More economical airliners?

[MountainDude]

Is it possible to make airliners that can offer 50% lower ticket prices (or even lower)?
Looking at the Rutan's Voyager made me think if similar strategies can be applied to airliners.
The idea is to build slower planes with very large aspect ratio wings that get a much better gas mileage.
From what I understand, the fuel consumption is a square of speed, so if you fly at 300-400 mph instead of 500-600 mph, there could be a huge savings. Plus, a high aspect wing provides more lift and needs less power.

The drawbacks I can think of are:
1. People dont want to travel more slowly. However, there should be many that are OK with it if the price is much lower.
2. The wingspan may be a problem for many airports, so the design would have to include folding wings, like the new 777X.

Thoughts?

 

[nauga]

Is it possible to make airliners that can offer 50% lower ticket prices (or even lower)?
...
Thoughts?

Reduce the seat pitch and cut the crew in half.

Nauga,
who gives the people what they want

 

[asicer]

cut the crew in half.

Vertically? Or horizontally?

 

[kyleb]

One of the challenges is nobody wants to sit in an airline seat for 20% longer. A second challenge is that if you reduce the speed of the aircraft, an aircraft and crew that managed (say) 3 legs in a work day might only be able to complete 2 legs, so the airline either sells 33% fewer rides or has to buy 50% more airplanes and hire more crews...

That doesn't mean slower wouldn't work, particularly for fuel efficiency, but there are other factors in play.

 

[Bell206]

Is it possible to make airliners that can offer 50% lower ticket prices (or even lower)?

Except a lot of the private money is being directed to move people faster and higher vs lower and slower. Considering its the airline customers that basically dictate what type airliner Boeing or Airbus will build I don't think that version is high on their list.
Boom Supersonic
Dawn Aerospace

 

[Doc Holliday]

Yes, there are ways..............

 

[Half Fast]

Except a lot of the private money is being directed to move people faster and higher vs lower and slower.

Much of commercial airline travel is for business. When a business is paying a burdened rate of several hundred dollars per hour for an employee, it wants the employee on the ground working and not watching a bad movie at 30,000’. The faster the trip the better.

 

[TCABM]

The jet doesn’t drive the ticket price.

 

[ateamer]

If it was a good idea, the airlines would already be doing it.

 

[kayoh190]

Is it possible to make airliners that can offer 50% lower ticket prices (or even lower)?

No, but they are constantly looking to make airliners that will increase shareholder value.

 

[Skip Miller]

If it was a profitable idea, the airlines would already be doing it.

FTFY!

-Skip

 

[wanttaja]

It seems that fuel costs are about 30% of the airline total expenses. So even if the fuel is free, the most reduction in fares you could see is less than a third. Couple that with fewer flights (due to slower airplanes) or higher acquisition/wage costs if you're trying the maintain the same level of service, I doubt you'd see much reduction in passenger fares.

The airlines would LOVE lower fuel costs, of course, but I suspect little savings would be passed to the consumer.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[MountainDude]

It seems that fuel costs are about 30% of the airline total expenses. So even if the fuel is free, the most reduction in fares you could see is less than a third. Couple that with fewer flights (due to slower airplanes) or higher acquisition/wage costs if you're trying the maintain the same level of service, I doubt you'd see much reduction in passenger fares.

The airlines would LOVE lower fuel costs, of course, but I suspect little savings would be passed to the consumer.

Ron Wanttaja

Thank you Ron. That pretty much explains it.

 

[hindsight2020]

gee, maybe customers could I dunno, withhold until true price discovery? I no longer have sympathy for the consumer. We get what we deserve. For the first time in 20 years I'm not flying to see my family for the holidays, which is to say I can't see my family for the holidays. It's a legit crusher to realize how far things have slid given how hard I've worked all these years, but at least I'm consistent. Price elasticity of demand isn't academic in my life. Nobody is entitled to fly, americans apparently never got the memo.

 

[Brad Smith]

More economical airliners are possible, just not feasible. If you check out the Boeing BWB (Blended Wing Body) you’ll see that more efficiency is possible but not without compromises that are hard to sell to the flying public. Check out: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blended_wing_body

 

[AKiss20]

Much of commercial airline travel is for business. When a business is paying a burdened rate of several hundred dollars per hour for an employee, it wants the employee on the ground working and not watching a bad movie at 30,000’. The faster the trip the better.

And yet SST couldn’t even work in the corporate aviation world not to mention the commercial one (see the failure of Aerion, HyperMach, the Sukhoi-Gulfstream S21) where the value proposition is the savings on massively overinflated C-suite compensation rates and winning member size measuring contests. If SST can’t work in that space, there is no way it economically works for even the high end business traveler who is earning but in the low 7 figures, not to mention the actual average business traveler earning anywhere from 100K to 500K a year.

While energy has any appreciable cost, SST is an economic non-starter.

 

[aftCG]

You want to save fuel just shut down the engines and ridge soar or find some thermals.
"Ladies and gentleman this is your captain speaking. We're going to make two more passes along the Cascade mountains and them turn inbound for the initial approach fix. We'll have you on the ground in about 20 minutes - Or sooner of we didn't judge this correctly"

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I think I paid $3 plus about $50 in fees and taxes for a one-way direct IND-RSW. If there is a slower way that’s cheaper, I’m still going with the $53 direct option. I’m cheap, but gotta draw the line somewhere, lol!!

 

[WDD]

Low cost is a combination of revenue from how many paying passenger miles can you get per hour, variable cost per passenger mile per hour, and minimal time that expensive fixed cost plane equipment is not in service. Many reasons jets replaced piston engines, but a significant one is the much reduced down time / higher time it can operate per maintenance hour.

Going high sub sonic seems to be the sweet spot for cost per passenger mile per hour - gets a lot more expensive to go a little faster.

Doesn’t get that much cheaper to go that much slower.

What I find interesting is the ability to make more profit by pulling back from very large planes (747s, etc.). Some smart people seem to have figured it out I suppose.

 

[JackL-3J]

 

[tspear]

What I find interesting is the ability to make more profit by pulling back from very large planes (747s, etc.). Some smart people seem to have figured it out I suppose.

In the 60s/70s and leading into the 80s, airlines were going with massive hub/spoke models. Where an airline would have one or two hubs on each coast and one in the middle of the country. Jumbo jets would go between the hubs with smaller planes handling the spokes. This was the basis for Airbus building the A380.

Southwest, among other low fare airlines went for a mostly direct city pair model looking for common connection routes. This ended up being significantly cheaper to operate, and the flying public loved it. Less connections, faster, cheaper....
This killed off the requirement for ever increasing jumbo jets.

Tim

 

[Cap'n Jack]

In the 60s/70s and leading into the 80s, airlines were going with massive hub/spoke models. Where an airline would have one or two hubs on each coast and one in the middle of the country. Jumbo jets would go between the hubs with smaller planes handling the spokes. This was the basis for Airbus building the A380.

Tim

I think it still works that way, with the hub and spoke? United has hubs at KORD, KDEN, KSFO, and a few other places. I need to fly to one of those to go to other places from Lincoln. When Delta was here, the hubs for them were KMSP and KATL. Flying from Omaha, the hub for Southwest was KPHX when i went to California. The regional jets fly to/from the hubs and are operated by contract airlines such as Skywest under the banner of the "legacy" airline.

 

[tspear]

I think it still works that way, with the hub and spoke? United has hubs at KORD, KDEN, KSFO, and a few other places. I need to fly to one of those to go to other places from Lincoln. When Delta was here, the hubs for them were KMSP and KATL. Flying from Omaha, the hub for Southwest was KPHX when i went to California. The regional jets fly to/from the hubs and are operated by contract airlines such as Skywest under the banner of the "legacy" airline.

A slightly dated article on it (from 2020): https://simpleflying.com/hub-and-spoke-vs-point-to-point/

Tim

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

As stated above, the company will fly less passengers in a slower plane. Half the speed means half the passengers per day, so half the revenue. If the plane is less than half the cost to acquire and operate, might make sense if the demand is there. The math is much more complicated to be sure.

 

[Pinecone]

And yet SST couldn’t even work in the corporate aviation world not to mention the commercial one (see the failure of Aerion, HyperMach, the Sukhoi-Gulfstream S21) where the value proposition is the savings on massively overinflated C-suite compensation rates and winning member size measuring contests. If SST can’t work in that space, there is no way it economically works for even the high end business traveler who is earning but in the low 7 figures, not to mention the actual average business traveler earning anywhere from 100K to 500K a year.

While energy has any appreciable cost, SST is an economic non-starter.

One big issue with super sonic is the prohibitions for SS flight over land. Makes is useless for domestic travel.

We need LEO travel like in many scifi books.

 

[nauga]

One big issue with super sonic is the prohibitions for SS flight over land. Makes is useless for domestic travel.

Some of the companies taking another look at supersonic bizjets are timing their prototypes to meet an ICAO rulemaking cycle and to use the prototypes/demonstrators to show the supersonic noise issues that resulted in the prohibition are no longer an issue, or are likely to be so if ongoing research and development pans out. If the overflight issue is no longer relevant then the numbers look very different.

Nauga,
not with a bang but a whisper.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Is it possible to make airliners that can offer 50% lower ticket prices (or even lower)?
Looking at the Rutan's Voyager made me think if similar strategies can be applied to airliners.
The idea is to build slower planes with very large aspect ratio wings that get a much better gas mileage.
From what I understand, the fuel consumption is a square of speed, so if you fly at 300-400 mph instead of 500-600 mph, there could be a huge savings. Plus, a high aspect wing provides more lift and needs less power.

The drawbacks I can think of are:
1. People dont want to travel more slowly. However, there should be many that are OK with it if the price is much lower.
2. The wingspan may be a problem for many airports, so the design would have to include folding wings, like the new 777X.

Thoughts?

Well, just for the heck of it, I looked up American's annual report. If we look solely at operating costs for the mainline, the big items are fuel (35.6% of operating expenses) and personnel (42.4%).

Even if there were no fuel, you'd still need to cut another 14.4% to get costs cut in half. Focusing on the other big thing, to get 14.4% more just by cutting wages would mean a 34% cut in wages. Pilots and management are gonna make a lot more per person than rampies and gate agents, so sure, cutting crews in half would make a big dent.

But even that won't cut things in half. Take a look at the other thread on moving to single-pilot crews at the airlines - Given the amount of extra technology that would be needed for equivalent safety, it likely wouldn't save much.

And cutting fuel is... Difficult. You can't slow down by THAT much at high altitudes (see "coffin corner"). If you come down to lower altitudes so there's more air density to get that lift back, well, you get more drag too. There's always a trade-off.

Keep in mind that the Voyager was barely even a two-seat aircraft. In fact, it was a zero-seat aircraft, with both pilots in more of a lying-down type of position to minimize drag. On the other hand, that wingspan was huge: 110'8", more than 3 times the span of another famous two-seater, the C152. If you were to scale up the wingspan of an average (B737/A320) transport jet accordingly, it would be around 372 feet! That would required a complete redesign and rebuild of airports to accommodate, even if they folded their wings during parking and taxi.

There's a bunch of things you can try to do, but nothing that will make a 50% difference without some major drawbacks.

Reduce the seat pitch and cut the crew in half.

Nauga,
who gives the people what they want

Sounds like Ryanair. "Seat" pitch so tight you're actually standing, plus single pilot crews are two ideas they've floated.

What I find interesting is the ability to make more profit by pulling back from very large planes (747s, etc.). Some smart people seem to have figured it out I suppose.

A more extreme version of this is where I think the real future lies, and is what we'll see 30-50 years from now.

Imagine there's a 6-8 passenger aircraft that is fully autonomous and using next generation propulsion technology. Something like the proposed diesel-electric hybrid that goes to 40,000+ feet. Also, imagine that companies like Uber exist and have created apps for users to schedule a ride and the infrastructure to interface that with the entire fleet.

Then, you show up at your local airport and go directly to your destination with whichever other people are needing to fly on the same route and day. Aircraft speed might be slower, but trip time would be roughly the same - No more hub-and-spoke, probably a lot less security infrastructure and such because the threat level would be far lower, FAR fewer personnel and less fuel. Traditional airplanes would still operate oceanic routes and some runs between the largest cities where demand for travel on a certain city pair is sufficient, but the regional market would pretty much be destroyed and a lot of other domestic flying would likely go by the wayside.

 

[morleyz]

If Kelsey is at all accurate in his assessment, airlines just need to sell more credit cards:

It is a little terrifying to think that the credit card spiffs are what make the big 3 profitable.

 

[Pinecone]

Imagine there's a 6-8 passenger aircraft that is fully autonomous and using next generation propulsion technology. Something like the proposed diesel-electric hybrid that goes to 40,000+ feet. Also, imagine that companies like Uber exist and have created apps for users to schedule a ride and the infrastructure to interface that with the entire fleet.

Then, you show up at your local airport and go directly to your destination with whichever other people are needing to fly on the same route and day. Aircraft speed might be slower, but trip time would be roughly the same - No more hub-and-spoke, probably a lot less security infrastructure and such because the threat level would be far lower, FAR fewer personnel and less fuel. Traditional airplanes would still operate oceanic routes and some runs between the largest cities where demand for travel on a certain city pair is sufficient, but the regional market would pretty much be destroyed and a lot of other domestic flying would likely go by the wayside.

Sounds like General Aviation, except you don't need to own a plane.

I find that most trips, I can fly for a similar price for fuel (other things I pay whether I fly or not) and less time in my Mooney versus commercial. Even if the commercial is non-stop.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Sounds like General Aviation, except you don't need to own a plane.

...Or spend all the time, money, and energy learning how to fly. It'd very much be an "Uber of the skies". I'm not sure what the airlines are doing to prepare for it, but some other very large and notable companies in the industry are working on the various components of this.

I find that most trips, I can fly for a similar price for fuel (other things I pay whether I fly or not) and less time in my Mooney versus commercial. Even if the commercial is non-stop.

Yep. Price is especially easy to beat when you're taking other people with you.

Time wise, if it's under 100nm it's probably as fast to drive unless your destination is at an airport. 100-500nm, Mooney always wins. 500-800nm, Mooney *almost* always wins unless you're going somewhere that's very close to, or at, a large hub airport where you can get a nonstop flight. 800-1000, there are a few more scenarios where the airlines can win. >1000nm, the airlines might start to have an advantage for the majority of missions.

I figure I can travel from here in Wisconsin to anywhere east of the Rockies in the same or less time than an airline flight, and my cost per mile is lower than a 172.

 

[Pinecone]

...Or spend all the time, money, and energy learning how to fly. It'd very much be an "Uber of the skies". I'm not sure what the airlines are doing to prepare for it, but some other very large and notable companies in the industry are working on the various components of this.

Yep. Price is especially easy to beat when you're taking other people with you.

Time wise, if it's under 100nm it's probably as fast to drive unless your destination is at an airport. 100-500nm, Mooney always wins. 500-800nm, Mooney *almost* always wins unless you're going somewhere that's very close to, or at, a large hub airport where you can get a nonstop flight. 800-1000, there are a few more scenarios where the airlines can win. >1000nm, the airlines might start to have an advantage for the majority of missions.

I figure I can travel from here in Wisconsin to anywhere east of the Rockies in the same or less time than an airline flight, and my cost per mile is lower than a 172.

I recently did NE Maryland to Fort Worth, TX. 7 hours flying time. About 10 minutes to airport. 20 minutes to preflight and roll airplane out. At the other end, FBO gave a ride to the hotel about 10 minutes. Maybe 20 to button up and unload plane.

Airline would have been 45 minutes to airport. 30 minutes to park and get bus to terminal. Check in 2 hours ahead of time. 1 hour 40 minutes gate to gate. 30 - 60 minutes to deplane, get to baggage, get baggage, get to taxi. 25 minute to same hotel, IF you are not during rush hour.

Mooney - 8 hours door to door.

Commercial - 6.5 or longer And that is with a non-stop. Add a connection and the Mooney wins cleanly.

Add in the convenience of leaving when I want to leave.

 

[EvilEagle]

I recently did NE Maryland to Fort Worth, TX. 7 hours flying time. About 10 minutes to airport. 20 minutes to preflight and roll airplane out. At the other end, FBO gave a ride to the hotel about 10 minutes. Maybe 20 to button up and unload plane.

Airline would have been 45 minutes to airport. 30 minutes to park and get bus to terminal. Check in 2 hours ahead of time. 1 hour 40 minutes gate to gate. 30 - 60 minutes to deplane, get to baggage, get baggage, get to taxi. 25 minute to same hotel, IF you are not during rush hour.

Mooney - 8 hours door to door.

Commercial - 6.5 or longer And that is with a non-stop. Add a connection and the Mooney wins cleanly.

Add in the convenience of leaving when I want to leave.

I'm all for travelling via GA (I also prefer it) but we all have to be honest - there are times when GA just won't get it done. If there had been RVR 006 at your destination, real icing or imbedded thunderstorms all along the route, the Mooney would be at home or tucked in a hangar somewhere short of the destination. GA "always" beats the airline. (*assuming the weather is good, the winds aren't terrible, there's a good GA airfield option at the destination, my airplane isn't in annual or other mx needed*)

When it works, it's glorious. When it can't work, I'm glad to have the option of a "smoker".

What's the cost for a Mooney trip like that vs airline?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm all for travelling via GA (I also prefer it) but we all have to be honest - there are times when GA just won't get it done. If there had been RVR 006 at your destination, real icing or imbedded thunderstorms all along the route, the Mooney would be at home or tucked in a hangar somewhere short of the destination. GA "always" beats the airline. (*assuming the weather is good, the winds aren't terrible, there's a good GA airfield option at the destination, my airplane isn't in annual or other mx needed*)

Planning alleviates almost all of that though. If I *have to* be somewhere by a certain time, I leave early enough that I can drive if necessary. And on a long trip, weather only matters at the departure and destination most of the time - On a 1000-mile trip you can go 100 miles off course and only add 10 miles to the trip. So, you fly around the weather if needed... Or you go early or late. I've done a trip with a 55-knot headwind, and I was still as fast as an Archer. And it's quite rare that there isn't a GA field closer to the actual destination. I've gone into BWI when the hotel booked for me was across the street, MCO because I was going to SimCom practically next door, and MSY because NEW went below minimums, but that's it. And I schedule my annuals for when I don't have any travel plans, and rarely have any unscheduled mx issues.

With all of that - In 20+ years I've never cancelled a long trip. I had to drive to a meeting instead of flying when a mag failed on runup, and I've cancelled a couple of day trips where the weather made it no longer sound like a fun thing to do, but that's it. GA isn't perfect, but if you get the necessary ratings (Instrument at a minimum), keep your airplane well maintained and yourself proficient, and plan properly, it is still a highly useful and reliable way to travel. It just seems that most people don't do all of those things and then say that you can't travel by GA.

When it works, it's glorious. When it can't work, I'm glad to have the option of a "smoker".

And that's a good part of the planning process as a backup option too. Southwest's refundable tickets are great.

What's the cost for a Mooney trip like that vs airline?

Looking at the latest trip I was going to take (since decided against it for non-aviation reasons), a round trip to Houston to visit my sister during the holidays, the Mooney would have cost about $700 in the Mooney, and airline tickets $991 each * 4 people.

Looking at something different to avoid the fact that travel costs are likely higher over the holidays, a trip to see the mouse during the cold season would be about $650 in the Mooney, or $3850 for the four of us on the airlines.

Note that in both cases it's still cheaper to fly the Mooney even if you're solo, but add some pax and the savings pile up quickly. Maybe 3 trips a year like that and the plane is paid for too.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

If Kelsey is at all accurate in his assessment, airlines just need to sell more credit cards:

It is a little terrifying to think that the credit card spiffs are what make the big 3 profitable.

I'm platinum level on UAL- it takes a lot of flights to get there (and even more next year- I might only barely make gold with more flights). Yet the group 1 line is longer than ever, probably because of the credit cards that give priority boarding as one of the perks.

 

[Larry in TN]

I'm platinum level on UAL- it takes a lot of flights to get there (and even more next year- I might only barely make gold with more flights). Yet the group 1 line is longer than ever, probably because of the credit cards that give priority boarding as one of the perks.

I think that the CC holders in group 2.

Pre-boarding (Top tier (GS & 1K) elites, Military, Disabilities, etc.)
Group 1 (Business class and first class, upper (Platinum & Gold) elite levels)
Group 2 (Lower (Silver) elite levels, United credit card holders)
Group 3 (Economy passengers in window seats)
Group 4 (Economy passengers in middle seats)
Group 5 (Economy passengers in aisle seats)
Group 6 (Basic Economy)

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I think that the CC holders in group 2.

Pre-boarding (Top tier (GS & 1K) elites, Military, Disabilities, etc.)
Group 1 (Business class and first class, upper (Platinum & Gold) elite levels)
Group 2 (Lower (Silver) elite levels, United credit card holders)
Group 3 (Economy passengers in window seats)
Group 4 (Economy passengers in middle seats)
Group 5 (Economy passengers in aisle seats)
Group 6 (Basic Economy)

CC card holders get priority boarding, starting with the explorer card. Higher level cards also get premier qualifying points.

United Credit Card: Benefits & Perks Explained | Chase

Each United credit card provides plenty of travel perks to choose from. Learn more about all the rewards and benefits the United credit card has to offer.

www.chase.com

I’m pretty sure you just copied your text from “ Simple flying” . They are ok but often rehash old information.

 

[Larry in TN]

I’m pretty sure you just copied your text from “ Simple flying” . They are ok but often rehash old information.

Nope. Simplified a bit from the United website.

https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/travel/airport/boarding-process.html

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Nope. Simplified a bit from the United website.

https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/travel/airport/boarding-process.html

Which still shows that the post quoted below is valid- the airline branded cards give perks so people get the credit cards. According the the Chase link, it is easy for the higher level cards to get "promoted" to boarding group 1 through points. Each flight, UAL strongly pushes the credit cards before landing with announcements over the PA and flight attendants walking through the aisles with applications.

If Kelsey is at all accurate in his assessment, airlines just need to sell more credit cards:

It is a little terrifying to think that the credit card spiffs are what make the big 3 profitable.

 

[Larry in TN]

Which still shows that the post quoted below is valid- the airline branded cards give perks so people get the credit cards. According the the Chase link, it is easy for the higher level cards to get "promoted" to boarding group 1 through points. Each flight, UAL strongly pushes the credit cards before landing with announcements over the PA and flight attendants walking through the aisles with applications.

United's website does not show buy-up or credit-card paths to Group 1. The internal employee guidance (the gate agent's policy manual) is consistent with the customer-facing website.

• Premier Platinum and Gold members
• Star Alliance™ Gold members
• Travelers in United Polaris®, United First® and United Business® cabins

 

[Cap'n Jack]

United's website does not show buy-up or credit-card paths to Group 1. The internal employee guidance (the gate agent's policy manual) is consistent with the customer-facing website.

• Premier Platinum and Gold members
• Star Alliance™ Gold members
• Travelers in United Polaris®, United First® and United Business® cabins

I'm not understanding your point. Look at the Chase link I posted earlier.
For example, for one card:

• Opportunity to earn up to 10,000 Premier-qualifying points per year that can be applied to your Premier status qualification

That is enough to kick you to gold status and thus into boarding group 1 from no status at all!
See:

https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/mileageplus/premier/qualify.html

You can earn PQP when you fly on United®, United Express® or one of our Star Alliance™ partners. You can also earn PQP when you book select award flights or use one of our co-branded credit cards.

emphasis is mine.

So between the Chase and United websites, there is a "buy-up or credit-card paths to Group 1". I don't think you know that you get points based on premier qualifying points and number of flight segments flown, otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion. The emphasis lately at UAL has been on PQP and those are easier to get sometimes with the credit cards. They will change the number of segments next year to qualify for the status levels, as well as the number of PQPs, but the PQP requirement won't increase as much as the number of flights needed to get status. This makes it easier for the card holders.

For corporate travelers who get reimbursed, it isn't difficult to do enough purchases to get the perks for the different credit cards. For me, the important perk on an airline is getting priority boarding because I usually travel with just a roller board and a personal item. I don't want to check luggage if I don't have to.