One of the sad footnotes to the Space Face is that the big guys are likely to win. With EADS already announcing its Astrium's Division project for a CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) based Space Plane for Space Tourism, it wasn’t long before one of the big 3 US Contractors decided that this was something they wanted into.
Northrop Grumman Corp agreed July 5th and announced July 20th the agreed purchase of the remaining shares it didn’t own. According to news reports the share holding rose from 20% to 100% with (subject to US government approval) final effect from August 2007. Quietly the other players have been evaluating the market. It is well known that Boeing has been cooperating with the Russians in this area for some time. Lockheed Martin is keeping Mum on the subject. I believe that we will see a small further number of these projects seeing the light of day. Who is to say that Textron (owner of Cessna Aircraft) will not be entering the race. Not to mention Bombardier (Owner of Canadair and Learjet). Indeed the latter's Learjet 25 is the basis for a low cost entry by Rocketplane Ltd based in Oklahoma State.
The obvious impact is that competition will drive down the pricing to reasonable levels from the current astronomical $30-$40 million (For Space Adventures trips to the ISS) to $180,000 for a flight on SpaceShip 2 with reservations maxed out for approximately the first 5 years of service. Most of these reservations are backed by 100% prepayment. The first time there is an accident of course people will be heading for the hills, but in the mean time this is the equivalent of the Concorde Travel experience.
I might just sign up
Cheers
Timothy
20 July 2007
Is the EC trying some wizardry to appease Amadeus?
On the eve of the release of the Harry Potter final installment - perhaps we are seeing some signs and clues as to how the EC will define its long awaited changes to the GDS regulations. Up until now we have all assumed that the focus would be on the relaxation of the rules along the lines of the US deregulation of the GDS marketplace. But no - it would appear the bureaucrats in Brussels have other plans in store for us. The final chapter in this saga looks like it is going to have a few interesting plot twists and in the end The GDS/Harry character may not be killed off.
The issue it seems in the somewhat single tasking mode of the EC is that they are responding to some obvious pressure from the Amadeus lobbying efforts. They are now opening the door to the definition of "Parent" carrier. The origins of the "Parent" carrier term come from the 1980s when the battle was initially between the "Have" airlines - i.e. those who owned a part of a GDS vs. the "Have Not" carriers. Since this was clear at the time no one needed to have much definition. All EU based major airlines were all by definition "Parent" carriers by dint of the ownership stakes in either Galileo or Amadeus.
Fast forward to today and with the major airlines in the Galileo group all now non "Parent" carriers and even SAS is not an owner - then in Euro speak the definition is moot.
But I offer two other thoughts for consideration. The definitions of "Control" and "Distribution" should also be on the table for interpretation. Why?
Let’s start with "Distribution" the lines are now clearly drawn differently as we have fragmented distribution. With Amadeus focus now on airline IT it is not hard to see that actually distribution control can be effectively managed through the Airlines' PSS (Passenger Sales and Service aka internal Res Systems). So PSS systems are today doing much of what the GDS did before. If PSS systems were added into the loose definition of GDS in a redefined term of Distribution Platform then Amadeus would fail in my opinion the test of dominant control. Specifically we believe at T2 that the System User agreement should be examined in the same context as the "neutral" GDS agreements.
Now let’s consider the term "Control". The 3 participating owner carriers (and I choose my words carefully hear) are indeed much stronger than they were in the late 1980s and 1990s when the regulations were drawn up. Further the US share of the Transatlantic market has fallen significantly in actual passenger counts. The concentration of control among the 3 is pretty compelling.
However take both terms together - Control AND Distribution - and add ALL system users, CTP (Star Alliance - Common Technology Platform) users, all ALTEA users in the EU together and there is clearly a dominance and concentration of market power the likes of which we have NEVER seen before.
It was our hope that the EC would enact the new legislation for the protection of the consumer and the smaller EC airlines to prevent abuse of the monopolistic power concentration that can occur in situations such as these. Unlike the US market - the EC has the power of judge jury and executioner. They can both write and implement legislation. There is no check of the legislature at this level. Appeal to the judiciary is such a laborious process that it is effectively mute in all but the most high profile of cases. AND it takes many years of significant expense to challenge.
The story is not yet over and there will be many more plot twists. The EC has been known for using some of the Black Arts to conjure up dark forces cloaked in respectability. Let’s hope that
Olivier Onidi doesn’t turn out to be the real Voldermort.
For further reading we recommend going to the EC's Transportation section, Air Transport Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/index_en.htm.%20Specifically look a the comments on "Possible revision of Regulation 2299/89 on a Code of Conduct for computerized reservation systems (CRS)" http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/consultation/2007_04_27_en.htm
Note that the EC uses the older term CRS Computer Reservation System - rather than the more common GDS, Global Distribution System. Perhaps this different wording has an impact on the actual spells used.
OK so I carried the Harry Potter metaphor a bit far but my comments are valid. You have been warned. I have experienced first hand the power of the EC in this regard and how they listen to the "home team" of Amadeus lobbyists.
Other resources I suggest are to go to the BTC's website. http://businesstravelcoalition.com/
Cheers
Timothy
Timothy J O'Neil-Dunne
Managing Partner - T2Impact Ltd
Global Travel eBusiness
Tel (US) +1 425 836 4770
Mobile (US) +1 425 785 4457
Mobile (International) +44 7770 33 81 75
Fax +1 815 377 1583
UNIVERSAL VOICEMAIL BOX +1 425 749 4221
http://www.t2impact.com/
The issue it seems in the somewhat single tasking mode of the EC is that they are responding to some obvious pressure from the Amadeus lobbying efforts. They are now opening the door to the definition of "Parent" carrier. The origins of the "Parent" carrier term come from the 1980s when the battle was initially between the "Have" airlines - i.e. those who owned a part of a GDS vs. the "Have Not" carriers. Since this was clear at the time no one needed to have much definition. All EU based major airlines were all by definition "Parent" carriers by dint of the ownership stakes in either Galileo or Amadeus.
Fast forward to today and with the major airlines in the Galileo group all now non "Parent" carriers and even SAS is not an owner - then in Euro speak the definition is moot.
But I offer two other thoughts for consideration. The definitions of "Control" and "Distribution" should also be on the table for interpretation. Why?
Let’s start with "Distribution" the lines are now clearly drawn differently as we have fragmented distribution. With Amadeus focus now on airline IT it is not hard to see that actually distribution control can be effectively managed through the Airlines' PSS (Passenger Sales and Service aka internal Res Systems). So PSS systems are today doing much of what the GDS did before. If PSS systems were added into the loose definition of GDS in a redefined term of Distribution Platform then Amadeus would fail in my opinion the test of dominant control. Specifically we believe at T2 that the System User agreement should be examined in the same context as the "neutral" GDS agreements.
Now let’s consider the term "Control". The 3 participating owner carriers (and I choose my words carefully hear) are indeed much stronger than they were in the late 1980s and 1990s when the regulations were drawn up. Further the US share of the Transatlantic market has fallen significantly in actual passenger counts. The concentration of control among the 3 is pretty compelling.
However take both terms together - Control AND Distribution - and add ALL system users, CTP (Star Alliance - Common Technology Platform) users, all ALTEA users in the EU together and there is clearly a dominance and concentration of market power the likes of which we have NEVER seen before.
It was our hope that the EC would enact the new legislation for the protection of the consumer and the smaller EC airlines to prevent abuse of the monopolistic power concentration that can occur in situations such as these. Unlike the US market - the EC has the power of judge jury and executioner. They can both write and implement legislation. There is no check of the legislature at this level. Appeal to the judiciary is such a laborious process that it is effectively mute in all but the most high profile of cases. AND it takes many years of significant expense to challenge.
The story is not yet over and there will be many more plot twists. The EC has been known for using some of the Black Arts to conjure up dark forces cloaked in respectability. Let’s hope that
Olivier Onidi doesn’t turn out to be the real Voldermort.
For further reading we recommend going to the EC's Transportation section, Air Transport Portal: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/index_en.htm.%20Specifically look a the comments on "Possible revision of Regulation 2299/89 on a Code of Conduct for computerized reservation systems (CRS)" http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_portal/consultation/2007_04_27_en.htm
Note that the EC uses the older term CRS Computer Reservation System - rather than the more common GDS, Global Distribution System. Perhaps this different wording has an impact on the actual spells used.
OK so I carried the Harry Potter metaphor a bit far but my comments are valid. You have been warned. I have experienced first hand the power of the EC in this regard and how they listen to the "home team" of Amadeus lobbyists.
Other resources I suggest are to go to the BTC's website. http://businesstravelcoalition.com/
Cheers
Timothy
Timothy J O'Neil-Dunne
Managing Partner - T2Impact Ltd
Global Travel eBusiness
Tel (US) +1 425 836 4770
Mobile (US) +1 425 785 4457
Mobile (International) +44 7770 33 81 75
Fax +1 815 377 1583
UNIVERSAL VOICEMAIL BOX +1 425 749 4221
http://www.t2impact.com/
19 July 2007
Southwest jumps onto Paypal bandwagon
So the ball is SLOWLY rolling but definitely there is momentum
We have been advocating the use of non-credit card financial fulfilment for some time. We believe that there are considerable savings in various areas such as cross border payments and reduced credit card fees that can be garnered if the merchant is prepared to "shop" around.
With Visa now experiencing Debit card rates of more than 50% the time is right for the use of alternative solutions such as eBay's Paypal and Google's Checkout services.
Well done WN - any more takers?
cheers
Timothy
We have been advocating the use of non-credit card financial fulfilment for some time. We believe that there are considerable savings in various areas such as cross border payments and reduced credit card fees that can be garnered if the merchant is prepared to "shop" around.
With Visa now experiencing Debit card rates of more than 50% the time is right for the use of alternative solutions such as eBay's Paypal and Google's Checkout services.
Well done WN - any more takers?
cheers
Timothy
18 July 2007
Sao Paulo's Congonhas airport - comment
Having flown into this airport frequently (and its corresponding short runway counterpart in Rio) I can personally attest to the scary nature of the experience. The airport is tiny in comparison to other facilities. Given the significant daily traffic not just on the Rio - Sao Paolo run but also flights from there to many other places the location was a major factor in this tragic accident.
I will also however suggest partial culpability at several doors.
Whatever the actual reason for the accident we can say without a doubt that there is more than one issue at stake here. Due to the nature of the Brazilian market it is unlikely that this will ever come out as part of any official investigation.
1. The airport which sits on a small plateau is surrounded by dense population. This would not be tolerated in many other cities. Some of the housing may not be legal. A slum in Brazil (Favella) is not the same as we might expect, speaking from a Non-Brazilian point of view. Hundreds of thousands of people live in these makeshift cities in both Rio and Sao Paolo.
2. The only way to land is to slam the aircraft down on the runway and full thrust reversers and braking to slow the aircraft down. For a fully loaded A320 this is no small feat. Even 737s (Gol and Varig) and F100s (TAM) (the other jets that use the airport) have a hard time with this. There is little to no margin for error.
2. The pilots who fly the shuttle routes are highly competent and used to the "normal" conditions. This was far from normal having been one of the wettest winters in memory.
3. The runway had been repaved but not re-grooved
4. There had been a court case in which a judge had ruled that the airport was safe under pressure from the official bodies.
5. At least once in the preceding months since the runway re-surfacing had a pilot complained of the danger in the runway condition
6. Infraero - the former military organization charged with the infrastructure of the airports in Brazil and its counterpart ANAC http://www.infraero.gov.br/, http://www.anac.gov.br/ respectively are both politically influenced organizations.
7. TAM has been aggressively growing (as has GOL and others) without much check. The aggressive expansion has occurred at a time when the former national carrier VARIG went into deep decline (now only handling less than 3% of the total traffic) and when the air traffic control system was shown to be severely lacking. (See GOL midair collision).
8. TAM has had a poor record of safety particularly with its F100 aircraft. Even Wikipedia doesn’t log all of the accidents. In addition its hero Rolim Amaro was himself killed in a TAM Helicopter crash.
Enough guilt and blame to go round. Our thoughts and prayers are for the victims and their families. Let’s hope that this is a catalyst to cause reform and better oversight by the authorities. Brazil is a great country. its people are some of the nicest you can hope to meet. Let’s hope for the best for them
Cheers
Timothy
Timothy J O'Neil-Dunne
Managing Partner - T2Impact Ltd
Global Travel eBusiness
Tel (US) +1 425 836 4770
Mobile (US) +1 425 785 4457
Mobile (International) +44 7770 33 81 75
Fax +1 815 377 1583
UNIVERSAL VOICEMAIL BOX +1 425 749 4221
http://www.t2impact.com/
Our thoughts and prayers go
I will also however suggest partial culpability at several doors.
Whatever the actual reason for the accident we can say without a doubt that there is more than one issue at stake here. Due to the nature of the Brazilian market it is unlikely that this will ever come out as part of any official investigation.
1. The airport which sits on a small plateau is surrounded by dense population. This would not be tolerated in many other cities. Some of the housing may not be legal. A slum in Brazil (Favella) is not the same as we might expect, speaking from a Non-Brazilian point of view. Hundreds of thousands of people live in these makeshift cities in both Rio and Sao Paolo.
2. The only way to land is to slam the aircraft down on the runway and full thrust reversers and braking to slow the aircraft down. For a fully loaded A320 this is no small feat. Even 737s (Gol and Varig) and F100s (TAM) (the other jets that use the airport) have a hard time with this. There is little to no margin for error.
2. The pilots who fly the shuttle routes are highly competent and used to the "normal" conditions. This was far from normal having been one of the wettest winters in memory.
3. The runway had been repaved but not re-grooved
4. There had been a court case in which a judge had ruled that the airport was safe under pressure from the official bodies.
5. At least once in the preceding months since the runway re-surfacing had a pilot complained of the danger in the runway condition
6. Infraero - the former military organization charged with the infrastructure of the airports in Brazil and its counterpart ANAC http://www.infraero.gov.br/, http://www.anac.gov.br/ respectively are both politically influenced organizations.
7. TAM has been aggressively growing (as has GOL and others) without much check. The aggressive expansion has occurred at a time when the former national carrier VARIG went into deep decline (now only handling less than 3% of the total traffic) and when the air traffic control system was shown to be severely lacking. (See GOL midair collision).
8. TAM has had a poor record of safety particularly with its F100 aircraft. Even Wikipedia doesn’t log all of the accidents. In addition its hero Rolim Amaro was himself killed in a TAM Helicopter crash.
Enough guilt and blame to go round. Our thoughts and prayers are for the victims and their families. Let’s hope that this is a catalyst to cause reform and better oversight by the authorities. Brazil is a great country. its people are some of the nicest you can hope to meet. Let’s hope for the best for them
Cheers
Timothy
Timothy J O'Neil-Dunne
Managing Partner - T2Impact Ltd
Global Travel eBusiness
Tel (US) +1 425 836 4770
Mobile (US) +1 425 785 4457
Mobile (International) +44 7770 33 81 75
Fax +1 815 377 1583
UNIVERSAL VOICEMAIL BOX +1 425 749 4221
http://www.t2impact.com/
Our thoughts and prayers go
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)