep going, it’s fascinating! It’s not that off-topic since many of us here normally speak a different language than the one we use for this blog.
I wonder if anyone at NASA or ESA noticed the intrusion in the picture above?
Fotage has all been done on the adapted stages for Kubricks moon hoax.
It is to be expected that toon critters wander over from Hollywood 😉
What a pity that mankind’s greatest achievement be ridiculed like this. 🙁
Normand Hamel :
What a pity that mankind’s greatest achievement be ridiculed like this.
Good Morning Normand,
He, he. worked. ( but sorry, humorours postings don’t work on every occasions.)
The link I presented is (afaik) a carefully done spoof on those “moon hoaxers” 😉
Think about it: An industrial size movie stage on the moon to fake a moon landing??
Yes Uwe I understood your irony. Considering your background, you would be the last person to believe in that conspiracy theory. My comment was indeed addressed to all those who want to propagate obscurantism. But in this particular case they attack what I personally consider to be our greatest achievement.
Although the feat was accomplished by one country, the effect was like if it had been done in the name of all nations on earth. We could see that in the reaction of the people everywhere on the planet when the Apollo XIII astronauts were momentarily trapped in space. Every citizen of this planet who had access to a television set or radio was tuned to the event hoping that the three Americans would be saved. Never in history had so many people cared for so few.