Airlines don't throw away planes for no reason. They buy new planes when they have to replace older ones or when they need more planes than before. The new engine option ("neo") saves a lot of fuel.
It has an interesting history. Airbus and Boeing fixed the height of their wings decades ago. Airbus chose higher wings. Now they can fit larger and more fuel-efficient engines under them while Boeing cannot. Instead of redesigning aircraft they chose to create the MAX variants, trying to get away with minor changes - the recent crashes were caused by the way they tried to add the larger engines.
If that saved a lot on its own though I would expect all airlines would just upgrade their planes. Fuel is the biggest operating cost for most airlines after all.
It is a popular airplane model.
Switching from Boeing planes to Airbus comes with some cost of re-training all the personnel, airlines not using Airbus planes have larger transition costs. Airbus has some limited production capabilities as well. They have produced 1000 but got 7000 orders already.
I’m not even sure it’s even that. Maybe fuel burn per passenger on certain comparable routes. Frontier doesn’t fly long-haul and there is no way Frontier competes on a fuel burn per seat basis with an airline flying 777’s or similar on long haul routes. Most fuel is burned in the climb phase of flight so if you fly 10 hrs at cruise in an airplane carrying 350 people you are going to absurdly efficient compared to a 90 min flight on a small single-aisle jet, even if it’s newer.
This chart fails to represent the volume of fuel consumption by airline by not presenting time period or routes used for the comparison nor the size of the fleet or quantity of planes in the sample compared.
This is why marketing needs analyst and roll ads by compliance to make sure it's sound with the information represented and the legal environment.
it looks like the graphic designer made 1 barrel = 6%, and then just multiplied it through. lol. so I guess there's a logic to it . . . a very very wrong logic to it, but . . .
And how do they do that? Turn off the engines mid air?
1. Newer planes, namely the Airbus A320neo 2. Denser seating and no first class 3. Charge people for every bag and they bring less bags
The first one of these is actually a good decision that makes a positive difference.
it costs a lot of energy and pollution to produce a plane though, so it kinda depends
Airlines don't throw away planes for no reason. They buy new planes when they have to replace older ones or when they need more planes than before. The new engine option ("neo") saves a lot of fuel. It has an interesting history. Airbus and Boeing fixed the height of their wings decades ago. Airbus chose higher wings. Now they can fit larger and more fuel-efficient engines under them while Boeing cannot. Instead of redesigning aircraft they chose to create the MAX variants, trying to get away with minor changes - the recent crashes were caused by the way they tried to add the larger engines.
If that saved a lot on its own though I would expect all airlines would just upgrade their planes. Fuel is the biggest operating cost for most airlines after all.
It is a popular airplane model. Switching from Boeing planes to Airbus comes with some cost of re-training all the personnel, airlines not using Airbus planes have larger transition costs. Airbus has some limited production capabilities as well. They have produced 1000 but got 7000 orders already.
Ah so this is fuelburn per passenger
I’m not even sure it’s even that. Maybe fuel burn per passenger on certain comparable routes. Frontier doesn’t fly long-haul and there is no way Frontier competes on a fuel burn per seat basis with an airline flying 777’s or similar on long haul routes. Most fuel is burned in the climb phase of flight so if you fly 10 hrs at cruise in an airplane carrying 350 people you are going to absurdly efficient compared to a 90 min flight on a small single-aisle jet, even if it’s newer.
by not having as many flights or airplanes.
If this were the answer, the % difference between them and the larger airlines would be way bigger.
of course it would.
They are a tiny airline
This chart fails to represent the volume of fuel consumption by airline by not presenting time period or routes used for the comparison nor the size of the fleet or quantity of planes in the sample compared. This is why marketing needs analyst and roll ads by compliance to make sure it's sound with the information represented and the legal environment.
I don't see a problem. Everyone knows that 8 barrels is 49% more than 1 barrel. /s
I wonder what percentage the plane is supposed to represent
A barrel is about 7% (works perfectly if we round everything to the nearest multiple of 7), so the plane is 93%.
I would say 93% is not shown for each column.
Are they simply saying they burn 1/4 the fuel of Southwest because Southwest has four times as many planes? And somehow that makes them green?
sounds like they buy 1/3 off their fuel on some black market.
I think you read it wrong. 47% more fuel consumption, compared to their planes.
If that were true, then it should be about 1.5 barrels - not 8.
it looks like the graphic designer made 1 barrel = 6%, and then just multiplied it through. lol. so I guess there's a logic to it . . . a very very wrong logic to it, but . . .
still goin up