Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
You know when it comes to the ratios, I could understand 1.0 or a 1.5 or 1.75 or 2.0... but 1.56?
That's where I worry that the ratio is designed to achieve DCI 450 x 1.56 = whatever that is, which is probably where we are now.
Outside of DCI 0, I'd rather keep the current 255/3:1 PWA language and add in a ratio based on the number of mainline aircraft seating 150 or less. Such that if a GTF ever makes its way down to the 50 seaters they'll hit a ratio limit that protects mainline aircraft from the very aircraft that threaten them the most.
I am more than willing to call their bluff on future GTF 50 seaters. Even if someone invests the R&D on them, the capex for those POS's will still be through the roof relative to the amount of revenue they can generate. The fuel savings won't be that great either based on current economies of scale in the 10-15% (even 20%) range over existing technology. Those are very generous numbers anyway since the efficiency really only amortizes itself over larger economies of scale (larger AC). So even at 15-20% less fuel burn (which is a very, very generous estimate) far more expensive 50 seaters would be a really pee poor investment and I challenge them to repeat the same multibillion dollar hemorrhaging mistakes of the Fred Reid era bonus mongers. They won't do it. Hey batter batter batter batter, swing! Let's dare them to do it, even if it becomes a real plane, which it won't.