4 ms·

The MAX-8 was meant to be more fuel efficient than previous 737s, and from what I understand fuel is a huge expense for airlines. Could airliners truly become

The MAX-8 was meant to be more fuel efficient than previous 737s, and from what I understand fuel is a huge expense for airlines. Could airliners truly become so cheap that fuel costs are no longer a consideration?

scoopertrooper 6y ago
Assuming the airliner surplus portends a medium term economic slowdown, then fuel will also likely be quite cheap.
alkonaut 6y ago
The scenario I was considering was one where the half of the global fleet that is old/inefficient aircraft is kept grounded, but the modern part of the global fleet (e.g. A321 as an alternative to MAX8) is flying, and is big enough to cover the need.
russb 6y ago
Much easier to just increase ticket prices than offset fuel costs by buying more efficient jets. In a healthy environment, there’s always downward pressure on ticket costs, and you have to find efficiencies elsewhere. We aren’t in a healthy environment anymore...
manquer 6y ago
Fuel costs are bigger consideration in long haul flights (planes fly 12 hours a day ) than short ones (planes fly only 4-5 hrs a day). Long flights traditionally were serviced by wide body aircraft , in recent years with longer range and favourable ETOPS regulations narrow aircraft like 737 max and 320neo were desirable for low volume long haul routes. Also at the time of design in 2010 jet fuel prices were at all time highs , fuel prices are at all time low now . Given the surplus in the market , Low fuel prices, drop in demand the ROI for investing in 737 max may not simply exist anymore.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  Most airliners, regardless of route length, will fly about 3000 hours per year. 737s might do 4, 5 or 6 legs per day. Fuel efficiency is an even larger concern for those planes because while a long haul aircraft will spend most of its working life at cruising speed, the short haul aircraft spend a good amount of time at takeoffs, landings, and lower altitudes, which burn more fuel per passenger/km.
  - manquer 6y ago
    The difference is not as high as I had originally thought and has been narrowing recently, it is still a substantial number. Currently 7.5 hrs/day [3] for small narrow bodies, 10.09 hrs/day [2] for large narrow bodies and 12.48 hrs/day [1] for wide bodies. [1] https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Documents/Aircraft%20and%20Related/Widebody/Average%20Daily%20Airborne%20Hours%20of%20Total%20Widebody%20Fleet.htm https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Docu... [2] https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Documents/Aircraft%20and%20Related/Large%20Narrow/Average%20Daily%20Airborne%20Hours%20of%20Total%20Large%20Narrowbody%20Fleet.htm https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Docu... [3] https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Documents/Aircraft%20and%20Related/Small%20Narrow/Average%20Daily%20Airborne%20Hours%20of%20Total%20Small%20Narrowbody%20Fleet.htm https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Docu...

scoopertrooper 6y ago

Assuming the airliner surplus portends a medium term economic slowdown, then fuel will also likely be quite cheap.

alkonaut 6y ago

The scenario I was considering was one where the half of the global fleet that is old/inefficient aircraft is kept grounded, but the modern part of the global fleet (e.g. A321 as an alternative to MAX8) is flying, and is big enough to cover the need.

russb 6y ago

Much easier to just increase ticket prices than offset fuel costs by buying more efficient jets. In a healthy environment, there’s always downward pressure on ticket costs, and you have to find efficiencies elsewhere. We aren’t in a healthy environment anymore...

manquer 6y ago

Fuel costs are bigger consideration in long haul flights (planes fly 12 hours a day ) than short ones (planes fly only 4-5 hrs a day). Long flights traditionally were serviced by wide body aircraft , in recent years with longer range and favourable ETOPS regulations narrow aircraft like 737 max and 320neo were desirable for low volume long haul routes. Also at the time of design in 2010 jet fuel prices were at all time highs , fuel prices are at all time low now . Given the surplus in the market , Low fuel prices, drop in demand the ROI for investing in 737 max may not simply exist anymore.

missedthecue 6y ago
Most airliners, regardless of route length, will fly about 3000 hours per year. 737s might do 4, 5 or 6 legs per day. Fuel efficiency is an even larger concern for those planes because while a long haul aircraft will spend most of its working life at cruising speed, the short haul aircraft spend a good amount of time at takeoffs, landings, and lower altitudes, which burn more fuel per passenger/km.
- manquer 6y ago
  The difference is not as high as I had originally thought and has been narrowing recently, it is still a substantial number. Currently 7.5 hrs/day [3] for small narrow bodies, 10.09 hrs/day [2] for large narrow bodies and 12.48 hrs/day [1] for wide bodies. [1] https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Documents/Aircraft%20and%20Related/Widebody/Average%20Daily%20Airborne%20Hours%20of%20Total%20Widebody%20Fleet.htm https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Docu... [2] https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Documents/Aircraft%20and%20Related/Large%20Narrow/Average%20Daily%20Airborne%20Hours%20of%20Total%20Large%20Narrowbody%20Fleet.htm https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Docu... [3] https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Documents/Aircraft%20and%20Related/Small%20Narrow/Average%20Daily%20Airborne%20Hours%20of%20Total%20Small%20Narrowbody%20Fleet.htm https://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2019%2012%20Month%20Docu...