LeSabre74

Yes, this was in another thread, but doesn't it deserve its own? Are they serious?

"Looking to lose weight and save money – ‘polished’ look tested on B767. Air Canada is considering taking a new polished look to its B767s to further reduce weight from its fleet and offset record fuel prices. The Toronto Paint Shop is currently conducting tests by stripping primer and paint from FIN 613’s fuselage, which will then be polished and buffed to give its aluminum coating a shiny finish – the aircraft will keep its Air Canada logo and the new tail design. The removal of primer and paint reduces the aircraft’s weight by approximately 360 pounds, which translates into fuel savings of more than $24,000 per year for each aircraft. “Based on our evaluation of FIN 613 over the next few weeks, we’ll determine if we’ll proceed with other B767s,” said Jon Turner, Vice-President, Air Canada Maintenance. Watch for more details in the December issue of Horizons."

parnel

Why not? AA did that several years ago. And its only a trial. Multiply 24K per annum times 305 aircraft and it becomes real money if it does save as they think it will.

tcook052

IIRC, NW's new silver livery last year (?) was in part due to lower paintiing/repainting costs but has also added the more recent bonus of weight savings.

I the big picture, I could care little was paint scheme is used as I'm more interested in the interior not how asthetically pleasing the plane looks.

WR Cage

Couple of problems with this analysis.

1) The Airbus must be painted. AA paints their A300 a light grey to match the silver, but paint is paint. Therefore the potential savings are only related to the 767 fleet.
2) 24k is the savings but the company would have to account for the aircraft all ready painted with the "Breathmint" scheme. How much does a paint job cost? Apply the silverbullet to a 767 that was undergoing heavy maintenance and needed to be painted anyways will produce the full 24k savings. The Return on Investment will be a lot less if the aircraft does not require painting.
3) The fuel situation continues to get better in North America. The crack spread is reducing as the gulf comes back on line. Further the price of oil continues to drop. The 24k savings will diminsh as the price of fuel drops, the end result could be a neutral cost-benefit analysis.
4) At some point the airplanes have to be painted back for fleet uniformity purposes. This cost should be deducted from any anticipated savings.

Q Shoe Guy

Not to mention the forthcoming 787 fleet.........time to concentrate on the interiors and seating. NH recently installed new and lighter seats across it's domestic fleet , they saved space , and were able to add more seats!

Ken hAAmer

My understanding is that even AA's Boeing aircraft are "painted", albeit with a clear shellac or varnish. Apparently this is required to protect the base metal.

I seem to recall that their big preceived saving was in the ease of inspecting the metal for fatigue cracks and the like.

parnel

[QUOTE=YEG Guy]Couple of problems with this analysis.

I assume they are smart enough not to pull planes out of service for a paint removal job.

Not true; weight is weight and the less there is the more they save whether the price is $1 or 50 cents. The actual may be less if fuel is much lower but it "ain't" going to go so low as to offset the savings effort. That would kill half the tar sands projects now being planned around 45-50 dollar and up oil.


Who says? When pure cash is involved the cash will win with AC's current shareholders.

LeSabre74

Hmm, how about spending a whack of cash on a whole new livery just over a year ago as part of their ballyhooed "rebranding". It was a well know fact a year ago not painting planes saved fuel. But then of course we agree to disagree on AC's branding acumen. Then, as already pointed out, some of the planes are already repainted or delivered in the new livery and some new aircraft coming will not be able to go with the bare metal look. AC's already has a dog's breakfast of interiors, I guess they're shooting for that with exteriors as well.

Whay not just implement a weight surcharge if they're so concerned about it?

mtacchi

Interestingly, dark paints weugh more than light paints. Even painting a plane in plain white will be a savings over the breathmint blue.

WR Cage

True weight is weight, but the dollar amount per litre is fluctuating. The savings calculation is 2 part test.

1) Translate the weight savings into reduced fuel consumption.
2) multiply the fuel consumption savings by the price of gas per litre.

Therefore if the price per litre drops the savings drop at a consistent rate. I am willing to bet that $24k savings quote utilizes the highest price ACE has ever paid for a litre of gas, therefore the maximum savings are $24k. If the price of fuel per litre drops by 25% then the savings decrease to $18k.

At some point the fuel savings are not worth the cost of applying this interim paint job.

parnel

[QUOTE=YEG Guy]
I'm not saying the paint issue is a sure thing savings wise, but most companies budget at prices that are in forecasts from economists,etc. For instance Petero Canada has budgeted for oil at average prices of $54BBL next year. That's how its done.

why fly

Fat passengers pay more....... now that will save money!

flytor

Tango Diet fare class

SFO_FT

Seem to recall reading somewhere that white paint (when smoking was allowed onboard) made it easy for mechanincs to find the holes in the fuselage -- just look for the nicotine stains.

Q Shoe Guy

Here is an example of what the old AC in Polished Metal looked like...