Extra fuel burnt in air fee dodge

[clicker]

Well that's the headline given by the "writer". Suppose it looks better than "Extra fuel burnt to save costs".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7124021.stm

Myself can't see a problem in reducing costs, even if it does means slightly more fuel used.

What does puzzle me though, on the figures quoted, is how you can use an extra 1.6 tonnes of fuel but manage to produce an extra three tonnes of carbon dioxide.

But then it was one of my better subject's at school. That was so long ago, before the days of "Global Warming" and outspoken tree huggers.

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

What does puzzle me though, on the figures quoted, is how you can use an extra 1.6 tonnes of fuel but manage to produce an extra three tonnes of carbon dioxide.

because most of the mass of fuel is carbon (since the rest is mainly hydrogen, which has an atomic mass of 1, compared with 12 for carbon) but So2 is carbon plus oxygen, atomic mass of 16.

So, if you perfectly burned, say, ethanol, C2H6. you'd get IIRC CO2 *2 plus H2O *2.

So for 12*2+1*6=24 units (kg, say) of ethanol, you'd get 12+16*2=44 units (kg) of CO2 plus 2*2*1+16=20 units (kg) of water vapour.

Kerosene isn't ethanol, but the same logic holds. CO2 "mass" includes oxygen that was extracted from the air, not included in the original fuel mass.

[WHBM]

If you are doing extra flying hours for any reason (such as minimising nav fees) the extra fuel costs are only a proportion of the total additional costs. There will be extra crew costs (directly proportional to flying hours), maintenance, and other related expenses. Across the fleet you may need to drop one or two rotations, with their associated revenue, in the same way as if your destination is just that bit further away.

The linked article of course patently fails to understand any part of this.

[ford cortina]

Folks it's quite simple really.
Pax know more about aviation than we professionals do, at least they like to think so.
Journalists know more than anyone in the world and anything they say must be true, after all the BBC, Daily Mail, Daily (S)Express, The Times, Guardian etc, don't have any political or other agenda now do they.

I remember an interview with the great Dr David Bellamy, the real one not Lenny Henry off TISWAS, regarding Global Warming. His position is that it is all a bunch of trollop, however he has been effectively gagged by our objective media and other scientists, so sorry if I don't buy into this.

Now where's my V8

[Old King Coal]

The sector BHM – TFS (http://www.airrouting.com/content/tdcalc.html) has a great circle (i.e. the most direct) distance of 1849 statute miles. Our renowned tree hugging heroes at the BBC have cited that going down a Tango route adds an extra 100 miles therein making the sector be 1949 statute miles. That represents a 5.4% increase in the overall total distance (with the percentages for flights from Manchester and Newcastle being 5.3% and 4.9% respectively).

So, using the same analogy wrt driving my car… My nearest petrol station is 4 miles away. Adding on an extra 5.4% to that journey would make it 4.22 miles, i.e. just under an extra 400 hundred yards.

Uhm, so would I drive an extra 400 hundred yards to fill up my car if the petrol was 1p / liter cheaper at the further station?... You betcha! :D

Therein how about a headline of:
“Shock horror! Drivers of vehicles found to be driving extra distance in dodge to fill up with cheaper fuel!!!”

Wrt Ms 'Mari Martiskainen, a climate expert at the University of Sussex'. That’s most likely your Ex as in ‘a has been’ (though in this case probably a ‘never was’) and spurt as in 'can’t handle pressure' at University of Sussex... .. read 'academia' at it worst... an establishment famed for having nothing good ever come out of it... and I should know as I used to go there myself! :}

Wrt 150 car journeys between London & Brighton (wherein I assume they mean single sector journeys not a route pair?).
London to Brighton = 58 miles x 150 journeys = 8700 miles.
1.6 Tonnes of JetA1 with a specific gravity of 1.25 = 2000 litre of fuel.

Which means their vehicle is getting 19.8 mpg.. .which is piss poor imho.. therein it must be a RangeRover or some’at?!... and I’ll guarantee it won’t get that mpg with all the seats full at 500mph! :=

... and don’t even mention ‘Tankering’! :E


Nb. Edited due typo.

[blablablafly]

What a sad man to write this article. Maybe a better one for him to write:

Extra fuel burnt by political inability to get aviation sorted

Main points:

Inability by politicians to get a single European sky sorted on a political level and Eurocontrol instead of by local agencies nor investing enough in it
Ianability of politicians to understand that 90% of military area's are redundant but we keep flying around them
Inability that a lot of the noise sensitive routes to EBBR for instance cause major extra fuel burn
Ianability to get sufficient runways build or less runways but in a more effiecient location saving millions on holding for HeathrowNow mr BBC go and get a real job and dont you worry about our extra 100 miles extra and get the REAL issues sorted! (or does that sound like work instead of like an easy soundbite article...) :=

[yeoman]

I vaguely remember a thread by a journo asking about Tango Routes recently. IIRC he got knobbed off at the high port.

Can't think why.

I love the analogy of driving to a distant petrol station for cheaper fuel. Spot on! I guess it is a bit like the carbon footprint created by producing material at the BBC - how many people switch on the telly and then mentally switch off when this kind of drivel crops up? Not to mention all those big generators running H24 at outside broadcast events and the cost of producing candles that this guy uses in his static caravan (that he walks to) for his annual holiday. Oh, and all those TV programmes such as "Wish You were here " that are clearly filmed in a shed in Shephards Bush and not on Caibbean beaches.:E

[flyingbug]

I vaguely remember a thread by a journo asking about Tango Routes recently. IIRC he got knobbed off at the high port.

Can't think why.




I agree,

I remember his question re the Tango routes and at the time I felt a bit soryy for him after some of the responses, although I didn't post a reply (because we fly short haul and therefore not Tango routes).

I now appreciate why the negative responses to his request for information were given........... what a biased, inaccurate article.

[jb5000]

Hold on one sec, they are saving £610 of navigation charges, but burn an extra 1.6 tonnes of fuel.

That is £381 per ton of fuel to make a saving.

Assuimg 1 litre of jet fuel weighs 820g.

Approximately 1220 litres for £381, equates to 31p per litre of jet fuel to make this rerouting cost effective?

Surely that is pretty cheap considering the extra maintenance costs factored in from longer flights?

[757_Driver]

what a load of utter tosh. I seem to recall that the bottom feeder concerned was trawling on here for dirt a few weeks ago and got fairly short shrift. yet another example of the BBC's absolutely appalling bias in reporting 'climate change' stories.

If the BBC really want to make this a story, then surely the 'villain' of the piece is the european airspace system or the spanish overflight charges. But oh no, they have already cast the airlines as the environmental criminals and every story must support the party line.

welcome to '1984' england everyone, just replace thought-crime or sex-crime with carbon-crime

[flyingbug]

The thread is in jetblast,

the BBC reporter who originally approached a pilot for information re Tango routes posted this on the thread...

As the journalist who made this enquiry to Monarch Man, I find it odd that a polite and confidential request made in the public interest has been posted here as an example of sloppy journalism.

I also find the reply **@@er off" a very strange response from another professional.

I think most people will find my enquiries perfectly acceptable.

If you have any information about the use of Tango Routes by your airline, which ARE currently being used to cut costs, at a significant price to the environment then please feel free to contact me in confidence.

I work for the BBC, not the Daily Mail - there is a difference.

Thank you

J


So, the finished report wasn't sensationalist "sloppy journalism" then..................... I must have read a different article..

[Monarch Man]

What a surprise that this is the kind of crap dished up by this person from the BBC :yuk:
I know I'm shocked :hmm:

[Old King Coal]

The BBC cite the Nav charges as £1578 on the direct route and £968 on the Tango route - an apparent saving of £610.

However the Tango route is 100 miles longer and to fly it requires extra fuel (seemingly 1.6T).

I've just phoned my airlines accounts department and they tell me that the fuel price at LGW (nb. I'm using an averaged / mean price for Nov / Dec) is approx £443 per tonne... wherein I'll assume that the price is going to be similar at BHM, MAN & NCL.

So the extra fuel required to fly the Tango route would cost approx: 1.6 x £443 = £709.

Uhm?!

Thus, far from what is suggested by the BBC and their University 'expert', flying the Tango route costs more, not less!!!... and this does not include the additional maintenance costs associated with operating the a/c for an extra 20 minutes.

Imho, the problem with this BBC's article is very much as blablablafly suggests previously, wherein it is a blatant example of lazy journalism with an associated tree-hugging agenda.


Nb. Edited due typo's.

[055166k]

The journalist might be better advised to ask:
1. Why are fuel saving routes denied or unavailable because of the multiplicity of reserved military areas throughout UK airspace?
2. Are the high navigation charges [in various States] a result of a monopoly ATC service provider?
3. Why does the MOD operate a range of noisy dirty gas-guzzlers which do not come close to compliance with civil regulations.....when did airlines last fly the Comet[Nimrod], VC-10 or early model Tri-Star? Just because the airframe has a military serial number....does that make it OK!
4. Should the "full stack" policy [whereby there is significant continuous planned holding over London] be outlawed?

[speedrestriction]

The comment by the monarch spokesperson at the bottom of the BBC article is refreshing in these days where it seems impossible to get a straight answer:

By travelling via these Oceanic routes, the company avoids paying French and/or Spanish overflight charges and instead pays a much smaller Oceanic airspace overflight charge to the UK and Ireland..............Ultimately the environmental impact comes down to whether the travelling public is prepared to pay.

The travelling public can't have their low-fare environmental cake and eat it.

sr

[Taildragger67]

Here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=299446) is the thread which alerted PPRuNers to the journo (j1972) sniffing around.

[rubik101]

Might we be better occupied in trying to address the early descents we all have to endure on entering the UK airspace? I leave you to do the maths, or guess at the figures, but it seems all of us are burning several hundred kilos of fuel to accommodate ATC and their restrictions. I have flown over London LATCC in every conceivable direction to destinations throughout the UK and I have been brought down anything up to 100 miles early to 'avoid conflicting traffic'. Surely if we are all doing this then we are all in each other's way!
Anyone know the definitive reason this must occur?

[Old King Coal]

Wrt the BBC's 'climate expert', is it me or does this look like the bio of a bonefide tree-hugger personified?
Ms Mari Martiskainen (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/profile197918.html) <-- click the link. :E
Post: Research Officer
Location: Freeman Centre - University of Sussex
Email: [email protected]
Telephone numbers Internal: 3630 or 8166
UK: (01273) 873630 or (01273) 678166
International: +44 1273 873630 or +44 1273 678166

Biography
Mari has a BA in Social Sciences from Helsinki University, Finland, and an MSc in Environmental Technology from Imperial College London. Prior to joining the Sussex Energy Group Mari worked for the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), concentrating on small-scale wind energy systems, microgeneration and communications. Mari's previous experience also includes research and reporting on the global marine fuels sector.

Role
Mari joined the Sussex Energy Group (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/) in SPRU in July 2006, and her current projects include work on consumer behaviour and energy demand.

Research
Consumer behaviour and energy demand, energy efficiency, renewable energy and microgeneration, the role of nuclear power, and decision making process in energy policy.


Also have a look at: http://www.green-alliance.org.uk (http://www.green-alliance.org.uk/grea1.aspx?id=190) (do a search for Mari Martiskainen)


Nb. Edited to add the link about her being a member of the 'Green Alliance'. :rolleyes:

[1985]

Surely if we are all doing this then we are all in each other's way!

I think you might have answered your own question. You can't all have the aircraft in the sky descending at TOD because of the sheer weight of traffic and the limited amount of airspace that we have. Therefore some are penalised to allow the majority to do what they want. It might be restrictive to a few destinations but it is as efficient as we can make it and is always under review.

[ROSUN]

... and they have the temerity to point the finger at aviation whilst 'blowing' £46k a DAY on taxis!

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article339824.ece

[chrisbl]

It is a shame the thread has degenerated into a childish exercise of semi literates.

OKC when a source is cited it is spelt thus, not sited.

I can cite an article, about a building site where what I saw was a sight for sore eyes.

[anotherthing]

Rubik101

1985 has summed it up nicely, but try looking at it another way instead of from departure point to destination.

What I mean is this: get yourself a chart of the London TMA - look at the amount of airports within a small area. Now look at the multitude of crossing tracks - both inbound and outbound routes as well as overflights.

You need to be at stack level or very near it by the time you reach the holding point - lets face it, if flying into LL,KK,SS you are quite likely to receive a hold of some description. If flying into other airfields in the LTMA (for example GW,LC,HI) you are increasingly likely to have to hold for a short while - and that likelihood is going to increase over the next few years until it becomes a certainty.

If you look at the volume of traffic versus the area of airspace, it is physically impossible to give you the ideal continuous descent profile from your cruise level.

If you work backwards as I suggest, you will see the problem.

The definitive (or near as damn it) reason that the 'early' descents occur is customer driven. The airlines (ATC's customer) collectively choose to fly to/from similar destinations (i.e. similar routes) at the same time - (just pop into a centre to see what I mean - you get Compton rushes Wobun rushes etc). The airlines do this because they are fulfilling the requirements of their customers. You can only fit so many aircraft in a piece of airspace - ANSPs try to provide the most efficient use of a particular piece of airspace whilst maintaining 100% safety - so to quote you and put the ball back in your court I leave you to do the maths, or guess at the figures

Airspace is complex enough (particularly over SE England), although constantly being assessed to ensure that it is being used most efficiently, there is a limit to how many aircraft we can squeeze into it at once. Therefore, safety is the true definitive answer :ok:

I totally agree with you - it is not the most efficient use, but these things must be a compromise of several factors (apart from safety) - there can be no other way.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

chrisbl. Good point; well put. It has also become a soap box opportunity for those with a congenital hatred of the Military.

[flyingbug]

chrisbl

yes thank you for your contribution too:


I can cite an article, about a building site where what I saw was a sight for sore eyes.

and thats a good point well made??? :bored:

[Old King Coal]

chrisbl thank you for pointing out that I'd used the word 'site' versus 'cite' (now corrected... such that you might rest you anxious brow). That said, some might say that it's a shame that you didn't elaborate on the subject matter of this thread; aside from using it as a medium to bash an innocent grammatical error.

Therein, in case it's escaped you, the facts of the matter are that the BBC (a supposed public broadcaster with a duty of care for accuracy and truth) have concocted a story, citing 'facts' which, upon inspection, simply do not add up.

That flying via a Tango route adds 100 extra miles and uses more fuel is not in doubt.

But for the BBC to say: "Airlines are deliberately flying longer routes over the Atlantic Ocean to avoid paying air traffic control charges"is (imho) bordering on lying... and I've already proved that it doesn't save money overall.

The BBC quote some anonymous former Ops Dir as saying: "taking ocean routes when there was no clear wind advantage to do so"
Duh, more consideration goes into using a Tango route than just the head / tail wind components, e.g. slot restrictions and / or maybe French ATC are in strike (again!), etc?!

Therein please do not loose sight of the fact that the BBC are broadcasting a report, in the public domain, which a good many folks - whom are not associated with the facts - will think is the truth.

It's to be noted that all the airline sources the BBC have quoted remain anonymous (oh what a surprise). But that the BBC have chosen to use a 'climate expert' (so called) whom has clear & publicly viewable links to a quasi-political 'green' lobbying group is no surprise! :rolleyes:

I'm at loss as to how you might think that objecting to this tosh, i.e. by pointing out the very obvious iniquities of it, has "degenerated into a childish exercise" [sic] ?!

I've just seen a TV advert saying that they're going to broadcast this tosh on the TV as part of the 'South East Today' evening news (that's an audience of how many millions?) :ugh:

[Frangible]

I think the refuters of the BBC story are missing something very major here.

Jb 5000 and OKC have used their mathematical ability to demonstrate that the airlines can’t be saving money through this practice, especially if extra maintenance costs, and crew pay, are fully factored in.

That leaves two alternatives. Option 1) the BBC made this up completely and in fact no Tango routes are ever flown.

Option 2). Airlines are doing Tango routes even though they are not saving them money.

Option 1 is ridiculous, even to the most cynical journo-hater, and Thomas Cook admitted they did it.

Option 2 is not as improbable as it sounds because the internal accounting rules used by the airline may not accurately reflect all the costs. Companies can instruct accountants to calculate costs in certain ways. If most of the staff, maintenance, and depreciation costs are carried in a different column from operational costs, then a Tango routing flight might be saving an airline money, as it looks from one bean-counter’s cubicle, even though it may not when you broaden the outlook and examine the cost to the company as a whole.

Companies often set up “Chinese walls of costs” to make calculations easier within departments. If our maths chaps are right and the airlines are not really saving money, it would not be the first time internal accounting procedures designed to bring about more efficiency have ended up costing more in the end.

[sky9]

Shall we try to raise this debate a little higher?
Most airlines use computer flight planning that calculates the cost of all routes between departure and destination and produces the cheapest, taking into account forecast winds, operating costs and overflight charges. Some days the winds favour one route, some days another. If the prime route encounters significant delays the airline will use the less optimum route to avoid delays and pictures on the 6 o'clock news of stranded passengers.
What I find rather strange is the BBC use of helicopters. I remember about a year ago they had the whole BBC news team up in Scotland with a wild and speculative piece about bird-flu and a couple of swans. We were all treated to the spectacle of the news presenter doing the news live from a helicopter. Needless to say the swans didn't have bird-flu and the story died. Now is there a lesson in carbon footprints in that wild "goose" chase?

[javelin]

OK Boys and Girls,

If you want to look at carbon footprints look to the world of Islam and the Haj.

250,000 Indonesians will be transported up to Saudi this year to perform Haj. Each of the aeroplanes that are used will go back empty, no freight, no revenue, no passengers. That is 50 - 80 tonnes of fuel each empty sector.

This is then repeated after Haj to repatriate 250,000 Indonesians.

This is only one part of the Haj.

Don't worry abot tango routes, worry about what is happening in Saudi :sad:

[Big Tudor]

And whilst we are in the area javelin maybe we should consider the current fluffy bunny summit taking place in Bali. How much avgas has been consumed a) getting the bunnies to and from Bali and b) positioning the empty aircraft to other Indonesian airports due to lack of parking spaces at Bali? :hmm:

[Daysleeper]

I've just watched the item on the BBC website.

2 things strike me

1 the BBC guy actually flies to Tenerife, er thats carbon saving, and 2 the woman stood on the beach going - "I recycle even the smallest bit of cardboard..." er well if it bothers you that much holiday in Bognor next time. :ugh:

If you want to watch it its on BBC Kent (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/default.stm)

[757_Driver]

another nice BBC lie in the story is this basis for comparison:

Andy Farrar, of Air Data, based in Gatwick, calculated the fuel burnt on a tango route flight from Manchester to Tenerife on 16 November and compared it with an imaginary direct flight.

nice comparison - a straight line direct flight as we all know we can take of from LGW, get passed to london control and get given "climb FL370, direct final approach fix Teneriffe" don't we. :rolleyes:

and I'm not sure quite what aircraft model he is using because as far as I can work out an extra 100 miles at a speed of about 450 would cost me about 750 kgs of fuel, not 1.6 tonnes. 1.6 tonnes of extra fuel implies a fuel burn of 7.2 tonnes per hour, and yet the figures he uses are using fuel burns of considerably less.
To indicate just how much the BBC lie consider the next paragraph from the story.


Mr Farrar said: "The flight which flew over the ocean used 14.7 tonnes of fuel and took four hours 17 minutes. "The direct route would have used 13.1 tonnes and have been shorter at three hours 57 minutes."

The first flight (14.7 tonnes / 4:17) has a fuel burn of 3.43 tonnes per hour, and the shorter flight (13.1 tonnes / 3:57) has a fuel burn of 3.3 tonnes per hour, and then magically needs to burn 7.2 tonnes per hour,(before you ask about weight, carrying the extra tonne of fuel for 4 hours would cost about 150 - 200 kg fuel usage absolute max - about 30kg-40kg per hour which nowhere near accounts for the differences here)
also 100 mile difference would take about 12mins, not 20.

What a load of utter lies. This isn't even favourable use of statistics, its lies plain and simple.

I'm not sure quite why i'm picking holes in this story however as the BBC have never bothered worring about facts anyway, so quite why I should expect them to be correct now is beyond me.

[jimbo canuck]

Some interesting numbers appearing early in this thread, but I don't think anybody has it right so far. I have a degree in Chemistry (from a well-known Scottish University) and my estimate is that if you burn a ton of kerosene you get just over 3 tons of CO2. The calc. goes like this (assuming kerosene to be hexane)
C6H14 + 9.5O2 = 6 CO2 + 7H2O
In weight terms 86 units of hexane gives 264 units of CO2, hence the 3:1 ratio.
Just trying to be helpful.(And snowed in and bored)
Jimbo

[Lauderdale]

Have a look at those wonderful little unit rates below - KK, LL, SS :uhoh: (thats EGSS) operators just love flying that extra hour through EG airspace just to reach T9, 12 or 16............ to get down to GCXX.

Inmagine if T routes became CDR_3++ (read: never open!)...and our French friends went on strike (its been ages since they last done that! mmm, a week ago?); let alone on a normal day, push and hold for 90 minutes etc etc

You know this is such a stupid article, incompetent, untrue, false and misleading that I cant even be bothered to write down my arguments even more!

Mr Journo (or anyone at the BBC) if you read this then please feel free to ask me why, and at the same time I would like to cancel my TV licence fee (I love SKY! hehe), oh no , hold on I cant do that, bit like those EG nav charges; rip off Britain!



EB 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7095
ED 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6737
LF 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6097
EG 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7749
EH 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4767
EI 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2495
LS 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6896
LP 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4822
LO 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 5805
LE 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7664
GC 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6775
AZ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 1329
LG 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4418
LT 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2685
LM 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3485
LI 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6766
LC 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3513
LH 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3029
EN 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6525
EK 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 5515
LJ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6077
LR 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3955
LK 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4647
ES 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4622
LZ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4273
LD 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2987
LB 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4844
LW 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6688
LU 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4324
EF 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3823
LA 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4305
LQ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3929
LY 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4155

[chrisbl]

Maybe if the BBC journo was an expert in Tango routes, ATC routings, etc he might be a pilot instead of a journo.

If OKC was a bit more literate he might be a journo for the BBC instead of an aviator but at least he has the aptitude to be as economical with his facts which is a promising start.


Quote:
"Airlines are deliberately flying longer routes over the Atlantic Ocean to avoid paying air traffic control charges"
is (imho) bordering on lying... and I've already proved that it doesn't save money overall.
.

As far as I know, they have just said that these routes are being used to avoid paying ATC charges; it may be the case that charges are being avoided, how is that lying?:ugh:

[llondel]

Jimbo Canuck:
assuming kerosene to be hexane

I think you'll find it's got more carbon atoms than that. C10H22 to C16H34 is the range I've seen quoted. Hexane is somewhat more volatile, somewhere between butane (gas at room temperature) and petrol (primarily octane).

[Old King Coal]

chrisbl - I'd rather be an illiterate truth teller than an literate liar!

Therein please do be so kind as to tell us where it is that I've been economical with my facts?... i.e. what with you being an expert on airline jet ops et al and / or please also do tell us how many thousands of hours you've got flying large transport jets and / or how many years you've been working in the airline business, i.e. I'm just curious to confirm your bona fide's... wherein are you an amateur (e.g. BBC journo) or are you an airline professional ?!

You say: "As far as I know, they (the BBC) have just said that these routes are being used to avoid paying ATC charges; it may be the case that charges are being avoided, how is that lying?"Wherein I suspect that I strongly disagree with you about the damaging inference that has been made by the BBC.

By way of example, let's imagine that chrisbl is on his way to the filling station 'A' only to find that station 'A' has very long queues / a lengthy wait. However, looking down the road (5% further away) toward filling station 'B' the queues are a lot less... and therein chrisbl's time (=money!) is of the essence. And furthermore the fuel at filling station 'B' is cheaper! Uhm, so what's chrisbl to do?

Following on from this, how would chrisbl like some ne'erdowell at the BBC to write an article which either said and / or very-strongly-inferred that:"chrisbl, intentionally drives past the nearest filling station in order to avail him self of the faster service located at a filling station 5% further down the road... wherein this just goes to show what a total polluting hypocrite that chrisbl really is!"... would chrisbl think that was fair?

Moving swiftly on... I think what Lauderdale is alluding to, i.e. wrt 'unit ATC rates' is that maybe the UK, France, Spain, Portugal are taking the absolute piss when it comes to ATC charges... or else wise (and with my Devils Advocate hat firmly in place) how come the folks at the bottom of this list can provide the same level(?) of ATC service for substantially less £$€'s ?!

Price Area
----------------------
7749 UK
7664 Spain
7095 Belgium
6896 Lesotho
6775 Canary Isles
6766 Liechtenstein
6737 Germany
6688 Macedonia
6525 Norway
6097 France
6077 Slovenia
5805 Solomon Islands
5515 Uzbekistan
4844 Albania
4822 Portugal
4767 Holland
4647 Faro Islands
4622 Estonia
4418 Greece
4324 Luxembourg
4305 Iceland
4273 Slovakia
4155 Serbia
3955 Romania
3929 Bosnia Herzegovinia
3823 Finland
3513 Cyprus
3485 Malta
3029 Hungary
2987 Crotia
2685 Turkey
2495 Ireland
1329 Kazachstan

You gotta love the Irish ! :ok:

[mfarrar]

The extra fuel required to fly the Tango route is actually 834 Kgs (14949-14115) which, at $850/1000Kgs, works out at about £352.
So, the "saving" in overflight charges against fuel is £610 - £352 = £258
But the flight is (actually) 11 minutes longer, and I have no idea what that costs (in terms of £/hr).

One significant point that the programme (the bit I saw) didn't mention is that, as last week, the winds are often favourable to go to the Canaries over the ocean. Any sensible airline would take advantage of that - and probably return by the "direct" route, to avoid headwinds.

Apart from that, I didn't think that the programme was all THAT bad.
At least they mentioned the fact that oceanic routes avoid the (highly probable) likelihood of ATC problems and delays, and they allowed Monarch the chance to put their point of view.
A little more on WHY overflight charges are so high might have been appropriate.
:hmm:

[ZeBedie]

I think "Frangible" hit the nail on the head in post #26.

[mfarrar]

The figures given on the programme were not exactly what were calculated (and I could send you copies of the plans, if you wish).
The so-called "imaginary route" was a real enough one (routings were given to me, from "another provider").
The aircraft was a generic 757200, flown at M79 - performance data from Boeing.
So, no lies, I'm afraid.
Please see my other reply (above)

[Desert Diner]

From the BBC article in question:

A spokesman said: "By travelling via these Oceanic routes, the company avoids paying French and/or Spanish overflight charges and instead pays a much smaller Oceanic airspace overflight charge to the UK and Ireland.

The title should have been

"French/Spanish Promote Extra Carbon Emissions with High Charges"

[Desert Diner]

I think you'll find it's got more carbon atoms than that. C10H22 to C16H34 is the range I've seen quoted. Hexane is somewhat more volatile, somewhere between butane (gas at room temperature) and petrol (primarily octane).

Kero/Jet would be around C12-C14 but the mathametics are right as the carbon makes up about 85% of the C+H mass while it makes only 27% (12/44) of the CO2 mass.

So a ton of kero will make around 3.15 tons of CO2 (0.85 X 44/12 = 3.15)

[DooblerChina]

After a quick view of the log book, I reckon I have been to the Canaries 40 or 50 times and used Tango routes TWICE. Both times I seem to remember the French being on strike.

Reporters have to justify their salaries and if they write about aviation and climate change they are almost certain to feature on the nightly news.

Another load of tripe.......

[Fizix]

Desert Diner, it would read more accurately to say ...

A ton of kero AND all the atmospheric Oxygen required would make around 3.15 tons of CO2, some water vapour and a little bit of energy to keep things going. The mass balance must be the same (remember the laws of conservation), so flying is merely a process of conversion from one mass form into others.

I wonder how much CO2 is produced by all the vehicles bringing SLF to their respective points of departure?

[fireflybob]

What about drivers who travel a further distance in their cars to avoid paying to go on a (shorter) toll road?

[mfarrar]

Either:

GCTS TO EGCC ETD 1900 B752 M79 04/12/07
COMPUTED 04/1615Z WX PROG 04/1200Z

“TANGO” ROUTE

++++ INFO ++++ MAX PAYLOAD AVAILABLE: 17935 KGS LIMITED BY MZFW

FUEL TIME DIST ETA TOW LAW PAYLOAD APSWT
ARR EGCC 13672 04/05 01915 2305 095550 081878 017935 060648
ALT EGBB 954 00/18 00057 2323
HLD 1657 00/30
RES 684 00/12
TXY 250 ../..
XTR 0 00/00
TANK 0 00/00
TTL 17217 05/05


FUEL BURN ADJUSTMENT FOR 1000KGS INCREASE IN TAKEOFF WT 0161KGS

GCTS BIMB1F BIMBO UN745 SNT T16 OMOKO UN486 CRK UP600 DUB UL975
LIFFY L975 LYNAS MIRS1B EGCC

WIND P044 MXSH 2/BIMBO
FL 360/NAVIX 370/OMOKO 390

TOTAL OVERFLIGHT CHARGE 928.72 GBP

OR:


GCTS TO EGCC ETD 1900 B752 M79 04/12/07
COMPUTED 04/1613Z WX PROG 04/1200Z

"DIRECT" ROUTE

++++ INFO ++++ MAX PAYLOAD AVAILABLE: 17935 KGS LIMITED BY MZFW


FUEL TIME DIST ETA TOW LAW PAYLOAD APSWT
ARR EGCC 13754 04/09 01807 2309 095636 081882 017935 060648
ALT EGBB 954 00/18 00057 2327
HLD 1657 00/30
RES 688 00/12
TXY 250 ../..
XTR 0 00/00
TANK 0 00/00
TTL 17303 05/09


FUEL BURN ADJUSTMENT FOR 1000KGS INCREASE IN TAKEOFF WT 0162KGS

GCTS KONB1F KONBA UN866 QPR UM30 SALCO UN864 NITON N864 MONTY
MIRS1A EGCC

WIND P016 MXSH 2/LUPEX
FL 360/KUBIL 380

TOTAL OVERFLIGHT CHARGE 1578.24 GBP


Not too hard to figure out which one to use.

[beamer]

Ha - that will be the BBC 'journalist' who sent me an unsolicited e-mail trying to get some gen on Tango routes. Perhaps he would like to spend some time trying to explain why their is about to be a mega conference in Bali on the subject of global warming and associated matters - sounds like a jolly to me !
As for the comment 'I'm from the BBC not The Daily Mail' - the expression 'so b*****y what' comes to mind !

nb is that the Mike Farrar who was on C-130's ?

[MarkD]

Is there a case for reducing the "direct" charge and increasing the Oceanics or are the current charges properly reflective of the ATC cost of both routes and thus best left alone?

[chrisbl]

Perhaps he would like to spend some time trying to explain why their is about to be a mega conference in Bali on the subject of global warming and associated matters

It is not the journos job to answer this question it is the job of those attending the event to answer.

Still a nice little earner for the airlines and the crews. No sign of the industry refusing to carry people to this "jolly" to save the world.

Being picky, the correct word is "there" not "their".

For OKC if you believe what you say then to you its the truth. That's why politicians are hard to fathom at times. How can both sides be telling the truth at the same time?

Its only a lie if you know it to be wrong.

So it looks as both you and the journo are telling the truth as you both see it. You may both be wrong of course.

Being ignorant is not the same as being a liar either.