School Transportation News Magazine | Buyer’s Guide 2011


Data and Statistics and Perspectives


tury, a four-year period from 1998 to 2002 when the bus manufacturers averaged an annual output of more than 9,800 Type As. If further momentum can be realized


this year or next it will come in a much more competitive marketplace. Starcraft, entering its second-full year in the school bus space, is in production with its second- generation Type A with the final version ex- pected to be ready for rollout this fall. Meanwhile, IC Bus unveiled its new fully-


integrated AE Series Type A bus on a Navis- tar International chassis. Tat bus, the first of its kind to compete with the cut-away chassis, is also expected later this year. While having a small footprint in school bus manu- facturing, the emergence of the IC Bus AE Series could also affect Type B production, which increased to 400 from 250 units dat- ing back to end of 2007. IC’s new Type A es- sentially is a shorter Type B school bus. What further bearing either of the two


manufacturers will have on the Type A mar- ket will need to play out. But competition is generally considered by manufacturers and customers alike as a good thing because of the effect on drawing down costs. And as more states outlaw 15-passenger vans, the general outlook is for increased Type A sales. Up nearly 2,000 units from the previous


year, Type C conventionals also saw a sig- nificant increase, coming in at 25,833 units. Still, it was the second lowest Type C show- ing in the last eight years, but it did reverse a general downward trend that began after the apex of 30,461 Type C bus bodies pro- duced during the 2005-2006 year. Type D transit-style bus production re-


mained a few thousand units short of its heyday enjoyed during the first five years of the past decade, but Blue Bird, IC Bus and Tomas Built Buses combined to in- crease output to 5,569. While 980 more Type Ds were manufactured over last year compared to 2008-2009, the tally was about 2,000 units shy of the 6,676 pro- duced during the onset of the recession. A total of 25,833 chassis were manufac-


tured, according to the OEMs. But for a second-consecutive year, tabulations from Ford had yet to be received at press time. And, for 2011, Ford chose to not build a medium-duty diesel chassis that could be utilized by the school bus industry. Ford continues to build a gasoline chassis that can be modified to run on propane for the


14


Micro Bird by Girardin. GM remains in the diesel and gasoline game, and it announced at the end of 2010 that an in-line LPG chas- sis will roll off the production line. GM also partners with Clean Fuels USA to modify the engine contols in the propane-powered NexBus by Collins. GM is also rolling out a chassis that is certified to run on biodiesel. As far as large bus chassis go, STN deter-


mined that 21,367 were supplied last year for Type C school buses. In the Type D segment, 2,023 were built for forward-control engine and 1,870 for rear-engine models. Te total figure of 3,893 Type D chassis was nearly a 30 percent jump from last year. School buses


were also built using about seven of every 10 Allison Transmission PTS units shipped. So does this all mean the light is at the


end of the tunnel? Bus OEM reps respond- ing to the annual STN survey chose the side of pessimism, or at least guarded optimism. An average of the total forecasted number of school buses manufactured in 2010-2011 amounted to only a hair over 30,000 units. But consider that last year, the OEMs fore- casted only 28,000 buses would be pro- duced, nearly 10,000 fewer than in reality. Te outlook for some time to come ap-


pears to be one of under-promise and, lit- erally, over-deliver. ■


2009-2010 School Bus Production By Body Type


Type A Type B Type C Type D 0 8,810 400 25,791 5,669 7500 15000 22500 30000 *Reported by OEMs as of 12/01/2010


Projected School Bus Orders For the 2010-2011 School Year


Type A Type B MFSAB Type C Type D


0


6,629 400


1,500 12,667 4,533


3750 7500 11250 15000 *Reported by OEMs as of 12/01/2010


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144