Originally Posted by
AnFI
Bell, yes the stats are open to abuse, but one should try, feel free, go ahead, try and find neutral truth. Maybe twins do 4 times as many pax.hours, I don't know, i doubt it, but even then it doesn't seem like a good result does it? Worth the COSTs?
Now, I am no expert in aircraft economics but it does occur to me that what determines if a type is profitable or cost-effective to run, requires a few more variables than just the number of engines, and the associated capital and direct operational costs.
You can choose to ignore that regulators determine the minimum required for operations and that this has been done as a result of many hard lessons learned over decades.
There is only so much you can move with a single, to be cost-effective, how much and how fast you can transport something is of more importance to the cost equation.
Add to that the liability should something go wrong, and what another engine costs becomes unimportant.
Why do you think Boeing and Airbus aren't investing their money in single-engined airliners?
You continue to choose ridiculously over-simplified points to support an argument that is entirely non-sensical.
If you really want to save everyone some money, then perhaps you can also discuss how pointless certification and testing is. This really does cost people money, so let's get rid of that also, it's just unnecessary regulation if you ask me.
While you're at it, all this training that has to be done. What a waste of time and money, let's get rid of that as well.
We need more visionaries like you
