In Earth Sygns this edition the airline industry takes a huge step backward. United is ordering over 270 new jet aircraft from Boeing and Airbus, they are all using Aviation Fuel. The life span, in-flight life of a jet airliner in the 737 Max class is 40 – 60 years. This is a huge step backward for United, Boeing, and Airbus.
The order from United is for 38 Billion dollars, 100 airliners, from Boeing, of mostly Max fuselage types. 160 Airbus airliners of the A321 class fuselage. The engines will be a variety of manufacturers but will all run on standard aviation fuel. There will likely be 10 more Airbus fuselages built, not yet determined, but the order stands at 170.
To meet the growing demand and need for newer model aircraft, and for air safety, the order is right on time. But the turnaround time for manufacture has gone down from 6 months – 1 year, to 2 Months for a single 737, and 3 Months for a single A321. This accelerated timeline causes a great deal of concern. Not only does it offer the opportunity for errors especially in the onboard navigation systems in the 737, but it gives credence to a company desperate to get planes in the air, to defend against not initiating a new design, which might take as much as two years.
The new design for Airbus is an all-electric aircraft, already in production and testing with a smaller passenger load. This is an already approved fuselage with many hours in the air. You can not fly an aircraft without FAA or EU approval, so we see this constant backpedaling on climate as the thoughts race to getting planes in the air at accelerated rates.
The fallout from the manufacture of so many emissions heavy aircraft is that overall global temperature will rise, manufacture and refinement of Petrochemicals will not slow, even taking the train instead of short flights will falter under these conditions. Many manufacturers in the plastics and petrochemical sector take their cues from these giant companies, causing increased emissions, increased CO2 load, and unwillingness to address a reasonable and easy solution to building new aircraft. Many small companies will follow suit, considering United’s move as indicative of overreach on climate initiatives, by activists.
The Airbus design is already in the air, but it does not fuel from the big refineries, it fuels from other sources. If the Airbus design hadn’t been so easily applied to new large passenger load aircraft it would be so easy to see new designs with some higher fuel efficiencies as the best alternative. But that is not the case.
These designs by airbus and others are already in the air, in versions easily transformed into larger aircraft. The truth is, the designs utilize a more utility-conscious design, that may cost less, and be much more revenue efficient. Upfront costs will certainly be higher, but the back end stands to net these companies billions in reorders and retrofits for new electric standards, just as original Jets were retrofitted for advancements in better-refined fuels.
Boeing and Airbus have stated time and again how they are committed to net-zero emissions for 2050. Embracing good causes, pumping out functional designs for climate-friendly aircraft, then completely denying climate commitment by becoming manufacturers of aircraft completely devoid of climate readiness, is part of the embrace and deny marketing most corporate giants are plying the public with. Embrace a cause, then deny its very existence by ignoring it in practice.
