Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NEO - Its About More Than $$$  
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 607 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5627 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.

[Edited 2011-01-29 05:14:28]

13 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offline0NEWAIR0 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 934 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4825 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."
User currently onlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3580 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4565 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.


User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3613 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3279 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...
User currently offlineB737200 From Malta, joined Feb 2005, 224 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2903 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.

Of course this is my humble opinion...



Lady Guinness is ready to fly...
User currently onlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 866 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2573 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.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2251 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 3):
They're fanatics.

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?


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 607 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1973 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!


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1873 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.



What the...?
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7871 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1836 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".


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12060 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1762 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.


User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 607 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1582 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.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29674 posts, RR: 84
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1571 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8874 posts, RR: 40
Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1511 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
More Than You Want To About Boeing posted Tue Apr 10 2001 21:11:35 by Cruising
LH Achieves More Than 100,000 Hours On CF6-80 posted Thu Oct 14 2010 08:13:13 by robffm2
748i With More Than 500 Seats posted Fri Jul 23 2010 09:45:26 by cosmofly
DL 767 Woes Ground More Than 600 PAX posted Thu Jul 15 2010 10:52:22 by COalways
Chinese Airlines Earn More Than $300m In April posted Mon May 17 2010 03:24:12 by annaaero
Applying For A Job At BA--More Than I Ever Thought posted Tue Mar 30 2010 00:56:16 by UA777222
Will AF Keep Its 744s Longer Than Planned? posted Mon Jan 18 2010 13:19:04 by LY777
Did ValuJet Crash Hurt DL More Than ValuJet? posted Tue Jun 16 2009 20:57:27 by Mijoatlanta
IB Is Now Worth More Than BA posted Sun Jan 25 2009 06:37:42 by R2rho
Emirates Still On Track For More Than 100 A380s posted Wed Jul 30 2008 09:14:09 by FCKC