Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
Flying commercial flights is similar to taking a bus in the air. Hopefully most Americans can fly private within the next 30 years. Cheap energy is the unlock! Letβs have an exciting future!
Ben π‘οΈ
@0xbenersing.eth
@saymore How is energy the main cost driver of flying private?
Author Reply β
Farcaster Comments
Jordan Kutzer
@jk
I just flew private for the first time yesterday. I hope you are right!
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
Yeah. Flying commercial sucks
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
But better than not flying
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
Main cost
CBobRobison
@cr
What service did you use to book?
Q
@qsteak
What do you mean by private? Like I hire a plane and a pilot, or use a champagne at the door service? Sorry to say you may be out of touch with βmostβ.
If you mean less people, quicker flights, more direct flights? Itβs around the corner. Check out Archer Aviation. Will still be commercial baggage and security.
Ben
@0xbenersing.eth
Then I presume you're not talking about owning oneβs own private aircraft?
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
That would be even better
Renjith Nair
@rn
Not just energy FAA need to be revamped . New planes (even props ) are very expensive. Very little new tech in the space ( excluding battery VTOL) . To make private flying better private ownership
Should better as well .
Naomi
@sea-is-medicine
Amen!!! Letβs Go βοΈπ
dcposch.eth
@dcposch.eth
Energy costs are a small part of the cost of flying private
Mass production and automated flight are the unlock. Under heavy development at least for short distance flights; eVTOL looks amazing
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
Automated flight is a big one but should be solved pretty fast. Mass production is not necessary but could be another unlock
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
Energy prices are the big unlock even for eVTOL. J Storrs hall talks about it here starting at 22m
Colin Johnson
@cojo.eth
@survey have you ever flown private?
Surveycaster
@survey
π³οΈ This cast has been tagged as a potential weekly survey! If viable, it will be voted on this Sunday, then launched on Monday. Follow me to see the results.
Want to help decide? Come vote with us:
Roberto
@cosmic-thinker
Nothing beats general aviation
Daikie
@daikie
Flight is heavily subsidized.
Pound for pound traveling by bus is way more efficient
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Or maybe fly better carriers? The experience varies tremendously, esp. if youβre a frequent flyer with lounge & early boarding privileges. The experience is pretty good with the ME3, SQ, etc. And Iβm not even talking flying business or first, which can be amazing (I remember my first shower on board the A380!).
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Subsidized how? I mean I have my own opinion as to how itβs subsidized, but Iβm not sure itβs what you have in mind.
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Planes are expensive even in countries outside of the FAAβs reach β do you mean that the airworthiness certification standards are too high (and thus expensive) and should be lowered?
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Really? Itβs loud, slow, fuel inefficient, the range sucks, and itβs not any more comfortable than the first or business class that it generally competes with. The only upside I can think of is the convenience of choosing your departure time β but even that is subject to slots depending on the airport.
Daikie
@daikie
It's not just an opinion
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Right. US airports are (mostly) public utilities, so they are funded by the municipalities or states. Airlines do pay to use them (passenger and landing charges). So airports are not subsidized - they are publicly-funded infrastructure, whose usage then actually gets charged to users. #1
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Jet fuel is a better example, though itβs only an indirect subsidy and only to the extent that some places donβt tax it the way they do tax other petroleum derivatives. #2
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
My own bigger picture take is that aviation is subsidized in the sense that only 10β15% of all humans fly, but 100% of humanity bears the cost of its negative externalities, in the form of GHG emissions and contrails (to which the sector contributes about ~3β4%). #3
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
If we were to factor those externalities back into the price of air tickets, it would be a $150β200 surcharge per ton of CO2.
That to me is the most important subsidy β weβre essentially asking all non-fliers and their children (as well as ours) to subsidize our tickets. #4
Daikie
@daikie
That's right, it's rather strange we emburse flying while simultaneously claiming we gotta get carbon down
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
The embrace is not universal though. The βflight shamingβ movement is very strong in northern Europe, and gaining strength in continental Europe. Itβs still fairly inexistent in Asia. Not sure about the Americas
Roberto
@cosmic-thinker
You are correct, but everything in aviation is a trade off. I miss my Commander.
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Were you front seats or back? I used to fly the more humble C172S
Q
@qsteak
It is not uncommon to see $600 for a single fastener. Iβve designed 18β long hoses that cost $27k. You canβt just pull over if something breaks.
From a consumer perspective there will be no more innovation in airplanes. Innovation in the aircraft industry is saving weight, cost, and fuel. Wait for grav-lift.
John
@silentjohn.eth
The largest manufacturer of airliners is literally called Airbus.
I want supersonic underground rail lines. Or teleportation...where we at with that?
Renjith Nair
@rn
Itβs the weight of US market . Largest market for private planes will influence how this is made inside or outside FAA jurisdiction . I am not saying water down safety standards but allow for meaningful innovation.
Renjith Nair
@rn
I would also be curious to know how much US sourced parts are used in Aircraftβs built outside US .
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Having worked extensively with aircraft OEMs, including in Europe with a European set of tier-1 suppliers, I can attest that itβs an incredibly risk-adverse industry. Weβre still using designs and machined parts conceived in the 1960s because βit worksβ and βitβs safeβ. Collective inertia for sure
Roberto
@cosmic-thinker
Definitely back seat, too complex for me. My old pilot now flys Hawkers
Q
@qsteak
Be interested to know how much of that is driven by policy? Ex: you disconnect the sky bridge and switch to engine power ASAP because the union says they need to start the pilot clock. If they stayed hooked up until it was actually time to depart, you could rely on more efficient energy from the ground source.
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
In this particular example: negligible. The US (where this union consideration exists) is only ~10% of all airline flights. Non-flight ops (incl. parking/taxiing) is less than 10% of emissions. And staying on ground power could maybe save 10% of pre-departure fuel burn. So, probably on the ROM of 0.1%, give or take. #1
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Additionally, electric taxiing is already being deployed gradually, so even if disconnected from ground power, the aircraft soon wonβt need its engines to taxi (only the APU for onboard power). #2
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
The big ticket item remains sustainable fuel (SAF) adoption (~66% of CO2 savings), followed by technology (more fuel-efficient engines), followed by ops (e.g., continuous descent, contrail avoidance). #3
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
The core of the problem is that SAF is still 4β5 times more expensive than Jet Aβ1 due to lack of economies of scale, and passengers donβt want to pay extra, even those who claim to care about the environment. Itβs essentially a chicken and egg problem right now. #4
Q
@qsteak
I think Honda Jet?? had a prototype using a biofuel. But 100% on peoples resolve withering in face of an increased fare.
If there were a trustless, verifiable way to buy ACTUAL CO2 offsets, Iβd be more inclined.
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Technically, we could replace 50% of all Jet Aβ1 in turbofan engines with SAF right away, and most likely go to 80β100% very quickly. But production costs wonβt come down until airlines commit to forward contracts. Even when we offer pax to pay a surcharge to top up their own flight with SAF, they are unwilling.
Q
@qsteak
Issues with recertification of all systems for a new fluid susceptibility requirement?
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
Not an issue. Itβs still a highly distilled hydrocarbon fuel. Just the feedstocks are different. Itβs been trialed up to 100% on regular, unmodified turbofan engines in actual demonstration flights. Thereβs a question around whether it requires a different maintenance regime, e.g. cleaning and servicing toβ¦
Thomas D. Pellegrin
@aviationdoctor.eth
β¦ maintain the economic life of the engine. But the technical path to certification is short and trivial in comparison to the massive economic / supply & demand conundrum. Some estimate that by 2050, SAF could still be 2x the price of Jet Aβ1, and 2050 is the latest year to achieve industry-wide net zero emissions.
Devin Elliot
@notdevin.eth
If I remember correctly isopropyl butyrate can meet the specs of Jet A or might have been JP-8, and you can get it from blueberries or anaerobes
Giuliano Giacaglia
@giu
Take a look at this: