Funding Puts NASA At Square One Again

Congressional action to fund the government through March 4, 2011, leaves NASA pretty much right where it started in February when the Fiscal 2011 budget came out, with everything—from an extra space shuttle flight to early use of commercial replacements for the shuttle—uncertain.

In addition to a short-term continuing resolution (CR), NASA has received its Fiscal 2012 “passback” from the White House Office of Management and Budget along with a strongly worded presidential caution to all federal agencies not to expect much wiggle room on the spending figures it contains.

As President Barack Obama signed the CR, which funds the government until the incoming Congress gets its feet on the ground, top NASA managers huddled to set short-term priorities to match the temporary measure. They continued work started last week when Administrator Charles Bolden and his top aides retreated to a hotel across the street from agency headquarters in Washington to begin figuring out how to face a funding slowdown in the wake of the November elections, which turned control of the House over to deficit-wary Republicans.

In legislative parlance, the latest CR contained no “anomalies” for NASA, continuing funding levels and conditions set out in its Fiscal 2010 appropriation. That means the Constellation program that Obama killed with his budget request remains on the books, as does legislative language prohibiting NASA from embarking upon the White House’s new approach to human spaceflight that would rely on commercial providers.

It remains to be seen where the agency will find the $600 million it needs to mount one more shuttle mission to the International Space Station (ISS) beyond the two scheduled for February and April, and to accelerate development of the commercial cargo craft needed to ease the ISS resupply burden after the shuttle is grounded for good.

“The continuing resolution by itself does not endanger the extra shuttle mission, because on an annualized basis, the continuing resolution provides enough funding to fly the mission,” NASA stated in a canned response to the inevitable question.

The short-term CR casts a shadow over plans to launch a risk-reduction flight of Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Taurus II vehicle next year to hasten its ability to deliver cargo to the ISS after the shuttle is retired. The Dulles, Va.-based company has said it cannot mount the flight on its own, and needs extra cash from NASA to carry it out.

Also uncertain is how NASA will handle the $1.5 billion shortfall in funding for the James Webb Space Telescope, including an extra $200 million that may be due in the next year. NASA’s supporters on Capitol Hill had been hopeful the agency would squeak by on a 10-month CR, giving the agency Fiscal 2010 spending levels through the end of the new fiscal year on Sept. 30, 2011, and removing the restrictions on new starts.

That would have clearly left enough money for the STS-135 shuttle mission tentatively planned for June 2011; given agency managers the flexibility to speed commercial cargo-vehicle development with the Taurus II launch and additional support for Space Exploration Technologies’ Falcon 9 and Dragon cargo vehicles; and allowed NASA to begin the heavy-lift launch vehicle ordered in the agency’s three-year authorization act, which the president also has signed.

Beth Robinson, the agency’s chief financial officer, has told the headquarters mission directorates for exploration and space operations that they will have to use the funds available to them collectively to pay for the programs they have on their separate plates under the new authorization act. The agency is considering combining the two directorates to smooth that process, although a NASA spokesman says “that thinking is ongoing, and a decision has not been made.”

Hawker Beechcraft Will Stay in Wichita

Well, so much for moving to the Big Easy. Hawker Beechcraft Corp. announced today that the State of Kansas has ante’d up $60 million to keep the OEM and 4,000 jobs in Wichita, a figure that convinced Chairman and CEO Bill Boisture to unpack his bags and stay put.

Earlier this year Boisture said he was contemplating moving the entire company to Louisiana, to take advantage of incentives it has proposed as an enticement.

Today’s agreement was announced by Boisture, along with Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson (D), Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer and Sedgwick County Commissioner Karl Peterjohn. The state’s package requires Hawker Beechcraft to maintain its current product lines in Wichita over the next 10 years.

Thanks to the new pact, Boisture said, “We intend to have the best trained work force in the industry to power the development, manufacturing and projection of our diversified product line of business turbine aircraft, trainers and special mission offerings to emerging global markets from here in Kansas.”

The package includes $10 million over three years for tuition reimbursement and training for employees attending the National Aviation Training Center, Wichita State University or any of the other Kansas Regents’ institutions. Hawker Beechcraft will also receive $10 million in the first year, followed by $5 million each year for the next four years, for other expenses related to the project, such as the purchase or relocation of equipment, product development, labor recruitment, or building costs.

In addition the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County have also agreed in principle to each provide $2.5 million over the course of five years.

Carter: Healthy JSF Worth Slip In Production

The Pentagon remains willing to slow F-35 Joint Strike Fighter production to shore up problems in the development and testing portion of the single-engine stealthy fighter program, says Ashton Carter, who oversees procurement for the U.S. Defense Department.

“Ultimately, a successful [system design and development] program will reduce program costs because we won’t have to go back and retrofit aircraft and we will design in lower cost,” Carter told Aviation Week during a Dec. 21 interview. “If that means waiting a little while— as we have waited—for production aircraft, that is worth the wait.”

Despite a 13-month development delay to the Lockheed Martin project initiated last February, senior Pentagon officials are considering yet another slip to the F-35 development project that, if approved, is likely to be announced in February at the latest, with the forthcoming Fiscal 2012 budget submission to Congress.

The potential of a further slip to F-35 production is not likely to affect international customers, Carter says. “I think that we will be able to ramp up production in such a way that we will be able to satisfy all of the international customers in the timetables that they can absorb and pay for the aircraft, and I think that the schedules can be made to match up pretty well.” The first international release of the aircraft is now expected in 2014; that could slip if the Pentagon restructures the project once more to accommodate additional development work. Already, eight countries have signed on as partners in the program. Singapore and Japan also are interested in following Israel in procuring the aircraft directly from Lockheed Martin.

In contrast to the Pentagon, an aggressive early production schedule is viewed as critical to Lockheed Martin, which is still competing against the Boeing F/A-18E/F, Saab Gripen and Eurofighter in several international markets for sales. Company officials stress that proceeding with production concurrently with development will help to reach a critical mass in the number of near-term orders and drive the per-unit price of the aircraft down as soon as possible. The Pentagon’s position, however, has in the past year been to reduce concurrency to avoid the potential of rework on aircraft produced early in the production line.

The last F-35 restructuring occurred as the Pentagon recertified the triservice, multinational program to move forward despite the projected unit cost nearly doubling from $50 million to $95 million. That overrun breached the limits in the Nunn-McCurdy statute, prompting a major review of the project and recertification prior to continuing work.

The recertification came last summer, after Marine Corps Maj. Gen. David Heinz was dismissed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the program manager position was elevated by one rank. Vice Adm. David Venlet, the new program manger, has since conducted what Carter says is the first comprehensive review of the $382 billion program.

This technical baseline review is complete and has not been released to the public. It will provide the basis for Gates’ forthcoming decision on how to proceed with the F-35. “That was the whole reason for restructuring the program office and getting Dave Venlet in,” Carter says, acknowledging that the restructuring in 2010 is likely only a start for the new direction of the program.

“The first thing I asked him to do was to get to the bottom of the management of the Joint Strike Fighter program because last year we had to rely on a few cost analysts for the most accurate picture we could get of the status of a large and important program,” he continues. “I feel [as if] I and the sectary of defense have for the first time in years through the technical baseline review an accurate high-fidelity management information picture of the Joint Strike Fighter.”

Carter says that the recent signing of a fixed-price, incentive-fee low-rate-initial-production Lot IV (LRIP IV) contract with Lockheed Martin “was a step forward, but there is no question there are many steps ahead” in reining in cost for the program. Based on the LRIP IV contract, the target prices of the three F-35 variants without engines are as follows: conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL)—$111.6 million; Short takeoff and vertical landing (Stovl)—$109.4 million and carrier variant (CVs)—$142.9 million. Though Stovl appears to cost the least, the per-unit engine price is the highest. Also, this number is lower because the purchase includes 17 Stovls versus 11 CTOLs and only four CVs.

Printer Bomb Scare Raises Issues For Congress

Congress will have its hands full dealing with a multitude of policy issues raised by the October discovery of explosive printer bombs destined for U.S.-bound, all-cargo aircraft, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) says in a December report.

A key conflict is whether the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) can rely on risk-based strategies as alternatives to 100% cargo screening and inspection. TSA and the air cargo industry argue that risk-based approaches are adequate to the security task. Congress, in its first mandated cargo security procedure, pressed for 100% screening of cargo placed on passenger aircraft.

The policy debate is likely to focus on how Congress will charge the TSA to treat in-bound international cargo shipments on cargo and passenger aircraft that are not screened. The agency is working with international cargo operators to increase the screening of cargo on passenger aircraft, but the 100% level may not be possible until August 2013.

TSA and the U.S. Customs and Border Protection are relying on risk-based targeting of shipments in the interim. These include application of the Known Shipper Program that has amassed a database of millions of shippers approved to place cargo on passenger aircraft. In addition, industry has recommended the following: Use of enhanced targeting of shipments based on Customs’ experience with the Automated Targeting System, more uses of explosive trace detection technology, increasing deployment of canine teams, and improving security through a supply chain approach.

TSA has developed a risk-based rating system and scheduling tool that aid cargo inspections outside the U.S. The agency also has 10 international cargo transportation security inspectors at field offices in Los Angeles, Dallas, Miami and Frankfurt. An additional eight TSA representatives are working with 240 foreign passenger and all-cargo air carriers that operate flights to the U.S. And, the agency has trained more than 500 canine teams now in place at 78 airports, and it has 150 of its own canine teams at the 20 busiest airports.

The problem with a 100% security screening mandate is cost. The Congressional Budget Office estimates a $250 million cost in the first year and $650 million per year for the following five years to implement the mandate for 100% baggage screening on passenger aircraft. The CRS report estimates that the mandate could cost more than $700 million just in the first year and perhaps as high as several billion dollars annually.

The report suggests that Congress may look into the adequacy of the TSA’s Certified Cargo Screening Program under which third parties are certified to screen shipments at factories, warehouses, logistics centers and cargo consolidation facilities. The agency’s plan is to screen as many shipments as possible prior to their arrival at airports and to avoid a log jam. As of late August, more than 1,000 facilities were certified; but only 400 shippers were among them. Much expansion is expected for FY2011.

Other issues include costs and benefits of blast-resistant cargo containers, the use of private screeners rather than TSA employees, and the need for a technology that is capable of screening cargo loaded in containers or on pallets.

“Neutron beam technologies offer a potential solution, allowing automated explosives detection capabilities of containerized and palletized cargo,” according to the report. A neutron beam unit was installed at Houston’s George Bush International Airport in 2005 for $8 million, but the program was later suspended. “However, the high cost and large footprint of the machines have been significant deterrents to their use.”

Flight Testing Begins for HondaJet

The first FAA-conforming HondaJet flew for the first time yesterday from the Honda Aircraft Co. facility at Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, N.C. During the 51-minute flight aircraft’s flight characteristics and performance were analyzed and systems checks were conducted.

“This is a very important milestone for the HondaJet program,” said Michimasa Fujino, Honda Aircraft President and CEO. “We’ve proved to the FAA that we’re not only good at designing aircraft, but that we have good processes as a company.”

Two other aircraft will join in the flight test program by next summer. And another two will be employed in structural testing. All five aircraft are being built with production tooling in the company’s R&D center.

Fujino tells Aviation Week that the program, which had experienced a year-long delay, is “catching up very rapidly.” The aircraft’s GE Honda HF120 turbofan engines are expected to receive FAA certification in 2011 and, he says the aircraft should meet its schedule targets of certification and first deliveries in the latter part of 2012.

The company claims orders in hand for more than 100 of the $4.5 million light jet and Fujino says that number has remained stable throughout the business jet market collapse that began in 2008. What cancellations did occur have been largely offset by new sales, he says.

Meanwhile, the company is nearing completion of its 266,000 sq ft aircraft production facility on its Greensboro campus. Once it is finished in early 2011, Honda will begin moving in equipment and personnel and begin pre-production preparations and training necessary to support HondaJet production ramp-up beginning in 2012.

Fujino says he expects the facility will turn out 30-40 aircraft in the first six months of production.

Asked if other models are planned, he says, “We cannot sustain a company with one product,” but declined to speculate on what might be the next aircraft. He did say that future aircraft might not feature the HondaJet’s unique engines-on-vertical-pylons design, but would likely incorporate concepts that are equally innovative.

The company currently employs 550 people at the Greensboro operation, and expects to add another 150-200 workers as production ramps up.

More Countries Invest In Marine Forces

Most nations have marines—amphibious assault forces that act as first responders when governments project power. Theater commanders will say the benefits of a mobile force of marines, operating with naval support and dedicated air and ground assets, cannot be overstated, especially in an era of asymmetric warfare and littoral operations. So effective is this model of rapid light infantry that even landlocked Paraguay has a battalion of marines.

The number, capabilities and support of marine forces varies. Most nations, ironically, lack the ships and logistics necessary to optimize such forces. This may be changing. Although industrial militaries in the West periodically examine the structure and value of marine forces (see related story on p. 30), many developing countries are expanding their units. The reasons involve regional influence, coastal security, protection of trade and suppression of criminal activity, notably piracy. Moreover, with more countries participating in security and peacekeeping coalitions, fielding and maintaining an effective amphibious force is vital to a successful deployment.

Amphibious forces are among the most complex and expensive in a navy. They need dedicated naval assault forces to project and sustain power, well-trained and motivated personnel, specific and costly equipment, and must hone their skills with constant training. As a result, only a few nations can afford true amphibious forces. Nevertheless, countries in many regions are looking to increase the size and capabilities of their marine forces.

Some NATO members such as the U.K., Italy, Spain and the Netherlands have marine units. Others assign marine activities throughout their forces. France, while having an amphibious naval capability, does not have a true marine force, even though the army fields three regiments called marines and there is a special forces component of the navy. Germany also has no marine force, primarily because an amphibious force projects power, which Germany is reluctant to do.

NATO, which has a doctrine for amphibious operations, has studied and wargamed amphibious raids and larger operations to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden and elsewhere, but a lack of political will keeps such plans off the table. The only recent amphibious operations among NATO members were landings by Italy and France for the initial deployment of their Unifil (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) troops, disaster relief operations and non-combatant evacuations.

Still, NATO can rely on joint Spanish-Italian and U.K.-Dutch amphibious forces. The U.K. has a Royal Marines force at brigade level and a strong amphibious naval force. The Dutch maintain a brigade of 3,000 marines and two modern LPD (landing platform dock) amphibious craft. One Dutch battalion is integrated with the U.K.’s 3 Commando Brigade to form the U.K./Netherlands Amphibious Land Force.

Spain fields a brigade of 6,200 marines and relevant amphibious naval forces, while Italy has created a peculiar joint amphibious brigade, combining naval infantry units and a regiment of army riverine and delta troops converted to amphibious assault duties.

Elsewhere in the region, Portugal relies on two marine battalions with 2,000 troops, but has limited naval transport. Greece has a marine infantry brigade that is part of the army, which the navy supports with limited amphibious forces. Turkey is increasing its amphibious naval component; Romania has a marine battalion but lacks transport vessels; and Russia is rebuilding its naval amphibious force. Moscow believes that the quickest approach entails acquiring LPDs from the West to support elite naval infantry forces, which include 8,000 in one division, two brigades and some regiments. The Russian navy has been negotiating with France to buy Mistral amphibious craft, but recently announced an open tender for the ships.

Large amphibious forces are common in the Pacific Rim. China has 7,000 marines and special forces in five regiments. This is likely to expand as the navy builds more amphibious assault vehicles and strengthens its blue water fleet. Taiwan has a bigger marine force, with two active divisions and one in reserve totaling 35,000 troops. They are primarily for defensive operations—e.g., repelling an invasion by China.

If China attempts to invade Taiwan, and its missile, naval and air attacks and blockades do not force surrender, amphibious assault operations would take place. China, however, is also looking at naval power projection to defend territorial claims and economic exclusion zones in the Western Pacific.

India has a marine force of only 1,000, which is surprising since experts believe the country will eventually vie with China for influence in the region. The country also has a large coastline to patrol, is committed to keeping shipping lanes open and faces ongoing insurgencies in parts of the country. India’s naval amphibious component is adequate, and being reinforced.

South Korea fields a large and capable naval infantry that mirrors the U.S. Marine Corps, with 25,000 men in two divisions and a brigade supported by a growing and modern navy amphibious component including two LHDs (landing helicopter docks). Marines in South Korea would play a defensive role or launch a naval attack in a conflict with Pyongyang.

Geography—including a large coastline—and decades of war drove Vietnam to build a powerful marine force of 25,000, even though the navy lacks the means to project their power and support them. Vietnamese marines are mostly for coastal defense and riverine and delta operations.

Geography also led Indonesia to build up naval infantry, given its need to protect the hundreds of islands in the country. The marine force of 15,000 in two brigades will increase to 22,000 with the planned addition of two brigades. The navy has a patchwork of amphibious vessels, with four LPDs in service or under construction, 18 LSTs (landing ship, tank) and 14 LCUs (landing craft utility).

The Philippines, with many islands to protect, has more than 8,000 marines, but minimal naval transport and assault capabilities. The troops are for counter-insurgency missions.

Japan’s navy is building an amphibious force, which will include LPDs and LHDs and a helicopter air wing. Given the sensitivity of Asian countries to a real or perceived Japanese offensive capability, establishing a dedicated naval amphibious assault infantry is not an immediate move for Tokyo. Naval forces will instead transport and support army units.

Australia has an integrated military force and, while lacking a large marine infantry, is increasing its naval transportation and power projection capability, including amphibious assault assets.

Most of Africa has no significant amphibious forces. Some countries on the Mediterranean have such capabilities, notably Morocco, which has a naval infantry force of 2,000 but only one LST. Algeria plans to develop an amphibious capability, but has no marines. The navy is to acquire at least one LPD, and is increasing rotary wing assets.

Saudi Arabia has the most powerful marine force in the Middle East—3,000 naval infantry who rely on LCUs for coastal operations. The growing Iraqi forces include a marine battalion for coastal and riverine operations, mainly defense on the Shatt al-Arab waterway, whose southern end borders Iran. (Iran has no amphibious assault capabilities to speak of.)

Almost all South American countries with a coast have marine forces, even if they are not matched by naval amphibious capabilities. Brazil’s marine force is 15,000 strong. The navy has several amphibious assault vessels and wants more. Chile has four regiments with more than 2,700 marines, but no naval amphibious force. Venezuela has 10,000 naval infantry, which also operate in riverine roles. The force comprises five brigades, with two more being equipped. Its four LSTs, however, are not sufficient.

Peru has a naval infantry force of 3,500 and is expanding its naval amphibious arm by acquiring decommissioned U.S. vessels. Argentina’s 2,000 marines are among the country’s best troops, though the navy has few airborne and assault capabilities. Colombia has a powerful naval infantry, with four brigades and 22,000 troops, but its main role is guerrilla warfare. Ecuador has three marine battalions, with 1,500 men, and small amphibious vessels. Bolivia has a naval infantry force of 1,000, but no amphibious capabilities.

Mexico plans to increase its naval infantry force to 16,000 from 10,000, but has a small amphibious force. Honduras has a battalion of marines but only one LCU. Guatemala has a marine battalion, two LCUs and one mechanized landing craft. Cuba’s naval infantry, despite a large coastline, is only 500.

EC Criticizes Airports Over Snow Closures

The European Commission again is criticizing European airports over the handling of recent disruptions caused by heavy snowfall and is suggesting that it may have to set minimum service requirements for airports.

The airports, however, say they “are doing their utmost” to maintain operations and assist stranded passengers, and blasted attempts by some media outlets to equate the current situation with the fallout from last spring’s volcanic eruption in Iceland.

In a statement issued Tuesday, Dec. 21, the EC’s transport policy commissioner, Siim Kallas, said he is “extremely concerned about the level of disruption to travel across Europe caused by severe snow. It is unacceptable and should not happen again.”

The commissioner said the EC is “monitoring the situation very closely and is in constant touch with airlines, airports, rail operators and national authorities responsible for passenger rights.”

His statement comes as London’s Heathrow, one of the busiest airports in the world, continues to struggle to return to normal operations after the first snowfall on Saturday morning. The airport closed both runways over the weekend and only reopened the second runway on Tuesday evening. It is currently only operating 30% of scheduled flights. Thousands of passengers have been stranded with many being forced to sleep on terminal floors due to a shortage of hotel rooms.

“In recent days, I have become increasingly concerned about the problems relating to the infrastructure available to airlines—airports and ground handling—during this severe period of snow. It seems at this stage that this is a “weak link” in a chain which, under pressure, is contributing to severe disruption.”

Kallas says he intends to call a meeting with airports to ask for further explanations and “take a hard look at what is necessary to make sure they would be able to operate more effectively in the similar situations in the future.”

“Airports must “get serious” about planning for this kind of severe weather conditions. We have seen in recent years that snow in Western Europe is not such an exceptional circumstance. Better preparedness, in line with what is done in Northern Europe is not an optional extra, it must be planned for and with the necessary investment, particularly on the side of the airports.”

Airports across Western Europe have been accused of serious under investment in winter equipment and staff to cope with the severe weather conditions. Airport operator BAA, which owns London’s Heathrow, spent just £500,000 ($773,480) on upgrading its snow clearing equipment and staff training this year despite expected pre-tax profits of nearly £1 billion.

Kallas added: “If there is a need for support from the European Commission in terms of regulation on minimum service requirements for airports in this area, I am prepared to do that, for example, when we bring forward the airports package on slots and ground-handling which is foreseen before summer next year.”

ACI-Europe countered that 88% of flights planned to and from European airports took place on Monday, Dec. 20. In a statement also released on Tuesday, ACI-Europe said: “Aside from the localized impact of weather conditions, the current situation also reflects variations in airport infrastructure configurations and layouts,runway and apron capacity as well as local air traffic control restrictions.”

Olivier Jankovec, director general, ACI-Europe, said, “For quite a while, we have been calling for airports to be given appropriate authority to control how their infrastructure is being used by others. The forthcoming revision of EU legislation on ground handling is the opportunity to allow airports to set minimum operational standards for ground handlers in relation to service quality and safety.”

Attempts to compare the snow-caused disruption with the volcanic eruption are “exaggerated” and ignore the differences in the scope and impact of the disruptions, the airport group said

American Falls Out Of Orbitz

American Airlines pulled its inventory from Orbitz and its corporate travel solution Orbitz for Business Dec. 21 after a circuit court judge’s ruling cleared the way, giving American at least a temporary victory in the escalating battle over how its inventory is distributed.

But the legal battle is not over. Travelport, which owns 48% of the online travel agency and filed the lawsuit, says it will continue to pursue its case.

The decision by the circuit court Judge Martin Agran in Cook County, Ill., dissolves the temporary restraining order that had prevented American from removing its bookable flights and fares from Orbitz as of Dec. 1. And the dispute is emblematic of a broader battle going on among airlines and third-party distributors.

American demanded that Orbitz directly connect to American’s internal reservations system for flight and fare data instead of getting it from the Worldspan global distribution system, which it says will enable American to better customize its pricing and lower its costs.

With direct connect, American says it can better access its customer relationship management database to personalize pricing offers—including fares and fee-based ancillary services—based on who is buying the ticket. It also would avoid paying a fee to Travelport for each booking.

“In today’s competitive marketplace, it is important for American to be free to customize its product offerings to improve the customer experience as well as distribute its products in a way that does not result in unnecessary costs,” American said in a statement released after the judge’s Dec. 21 ruling.

Orbitz, however, says its GDS agreement with Travelport limits its ability to meeet American's demands. And Travelport, the parent company of the Worldspan and Galileo GDSs, says American is contractually obligated to provide full content to Orbitz and other Travelport affiliates to the same extent it is offered to competitors.

Travelport also argues that American’s direct-connect insistence would make it much more difficult for consumers to compare prices and for travel agents and corporate travel departments to manage their business.

But while the current fight pits just one airline against one GDS company, the potential impact is much broader. Many other airlines are pushing direct connect and more personalized pricing as well, but American has been the most aggressive, making a big pitch to travel agencies to access its inventory with direct connect instead of a GDS.

Kurt Ekert, Travelport GDS chief commercial officer, told the court that “if American is successful in its actions here, I believe the customer migration away from Travelport to American’s direct connect or other solutions will be massive.”

The validity of that concern can be questioned—in his ruling, the judge noted that Ekert also testified that he is not aware of any travel agent that will switch to using American’s direct connect—but others in the industry clearly are worried about the broader implications.

The Business Travel Coalition, which represents corporate travel departments, declared the lawsuit “represents merely the opening skirmish in the larger battle for the future of the open marketplace for travel.”

Single-supplier direct connect proposals, like the one advanced by American, “can cause massive fragmentation of airfares and ancillary fees, depriving consumers of the ability to compare the total cost of air travel options across all airlines,” BTC Chairman Kevin Mitchell asserts.

Charlie Leocha, director of The Consumer Travel Alliance, decried “a heavy-handed attempt by American Airlines to prevent consumers from easily searching and comparing its fares against those of other airlines.”

Sabre said, “We strongly agree with the many industry and consumer groups who believe American’s actions will make it much harder and more costly for agents and consumers to easily comparison shop among airlines, which will result in increased prices for consumers," says Chris Kroeger, senior VP, Sabre Travel Network.

The National Business Travel Association also criticized American and says it believes direct connects that bypass the GDSs "will result in a significant increase in capital expenditure that business travel buyers will ultimately bear.

Orbitz says it will “continue to seek an arrangement” with American to get the inventory back. It is not clear how, which may be why Orbitz also emphasizes that American’s absence will not have a huge impact on its business.

From the fourth quarter of 2009 through the third quarter of 2010, Orbitz Worldwide generated more than $800 million in sales for American, the company says. Revenue earned on American tickets and the associated ancillary products—such as rental car and hotel bookings and travel insurance sales—accounted for approximately 5% of Orbitz Worldwide total revenue for the nine months ended Sept. 30.

Qantas Returns More A380s To Service

Qantas now has five Airbus A380s back in service as grounded aircraft are cleared and new deliveries arrive, and it expects to have seven flying by the end of January.

The carrier is gradually returning its six A380s to service after they were grounded for inspections due to the uncontained failure of a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine on a Singapore flight on Nov. 4.

The first two aircraft resumed flying in late November, and a third became operational last week. Also last week, a new A380 was delivered from Airbus. Qantas returned another of the grounded aircraft to service this week – bringing its operational total to five.

This will leave just two of the original six A380s grounded. One is expected to return “in the coming weeks,” a Qantas spokeswoman says. It will be joined by another new delivery that was delayed from December. The remaining grounded aircraft will be the A380 that suffered damage during the uncontained failure. There is no timeline for this aircraft’s return to service.

Qantas’ A380s are not being used on the carrier’s transpacific flights to Los Angeles at the moment, due to concerns about operating at full thrust. The airline is in discussions with Rolls-Royce about when this restriction can be lifted, although no announcement has yet been made regarding these routes.

Meanwhile, Qantas’ latest traffic figures show that its international operations were dampened by the A380 problems. In November, international traffic declined 2.2% year-on-year, with a 1.8% capacity drop. This resulted in load factor decreasing by 0.3 points to 82.7%.

Group-wide statistics were brighter, thanks to domestic and regional operations. Traffic rose 3.3% year-on-year on a 4.9% capacity increase. This resulted in load factor slipping by 1.2 points to 81.1%

LAN Orders 50 Airbus A320 Family Aircraf

South American operator LAN Airlines has firmed an order for 50 more Airbus narrowbodies as it continues to bolster its short-haul fleet.

The order confirms a memorandum of understanding signed at this year’s Farnborough Air Show, and adds to the airline’s current Airbus narrowbody order tally of 98 airframes.

Deliveries of this latest order are scheduled to begin in 2013, and will include A320s fitted with Airbus’ Sharklets. The order also includes 10 A321s, the only Airbus narrowbody not operated by LAN.

“Since 2008, our short-haul fleet has been entirely composed by Airbus A320-family aircraft. Through this agreement, we confirm LAN’s commitment to the development of commercial aviation in Latin America by carefully selecting our aircraft based on its ability to effectively and efficiently serve our short- and long-haul flight needs,” says LAN’s Chief Operating Officer Ignacio Cueto in a release.

LAN previously has ordered 15 A318s, 32 A319s and 51 A320s, and currently operates 62 aircraft from the European manufacturer’s narrowbody family. By the end of the year it intends to operate 63, and plans to expand this to 76 Airbus narrowbodies in 2011, 84 in 2012 and 94 in 2013.

LAN’s current plan forecasts a fleet of 136 aircraft from the A320 family by the end of 2018.

This growth is in tandem with the current fleet plan at LAN’s merger partner TAM, which intends to operate 121 Airbus narrowbodies by the end of 2010 (85 A320s, 27 A319s and seven A321s) and 124 next year. In 2012 TAM’s plan envisions a 128-strong all A320-fleet, rising to 132 in 2013 and 137 in 2014.