Interesting article on if Boeing will invest in a new "MidLiner", the 797. Basically a wide body with the operational cost of a narrow body.
Includes an interview with David Neeleman,
"I had a briefing from Boeing and I thought it was great," Neeleman said during a recent visit to Chicago to tout Portugal's TAP airline, one of his holdings. That's noteworthy, coming from an executive who has mostly favored Airbus jets at startups such as JetBlue Airways, Brazil's Azul and Moxy, the code name for his latest U.S. project.
Sounds like Moxy will operate from Mid Sized US cities to MidSized international destinations. Could be big for Kansas City as the 797 would be able to reach most of Western Europe, Central American and the northern part of South America in a single leg.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:02 pm
Sounds like airlines are very close and then we just twiddle our thumbs for the FAA to finish the EA and hope there aren't a lot of restrictions within it?
That's what I heard yesterday from a reliable source.
shinatoo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:18 pm
Interesting article on if Boeing will invest in a new "MidLiner", the 797. Basically a wide body with the operational cost of a narrow body.
Includes an interview with David Neeleman,
"I had a briefing from Boeing and I thought it was great," Neeleman said during a recent visit to Chicago to tout Portugal's TAP airline, one of his holdings. That's noteworthy, coming from an executive who has mostly favored Airbus jets at startups such as JetBlue Airways, Brazil's Azul and Moxy, the code name for his latest U.S. project.
Sounds like Moxy will operate from Mid Sized US cities to MidSized international destinations. Could be big for Kansas City as the 797 would be able to reach most of Western Europe, Central American and the northern part of South America in a single leg.
I would imagine that this as much a PR piece that Boeing is thinking about creating an airplane that lets airlines not rely on hubs as much so that travel returns more to being a mesh network. They're saying to look to Boeing for airline risk mitigation.
With the recent "drone attacks" on Heathrow and Gatwick where a single drone can shut down an airport, there has to be a scramble to reduce the risk this introduces to their operations.
If the idea of terrorism is to have an impact on lives, a coordinated effort of drone deployment over ATL, LAX, JFK and ORD would have ripple effects on the entire economy. Think of the chaos that results from hundreds of airplanes rerouted while in the air and you no longer need to hijack a plane to get it.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:02 pm
Sounds like airlines are very close and then we just twiddle our thumbs for the FAA to finish the EA and hope there aren't a lot of restrictions within it?
That's what I heard yesterday from a reliable source.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Jan 31, 2019 12:02 pm
Sounds like airlines are very close and then we just twiddle our thumbs for the FAA to finish the EA and hope there aren't a lot of restrictions within it?
That's what I heard yesterday from a reliable source.
“Inter-fund borrowing “is the most cost-effective way to do things and it has the complete support of our finance department.”
“There apparently is not a clear understanding at our legislative level on the city’s ability to inter-fund borrow to do advanced funding for this project,” Landes said. “For whatever reason it’s become politicized and then it was editorialized, and it’s been completely twisted, turned and misunderstood.”
nevermind, seeing it in the news stories. Be interesting to hear where the savings is coming from. Not going to freak out yet, we've already increased the budget.
KC_JAYHAWK wrote: ↑Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:20 pm
Guessing they just cut more amenities...we don't need a damn roof!
No one will look at the roof anyways. You're supposed to keep your eyes on the road driving and then most people look forward where they're walking to not run into people when inside.
The price went up over $1.5B because SW asked/demanded more gates. It seems if they want more space, they should pay for it instead of taking more from the aesthetic costs.
This is where being a hub probably helps. An airline would be more willing to spend some extra if they are running most of their passengers through the airport.
KCPowercat wrote: ↑Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:52 am
This is where being a hub probably helps. An airline would be more willing to spend some extra if they are running most of their passengers through the airport.
Yes, this is why Chicago’s terminal will be much more luxe. I also think having so many of our flights with one carrier, Southwest, probably hurts us too. They have so much influence on this process and we have very little negotiation play because they know we have to go through them. Of course, a budget terminal is much better still than what we have now.
I am starting to get concerned we've given the airlines too big of a seat at the governance table. They were very complimentary towards that today which always raises a flag.
We aren't a priority for any airline, the biggest being an airline with no lux amenities. They've driven our price down and say they will design to that number and consider changes as needed, but they don't have any real need to not value engineer this to the nth degree and we may not have enough of a seat at the table to keep it from happening.or frankly experience on KCAD or edgmoor to know.
