Originally Posted by
misd-agin
That comment has also been stated in articles about the next narrow body design. For longer range flights the lighter weight, but more expensive construction method, is worth it. For shorter flights the cost/analysis is harder to justify.
As someone with no inside knowledge I'm a bit puzzled. I understood that the major fuel burn is during takeoff and climbing. I would have thought that, since your single-aisle plane flying multiple daily sectors spends much more time in this fuel-hungry phase, that the weight savings from composite construction would be even more important for these than for longhaul? How many years does it take for the cost of the fuel to exceed the original cost of the plane?