« IEA: Biofuels Vital to Meeting Fuel Demand | Main | Bosch to Invest Additional US$1.3B in China »
Airbus Forecasts World Aircraft Fleet to More than Double by 2026; Passenger Traffic to Grow 4.9% Per Year
27 April 2008
|
| Airbus forecasts a more than doubling of the world’s passenger aircraft fleet by 2026. Click to enlarge. |
Airbus’s Global Market Forecast (GMF) for 2007 through 2026 expects world passenger traffic to increase by 4.9% per annum and the number of frequencies offered on passenger routes to more than double. This growth is buoyed by the continuing growth of emerging economic nations.
Accordingly, Airbus projects that the world’s commercial aircraft fleet, including both passenger (from 100 seats to very large aircraft, VLA) and freighter aircraft, will grow from 14,980 at the end of 2006 to nearly 33,000 by 2026. While passenger traffic demand will nearly triple, airlines will more than double their fleets of passenger aircraft (with more than 100 seats) from 13,284 in 2006 to 28,534 in 2026.
At the same time, some 13,772 aircraft from the existing fleet will be replaced by more efficient models. Of these, 4,412 will be recycled back into passenger service, where they too will replace an older generation model with another airline. Airbus also forecasts that 2,901 will be converted to freighters and the remaining 6,459 will be permanently retired or withdrawn from service.
The greatest demand for passenger aircraft will come from airlines in the United States, with China coming in second, followed by the UK. China alone will require 2,800 new commercial aircraft through 2026, representing 11.5% of the 24,262 projected new passenger and freight commercial aircraft deliveries worldwide.
On a regional basis, Europe will receive 24% of the total of new aircraft, with North America and Asia-Pacific taking 27% and 31% respectively. In addition, the world’s airlines will require more than 6,000 smaller aircraft (with 30 to 100 seats) to serve regional demand, especially in the US and Europe.
The delivery of more efficient aircraft, combined with the decommissioning of older generation aircraft, will gradually reduce the average fuel consumption of the world’s fleet to less than three liters per 100 seat kilometers, according to Airbus.
In-trail Procedure Trial to Reduce Fuel Burn
The partners of an Airbus-led project called CRISTAL ITP (In-trail Procedure) recently carried out the first in-flight demonstration of a flexible new procedure for oceanic airspace that saves fuel and reduces emissions during cruise.
The new in-trail procedure enables aircraft to more easily perform altitude changes during cruise which can significantly improve flight efficiency, reducing fuel burn and emissions. When an aircraft is not at its optimal altitude, aircraft fuel consumption and emissions are increased. As fuel is burned, the aircraft weight is reduced, and the aircraft then needs to climb to maintain its optimum cruise efficiency. Additionally, favorable winds can be found at higher or lower altitudes.
The demonstration flight took place in late March using Airbus’ A340 test aircraft and an SAS A330, performing the trial in Icelandic airspace. Iceland is a unique location where oceanic operations are carried out within radar coverage thus enhancing the safety of the trial.
During the test, the A340 performed several altitude changes relative to the SAS A330 using a new aircraft system fitted on the A340 and including an Aviation Communication & amp;Surveillance Systems (ACSS) Traffic Computer. Using this system the pilot was able to receive on his navigation display all the flight identification and positioning information regarding the surrounding aircraft. This new system, based on ADS-B (Automatic Dependant Surveillance—Broadcast), a new air-to-ground and air-to-air surveillance technology used to transmit aircraft information, is currently being certified by Airbus.
This new demonstration is a significant step towards more flexible operations in an oceanic environment, enabled by new aircraft technologies and more efficient pilot-controller collaboration. Currently these kinds of maneuvers are rarely possible in oceanic airspace due to the lack of radar systems. With the new technology, the flight crew can provide the controller with accurate information about their position relative to other aircraft. With the In Trail Procedure, the controller will use this information to allow altitude changes with reduced separations, providing more climbing opportunities.
The partners involved in the CRISTAL ITP trial are ISAVIA (the air traffic control provider in Iceland), NATS (the air traffic control provider in the UK), EUROCONTROL CASCADE programme, Airbus and SAS.
Boeing and Airbus also recently signed an agreement to work together to accelerate improvements to the world’s air transportation management system in order to increase efficiency and eliminate traffic congestion.
Resources
April 27, 2008 in Aviation | Permalink | Comments (45) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28537856
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Airbus Forecasts World Aircraft Fleet to More than Double by 2026; Passenger Traffic to Grow 4.9% Per Year:
Comments
Between GPS, its Russian counterpart Glonast and the future Galileo system plus communications satellites, it shouldn't be hard for a plane to pinpoint its location to within a few hundred feet and forward that information to air traffic control.
In addition, a system of airships could be used to support airborne radar surveillance for civilian air corridors over the oceans. The technology already exists in military AWACS, it would merely have to be adapted for civilian use.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Apr 27, 2008 8:13:30 AM
This seems to be a forecast entirely based on projected demand without consideration of expected fuel prices. Airlines have already had to cut costs in many ways to cope. What's it going to be like in 2026? I guess if you are in the business of selling aircraft you might not want to draw attention to this point.
Posted by: marcus | Apr 27, 2008 8:18:24 AM
Jet fuel prices have risen 50% in just the last three months. The over Atlantic in trail stuff is nice, but if they want to stay in business they should talk with Branson and his bio fuels companies.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 27, 2008 8:23:42 AM
It seems that a 20 -30 % higher efficiency aircraft using composites and advanced lighter weight electronics and improved aerodynamics etc. is necessary but not sufficient.
Flight pattern changes will help and limiting carry on weight will proceed but again not sufficient. With at least 4 airlines bankrupt in a month and others parking planes in the dessert - at $120/bbl oil. When we have $200/bbl oil everyone will rue that no one developed a jet with large in line single engine boosted on take off (and landing for safety) by a second smaller engine that shuts off during flight.
There are numerous corollaries of uncrowded skies which include for these large planes the need for reduced schedules in order to be full and a smaller number of carriers needed. Coordinating schedules between the airlines will happen allowing say for a given destination the 9 am flight to be United the 9:15 to be Southwest, the 9:20 Delta, the 9:30 United - rather than all crowding for a convenient time. This does not need to be regulated but can be offered through variably priced take off/landing fees and better communication and bargaining amongst carriers.
Airfares will also go up - 1954 my father paid $216 for DC to SF coach round trip - I was half price (under 12). That's maybe $3000 price adjusted. So most of us will not be flying much.
I predict this will happen as we find our butts more and more in the squeeze for efficiency - the building of new planes will help some but only a couple years worth of respite at most...
Posted by: Don P, | Apr 27, 2008 8:26:08 AM
I bet these numbers are vastly understated.. China and India are growing and they want their share of luxuries. I wonder if dirigibles for cargo and travel will ever come back.. could you imagine if the skin of the dirigible was made of solar cells?.. it could provide its own power.
Posted by: | Apr 27, 2008 8:28:51 AM
I thought y'all WANTED mass transit?
All air activities, if I recall correctly, is represented by 12% of the Transport share of fossil fuels. With Ground Transport share set to collapse from 70% to less than half, in this time frame, there is plenty of room to encourage air mass transport.
Posted by: stas peterson | Apr 27, 2008 9:15:49 AM
The demand might grow by 100% but the increase of cost of fuel will of course result in much less increase of course.
First of all the share of oil for flight transportation is 6% not 12%, but Stan Peterson is not shy of false statements.
ground transport fossil fuel demand collapse by 70% ? dream on it, despite all the hype about Plug-in and Hydrogen, most of cars will still be powered by gazoline engine in 2026, efficiency will be better but as the number of vehicles will have also double worldwide, the demand of fossil fuel for ground transportation will still be higher than today. Electric and Plug-in will still be a small share of the fleet, the first plug-in will be on the market by 2011 at best and it will take 10 years to hit 5% of the market. It took 30 years in Europe for diesels to reach 50% of market share despite high gazoline prices and diesell fuel being 30% cheaper than gazoline at the pump, 10 years after their introduction, Hybrid cars are only 2% of the fleet despite 4 straight years of increase in the price of gas, biofuel might provide 10% of world gas consumption, 20% in US, that's it. PC where introduce in the early 80s, they only became widely used in late 90s. A car has a lifecyle of 15years so the transition can't be that fast especially in time where teh econmy might no do that well.
Posted by: Treehugger | Apr 27, 2008 9:46:04 AM
if we will get an average consumption of 75mpg
with 2 billion private vehicles on the road and 20.000km per year per vehicle,
we only need 20-25mio barrels of oil for them;
i don't think we will see more then 2 billion vehicles before 2100 ...
my next car will get 75mpg ( VW Up)
Posted by: itsme | Apr 27, 2008 10:07:43 AM
The future of aviation is in the long to medium haul runs. Right now there are lots of short hop flights that would not be needed if we implemented high speed rail. If you factor in the total time from doorway to doorway, the extra time spent on air travel can be offset by a fast train.
I think there is no question that bio diesel will be needed to keep airplanes flying because peak oil will drive that requirement. However, burning bio diesel will not reduce GHGs to any great extent. The nasty secret is really how much damage aircraft engines do to the atmosphere because they are so close to the upper layers. I like the idea of burning bio diesel and using a "helper" engine for takeoffs and landing combined with a cruise engine. On four engine aircraft, perhaps two of each would work. I'm sure there is a lot of work right now on trying to increase the efficiency of aircraft. I read recently about an airline that was reducing the engine power during flight and another that was cutting weight where possible. i.e., reducing the amount of drinking water on short flights. Some simple things can be done to help save fuel; how about not letting an airplane start its engines until it has ATC clearance and the taxiway is clear to the end of the runway so you don't have queueing of aircraft at the end of the runway. It seems to me it would be better to wait at the terminal without the engines running. Procedures like this should be looked at and changed to minimize engine run time.
Posted by: Lad | Apr 27, 2008 10:33:38 AM
At the current rate of fuel-price increases, the combination of rising expenses and falling demand will eliminate the big airliners like the A-380. Some of these may continue as freighters, but the remaining passenger load will be pushed toward smaller aircraft. This is where the Boeing Dreamliner will have a chance to shine, if anything survives.
When petroleum is over $300/bbl, any airliners in the design phase will look very retro. They will use a combination of ultra-light, ultra-slick composite design and construction techniques from high-performance sailplanes, and turboprop or aerodiesel engines for maximum thermal efficiency and high Froude efficiency. They will be smaller, fly slower, and have lift/drag ratios on the order of 50:1.
If an aircraft can achieve 150 passenger-miles per gallon, the fuel cost of a 3000 mile trip at $10/gallon is $300. This is within reason for many purposes, but it will be "back to the future" with the new "propjet set".
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 27, 2008 11:28:47 AM
Engineer-Poet.. how much slower for those planes?.. there is a point where high speed rail becomes practical.. and nothing is as efficient as that.
Posted by: Herm | Apr 27, 2008 11:40:06 AM
No doubt that using together propfan, carbon fiber, flying wings, and slower speed, consumption can be brought close to 150 MPG in a 25 period time frame.
for flight up to 1500 miles speed of 350 MPH are perfectly fine and still twice as fast as faster train.
Fast train are fine for reach of 700Miles.
But maybe we will rediscover the charm of sleeping wagon and save the hotel room spending.
Posted by: treehugger | Apr 27, 2008 11:54:37 AM
They sound like Winnebago's marketing dept. trying to stave off disaster in face of higher fuel cost.
Posted by: gary | Apr 27, 2008 12:37:43 PM
Think Zeppelin. They have a whole lott'a lift
Posted by: tonychill | Apr 27, 2008 1:21:51 PM
Herm: Given previous turboprop performance, I'm guessing around 300-350 knots cruising speed. The higher the cruising altitude, the closer to the top of that range.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 27, 2008 1:38:58 PM
Engineer-Poet
with Turbo-Prop, specific consumption doesn't depend on altitude contrary to jet-prop, but I agree on the 300-350knots. 2 years ago Easy-jet a low cost english airline proposed a aircraft archictecture that would cut cunsumption in half, their proposal was quite convincing
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/16/easyjet-ecojet-cuts-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-half/
Posted by: treehugger | Apr 27, 2008 2:06:34 PM
In the late fifties, I spent a little time at Lockheed as a Hamilton Standard fly test tech on the two prototype Electras. The plane was a pilot's dream to fly because of the response and didn't use as much fuel per engine as a jet; however, the larger prop-jets create great vibration forces and syncing the engines was always a problem. Indeed, history shows at least two major accidents were caused by wing failure caused by common mode wing vibrations. If you remember flying on planes with props, you will know that plane vibrations are very tiring. I think you could lose passengers unless you could make propjets as comfortable as today's jets. I still favor the ideas of lighter, more effecient aircraft burning bio fuel and only using as much power as you need to cruise safely and effeciently, even if it flys somewhat slower. No doubt the post oil era airplanes will be very innovative.
Posted by: Lad | Apr 27, 2008 2:29:36 PM
I agree that Asia will produce a lot of travelers as they become more prosperous.
In their newest models Boeing has bet on flying nonstop to more cities while Airbus bet on carrying the maximum number of passengers, but to fewer hubs. It will be interesting to see how higher fuel costs affect those strategies.
Certainly fuel per passenger mile is increasingly important but if you fly to a hub and from there you take a short flight to a smaller destination then you actually travel more distance plus you spend fuel for two climbs rather than one.
As crew labor costs become less important you would expect better service and amenities. But carrying every crew member consumes fuel. And every bottle, pillow, meal and liquid has a weight and does the same.
Posted by: K | Apr 27, 2008 3:44:58 PM
Treehugger: Looks like NASA's old propfan concept on a slightly innovative airframe, using the empennage to keep noise away from the ground. I'd love to read what the CFD guys have to say about it.
Lad: Synchrophasers are common items on modern light-twin aircraft. I doubt very much that they'd be forgotten on an updated propjet or hyperbar turbodiesel.
When you consider the low ambient temperatures at altitude, the consequent low compression work and the ability of a diesel to extract work from the pressure rise due to the confined combustion, thermal efficiency of a large aerodiesel would probably exceed 50%.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 27, 2008 3:45:37 PM
I thought about the idea of an aero diesel, asides of the NOx emissions which would be difficult to tackle the specific power even with 2 stroke or a turbo would be unsufficient for an aircraft. Turbo-prop can achieve compression ratio higher than 20 nowadays so the efficiency shoul be ok.
Lad, have you ever take a flight on ATR72 from airbus ? it is a fan prop and you would be surprised how low are the noise and the vibration compared to old fan prop aircarft like Fokker 27 or others. If the fan were placed on the tail it would be even better, not mentioning that composite made structure attenuate vibrations much more than metal sheet due to their inhomogeneous nature.
Posted by: treehugger | Apr 27, 2008 5:23:02 PM
%Engineer-Post:
Yes, I figure they would have markedly improve the sync capability of turbo-props by now; I think one of the last turbo prop projects I read about used multiple bladed props configured in an increasing sweep back design and claimed high efficiency. Of course as you might expect, large props were a real high maintenance item compared to the jet engine. I don't know if that has changed; I suspect it has as material science has progressed.
Posted by: Lad | Apr 27, 2008 5:36:18 PM
%Treehugger:
No! I quit flying prop-jets after we discovered that our proposed prototype Hamilton Standard props for the Electra were in danger of failure within 200 hours of flight time. The props were completely redesigned from being folded steel with a plastic filler to solid aluminium. I left the company for college before the props were certified and I understand that only one airline bought the new props...KLM. The rest of the airlines leased the jet engine and the associated Aero-Products props from Allison and GM. Needless to say HamStan lost bucks on that one!
As I recall, I think a future Jet-prop design I read about proposed just as you say a placement at the rear of the fuselage and your reasoning makes sense, As I recall one of the vibration problems with the four engine Electra was, as is any four engine prop plane for that matter, the competing tip air currents on each side of the plane; because as one prop blade was going up the other would be coming down at the intersections of number 1 and number 2 engines and again between number 3 and number 4. Adding to the problems, as I remember, was Lockheed manufactured the Electra's bottom wing section as one piece of extruded aluminum and might have built in too much flex in the process. After two planes broke up in flight, they beefed up the wings and up tilted the engine nacelles. I don't thank they made money on the commercial planes; but the Navy bought a bunch of the modified Electra know as "The Orion."
Posted by: | Apr 27, 2008 6:07:03 PM
I worked at Rohr near San Diego about 1957 when the Electra crashes started. We made the engine nacelles and that was where (or near)the problem was known to be.
My memory isn't all that good after fifty years, but as I recall the original engine mounting design was fine provided the plane hadn't made too many landings, especially rough landings. The mounting gradually weakened and that permitted destructive oscillation; the engine literally tore itself from the wing, or the wing from the plane, whichever ocurred first. Either had the same result.
In early photos you can see the engines were mounted well forward, more ahead of the wing rather than in the wing. It is easy to visualize the stress landing put on the mount (at least in retrospect it is easy).
The retrofit worked fine and the planes flew for years but sales stopped. The Navy version, the Orion, was used for decades.
Posted by: K | Apr 27, 2008 9:27:33 PM
@K:
Ah Yes! a men from my era recalling yesteryear.
It was sad to read of the accidents especially when we had been flight-testing them. They were a beautiful aircraft..every pilot I knew talked about how nicely they flew and how responsive they were... it had constant RPM jet engines with a power lever that controlled the fuel control and the pitch of the prop to bite more air to screw you through the air...fast...a very effective design and I know the Navy guys loved 'em.
Posted by: Lad | Apr 28, 2008 12:24:53 AM
Expect to see two things catalysed by this type of passenger volume and $200/barrel oil:
1) Massive deployment of new 350 mph MagLev train network throughout Europe and China.
2) Aviation fuel coming from algae becoming cheaper than petroleum-derived aviation fuel
Posted by: clett | Apr 28, 2008 3:01:00 AM
@Treehugger
for flight up to 1500 miles speed of 350 MPH are perfectly fine and still twice as fast as faster train.
Fast train are fine for reach of 700Miles.
You must not forget the overhead of air travel: getting to and from the airport, checking in, safety checks, boarding, taxying, holding patterns for congested air ports, etc.
My guess is that a fast train (TGV @ 350 km/h) offers a trip time over 1500 miles comparable to the 350 mph aeroplane you mention.
Europe is gradually expanding its high speed train network, thanks to the pioneering work of the French. This will decrease the demand for smaller planes. Because of the high population density and public resistance to expanding airports or building new ones, I think the European market for long distance travel will be divided between large jets and fast trains.
Posted by: Anne | Apr 28, 2008 4:51:14 AM
If oil hits $200/barrel we'll be seeing planes flying on coal (-derived liquids) or perhaps liquefied methane.
Posted by: Paul F. Dietz | Apr 28, 2008 5:54:14 AM
Anne:
I have to agree with you.
Very High Speed trains, on dedicated tracks, can be as fast (total trip time) as turbo-planes up to 1000 miles and even 1500 miles in certain special cases. Interconnections with existing urban and suburban trains-subways-buses is another advantage.
Secondly, electrified trains are much more efficient, up to 250-300 miles/passenger/gal equivalent. That's about twice as good as the very best turbo-prop on the design table.
Thirdly, VHS trains, with double dedicated tracks, can move more people without air traffic jams and associated risk, specially in bad weather.
But, Americans and Canadians were convinced to use their 200 million large vehicles and/or fly, even for only 300 miles. Will gas at $10/gal change our behavior? Maybe... but I think that the majority would still drive and fly, at least until a decent VHS train system exist. That is not for tomorrow. It could take up to 50 years and $500 to $1000 billion to build a comprehensive VHS electrified train system. Europe has been at it for 30 years and much more remains to be done. China is going at it much more agressively and may get it done much quicker.
Posted by: Harvey D | Apr 28, 2008 7:01:24 AM
Planes vs trains.
Please note: high speed trains run on electricity, not oil.
There are many ways of generating electricity without using oil - gas, coal, nukes + all the alternative approaches.
Note also, that as you crank the speed up, trains start to use a lot of energy - so you might not want to run them at 350 kph unless you have a lot of Nukes (France for instance).
But trains are much nicer to use and can go right to city centres. It is almost like everyone is in business class.
I suppose you start on the east coast of the US and see how it goes. LA / San Fran?
It will be a 30-50 year project as has been said.
For thinner routes, planes will be best.
Posted by: mahonj | Apr 28, 2008 8:04:26 AM
You have to build and maintain good tracks. After the 60s the tracks became so messed up in the U.S. Amtrak could not run anywhere hear the rated speed. Running freight on the tracks takes its toll and in the U.S. freight is where the money is.
With airlines, you do not have to build and maintain tracks. The government will help build the airports and runs the control system. Amtrak has always been a pain for Congress to deal with. Those are the realities, we may not like them but there they are.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 28, 2008 9:29:07 AM
@treehuger,
I should have checked, instead of going by memory, as I stated. Its marine that is 12% and aviation that is 6%. So doubling aviation's fossil requirement is more not an impossible goal. Thanks for the correction.
For those proponents of trains, aside from the Goode Olde Daze memories, it is very expensive to build, the NIMBYs won't give you clean new right of way, and is only valuable in short haul (a few hundred miles) use as in constricted and compact Europe. The old right of way has too many curves to really suport high speed passenger travel.
Finally, peopel abandoned train treavel for air and likely won't come back period. Despite nostalgia.
Rail Electrification is a function of distance and ohmic losses. Rail electrfication has proceed as much as is economical in the USA. The East Coast Bos-Wash corridor is heavily electrified, already.
Posted by: stas peterson | Apr 28, 2008 10:06:10 AM
Finally, peopel abandoned train treavel for air and likely won't come back period. Despite nostalgia.
I don't know about that. When I was in London a few years ago I took the Eurostar to Paris, and was very impressed. If it were reasonably competitive price- and time-wise with air travel, I'd very much consider taking the train here in the U.S.
I'm just one person, of course, but I doubt I am unique in that regard.
Posted by: Matthew | Apr 28, 2008 10:13:15 AM
Trains are fine for Europe where there is no such thing as a long distance. Canada is just too big for anything other than limited commuter rail.
Posted by: Neil | Apr 28, 2008 10:56:42 AM
1) Massive deployment of new 350 mph MagLev train network throughout Europe and China.
I have wondered why they do not levitate the train on a cushion of air and propel with linear magnetic force. It would seem to be more efficient. The levitation is to reduce friction and an air layer should do that. Sure you have pumping energy, but is that more than magnetically levitating tons of train? If you use turbines, you get the air pressure and electricity with combined cycle.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 28, 2008 11:23:06 AM
Stas,
Couldn't agree more with you. When you consider boarding times and delays (ever gotten stuck on the tarmac for 2+ hours waiting to take off?), I think there's a lot of room for quality high-speed train transportation. The Eurostar being the prime example.
Posted by: JimboWallace | Apr 28, 2008 1:18:10 PM
Quoth the Stanster:
Rail Electrification is a function of distance and ohmic losses[1]. Rail electrfication has proceed as much as is economical in the USA.[2]
- Long-distance electric transmission goes via high-voltage; feed to the catenaries is via local substation. Single HVDC lines can run almost 1300 miles.
- The economics depend on traffic volume, relative cost of electricity vs. diesel, and cost of property taxes on improvements. The former two are shifting toward electricity in a very big way, and look for the latter to be abated.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 28, 2008 9:52:32 PM
Quoth treehugger:
I thought about the idea of an aero diesel, asides of the NOx emissions which would be difficult to tackle the specific power even with 2 stroke or a turbo would be unsufficient for an aircraft. Turbo-prop can achieve compression ratio higher than 20 nowadays so the efficiency shoul be ok.The advantage of the piston engine is that it avoids the expansion of the charge during combustion, which allows an entropy increase. Instead, the combustion is closer to a constant-volume process during which pressure rises, and the increased pressure allows greater expansion ratios and higher thermal efficiency.
Specific power is not a big problem. With sufficiently high turbocharging pressure (preheating the charge), the compression ratio may be as low as 6:1 and still achieve good diesel ignition. A low compression ratio and high turbocharging pressure means a very high volumetric efficiency and high BMEP; 2-cycle operation helps too.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 28, 2008 9:58:15 PM
By 2026, I believe the era of "affordable air travel" for the middle class will be a thing of the past due to fuel costs.
There won't be much left of Airbus by then. Boeing will be struggling, but should do a little better due to the fact they gambled their capital on the plane that gets better mileage.
Posted by: lance sjogren | May 1, 2008 9:40:19 AM
Are you nuts?.. by 2026 the people of the world will be immensely richer.. and thus able to afford more air travel. Yes prices will be higher but I'm betting even more affordable by the middle class.
Posted by: Herm | May 3, 2008 5:22:05 AM
You think everything will be more affordable, Herm? Tell me, is spermaceti more affordable today than it was a century and a half ago? How about waterfront property? Beluga caviar?
The supply of some things is inherently limited by factors of nature. Airline travel depends on our ability to capture atmospheric carbon for fuel, and the atmosphere to deal with high-altitude injections of water and CO2. Unless air travel is converted to power from orbital microwave beams, we're going to have limits not far from where things are now.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 3, 2008 8:56:01 PM
even if they have to make the fuel from CO2 and nuclear power air travel will be more affordable. The day will come (and not too far off) that the only users of oil will be the airplane people and and antique car buffs.
The science on high altitude jets has not been settled..
Posted by: | May 5, 2008 5:38:53 AM
why more affordable?.. because in the long run the economy will grow faster that the cost of air travel.. we are turning into a rich world.
Posted by: Herm | May 5, 2008 5:41:01 AM
Speaking of Retro. Anyone remember the Napier Nomad?
Posted by: DS | May 5, 2008 2:53:30 PM
I was thinking of the Jumo, actually.
Blast it, Typepad is censoring my blog URL again.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | May 5, 2008 3:40:01 PM
TypePad is getting to be a pain in the behind lately. We have automated censorship for no apparent reason, but can not keep spammers and flamers off the site with a password/email system...go figure.
Posted by: sjc | May 6, 2008 11:48:12 AM
