The future of aviation is being created in Yorkshire

HAV say the Airlander 10 will cut emissions by up to 90% on Air Nostrum’s regional routes. They fly by using a combination of aerodynamic lift (similar to an aeroplane), lifting gases (like those on airships) and vectored thrust (similar to a helicopter). It’s the lifting gas that helps to keep the vehicle airborne. Since the gas also offsets the weight of the aircraft, less energy is required to stay aloft. Thanks to this, the vehicle can carry a large load whilst burning little fuel and continuously staying airborne.

It’s the aerodynamic lift that means HAV’s vehicle differs from a traditional airship. Without the aerodynamic lift, you don’t have control of how much lift you generate. This is why traditional airships must be tied down/secured whilst staff load them, fill them with fuel and conduct maintenance. They are technically lighter than air, as opposed to HAV’s Airlander, which is heavier.

What’s the catch? It’s not clear, given that the Airlander is environmentally friendly, that it will create thousands of jobs in the South Yorkshire region, and it fixes the issues traditional airships face. New aircraft isn’t cheap, but the Airlander’s reported base price of $50 million is considerably less than that of an aeroplane. For instance, Boeing’s flagship 787 Dreamliner, one of the most advanced and efficient airliners in the world, costs around $300 million. Perhaps more comparable, due to it being one of the more efficient, short-haul aircrafts, Boeing’s 737 Max costs around $99.7 million; however, this is still double the price of the Airlander.

The catch comes from something arguably more valuable than money—time. Whilst the Airlander is efficient and produces very few greenhouse gases, it’s not fast. Its innovation is centred on the environment, not speed. A flight between Oslo and Stockholm takes around 3 hours 49 minutes in an aeroplane. If you opted to take the same trip in the Airlander, you’d be travelling for 6 hours and 33 minutes, nearly double the time. Will airlines view these journey times as non-profitable? The saving in fuel and CO2 produced may be its saving factor. According to HAV, an aeroplane produces 53.88kg of CO2 per passenger, whereas the Airlander only produces 4.58kg of CO2 per passenger—around fourteen times less.

Public opinion may also be one element in the success or failure of hybrid airships. Would you feel comfortable flying on one? Personally, I’d have my reservations.

The Airlander represents a cheaper, more environmentally friendly alternative to modern aircraft. However, humans have become accustomed to their needs being met instantly. Time will tell whether convenience or principles will win out.