Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Tech News > Air Force estimates savings of $5.7M per year due to iPad use

Air Force estimates savings of $5.7M per year due to iPad use
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 11:22 AM
 
A move by the US Air Force last year to replace maps, charts, logs and other paperwork contained in a kit with iPads is expected to save more than $50 million over next 10 years. The 18,000 deployed iPads form an "electronic flight bag" that can hold flight manuals, weather and navigation charts and volumes of technical and procedural information -- eliminating the need for the 30- to 40-pound flight bag pilots used to have to carry with them, resulting in savings ranging from fuel costs to printing costs to even reducing pilot back injuries.

The Air Mobility Command estimates that the replacement of the heavy flight bag kits will save the service $750,000 annually in fuel alone, and not having to make new printouts of manuals as revisions or copies need to be replaced will save another $5 million per year. The cost of the iPad program, just over $9 million, will be offset in savings in around a year and a half. The 18,000 units are Wi-Fi only, 32GB versions of Apple's iPad, which were purchased at a bulk discount of around $520 per unit (a savings of about $80 each).

In an interview with The Street, Major Brian Moritz told reporter James Rogers that on a C-5 military aircraft, using the iPad instead of the traditional kit may save as much as 490 pounds in weight, which creates a noticeable savings in fuel. Currently the Air Force has around 16,000 third-generation iPads in use with the Air Mobility Command, with the remaining 2,000 deployed across other Air Force units.

The Air Force joins many commercial airlines in switching from the bulky manuals to EFBs, as the Federal Aviation Authority approves more widespread use of tablets to replace the traditional flight bag. American Airlines was the first to use the new system, but it has quickly caught on amongst the other major airlines for its obvious cost advantages.








( Last edited by NewsPoster; May 17, 2013 at 11:39 AM. )
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 12:01 PM
 
Really ... a difference of 30...40 pounds can be measured is fuel consumption?
A difference of 30...40 pounds can be measured in medical treatment for back injuries?

and those costs can be tracked to use of an iPad?

Is this the critical, deep thinking with high moral standards our mandatory attendance, government funded, ranked number 17 worldwide education system is producing these days?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 12:18 PM
 
Every ounce can affect fuel usage, and the longer you travel the more it adds up. Remember there are at least 2 pilots on board as well. so that's 60-80 pounds per flight. That's almost a passenger.

When was the last time you carried around a 40lb suitcase and tried to maneuver it though tight quarters? We're not talking about hiking equipment.
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal Desert
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 12:40 PM
 
Military aircraft fly with less than full fuel tanks to reduce weight and save fuel. Only enough for the mission and a safety reserve rather than full to the top on every flight. Weight, even what may appear to be insignificant weight, impacts fuel usage. Jimoase may want to limit comments to topics in which he has knowledge.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: SF
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 12:43 PM
 
I don't understand your point, jimoase. The simple answer, "Yes." can be applied easily to all your questions with no apparent down side. Would you like to share?

Perhaps you're confused about the statements. Did you jump to some unseen blanket conclusion? Maybe you thought they were saying the iPad was the only cure for back problems, and gross natural resource consumption...

We don't know. You never state your issues with the article. Therefore, a literally pointless post.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 01:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by jimoase View Post
Really ... a difference of 30...40 pounds can be measured is fuel consumption?
Multiply by millions of miles travelled. Also, 'twas mentioned in TFA that the savings on a C-5 come to almost five HUNDRED pounds. Certainly a nonzero cost.
     
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 02:33 PM
 
iPad.... What an amazing impact. MS tried but unsuccessfull. Steve Jobs had saved the day... mission completed.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 02:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Multiply by millions of miles travelled. Also, 'twas mentioned in TFA that the savings on a C-5 come to almost five HUNDRED pounds. Certainly a nonzero cost.
That's the extreme case though. The C-5 is an unusually large aircraft with quite a large crew. I can find reverences for anywhere between 5 and 16.

Now imagine a much smaller plane like the 2 engine turbo props. 100lbs is much more significant when compared to total weight.
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 03:53 PM
 
jimoase: keep in mind that EACH pilot on a commercial aircraft had to carry those flight bags. So that's at least 60-90 pounds for a typical flight.
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2013, 07:12 PM
 
Save money, save time, save space, save papers and save trees too... What a great save!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 22, 2013, 10:49 AM
 
In the US, United did this about 2 years ago as well. They cited the same reasoning.
- MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.3Ghz / 256SSD (Work laptop)
- iMac 3.2Ghz 1TB
     
   
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:36 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2