Why Are Electric Taxiing Systems Not Used Today?

Keep in mind that most jet engines need at least two minutes of warm up time before takeoff. This means starting engines while an electric motor is trying to power the airplane. For airports that generally have short taxi times, I’m not sure the savings would be worth it. On the other hand, back in the 90s, my airline spent $6million per aircraft to install winglets. The word was they paid for themselves in a year.

Added weight and waste of time.

Why not just have the tug drag the aircraft closer to the runway?

2 points:
Useless article. Other than dates (and this is much older than 2024 as other below point out) and aircraft numbers, there isn't a single number with engineering units to justify - or otherwise - the application of EGTS..

One more thing to maintain, break, and repair. During my tenure at Rocketdyne in the early 90s, we received data from Boeing on the reliability of aircraft systems. The systems generating the most problems - at the time (90's) - were lighting and ELECTRICAL. Giving the 2nd most unreliable system more stuff to break doesn't sound like a money saver.

I remember the day in the 80's when (La Guardia, Eastern Airlines shuttle service) they filled the DC9, started the engines, engaged the thrust reversers and backed away from the gate. (The pilot literally forgot to disengage them before attempting to taxi forward on the plane I was on. - oops!) I imagine not workable today with high bypass engines - too windy by the building...

As others have said, all turbine engines require at least 2 minutes of warm up time at idle before you can apply takeoff thrust, so for most taxi situations this green nonsense would be irrelevant. Second they add 1,000 lbs to the aircraft empty weight. A typical taxi burns only a few hundred lbs of fuel... so the savings are in fact negative and there is no return on investment.

More ridiculous by the minute. Don Quixote is alive and well.

Oh that should not be a problem to do, NOT, its a very complex thing to do. One item is the increase in fixed weight needed for batteries and equipment. How would the motors be fitted into a wheel assembly. Looks good on paper but to make it work is another. A better way would be an electric powered and driven tug to do the job.

Um. how do regular tugs work? Hybridize or Full Electric them??? then there's no mass added to the aircraft AT ALL... just recharge them every night (or top off while at gate) if full EV.

I'll speculate tugs these days are rather large diesels. The one we used at EAFB on the ABL program to shove YAL-001 around (B747-400 but it had no APU - it had to come out) was both a TUG and the ground power source so there's already some Electrification being done.

Just another system that can fail and require more maintenance. The more junk you put on a machine, the more things that can break. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid.

Not a new idea, but as systems become more efficient and lighter, it may become useful in certain situations. Consideration of turn radius, additional fuel burned, initial cost, and maintenance can be estimated, resulting in an estimated payback (or not). The system needs to be powerful enough to move an airplane at max weight up a maximum-design taxiway slope (even wind might affect it slightly), and include systems that allow it to be controlled by the pilot.

Why aren't regular tugs just tugging aircraft to distant thresholds for start up? Airports with typically long taxi times (8-10 minutes at IAH, for instance)would benefit.