News Analysis: A “25 to 30” year life [or sooner] of composite aircraft necessitates they be environmentally disposed.
Carbon/Carbon aircraft have inherent problems not found with metal aircraft [such as delamination due to stress or to high energy solar exposure while in flight]. The U.S. Air Force spends millions of dollars a year on composite fuselage protection of the B-2 Bomber. Now, it is seeking $55 Billion for a new bomber.
Perhaps: A possibly shorter life expectancy; more costly fuselage repairs [from the aforementioned]; and, ‘Egg Shell’ disintegration if there is a failure of the landing gear to work causing a “belly landing” will get airlines to re-think. Now, the public will be subjected to ‘repairs’ of damaged commercial aircraft not time-tested by the Airframe.
The airlines being enamored with the marketed value of a “lighter aircraft” that ‘will reduce fuel burn’ is out of balance with the other issues mentioned. Additionally, the price of fuel is based on supply and demand like any other commodity. New sources of supply of oil are forthcoming presently. The price of aviation fuel will reduce as the supply is increased. Then, how valuable was the fuel cost element compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars spent for the ‘Composite’ aircraft and its inherent frailties? Reality.
Reference: http://tinyurl.com/n457u4r