13 October 2019


Hello Dear,

Top of the day greetings,I am writing you this proposal for the purpose of a partnership on a Business that will be of

great benefit to you and I.I am Mr. Veng Sakhon, a director in Cambodia Ministry of Agriculture. My Ministry constantly

required the supply of Fertilizers Cost over three Million Dallas ($3,000,000 USD) to boost Cambodia Agro Product and the

fertilizers are imported every month. As a Director, I am in charge of compiling payment vouchers of all the imported

fertilizers into Cambodia and I want both of us to work together as a partner so that we can be making some good money

every month.

This is not a difficult task to achieve and there is nothing to worry about because there is absolutely no risk involve. I

will only include your names in our monthly payment voucher list of Fertilizers Suppliers and upon approval of the Voucher

in your name, the money accrue will be paid to you. Presently we have just received new supply from The United States

consisting of 17 different suppliers and we have a lot of added tons of fertilizers as a result of the extra tons given by

these new suppliers because they are very willing to do business with us. The whole suppliers are going to be paid within

the next few days and I want to include a payment Voucher in your name to cover the extra tons.



Yours Sincerely
Mr. Veng Sakhon

01 October 2019

Kindly reply.


I am out sourcing individuals with sound Financial Management
abilities to manage a vast capital for an Arab Angel Investor
with embattled political situation. These funds can be invested
in tranches of 500M or a tranche that is suitable for the
portfolio manager.

If you have Financial Management abilities, credible projects in
need of funding or existing businesses requiring expansion, we
will be pleased to work with you.

Bill Watson

30 September 2019

Kindly reply.


I am out sourcing individuals with sound Financial Management
abilities to manage a vast capital for an Arab Angel Investor
with embattled political situation. These funds can be invested
in tranches of 500M or a tranche that is suitable for the
portfolio manager.

If you have Financial Management abilities, credible projects in
need of funding or existing businesses requiring expansion, we
will be pleased to work with you.

Bill Watson

23 September 2019

Why do people have short memories? The Thomas Cook saga

Everyone is upset over the collapse of Thomas Cook's UK business. However, there are some key facts that have been forgotten. Hint its not necessarily British ;-) .

Thomas Cook's storied history has been somewhat disjointed in recent years. So let me share with you some of my understanding of the history that I recall. The clue was that despite everyone's focus on the brand name - in reality it was more of a German and Chinese company than it was UK.

So let's start with when the company was a UK Nationalized industry. That ended in 1972

1972 - Privatised and bought by a consortium of Britain’s Midland Bank, Trust House Forte and the Automobile Association.
1990 - Thomas Cook becomes the world’s leading foreign exchange retailer when it acquires the retail foreign exchange operations of Deak International. It provided the gold standard in Traveller's Cheques.
1992 - Westdeutsche Landesbank (then controlled by Otto Bisheim , Germany’s third largest bank, and the LTU Group, Germany’s leading charter airline, acquire the Thomas Cook Group from Midland Bank.
1994 - Thomas Cook acquires Interpayment Services Limited, a subsidiary of Barclays bank, to become the largest supplier of travellers cheques outside the United States.
1994 - Thomas Cook sells its travel management business to American Express. This first started with the requirement of Thomas Cook to separate its Travel Agency business and its Financial Sector businesses. This stemmed from the very strange US law that banned banks from owning Travel Agencies.
1995 - Thomas Cook UK dumps its long time GDS partner Galileo for upstart Worldspan
1999 - The European Commission approves the merger of Thomas Cook and Carlson Leisure Group’s UK travel interests. The largest of which was AT Mays. At the time the provider of fulfilment services to Expedia.
2001 - Thomas Cook completes the sale of its Global and Financial Services division to Travelex.This starts the decline of the Forex business now fully subsumed into the Travelex Brand.
2001 - Thomas Cook is acquired by the German travel company Condor & Neckermann, which changes its name to Thomas Cook AG. Neckermann also had a large footprint in Belgium through its ownership of the Wirtz/Sunsnacks business.
2007 - Thomas Cook AG and MyTravel Group plc merge to form Thomas Cook Group plc, bringing a stronger Nordic focus with the incorporation of the Ving, Spies and Tjäreborg businesses.
2011 - Thomas Cook merges its UK retail operations with those of the Co-operative Group and the Midlands Co-operative Society, creating the UK’s largest chain of travel agents.
2013 - Group closes 119 retail shops leaving only about 600 by the time of the final collapse. Down from more than 1000. Also during this year - Thomas Cook teetered on bankruptcy and was finally rescued in a complex series of transactions where the China based Foshun (who seems to have made some investments in failing Travel Companies such as Club Med) became a significant shareholder.
2019 - The group shuts down. It is likely certain parts of the company will survive. Condor Airlines for example at time of writing is still operating.

21 September 2019

Flight Shaming and Climate Change – Is this the right way?

We know that Climate Change is upon us. There are deniers and there are passionate people particularly GenZ who are currently not in the work force. On September we saw a huge outpouring where millions of people left classrooms (inspired by 16-year-old teenage protester Greta Thunberg) and work places to protest the current lack of progress by politicians. There has been an easy target – the airline industry. Estimates put the amount of contribution at between 2 and 2.5%. (Source Time) Not insignificant in the big picture scheme of things. There is some evidence that that there has been some evidence that Flight Shaming is having some impact.
Source Bloomberg (Sorry its behind a paywall).

For the purpose of this article I won’t go into the details of good or bad and the overall political battles over the topic – yet, you will have to read the preamble first. Other than I have seen with my own eyes the impact in multiple places. Singapore when the pollution index exceeded 400 (200 is considered high). Beijing where the air tastes like Charcoal. Alaska where the Permafrost is melting at an alarming rate and where towering white glaciers are now a shadow of their former selves. I personally travel more than 200,000 miles a year so that makes me a big contributor. I try every year to find ways to offset that by buying carbon offsets I have used Terrapass in the past but I do tend to shop around there are many providers.
Rather I would like to look at addressing what we can do – both in the short term and the long term to ameliorate the impact of accelerated global warming. 

For the short term it is going to be hard to address the overall demand for air travel. We have (mostly) a supply side market with airlines averaging in excess of 80% load factors.  The constraints are that when we examine these factors we see that scarce airports and popular routes skew the numbers and we see that LON-NYC is the world’s most prized revenue route generating over $1.2 Billion in revenue on just the JFK-LHR segment. Yet that is dominated by very few players. Constraints of slots and airline mergers have put up the price of a ticket. Heathrow airport is the world’s most expensive per passenger with $168 (2018) generated in airport charges and fees. At Air Black Box we developed an algorithm to find alternative routings based on rules. One of the rules we planned for but so far, no takers is a value for avoiding congested airports. We believe that bringing in Smart Routings (sm) will ultimate benefit the industry by freeing up capacity that is currently locked in legacy constraints and actually biased against these possibilities. The actual increase of emissions if a plane is empty or full – is fairly marginal. Like many forms of public conveyance, when the plane has to go, it has to go!
For the long term, I firmly believe we are making short term bad decisions. The example is Heathrow’s 3rd runway. There is an assumption that adding the 3rd runway will result in 50% increase in capacity at the airport. That cannot happen. Even replumbing the taxi ways and making them more efficient will not permit that to occur. Theoretical maybe. A massive change project at Chicago O’Hare that started in 2015 resulted in significant amounts of improvement from an inefficient system to a far more elegant solution. Here is a detailed review. Source Cranky Flyer Capacity can be constrained in different ways. When Seattle (my home port) added a 3rd runway it only envisaged that 2 would be in operation at any one time. Indeed, the airport’s plan is to only grow by 2-3% a year for the next few years and probably longer because like the vast majority of the top 100 airports worldwide they are slot constrained. That adds up to 432,000 aircraft movements per year. In contrast Amsterdam with its 7 runways has 550,000 movements authorized per year. Frankly in my view we need to stop thinking of adding runways. Further we know there is only so much capacity that can be opened up through “adjustments”. 

So, I would like to advocate a different path. Airports plan in the 10-15-year time frame. 5 years ago, we could not have envisaged that commercial drone (more appropriately non-fossil fuel powered passenger) operations could be possible. Today we know better. The Europeans are far more challenges with conflicting requirements of UAV, Military and commercial. Overlay the more densely packed land space and you can see that this is tough. Thus, I am advocating a different approach. Let's abandon the use of long runways for short haul traffic. Let’s leave that for the big long-haul aircraft. In place let’s look at more efficient use of concrete with short haul 500-mile 100-seater craft-based systems. The result of this will be a significant throughput of aircraft movements. This is not without its challenges. All forms of mass transit are full of conflicts of competing requirements.
So back to the political issue. We need bold central government policies. I am advocating therefore a simple manifesto.
  1. Development of new technologies. Proceeds would come from the credits and taxes would be funneled into better technologies.
  2. Development of new alternative transport methods. Massive new projects such as LHR’s 3rd Runway would be challenged if alternatives are made available.
  3. A Universal Carbon Metric System. Transparency of publication of league tables and metrics at the level of all flights. The creation of a CTN – Carbon Travel Number that would allow consumers to compare different trips and know what they have to offset in order to ensure funding for carbon reducing technologies.
  4. Carbon tradeable credits but not only at the airline level but also at the airport and individual level. Thus, someone who has acquired credits they can reduce the cost of their travels. A universal set of exchanges and a standard set of values. Airlines and Airports can decide also to participate so some airports could actually reduce their carbon taxes significantly by developing better solutions and be granted tax credits/incentives to better utilize their real estate.
  5. A tax system from the federal level would need to be implemented. Inefficient use of runway assets with (for example) smaller aircraft would be penalized but this would be set by the government through a high taxation scale based on the footprint and scarcity value.

We need to be bold to reverse the harmful effects of human intervention. We need a new fundamental approach to the problems of aviation induced carbon generated global warming. Aviation is one of the most heavily regulated markets on the planet. If we can demonstrate this leadership now – then let’s show what we can do. Are you with me? Then you can be proud to fly smart.

Thanks for reading. 

(Photo a screen grab from CNN) 
--> -->

15 September 2019

Re:(1) Business offer

To unsubscribe, send us an email with the subject 'unsubscribe' rYQxhV
We offer e-mail databases at affordable prices. rYQxhV
For marketing, advertising, newsletters. rYQxhV
This is the most effective way to attract customers for your business. rYQxhV
Country: Number of e-mail addresses: rYQxhV
US : 5 million rYQxhV
RU : 8 million rYQxhV
DE : 8 million rYQxhV
AU : 3 million rYQxhV
CA : 3 million rYQxhV
UK : 6 million rYQxhV
FR : 3 million rYQxhV
NZ : 1 million rYQxhV
COM 55 million rYQxhV
ALL WORLD 250 million rYQxhV

In addition, we can provide a base for any country in the world. rYQxhV

Our contacts: email.business.group@gmail.com rYQxhV
7753191 rYQxhV

11 September 2019

Re:(4) Business offer

To unsubscribe, send us an email with the subject 'unsubscribe' FpKQDywNRYQ
We offer e-mail databases at affordable prices. FpKQDywNRYQ
For marketing, advertising, newsletters. FpKQDywNRYQ
This is the most effective way to attract customers for your business. FpKQDywNRYQ
Country: Number of e-mail addresses: FpKQDywNRYQ
US : 5 million FpKQDywNRYQ
RU : 8 million FpKQDywNRYQ
DE : 8 million FpKQDywNRYQ
AU : 3 million FpKQDywNRYQ
CA : 3 million FpKQDywNRYQ
UK : 6 million FpKQDywNRYQ
FR : 3 million FpKQDywNRYQ
NZ : 1 million FpKQDywNRYQ
COM 55 million FpKQDywNRYQ
ALL WORLD 250 million FpKQDywNRYQ

In addition, we can provide a base for any country in the world. FpKQDywNRYQ

Our contacts: email.business.group@gmail.com FpKQDywNRYQ
7753191 FpKQDywNRYQ

26 August 2019

Re:(8) timothyo.t2impact@blogger.com Complete database of domain name registrars / owners

To unsubscribe send us an email with the topic 'unsubscribe' 4YB
Hello timothyo.t2impact@blogger.com 4YB
We suggest you buy a complete database of domain name registrars / owners 4YB
For 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. 4YB
1. Base for (June, July, August, September, November, December 2016.) Price $50 4YB
2. Base for the whole of 2017. Price $80 4YB
3. The base for the whole of 2018. Price $120 4YB
4. Base for (January, February, March 2019.) Price $70 4YB
Base cost for 4 years (2016 + 2017 + 2018 + 2019) = $250 4YB
Our contacts: email.business.group@gmail.com 4YB

18 August 2019

Why Trump's Alignment with Putin is going to be Fatal to USA

Why Putin and Trump don't understand innovation and why Beijing does. What that means for mankind.

Most of the rhetoric from POTUS45 has been destructive to the previous political order. He is only good at destroying. While his Grandfather in Alaska understood the power of seizing the moment and even his father of grasping opportunity, their progeny is hell bent on destroying anything he can. Trump hates technology. This has created a perfect opportunity for America's enemies. The obviousness of that statement is clear - or at least it should be. However, let's dive into the long term damage befalling the country. When one of  Obama's shining example of alternative energy, Solyndra, failed in 2011, the Right seized on it as a way to dislodge POTUS44's meritocracy approach. More money was spent on attack ads featuring the failure than was lost in the investment. The Right funding for negative ads now being matched by the Centre and the Left has resulted in a general distaste by the population. Easy enough to understand. But the real damage is what is being done to the state of science and technology learning by both the Right and the Left. America's leadership in the world has up till now depended on its military might. Or so it may appear. The real might of the USA is its technology prowess and mass production capability. It's innovation led culture is at the core. The capitalist agenda has seen everything from flying to personal movement to information all basing America's current prowess.  However the country has been transformed by the negative attacks into a nation turning away from its very clear worldwide advantage. This is something Moscow and Beijing clearly understand, but for different reasons. For Russia this is about crippling its arch enemy. For China the story is very different but the impact will be far reaching and there is an almost guarantee that the United States will follow Great Britain into decline for the same fundamental reasons unless the rot stops. NOW!

The USA needs to increase its investment in pure science. It needs to allow as much freedom as possible for its technology companies to operate and innovate. Innovation must remain the lifeblood of the economy. What is POTUS45's response? CUT SPENDING in Science and Technology (as well as the Arts). The Democratic Front Running Centre Left leaning duo of Sanders and Warren are also advocating a tax and neuter approach. Neither side understands the immense harm that will be done on both the near term and the long term economy and the country's ability to innovate. Growth may not be ultimately good for the world in a scarce resources world but innovation will be so.

So first let's look at Russia, which was once an amazing storehouse of original science. The National Academies of Science housed more pure scientific research than any other institution on the planet. That was until The Soviet Union fell apart. In 2007 I met the wife of the then chairman - once the most powerful positions in of Russia. His salary at that time $40 a month. She described how to heat the building in winter they burnt original texts. For Putin, he cares not for raw Science just like his mate Trump who has no time for comprehension. But Putin recognizes something his opposite number does not. We live in the Information Age and data is the new oil. You can manipulate data easily if you have access to it. Trump and and the GOP have no comprehension of this whatsoever. Putin has proven himself well worthy of being a data Jedi. And Trump?

But what about Beijing in all of this. I am sure many of readers of this article have read Kai-Fu Lee's book on Artificial Intelligence. "AI Superpowers" It is a tome and full of interesting anecdotes. But the real meat is clear. WAKE UP AMERICA, YOU ARE LOSING THE WAR. What Beijing is doing is creating the context for the next stage of information powered innovation. Allow me to pick on one initiative alone. Belt and Road, something most Americans have absolutely no clue about.  The B&R initiative will power China's hegemony for the next several hundred years. China ALWAYS takes the long view. America is obsessed with the next big thing and the short view. It's policy towards debt, innovation, and culture are prime examples. By contrast, Belt and Road is spreading China based infrastructure which is displacing American based infrastructure - Worldwide. Want an example. Look at the adoption in LATAM of WeChat Pay. Let's look at one of the greatest innovations of the past 100 years. America's credit card companies once the powerhouse of the global economy no longer form the dominant form of Financial Fulfillment in Asia Pacific. Chinese based payment instruments now dominate and this is rapidly spreading GLOBALLY.

But perhaps, even, where Beijing can fail, America is shooting itself in the foot. Immigration. The USA has benefited from amazing minds from so many parts of the old world and the new. Closing  the door on immigration of all types is perhaps the worst example of the current Administration's ineptitude. Where will the next Enric Fermi, Sergei Brin, or Andrew Carnegie  emerge? At this rate definitely not the USA.

So it's time to wake up and smell the coffee. We are at war for the control of the world's data. Just because we won the first few rounds doesn't mean we will win the war.

I have spent most of my working life in innovation and application of it. I see the failures. I see corporations wrapped up in preserving their own hide. I see risk-taking diminishing in startups and in mature companies. I see the failure of the body politic to empower government for innovation and success. PLEASE don't screw this up. PLEASE I beg you.

You have been warned. Now DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

(Picture courtesy of Al Jazeera).

17 August 2019

Re:(1) timothyo.t2impact@blogger.com Search for information on the Internet.

Hello timothyo.t2impact@blogger.com hm96
We will find any information for you on the Internet hm96
at an affordable price. hm96
Our contacts: email.business.group@gmail.com hm96
To unsubscribe send us an email with the topic 'unsubscribe' hm96

16 August 2019

Re:(6) timothyo.t2impact@blogger.com $1069

Hello  jTc
1.Base 250 million e-mail addresses of businessmen of the whole World $500. jTc
2.Sending your advertising letter on the basis of 250 million e-mail addresses $5000. jTc
3.Training in professional e-mail marketing for 4-5 days $1000. jTc
Make an order today and get a -20% discount. jTc
Our contacts: email.business.group@gmail.com jTc
To unsubscribe, send us an email with the subject 'unsubscribe' jTc

28 July 2019

The Sorry State of US Military Airlift Capability

The USAF has a problem. It doesn't have enough planes for transport roles today and in the future. Worse its not doing much about it. This is a problem and it needs fixing.

(Photo source USAF)
This piece will hopefully be mercifully short. Because it is embarrassing. I want to bring this data to the front of mind because I believe we have an immediate requirement (more C-17s) and a long term replacement aircraft long haul tactical transport aircraft that can transport almost anything the US needs to deploy. (Let’s call it the C-X). 

The US has no airlift capability designed or contemplated past the current capability which consists of 3 forms. Infleet and outsourced. Here are the numbers:
Mobility Capability Fleet Size
Unit of Measure
Strategic Airlift Aircraft
Commercial Airlift: Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)
Theater Airlift Aircraft 300 C-130

Here are the statistics for the US Air Force’s Heavy Lift capability. There are 4 types in fleet aircraft that are capable of hauling a tank. These are listed below. Note: a slight discrepancy between the numbers is due to the dates. The Fig 1 is likely to be the most accurate from Jan 2019 for estimates of the fleet in 2023. For information on the CRAF fleet go here: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104583/civil-reserve-air-fleet/ The large capability does not include any aircraft that can transport a tank. 

In service

For the purpose of this article I will concentrate on the big airframes – the C-5M and the C-17A.
Due to the low amount of flying the USAF does of its aircraft the serviceability requires that the aircraft typically spends 3-4x each flying hour in the shop being fixed. At any one time the Air Force aims to have operational about 50% of this capacity. The USAF has a group who is focused on transport. USTRANSCOM. Here is its latest report: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Lyons_03-05-19.pdf In my humble opinion it’s not doing even that well. Published rates of aircraft that are currently available to fly have decreased every year since, well a long time. Using recent statistics the numbers have continued to fall. That number has falled by 8 percentage points. In fiscal 2012, 77.9% percent of all aircraft were deemed flyable. By fiscal 2017, that metric had dropped to 71.3 %, and it dipped further to 69.97 % in 2018. And the C5 has some of the worse numbers. Recently the availability for the F-35 (A/B/C models) dropped to around 35% for a variety of reasons but mostly missing parts. For more detail go here. It’s not like this isn’t a secret, but we have to start focusing the attention on this topic. If the current and future Administrations are going to be warmongering, as their previous generations were, then mission availability is critical. And currently it is pretty bad. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/07/26/aircraft-mission-capable-rates-hit-new-low-in-air-force-despite-efforts-to-improve/ It would be good to compare their rates to say… someone like the UK and Singapore. 

There are numerous stories that can be easily found of C5s that don’t complete their missions on the scheduled time. http://web.archive.org/web/20040112233408/http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2004/0104galaxy.asp  As the USAF does not publish any performance stats in the same way commercial aircraft operators do – we cannot see the actual performance numbers. The C5M is one of the most expensive aircraft to operate. The last data I can find is from 2016 where the cost was over $100K per hour of operation. https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-plane-cost-per-flight-hour-chart-2016-3  So a typical mission from USA to Afghanistan and back would be about 20 hours each way. So $4 million a roundtrip. I am sure there is many an airline bean counter who would like to have that as his revenue number. If you want to be really geeky about Aircraft operating costs in the USAF, there are a few think tanks who dive into the Congressional data. Here is one from the Rand Corporation from 2015. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1178/RAND_RR1178.pdf A relatively short report but it will require you to dust off your regression analysis capability. 

As one C-5 pilot confided in me the plane was probably older than HIS/HER father. IE not inconceivable that the same airframe was flown by the current fleet pilots’ grandfathers. (There were no female C-5 pilots I could find in this research when the plane entered the fleet).
The latest talk is about extending the airframe out to 2060. Really??? The latest version of the C-5 (with remanufactured airframes) re-entered the fleet in 2018. The biggest change was that the engines were replaced with CF6s. Yup a 45 year old design. 

The C-5M is not the real workhorse of the fleet, that is the C-17A. A sprightly young thing who first flew in 1975 (as the YC-15). The bad news is that in October Boeing put the production line facility up for sale once the moratorium on the sale was lifted. The last C17 was delivered to the USAF in 2013. Production continued for another few years but now that’s all done. Using the same logic – the C-17 should therefore last into the next century. (Stick with me here, if the original life span can be extended from a 1970 in service aircraft for 90 years then a 1995 aircraft should last more than 100 years. Eisenhower must be spinning in his grave). But not to worry, the Air Force actually started to mothball some of the oldest ones in the fleet in 2012.  

There is no new design planned for large scale transportation for the US military. The US issued a study in early 2018 to look at the issue.  https://www.defensedaily.com/dod-starts-study-airlift-sealift-tanker-needs/air-force/  The resulting report is pretty thin. Here is the published version. http://www.airforcemag.com/DocumentFile/Documents/2019/MobilityCapabilitiesRequirementsStudy2018.pdf The actual numbers the Air Force is talking about is a further 3 C-17 squadrons and another 2 C-130 squadrons. But as we saw above there is no facility for producing any new C-17s. 

Perhaps there is something in Europe? Well the troubles for the A400M aircraft are well documented but at least there is a live production line. Current rate 9 aircraft in 2019. It could fly a lesser capacity payload compared to the C-17. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.asp?form=form&aircraft1=33&aircraft2=820&Submit=Compare+Aircraft

So there you have it. We have a problem and its urgent. We need to fix it. How?
Here is what I propose. For the short term, The USAF will have no choice but to add capacity and the A400M is it. The C-130x is not a possibility. So that is unless you want a Russian (IL-76, An-124), Chinese (Y-20) or possibly Brazilian (KC-390) aircraft. No way can the C-17 be delivered unless they are re-manufactured ones from the desert. 

For the C-X system, we should be looking at the requirement of a non-traditional heavy lift aircraft that can operate at a far lower cost per hour but last a really long time at relatively low rates of utilization. This has to be crewed but with a small crew capability with UAV support as back up. There are no current designs that should be considered.  The C-X should comprise a all new frame using a significant set of COTS components that can address the near term design issues.
Best of luck with this. I really hope someone wakes up and takes notice.


23 July 2019

The 737 Max - woe woe thrice times woe but is it?

Boeing 737 MAX Simulator

Today's word is TRAINING.

I have opined elsewhere on my feelings about the Max and the reasons for its difficulties. So I wont be rehashing today (unless someone asks) as to why I feel the good people at Boeing messed up.

Instead I would like to focus on the topic of what the impact of when (not if) the 737 Max returns to the skies.

So here is the thing. if we calculate all the bad news from the Max grounding we could be talking about terrible things like the $30+ Billions knocked off Boeing's stock market value. Not to mention their $5 Billion hit they took in 2019 Q2's numbers. But let me posit that its one of the best things to happen to airlines recently. Why? Because when your load factors are at 80%+ your margins go through the roof. Couple this with the theoretical number of aircraft from Jet Airways, WOW etc and you can see that the slack has been taken up and the airlines across the pond are doing nicely thank you and domestically fabulously (except for WN who is probably taking it in the nuts). Oh but wait... who are the real losers here? Yup you and me. Travelling public who are paying over the odds. But just one tiny little thing. Boeing is still churning out Maxes at the rate of 42 a month. By my reckoning that will be about 300 ships by the time November rolls around. Dumping that number in the market in December will be very interesting. Come January the blood bath will be palpable. So spare a thought for the poor Chinese leasing companies. And if anyone things that there will be instant certification simultaneously- think again.

It is no mystery that when the Max returns it will face a series of challenges. I don't think that we should waste valuable reading time debating the nomenclature. It will always be the 737 Max no matter what the brand mavens at the airlines or Boeing apply to it. The bigger issues are how to instill in both the user community and the flying public confidence in the equipment and system.

The numbers are astonishing as to the mammoth task ahead of bringing the Max back into the regular world of airlines. The days of wonderfulness and joy will soon be tempered with the enormity of the task of retraining. And the cost.

Let's do some simple mathematics. A typical direct round number is that each 737 Max will require 5 crews. In December without taking anything else - that translates into the 380 aircraft ( originally grounded) and then the additional aircraft that will be produced through December which is currently grounded and future produced) That's another 340-350 ships.  Let's use a nice round number. 4,000 pilots who have to be retrained. A full retraining programme of 5 weeks to transition to a new type (which is a fair assumption to make). That is 400 Man years of training that will be required.  2018's Simulator census - found here https://www.flightglobal.com/asset/24074 - registration required but not a paywall. Lists just 14 worldwide. I will let you speculate as to whether that's enough or how long it would take to run those 4000 folks through a programme.

Hmmm bummer.

But let's go further... where are they? Today there is but ONE (let me say again that is a single) 737 Max simulator in all of North America. (Talk about hoist on your own petard Boeing). Its at Air Canada and there is a nice picture of it above. (this comes from a great article about it for Avgeek types seen here: https://pizzainmotion.boardingarea.com/2017/12/20/aviation-geek-dream-boeing-flight-simulator/ ).  By now its common knowledge that the airframer went all in on saying that additional resources for training would not be required. A few hours with an iPad should have done it. Couple that with the majority of Maxes will go as replacement aircraft not new ships flying new places. Voila the recipe that drove a distinct lack of interest in Simulators for the Max. By now there should be heaps of them all over the place. In particular at the other major North American airlines who are Max customers - Westjet, American, Southwest and United. And you can bet your bottom dollar that Air Canada is going to be whispering in the ear of the regulator in Canada https://www.tc.gc.ca/en/services/aviation.html about that need. And they will definitely be listening.

For the FAA - this is going to be tough going. The coziness between the Airframer and the regulator has been highlighted elsewhere. Re-certifying the simulators to be an accurate reflection of the aircraft's behaviour will not be easy. Something the NY Times figured out early. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/17/business/boeing-737-max-simulators.html

All this points to a difficult conclusion. Maxes will be released for flying but will only impact the market after a lot of re-training and those resources will be in extremely short supply for quite a while.

You have been warned.

UPDATE25 July 2019 : Today, WN removed Maxes from their flight schedule till Jan 5 2020. Given that the Xmas/End of year rush disruption would not be possible in any time frame - this is a wise move and has been greeted by collective sighs of relief across the Airverse. 

The chances of any airline introducing 737 Maxes before end of the year is now remote. Given that both United and American just announced cancellations through October and November respectively 2 weeks ago - this gives some credence to my core belief that the Max will not be back in revenue service until early 2020.

Yes I am back and posting again

"O Best Beloved"

It has to be one of the greatest exhortations from any author

Image result for oh best beloved

Growing up in England with a mother whose early years were spent in India, the "Just So stories" by Rudyard Kipling were among my favourites. My favourite of all is the Elephant's Child.  (You can actually read all of them from here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories). For one year I was largely kept away from school for a series of illnesses - then my only friends were books and VERY early Lego. Oh yes and that and the Light Programme https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Light_Programme . To this day I still like Radio. I bemoan its diminution in popularity  and particularly that of newspapers.

All of which brings me back as to why I am returning to blogging, and to Blogger itself, my original platform.

For the past few years, I have been relying on Twitter and it honed a skill in developing a way to attract interest on topic points I believe are important. But I have been remiss in not providing a way to deep dive into many of the topics. So, here I am back to where I started my outpourings.

I hope that you will read and engage with me on the continuation of my journey. I will try and write once a month - more frequently is my personal goal. I will continue to focus on my first love - which in case you didn't figure it out yet - is aviation. But not just aviation, it's many facets and a few other topics as well. I have a political point of view and do not feel restrained in expressing some of them when I feel its appropriate. My topics include:
  • Aviation in general
  • Civil Air Transport for passengers
  • Aviation History
  • Travel Distribution
  • IT for Distribution
  • New Technologies 
  • Startups
  • User Experience (UX interfaces in particular)
  • Manufactures- OEMs of all types
  • The customer experience - what it feels like good and bad
  • Loyalty and the way its implemented
  • Freedom of expression
  • Politics and Travel
  • Politics in North America and Europe
  • Topics of fancy.
A note on my point of view. I wear a number of hats and when writing or speaking for a particular entity I try to be respectful for that entity and for what it stands. Here, it's a different story. All the writing (unless attributed elsewhere) and comments here are my own. They represent nothing other than my personal musings and must be treated as such. They are driven from what is possibly a very unique set of experiences and perspectives. Be prepared for some of it to appear jaded, curmudgeonly even. I like humour and I have no problem in poking fun at various entities. My feeling is that if you are in the public eye - then you have consented to be "skewered" as opposed to flamed, unless you make a really egregious error. The same applies to any PR or product pieces. I am not a fan of being politically correct - so sometimes do expect me to err away from being warm, fluffy and fuzzy.

If I insult or offend within the context of this blog - then I offer an upfront apology - but not necessarily the need for a retraction. Also my grammatical and spelling errors will just have to be tolerated. Enter here at your own peril. That said, I hope you will be entertained, provoked into thinking and - even I aspire - to action.

Thank you

The Prof.

Feel free to email me - professorsabena@gmail.com or tweet at me ProfessorSabena (DM or public is fine). You can also find me on a couple of other Social Media channels.