Airlines accused of hypocrisy over 'fuel-tankering'Back to Forum
I don’t really understand the point you are trying to make. Aircraft take off with contingency fuel to get to an alternative landing point. It really isn’t necessary for tanks to be full to the brim every journey.
I know, I was writing in jest! 😉27 Nov 2019
The document posted by Ekond222 was most interesting, thank you for that.
The greatest saving could come from route efficiency improvements.
I still think that this ‘tankering’ is being given undue publicity.27 Nov 2019
Beware – Cross threading (is that the write lingo ?) about to happen !
Having read quite a few of the posts , it might be more apt to rename this topic “Fuel Tinkering”
And when you consider the amount of topics / posts that are currently on the Forum that relate to aviation and the environment it’s clear that we (most of us) are “Green “ in one shade or another.
Yet , I wonder what the same journalists that are hauling BA over the coals for flying extra fuel around the place would make off the same airline encouraging prospective customers to fly roundtrip to Madrid first to head from London to Jo’burg
A roundtrip that is perfectly justified in order to make a massive saving of apx 10K to fly 4 people from LHR to JNB ?
Imagine how many tree’s you could plant with 10K worth of Carbon Offsets ?27 Nov 2019
I don’t know the numbers but I would imagine that more fuel is wasted by circling and waiting to land than carrying “unnecessary” fuel.
I remember that, about 10 years ago, Oslo were going to trial a “guaranteed” straight in approach so no circling, no fuel waste and less noise. They would inform each flight their precise landing time at pushback and it was up to the captain to operate the aircraft to arrive at the precise time. Does anyone know if this happened, or still happens.27 Nov 2019
Just to add more fuel to the fire (pun intended) what about the millions of bottles, cumulatively, of ‘duty free’ hauled round the world by aircraft on just about every flight every day of the year?
Not just extra weight and fuel burn, but a waste of space, and an additional fire hazard, not to mention that a broken bottle could be used as a nasty weapon.27 Nov 2019
Not just extra weight and fuel burn, but a waste of space, and an additional fire hazard, not to mention that a broken bottle could be used as a nasty weapon.
Good point, should be on arrival only, or perhaps abolished altogether?
Indeed. In flight magazines too. Tons of them.
Lufthansa and I believe Air France have abolished them. In LH’s case you get a link where you can download a number of magazines according to class of travel / status.28 Nov 2019
I still think that this ‘tankering’ is being given undue publicity.
So do I. A letter in the Times, from a pilot, summed up the situation perfectly.
“The only time that you can have too much fuel on an aircraft is when it’s on fire.”28 Nov 2019
As I have mentioned on another thread, a sensible course would be mandatory tugs for all off-runway taxi-ing, with aircraft engines to be switched on only when necessary. Taxi-ing using jet engines is notoriously inefficient, one of the most egregious examples being Concorde (which used a staggering 2 tons of fuel to taxi from the gate to the runway). A 747 gets through a tonne of fuel in a 15-minute taxi. It has been estimated that a typical A320 spends 3.5 hours a day taxi-ing, burning about 0.43 tons of fuel. (Sorry for switching between tonnes and tons, but these reflect my sources – but they are virtually the same anyway!)4 Dec 2019
A 747 gets through a tonne of fuel in a 15-minute taxi. It has been estimated that a typical A320 spends 3.5 hours a day taxi-ing, burning about 0.43 tons of fuel.
It’s a great point Ian, I wonder what percentage of global daily flights that equates to , that could be transferred to carbon off setting .
For example – LHR taxing times x aircraft burn x waiting time = how many LHR -JFK actual flying time rotations = daily waste on the ground = local pollution4 Dec 2019
at 09:304 Dec 2019