Must admit I much prefer this solution: WheelTug
"Taxibot" adds no weight, draws no power from the a/c, and requires no modifications. On the flip side, it will need to be connected and disconnected (which will not help to shorten turnaround time). I can see taxibot working for long-haul flights. "Wheeltug" on the other hand adds weight, and draws power from the a/c, but won't affect turnaround times (they claim turnaround times can even be shortened). I can see this working for short-haul aircraft that spend more time on the ground. Then there is also a third contender,
EGTS - electric taxiing system. Introducing the future of aircraft taxiing that plans to install electric motor in the main landing gear, from 2016 (honeywell is involved here), they don't target long-haul a/c
As others pointed out fuel savings are maybe not the biggest selling point here, there are other factors, reduced engine wear, less risk of foreign object damage, no hazardous engine blast, fewer emissions, ever shorter turnaround times, that may be just as important. Thinking about savings, pushback by truck costs anywhere from 100-250 usd in the US and Europe, up to 500 USD in some less efficient airports in Asia. Maybe there will also be fewer pushback tug accidents....they're also expensive
https://www.google.com.vn/search?q=p...ed=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
I see some new issues though, like....ground controllers will have to keep track of "taxibots" returning back to the terminals....