As somebody who works in the aerospace industry (inertial navigation systems for commercial planes), I can tell you that the airline industry knows that it has to evolve or die. Airlines are one of the lowest-margin industries in America; rising fuel costs alone have spurred large advances in fuel efficiency on newer airplanes (like the A380 and the 787 in general aviation; Embraer's line in business jets). The problem is convincing vendors that it is worth making the investment on research and retrofits when the following conditions are in play:
1. a yearly cost-cutting demand from airframe manufacturers to airlines as fuel prices climb. 2. cannibalization of the aging American aircraft fleets by newer domestic and international airlines as the monolithic carriers go bankrupt, which stalls adoption of newer airplanes and encourages retrofits which do not solve fuel usage problems. 3. aviation authority pressure to maintain current skyways when less environmentally dangerous/damaging skyways could be evaluated and used. This is driven by fuel costs, since many trips can be made shorter by flying higher, but it's not always necessary. Many of these skyways are still open because monolithic carriers have planes which can only complete certain trips by flying high. On a brighter note, Europe's JAA/EUROCAE authority is making some inroads on this issue as citizen awareness is raised. 4. America's propping-up of the largest carriers, even when they are no longer financially solvent. This keeps the oldest planes in the air, both through floating loans and an unwillingness to decommission older planes for fuel standards, because they are still up to code for safety standards.
It will be interesting to see how Branson plays this out with the Clinton Global Initiative, since Virgin is one of the only European airlines making large investments in newer aircraft (also, I'm curious to see who else is buying into this aspect of the Global Initiative). Most of the drivers for newer, fuel-efficient aircraft are coming from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. It would seem that they know something America doesn't.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Hmmm
Date: 2006-09-22 06:50 am (UTC)1. a yearly cost-cutting demand from airframe manufacturers to airlines as fuel prices climb.
2. cannibalization of the aging American aircraft fleets by newer domestic and international airlines as the monolithic carriers go bankrupt, which stalls adoption of newer airplanes and encourages retrofits which do not solve fuel usage problems.
3. aviation authority pressure to maintain current skyways when less environmentally dangerous/damaging skyways could be evaluated and used. This is driven by fuel costs, since many trips can be made shorter by flying higher, but it's not always necessary. Many of these skyways are still open because monolithic carriers have planes which can only complete certain trips by flying high. On a brighter note, Europe's JAA/EUROCAE authority is making some inroads on this issue as citizen awareness is raised.
4. America's propping-up of the largest carriers, even when they are no longer financially solvent. This keeps the oldest planes in the air, both through floating loans and an unwillingness to decommission older planes for fuel standards, because they are still up to code for safety standards.
It will be interesting to see how Branson plays this out with the Clinton Global Initiative, since Virgin is one of the only European airlines making large investments in newer aircraft (also, I'm curious to see who else is buying into this aspect of the Global Initiative). Most of the drivers for newer, fuel-efficient aircraft are coming from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Oceania. It would seem that they know something America doesn't.