Aircraft painting and the related services proposed by Oxford Aviation at BNAS are not an under-served market. It is zealously courted by a worldwide array of established companies – from the very smallest like Oxford, to multi-national groups that have existing arrangements with Airbus and others.
Their capabilities, locations, facilities, staffs, and experience are impressive.
Here are some examples:
The STTS Group of Europe and QAPS, one of their subsidiaries. Be sure to see the pictures as well. STTS has facilities in Spain, France, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, and can handle aircraft from business jets to A340 and B747 airliners.
Domestically, look at Leading Edge Aviation Services, with four facilities in the US, and one in Malaysia. Be sure to check their portfolio , which includes many major airlines and UPS.
Try their video gallery; it's really something.
There are too many others to count, like Duncan Aviation, with more than 20,000 active accounts, 2000 worldwide employees, full repair capability, and multiple facilities with five times the total space of Hangar 6 at BNAS. You can look at the Fact Sheet linked on the page.
If anything, there may be overcapacity in the industry at this point, given the reduction in routes and flights, and the switch to smaller aircraft.
The only way I can see for Oxford to fulfill F. Lee Bailey’s extravagant but verbal only promises is to take business away from other well established and entrenched providers. There's no reason to expect Airlines to buy more airplanes or service them more frequently because Oxford moves into a Brunswick hangar. Or to expect them to pay the OJT costs and the absence of economies of scale at Oxford. Not to mention the lion's share of any "airport operations" costs.
Could we please have someone do a real business case analysis on this, before our public treasures and assets are committed?
Pretty pretty please?
No comments:
Post a Comment