Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Boats, Planes, Other' started by SuperSonic, Sep 2, 2016.
Even big ass airlines don't usually own planes themselves, they lease them.
Can u post it again
It links to a specific time in a youtube video. Just type youtube.com on your browser and copypaste that block after it, no spaces.
Why the nazi symbol
Because I ran out of sickles and hammers.
Large airlines usually have a mix of owned and leased aircraft. It's a pretty complicated formula of risk management, but ultimately if a lessor can cover the costs of ownership and still make money on the lease, then airlines are better off not paying someone else that overhead whenever that is possible. Leasing gives you a float to play with, where you don't risk having too few aircraft for expansion opportunities (an aircraft backlog might be several years, but lease agreements might be made for just a few months out) or risk having too much (if, for instance, there's a general contraction in the economy or if an exploratory route has to be withdrawn). In this sense, aircraft leasing can operate like a revolving credit. This is especially true for those airlines with large maintenance arms that are profitable businesses in their own right, like Delta TechOps or Lufthansa Technik.
For large North American airlines, usually somewhere around a quarter of their fleets are leased.
guys get back on topic
why would i want to kill an animal and leave the meat? seems to take out all the satisfaction of harvesting a wild animal
I don't understand it either. But if they want to do it and pay us for it. And my family or low income families get the meat. Who are we to say no
And how dare you guys talk about aircraft in my families hunting thread
That comes as a bit of surprise to me. Several airlines here barely own their own buildings anymore, and usually outsourcing and company "streamlining" trends are often picked up from USA#1. Luftwaffe is a notable exception with around 70% of own aircraft, depending on how you take into account all the subsidiaries.
Its like how you should never get insurance for something you can cover out-of-pocket, never lease something you can afford to own outright. A big difference between the North American market and literally everywhere else is the volume and size of the domestic market, due to its sheer (physical) size and limited competition from rail. For this reason, the North American legacy carriers are dominated by narrow-body flights on established, deeply entrenched routes, whereas the domestic network for many European and Asian carriers has either parity with their international network, or is much smaller (like Singapore, Emirates, etc).
For comparison's sake, if you want to know how much narrow-body and regional flights matter compared to wide-body, the largest fleet of any airline outside of North America is China Southern, 515 aircraft. United, American, and Delta all have over 1200. Air Canada has 400, and Southwest 720.
International routes carry a lot more risk. Landing rights are often negotiated by governments, and have little to do with market factors (eg: UAE-Canada flights have been restricted due to a spat over military basing rights in the Middle East). The aircraft are much more expensive, and the cost of lower load factors (should a downturn occur) are much higher. Domestic flights are much lower risk, with landing rights and route planning handled almost entirely from market factors. Airlines have a cozy relationship with local manufacturers (Boeing and Bombardier), with local airports, and especially governments (the US and Canadian governments have granted an anti-trust exemption for United and Air Canada to operate together, for instance; the government of Quebec has facilitated deals between Air Canada and Bombardier; major mergers in the US have almost all been approved). The mainline, backbone routes have been unchanged since Pan-Am dissolved, despite many mergers (United and Continental, American and US, Delta and Northwest, Canadian and Air Canada...). The lower risk means a much, much higher ownership share.
As an aside, I think Canadian Airline's goose livery was one of the best airline liveries I've seen, in terms of being able to communicate both a corporate and a national brand, while including a symbol for flight, and physically incorporating the structure of an aircraft all at once. I'm kinda upset that Air Canada didn't end up including it somehow, instead sticking to the boring maple leaf motif.
This one was better:
Neither of these can compete against those sexxxy ANA planes.
For me it will be a Gulfstream V perhaps one of the most comfortable and best equipped business jets. Often seen in criminal minds