|
|
|
|
|
|
by gambiting
3379 days ago
|
|
|
On the other hand, the majority of the cost of almost any flight is the fuel. Electricity won't be free, but should be considerably less than tonnes of kerosene(I'd love to hear how much less exactly) - which means that obviously airlines can pocket the difference as profit, and they do love that. There's already loads of short connections in EU, so an aircraft like that should be hugely attractive. |
|
|
Air travel is intensely competitive in most areas, and customers generally have very little "brand loyalty" and buy almost entirely based on price. The difference in expenses should result in lower fares.
And it is yet unknown whether the extra cost of flying tons of batteries around (they weigh the same when depleted, as opposed to jet fueled aircraft which become lighter as they use up fuel), and the extra cost of those batteries, and maintenance/replacement of them, will net out to be significantly cheaper than using conventional jet fuel.