6 ms·
Are you saying maximizing load factors are worse for fuel economy or just slowing down would be a preferred cost saving measure in your opinion? Average load fa
by TomatoTomato 4y ago
Are you saying maximizing load factors are worse for fuel economy or just slowing down would be a preferred cost saving measure in your opinion? Average load factor in the US is already <90%.
Either way, what about the unintended consequences for travellers if a slow down was mandated permanently?
You would need at least 15% more planes, pilots, ground personnel, etc... to handle the reduced bandwidth. For non-direct flights, fewer connections could be made likely increasing the airport population its ancillary services.
Airlines already do this from time to time usually when fuel costs outpaces pricing power:
https://www.reuters.com/article/airlines-fuelcells-kemp/refile-column-airlines-fly-slower-to-cut-fuel-bill-kemp-idUSL6N0RR2ZO20140926 https://www.reuters.com/article/airlines-fuelcells-kemp/refi...
- sokoloff 4y agoWhen load factors get too high, recovery from irregular ops (weather, crew, or mechanical disruptions) becomes a nightmare for passengers. People end up stranded for days without available seats.
- kashkhan 4y agoslowing down 5% adds 10 minutes flying time to a 3 hour flight. Drag varies with square of speed except when you get close to Mach 1 where it gets much worse. Its also possible to fly 20% (36kft vs 30k) higher where drag for the same speed will be lower. Drag varies linearly with density. An aircraft purposely designed for low fuel consumption could save 50% or more jet fuel without being significantly slower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_D8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_D8 https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/future_airplanes.html https://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/future_airp...