Originally published at: easyJet, Schiphol Roll Out Eco-Friendly TaxiBot
The semi-robotic tractor aims to cut fuel consumption while taxiing.
Does the calculation include the cost to produce, transmit, and store the electricity in the batteries of the tug? If a grant is required to promote this Green New Scam nonsense, then you know it will fail when subsidies and government coercion are forced onto airlines, the costs of which will simply be passed on to passengers.
Something in the back of my mind tells me that something similar was tried at London Heathrow a few years ago. I recall that it was abandoned because it turned out that the noseleg wasn’t really designed for long distance towing and the extra maintenance costs (and aircraft downtime) involved more than offset the fuel savings. But maybe something has changed…
This can’t be a cost effective solution nor is it carbon neutral. I always thought an electric motor in the hub of a nose wheel would be a better solution. I don’t think any modern airlines have nose wheel brakes. The last plane I saw with nose brakes was a 727 for short runway Caribbean operations.
Carrying the weight of a heavy electric motor for the duration of the flight is not cost effective. Also, the nose-wheel doesn’t have adequate traction with the pavement due to weight distribution to propel the airplane efficiently or reliably.
What constitutes a successful trial run? Was there proper validation of the cost savings? (Not just fuel savings; overall cost savings).
What is required to make an A320NEO “compatible” with this tug? What powers this tug? How does it navigate? Is a human involved? What control does the pilot have/not have? Another useless media release that says nothing.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.