3 ms·

I find this sort of discussion a bit too shallow and simple minded. What is Airbus supposed to do exactly? The author sort of implies that Airbus is somehow ref

I find this sort of discussion a bit too shallow and simple minded. What is Airbus supposed to do exactly? The author sort of implies that Airbus is somehow refusing to adapt or something. But this is just not a good representation of reality. There are only two options to reduce carbon from aviation: 1. don't fly, 2. use synthetic fuels. The use of synthetic fuels is not really up to Airbus. They are not in the fuel business and they do not even build their own engines. So it's really not up to them at all as far as I can see.

jnsaff2 4y ago
Even Airbus themselves have powerpoint slides about how they are going to do hydrogen planes etc. Please don't be with a limited imagination.
- goethes_kind 4y ago
  That is exactly what I am referring to with "synthetic fuels". But this is actually not up to Airbus at all. Airbus cannot, by themselves, create a whole synthetic fuel supply chain. This would be an undertaking that the whole of Europe needs to do together. And Airbus do not produce their engines either. And there is no point in creating an aircraft that cannot be flown because no fuel for it is available.
  - jnsaff2 4y ago
    Synthetic fuels is usually referring to synthetic kerosene which you can just feed into the existing jets as JET-1A. Hydrogen is very-very different and needs complete redesign of the plane. Hydrogen availability is pretty good, I mean most of the availability is not much better in CO2 emissions but with the time it would take Airbus to get the plane into commercial service getting the supply chain there would be pretty easy. I still don't buy your argument that poor airbus has nothing it can do. If it wants to stay relevant in the 20-40 year horizon it needs to go at these hard problems now. If it doesn't then it has made a decision and might die, so what?
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      The last time that Airbus made a plane that needed modification to existing airfields (the A380), few airports or airlines did it and bought the plane. And that was a lot simpler than changing the fundamental fueling infrastructure. It has taken, what, two decades and counting to even get unleaded avgas approved, let alone banning the leaded version? Why would a more complex change be a feasible one-company effort?
      - jnsaff2 4y ago
        It does not have to be a one-company effort at all. But someone has to propose a solution. I still stand by my view that the supply chain of hydrogen is solvable with current tech. Whereas hydrogen (or other green long range) planes are not. It does not make much sense for supply chain companies to go first if they know that it takes airbus or Boeing or whoever 20 years with 50% odds of success.

jnsaff2 4y ago

Even Airbus themselves have powerpoint slides about how they are going to do hydrogen planes etc. Please don't be with a limited imagination.

goethes_kind 4y ago
That is exactly what I am referring to with "synthetic fuels". But this is actually not up to Airbus at all. Airbus cannot, by themselves, create a whole synthetic fuel supply chain. This would be an undertaking that the whole of Europe needs to do together. And Airbus do not produce their engines either. And there is no point in creating an aircraft that cannot be flown because no fuel for it is available.
- jnsaff2 4y ago
  Synthetic fuels is usually referring to synthetic kerosene which you can just feed into the existing jets as JET-1A. Hydrogen is very-very different and needs complete redesign of the plane. Hydrogen availability is pretty good, I mean most of the availability is not much better in CO2 emissions but with the time it would take Airbus to get the plane into commercial service getting the supply chain there would be pretty easy. I still don't buy your argument that poor airbus has nothing it can do. If it wants to stay relevant in the 20-40 year horizon it needs to go at these hard problems now. If it doesn't then it has made a decision and might die, so what?
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    The last time that Airbus made a plane that needed modification to existing airfields (the A380), few airports or airlines did it and bought the plane. And that was a lot simpler than changing the fundamental fueling infrastructure. It has taken, what, two decades and counting to even get unleaded avgas approved, let alone banning the leaded version? Why would a more complex change be a feasible one-company effort?
    - jnsaff2 4y ago
      It does not have to be a one-company effort at all. But someone has to propose a solution. I still stand by my view that the supply chain of hydrogen is solvable with current tech. Whereas hydrogen (or other green long range) planes are not. It does not make much sense for supply chain companies to go first if they know that it takes airbus or Boeing or whoever 20 years with 50% odds of success.