Yesterday’s launch of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner was a modest affair beside some of the more exuberant standards set by those magnificent men (and women) in their flying machines. However, the eco-credentials of the new aircraft, led by the boast that it uses a fifth less fuel than its forebears, guaranteed that the Dreamliner would arouse aerophiles and aerophobes alike.
Passengers will hope that the latest addition to the Boeing family salves the unwarranted guilt it is now fashionable to feel in departure lounges. Eco-warriors will use the launch to restate their shrill complaints about the damage done by aircraft to the upper atmosphere. Airlines, meanwhile, have new ammunition in the fight against the green lobby, which has done an effective, if unfair, job of loading blame for global warming on air travel. Airlines have greeted the Dreamliner, and its fuel-efficient characteristics, with enthusiasm. There are more than 500 on Boeing’s order book at present and the backlog is such that if you place an order today you will have to wait seven years for delivery.
The market is a powerful agent of change. The existence of the Dreamliner owes much to the early realisation by Boeing that it had to answer green questions. Rolls-Royce, the British engineer supplying engines to the Dreamliner, can also pat itself on the back. Its Trent 1000 turbine, which accounts for about a quarter of the cost of the £100 million plane, is integral. But financial considerations are at least as important as tackling questionable green issues. Since crude oil has tripled in price in the past five years, the cost implications will not be lost on industry executives.
Nonetheless, more will be done for the environment if airlines minimise the number of empty seats that they fly around the globe. It is equally important to ensure that planes do not fly unnecessary air miles. With more effective use of air traffic control technology planes could fly shorter routes and avoid the wasteful tedium of queues in stacks around airports such as Heathrow. On the ground, congestion at busy airports is another problem the Boeing plane should help to alleviate. The Dreamliner will fly relatively modest numbers of passengers directly to a destination. In contrast the rival Airbus A380, the so-called super-jumbo with 800 seats, compared with the Dreamliner’s 250, is predicated on an assumption that it makes more sense to fly larger planes from bigger hubs and leave passengers with an onward journey.
The surest route to efficiency is to allow market forces to operate in open and fair competition. Green goals will be scored by national governments, and supranational trade negotiators, that fight against those states that prop up failing flag carriers and other airlines. Climate change imperatives will also be well served by greater competition among aircraft manufacturers. Airbus is the only credible competitor to Boeing and the world may be too dependent on this duopoly. There is already a danger that self-satisfied talk of the gas-muzzling characteristics of Dreamliner will spill over into smugness. If we are to avoid the threat of rationing air travel, aero-engineering must continue to advance.
Advertisement
The Dreamliner may not deserve much more than a footnote in the history of aviation. Its appearance, however, bolsters confidence that the market can, and does, deliver good answers to troublesome questions.