Boeing’s new Dreamliner plane boasts increased fuel efficiency 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreenEngineer Posted 10:08 am
   16 Jul 2007

   BecauseBecause executives who purchase multi-(hundreds)$million aircraft make their decisions based on rational metrics like operating cost.  American consumers do not.

   Permalink

2. 

   JMG Posted 10:29 am
   16 Jul 2007

   Yes and noThose airline execs who make rational decisions with airplane selection are the very same ones who are "American consumers" making irrational decisions in their private lives.
   Perhaps rather than suggesting that Americans are all doodoo heads, let's look at the price structure they face when making decisions.
   Fuel costs are a huge and growing portion of the costs of running an airline; fuel costs are a fairly trivial part of running an automobile.
   That is, the fixed costs of car ownership dwarf the variable cost of fuel.  I recall seeing a AAA figure of 55 cents per mile for the average cost of ownership and driving a vehicle in the US; at 20 mpg (the fleet average), that's only 15 cents a mile if you pay $3.00 per gallon.  Even if it's only 50 cents a mile to own/drive a car, you're still talking 70 percent of the cost as non-fuel related, and only 30 percent as the cost of fuel.
   What has to happen before we get out of this mess is that we get rid of the constitutional and statutory restrictions that limit the use of gas tax to highway purposes, and then we need to do everything possible to make all the fixed costs of driving into variable costs, on a neutral basis.  It's similar to what Casten discussed with power production--you effect a continuous transfer of costs onto the people who drive more than average or who drive low mileage vehicles to benefit those who drive less or who drive high-mileage vehicles.
   When the variable/fixed cost ratio for driving is 70/30 (rather than 30/70), I guarantee you that you will see a lot more appropriate driving behavior.
   
   Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.

   Permalink

3. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 10:50 am
   16 Jul 2007

   Greenengineer and JMG haveboth nailed it. Boeing has considered launching this plane several times over the years but always kept it at the preliminary design stage because the airlines were not interested. Actually, cramming gobs of people into one giant plane will save you a lot more gas than jamming the same amount in two smaller planes.
   Airbus knows this and that is why they built the jumbo liner to save airlines gas. But the airlines also need smaller planes to serve other routes and the dreamliner is just more efficient than anything else available. Most of that is a result of the new engines and advanced aerodynamics. Only half of the  plane uses carbon fiber. The rest is still aluminum and steel.
   Will this plane lower ticket prices and therefore increase the number of flights?
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

4. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 11:25 am
   16 Jul 2007

   And don't forget the subsidiesAirbus and Boeing have both accused each other of benefiting from massive subsidies. Their mutual dispute is now being arbitrated by the World Trade Organization in one of the biggest and most complex cases brought to the WTO to date.

   Permalink

5. 

   Rune Posted 11:51 am
   16 Jul 2007

   I agree with everybodyThis is a fun thread for me to read, so far.  The first things that came to my own mind have already been said, and while I was not keyed into the protectionism argument of Boeing and Airbus, that makes good sense, too.
   As for Detroit, well, in addition to doing a fantastic job of marketing personal cars as extensions of the American's machismo (and, more recently, womanhood) and overblown need to resist any and all attempts by any institutions to encourage even the slightest sacrifice of hedonism or individuality in the public interest, I think the tight relationship between American car makers and oil companies with major political operations in the U.S. is hard to miss.  The oil companies, with some help and encouragement from Detroit, do a great job of delivering cheap, subsidized (in the form of tax, regulatory, and even judicial favors) fuel for cars, while Detroit beats up on every attempt to transition to more efficient vehicles and truly cleaner and more environmentally friendly fuels.  You don't see that sort of game being played by the airliner manufacturers.  They know they are in for even more hurt than they have already experienced if they can't find ways to use less and/or less costly fuel and the oil industry knows it is a waste of time to suggest otherwise.

   Permalink

6. 

   Sean Casten Posted 12:03 pm
   16 Jul 2007

   Let's not slam consumers quite so hardAirplanes spend a lot more time in transit, burning fuel than cars do.  The average American drives 15,000 miles a year or so.  If you figure you average 30 mph, that's just 500 actual hours a year.  Compare that to a typical commuter jet that makes 2 1000 mile round trips a day, with maybe 8 hours/day of actual in-flight time.  Even if that plane only logs 200 days a year, that's still 1600 hours and therefore a much higher fuel purchase as a function of operating costs.  I'm of course simplifying differential fuel economy here, but the larger point is one of capital utilization and recovery, which - when your annual operating hours are small - is going to be proportionally dominated by non-fuel expenses.
    This, in a nutshell is why fuel costs don't impact driving.  As others have said, the costs of fuel just don't factor into vehicle decisions very quickly.  Yes, we could pay more for fuel if we factored in the externalities, etc. etc.  But the basic reason why airlines will invest in efficiency before drivers will is because both are being rational, and fuel-related expenses are a naturally larger fraction of airplane operating costs.

   Permalink

7. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 12:17 pm
   16 Jul 2007

   On top of whichAirplanes are a lot more capital intensive than cars.
   Obviously they are gonna think a bit more before they buy.

   Permalink

8. 

   Steven T Posted 1:06 pm
   16 Jul 2007

   Leadership is keyThe most significant automotive design breakthroughs of the last century had strong corporate champions.  Those champions had an easier time realizing their visions because automakers tended to be smaller and less influenced by a global corporate monoculture.
   Consider Honda.  In the 1970s and 80s it was one of the most forward-thinking automakers in the world.  Indeed, its innovative spirit was one of the chief reasons for its spectacular growth.  If you could have bottled the mentality of its early management and unleashed it today I bet Honda would be pioneering ultra-low-weight bodies in mass-market offerings (perhaps not carbon fiber initially, but surely all aluminum).  
   Alas, instead Honda has increasingly played follow the leader, e.g., by investing heavily in big trucks, a V10 engine (for a forthcoming sports car), and a fleet of fairly low mileage luxury cars and SUVs.
   Let's be honest:  Ultra-low-weight cars will be more expensive to produce than conventional designs, particularly intially (because of weaker economies of scale).  The pioneering automaker will need to work extra hard to market such a vehicle.  There is considerable risk involved because of the huge capital outlays required.  So I understand why automakers like Honda have been risk averse.
   But in the end it still shows a lack of courage.  And as Toyota's success with the Prius illustrates, the first one out of the gates could be richly rewarded.

   Permalink

9. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 1:25 pm
   16 Jul 2007

   Well a silly questionIs "ultra low weight" the lowest hanging fruit?

   Permalink

10. 

    Steven T Posted 1:45 pm
    16 Jul 2007

    I doubt itI suspect that the composition of car bodies has changed less than other aspects of vehicle design primarily because of cost considerations.  For example, it's easier to change an engine than the basic construction of a body.
    Part of the problem is that switching from steel to another material requires redoing major elements of a car's manufacturing process.  Factories are hugely expensive even when they stick with conventional body construction methods.  Then there's the added cost of the new material.  When you manufacture 10 million vehicles a year, adding even $10 in extra production costs to an individual car would increase corporate costs by $100 million.  That would raise the eyebrows of corporate bean counters real quick, particularly if you are a Big Three automaker who is already losing lots of money.
    We're starting to see all-aluminum bodies used in high-priced cars like Jaguar, Audi and (soon) Land Rover.  That's primarily because the higher cost can be more easily absorbed in the purchase price.  However, another consideration is that it takes time and experience to perfect a new manufacturing technique, and that is easier to do with lower-volume products.

    Permalink

11. 

    Delay And Deny Posted 1:53 am
    17 Jul 2007

    Chevy Volt: We're There!Nice to see that GM, and GE, the "big corporations" are doing more than Michael Moore ever could to save the planet:
    http://www.jeccomposites.com/composites-news/2935/Chevrol ...
    GE Plastics played the role of a strategic partner in enabling the design and development of the Chevrolet Volt, by contributing the key materials technology to reduce part weight up to 50 percent and design engineering support to help position the vehicle as a way to help the world diversify its energy sources and to reduce the dependence on petroleum.
    In the United States alone, almost half the households have a daily mileage of less than 30 miles per day. The Chevrolet Volt concept vehicle is capable of 40 miles of pure electrical vehicle driving, which according to the Environmental Protection Agency, means that, for most city drivers, the Chevrolet Volt will use little or no gasoline.
    "GM's commitment to improving fuel economy, reducing vehicle emissions, and developing electrically-driven vehicles is facilitated with GE Plastics' weight-reduction technologies on the Chevrolet Volt concept car. We were able to take mass out of the Volt in order to optimize its overall efficiency," said General Motors' vice president of Global Program Management, Jon Lauckner. "Through the independent auditor, GreenOrder, we were also able to see clear positive environmental results from working with GE Plastics."
    
    John Bailo
    
    
    You Read It Here First

    Permalink