AC Ready to Ditch new Livery?

Old Nov 9, 05, 11:52 pm
  #1  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AE
Posts: 10,567
AC Ready to Ditch new Livery?

Yes, this was in another thread, but doesn't it deserve its own? Are they serious?

"Looking to lose weight and save money – ‘polished’ look tested on B767. Air Canada is considering taking a new polished look to its B767s to further reduce weight from its fleet and offset record fuel prices. The Toronto Paint Shop is currently conducting tests by stripping primer and paint from FIN 613’s fuselage, which will then be polished and buffed to give its aluminum coating a shiny finish – the aircraft will keep its Air Canada logo and the new tail design. The removal of primer and paint reduces the aircraft’s weight by approximately 360 pounds, which translates into fuel savings of more than $24,000 per year for each aircraft. “Based on our evaluation of FIN 613 over the next few weeks, we’ll determine if we’ll proceed with other B767s,” said Jon Turner, Vice-President, Air Canada Maintenance. Watch for more details in the December issue of Horizons."
LeSabre74 is offline  
Old Nov 9, 05, 11:56 pm
  #2  
At Large
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
Why not? AA did that several years ago. And its only a trial. Multiply 24K per annum times 305 aircraft and it becomes real money if it does save as they think it will.
parnel is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 12:01 am
  #3  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend and Moderator: Air Canada Aeroplan, Canada & Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Posts: 48,817
Originally Posted by parnel
Why not? AA did that several years ago. And its only a trial. Multiply 24K per annum times 305 aircraft and it becomes real money if it does save as they think it will.
IIRC, NW's new silver livery last year (?) was in part due to lower paintiing/repainting costs but has also added the more recent bonus of weight savings.

I the big picture, I could care little was paint scheme is used as I'm more interested in the interior not how asthetically pleasing the plane looks.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 12:41 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: YYC
Programs: AC Basic, UA MP Gold, Marriott Gold Elite, SPG Gold, Amex Platinum
Posts: 2,991
Originally Posted by parnel
Why not? AA did that several years ago. And its only a trial. Multiply 24K per annum times 305 aircraft and it becomes real money if it does save as they think it will.
Couple of problems with this analysis.

1) The Airbus must be painted. AA paints their A300 a light grey to match the silver, but paint is paint. Therefore the potential savings are only related to the 767 fleet.
2) 24k is the savings but the company would have to account for the aircraft all ready painted with the "Breathmint" scheme. How much does a paint job cost? Apply the silverbullet to a 767 that was undergoing heavy maintenance and needed to be painted anyways will produce the full 24k savings. The Return on Investment will be a lot less if the aircraft does not require painting.
3) The fuel situation continues to get better in North America. The crack spread is reducing as the gulf comes back on line. Further the price of oil continues to drop. The 24k savings will diminsh as the price of fuel drops, the end result could be a neutral cost-benefit analysis.
4) At some point the airplanes have to be painted back for fleet uniformity purposes. This cost should be deducted from any anticipated savings.
WR Cage is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 12:55 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Thanks for the Memories !!!
Posts: 9,630
Originally Posted by YEG Guy
Couple of problems with this analysis.

1) The Airbus must be painted. AA paints their A300 a light grey to match the silver, but paint is paint. Therefore the potential savings are only related to the 767 fleet.
Not to mention the forthcoming 787 fleet.........time to concentrate on the interiors and seating. NH recently installed new and lighter seats across it's domestic fleet , they saved space , and were able to add more seats!
Q Shoe Guy is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 2:35 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: YVR
Posts: 9,999
My understanding is that even AA's Boeing aircraft are "painted", albeit with a clear shellac or varnish. Apparently this is required to protect the base metal.

I seem to recall that their big preceived saving was in the ease of inspecting the metal for fatigue cracks and the like.
Ken hAAmer is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 7:50 am
  #7  
At Large
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
[QUOTE=YEG Guy]Couple of problems with this analysis.

The Return on Investment will be a lot less if the aircraft does not require painting.
I assume they are smart enough not to pull planes out of service for a paint removal job.

The fuel situation continues to get better in North America. The crack spread is reducing as the gulf comes back on line. Further the price of oil continues to drop. The 24k savings will diminsh as the price of fuel drops, the end result could be a neutral cost-benefit analysis.
Not true; weight is weight and the less there is the more they save whether the price is $1 or 50 cents. The actual may be less if fuel is much lower but it "ain't" going to go so low as to offset the savings effort. That would kill half the tar sands projects now being planned around 45-50 dollar and up oil.


At some point the airplanes have to be painted back for fleet uniformity purposes
Who says? When pure cash is involved the cash will win with AC's current shareholders.
parnel is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 10:44 am
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Programs: AE
Posts: 10,567
Originally Posted by parnel
Why not? AA did that several years ago. And its only a trial. Multiply 24K per annum times 305 aircraft and it becomes real money if it does save as they think it will.
Hmm, how about spending a whack of cash on a whole new livery just over a year ago as part of their ballyhooed "rebranding". It was a well know fact a year ago not painting planes saved fuel. But then of course we agree to disagree on AC's branding acumen. Then, as already pointed out, some of the planes are already repainted or delivered in the new livery and some new aircraft coming will not be able to go with the bare metal look. AC's already has a dog's breakfast of interiors, I guess they're shooting for that with exteriors as well.

Whay not just implement a weight surcharge if they're so concerned about it?
LeSabre74 is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 11:32 am
  #9  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 5,305
Interestingly, dark paints weugh more than light paints. Even painting a plane in plain white will be a savings over the breathmint blue.
mtacchi is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 11:34 am
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: YYC
Programs: AC Basic, UA MP Gold, Marriott Gold Elite, SPG Gold, Amex Platinum
Posts: 2,991
Originally Posted by parnel
Not true; weight is weight and the less there is the more they save whether the price is $1 or 50 cents. The actual may be less if fuel is much lower but it "ain't" going to go so low as to offset the savings effort. That would kill half the tar sands projects now being planned around 45-50 dollar and up oil.
True weight is weight, but the dollar amount per litre is fluctuating. The savings calculation is 2 part test.

1) Translate the weight savings into reduced fuel consumption.
2) multiply the fuel consumption savings by the price of gas per litre.

Therefore if the price per litre drops the savings drop at a consistent rate. I am willing to bet that $24k savings quote utilizes the highest price ACE has ever paid for a litre of gas, therefore the maximum savings are $24k. If the price of fuel per litre drops by 25% then the savings decrease to $18k.

At some point the fuel savings are not worth the cost of applying this interim paint job.
WR Cage is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 12:11 pm
  #11  
At Large
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: oakville Ontario canada;AC*SE
Posts: 16,985
[QUOTE=YEG Guy]
Therefore if the price per litre drops the savings drop at a consistent rate. I am willing to bet that $24k savings quote utilizes the highest price ACE has ever paid for a litre of gas, therefore the maximum savings are $24k. If the price of fuel per litre drops by 25% then the savings decrease to $18k.

I'm not saying the paint issue is a sure thing savings wise, but most companies budget at prices that are in forecasts from economists,etc. For instance Petero Canada has budgeted for oil at average prices of $54BBL next year. That's how its done.

Last edited by parnel; Nov 10, 05 at 12:14 pm
parnel is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 12:49 pm
  #12  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto YYZ UA-1K 1MM,QFgold
Programs: Royal Ambassador/ SPG Platinum 75/Marriott gold
Posts: 14,285
Fat passengers pay more....... now that will save money!
why fly is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 2:23 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: YYZ
Programs: NW PE, AC, AA, National EE
Posts: 244
Originally Posted by why fly
Fat passengers pay more....... now that will save money!
Tango Diet fare class
flytor is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 2:31 pm
  #14  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Programs: UA 1k, AA EXPLT, NZ GE, VA PLT Hyatt Diam, SPG GLD, HH Diam
Posts: 2,761
Seem to recall reading somewhere that white paint (when smoking was allowed onboard) made it easy for mechanincs to find the holes in the fuselage -- just look for the nicotine stains.
SFO_FT is offline  
Old Nov 10, 05, 4:59 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Thanks for the Memories !!!
Posts: 9,630
Here is an example of what the old AC in Polished Metal looked like...
Q Shoe Guy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread