Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Airlines, Airports & Routes
Reload this Page >

Airlines to record fuel burn for government?

Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Airlines to record fuel burn for government?

Old 25th Sep 2009, 17:32
  #1 (permalink)  
Dash-7 lover
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Airlines to record fuel burn for government?

I understand that UK airlines will soon have to record fuel burn on each sector and submit to some government authority, presumably so they can be stung by another tax on emissions?
Anyone shed any light on this?
 
Old 25th Sep 2009, 17:53
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's EU wide and not just EU-based airlines.

From Jan 1, 2010, operators of aircraft on eligible flights have to monitor their fuel burn and thus their CO2 emissions on an annual basis.

Any aircraft over 5700kgs, qualifies with some exemptions for commercial transport aircraft who emit less than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum and who carry out less than 242 flights during consecutive four month preiods. Non commercial operators below those figures must still comply but qualifiy for simplified calculation procedures. VFR flights don't count.

Eligible flights include any flights departing frm or terminating in the EU so all the overseas carriers flying into the Union must also put in place their Monitoring Plans.

At the end of each monitoring period (year), tallies must be verified by independent audit and thereafter begins a process of trading under the ETS or Emissions Trading Scheme.

It's a huge undertaking for the larger carriers and still involves significant work for even single aircraft operators. We await with interest to see how they deal with our own helicopter (yes, it's over 5700kgs MTOW) which very often departs VFR, arrives VFR but changes to IFR en route............
heliski22 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2009, 19:06
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Stand by for more min fuel ops and more fuel emergencies.

Don't be bullied and remember the word is "Mayday"
Basil is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2009, 19:52
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: essex
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So, I take it the road haulage industry (for one) will also be asked to partake?
sweetie76 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2009, 19:53
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hopefully they will be able to identify the 'extra' fuel burnt due to:

1. time/apu fuel burn due airfield congestion due lack of runways
2. taxi time in excess of, say 10 minutes, due too many aircraft waiting o take off
3. holding en-route and a destination due lack of runway capacity
4. fuel burn waiting for parking stand availability
5. finance costs requiring extra staff and aircraft etc due inefficiencies due above.
6. increased CO2 emmisions for ground vehicles awaiting late aircraft due above
7. etc, etc
TopBunk is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2009, 20:06
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can't see this posted here yet but perhaps I missed it...

Airlines vow to halve carbon emissions by 2050 | Environment | The Guardian

Airlines vow to halve carbon emissions by 2050..

The aviation industry will tomorrow make a dramatic pledge to slash carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2050 in a move that will force up air fares and spark a green technology race among aircraft manufacturers.

The British Airways chief executive, Willie Walsh, will unveil an agreement between airlines, airports and aircraft companies to cut emissions to 50% below 2005 levels by 2050. In a bid to seize the initiative from environmental groups clamouring for higher taxes on the industry, the plan will be presented to world leaders at the United Nations forum on climate change in New York.

Article continues..
cwatters is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2009, 20:23
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It will not be long before the EU start matching fuel burn with the pax manifest. Shortly after, an imposition on your travel! You want to fly sir/madam that will be x ammount of £'s/$'s for extra carbon credits.
qwertyuiop is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2009, 20:48
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 762
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Topbunk - If aircraft operated to schedule then the congestion issues you refer to would be infrequent. Most busy airports in the UK are co-ordinated airports i.e they have declared capacity limits, managed by ACL, for both terminal passenger throughput and airfield infrastructure, including runways. It also takes into account surrounding airspace. Runway slots are allocated according to these declaration limits and at peak times a small average delay is built into the declaration figures. For many reasons flights often do not operate on time which results in too many aircraft either arriving/departing at times which exceed the declared runway, parking stand or airspace capacity limits resulting in longer than normal delays. Therefore a key factor in reducing fuel burn caused by congestion at airports is to improve punctuality and airports/airlines are constantly striving do do this, but with so many variables involved it's not easy to achieve.
Musket90 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2009, 23:48
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Richmondshire
Age: 66
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Muskat90 - I imagine you are trying to impart information - therefore I hope you won't take it personally if I say you're talking bollocks. Coordinated slots are a very crude measure and devised for the benefit of operators of patently under-invested airports. Aircraft are most efficiently flown when they leave early, get there early and are not subject to bureaucratically invented restrictions.

Lunatics and asylums come to mind with coordinated slots. The brain child from a similar type of degenerate who invented the UK airport security regime.
Barden is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2009, 01:50
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CANADA
Age: 61
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Someone has to pay for the GHG impacts and no matter how you slice it, it comes out of your taxes, or increased costs for everything. All of that is a lot cheaper than the cost of doing nothing. If one choses to fly, I expect a ticket cost for it will be in place. The same for chosing to drive and buying petrol for your truck/car or boat where you will pay at the pump. The commerical cost will just slide into your final bill. Just for fun add up the possible tax on fuel used by aircraft ($10USD/ton is a good guide), then do a search on the cost for extreme weather losses (which is a symptom of GHG) and adaptation. The number of 0's for airplanes will be lost in the sea of 0's for everything else. What many do not register is the insurance companies only cover about 20% of losses. The other 80% comes from government emergency funds - which is you and me.
ba97 is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2009, 01:56
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Our L1011 aircraft will start adhoc charters and track programs from Eastern Europe late next year, so....we burn 2440 USG/hour and carry 330 pax...and will pay (read, pax will pay) regardless.
Another kick in the teeth for the air traveling public....
411A is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2009, 03:21
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Not UK
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looking on the bright side, possibly, perhaps this will mean the airlines will concentrate more on what we burn rather than on what we arrive with!

I think sometimes management believe that you are charged for storing fuel in the tanks. If I leave with a few Kgs above min plan but burn less than the planned burn then thats good for me and means I havent spent all day staring at the guages. They on the other hand tend to say....... "You arrived with more than the barest legal limit, therefore you left with too much. We will now `adjust` the plan for that route so that the planned burn will be less, and keep pressing you take the minimum!"
All this from a deeply padded chair .......and in hindsight!

I suppose I should just divert more often!!!
Flyingstig is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2009, 07:02
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Middle England
Posts: 611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ACL and the EU......biggest "green" con yet. I took a 30 min delay in IBZ last Sunday at 4AM because we'll get fined for pushing more than 10 minutes early. We were the only aircraft there and the skies were empty. Destination was BHX. Sat there with the APU running, chucking out CO2. Same thing a few days later at FUE.
763 jock is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2009, 07:44
  #14 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The ruling/legislation as below - I have struggled my way through this particular legislation and have found it unclear and ambiguous and have yet to find anyone at my local EU NAA to explain it as they dont know either...my (current) interpretation is as follows;

It affects all EU operators - however any flight which does not arrive/depart from EU airport appears excluded - member state allocates a known 'free' allocation based on previous usage ie. therefore in future you cannot exceed this free of charging and it reduces year by year (4%?) obviously to encourage a move to a less 'dirty' fleet - also any 'installation' (ie. airline fleet) that produces less than 25000 tonnes CO2 each year is excluded, I have no idea exactly how much an MD80 produces but i am guessing with a majority of our acft/flight outside EU then we would as a fleet be excluded (implementation of this to Aviation is again unclear)

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/aviation_en.htm

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...0090625:EN:PDF

I have been able to get the ICAO Engine Exhaust Emissions Databank sheet for the MD80 and have (I think) interpolated that during a take off and landing sequence we produce 504g of emissions x 2 engines = 1008g

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/702/1PW018_01102004.pdf

ATB| ATB Sections

Aircraft Engine Emissions | Human and Environmental Issues | Safety Regulation

In lieu/view of the above at this stage I believe that for several reasons our operation will be exempt particularly under the 'installation/fleet - less than 25000 tonnes emissions' clause

Sorry but even after a month of investigation, even I have to admit semi defeat (or semi progress) on this one...and would be interested on any further detailed/qualified input
Boss Raptor is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2009, 14:33
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: On the move
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder how many airlines will move the companies registered office outside the EU.
Sorry, Just noticed it's EU wide, but what does that exactly mean?
All aircraft flying through EU airspace?
wawkrk is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2009, 17:25
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southampton,hampshire,england
Posts: 863
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Unless military aircraft are included, it will show the utter futility of the whole exercise. [tax scam].
055166k is offline  
Old 26th Sep 2009, 19:27
  #17 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Moving your registered office outside the EU doesnt work, in simple terms you need to be an Air Transport Licence holder within the EU to have EU based traffic rights ie. EU to EU and EU to any place...move your operation from a legal and practical stand point outside and you lose yr rights and yr business model - EU Wide means again very simply that it must be and will be implemented in all EU member states iaw the Directive
Boss Raptor is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2009, 09:47
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by wawkrk
I wonder how many airlines will move the companies registered office outside the EU.
Sorry, Just noticed it's EU wide, but what does that exactly mean?
All aircraft flying through EU airspace?
Yes, all aircraft landing or taking off in EU airspace.

So imagine that Lufthansa is flying a passenger from JFK to oh, let's say Mumbai, via FRA. The total fuel burn of the JFK-FRA flight, and the total fuel burn of the FRA-BOM flight, will both have to be included in the ETS and Lufthansa will have to have carbon credits for them. (Note total - not just the bit in EU airspace.)

Lufthansa (or BA, or AF,...) is competing for this passenger with e.g. Emirates routing JFK-DXB-BOM. Emirates flies JFK-DXB, over EU airspace of course, but not landing in the EU and therefore not liable for the EU ETS. So carriers routing through Europe will be commercially disadvantaged when competing for 6th-freedom connecting traffic.

(This is nothing to do with where the registered office of the airline is. If you were flying from JFK to BOM using American to Brussels and then Jet Airways to Mumbai, both of those carriers would still be liable for EU ETS obligations.)

C.
Cyrano is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.