6 ms·
Very likely no money was saved by Boeing, composites are almost always more expensive. Maybe someone with aviation industry knowledge can reply, but my guess i
by noughtme 3y ago
Very likely no money was saved by Boeing, composites are almost always more expensive.
Maybe someone with aviation industry knowledge can reply, but my guess is adding a trivial timed shutoff would have triggered an elaborate FAA approval and certification process. That’s probably where the savings were.
- jsjohnst 3y agoThe “savings” is entirely due to weight. More weight requires more fuel. The single biggest cost by a large margin in the life of a commercial airline jet is fuel. Increase fuel efficiency by even 1% and you save the airline industry billions. Source to backup the claim of the scale of worldwide airline fuel usage: https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-of-airlines-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/655057/fuel-consumption-... Source to give you an idea of how much US airlines pay for fuel: https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/us-airlines-january-2023-fuel-cost-gallon-43-december-2022-aviation-fuel-consumption-down https://www.bts.gov/newsroom/us-airlines-january-2023-fuel-c...
- ExoticPearTree 3y agoI was thinking about weight, but the cowlings are pretty small compared to other parts of the plane where composite materials are used. So i'm not sure a single digit saving in pounds of fuel per hour or flight was a good tradeoff considering the risks associated with the alternative they went with. But, like someone else said this here, I would love someone with knowledge about this to chime in.