Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Where do you see Commercial Aviation headed? >

Where do you see Commercial Aviation headed?

Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Where do you see Commercial Aviation headed?

Old 09-20-2009, 04:37 PM
  #1  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Kirok's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 13
Question Where do you see Commercial Aviation headed?

Hi folks,

Just a general opinion question, but where do you all see commercial aviation going in say… 5, maybe 15 years? For those of us who still believe there is money to be made in that sector of aviation (lol), I was just curious what others thought.

Specifically, my worry is the yo-yo’ing of fuel pricing and availability. Does anyone know of any new ventures RR or GE is heading towards perhaps natural gas or bio fuels for jet engines? I knew Continental had some successful tests with bio-fuels last year, but wasn’t sure if it was going to be implemented or not.

Have any carriers addressed this impending fuel issue yet?

Thanks for the feedback!

Kirok
Kirok is offline  
Old 09-20-2009, 06:08 PM
  #2  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Default

Air Force leads push to liquefied coal fuel
Squeezed by the soaring cost of oil-based jet fuel, the Air Force is converting its gas-guzzling fleet of aircraft to synthetic fuels and...

By Dave Montgomery

McClatchy Newspapers




RON JENKINS / MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS

With every $10 rise in the price of a barrel of oil costing the Air Force $600 million, the service is converting its entire 6,000-plane fleet to run on a synthetic fuel mixture. Tentative plans call for construction of a coal-to-liquid fuel plant at a Montana air base.
WASHINGTON — Squeezed by the soaring cost of oil-based jet fuel, the Air Force is converting its gas-guzzling fleet of aircraft to synthetic fuels and encouraging the creation of a liquefied coal industry that could tap the nation's vast coal reserves.

This could mean a lucrative new market for coal-producing states such as Wyoming, Kentucky, Montana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Texas and West Virginia. But advocates of liquefied coal face a counterattack from environmentalists in the debate over global warming and must prove that they can produce an ecologically friendly product with a low carbon footprint.

Air Force officials have been testing synthetic fuels based on coal or natural gas. They plan to certify the fleet of nearly 6,000 aircraft to fly on a 50-50 blend of synthetic fuel and traditional petroleum-based jet fuel by 2011.

Assistant Air Force Secretary Bill Anderson said the search for affordable, cleaner-burning alternative fuels was driven by economic and national-security concerns.

The Air Force wants to comply with President Bush's mandate to end America's dependence on foreign oil while escaping soaring fuel prices.

For the Air Force, which consumes more than half of all the fuel that the U.S. government uses, the cost of fueling fighters and transports is stratospheric. Every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the Air Force $600 million, Anderson said.

Last year, the Air Force spent $5.8 billion to buy 2.6 billion gallons of fuel. In 2003, the service spent about half that — $2.9 billion — to buy slightly more fuel, nearly 3 billion gallons.

The synthetic fuel is developed from a technology known as the Fischer-Tropsch process, which can convert coal, natural gas or biomass into clean-burning fuel stripped of impurities such as mercury, sulfur and carbon dioxide.

Most of the flight tests have used natural gas, but Air Force officials think their long-term energy strategy lies in liquefied coal, because the fossil fuel is so abundant in the United States.

The U.S. has 27 percent of the world's coal supply — 493 billion tons — and sometimes is referred to as "the Saudi Arabia of coal."

Despite its availability, however, coal seldom has been seriously considered as an alternative energy source because converting it to liquid is so expensive. But liquid coal is getting a fresh look as crude-oil prices soar past $100 a barrel.

While coal-to-liquid advocates say that the conversion process will result in an ecologically clean product, many environmental groups and their supporters in Congress think expanding the use of coal will worsen carbon emissions and global warming.



"I think across the board there is going to be opposition from the environmental movement," said John Topping, the president of the Climate Institute in Washington. "I'd say it's going to be almost universal because of the climate concerns."

The Air Force tentatively plans to lease underused property at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana for the construction of a coal-to-liquid fuel plant.

By partnering with private enterprise, Air Force officials hope to foster the development of subsequent plants, to create a full-fledged coal-to-liquid industry that could supply military and commercial aviation.

The Air Force's efforts have energized supporters on Capitol Hill, where coal-state lawmakers are pushing legislative initiatives to help promote liquefied-coal development.
--------------------------------------------------------------

This project is one of many to develop new fuel sources. Increased offshore drilling in the US is another possible development.

There is a zero chance of electric or natural gas aircraft in the near future. Higher oil prices tend to uncover more supply.
jungle is offline  
Old 09-21-2009, 06:41 AM
  #3  
Self Employed.
 
SkyHigh's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Corporate Pilot
Posts: 7,119
Default Future

In 20 years I don't think that it will be nearly as easy or affordable to fly due to the high fuel costs. The industry will go back to resembling itself from the 1960's and 70's. People will go back to riding trains, taking the bus or driving. Only the well off and some business people will be able to afford travel by air.

Skyhigh
SkyHigh is offline  
Old 09-21-2009, 04:41 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
OldSF3Dude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: O-2 pilot
Posts: 123
Default

I think that if you look at the trends a year or two ago, when fuel prices were going up, then you'll get some idea of what the future will look like. When the world comes out of this recession demand for oil will rise and fuel prices will shoot up again. Bio diesels and stuff will help somewhat as time goes by, but airlines and aircraft will have to become more efficient regardless.

Some trends I think you'll see-

Smaller aircraft and smaller airports will continue to become obsolete.

The 50 seat or less jet will become a dinasaur. Anything new less than around 100 seats will be a fuel efficient turbo-prop.

Metro areas with less than about 200,000 people won't be served by the airlines (unless it's essential air service).

On the plus side, gas will be very expensive so flying on longer routes will actually be a better deal than driving a car.
OldSF3Dude is offline  
Old 09-21-2009, 05:51 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Ziggy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: Sofa Stress Tester
Posts: 614
Default

Right now there's alot of skepticism on how aviation will fair in the the future. I tend to look at it as the glass half full. Sure petroleum will rise after the recession. But this is where I have faith in good old american know how. Soon some company or the current energy players will realize that a switch has to happen. Then it will be a scramble for coal, bio, and synthetic alike. After this I think fuel will cost around $3 per gallon (aviation and automobile, less tax).
Ziggy is offline  
Old 09-22-2009, 10:14 AM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD80
Posts: 1,111
Default

787,777,757,

E190,crj7/9,q5000.
AirWillie is offline  
Old 09-22-2009, 01:10 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
OldSF3Dude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: O-2 pilot
Posts: 123
Default

I think that average retail fuel prices will top $6 per gallon in the U.S. by 2011. If I were an average citizen I wouldn't be buying an SUV, and if I were an airline I wouldn't be buying any jets that a modern turbo-prop couldn't replace. So, I question if even buying 70 seat jets is a wise future investment? Maybe for very long routes, or, I suppose if it's operated in countries where fuel is cheap.
OldSF3Dude is offline  
Old 09-23-2009, 12:57 PM
  #8  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Kirok's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Posts: 13
Default

That’s some interesting opinions. Wow. Thanks for chiming in.

I was talking to a student at an aviation school last week, and I asked him if the school was touching on the future of aircraft engines and fuels. He said they weren’t, instead focusing on short term versus long term. I thought that was VERY interesting.

I think I’ll start digging around GE and RR’s sites and see what plans they have for new fuels for AC engines. I’m SURE there has to be something in development somewhere. I don’t see aviation regressing back to a particular point in history though. If we stick with today’s petroleum, yes, but not if the old saying is true… necessity is the mother of invention. I think whichever carrier can corner the market on a new cheap fuel (or patent the engine) will be very rich.

All I know is capacity is way down, but are the carriers switching back to 73’s or MD80’s now? I heard that you can buy a MD80 for around $4mil now.

Thanks for the input!
Kirok is offline  
Old 09-23-2009, 01:21 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
OldSF3Dude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: O-2 pilot
Posts: 123
Default

Well, I don't see airliners running on anything but diesel anytime soon. There are new ways to make diesel (friends of mine can make it out of paper mill waste), but getting it mass produced and marketed is a whole nother story. Last I heard another problem was that bio-diesel isn't suitable for very cold temperatures at altitude. Maybe that will change.

In any case, I think that eventually bio-diesel will be used more in cars and trucks, thus leaving more petroleum to be made into aviation diesel, but I have a hard time seeing it being enough to keep up with demand or enough to keep prices low. As things stand now I think bio-diesel could stabilize a price rise around $6 per gallon, however. That's my crystal ball best guess.
OldSF3Dude is offline  
Old 09-23-2009, 03:30 PM
  #10  
Moderator
 
Cubdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
Default

Biofuels and so forth are the topic of Future 737, a thread I started about a year ago to keep up with current news stories on the subject. I had noticed that every so many months someone raises a question of this sort on APC, and the answer is best addressed by referring to news clips.

There is a very nice set of cover-story articles on this also in this month's American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Aerospace America magazine. One article is on new military jet fuels and the other on new commercial jet fuels. The articles are in print (only), so I cannot copy and paste them like I usually do, and I am terrible at typing, but as I have time I will type and post them in the 737 thread.

Last edited by Cubdriver; 09-23-2009 at 03:40 PM.
Cubdriver is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
HectorD
Flight Schools and Training
21
03-21-2010 07:52 PM
ufgatorpilot
Hiring News
10
08-03-2009 02:01 PM
FlyHigh423
Hangar Talk
6
02-10-2009 10:31 AM
aileronjam
Hiring News
17
11-11-2008 09:27 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices