Study: Fuel makes many airplanes [economically] obsolete

emersonbiggins · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:26 am

In from the Obvious Department (emphasis mine below):

Quote:

AP Study: Fuel Makes Many Planes Obsolete
Thurs 20 Mar 10:41 am ET, By Adam Schreck, AP Business Writer
High Fuel Prices Makes Many Smaller Planes "Economically Obsolete," According to New Study:
NEW YORK (AP) -- Surging fuel prices have rendered many of the world's airliners too expensive to operate, making them "economically obsolete," according to a study Thursday by an aviation consulting firm. Most at risk are smaller regional jets, especially those with fewer than 50 seats, that are used by carriers to connect smaller airports to larger hubs, according to the forecast by The Boyd Group in Evergreen, Colo.

More than half of the existing regional jets in service in the U.S. -- over 900 aircraft -- will be retired over the next five years, the report said. "Contrary to other forecasts that predict 'thousands' of new (regional jets), the hard fact is that there are no such next-generation airliners on the drawing board. The (regional jet) era is over," the firm said in a statement. ...

Well, that's almost right. "Regional" jet is a distinction I don't make myself, but whatever - close enough. Yahoo Business

efarmer · **Joined:** Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:00 am **Posts:** 805

Airlines have been playing hooky from the grim reaper all of
my adult life it seems EB. This may be a driver for passenger
rail comeback. Climbing into a petroleum powered aluminum
tube and hurtling to Las Vegas to be juiced, seduced, and
then run through the money ringer to be sent home dry is
probably ready to jump into the dumpster as well.

Invest in a stuffed chicken, this way you will have a train
seat empty on either side of you so you can spread out
and be comfy.

emersonbiggins · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:08 am

I'm looking forward to it!

The next regional "jet":

raober · **Joined:** Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:00 am **Posts:** 25

Man, now I know that I'm getting too deep into all this PO stuff. That train picture is sexier than any pictures of women I've seen lately...

steam_cannon · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 2:39 pm

raober wrote:

Man, now I know that I'm getting too deep into all this PO stuff. That
train picture is sexier than any pictures of women I've seen lately...

Those sure are some fine curves! And if you like that, check out the
"hooters" on this one! :lol:

http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontent ... _jete.html

vision-master · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:00 pm

Starvid · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 3:13 pm

cube · **Joined:** Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:00 am **Posts:** 3955

Ever heard the joke:

Becoming a millionaire is really easy. What you need to do is start off as a billionaire and then open up your own airline business. :roll:

auscanman · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:41 pm

How is it that these aircraft are still in use if they're economically obsolete? I've heard there's no tax added to fuel used for aviation, so is that the reason? Or are there government subsidies?

There clearly seems to be something wrong and illogical with the price of gas and oil increasing dramatically over the last 4 years, while the cost of flights has pretty much remained unchanged.

cube · **Joined:** Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:00 am **Posts:** 3955

emersonbiggins wrote:

I'm looking forward to it!

The next regional "jet":

NOT going to happen! We're about to enter the worst financial fiasco since 1929.....and that's not even including PO yet.

and you can forget about soon to be president Hillary Clinton executing some type of "FDR" public works depression era program to save our ass. FDR didn't have to borrow money from the Chinese and rely on imported oil from tin pot dictators just to stay afloat. The circumstances are totally different now.

This will be the next "regional jet":

notice the phrase "Rapid Transit" in the lower left hand corner :lol:

emersonbiggins · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:56 pm

Cube, quit exposing me to reality! :evil:

Tanada · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:40 pm

emersonbiggins wrote:

In from the Obvious Department (emphasis mine below):

Quote:

AP
Report: Fuel Makes Many Planes Obsolete
Thursday March 20, 10:41 am ET
By Adam Schreck, AP Business Writer
High Fuel Prices Makes Many Smaller Planes "Economically Obsolete," According to New Study

NEW YORK (AP) -- Surging fuel prices have rendered many of the world's airliners too expensive to operate, making them "economically obsolete," according to a study Thursday by an aviation consulting firm.

Most at risk are smaller regional jets, especially those with fewer than 50 seats, that are used by carriers to connect smaller airports to larger hubs, according to the forecast by The Boyd Group in Evergreen, Colo.

More than half of the existing regional jets in service in the U.S. -- over 900 aircraft -- will be retired over the next five years, the report said.

"Contrary to other forecasts that predict 'thousands' of new (regional jets), the hard fact is that there are no such next-generation airliners on the drawing board. The (regional jet) era is over," the firm said in a statement.
...

Well, that's almost right. "Regional" jet is a distinction I don't make myself, but whatever - close enough.

Yahoo Business

Its that darn economies of scale thing again, if you use a 'commuter' jet you burn significantly more fuel per passenger mile than you do with a large wide body jet. The last time I flew back in 2006 we took a commuter plane from Chicago, IL to Richmond, VA. The dang things was packed to the gills and had no empty seats, but that was still only 54 passengers, unless I miscounted rows. For that flight they had a crew of three, Pilot, Co-pilot and Steward. If the plane had held twice as many people the crew size could have been the same and economies of scale would reduce the fuel use per passenger simply because of efficient packaging.

NTBKtrader · **Joined:** Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 617

emersonbiggins wrote:

In from the Obvious Department

Good stuff, i'm going to borrow that line if you don't mind

emersonbiggins · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:24 pm

NTBKtrader wrote:

emersonbiggins wrote:

In from the Obvious Department

Good stuff, i'm going to borrow that line if you don't mind

Heh, go for it. I probably wasn't the first to say it, though. :-D

TheDude · **Posted:** Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:55 pm

raober wrote:

Man, now I know that I'm getting too deep into all this PO stuff. That train picture is sexier than any pictures of women I've seen lately...

Watch this video to see a couple of pundits argue vehemently about who has the most profound sexual disfunction. One is obsessed with hard, long, slim rockets.

Here's one solution to flight economy that, as the closing comment from the excerpt explains, was abandoned - for now, natch!

Will you stand for less room on flights?

Quote:

The airlines have come up with a new answer to an old question: How many passengers can be squeezed into economy class?

A lot more, it turns out, especially if an idea still in the early stage should catch on: standing-room-only "seats."

Airbus has been quietly pitching the standing-room-only option to Asian carriers, though none has agreed to it yet. Passengers in the standing section would be propped against a padded backboard, held in place with a harness, according to experts who have seen a proposal.

(Correction: During preparation of the article, The New York Times' questions to Airbus were imprecise. The company now says that although it researched that idea in 2003, it has since abandoned it.)

Study: Fuel makes many airplanes [economically] obsolete

Who is online