With airlines hemorrhaging billions of dollars a year, largely because of soaring oil prices and environmental regulations, building more efficient jets has become Boeing and Airbus’s biggest OM challenge. Pressured by airline execs, manufacturers
have already begun making lighter planes to reduce fuel consumption. In 1980, for example, it took 46 gallons of fuel to fly a passenger 1,000 miles. Today it is down to 22 gallons–and could drop to 18 within a decade. Still, a decade ago, fuel accounted for 15% of an airline’s budget. Today, it’s 35%. And airlines worldwide may have to spend an extra $3.3 billion a year to meet new E.U. carbon dioxide restrictions on planes flying into Europe.
So when we talk about product design and sustainability considerations in Ch.5, airline OM managers are desperate for any improvements that can reduce weight and emissions. The Miami Herald (July 4, 2011) reports on some the efficiency gains that were dreams just a few years ago. Both the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 are new long-range jets with 1/2 their bodies made of carbon-fiber composites (which weigh 20% less than traditional aluminum alloys). Engine manufacturers are unveiling brand new engines for single-aisle planes (which are 75% of the 22,000 jets worldwide) that promise to cut fuel use by 15% (or $1 million per plane per year).
The Herald also lists more ways to save on fuel: (1) a satellite-based air traffic control system (several years away) that could cut fuel use by 12%; (2) “winglets” added to the tip of each wing to prevent drag; (3) carrying less weight in the plane– (American is replacing 19,000 catering carts with ones that weigh 16 lbs. less. Southwest is looking at lighter weight seat covers, while Jet Blue is using thinner seats. Every pound saves 30 gallons of fuel/year); and (4), replacing older jets faster (American is replacing aging MD80s with 737 that use 35% less fuel).
Discussion questions:
1. Why is efficiency a product design issue?
2. What other changes can be made to improve operational efficiency?
” In 1980, for example, it took 46 gallons of fuel to fly a passenger 1,000 miles. Today it is down to 22 gallons–and could drop to 18 within a decade. Still, a decade ago, fuel accounted for 15% of an airline’s budget. Today, it’s 35%. And airlines worldwide may have to spend an extra $3.3 billion a year to meet new E.U. carbon dioxide restrictions on planes flying into Europe.”
Poorly written and will be used in my class to say why- look at the paragraph again. First you compare 46 gallons to 22 gallons ( 18 gallons in a decade) from 1980 to present. OK so far. Then , like many others in trying to make some type of point- you revert to comparing 15% a decade ( what decade now or later?) ago- thats 10 years not 31 years as in 1980- to the present 35%, making the whole comparison point confusing and useless. The carbon dioxide comment is just a strange icing on an already very shaky comparison.
This is I expect from politicians. “Social Security will last 40 years, then again its bankrupt now or it will be in 10 years unless we do something or nothing but it must be fixed- maybe”.
We must be pretty clear on what we are trying to say to our students!!
Terry,
Many thanks for your comment. In summarizing the Miami Herald article (and most of the others I write about in the blog) I try to squeeze in as much info as I can into 300 words. Please don’t hesitate to send your students to the link for a full read.
Barry