Back to Squawk list
  • 20

Electric Taxiing Motors Could Save Airlines Millions Of Dollars

Mexican airline Interjet has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Honeywell and Safran, developers of the Electric Green Taxiing System (EGTS), to become the first airline in the Americas to use the system which will save airlines up to $450,000 per plane, per year once it comes to market. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ToddBaldwin3 4
I seem to recall reading a couple of years ago that El Al was already using a similar system.
Everybody here has some GREAT points about this product. Yes it will save money, be safer, let the engines run idle, etc. No, this may not work in all WX, it's not a good idea to takeoff with a cold engine, etc. But it would be worth a shot to use it on smaller planes at first.
steve rogers 2
i think its a win win , even if they started the engines half way to the runway it would still save money , they would remain in idle and be able to monitor the engine for problems before takeoff , I have to admit, it sounds strange to start a jet engine from cold and take off 30 seconds later
Roger Hallett 0
Yes - save money and pollution/noise around airports. And it's not a good idea to start *any* engine and use under full load if it is cold - even your car (unless it is electric).
1mach 1
Didn't VS / VIR / Virgin Atlantic Airways use a wheel tug a few years ago?
Chris B 1
Todd: Think that was Wheeltug.
ToddBaldwin3 2
Thanks. I knew I had read about it somewhere. I just didn't think it was three years ago.
matt jensen 1
Well, how much did they save in fuel costs?
steve rogers 1
I think that's the idea
Rob Kemperman 1
Yes, theres no answer given for:
Extra weight & fuel costs including the extra engines warmingup time and the in my opinion delayed taking off time. Sry for my Englisch....
Good idea...I believe
seahawker01 1
As one alluded to. Most jet engines carry a two min warm up and cool down limitation. This is actually already done in paratice with Single engine taxi and not an issue. Also this system would not use batteries but rather the APU to power it.
Seems like a good idea on the surface but has yet to take off on sustaining scale. Also figure tugs are a quauter million dollor investment.
Roland Dent 1
APU upgrade and accessories are just not capable as engineering stands as of 2014. Unless they have some fancy stuff you can forget this.
seahawker01 1
Say what? For example (if my memory serves me right), the apu I fly is rated at 70kva and runs on the ground at about 11kva. I would say there is enough power reserve for an electric motor.
Brilliant at last some sense on the usage of fuel ! taxying costs a fortune and if the aircraft keeps its engines running while waiting for flight control the bill just goes on up (jet fuel)well done Mexican airline!!!!
That's all well and good - until you get an inch of snow or ice. I wonder if they have/will test this. Airplanes do well on snow/ice because the thrust is not friction dependent.
Torsten Hoff 4
So there are some circumstances where you have to go old-school and run the big spinny things. Still, for probably 90% of flight operations this system would work.
Roland Dent 1
This just adds more weight Torsten. There are better ways...B2 stealth has a great way to save fuel. When you get the odd hour or two do some research. This wunnerful machine goes one heck of a L O N G way on one fill. This stuff is 1920 technology.
Mark Lansdell 2
I don't see any reason why the two systems can't coexist or even be utilized at the same time. I would be more wary of the weight disadvantages of motors, wire, batteries, generators, etc.. I would bet that more energy is wasted as a result of poor dispatching practices by ATC.
huskey 2
do you know the term "limitations" ?
David Lepard 0
At the hold short is not the time to find out you have an engine problem... Of course the cost would defer to the passengers rather than the company.... ORD or STL in heavy snow just don't see this as a plausible device... Engaging-disengaging and other interface issues..... The 450K savings..... What's that workout to 1/3 of a penny per passenger per year? So would the airline now be a flying car.... FOD was mentioned most US airports have major FOD problems........
Let's do a FOD walk.....
joe milazzo -2
So you get to the end of the runway, start engines and immediately bring the engines up to take off thrust...... No time for them to warm up ???? Great idea!!!
Matt Kladder 5
I think airliners would still have to power up several minutes before taking off, but sometimes it takes 20 minutes to get from gate to takeoff, or think about ATC delays away from the gate, and think especially about taxi in, sometimes that is 10 minutes, being able to shut down immediately after exiting the runway would be beneficial
Roland Dent 0
Right On Joe...we are going back in time with this stuff. This has to be an AB idea.
Mike Williams -1
I think there would be a savings and this is good - but airlines are still going to waste jet fuel. I'll think about those savings next time we taxi to the hold area and hear the engines spool up for 5 minutes so the crew can "correct a weight and balance problem". No wonder I paid $900 for a ticket.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.