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.
