Well, you could propose that services like Manchester and Newcastle to London are substituted by electric/hydrogen turboprops when they become widely available (likely by 2030-2035), as an alternative to the route ban.
Yes, and this is something that could be coordinated by the government certainly.
Unfortunately even if connecting tickets were available, connecting trains still lose out on journey time. This would still be so if bags could be checked in and collected at Newcastle station with transfer between Kings Cross and Heathrow.
Fuel costs are not the largest operational cost for an airline, those costs are MRO for most operators. However fuel is a significant proportion of total operating costs. Jet fuel is not taxed in the U.K. and is typically much cheaper than car diesel at the pump.
But turboprops don't have the capacity as an A320. You'd have to run more flights which is a waste of slot capacity at Heathrow
Which rather puts into perspective how inefficient air travel is as a method of transportation!
Perhaps, but how efficient are electric aircraft when compared to their whittle powered counterparts? Im not talking direct battery to mechanical power when compared to conventional combustion engines, because there are direct efficiencies in electric vehicles there. However as I mentioned in my previous post, there will be weight penalties to aircraft which rely on batteries when compared to jet aircraft that shed weight by burning fuel. The batteries we currently have are probably not efficient enough relative to their size either, which would restrict useful loads. Not sure if you have the stats to hand but I would suggest that the energy required will be higher than the 15 million tonnes of Jet A1 for the same number of flights with the technology currently available and any further developments in battery technology in the near future.
I don’t know.
No I get your point, but how much capacity would we need to run uk aviation and any other things that need to be powered by sustainable energy sources? I suppose that as aircraft have large surface areas they are perfect for solar panels, plus of course during daylight they will always be in the sun when they’re at cruising altitude. Perhaps a mix or energy sources is plausible? I expect people much more clever than me have already investigated this concept in detail. The nuclear option would be the ideal solution if it weren’t so hazardous! Perhaps investment in that could in theory make it much safer to bring it to an acceptable level of risk.
But doesn't that run the risk of not having enough time to deal with the hard things?
I suggest that one can be dismissed pretty quickly. Even at 100% efficiency solar panels are limited by the available energy from solar radiation, about 1.4kW per square metre. Comparing the size of an aircraft to the power it needs to fly, that's basically negligible.
Do empty batteries burn as dramatically as full ones?
Or reduce capacity and whack up prices, with most passengers rerouted via through ticketing on the railway.
The battery fire might be harder to put out, but I think it would build up less quickly than a kerosene fire. This is more important for serious air crashes, where the priority is to get the people out, and everything else is pretty much written off even if some of it survives the fire.
I don’t know and don’t know. Spraying water on it is a very bad idea, but they don’t use water for aircraft fires either. I don’t know if the foam they use for aircraft fires is effective on lithium ion batteries too.
I’m not so sure I agree on this one, as the evidence more recently in the industry seems to be using smaller planes on a higher frequency. 747s and A380s are being retired in favour of 787s and A350s.
Long haul yes, more 787’s and 350’s as they are more efficient, can operate from smaller airports and ultimately carry less passengers. In the case of U.K.-US, the appetite to fly there appears to have waned somewhat in recent years. Not sure if that’s just consolidation to LHR but a number if US to U.K. routes have been canned - BHX no longer has a direct service to NYC for instance.
Perhaps for short hops - things like the Scottish Highlands and Islands that use the tiny BN Islander or Twotters. See also Scilly Skybus. But for larger capacity routes I just can’t imagine it to be more efficient. Longer range I just can’t see electric aircraft being viable at all with the current technology. I certainly cannot imagine an electric jet engine being viable at this time given the sheer amount of energy required when compared to fossil/bio fuel power plants.
My (uneducated) opinion is that it's not so much about mass as it is about range and speed.
I think the fact that Jet2, despite its experience over the last few years with the AirTanker A330s, has settled on the A321neo is quite telling. A big part of that will, no doubt, be airfield restrictions in Europe. You're not getting an A330 into a lot of the Greek islands, for instance, and even where the runway will accommodate the aircraft it's often the case that the terminal facilities won't.
I understand the A330 may be reappearing for some time to cone, though admittedly I’m not sure if it’s confirmed for next summer or not yet I’d need to check. Indeed they were looking at 767’s some years ago purely as a way of moving lots of people without having the pain of scheduling and acquiring lots of slots.
It may have the ineresting effect of bringing EasyJet, Ryanair and Wizz into direct competition with the Middle East low-cost carriers such as FlyDubai.
Slightly off topic perhaps, but you raise a good point about the South East airports. We see airports across the country, many crying out for more airlines services, claiming that they can relieve capacity on the congested airports in the South East. One which was doing so before it closed (and will no doubt do so again if it reopens) is DSA. However BHX also used that argument when they built their runway extension.
If they arent put out they are suppressed during rescue I think
