Rather then converting older airframes into something modern, why not design something that flies faster? At the end of the day, that’s what we we all want.
How did engineers go from designing aircraft with higher speeds like a 727 M80-84 to the current dawdling along .76-77 on CI of nearly nought 737/A320’s?
Surely the technology can design something to fly 0.86-0.88 with ease. Costs a little more but it evens out.
Example, say. 800nm average trip. One at 440kt, burn around 2000kg/hr
Next a new design, some quick calculations on my receipt of booze from the bottle shop, few more degrees swept wing, throw a stability thingy here for...er...stability, a small adjustment in rudder design etc, few more horses in engine power and we have a high cruise Mach. Say 480kt now tas,
Save some minutes in flying, but burns more. My calculations after a red wine or two, it will burn only 40kg more since it’s shorter time in the air.
Divide by 150 pax, based on a couple bucks a kg fuel, and you only need to put the ticket price up 50 cents each. A smart operated though adds another $1, 50 cents to off set the higher price he bought aircraft at, and the other 50 cents I’d all profit. He makes 75 bucks again on one flight. That’s pretty good. Couple bottles of red right there.
i can see the day coming hopefully when we get a choice in the back as to the cost index flown.
“good morning ladies and gentleman, this is your captain speaking. Welcome aboard flight 246 to sunny Mallorca. Today’s route takes us down through......and as you are aware we have a new feature. You the passengers choose the arrival and fuel burn. Choices today are :
1. Cost index 0. Lowest fuel burn great for carbon emissions. Arrival into Mallorca, 15:15
2. Cost index 150. High fuel burn, more emissions, but we arrive 15 mins earlier, so for those wanting to check into their hotels and get to the beautiful Majorca beaches earlier, please select option 2.”
I mean, seriously, who’s selecting option 1?