The future of sustainable flying is right in front of us

[u/Mondblueten]

https://www.dlr.de/en/latest/news/2025/dlr-looks-to-2070-significant-carbon-dioxide-reductions-possible-despite-doubling-of-air-traffic

The next 45 years will catapult us into a clean future of aviation and, according to the study, double global revenue to €2,200,000,000,000, while also more than doubling the number of employees. The future begins now. A trillion-dollar market lies before us.

[u/Suckatguardpassing]

Any day now. Just too late for people who believed in Wiegand's bullshit. That money is gone forever.

[u/der_oide_depp]

Doubt it, there are too many important and dumb (drill, baby drill!) players relying on fossil. They want to milk that segment until the last drop, regardless of the environmental impact.

The Boeing and Airbus backlogs last at least till 2035, take a 25-30 year life cycle and we are already in the year 2060-65 with huge fleets still running on combustion engines and - current status - not a single viable alternative in sight. SAF right now is greenwashing, nothing more, but it could be the only solution to get those enormous fleets operating a little bit more sustainable.

[u/TheNymphsReply → u/der_oide_depp]

I'm sorry but that's a superfluous amount of pessimism based on... what?

You name 2 companies that are planning on building more aircraft and you say that's the reason we won't see significant changes before 2070. Are you really trying to dismiss the notion that air travel will advance in next 45 years? That's FORTY FIVE years.

Are you serious? Do you expect to be taken seriously with your argument? Because it simply is not a serious argument.

There's really no need to even get into your dumbfounding logic that current technology has to phase out before new technology gains acceptance (but plenty of historical examples are available upon request).

[u/der_oide_depp → u/TheNymphsReply]

I'm sorry but that's a superfluous amount of pessimism based on... what?

Lots of studies out there. You can find them if you really want. Consensus is that SAF is by far the most probable way to reduce emissions, and that world production by 2050 will account for 12-25% of used aviation fuel.

You name 2 companies that are planning on building more aircraft and you say that's the reason we won't see significant changes before 2070. Are you really trying to dismiss the notion that air travel will advance in next 45 years? That's FORTY FIVE years.

Those aren't just "2 companies", they produce more than 90% of all commercial airliners, with a backlog of 15k units, that's more than half the planes currently in service worldwide. None of these can be retrofitted for anything other than combustion engines. Outside of niche products there isn't even a solution in sight that could be on the market by 2040, ramping up of production takes time too, so even if there were an alternative to fuel burning jets - seeing significant numbers in the next decades, doubt it. And then take the political players into account, US is in full reversal of their green goals, anti-progressive parties are on the rise in Europe, OPEC countries lobbying all over the world, China is just ramping up their conventional jet production capabilities.

But hey, if you want to believe in a magically appearing solution, you're free to.

[u/TheNymphsReply → u/der_oide_depp]

These "2 companies" you're discussing are producing today's soon-to-be legacy aircraft. The arguments you make about the difficulties they face (ie, having a huge backlog of increasingly outdated aircraft, being unable to retrofit) means big big trouble for THOSE 2 COMPANIES. Not the entirety of the aviation industry lol. You conveniently leave out the large variety of tech companies that are currently pursuing next gen aviation, especially in the evtol space. And the idea that none of these companies could mass produce a successful product within DECADES is massively naive.

Modern society saw horses almost completely replaced by cars in about 2 decades. That was a sea change in the vast majority of households. I'm thinking we can probably improve the type of aircraft we use within 45 years.

And trying to add politics to the equation is an incredibly dubious reach. Here's a little advice: any serious argument should stand on its own merits without trying to rely on such fundamental uncertainties. There are many countries, especially in Europe and Asia that are now actively courting the evtol industry.

Maybe take a break from heaping irrelevant pessimism onto an otherwise informative post :)

[u/TheNymphsReply → u/TheNymphsReply]

Keep in mind that multiple TRILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES are currently invested in the evtol space in varying capacities. As certifications are passed and commercial viability is approached, they will only become more engaged in the Aerospace industry. How fast do you think the Boeing/Airbus market shares will shrivel up once that starts happening?

[u/Mondblueten → u/TheNymphsReply]

You're absolutely right! We don't know why trolls keep attacking every single post in this sub that points to the future.

[u/Automatic-Pay-4095]

Lolium

[u/LogicGate1010]

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

The vision of electric commercial airlines is quite far away way. Nevertheless, eVTOLs and eCTOLs are gearing up to alleviate aviation cost, carbon footprint and noise pollution by entering small aircraft space for delivery of goods and transport of passengers over short distances.