Airline Fuel Management - Use the toilet before you fly!

[Marcel_MPH]

Just found this article about ANA introducing a new fuel reduction measure...

Worldwide-Aviation.net - ANA: Please Use Airport Lavatory Before Boarding... (http://www.worldwide-aviation.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=148:ana-please-use-airport-lavatory-before-boarding&catid=34:airilnes&Itemid=61)

As stated in the article: isn't this something Ryanair should introduce?

[11Fan]

I don't think it's fair to dump on Ryanair. The whole industry is in the crapper.

[quazz]

That would delay the boarding process somewhat :}

[Marcel_MPH]

Whether it is fair or not: in my opinion it is a positive trend that more and more airlines are thinking about these kind of measures in order to increase their performance and efficiency.

[Herod]

From what I can gather, during WW2 it was fairly common for bomber crews to make use of the Elsan toilet on the outbound leg and then jettison it along with the bomb load over the target (or soon after, being rather busy with searchlights, flak etc). Could open up a whole new avenue of opportunities. Could reduce fuel burn for half the flight anyway.

[11Fan]

Marcel, it was a joke, dump... crapper... geddit? ;)

Perhaps lost in the translation.......

[PJ2]

The issue raised here by the "visit the dunnie/loo/WC/toilet/hopper/dumper/Thomas's invention" campaign is carbon-based and weight-based. It is therefore both "climate-change" based and economically-based.

Not that the climate-change argument and its obvious corollary of financial penalties in terms of carbon credits etc, is decided. This is not the place to argue for or against the existence of climate-change or if it exists, the reasons for it or the ethical and moral persuasions for one or another solution. However, the material effects upon the political economy do affect business, including, obviously, airlines.

Very roughly, when the fuel burn is calculated based upon a zero fuel weight and all trip conditions, it costs about 4% more fuel per hour for any weight increase above the ZFW. The reverse also works, of course.

So a 1 Tonne increase in ZFW costs about 40kg of fuel to carry, per flight hour or, for a ten hour flight, about 400kg of extra fuel, just to carry the weight. This figure may be slightly lower or higher with more precise computerized flight plan calculations but we used it for decades with good reliability in terms of planning fuel overhead destination.

It is a chemical forumula which will yield the carbon content offered to the atmosphere per flight, including the increase which comes from higher ZFWs.

It is an easy economic formula to calculate the extra cost in fuel, per flight, for extra ZFW. Fuel these days is somewhere around US$0.80 per litre and one litre of Jet A1 is approximately 0.8kg, depending upon temperature, (volume to weight conversion) or about US$1+ per kilogram.

So it is an easy, short distance to seeing what carrying any increase in weight no matter what it is, costs an airline and, eventually, the passenger.

All kinds of issues enter when the question is posed including obesity, what passengers carry on board and also pack in their luggage, potable water carried on board, newspapers and magazines, (which have an average useful life of a few minutes if you watch anyone leaf through them without stopping to really read), the weight of cabin air (and fuel to pressurize/recirculate same), and on and on.

"Comfort" is a relative term and is not for free. Clearly, neither is a visit to the toilet but it never was; when we throw away or flush away, (as the old ad goes), where is "away?" Sorry, I digress.

[cwatters]

What percentage don't go just before boarding?

[PJ2]

I suspect it's quite low. Most passengers know that once boarding starts, the opportunity to pee wont' come along for at least an hour later if not longer in any delay. I think the larger point may not be the weight of such fluids and etceteras carried but what may be increasingly viewed as "unnecessary" increases to the ZFW. The areas which I think will be under "consideration" given time, are listed above.

Given that carbon emmisions are already on the radar it won't be long before regulatory interventions follow or at least increases in costs. Everyone considers "the air" and "the water" their personal dumping ground (which is the "away" referred to in the earlier post), the cost of which is born by everyone in terms of loss of use due to poisoning etc rather than by the polluters themselves. This thinking is only very lately migrating to the airlines.

[nicolai]

Never stand when you can sit.
Never sit when you can lie down.
Never pass a toilet without using it.

[Sallyann1234]

Far more weight could be saved by leaving behind all those duty-free bottles.

[Icare9]

Marcel, it was a joke, dump... crapper..
Well, they're not taking the p1ss, are they, that's being left behind!!
Will there be some form of weighing so they can recalculate their fuel requirements!!

[raffele]

I'm not quite sure how encouraging pax to go to the loo before boarding is going to help.

You've still got to load the plane up with things like water for the washbasins, and you'll still have to empty the tanks at the other end... Surely the more sensible(!) solution would be not to provide toilets and not to have potable water tanks?

[groundbum]

I just recently came back on Air France from Athens to CDG in Economy. Got my nice dinner, and the

water in the plastic tub was from wales
the beer was Heinekin proudly brewed in Amsterdamn
the cheese was Dutch

honestly, all of this could have been loaded in Athens which not a back of beyond place unable to source the above locally. So it had all been flown from Paris, and then back again. And obviously trucked to Paris from all over Europe!

very very silly....

G

[First.officer]

Maybe we should insist on a "Nil by mouth" requirement on all passengers 48 hours before flight to ensure most solid and liquid matter is expunged by passengers before flight, an anaesthetic administered pre-flight thus negating any need for catering to be loaded on-board, no visits to the toilet during the flight due to the administration of said anaesthetic - so now we can remove the toilets saving weight, reduced fuel burn etc., etc. - no more air rage, on certain flights air marshalls can be removed (even more weight saved), passengers arrive at destination with the impression they haven't travelled for hours and hours cramped, and might i even say that in order to supplement the reduction in ticket prices, pre-flight, post-anaesthetic a certain low cost carrier may opt to ask passengers permission to remove non-essential internal organs for re-sale on Ebay (win, win situation as decrease in weight and profit made on said organs !)

I mean, how far do we go in this crazy world !! lol :E

Actually, re-reading the above i've decided i'm a very sick puppy !! must seek professional help........