I think the idea is to burn everyone else's oil, then start in ernest to extract all available reserves in our domain while we then begin to develope alternative energy sources and acheive world domination.

Why burn ours while we can still burn theirs?

 

And as I've said before, we currently pay about 16 cents per cup of oil...is there anything in this world that we pay so little for? How much was your last cup @ Starbucks? Oil will continue to get more expensive, barring a major worldwide depression, and most people will continue to pay for it...at least those who can afford it. Face it: you need that cup of gas more than the coffee, that's for sure.

I don't think the oil companies are to blame. They're involved in the most lucrative industry the world has seen, largely due to the world's addiction to oil. If you don't want them making big profits, stop buying their products...easier said than done, though, virtually everything we use today is a product of petroleum.

What I think is most interesting is what do oil companies know about oil production? If you were running Exxon/BP/Shell and knew that production had peaked, would you build more refineries? Of course not. Peak oil means that tomorrow you will not be able to produce as much oil as you did today. What I find most interesting in all of this is our involvement in Iraq and the involvement of Halliburton in Iraq. Dick Cheney back in 1999 was a proponent of Peak Oil theory. One of the greatest threats right now to our country and way of life is a full-scale war in the middle east. We are so incredibly dependent upon their oil right now...our involvement in Iraq, as bizarre as it may seem, may be a way of protecting valuable oil resources...in other words, it's probably a resource war.

 

Duke,
Since it seems like you know a bit about this topic, I wanted to ask you a question.

I agree with you about peak oil. My question to you is what should we do about it? We need to get energy from somewhere? Do we suck it up and pay $250/barrel for oil (or however high it gets), or do we use an alternative?

 

Bingo.

Large oil is also very much into other energy alternates. When you are buying an electric vehicle in the future, chances are that large oil companies will be involved in the production of electrical energy. The balance will shift away from carbon based fuels as technology and the economy permit. Not when we stamp our feet and proclaim it must be so.

 

How's this? The higher price of oil, the better off large aircraft operators will be. High fuel prices make RJs less efficient. High fuel prices make hedging less a competitive edge. (unless the hedge managers really bet well). Higher price fuel will get passed on to the consumer but there will be less seats in the air. It's a win win. Everybody makes money.

It could happen.

 

That is a great idea when you can fill a 737. What happens when demand falls because of the coming, or maybe it is here, recession? After 9/11 it was more profitable to fly a full RJ than a half-full 737 and that is after the pilots took it in the shorts on concessions. There is more to picking the right airplane than just fuel costs per mile. Although I agree that the 50 seat RJ's time is limited.

 

737-700 pax 137 .79 cruise 4200 pph
c200 pax 50 .74 cruise 2900 pph

 

One of the world's largest producers of PhotoVoltaic (PV) cells is BP Solar... as in British Petroleum.

 

A lot of talk of supply and demand. I see the correlation to inflation and profit margin but WHAT ABOUT PRODUCTION COSTS? Cost is typically what drives pricing. So is it accepted that the oil rigs cost twice as much to pump money out of the ground as several years ago?

 

By those numbers, the 737-700 with 137 seats burns 30.66 pph/seat, while the CRJ-200 burns 58 pph/seat.

The "break-even" point between the CRJ and the 737 with 137 pax is 95 passengers.

If you can get ~70% load factor on the 737 with 137 seats, you are doing better in the "pounds per hour per passenger" ratio than the CRJ-200. Of course that discounts total revenue brought in, as well as acquisition, crew, and maintenance costs between the types, and actual fuel burn based on stage lengths.

My point? Numbers are easily manipulated to suit your agenda, and there is MUCH more to consider when deciding what fleet type to put into what market other than simply the hourly fuel burns. If a market will support narrowbodies and they are available for that route by all means use them, but lets not start thinking about flying RJs between cities where you'll only have 40-50 average passengers simply because of the per-seat fuel burns.