Airbus abandons 100% electric plane (or, why an all-electric commuter plane will never be a thing)

[Chom Noamsky]

Airbus killed its 100% electric project and will only be exploring
hybrid-electric propulsion systems from now on. Makes some sense, an
aircraft with electric motors powered by diesel generators could be more
economical than kerosene-powered turboprops.

Here's why a practical regional commuter aircraft will never be a thing.
According to Airbus, an electric regional commuter will require two
motors in the range of 20 megawatts each. Three hours of flying time at
full power would require 120MWh of battery capacity, which would yield
about 4 hours of flying time at a more realistic 75% avg power.

This is what a 20MW battery system currently looks like (the McHenry
Battery Storage Project... 20MW power, 7.865MWh capacity):

http://mms.businesswire.com/media/20160224006120/en/511093/5/DJI_0096.jpg

An electric regional commuter would require the equivalent of about 15
McHenry battery storage systems! All compacted small enough to fit in a
commuter aircraft with enough useful space left over for passengers.

Everybody who follows this newsgroup will be long dead before they ever
fly on an all-electric commuter airliner, plus their children,
grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.

http://www.capital.fr/bourse/actualites/airbus-abandonne-son-projet-strategique-d-avion-100-electrique-e-fan-1217709

[7]

Solid state batteries just around the corner with 4x density.

The beauty of electric motor plane is there is only two bearings
to go wrong with a motor while a jet engine has thousands of parts,
expensive to make heat and pressures and mechanical stresses are huge.
The electric plane will win in the end because the entire fuselage
can be the battery while that is not an option for kerosene.

> http://www.capital.fr/bourse/actualites/airbus-abandonne-son-projet-strategique-d-avion-100-electrique-e-fan-1217709

[george152]

On 4/16/2017 10:22 AM, 7 wrote:

> Solid state batteries just around the corner with 4x density.

Nope.
Were that possible it would have been done.
Rest of the nonsense deleted

[7]

george152 wrote:


>> Solid state batteries just around the corner with 4x density.
> Nope.
> Were that possible it would have been done.
> Rest of the nonsense deleted

Troll!!

Dyson has just bought up solid state battery company
and building a $2 billion solid state battery plant.


Read the original post troll and weep if you must:

Solid state batteries just around the corner with 4x density.

[george152]

So where is all this 'solid state' battery technology?
Doesn't feature as an actual technology in any technical manuals..

[Chom Noamsky]

Electric motors would be a big mechanical improvement over turbofans and
turboprops, but 4x improvement in energy density isn't anywhere near
enough. The improvement needs to be on the order of 25x before electric
aircraft become practical.

>
>> http://www.capital.fr/bourse/actualites/airbus-abandonne-son-projet-strategique-d-avion-100-electrique-e-fan-1217709
>

[$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO]

How much EU tax-payer money did they waste on that?

[7]

Its a commercial secret with $2 billion riding on it.
(Probably more than that by now if its been licensed.)

[7]

There needs to be improvement, no question of that, but the entire
fuselage can be battery instead of just the wings carrying kerosene.

This is the point of electric aircraft.

And if its solid state, its robust and not flammable.

So 25x size of kerosene compartment is feasible particularly
with 3D printed aircraft coming on stream.

Its cheaper to 3D build and stronger, therefore lighter.
And it can be titanium which is even more lighter.

Scaling up isn't a problem either - aircraft can double in size
overnight without even blinking if its laser 3D printed.

The patents have all run out.

Anyone can do it now. And electric motors don't care about size.
Its still 2 bearings when the motor is scaled up.

To make titanium powder is so easy - just melt and spay it into
a stream of inert argon gas (argon is 1% of atmosphere - plenty)
and remelt and redo all the big bits.

>>> http://www.capital.fr/bourse/actualites/airbus-abandonne-son-projet-strategique-d-avion-100-electrique-e-fan-1217709
>>

[Chom Noamsky]

Maximum theoretical specific energy (MTSE) of Lithium is roughly about
500Wh/kg. That's not including the casing, cell interconnects, etc.

So for just the battery-grade Lithium alone, you're looking at 240,000
kilograms. Easily multiply that by about 33% for casing, interconnects, etc.

That's 320,000kg, or about the maximum take off weight of a 747-100.

The primary constraint isn't the volume of the battery, but the weight.

[7]

The calculations for battery planes hardly work like that.
The flight time is anything between 30 minutes to 4 hours
for practical machines. So range is the problem and that
is what is always being extended with advances in batteries
and to some extent aircraft materials and designs.
But range achievable now not a real problem for short haul flights today
with all the advances that have taken place to date.

[Chom Noamsky]

The calcs work exactly like that. Every unit of energy an aircraft
carries has a unit of weight associated with it. Even if you could find
25x more space to put batteries, you're still dealing with 25x more weight.

[Bret Cahill]

> > But range achievable now not a real problem for short haul flights today
> > with all the advances that have taken place to date.

> The calcs work exactly like that. Every unit of energy an aircraft
> carries has a unit of weight associated with it. Even if you could find
> 25x more space to put batteries, you're still dealing with 25x more weight.

Over 60% of the cost of 50 passenger-km/l wide-body-high-altitude-state-of-the-art-12:1-bypass ratio turbofan air travel is for av-jet. (Even when you book 4 weeks in advance the airline is making > 300% profit.) Fuel costs jump to well over 80% when oil prices are high enough for tar gooper welfare queens to get off the gummint teat.

Fuel costs are even higher for low altitude turbo prop hopper planes.

[$27 TRILLION to pay for Kyoto]

Kerosine is light, batteries, even lithium, are heavy.

[Chom Noamsky]

Compared to...

[R Kym Horsell]

I love it when the drongos prove with mathematical certainty that
flying is just not possible.

Tsk tsk tsk. Like its ground hugging counterpart, seems the electric
aircraft already holds the climb record for any aircraft.

--
Roughly speaking, an [jet] engine can cost anything from $12-35 million dollars.
[You get about 8W/dollar].

Siemens has developed a new type of electric motor that, with a weight of
just 50 kilograms, delivers a continuous output of about 260 kilowatts -
5x more than comparable drive systems.
[Around 26W/dollar].

Electric motor sets two speed records
Munich, Apr 04, 2017
Extra 330LE electric plane - powered by a Siemens motor - sets another
world record
Top speed above 340 km/h in straight flight
World's first aerotow with an electric plane
On Thursday, March 23, 2017, the Extra 330LE aerobatic plane, powered by a
propulsion system from Siemens, set two new speed records. At the Dinslaken
Schwarze Heide airfield in Germany, the electric aircraft reached a top
speed of around 337.50 kilometers per hour (km/h) over a distance of three
kilometers.

Electric motor from Siemens sets new world climb record
Munich, Dec 07, 2016
Extra 330LE electric plane sets world record
New climb performance record: altitude of 3,000 meters in just 4 min 22 sec
World air sports federation FAI confirms world record
On Friday, November 25, 2016, the Extra 330LE aerobatic aircraft powered by
a drive system from Siemens set a new world record for time to climb. At the
Dinslaken Schwarze Heide airfield in Germany, the electric-powered plane
reached an altitude of 3,000 meters in just four minutes and 22 seconds - a
climb velocity of 11.5 meters per second.

[7]

For drones you are talking about? For gliding bodies, the
relationship is not linear - hence the need to focus on range
rather than batteries and weight.

[Chom Noamsky]

The thrust-to-weight ratio is the metric that determines the performance
of an aircraft. If the fuel load is replaced with an equivalent weight
of batteries, and electric motors produce the same amount of thrust as
turboprop engines do, that means you end up with about 1/25th as much
energy onboard.

It's actually even worse than that because the thrust-to-weight ratio of
a conventional fuel plane improves as fuel is burned off.

[Bret Cahill]

The Boeing 777 has a range of 15,000 km using liquid fossil fuel so using your own 25:1 figger -- we'll ignore the fact that yer 25:1 figger is getting more inflated every day --, a lectric version of the 777 would go 600 km on batteries before the range extender kicks on.

The target distance of the electric hopper was LAX to SFO or 600 km.

[R Kym Horsell]

Bret Cahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 10:50:13 AM UTC-7, Kim D'Oh D'Oh Dobranski wrote:
...

>> turboprop engines do, that means you end up with about 1/25th as much
>> energy onboard.
> The Boeing 777 has a range of 15,000 km using liquid fossil fuel so using your own 25:1 figger -- we'll ignore the fact that yer 25:1 figger is getting more inflated every day --, a lectric version of the 777 would go 600 km on batteries before the range extender kicks on.
> The target distance of the electric hopper was LAX to SFO or 600 km.

LOL. Good catch.

--
[After being corrected on his thread "Another disappointing weather disaster?"
in which he propagated the lieblog claim the death toll from Yolanda
was 4 (apparently based on line 1 of the google search the moment the storm
crossed the Phil coast) :]

[W]hy do you people desperately crave as much death, destruction, and misery as possible?
-- Eric Copyright aka Schild aka Muskrat, 12 Nov 2012

[Chom Noamsky]

>>>>>>> fuselage can be battery instead of just the wings carrying kerosene..

Burn rate for takeoff and climb is roughly double that for cruise, so
now yer range is down to about 400km. Still need enough reserve to get
to your alternate airport (you don't get to magically add "range
extenders" without adding weight). Plus no airline would use a 777-size
aircraft for short hauls, typically airlines use something like a Q400
with a range of about 2000km. 2000/25 = 80km, just enough to get
airborn and glide back to the same runway for a deadstick! Could
revolutionize the world of same-airport travel, just arrive at a
different terminal and you could pretend yer going on an exotic vacation!

[Bret Cahill]

> >> The thrust-to-weight ratio is the metric that determines the performance
> >> of an aircraft. If the fuel load is replaced with an equivalent weight
> >> of batteries, and electric motors produce the same amount of thrust as
> >> turboprop engines do, that means you end up with about 1/25th as much
> >> energy onboard.

> > The Boeing 777 has a range of 15,000 km using liquid fossil fuel so using your own 25:1 figger -- we'll ignore the fact that yer 25:1 figger is getting more inflated every day --, a lectric version of the 777 would go 600 km on batteries before the range extender kicks on.
> >
> > The target distance of the electric hopper was LAX to SFO or 600 km.
>
> Burn rate for takeoff and climb is roughly double that for cruise,

Depends on the altitude of the cruise.

> so
> now yer range is down to about 400km.

Here's a line to post the calculations for your "400 km" figger:

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

<CIA>

> Still need enough reserve to get
> to your alternate airport (you don't get to magically add "range
> extenders" without adding weight).

Still need some _numbers_ to show why Boeing screwed up supportin' something that cannot work. Mebbe Boeing engineers can't do a spreadsheet or sumthin.

The emotiveness of luddite denier weenies wetting their panties at the mention of mega amp circuits does _not_ count.

> Plus no airline would use a 777-size
> aircraft for short hauls,

That's why Boeing is backing lectric start ups instead putting lectric motors on 777s.

Anyway sumthin' happened to yer energy density talking point.

What was that sumthin'?

<CIA>

> typically airlines use something like a Q400
> with a range of about 2000km.

Luddites think lectrik commuter aircraft will be the same as "typical" carbon fuel aircraft? (The answer to that is "Yes, by def'n. If technology always stayed the same then no R & D would be necessary, a luddite fantasy!")

All yer hopes for a future in tar goop are predicated on Goodenough lying about his Na battery having 3X the energy density of his Li-Ion battery.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> turboprop engines do, that means you end up with about 1/25th as much
> >> energy onboard.
> > The Boeing 777 has a range of 15,000 km using liquid fossil fuel so using your own 25:1 figger -- we'll ignore the fact that yer 25:1 figger is getting more inflated every day --, a lectric version of the 777 would go 600 km on batteries before the range extender kicks on.
> > The target distance of the electric hopper was LAX to SFO or 600 km.
>
> LOL. Good catch.

One might think deniers would do the most basic preliminary calculation on energy density v range requirements before claiming that energy density was a reason to ignore all the money wasted on carbon fuel.

But one would be wrong.

[Bret Cahill]

> Airbus killed its 100% electric project and will only be exploring
> hybrid-electric propulsion systems from now on.

The hybrid electric Prius turned tar goop into Ottawa's biggest welfare queen.

Hybrid-electric aircraft just makes things look even worse for tar goop.

And we haven't even gotten to Goodenough's Na battery, 3X more energy than Li-Ion.

[george152]

On 4/17/2017 6:05 PM, R Kym Horsell wrote:
> Bret Cahill <bretc...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> But range achievable now not a real problem for short haul flights today
>>>> with all the advances that have taken place to date.
>>> The calcs work exactly like that. Every unit of energy an aircraft
>>> carries has a unit of weight associated with it. Even if you could find
>>> 25x more space to put batteries, you're still dealing with 25x more weight.
>> Over 60% of the cost of 50 passenger-km/l wide-body-high-altitude-state-of-the-art-12:1-bypass ratio turbofan air travel is for av-jet. (Even when you book 4 weeks in advance the airline is making > 300% profit.) Fuel costs jump to well over 80% when oil prices are high enough for tar gooper welfare queens to get off the gummint teat.
>> Fuel costs are even higher for low altitude turbo prop hopper planes.
>
> I love it when the drongos prove with mathematical certainty that
> flying is just not possible.
>
> Tsk tsk tsk. Like its ground hugging counterpart, seems the electric
> aircraft already holds the climb record for any aircraft.
>

No.
You want climb 'records' then its jet fighters...

[george152]

On 4/18/2017 7:11 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:

> Burn rate for takeoff and climb is roughly double that for cruise, so
> now yer range is down to about 400km. Still need enough reserve to get
> to your alternate airport (you don't get to magically add "range
> extenders" without adding weight). Plus no airline would use a 777-size
> aircraft for short hauls, typically airlines use something like a Q400
> with a range of about 2000km. 2000/25 = 80km, just enough to get
> airborn and glide back to the same runway for a deadstick! Could
> revolutionize the world of same-airport travel, just arrive at a
> different terminal and you could pretend yer going on an exotic vacation!
>

:)

[7]

Which is more than enough for commercial short haul.
This technology like all others before it will start life in short haul.

[Byker]

"Chom Noamsky" wrote in message news:od33ra$v25$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> Plus no airline would use a 777-size aircraft for short hauls

Shortest scheduled flight for A380 = 238 miles (Emirates)

There are quite a few carriers that use widebodies for short hops:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-of-the-shortest-passenger-flights-operated-by-widebody-aircraft

I guess they just pass the extra costs, especially tire replacement, on to
the passengers...

[Byker]

"Chom Noamsky" wrote in message news:od33ra$v25$1...@dont-email.me...

> 2000/25 = 80km, just enough to get airborne and glide back to the same
> runway for a deadstick!

With "reserves" you could fly from SNA to LAX (36 mi.) as a "feeder line",
heh, heh...

[Bret Cahill]

> >>> The thrust-to-weight ratio is the metric that determines the performance
> >>> of an aircraft. If the fuel load is replaced with an equivalent weight
> >>> of batteries, and electric motors produce the same amount of thrust as
> >>> turboprop engines do, that means you end up with about 1/25th as much
> >>> energy onboard.
> >>
> >>
> >> The Boeing 777 has a range of 15,000 km using liquid fossil fuel so using
> >> your own 25:1 figger -- we'll ignore the fact that yer 25:1 figger is
> >> getting more inflated every day --, a lectric version of the 777 would go
> >> 600 km on batteries before the range extender kicks on.
> >>
> >> The target distance of the electric hopper was LAX to SFO or 600 km.
> >
> > Burn rate for takeoff and climb is roughly double that for cruise, so
> > now yer range is down to about 400km.
>
> Which is more than enough for commercial short haul.

Many 300 km hopper passengers are paying $100 just to avoid driving 100 km on the 405 or 105 - 91 to get to LAX.

It's pure profit w/o the cost of kerosene, gasoline, diesel or whatever them Bombardiers burn.




Bret Cahill

[Bret Cahill]

> > >> The thrust-to-weight ratio is the metric that determines the performance
> > >> of an aircraft. If the fuel load is replaced with an equivalent weight
> > >> of batteries, and electric motors produce the same amount of thrust as
> > >> turboprop engines do, that means you end up with about 1/25th as much
> > >> energy onboard.
>
> > > The Boeing 777 has a range of 15,000 km using liquid fossil fuel so using your own 25:1 figger -- we'll ignore the fact that yer 25:1 figger is getting more inflated every day --, a lectric version of the 777 would go 600 km on batteries before the range extender kicks on.
> > >
> > > The target distance of the electric hopper was LAX to SFO or 600 km.
> >
> > Burn rate for takeoff and climb is roughly double that for cruise,
>
> Depends on the altitude of the cruise.
>
> > so
> > now yer range is down to about 400km.
>
> Here's a line to post the calculations for your "400 km" figger:
>
> _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> <CIA>

<CAP>

> > Still need enough reserve to get
> > to your alternate airport (you don't get to magically add "range
> > extenders" without adding weight).
>
> Still need some _numbers_ to show why Boeing screwed up supportin' something that cannot work. Mebbe Boeing engineers can't do a spreadsheet or sumthin.

<crickets>

> The emotiveness of luddite denier weenies wetting their panties at the mention of mega amp circuits does _not_ count.

> > Plus no airline would use a 777-size
> > aircraft for short hauls,

> That's why Boeing is backing lectric start ups instead putting lectric motors on 777s.

> Anyway sumthin' happened to yer energy density talking point.

> What was that sumthin'?

> <CIA>

<CAP>

> > typically airlines use something like a Q400
> > with a range of about 2000km.

> Luddites think lectrik commuter aircraft will be the same as "typical" carbon fuel aircraft? (The answer to that is "Yes, by def'n. If technology always stayed the same then no R & D would be necessary, a luddite fantasy!")

> All yer hopes for a future in tar goop are predicated on Goodenough lying about his Na battery having 3X the energy density of his Li-Ion battery.

<crickets>

[Chom Noamsky]

It will only start life if it makes economic sense, airlines don't go
into business to lose money. Airframe roughly the same cost to build,
less for the motors, much much more for the battery systems. So you end
up with a plane that has greater cap-ex but *might* have lower op-ex,
the tradeoff being much shorter range, almost a token. For airport
ground support to charge multiple battery planes at the same time would
require multi-gigawatts of utility service and fast charging batteries
if the aircraft were to have any kind of useful turn-around time.

[mako...@yahoo.com]

One of my favorite little facts....
The equivalent power flow through an ordinary everyday
Gas station hose, is multiple MegaWatts.
M

[george152]

On 4/19/2017 2:23 AM, Chom Noamsky wrote:

> It will only start life if it makes economic sense, airlines don't go
> into business to lose money. Airframe roughly the same cost to build,
> less for the motors, much much more for the battery systems. So you end
> up with a plane that has greater cap-ex but *might* have lower op-ex,
> the tradeoff being much shorter range, almost a token. For airport
> ground support to charge multiple battery planes at the same time would
> require multi-gigawatts of utility service and fast charging batteries
> if the aircraft were to have any kind of useful turn-around time.

Good points
Which is why airlines will continue with liquid fuels and turbines.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

overbooking problems would seem to be a hint the current business model has problems

[Chom Noamsky]

Electric planes can't be overbooked?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

so short haul runs for commercial purposes are on the edge of losing money and need to be overbooked, this is due to the cost of fuel, which is why the airlines are trying to pursue an alternative to jet fuel correct?

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets in advance>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

so yer blaming overbooking on electric aircraft this is funny, come back when you are ready to address the problems with the current business model

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets as predicted>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

chomper cant explain why the industry needs to overbook, yet a passenger is dragged off of an airline and the subsequent damage control was to send out the ceo

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets as predicted>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

The ceo stuck his foot in his mouth, then had to do more damage control as the industry knows its on thin ice with how its treating customers because fuel costs are expensive.

Overbooking is a partial result of the costs for fuel, the industry is working on moving towards electric aircraft as a means to save fuel costs.



> <crickets as predicted>

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets as predicted>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 12:53:14 PM UTC-7, Chom Noamsky wrote:""

the airlines overbook because of fuel prices, you are an idiot

[Bret Cahill]

> the airlines overbook because of fuel prices, you are an idiot

And the problem only gets worse when oil prices rise enough to make the tar goop welfare queen profitable.

The driver in all the technology, high bypass engines as well as electric motors and over booking algorithms, is airlines just don't want to waste 80% of their money on carbon fuel.

Why can't deniers understand this simple fact?


Bret Cahill

[Chom Noamsky]

On 4/19/2017 4:29 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 12:53:14 PM UTC-7, Chom Noamsky wrote:""
>
> the airlines overbook because of fuel prices, you are an idiot

Poor accident is having a mental melty, apparently isn't aware that jet
fuel spot prices are currently half of what they were in 2013 (a year
very profitable for airlines in the U.S.).

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=eer_epjk_pf4_rgc_dpg&f=m

accident's crackpot argument refuted (you're welcome, accident).

The real reason why airlines overbook.

***

Why do airlines overbook flights?

A portion of airfares sold on a flight come with the option to switch
flights or cancel with little or no penalty. These are often purchased
by business travellers that require flexibility to change their plans or
by consumers when the lowest fares are sold out. There are usually a
portion of travellers that do not show up for their flights, either
because they simply miss it or because their ticket can be applied to
another flight or refunded altogether.

Since the airline can lose revenue on these seats, they purposely
overbook flights based on prior statistics of the “no-show factor” also
called yield management, with the intent that they’ll actually fill the
aircraft with 100% occupancy.

http://www.tripcentral.ca/blog/overbooking-why-do-airlines-overbook-flights/

***

Now, what makes you think electric airplanes can't be overbooked?

<crickets in advance>

[Chom Noamsky]

Are you claiming electric airplanes can't be overbooked?

<crickets predicted in advance>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 5:54:14 PM UTC-7, Chom Noamsky wrote:" Since the airline can lose revenue on these seats"

the reason the margins are so close, and seats are so tightly packed is to squeeze in more fairs per flight to ensure fuel costs are distributed to more customers. they over book to ensure no loss at the expense of the customers, LAUGHING cue chompers meltdown.

[george152]

As the only 'electric aircraft' currently in existence is at best a 2
seater overbooking would be very easy

[Bret Cahill]

> > the airlines overbook because of fuel prices, you are an idiot

> And the problem only gets worse when oil prices rise enough to make the tar goop welfare queen profitable.

<crickets>

> The driver in all the technology, high bypass engines as well as electric motors and over booking algorithms, is airlines just don't want to waste 80% of their money on carbon fuel.

<crickets>

> Why can't deniers understand this simple fact?

<crickets>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

The push for an electric aircraft is driven by fuel costs, the tight margins you cited as a reason for overbooking are a clear demonstration of why overbooking is a problem and how its related to fuel costs.

[Bret Cahill]

> >> the airlines overbook because of fuel prices, you are an idiot
> >
> > And the problem only gets worse when oil prices rise enough to make the tar goop welfare queen profitable.
> >
> > The driver in all the technology, high bypass engines as well as electric motors and over booking algorithms, is airlines just don't want to waste 80% of their money on carbon fuel.
> >
> > Why can't deniers understand this simple fact?
>
> Are you claiming electric airplanes can't be overbooked?

Don't get upset just because the over booking problem gets worse when oil prices rise enough to make the tar goop welfare queen profitable.

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

chompers tries to blame overbooking on electric aircraft then runs and hides

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

This past week a ceo of an airline had to make appearances to do damage control from what .... OVERBOOKING .... and chompers blames electric aircraft further showing he cant deal with reality

> <crickets>

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 2:04:43 PM UTC-7, Chom Noamsky wrote:

overbooking is way to blame customers for the tight margins for the business model, the cost of fuel is a major problem

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets>

[Bret Cahill]

> > chompers tries to blame overbooking on electric aircraft then runs and hides

Why did you try to blame overbooking on electric aircraft?

<CIA>

[R Kym Horsell]

He thought it would fly?

--
[Project much? Chapter 101]

Scapegoating is just a natural human defence mechanism for monumental failure.
-- Chumpski, 28 Feb 2015

The IPCC rapes science in order to justify a political agenda, it has
done more damage to the reputation and credibility of science than
anything else.
-- Chumpski, 1 Apr 2015

[anything to do with Al Gore]

[anything to do with greenies]

[Bret Cahill]

> > > chompers tries to blame overbooking on electric aircraft then runs and hides
>
> Why did you try to blame overbooking on electric aircraft?
>
> <CIA>

<CAP> crickets as perdicted

[Wally W.]

So you can't hear Kymmies replies over the crickets, either?

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 7:15:48 AM UTC-7, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> <crickets>

you still have to explain why you think electric aircraft are to blame for overbooking?

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets>

[Bret Cahill]

Why did you try to blame overbooking on electric aircraft?

<CIA>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

still no explanation from chom as to why he thinks electric aircraft are the reason airlines overbook flights

[Chom Noamsky]

<crickets>

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

Overbooking is done by the airlines to cover the cost of fuel, recent headlines show how the airlines take for granted how they can blame customers.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 2:53:47 PM UTC-7, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> <crickets>

An airline recently posted they would (( ** REDUCE ** )) overbooking, seems like an addiction they cant stop if they did the numbers would show it.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 12:53:14 PM UTC-7, Chom Noamsky wrote:
> Airbus killed its 100% electric project and will only be exploring
> hybrid-electric propulsion systems from now on. Makes some sense, an
> aircraft with electric motors powered by diesel generators could be more
> economical than kerosene-powered turboprops.
>
> Here's why a practical regional commuter aircraft will never be a thing.
> According to Airbus, an electric regional commuter will require two
> motors in the range of 20 megawatts each. Three hours of flying time at
> full power would require 120MWh of battery capacity, which would yield
> about 4 hours of flying time at a more realistic 75% avg power.
>
> This is what a 20MW battery system currently looks like (the McHenry
> Battery Storage Project... 20MW power, 7.865MWh capacity):
>
> http://mms.businesswire.com/media/20160224006120/en/511093/5/DJI_0096.jpg
>
> An electric regional commuter would require the equivalent of about 15
> McHenry battery storage systems! All compacted small enough to fit in a
> commuter aircraft with enough useful space left over for passengers.
>
> Everybody who follows this newsgroup will be long dead before they ever
> fly on an all-electric commuter airliner, plus their children,
> grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc.
>
> http://www.capital.fr/bourse/actualites/airbus-abandonne-son-projet-strategique-d-avion-100-electrique-e-fan-1217709

Over booking is a pathetic practice by the airlines meant to cover costs, they pack em in like sardines to cover the costs of fuel

[Chom Noamsky]

Overbooking is done because people want flexible tickets in order to fly
when they want to. Greenie loons should be huge fans of overbooking
because full planes mean the least amount of emissions for the most
amount of passenger miles served.

[mako...@yahoo.com]

>
> Over booking is a pathetic practice by the airlines meant to cover costs, they pack em in like sardines to cover the costs of fuel

so if fuel were free, there would be no reason to overbook?

wrong.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

**** (BS) ****

[Chom Noamsky]

http://www.tripcentral.ca/blog/overbooking-why-do-airlines-overbook-flights/

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

public relations from a travel agency?

do ya think they would make the airlines look bad by describing how bad the airlines business model really is, how close margins are when fuel prices are high, and why they pack customers in like sardines?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/10/travel/passenger-removed-united-flight-trnd/index.html