I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.
PRD, I think the trouble with what you're asking is that most airlines are already so efficient on fuel usage, often to the point of compromising operational efficiency is that we're all sick to death of being browbeaten over yet more imaginary or impossible fuel savings. The measures we've already implemented often reache the point of fanaticism and make our lives unnecessarily harder, ie flying at sub-turboprop speeds or reducing the number of bar trolleys to "save weight". This efficiency has already been achieved by financial (cost) pressures alone. Now the public have been fed this "green" pill by the media and govts and especially the media have made aviation the whipping boy for carbon emissions, the latest eco-punchbag. The facts are quoted in posts above, mankind makes a tiny contribution to carbon and aviation is a tiny percentage of that. The fact, therefore, is that if the public feel aviation is a major culprit they've been lied to and aren't judging us from a posession of facts.
So getting yet more earache about fuel savings for a further, and distinctly unproven eco reason is a step too far. We did it years ago, but for a more compelling reason. We can't do it again.
The public need educating about what the facts are re aviations contribution to carbon emissions, but I know that's dreamland. Logic is the first victim in this sort of battle.
Simply turning off the city's office lights at night, plus other blindingly obvious ways energy is squandered - turning the heating down a degree or two, street lights off after 1230 etc would have a thousand times more effect that beating aviation up for savings it cannot make...but that's logic, so let the empty cities blaze all night, seems they're doing no harm...Still, sorting that would make the "public" actually do something themselves and they wouldn't like that. Much easier to beef about something remote, like airlines.
Finally, I guess English isn't your native tongue, but curbed and idling are not aviation terms and PBM is an acronym I'm not familiar with. You'll get more credibility using correct terminology so please get that right in your report. By idling I imagine you mean holding - (wasting time flying in circles) but doing this on GPS is no different to using a beacon fuel wise. I don't know what you mean by curbed, sorry, but most approaches/departures are already as expeditious as is reasonably practical and cannot be shortened easily - for that same old reason, cost. The same applies to airways.
Sure, there will be small ways here and there but they ain't going to amount to a whole row of beans, I expect another 2% savins are no longer operationally possible in the main. So our potential savings are 3% times 3% times 2%. ie four fifths of five eighths of **** all.
Lobby to switch off Belgium's street lights instead!
ps. Eco insanity. London's first Hydrogen powered buses are on the streets and being hailed as "carbon free". Dr Goebbels eat your heart out, the Big Lie is still hard at work. The hydrogen is made from hydrocarbon (ie oil or natural gas) and every ton of the wretched stuff produces between
7 and 11 Tons of carbon in it's manufacture. ( I read that yesterday 16 Dec, I think in The Times,). If only they knew.
Go tell that to the public too.