4 ms·
Fuel cost does have a huge impact, but up-front capital costs and maintenance costs are also a big part of the picture. Which is why there are still a lot of pl
by _delirium 12y ago
Fuel cost does have a huge impact, but up-front capital costs and maintenance costs are also a big part of the picture. Which is why there are still a lot of planes in major airlines' fleets that are not as fuel-efficient as the latest models. Airlines are slowly turning them over, but the capital costs for a new plane are very high [1], and they also have to fit any new models into their maintenance plans.
[1] Around $200-400m ea for a modern wide-body, according to Boeing's pricing page: http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/prices/ http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commercial/prices/
- notahacker 12y agoAircraft finance is readily available though, and at current prices airlines' annual capital cost per aircraft (amortised over a 20 year lifespan, and often on a lease for 5 years or less) is about half the annual fuel bill if that aircraft is in regular operation. Whilst there are certainly savings to be had from sharing existing spares pools and pilot and engineering type-ratings across a large fleet[1] which make some optimisations unprofitable, a drastic improvement in fuel economy would see Western fleets improved as fast as the new aircraft could be delivered in an era where 1% per annum is the improvement rate the engine OEMs strive for. The real obstacle would be actually delivering workable technology and getting it through the certification process. By which time we might all be flying delta-winged contraptions with open rotors. Or more likely, similarly-shaped aluminium tubes with turbofan engines that have improved an awful lot over several decades. [1]which is why Northwest/Delta were able to get away with running thirsty but long paid-for DC-9s that had been obsolete for nearly a couple of decades until recently.