Cirrus and Pilatus selling airplanes while everyone else shrinks

The latest aircraft industry report (everything but airliners and military fixed-wing money pits) is out with sales numbers for 2016. We keep hearing about how the rich bastards are getting richer, but Gulfstream deliveries fell from 154 to 117 (2015 to 2016). The competitive Global Express suffered a similar fate. Embraer jets was flat from 120 to 117. Total jet deliveries fell 8 percent and the value fell by 16 percent (still below 2008 numbers despite the fact that these numbers aren’t adjusted for inflation). All bizjets combined were worth only $18.5 billion. That aggregates sales of planes made in the U.S., Canada, Brazil, and Europe. By comparison, revenue for Google was $90 billion in 2016.

Life in the somewhat slow lane was good for the Pilatus PC-12, rising in sales from 70 to 91.

What about in the ridiculously slow lane? Cirrus delivered 317 planes, less than half the numbers from 10 years ago, but still more than any other piston manufacturer. Cessna (Textron) is down to one quarter of its former glory. They might be passed by the Italians (TECNAM) soon. Total piston sales were $661 million, a small fraction of the sales of 10 years ago when considering inflation.

Robinson has cut helicopter production to about one quarter of the levels of 10 years ago. Sikorsky is doing okay thanks to sales of Blackhawks to the Federales.

What will it take to revive this industry? My vote goes to scaled-up drones that can carry passengers.

Related:

 

Full post, including comments

Karl Marx was right: Iridium

Eccentric Orbits: The Iridium Story was one of the Wall Street Journal “20 books that defined our year” for 2016. It isn’t perfectly edited, but it is rewarding for anyone interested in technology.

The Iridium satellite phone system was developed starting in 1988 by three engineers at Motorola (Ray Leopold, Ken Peterson, and Bary Bertiger). What was unique about the system was that there was a lot of satellite-to-satellite communication, an idea lifted from the Star Wars program.

Bertiger was a veteran of Cold War military systems, having designed most of the microwave communications for America’s spy satellites, and Leopold had been acting director of the Milstar Terminal program at Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts. Milstar was the $5 billion super-satellite warfare system being built by the Pentagon to link bombers, nuclear missiles, submarines, fighter planes, and troops on the ground. Given “highest priority” by President Reagan to support Star Wars, Milstar had cross-links among eight satellites—ten-thousand-pound “switchboards in space” that cost $800 million apiece—so Leopold did know a little about linkage issues.

In theory the whole system could have operated with a single base station for bridging satphone calls into the terrestrial phone system. More than $6 billion in investor money was spent on the system. It went live on November 1, 1998 and bankrupt on August 13, 1999:

It was the biggest bankruptcy filing in the history of the United States—and the quickest. The company had been open for business a little over nine months.

The author attributes the insolvency to (1) slow adoption by customers, and (2) Motorola sucking all of the money out into its own pockets.

Karl Marx expressed sympathy for the capitalists who risk a lot of money on a project and then discover that there is no demand or there is too much competition. He thought that everyone would be happier with a centrally planned economy in which if you build it the customers will definitely come.

Iridium was conceived at a time when cell coverage was ridiculously bad and roaming was impractical. The idea was to sell to business travelers. By the time the satellites were up, the European GSM system was in place almost everywhere that rich business people might go. The natural customers were in specialized markets such as aviation, shipping, and military. I’ll cover the rescue out of bankruptcy in a subsequent posting.

As with most revolutionary ideas, the idea was not revolutionary at the time.

And yet creating a constellation of communications satellites that would cover the whole planet was not an entirely new idea. When AT&T launched Telstar in 1962, they expected it to anchor a system of forty satellites in polar orbits, fifteen satellites in geostationary orbits, and twenty-five ground stations positioned around the globe. The system would have depended on ordinary trunk lines to complete calls, but it was still acclaimed around the world as the most sophisticated satellite system ever launched and the future of communications for the planet. That promise was snuffed out by President Kennedy, who was alarmed by the very fact that AT&T was prepared to spend $500 million on the system, and the result was COMSAT, which ended up not being interested in voice communications at all.

Two scientists at Aerospace Corporation, William S. Adams and Leonard Rider, had recently published a theoretical article in the Journal of the Astronautical Sciences called “Circular Polar Constellations Providing Continuous Single or Multiple Coverage Above a Specified Latitude.”

Details matter, however:

When the inventors first talked about using LEOs, they envisioned an orbit of six hundred to eight hundred miles up. Satellites at that altitude would have to fly through the inner Van Allen Belt, a mass of charged particles discovered by Explorer 1. In fact there were two radiation belts at those altitudes, the other one having been created artificially in 1962 when both the United States and the Soviet Union exploded nuclear bombs in space. Once again Aerospace Corporation had the data needed. George Paulikas, the Aerospace engineer who stood by at all NASA launches to describe “solar particle events” in real time, had studied every aspect of radiation belts, and his research indicated that small satellites constantly flying through that plasma would take enormous punishment every day, regardless of what material they were made of. Eventually Leopold decided to go lower—420 nautical miles—using a seven-by-eleven constellation. There would be seven orbital paths converging at the poles, and in each of those orbital paths there would be eleven satellites. This meant that they would need seventy-seven satellites to make sure the entire Earth was covered.

The need for worldwide spectrum allocation and regulatory approval disfigured the project so that there were gateways in various places around the world and all kinds of different pricing plans. The legacy carriers fought hard in the regulatory domain:

The nations of the world were gathered in the neighboring town of Torremolinos [in 1992] to allocate radio-wave spectrum, an event called the World Administrative Radio Conference that is held infrequently—this was the first major one in thirteen years—but has a lot to do with what the electronic future of the world will look like. … A decision had been made in 1990 to “proceed on the assumption that we’ll get the frequency we need,” but the world had changed greatly from the days when big American and British companies could tell everyone else how the airwaves would be used. Almost as soon as Iridium was announced, a chorus of “You can’t do that” had gone up from several other corporations, including every national phone company in Europe. … That’s why Motorola had spent the previous sixteen months lobbying the entire world to make sure it got what it wanted: radio frequency bands that could be used to operate the first point-to-point global telephone system, not to mention the first commercial switching system in outer space. The army of Motorola employees sent to Torremolinos far outnumbered that representing the U.S. government. The United States sent teams from the FCC, Voice of America, Department of Commerce, Pentagon, State Department, NASA, National Science Foundation, Coast Guard, U.S. Information Agency, and FAA—but all of those delegations combined were still smaller than Motorola’s team. Since Motorola had offices around the world, the company was able to identify political allies in advance, but the company’s war plan went one step further and made sure that Motorola employees were named as actual voting members: the United States, Canada, France, and Australia all had Motorola employees sitting in their official delegations. Add to this the fact that Travis Marshall, Motorola’s chief lobbyist, was the U.S. ambassador to the International Telecommunication Union, which administers the conference, and you start to understand why many of the WARC delegates were resentful of the pressure, regarding the Motorolans as crass salespeople determined to hold them hostage, treating them like reluctant participants in the world’s biggest time-share presentation.

Motorola prevailed primarily by getting poorer countries to sign up:

Iridium would be the greatest thing to happen to the Third World since . . . well, since the United Nations was formed. At last every country, and every village in every country, could be connected to the worldwide grid. In actuality the Iridium business plan would not be focused on the Third World at all, but on the well-heeled executive travelers in North America, Europe, and Japan, but for the time being it was better to talk about straw huts in Papua New Guinea, not ski chalets in Gstaad. A promotional video for Iridium featured the President of Mali, his wife, and his staff in acting roles. After a while, Motorola’s incessant statements of love and affection for the outcasts of the world started to wear thin. An observer for the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment drily remarked that the average citizen of the Central African Republic would have to work for four years to earn enough money to purchase an Iridium phone, then work seventeen hours more to pay for a one-minute call.

Does your country have an entrenched phone company that fears Iridium? No problem—we’ll tack a dollar on to the “tail charges” of every Iridium phone call made from your country and send it back your way. If idealism didn’t work, maybe greed would. “The fifty-four African countries were used to getting checks every month from AT&T,” said Mondale, “so we had to agree not to undercut that direct-dial service.” This stratagem would come back to haunt Iridium in later years, as national telephone companies routinely asked for kickbacks disguised as fees—tiny Madagascar wanted $500,000 a year—just to keep the Iridium license in place.

Incumbents such as Inmarsat fought like tigers.

In France it was worse. Heading up the Motorola diplomatic effort there was Leo Mondale, nephew of Walter Mondale, the U.S. Senator who had served as Vice President under Jimmy Carter. Mondale was a talented communications lawyer who had worked in the Paris offices of Fairchild Space and for the aeronautics division of defense contractor Mécanique Aviation Traction (better known as Matra), and he was the first hire at Iridium, partly because Motorola thought his connections could bring the big European telecoms aboard. The initial meeting at France Télécom turned out to be an elaborate farce, during which the French executives affected bonhomie for their frères from across the pond while fishing for competitive information—but that wasn’t the worst part of the experience. Someone had managed to place listening devices in the first-class cabin of the Air France flight that carried the Motorolans to the meeting, so the Paris executives knew exactly what Motorola was trying to do and how they were trying to do it.

At the WARC, France Télécom delegates were telling anyone who would listen that participation in Iridium was a violation of the Inmarsat treaty. Then, after the Iridium system was patented anyway, France launched a complex and expensive legal challenge that resulted in a series of hearings before the European Patent Office in Munich.

After they got the spectrum they still had to build and launch nearly 100 satellites (the constellation plus spares):

He kept reminding Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and everyone else engaged in the project that the final assembly of a satellite built by NASA or the Air Force took anywhere from nine months to one year per satellite. But since Motorola needed a hundred satellites, including all the spares and demonstration units, “obviously we don’t have a hundred years to build this constellation.” If Iridium had been a government project, for example, Stamp would have had to perform a thermal vacuum test on every satellite, placing it in a chamber that simulates intense radiation and the other brutal elements it would eventually be exposed to in space. The process was time-consuming and expensive, so Stamp made an early decision: they would “thermal-vac” the first one off the assembly line and assume all the rest were sound.

Stamp was also innovative about his assembly line, setting up his factory in Chandler so that the satellites were built horizontally instead of vertically. That meant the assemblers could work at waist level, whereas on military satellites, the technicians stood on ladders and leaned over. He trained Lockheed Martin in the new technique, then later bragged about it to his friends at Khrunichev in Moscow, only to be told, “We’ve done it that way for forty years.”

Stamp started looking at the specs and launch histories of every rocket in the world and eventually told Motorola, “Look, I feel much safer on a Chinese or a Russian rocket than an American one.” All the American rockets were handled by either the Air Force or NASA, all of them had spotty launch histories, few of them had the power he wanted, and he didn’t trust the people in charge.

When he was first hired, Dannie Stamp shared an office with the Iridium inventors and was the only employee of the Space Segment Division. By 1995 he was supervising a hundred people and

Full post, including comments

Dumb Question #8241: why screen passengers who slip through security after they deplane at their destination?

Traveling today from Beaver Creek back to Boston and thinking about “Security Breach Allows Unchecked Passengers on Flights at JFK: Officials” (NBC):

Eleven people walked through an unscreened security lane at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York on Monday morning and apparently boarded flights, authorities said.

Three of the 11 were later identified through video and were believed to have boarded a flight to California, where they were to be screened upon arrival, the Port Authority said. The eight other passengers remained unidentified, it said.

Here’s my dumb question for today: What is the point of screening these folks after they’ve arrived at their destination? To make sure that they don’t have weapons to use for hijacking their Uber?

Full post, including comments

Companies shift to contractors simply to avoid unionization?

“The End of Employees” (WSJ, February 2, 2017) is an article that my Facebook friends continue to express outrage regarding.

No one in the airline industry comes close to Virgin America Inc. on a measurement of efficiency called revenue per employee. That’s because baggage delivery, heavy maintenance, reservations, catering and many other jobs aren’t done by employees. Virgin America uses contractors.

Never before have American companies tried so hard to employ so few people. The outsourcing wave that moved apparel-making jobs to China and call-center operations to India is now just as likely to happen inside companies across the U.S. and in almost every industry.

The contractor model is so prevalent that Google parent Alphabet Inc., ranked by Fortune magazine as the best place to work for seven of the past 10 years, has roughly equal numbers of outsourced workers and full-time employees, …

The shift is radically altering what it means to be a company and a worker. More flexibility for companies to shrink the size of their employee base, pay and benefits means less job security for workers. Rising from the mailroom to a corner office is harder now that outsourced jobs are no longer part of the workforce from which star performers are promoted.

I’m wondering if the main explanation isn’t a lot simpler than the WSJ suggests. They lead with a story about an airline. In “Unions and Airlines” I explained how airlines are sitting ducks for labor unions to extract all of the profits. Major airlines nearly always contract out regional flying because when one regional’s labor costs rise it can be dropped in favor of a startup regional airline that, by definition, has 100 percent of pilots and flight attendants on first-year pay (and might also be non-union).

Contracting can’t be a way to escape the costs of U.S. labor regulations, health insurance, etc., because the contractor will have to pay these costs. However, if 50 percent of a company’s workers are contractors then by definition at most 50 percent of a company’s workforce can become unionized (if a contractor’s costs rise due to unionization, they can be replaced by a non-union or startup contractor, as happens with regional airlines contracting to the majors).

Full post, including comments

Women in Open Source Award

In the bad old days when I was a sourpuss, a “Women in Open Source Award” would have prompted me to wonder “What would happen if someone kicked off a White Men in Open Source Award?” But today I am all about diversity and inclusion because the incomparable Avni Khatri has been nominated.

Via this posting I am begging readers to visit KidsOnComputers.org (what Avni does with open source software when she’s not at work doing stuff with open source software) and then, if you like what you see, vote for Avni! (takes about 30 seconds)

Thanks in advance.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Labor-intensive agriculture on its way out in Hawaii; coffee will become the mainstay?

One thing I learned in Hawaii was that the cost of labor has killed the sugar industry: “End of an era: Hawaii’s last sugar mill wraps up final harvest” (December 12, 2016 AP). This despite about $2 billion per year in subsidies (from a “temporary” program created in 1934).

What about Macadamia nuts? Can they be harvested by machine? The locals said “no” but that “Puerto Ricans” pick them by hand at a reasonable cost. I’m not sure if the Puerto Ricans come temporarily for a harvest season or live in Hawaii year-round.

“End of an era: Maui Land & Pineapple closing its pineapple operations” (November 4, 2009) says “The end of pineapple production on Maui will leave Oahu as the sole Hawaiian Island with any significant acreage of the fruit. … Hawaii pineapple production declined in the 1980s as Dole and Del Monte relocated much of their acreage elsewhere in the world, primarily due to high U.S. labor and land costs. Dole closed down the entirety of its Lanai pineapple operations in 1992, while Del Monte harvested its final Hawaii crop in 2008.”

I’m wondering if coffee will become the main crop. Retailing at roughly $40 per lb., even in Hawaii, Hawaiian coffee isn’t a bargain, but coffee-drinking is a religious activity for an increasing number of Americans. One part-time resident said that Kona coffee was unusual because a layer of moisture blowing up from the sea protects it from the sun. Couldn’t coffee grown under the shade of a tree be just as good? The answer was “no.”

Readers: What do you think? Is Hawaiian coffee uniquely great? Will it be the last crop standing, so to speak?

Full post, including comments

Can older Americans attack politicians for not conforming to modern-day political correctness?

A Hillary supporter expressed outrage about the confirmation of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. He cited 1986 hearsay about how Sessions had called a black subordinate “boy” and had joked about the KKK. I said “Suppose that any of that were true. How many of us could survive scrutiny of things that we said 30 or more years ago against modern-day standards?

As an example, I asked him if he had reacted with proper outrage every time one of his high school friends had referred to someone as a “fag.” (he’d graduated from high school in New Jersey in the early 1980s) It turned out that he had never objected to anyone’s use of this term.

Did that make him as bad as Mr. Sessions?

The answer was “no” because he said that, as an 18-year-old, he had no idea what “fag” meant and in no way associated it with homosexuality.

Full post, including comments

Americans terrified of losing government regulations that have yet to take effect

A few weeks ago I wrote about Americans who are terrified that they can’t live without relatively new government handouts: End-of-Obamacare fears a good illustration of why government has to grow?

Here in Beaver Creek, Colorado, a subset of the millionaires can fairly be characterized as Millionaires for Obama. Recent conversations have included them expressing their horror, after reading the New York Times, that coal companies will now be able to dump unprecedented amounts of filth into America’s rivers. An example article seems to be “Republicans Move to Block Rule on Coal Mining Near Streams”. If you read the article carefully and also follow a link to the Federal Register you can learn that this rule was promulgated in December 2016 and never took effect. You would also learn that it was Congress rather than the Trumpenfuhrer who killed it. However, the Democrats here in Beaver Creek had the idea that a regulation that had been in place for decades had been revoked by King Donald I. They were preparing to find a whole new world of pollution any time that they visited the Midwest (i.e., never).

Regarding something that Trump actually did, the visiting and local Democrats had read “Trump Rescinds Rules on Bathrooms for Transgender Students” and concluded that we were in a whole new and unfamiliar world of hatred. The Times story was in the news section, not the editorial one, but the journalists give a misleading impression that the feds telling local school districts how to run their bathrooms was the policy throughout the Obama Administration (8 years) when in fact it was closer to 8 months. For most of the Obama Administration, and indeed at any time from 1635 through 2015, a public school could do whatever they thought best.

For both the coal mining/river and bathroom policy issues the country would simply be living under the regulations that prevailed during 2010 when Obama was in the White House and Democrats controlled Congress. Yet the idea of returning to a slightly less regulated time filled at least some wealthy and degreed Americans with terror.

Full post, including comments

What does marriage mean to people who support gay marriage?

A middle-aged married father of two, in between his ecstatic praise of Barack Obama and enthusiastic expressions of support of Hillary Clinton, often mentions his passion for gay marriage. Another subject of which this Bay Area dweller is fond is the pernicious influence of Christianity and Judaism on American society. The other day he said that he couldn’t stand conservative Christians for suggesting that Americans were descending into anarchy due to an abandonment of Christian values.

I asked “Without Christian values or similar cultural ones, wouldn’t a man be free to abandon his middle-aged wife and young children in favor of a childless 25-year-old woman?” He replied “If he needs to do that I wouldn’t judge him.” What about the woman who leaves her husband and kids to travel the world in an Eat, Pray, Love-style journey of self-discovery? It turned out that was okay as well.

The conversation reminded me of one that I had recently with a college student (and, of course, therefore at least a moderately outspoken advocate for LGBTQIA rights). His non-working mom, attractive at nearly 50, had sued his high-income father and used the resulting cash to enjoy a sex-and-travel relationship with a man just over 30. The student acknowledged that the divorce had a devastating effect on him and his sibling, ruining their teenage years. However, he said that he thought that his mother was right to break up their home because “people shouldn’t stay married if there is no passion.” I asked “So if a guy is married to a woman who is exhausted from running after kids and thus tends to collapse at night before the question of passion becomes relevant, he should feel free to seek passion with a 22-year-old off craigslist?” The answer turned out to be basically “yes” because in deciding whether or not to stay married there were no important considerations other than the passion currently experienced by one of the married adults.

I’m wondering if the whole gay marriage debate among heterosexuals was the result of the two sides misunderstanding each other’s concept of “marriage.” Marriage under the law of a typical U.S. state is a temporary financial arrangement that can be terminated by either party for any reason (“no fault”; see Real World Divorce). But citizens often invest the term with additional meaning. Perhaps the hetero anti-gay-marriage folks dragged in concepts from religion and ideas that marriage might involve a personal sacrifice? While the hetero pro-gay-marriage folks added in stuff about passion and personal satisfaction? So they ended up talking past each other and, though using the same word, were talking about two different things.

Related:

Full post, including comments