I see you posted this article so you could add a thoughtful comment. To paraphrase your own post: Why even post, why not just insert inane comment. Bonus, less wasted time for fellow freepers.
They’d still manage to lose luggage.
Is there added labor time for making flights longer?
This scares me. I can understand and agree with the idea of adding 10 minutes to a flight to save fuel, but letting bean counters tell professional pilots how to land a plane has high risk of disaster. Pilots will be too busy looking at the fuel gage to pay attention to landing the plane safely.
I fly from Portland, Or to Houston via MSP every few weeks. I know when we are about 60-65 minutes away from landing when the engines are cut back and we start slowly descending. Descents used to start about 30 minutes out.
This was an interesting article.
If fuel priced keep increasing, we will slow way down, turboprops will make a comeback.
FAA can adjust airlanes and flight plans decreasing air miles.
FAA could allow varying altitude to take advantage of prevailing winds.
Lets all just drive 55, turn our thermostats down and wear sweaters.
I think Fred Flintstone & Barney Rubble tried this. Everything was fine until they looked down.
Its not so much the time at altitude that causes the large fuel burns. Its the time in the traffic patterns at large airports which can begin 100 or 200 miles or more out as aircraft are sequenced for arrivals behind much slower or smaller capacity planes. Often you are slowed to a minimum speed just so you won’t overrun a slower turboprop or recip also due to arrive at the airport at the same time. The controllers do not want to set up holding patterns as that requires more paperwork reporting etc. Not to mention the extra work of monitoring the patterns and dealing with the aircraft that have fuel reserve problems. The airlines tried this kind of foolishness 20 years ago. It was a failure then too. Believe it or not, this is why you may sit on the ground in perfectly clear weather waiting for take off clearance to your destination city 1000 miles away. Sequencing!
A B-52 pilot told me that when he was running low on fuel he would leave the formation by accelerating to a higher altitude to stretch the range. Commerical flights, of course, are told what altitude they must use.
To really save fuel, don’t fly at all. Think of how many business people fly to meet face to face. With all the available technology for remote conferencing, it’s amazing how few businesses take advantage of it. Perhaps someday in the future we’ll ‘plug in’ to an avatar half way around the world and be wherever we need to be instantly.
Believe it or not, they would also get some increase in fuel economy if they would wash the planes on a regular basis.
The average weight of the paint on the average airliner is 400 lbs., at least when I went to aviation school. Reduce the paint and polish the surfaces and you would get a pretty good return on investment. Then work on further reducing weight of the aircraft.
Slowing down will slightly increase maintenance costs because many parts, including engines, are maintained on the basis of operating hours and thus if they operate for longer periods doing the same work, more maintenance costs.
One of the simplest ways would be to reduce the baggage brought on board by passengers. These days, the smart travelers send their baggage by FedEx or UPS to their hotels and save hours of waiting and have very little risk of losing a bag. The length of time it takes to board and debark these days is ridiculous because of people taking everything they own and trying to stash it in an overhead compartment.