JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 5239 times:
The parallel threads about airline decision-making on the A320 NEO are focussing exclusively on the cost of acquisition vs. the cost of fuel saving, but the environmental impact of new engine technology has a business impact that extends way beyond this simplistic cost-benefit view.
The extension of LHR with an additional runway has been put on hold due to local concerns about noise and pollution. Would BA buy old-technology planes just because the simplistic cost-benefit analysis showed them to be cheaper on an airframe-lifetime calculation? No! They want the additional LHR runway to support business growth, so they will want leaner, cleaner, quieter aircraft even if more expensive on the basis of the simple calculation.
Many other airlines will share this business imperative, at least to some extent. The NEO offers inherent business advantages in addition to the simple cost-benefit view.
0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 836 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4437 times:
I'm pretty sure any "cost-benefit view" will include environmental concerns given the ever stringent regulations being talked about and put into place each year.
"The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams."
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3529 posts, RR: 9 Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4177 times:
Do you really believe that the bureaucrats will allow BAA more flights to airlines and allocate them on the basis of the fuel burn of the planes that they fly in their fleet?
Very naive view in my opinion. It is all about NIMBY and the Eco-nuts at " plane crazy" and such are just a convenient excuse.
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2891 times:
If the advantages in fuel burn / reduced maintenance cost / fleet commonality / etc... are not enough to convince airlines to buy the airplane, then I'd say Airbus is wasting their time designing the NEO.
Reduced emissions are merely a welcome side effect which will allow operators to market their care for the environment to the public and governments.
While it is a small consideration factor, I believe the decision process is still mostly based on the $$$, as are slot allocations at LHR and other airports.
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2): It is all about NIMBY and the Eco-nuts at " plane crazy" and such are just a convenient excuse.
You could come up with an aircraft that burns half that of an A320 to carry 500 pax over the Atlantic and they'd still see it as the work of the devil and we should all hike and sailboat wherever we're going. They're fanatics.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
B737200 From Malta, joined Feb 2005, 224 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2515 times:
One may argue that the public's perception of how "green" an airline is, is actually an intrinsic part of the whole cost vs. benefits dynamic even if it may be hard to quantify.
So ultimately it does come down to the $$$$s; especially if you are comparing an A320 NEO to an A320 classic or a 737NG. Sure the last two will have more emissions but its not like the difference will be comparable to one spewing out poison and the other pure mountain air; I doubt the difference will be enough to guilt trip an airline CEO into buying them if they don't see other benefits.
fpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 755 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2185 times:
Quoting B737200 (Reply 4): So ultimately it does come down to the $$$$s; especially if you are comparing an A320 NEO to an A320 classic or a 737NG. Sure the last two will have more emissions but its not like the difference will be comparable to one spewing out poison and the other pure mountain air; I doubt the difference will be enough to guilt trip an airline CEO into buying them if they don't see other benefits.
I agree with you. The difference will not make a huge impact and the decision will come down to the good old green-backs. Sure, there will be airlines that will opt to pay the premium to say that they have the "new technology", but when it comes down to it, the new Boeing 737 replacement will have the upper hand and aairbus will be still have their resources in the 380 and 350.
But doesn't that word also apply equally to the many here who advocate more flights and to hell with everything/everyone else? How are you explaining it as only applying to those who don't have the same opinion as you?
JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1585 times:
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 2): Do you really believe that the bureaucrats will allow BAA more flights to airlines and allocate them on the basis of the fuel burn of the planes that they fly in their fleet?
Very naive view in my opinion. It is all about NIMBY and the Eco-nuts at " plane crazy" and such are just a convenient excuse.
The reality is that there will never be a third runway at LHR unless the local air pollution impact is contained.
Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 1): I'm pretty sure any "cost-benefit view" will include environmental concerns given the ever stringent regulations being talked about and put into place each year.
Yes of course a $$$ value for the environmental aspects will feed into the decision making. My point was that most posters about A320 NEO vs A320OEO vs 737NG vs 737NEO were not taking that additional environmental $$$ value into account when posting their comments!
JoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5027 posts, RR: 29 Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1485 times:
There will never be a third runway at LHR...full stop...no matter how quiet, clean or green the newest planes are.
For Airbus, it definitely is all about $$$, which means sales. If they can get some mileage out of pitching the greenness of the NEO, all the more power to them. Any airline which buys the NEO can tout the reduction in blah, blah and blah, but most of the emissions improvements come as a direct result of the SFC improvements....which is the real selling point.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6879 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1448 times:
Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 1): I'm pretty sure any "cost-benefit view" will include environmental concerns given the ever stringent regulations being talked about and put into place each year.
I agree 100%. How quickly we forget about all the planes that have been out right banned from operating simply because of more stringent environmental regulations. I can see many airports, especially in Europe, moving towards a more stricter eco tax based on the airplane's "poluting footprint".
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11708 posts, RR: 52 Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1374 times:
Airlines are businesses, they are in business to make money. The airlines will buy whatever airplane model they feel best meets their business plan and make them the most money doing it. They are selling a product to the flying public and market features most passengers want. Most passengers don't care about the operating costs of any airplane model, most are not even awear of these costs, they want features that will make them comfortable in flight like the entertainment systems, seat comfort, internal airplane temps., etc.
It is all about the money, that is what the share holders demand.
All this PR about how quite model XXX is compared to ZZZ, or one model being "greener" than another is just window dressing. If both models meet the required current noise and pollution standards, then neither has a marketing edge over the other, unless those government standards are going to change within a reasonable amount of time. If one model is proven to have better operating economics than another, but costs significantly more, then the airlines will project a return on investment to determine which model best suits their business plan.
The airlines know better than just to place orders based on an OEM's marketing plan and promises. Airplanes in the past have failed to meet promised performance and operating costs. IIRC, the MD-11 is the most recent case.
JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1194 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10): If both models meet the required current noise and pollution standards, then neither has a marketing edge over the other
True for the travelling public, but NOT sufficiently so for an airline wanting to persuade the UK government to support an additional runway at LHR (my example, there are surely others) - my point is that in that example the "lower polution" factor is an important additional component of the cost-benefit equation, in favour of the leaner, cleaner, greener aircraft.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26717 posts, RR: 83 Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1183 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 11): True for the travelling public, but NOT sufficiently so for an airline wanting to persuade the UK government to support an additional runway at LHR (my example, there are surely others) - my point is that in that example the "lower polution" factor is an important additional component of the cost-benefit equation, in favour of the leaner, cleaner, greener aircraft.
They want that "cleaner, greener" aircraft because lower CO2 emissions saves them money in the carbon tax.
Not to mention the biggest emissions savings surely have to be at cruise, and not landing - to say nothing of take-off.
So if LHR's third runway is dependent on the air quality over the complex, then airlines that want a third runway should be investing in atmospheric scrubbers.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, RR: 43 Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1123 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 7): Yes of course a $$$ value for the environmental aspects will feed into the decision making. My point was that most posters about A320 NEO vs A320OEO vs 737NG vs 737NEO were not taking that additional environmental $$$ value into account when posting their comments!
Think about what you just said: the $$$ value for environmental aspects will feed into the decisions making, but now you say it won't when it comes into deciding between OEO and NEO?
Of course it will and it does. It's that despite this, OEO still makes good sense.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, 
From United States of America, joined May 2007, 836 posts, 
From France, joined Oct 2001, 3195 posts, 
From Malta, joined Feb 2005, 224 posts, 
From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5027 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8492 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
