Over the last few months, it has begun to appear that the era of cheap
oil might finally be over. I'm wondering what the implications of this
might be for Boeing and Airbus. Might some time be well spent
developing even more fuel efficient airplanes?
Boeing's 787 is probably about as miserly a plane that you can make and
have it still meet noise regs and fly faster than Mach .75. It appears
that they have left no stone unturned in the pursuit of efficiency --
the 787 is as radical a departure from the previous airplane design
paradigm as was the 707 or the 747. It's still not clear to me that
the composite fuselage bet is going to pay off, it's a huge gamble.
But, the 787 was designed a couple of years ago, when oil was
$15/barrel or so. It's a lot more expensive now, and shows no signs of
abating. Airline ticket prices are going to have to go up quite a bit.
Just as an example, for the quarter just ended, America West's
percentage of expenses that were fuel went from 18% a year ago to 22.5%
now, as the fuel price went from $1.05 to $1.42/gallon. If it goes up
to $3.50/gallon, not out of the question by any means, then fuel costs
will be more like 45% of their expenses. It makes sense to look at
substantially more efficient airplanes.
Boeing experimented with advanced turboprot designs from Allison and GE
back in the early-to-mid 80's, with their proposed 7J7. Recall that
when that plane was first mooted, oil prices peaked at $90/barrel in
today's dollars (measuring inflation over 25 years is not an exact
science, needless to say, but $90/barrel is probably as good an
estimate as any.) As oil prices eased, Boeing killed the 7J7.
The big problem with the 7J7 was noise -- two rows of contrarotating
blades hanging out in the breeze are going to make a lot of noise.
This was a problem not just in the area surrounding the air****t, but
for people inside the plane and even people under planes at cruise (as
the planes reached high mach numbers in cruise, the noise levels went
up tremendously.) I don't think that there's been anything done in the
last 20 years that will make the engines much quieter.
One possibility is to fly slower. As I understand it (but would love
to be corrected if I'm wrong!) if you are going to fly at .75 Mach you
are going to need to have contrarotating propellers or the losses due
to swirl are going to devastate the efficiency of the engines. But, if
you're flying only .6 Mach, say, perhaps a larger, slower
single-rotating prop would work well.
Now, slow planes are historically anathema to the airline industry.
Faster planes carry more people-miles per hour, and the only reason
people fly is for the speed. If the planes were slow, then rail or
even driving become competitive. But, we note that Boeing has seen the
writing on the wall by shelving the Sonic Cruiser -- a cool plane, but
one that just doesn't make sense as fuel becomes more dear.
I'm just wondering if the big airframe manufacturers are seriously
considering what very high fuel prices might mean over the next 20
years. After all, they only make profits on planes if they sell well
over an extended period of time. One would think that Boeing and
Airbus would be hedging their bets to some extent, with advanced but
hyper-efficient turboprop concepts ready to be brought into service
quickly if necessary.
More expensive fuel is going to happen. As China and India modernize,
they are going to develop insatiable appetites for deisel fuel, and the
oil producers and refiners are already stretched to the limit. How
will we adapt?
Thad Beier
|
