BA Whistleblower Reveals Tankering of Fuel - BBC

[Airbubba]

The latest environmental hit piece on the airlines.

Climate change: Airlines accused of 'putting profit before planet'By Justin Rowlatt Chief environment correspondentA British Airways whistleblower has revealed an industry-wide practice that deliberately adds weight to flights, increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

"Fuel tankering" sees planes filled with extra fuel, usually to avoid paying higher prices for refuelling at their destination airports.

It could mean extra annual emissions equivalent to that of a large town.

BA said it was common to carry extra fuel for "operational, safety and price reasons".

BBC Panorama has discovered the airline's planes generated an extra 18,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide last year through fuel tankering.

Cost savings made on a single flight can be as small as just over £10 - though savings can run to hundreds of pounds.

Researchers have estimated that one in five of all European flights (https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/fuel-tankering-european-skies-economic-benefits-and-environmental-impact) involve some element of fuel tankering.

The practice on European routes could result in additional annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to that produced by a town of 100,000 people.

Eurocontrol described the practice as "questionable" at a time when aviation is being challenged for its contribution to climate change.

But the BA whistleblower said: "I've been a BA employee for a long time.

"I'm very proud to be part of BA but in all honesty it makes me sad and disappointed."



https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50365362 (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50365362)

[Sqwak7700]

Well done. Sick and tired of the virtue signaling by airlines about how much they care about the environment. Stand up for yourself and tell critics the truth; if we are gonna tackle emissions, then airlines are way down on the list of worst offenders. Hopefully the same happens to other businesses going on about how “green” they are.

Im all for conserving resources and reducing waste. We should all be doing our part, every little bit helps. But I’m not for the nauseating virtue signaling and disguising of cost cuts as if you are doing it for “the environment”.

[oceancrosser]

The practice on European routes could result in additional annual greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to that produced by a town of 100,000 people.

Until proven, this is fake news.

[Longtimer]

Tankering of fuel is smart and it results in less cost to the airlines / cheaper tickets for those who use the airlines.. Complains about use of petroleum products is less than smart unless you are prepared to give up all of your personal items that were or are derived from petroleum products.

[jack11111]

I'm very large on taking care of the environment but this seems like 'small potatoes' in the large scheme of things.

[OldnGrounded]

I'm very large on taking care of the environment but this seems like 'small potatoes' in the large scheme of things.

Lots of people would probably think of me as an environmental extremist and I think this is so trivial as to be not worth noticing.

[Wizofoz]

Until proven, this is fake news.

No, until proven, it's unconfirmed. It's fake if it's not true. Tankering of fuel is most DEFINATLEY real- BA admit it. The extent of the extra emissions is pretty much simple math.

[Nomad2]

The only beneficiary of fuel tankering is the airline. It doesn't lead to cheaper fares.
A reduction in costs, does not lead to a reduction of fares- rather it leads to an increase in profit.
Having said that, this Is pretty 'small beer', in the overall scheme of things.

[neville_nobody]

The only beneficiary of fuel tankering is the airline. It doesn't lead to cheaper fares. A reduction in costs, does not lead to a reduction of fares- rather it leads to an increase in profit. Having said that, this Is pretty 'small beer', in the overall scheme of things.

By tankering it introduces competition to your fuel supply and ultimately price. If you categorically did not tanker your fuel supply would become a nice little monopoly market at your point of departure.

[B Fraser]

Surely the answer is for the EU to do something sensible for once and enforce price caps for fuel at the more expensive destinations. Those reduced profits would be mitigated through increased sales volume, albeit at a slightly reduced margin. A lower margin sale is better than no sale at all.

[InSoMnIaC]

We should also require airlines to only operate the most fuel efficient aircraft that the industry has to offer. After all we only use less fuel efficient aircraft due to Cost.

[jolihokistix]

Not defending the airlines for a minute, but this kind of thinking can lead to calculations as to how many towns' and cities' worth of pollution would be saved if everyone drove their car with half or even a third of a tank of gasoline/petrol.
E.g. Should the good *EC citizen(ess) really be thinking, "Fill 'er up at the local garage, coz it's cheaper than on the motorway!" or "Not sure when I'll find another Tesco 100 RON, or Shell V-Power station, so better fill it to the brim now." ???

*EC environmentally conscious

[fox niner]

Uhh...I’m guilty. I admit I commit the crime of tankering all the time when I fill up my car. Saves me about €7 per tank, but it requires me to make a small detour. I have an app which shows gas prices in real time at all gas stations, so I check and choose where to fill up. So while detouring I am killing the planet. And also when I have a 777 tankered professionally.
I feel sooo bad and ashamed, I almost have to cry. (sob sob)

[GordonR_Cape]

Limiting the speed of ships also seems to be fashionable topic to reduce fuel consumption: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50348321

[Andrewgr2]

Occurs to me that fuel may be more expensive in out of the way destinations that may not shift large volumes. The environmental cost of getting the fuel there probably in road tankers, may not be insignificant. Flying it there may not be inefficient.

[ETOPS]

Most mornings over Heathrow there is a queue of aircraft holding as they wait for the 0600 curfew to end. At times this builds from around 0545 and often involves 12 or so aircraft. I did it myself for a couple of decades so tried to calculate my "extra" carbon emisions based on average air holding times - I ran out of zeros on my calculator.

This holding is far more damaging than tankering and I did try to avoid it by slowing down en-route but arriving at the back of that queue still brought the dreaded " take up the hold at Lambourne - maintain FL 160 - at least 20 mins delay"..........

[DaveReidUK]

Until proven, this is fake news.

The stats come from Eurocontrol, that well-known collection of fake news purveyors. They even provide a simple diagram to help those who can't get their head around the issue:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/549x561/tankering_c2fb3bd5622bc435007d46faabb3c92962facdb1.jpg
EUROCONTROL - Fuel Tankering Economic Benefits and Environmental Impact (https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/fuel-tankering-european-skies-economic-benefits-and-environmental-impact)

[fdr]

The problems that the rock face are somewhat more significant than whether you tanker to achieve an arbitrage. Lighting uses around 7 times more energy than all of the global air traffic at present.

A quick look at the international energy outlook, IEO is interesting reading, and would suggest that the effect of tankering is hardly the problem that exists, it is a minor bump in the underlying data, approaching trivia.


https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1250/screen_shot_2019_11_11_at_3_39_00_pm_a1929c07a166e4d0eb7812b a4d6924cd9cf601c9.png

[733driver]

I think those who dismiss the environmental effects of tankering outright are a bit short-sighted. I am a bit tired of the standard response "this is such a small issue. It makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things". Maybe true. But all the little areas where we waste resources combined do make a big difference. It's like every industry saying: "We only contribute x% to worldwide carbon emissions. Again, true, but if every single one of those industries cut their emissions by say 25% then the effect would be massive. And yes, Human consumption, animals etc emit a lot of carbon. But that should be no reason to not minimize emissions/use of finite resources were we can.

As an industry we have lot's of room for improvement without having to ban flying or making it prohibitively expensive. If, with the help of governments, we could fly optimum levels and direct routes more often, spend less time in holding and in queues for departure, and yes, perhaps had to tanker fuel less frequently, that would all help. Now, I'm sot suggesting airlines should be forced to buy expensive fuel instead of tankering, but if governments are serious about cutting emissions then maybe it should be illegal to sell fuel at such prices that economic tankering makes sense for the airline. Just a thought.

[fdr]

The stats come from Eurocontrol, that well-known collection of fake news purveyors. They even provide a simple diagram to help those who can't get their head around the issue:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/549x561/tankering_c2fb3bd5622bc435007d46faabb3c92962facdb1.jpg
EUROCONTROL - Fuel Tankering Economic Benefits and Environmental Impact (https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/fuel-tankering-european-skies-economic-benefits-and-environmental-impact)


Yup,

Tankering gets done in one direction normally, there is an economic benefit that outweighs the additional cost of carriage. The effect of weight is indicated in the Breguet range formula, but in general, adding extra fuel over long ranges will cost considerably in the amount of fuel that remains from that on arrival. Somewhere around ~ 4% of the excess fuel will be burnt per hour of flight. EU land tracks the data of flights into and out of their space, it helps keep the grins on la Vache qui rit. So the data exists to make some assumptions, if one bothers getting the data. Only part of the routes that exist justify any tankering due to differentials on fuel costs justifying the wear/tear and extra fuel burns, and that is logically only in one direction on each of those routes. For long haul, say 12 hour or longer flights, extra fuel is a double edged sword, the burn itself takes out some 40%+ of the economic benefit, and may alter the ability to achieve any reasonable cruise altitude, which has a potential to adversely affect the total fuel burn for the whole flight, once stuck down, it can be a PITA to get back up again on many routes.

We operate efficiently over the course of the flight, to arrive and get slotted into a holding patten as after 12 to 16 hours of suggestion that we are comin', we still snarl up with the flights that took off 45 minutes before... long haul tend to be heavier than the short haul as the way of things, and we get to spend time in the stack. Before that, we also have the pleasure of waiting for coordination, and then pushing back, starting donks, and finding out we are #26 in the queue. If that doesn't give enough annoyance, we also get the vertical path for coordination that drops the aircraft out of optimal path some 250nm from destination, and we get to fumigate the mid atmosphere with soot and CO2 while wasting time and obviously the fuel to turn to noise, soot, and CO2. My favourite arrival has a mandatory crossing height 90nm from destination at 9,000'.

Worrying about fuel burn from tankering is low down on the efficiency issues totem we have in the industry.

[Dannyboy39]

This holding is far more damaging than tankering and I did try to avoid it by slowing down en-route but arriving at the back of that queue still brought the dreaded " take up the hold at Lambourne - maintain FL 160 - at least 20 mins delay"..........
Nail on head sir. And the way around this - have a third and fourth runway at LHR. Often the MAN-LHR flt time is doubled due to Monday morning holding. Very frustrating.

[EastofKoksy]

Hands up all those working at the BBC and everywhere else that drive an extra mile or two to find cheaper fuel then fill up their tanks to the brim. This practice must also use fuel to carry fuel. The Panorama programme will probably be just be another virtue signalling fest from the BBC against the great satan of flying.

[KelvinD]

From an economic point of view, I wonder how economic tankering really is over the long term. I was thinking that if you arrive at destination with sufficient fuel for the return trip, plus reserve, the aircraft will be heavier when landing than it normally would be. Certainly, the weight will be within limits but surely repeated heavier than necessary landings over many cycles breaks "pickle forks"?

[Airstripflyer]

Tankering is normally done because the extra cost of carrying the additional weight of fuel is less than the cost of buying the fuel at destination. But often the fuel price is high at the destination because of the difficulty of getting the fuel there. The logistics of supplying fuel to a small island in the middle of the ocean add considerably to the cost - and the fuel efficiency of the supply ships will not be good. So overall it probably burns less fuel to tanker.

[ShyTorque]

It will make a difference when we all stop flying.

[InSoMnIaC]

I don’t see where in the EuroControl’s very scientific Diagram it shows the fuel Burnt to transport the non tankered fuel to airports with expensive fuel

[Mgggpilot]

So tankering my A330 to land at destination with 1 tonne less MLW and not tankering (min flight plan fuel) same sector coz my flight was full (with pax) again landing at the destination with 1 tonne less MLW.
considering two cases above, isnt carbon emission the same? So what's the fuss now? Should we offload pax (if flights are full) so we fly lighter to be praised by "environmentalists"?
What am I missing here?

[Luke SkyToddler]

Airstripflyer makes the relevant point

If you tanker fuel to a place like the Seychelles or Kathmandu because it's expensive, that fuel has ALREADY been tankered there in trucks and boats. Which are less efficient than planes in the first place.

If you tanker fuel from a place like Jeddah because it's cheaper than LHR - well guess where the fuel in the pumps in LHR came from?

[Bergerie1]

fdr,

I agree. Tankering is only a very small part of the issue. If European governments were really interested in reducing emissions from aviation, they would redesign the whole European ATM system to ensure better routes and flight profiles. This would be a double whammy - more efficient flights, less emissions and shorter flight times.

[AviatorDave]

It will make a difference when we all stop flying.

Which seems to be the ultimate goal. It is interesting that it is aviation with its small to moderate overall impact that gets the most flogging and is kind of treated as the worst offender.
Socialist agendas don't like the average Joe to be mobile and freely travel around through the world. Could get Joe the wrong ideas ...

[jolihokistix]

In light of Dave Reid's graphs I would like to modify my earlier car analogy.
Racing a car at the track up in the hills, I used to carry 40 litres of extra fuel in metal cans in the back, because the pump fuel prices at the circuit were exorbitant. The fuel I was carrying was cold and fresh, from a place where fuel was sold in large quantity and in presumably guaranteed quality. The fuel up at the track was expensive, thus not popular, thus not much used, thus of dubious quality, was the general feeling.

Reaches for hat and coat...

[PiggyBack]

You have to love journalists. The BBC reveal a whistleblowers revelation that airlines take common sense actions to mitigate high fuel costs in some locations by doing what everyone with a car does hen they fill up at a petrol station with low prices. They perform a calculation which exagerates the effect by ignoring the environmental costs of getting the fuel to those high cost locations and even so end up with a figure for the extra carbon emitted which I calculate as 1.8e4/9.18e8 or 0.002% of the emissions of the airline industry. This really is negligible and without any detailled knowledge or calculations probably at least two probably three orders of magnitude smaller than what could be saved simply by seeking to improve general efficiencies.

This story is senstionalist nonsense built on a tiny kernel of truth especialy the concept of there needing to be a 'whistleblower' to reveal the situation.

[dixi188]

I imagine it is the LOCOs that do the most tankering as they do mostly short haul flights and lots of them.

[stormin norman]

BA is very good at cutting carbon emissions, makes profit ,pays its staff a salary and provides a service taking millions of people on holidays and business trips a year.

The BBC puts on sports personality of the year. Ensuring thousands of people travel thousands of miles by road, rail and air to watch an event in a stadia that could be done by 5 people in studio in Manchester.

[Fire and brimstone]

If we are talking about economy and emissions, what proportion of pilots stick to the mandated ECON cost index .................... ??

Only a modicum of discipline required.

P.S. As for the brave whistleblower: the management will move heaven and earth to get to him / her. The CAA have a whistleblowing facility - I wonder why they did not go straight to the regulator ...............

[esscee]

Almost a bit of a "non-thread", as explained very well by others. Definitely not "whistleblowing", more like common sense. Fuel has to get to some of these remote locations somehow THAT is why it is more expensive there!

[Skyjob]

Perspective...
Economically tankering saves money if flying same route on same day compared to non-tankering flight.
Environmentally missions are re reduced as shortcuts are given, no holding delays are expected and less weight is carried.

When compared, on an average EU flight distance of 600nm (according to Eurocontrol document):
Economically: tankering saves 167 liters ~ £92

The economic impact above is equivalent to 4 minutes delay, eg once around the holding pattern, being second for approach on arrival at destination, speeding up and/or 20 extra track miles delaying please.

[flyer4life]

If we are talking about economy and emissions, what proportion of pilots stick to the mandated ECON cost index .................... ??

The policy at Air France (shorthaul at least) is to fly maximum speed for minimum flight times. You can often hear them in French asking ATC to order the aircraft ahead of them to speed up. That’s an entire airline with no interest in flying fuel efficient speeds.

[old,not bold]

BA, whose flight plans I/we used to prepare as their anointed handlers in the Gulf in the early 1970s, routinely tankered fuel around to save costs, and presumably have done before and since that period. So it's hardly fresh news.

Whoever said that a ban on tankering would simply encourage suppliers at airports with only 1 supplier (ie the majority) to increase prices hit the nail on the head. At the moment suppliers monitor prices at other airports very closely to remain competitive in carriers' price indices. I don't know how it works with global supply contracts, these days.

Mind you, enforcing such a 'ban' would be challenging. Who, exactly, would enforce it, and how?

What really gets me worked up is going round and round a holding point waiting for a LHR approach clearance. (And elsewhere, of course; I only use LHR at the moment.) With modern IT capabilities IT CANNOT BE BEYOND THE WIT OF MAN to manage air traffic on route and at airports so that this huge contributor to emissions no longer happens. I know ALL the reasons why it "just can't be done, old chap, do keep up, far too many variables", and I also know that with political, financial and operational determination they can be overcome.

I often have to go to Cologne from LHR. A 5 - 20 minute hold on the evening (peak time) return sector seems to be pretty much standard. WHY, for God's sake? Mainly because everyone just accepts the insanity as normal, unavoidable even, shrugs their shoulders and carries on.

[InSoMnIaC]

One way to put an end to this greedy practice of tankering fuel (which if not done has to arrive at the destination by some other means) is to base airways charges on Actual TOW iso Max TOW. This will allow the airline to save money by only paying based on how much is being carried and save the environment. Oh wait. That won’t work because it doesn’t unfairly disadvantage airlines.

[FullWings]

If you truly wanted to save some fuel, how about banning duty free carriage on board and have it picked up at destination? Some items must get flown around the world for hundreds or thousands of hours before being sold.

I occasionally do a tankering flight but it is often to destinations where fuel supply is intermittent as well as expensive. As others have said, there are sound operational reasons for doing so sometimes and if we want to be serious, reducing holding delays and taxi times at busy airfields is much lower hanging fruit and is a win in all respects...

[George Glass]

What a load. Amazing how so many punters feel the need to comment on something they know nothing about. Here’s the news flash; All airlines have tankering policies !?!? Shocking isn’t it? Say you’re operating Sydney - Alice Springs. Alice Springs is in the middle of nowhere and JetA1 is extortionately expensive AND in limited supply. Of course you tanker fuel. You’re an idiot if you don’t. And much does it cost to transport fuel to the Alice in the first place ? Are you going to volunteer to pay a surcharge to NOT tanker ? People really need to get a grip on what they get outraged by.

[Rarife]

I think those who dismiss the environmental effects of tankering outright are a bit short-sighted. I am a bit tired of the standard response "this is such a small issue. It makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things". Maybe true. But all the little areas where we waste resources combined do make a big difference. It's like every industry saying: "We only contribute x% to worldwide carbon emissions. Again, true, but if every single one of those industries cut their emissions by say 25% then the effect would be massive. And yes, Human consumption, animals etc emit a lot of carbon. But that should be no reason to not minimize emissions/use of finite resources were we can.

As an industry we have lot's of room for improvement without having to ban flying or making it prohibitively expensive. If, with the help of governments, we could fly optimum levels and direct routes more often, spend less time in holding and in queues for departure, and yes, perhaps had to tanker fuel less frequently, that would all help. Now, I'm sot suggesting airlines should be forced to buy expensive fuel instead of tankering, but if governments are serious about cutting emissions then maybe it should be illegal to sell fuel at such prices that economic tankering makes sense for the airline. Just a thought.

But you know that none cares for facts, don't you? It really does not matter how it is in reality or what can we do. We, as an industry, are just hated by "new communistic hippies" and they only think they want is to limit, ban, tax. They will not care about numbers. The problem is that we can hardly cut aviation emmisions by 25%. Well, we can easily cut energetic industry by more than 25% and it will be much more in total. But none cares. We hate flying now.

[ZBMAN]

The policy at Air France (shorthaul at least) is to fly maximum speed for minimum flight times. You can often hear them in French asking ATC to order the aircraft ahead of them to speed up. That’s an entire airline with no interest in flying fuel efficient speeds.

Absolute nonsense. Not going to into the details of our fuel policy here, but typically we fly with a low cost index, sometimes CI=0 if we are ahead of schedule, When I joined from EZY I found both AF and EZY flew the same CI. If running late we may ask to speed up to salvage a few connections, but this is far from being the norm. Our fuel policy is in line with industry norm, but hey let’s not miss a good excuse to talk down the french or AF :rolleyes:

[jan99]

After some 30 or 40 years of climate propaganda any impact of CO2 on climate has not been shown. There is a good chance that no evidence will ever appear.
The propaganda relies completely on so called projections through unsuitable guided and tuned models.
Making the subject of this thread, the CO2 scare, somewhat silly.

[beamender99]

British Airways reviews fuel tankering.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50365362

[UltraFan]

Yet another no-news. When I see numbers like "same as 100,000 people in a year", I start to smell the rat. Every London bus emits enough greenhouse gas to fill the Atlantic ocean three times over. Go try to fact check this. Until news outlets like BBC are chasing "hot" stories written by bored teenagers instead of promoting proper research, this planet is doomed.

[Mostly in Europe]

From my experience working for a maintenance outfit at STN a few years ago, this is only part of the story. As someone said earlier in the thread, the fuel may be more expensive down route; it may also be of poor quality.

In addition airlines who pride themselves on quick (30 min) turnarounds will not be able to, as you can't refuel while pax are on board (unless the rules have changed), thus the turnaround would not be achievable.

So rather one-sided reporting in my opinion...

[OMAAbound]

This thread is utter garbage! Tankering has happened forever, period! Any aviator will tell you they’ve burned more fuel than they’ve tankered in their entire career waiting at ANY holding point, at ANY airfield!

Absolute codswallop from all the snowflakes these days trying make a case!

OMAA

[Eclectic]

Carbon Dioxide is really good stuff, we don't have enough of it. It is food for plants, which by photosynthesis release from it (and from water) the Oxygen we breathe.
The main effect of fossil fuel use has been to green the planet, feeding us and preventing famine. The effect is huge. NASA say "increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

It is also worth noting that there is no scientific proof whatsoever that CO2 acts as a "greenhouse gas" in the earth's atmosphere. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and planetary temperatures.
The Medieval Warming Period was some 1.5C warmer than the current one and the Roman Warming Period as much as 4C warmer, yet their CO2 levels were lower.

However there is a correlation between Milankovitch Cycles and global temperature. These are caused by scientifically proven variation to the Earth's orbit due to the gravitational pull of the planets.

[Bergerie1]

old, not bold,

Which comes back to my contention that devising a much more co-ordinated European ATM system would pay dividends in every way for efficiency, costs, emissions and time keeping. If the ATM system worked more as a whole, rather than a set of different national systems, 'going round and round in the hold ' as you say, waiting to land could be very much reduced. Heathrow uses holding to maximise runway throughput, but it could also be done by a Europe-wide metering system to adjust arrivel times with far less holding.

BUT, this needs Europe-wide co-operation, and politicians are not very good at that unfortunately.

[Astir 511]

The only beneficiary of fuel tankering is the airline. It doesn't lead to cheaper fares.
A reduction in costs, does not lead to a reduction of fares- rather it leads to an increase in profit.
Having said that, this Is pretty 'small beer', in the overall scheme of things.

Overall a reduction in Costs should lead to lower fares, especially as not refueling each turn-round maximises Asset Utilisation, reducing overhead allocation costs.
Agree it's not a direct consequence, but overall profitability and Income exceeding costs is what makes the industry financially sustainable (But perhaps not ecologically Sustainable!!)
But agree it is small fry!!

[occasional]

There is something missing from the BBC articles and that is that tankering is done to some rather surprising places. Glasgow fuel is mentioned as being 25% more expensive than Heathrow.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/11/ba-to-review-fuel-tankering-after-panorama-revelations

[DaveReidUK]

This thread is utter garbage! Tankering has happened forever, period!Any aviator will tell you they’ve burned more fuel than they’ve tankered in their entire career waiting at ANY holding point, at ANY airfield!

Absolute codswallop from all the snowflakes these days trying make a case!
Out of interest, what do you think the snowflakes at Eurocontrol stand to gain from their scaremongering ?

[EastMids]

From the BBC article:
Eurocontrol, the body which coordinates air traffic control for Europe, has calculated that tankering in Europe resulted in 286,000 tonnes of extra fuel being burnt every year, and the emission of an additional 901,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Seems like the airline industry has introduced a matter creation scheme - burn 286,000 tonnes of fuel and get 901,000 tonnes of carbon doixide!

[Locked door]

It’s very basic organic chemistry. Each carbon atom from the fuel combines with two oxygen atoms from the air meaning the resulting waste product (CO2) is much heavier than the fuel. Likewise the very light hydrogen in the fuel combines with heavier oxygen at a ratio of 2:1 making water which is also heavier than the original fuel.

2 C12H26 + 37 O2 = 24 CO2 + 26 H2O

That brought on a cold shudder!

[Torquelink]

If tankering becomes an issue, what about ultra long-haul? QF's Project Sunrise and similar operations will be the next target no doubt: massive fuel load, tiny payload fraction, handful of pampered pax etc etc.

[wiggy]

From the BBC article:

Seems like the airline industry has introduced a matter creation scheme - burn 286,000 tonnes of fuel and get 901,000 tonnes of carbon doixide!




Not really ..I've not checked the sums, I'm not about to, but in very very simplistic terms think of it as the combustion process "adding" atmospheric oxygen scooped up by the engine intakes to some of the carbon in fuel to produce the carbon dioxide, hence the mass increase.

[sixgee]

What about the cost of repeatedly lugging trolleys full of duty free booze and trinkets all over the world for sale on an aeroplane?

Why not ship the duty free goods once by an environmentally friendly means, and collect at your destination?

[Lord Bracken]

What about the cost of repeatedly lugging trolleys full of duty free booze and trinkets all over the world for sale on an aeroplane?

Why not ship the duty free goods once by an environmentally friendly means, and collect at your destination?

When flying in Club Europe yesterday on a certain Big Airline, the seatback pocket included 1x Highlife 1x BusinessLife 1x HighLife SHOP 1x M&S Buy on Board Menu 1x Safety Card 1x Wifi Brochure 3x sick bags. *180 seats, how many kg of mainly-unread paper are they carrying around every day?

[mike current]

A few textbook replies.

Climate change denial, use of the words fake news and snowflakes.

Brexit voters perchance? 😂

[fox niner]

Tankered fuel is actually cargo. Payload.

[aerodestination]

The reason why fuel is way more expensive at some places is because of the costs to get the fuel to that place. For ny airline I often tanker fuel to greek islands. Yes we do burn more on the inbound flight but we save quite a bit on the fuel bill.

How do we think the jet A1 is getting to one of those islands? If you take this into account, tankering does make sense. Economically and environmentally.

[cessnapete]

What rubbish. Far more fuel/energ wastage/pollution is caused by inefficient ATC /lack of runway space, causing huge amounts of Holding time worldwide.
How are the Climate Police going to differentiate Tankering from my extra Trip Fuel loaded for operational/safety reasons?

[DaveReidUK]

What rubbish. Far more fuel/energ wastage/pollution is caused by inefficient ATC /lack of runway space, causing huge amounts of Holding time worldwide.

Good to see that whataboutery is alive and well at PPRuNe

Tankered fuel is actually cargo. Payload.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

But only if you redefine "cargo" to mean weight that the airline pays itself to carry around, rather than weight that somebody else is paying it to transport. :O

[Fire and brimstone]

This thread is utter garbage! Tankering has happened forever, period!Any aviator will tell you they’ve burned more fuel than they’ve tankered in their entire career waiting at ANY holding point, at ANY airfield!

Absolute codswallop from all the snowflakes these days trying make a case!

OMAA

I partly agree with your sentiment.

What you cannot avoid is the fact air travel is not a good thing for the environment. Perhaps the more relevant factors are those affecting 'sustainability' of the industry, and the expansion in recent years. How many aircraft in the skies (especially in europe) now compared with previously. They are now more fuel efficient, but they can compare carbon emissions.

If you fly loco multiple times a year I think you need to place a hell of a lot of trees to 'off-set' your carbon footprint.

I am sure all the passengers do this routinely, for the sake of the grand kids, yes??

[fireflybob]

How about the odd diversion (with attendant extra fuel burn to reposition the a/c etc) which has been avoided due to tankering? Extra fuel gives you more flexibility which from a holistic point of view can save fuel.

[BDAttitude]

So PPRUNE wants to tell me tonight that flying fuel on an airliner is more energy efficient than driving it in a truck or a convey it by tanker ship?
​​​​​​Really?

[ShyTorque]

I partly agree with your sentiment.

What you cannot avoid is the fact air travel is not a good thing for the environment. Perhaps the more relevant factors are those affecting 'sustainability' of the industry, and the expansion in recent years. How many aircraft in the skies (especially in europe) now compared with previously. They are now more fuel efficient, but they can compare carbon emissions.

If you fly loco multiple times a year I think you need to place a hell of a lot of trees to 'off-set' your carbon footprint.

I am sure all the passengers do this routinely, for the sake of the grand kids, yes??

That famous actress, Emma Thompson has the answer. She plants lots of trees and flies economy! :D So very well done, Emma, a world saving idea!

[NutLoose]

When are the dogooders ever going to stop this cr@p, what next, the amount of domestic water carried?

I bet half of them fill their cars up to the brim at the cheapest petrol station and then haul all that excess fuel about with them, even if they are only travelling a few miles to work, I do wonder if the irony of it all will be lost on them.

They want to also ask why do airports or airlines sell duty free spirits and cigarettes etc to be hauled from one destination to another burning fuel and being a fire risk when they could simply buy a redeemable voucher that surely could be exchanged at any Tesco's or the like on return or in the country of your destination or wait for it, at the destination airports duty free facility.

[DaveReidUK]

So PPRUNE wants to tell me tonight that flying fuel on an airliner is more energy efficient than driving it in a truck or a convey it by tanker ship?
​​​​​​Really?

One of the great things about PPRuNe is all the interesting "facts" that one learns. :O

[Magplug]

British Airways is like most multinationals. The will say the right thing... then do their own thing.

Fuel tankering will continue until the regulator makes it illegal...... at which point we will all scream hoorah as we will have negated 0.001% of China's emissions. Greta Thudberg get you ass over to somewhere where you can actually make a difference......

[david340r]

Talking about cars tankering isn't a realistic comparison. My 1500kg car only carries about 50kg of fuel, 3% of its empty weight and the effect of weight on fuel consumption isn't nearly as great as for a 'plane. Not much saving by running it half full. Are there any airliners where that proportion is less than 30%? The BBC article talks about tankering three tonnes - it doesn't say what aircraft, but isn't that about 7.5% of the empty weight of a 737?

Also the impacts from oceanic tankers are only about 1% (per tonne km) of those of an airliner. Rail is about 2.5%. Road maybe 20%. Tankering can't be justified on the basis that the fuel had to get there anyway.

I'm certainly not a hater of the industry, but I think a carbon tax on jet fuel would be the easiest way to help the bean counters make the right decisions.

[NutLoose]

Out of interest, if we burn it now or burn it tomorrow it is still a finite resource, so the only difference is the time scale in burning it, so won't the carbon footprint surely be about the same, just spread out over a longer period?

Perhaps we should also look at other oil based products and their effect, I blame the widespread effect of plastic bags in the seas etc on the culture that was built up, why buy a plastic bag to put your rubbish in? You are by buying plastic bin bags buying items to not only throw away, but in doing so setting up a mindset that it is acceptable to do so. Hence the. Knock on effect.

[Rated De]

When you have a duplicitous ICAO hyping an ETS that doesn't start until 2027, doesn't include domestic flights and sets a price of carbon low enough not to cost airlines too much, what does the world expect?

In contrast to Maritime Shipping that has an actual plan:

The aviation industry has NO plan to transition off hydrocarbon based fuel.
ASK growth forecast at 5% per annum
By mid century it will be among the largest emitters of CO2
Airlines only required to report CO2 output from January 2019. (Data isn't published by the regulator, wonder why?)

Airlines can without penalty continue to consume increased amounts of hydrocarbon based fuel with scant penalty.
A little virtue signalling and carry on about electric aircraft, laminar flow and bio-fuels will stop the debate. Of course fingers crossed nobody notices that technically feasible it may be, but practical none of the alternatives are.

Any wonder why airlines do the same? Is all kabuki theatre.

[NutLoose]

As shipping has been mentioned a fascinating read today in what can be achieved by reducing speed.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50348321

[Nil by mouth]

Swings and roundabouts! What the bearded sandal wearing lentil muncher, aka the whistleblower, did not factor in is the new breed of super fuel efficient engines that offset any extra emissions that maybe caused by tankering.

[TURIN]

Ignoring the idiotic faux climate change science from the deniers above...however, it always amazes me that BA are portrayed as the bad guy again. Shame the whistle blower didn't mention the middle eastern airline that regularly tankers enough fuel to get back home from northern Europe.

[Savage175]

In 35 years flying, I have yet to see a Flight Plan that shows a profit for tankering. Always a loss. Consequently, the only time any company I have flown for has tankered fuel is when there is a fuel supply problem at the destination. Never flown with BA, but can't think of any reason they would be different

[deja vu]

One of the good things about getting old is I won't have to put up with this crap for very much longer.

[Mr Proach]

KLM recently produced an advertisement encouraging the public to fly responsibly by only travelling if there was no other alternative. There is always an alternative, so be responsible, help save our planet and don't travel by aircraft. Reserve the use of aircraft to expedite people in need of urgent medical attention, combat hazardous fires, enhance security patrols.... etc, otherwise use the internet, travel by train, bus or ferry/ship. Simple

[deja vu]

I'm certainly not a hater of the industry, but I think a carbon tax on jet fuel would be the easiest way to help the bean counters make the right decisions.[/QUOTE]

Please explain! How on earth does a carbon tax change anything except airfares?

If you and so many other crusaders here are truly concerned about the environment stop buying Chinese goods.

Maybe we could tax Japan, Indonesia, Philippines, Iceland etc. for their Volcanic emissions.

Oh, and lets ban motor racing of all kinds, it serves absolutely no purpose

[Chris2303]

Just wait until that Icelandic volcano with the impossible name erupts and spews loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The only sound you'll hear from the "greenies" is moaning about not being able to travel anywhere.

[PAXboy]

Lowly pax speaking.
I would not automatically classify the 'whistleblower' as a 'greenie' or anything else related to that point of view. There is just as much chance the person is a highly disaffected member of staff who just wants to watch the fun whilst their boss and the Board jump through some hoops.

Having sat in a taxy queue at LHR for 40 mins (more than once) and observed the delights of Bovingdon, Ockham, Lambourne and Biggin (more than once) and enjoyed the benefits of a fast turnaround (more than once) we all know this is a storm in a teacup.

[Gipsy Queen]

I'm certainly not a hater of the industry, but I think a carbon tax on jet fuel would be the easiest way to help the bean counters make the right decisions.

Oh, and lets ban motor racing of all kinds, it serves absolutely no purpose

Furthermore, it's boring!

But what really gets to me is the degree of planetary destruction occasioned by the pernicious emissions of all those hot-air balloons. Has anyone given any thought to this major contributor to atmospheric degradation and how this contribution might be expanded by the tankering of extra gas bottles?

[neville_nobody]

otherwise use the internet, travel by train, bus or ferry/ship. Simple

Are trains and ferrys more environmentally friendly over a long distance? What value do you place on the 1000KMs of environmental destruction you require to build the railway when about 3KM of runway at each port will get you anywhere in the world? The internet as well is not as environmentally firendly as you think it is. Think about the power required, the millions of miles of cable, the water use of the data centres etc etc End of the day everything costs something it just a question of the best use of resources.

[InSoMnIaC]

Also. We should go Vegan and cull all the livestock in the world. Imagine how much Greenhouse emissions would be reduced!

[tdracer]

Just think of all the jet fuel we could save if we stopped making reserve fuel mandatory? Hauling around all that fuel that is seldom needed?
Of course, we'd probably have the occasional LaMia Flight 2933, but we're saving the planet - you gotta accept a few casualties...

<yes, I'm being sarcastic>

[Gauges and Dials]

Hands up all those working at the BBC and everywhere else that drive an extra mile or two to find cheaper fuel then fill up their tanks to the brim. This practice must also use fuel to carry fuel. The Panorama programme will probably be just be another virtue signalling fest from the BBC against the great satan of flying.

Surely as a professional pilot you know that the impact on fuel consumption of added weight is vastly different for aircraft (where energy is consumed to counteract gravity as well as to overcome friction losses in moving the aircraft from point A to point B) than for wheeled vehicles (where energy is consumed only to overcome friction losses). The energy cost of "tankering" in a typical passenger automobile is probably very close to unmeasurably small.

[Gauges and Dials]

In 35 years flying, I have yet to see a Flight Plan that shows a profit for tankering. Always a loss. Consequently, the only time any company I have flown for has tankered fuel is when there is a fuel supply problem at the destination. Never flown with BA, but can't think of any reason they would be different

Have you flown to remote islands or to small kleptocracies where fuel is silly expensive?

[tdracer]

Surely as a professional pilot you know that the impact on fuel consumption of added weight is vastly different for aircraft (where energy is consumed to counteract gravity as well as to overcome friction losses in moving the aircraft from point A to point B) than for wheeled vehicles (where energy is consumed only to overcome friction losses). The energy cost of "tankering" in a typical passenger automobile is probably very close to unmeasurably small.

And how often does someone drive an extra few miles to buy fuel because it's twenty cents/pence cheaper? The penalty for carrying an extra few gallons of fuel may be unmeasurably small, but the fuel to drive the extra distance isn't...

[deja vu]

Surely as a professional pilot you know that the impact on fuel consumption of added weight is vastly different for aircraft (where energy is consumed to counteract gravity as well as to overcome friction losses in moving the aircraft from point A to point B) than for wheeled vehicles (where energy is consumed only to overcome friction losses). The energy cost of "tankering" in a typical passenger automobile is probably very close to unmeasurably small.

Surely you would recognise that there are billions of "typical passenger automobiles" each putting out unmeasurably small amounts of emissions but combined would far exceed that of a few thousand aircraft that happen to be tankering.

[George Glass]

Don’t know where you fly Savage but Alice Springs, most ports in regional WA and even Canberra all turn a profit tankering.

[deja vu]

The only beneficiary of fuel tankering is the airline. It doesn't lead to cheaper fares.
A reduction in costs, does not lead to a reduction of fares- rather it leads to an increase in profit.
Having said that, this Is pretty 'small beer', in the overall scheme of things.

Airlines don't particularly want to tanker, but like any business they have an obligation to their shareholders to make money where possible. Profit is not a dirty word as you seem to suggest.
Look at the UK, US, Europe and Australia at the airlines, large and small, that have come and gone because they could not manage to make a profit. It may be "small beer" but its a combination of many "small beers" that could mean survival.

If its the environment issue that worries you, go talk to China

[sellbydate]

When do you choose to make an aircraft heavier for 'safety' reasons?

[DaveReidUK]

In 35 years flying, I have yet to see a Flight Plan that shows a profit for tankering. Always a loss. Consequently, the only time any company I have flown for has tankered fuel is when there is a fuel supply problem at the destination. Never flown with BA, but can't think of any reason they would be different

You've not read the link in post #1, then ?

Willie Walsh:

"Because clearly the financial saving would have incentivised us to do fuel tankering," he said.

[cessnapete]

Long taxi time. Destination/Alt weather. Known Holding times. Etc. Etc.

[deja vu]

When do you choose to make an aircraft heavier for 'safety' reasons?
um, almost every day

[fox niner]

When do you choose to make an aircraft heavier for 'safety' reasons?

We sometimes do storm tankering. To make the airplanes heavier as they sit at the gate at night, while it is storming.

[Anilv]

From what I recall (this was circa 2000-2005) fuel in India was really expensive.. we would regularly fuel up to arrival MLW for a KUL-DEL sector. Worked for Lufthansa at the time and I cant recall doing this for any other sectors.

Another time we did tankering was when we did the KUL-CGK-KUL shuttle .. this was with the same set of crew and the crew would usually fill up at KUL with enough for both ways. On two days of the week we had runway closure scheduled for just after our KUL-FRA departure at around 1am (this was at the old airport with only one runway). Considering that a fully loaded 747-400 will take anywhere from130-140 metric tonnes we are looking at a minimum 45minute refuelling time using both wing points. So what we did is to tell the crews to take additional fuel over the KUL-CGK-KUL sector so they would have more fuel in tanks and thereby reduce the refuelling time in KUL. All of the crews were very helpful as they would reap the benefits when they departed a few days later! BTW this wasnt official but nobody questioned it.. Here it's a question of operational efficiency overiding costs/ecological concerns. If we missed our slot and the runway was closed we would have to cancel the flight and put everybody in hotels etc.

Another aspect of tankering is shortened ground time. I know a lot of narrowbodies tanker fuel simply to cut the ground time down. While you can board pax while fuelling is going on there are a lot of things to consider and its just far easier to fill up more fuel in the first place.

Anilv

[flyer4life]

Absolute nonsense. Not going to into the details of our fuel policy here, but typically we fly with a low cost index, sometimes CI=0 if we are ahead of schedule, When I joined from EZY I found both AF and EZY flew the same CI. If running late we may ask to speed up to salvage a few connections, but this is far from being the norm. Our fuel policy is in line with industry norm, but hey let’s not miss a good excuse to talk down the french or AF :rolleyes:

Fair enough, in that case I’ve been told nonsense from those who have friends at AF. They have consistently told me it’s a policy to get pax to destination ASAP, but I suppose it could be a case of Chinese whispers.

Not sure how you see a good excuse to “talk down the French”, I thought I was neutral with my language.

[Airone2977]

Interesting Thread
I currently fly 737 lowco/charter airline in Europe, and we are always suggested to do tankering if there a slight fuel price difference at destination.
However I'm not a big fan of this practice, because we always land close to MLAW. Neither very efficient nor eco friendly if you end up doing holding patern at destination to burn the extra fuel.
Another issue is with wings full of fuel at temperature well below zero, you'll be surprise to see ice building on the wings. Common practice is to left fuel on the center tank and refuel the main tanks with warm fuel at destination, it usually take care of the icing pb.

[Check Airman]

Why is this person a whistleblower? Is tankering fuel illegal or unethical? He or she may be a concerned environmentalist, but hardly a whistleblower.

[ManaAdaSystem]

If they want to talk about tankering on a BIG scale, they should take a close look at the amounts the airlines in the Middle East are hauling around.
The ME fuel prices are way below all other places. Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, Oman Air, Gulf Air and Saudi Arabian Airlines.
How much extra fuel did Emirates carry on the A380 when they did 3 goarounds in Manchester and then diverted to LHR?

[TURIN]

When do you choose to make an aircraft heavier for 'safety' reasons?

After the TWA800 incident, operators of 747s were mandated to keep a predetermined amount of fuel in the centre wing tank to avoid any build up of fuel vapour.

[TURIN]

If they want to talk about tankering on a BIG scale, they should take a close look at the amounts the airlines in the Middle East are hauling around.
The ME fuel prices are way below all other places. Emirates, Qatar Airways, Etihad, Oman Air, Gulf Air and Saudi. Arabian Airlines.
How much extra fuel did Emirates carry on the A380 when they did 3 goarounds in Manchester and then diverted to LHR?

There is a big difference between tankering and diversion/holding fuel.

There is only one airline in your list above that regularly tankers round trip fuel from the ME to Europe. I'll let you guess which one, it's not Emirates by the way.

[ManaAdaSystem]

There is a big difference between tankering and diversion/holding fuel.

There is only one airline in your list above that regularly tankers round trip fuel from the ME to Europe. I'll let you guess which one, it's not Emirates by the way.

Fuel for 3 goarounds and a diversion to LHR is way above normal holding/diversion fuel. Emirates tankers same as the others even if it may not be possible to tanker round trip.
Sitting on ground in Hyderabad waiting for the ice to melt from the wings on a 380? Landed with tankering fuel.
BIG numbers involved with these airlines.

[Fire and brimstone]

Why is this person a whistleblower? Is tankering fuel illegal or unethical? He or she may be a concerned environmentalist, but hardly a whistleblower.

Because the Public Interest Disclosure Act says so. Why don't you read it?

Is this matter 'public interest'? - the making of a BBC documentary seems to vindicate this.

If it's not whistleblowing, he will be hunted down like a dog.

[Avman]

Somebody needs to explain to me what significant difference flying economy as opposed to Business makes to the environment?

[PiggyBack]

Because the Public Interest Disclosure Act says so. Why don't you read it?

Is this matter 'public interest'? - the making of a BBC documentary seems to vindicate this.

If it's not whistleblowing, he will be hunted down like a dog.

Well I have read it and my opnion, and I am not a lawyer, is that this would not be considered a proteected dissclosured under the act because it does not meet the requirments for that, specifically
43B-f) 'that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed'.

I think tankering was a well known practice which was not in any way concealed, therefore it does not meet the requirments ot be a protected disclosure under the act, essentially because it is not actually a disclosure.

The focus on it is also entirely disproportionate. All measures are necessarily trade offs between cost, efficiency, investment, performance etc. Some level of tankering is necessary and at the current level the effect is tiny so although things could doubtless be better it is crazy to focus on this and not other areas where much larger savings can be found. If we look at any area of modern life whatsoever we will find practices with similar or larger impacts which are not highlighted by an eratz 'whistleblower' as some shocking outrage. We should reject the fake outrage and seek to focus on changes that are a good trade off between benefit and cost/inconvenience.

[DaveReidUK]

Please explain! How on earth does a carbon tax change anything except airfares?

I think that was the point.

Or don't you think that demand for air transport is price-sensitive ?

[old,not bold]

In an idle moment, I wasted some of my remaining life looking up numbers on t'interweb.

It turns out that an A320 type of aircraft, operating, say, LHR-MUC and return, would burn about 5 Tonnes each way. So if the return fuel burn is added to the outbound aircraft weight (guessed at 77T), it would be adding about 6.5% (these are ROUGH FIGURES!).

The CO2 produced on the outbound leg would be, according to the ICAO website, (https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx) 10,554 Kg. Assuming a direct relationship with aircraft weight, the tankered fuel generates 6.5% of that, ie 686 Kg CO2.

According to "They Work for You" (https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2013-03-01a.144740.h) a road bridger vehicle weighing, say, 40-50 tonnes, would generate 950 grams per kilometer, ie 95 Kg per 100 Km carrying fuel to MUC. So if the return fuel were uplifted at MUC, those 5 tonnes would have generated 10% of that, just 9.5 Kg, per 100 Km road distance from the refinery to Munich.

Not to be taken as too accurate or even serious, but it would seem that within a wide margin of error, in environmental terms it's best not to tanker as opposed to uplifting at the destination, ceteris paribus, which of course they probably are not.

Mind you, my calculations could easily be outside even that wide margin of error. I haven't done sums like that for years.

[UltraFan]

How do we think the jet A1 is getting to one of those islands? If you take this into account, tankering does make sense. Economically and environmentally.

THANK YOU!!!

[Running Ridges]

Somebody needs to explain to me what significant difference flying economy as opposed to Business makes to the environment?
Think about it like this - the airline only operates that route because it knows it can make a profit from it. As a business class pax you're contributing a lot more of the profit incentive than the average economy pax and therefore have to assume more of the environmental impact.
In a more simple sense, you're taking up more of the available resource on the flight (cabin space & weight)

[DaveReidUK]

THANK YOU!!! How do we think the jet A1 is getting to one of those islands? If you take this into account, tankering does make sense. Economically and environmentally.



There is no denying that there can be operational benefits from tankering fuel.

But you, and the poster that you quote, appear to be the only two contributors arguing that it's actually greener to transport jet fuel to a given airport by air rather than by surface (land or sea) in bulk.

I'd be fascinated to see your sums demonstrating that.

[Ian W]

When do you choose to make an aircraft heavier for 'safety' reasons?

Part 135 requirement for 45 minutes reserve fuel - makes the aircraft heavier for safety reasons.

[Ian W]

There is another benefit to tankering not mentioned here.
Airport A raises its fuel prices above the normal.
Airlines flying to airport A start tankering fuel from other airports - Airport A has a glut of fuel and almost no sales
Airport A lowers its fuel prices to slightly lower than normal
Airlines flying to airport A refuel at airport A and tanker to their now more expensive airports.

This is straightforward competition at work to keep aviation fuel costs low. And as stated above there are other advantages for tankering in some situations/operational concepts

[Avman]

Running Ridges
In a more simple sense, you're taking up more of the available resource on the flight (cabin space & weight)

But isn't there a counter argument, albeit a minor one, that the fact that there are considerably less seats in C Class amounts to less weight?

[UltraFan]

But you, and the poster that you quote, appear to be the only two contributors...
So minority is always wrong just because fewer people oppose an idea?

I'd be fascinated to see your sums demonstrating that.
I'll do it RIGHT after you publish your thoroughly researched and peer-proofed calculations proving that tankage is detrimental to the environment and scientifically disprove the above notion that taking fuel to a remote destination is more harmful than tankage.

[wiggy]

In an idle moment, I wasted some of my remaining life looking up numbers on t'interweb.

It turns out that an A320 type of aircraft, operating, say, LHR-MUC and return, would burn about 5 Tonnes each way. So if the return fuel burn is added to the outbound aircraft weight (guessed at 77T), it would be adding about 6.5% (these are ROUGH FIGURES!).


Just an observation, and not my aisle so to speak, but 5 tonnes burn sounds very excessive for a modern short haul type on that sort of sector...any A320 experts care to comment?

[DaveReidUK]

I'll do it RIGHT after you publish your thoroughly researched and peer-proofed calculations proving that tankage is detrimental to the environment and scientifically disprove the above notion that taking fuel to a remote destination is more harmful than tankage.

See post #1, and pretty well every subsequent one. :ugh:

Unless you have reinvented the laws of aerodynamics, it's an undisputed fact that a heavier aircraft burns more fuel than a lighter one. You and your colleague are the only posters who seem to be denying that.

But don't take my word for it - a glance at the backside of every payload/range chart ever drawn is all you should need.

[axefurabz]

Y'all seem to have missed that this fuss all started as a puff piece for a BBC tv programme.

You often see such "news" on BBC News pages.

[old,not bold]

but 5 tonnes burn sounds very excessive for a modern short haul type on that sort of sector.Yes, it does, doesn't it, but I left it there because that's what the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator (https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx) (also linked in my last post) produced for an A320 family LHR-MUC. Or maybe I misinterpreted it; I put the link in so that people could check. (Hint............................. and when you have done that, please let me know if you get a substantially different figure.)

[Rocchi]

I think it's unbelievable that in these discussions that some refer to carbon in the atmosphere when it is a black solid stuff and there is none.

Now CO2. That's better. There is supposed to be 400 ppm CO2s in the atmosphere. Fine, so far so good, But that means there is 999600 ppm that is not CO2

I like to tell people that don't know this stuff to compare it to one meter in length and it comes out at 0.4mm. less than the thickness of my thumb nail. Another version is the proportion of time in a year to pass. CO2 part passes in 3.5 hours. Then there is the version to tell the US citizens. A 1 million dollar stack of 100 dollar bills comes to 40 inches. You take the top 4, $100 and see how thin that is and I'll take the other 9996 bills.

I hope some of this makes sense to some of you, but it's all just to show how minuscule the amount of CO2 is in the atmosphere.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, it does, doesn't it, but I left it there because that's what the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator (https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx) (also linked in my last post) produced for an A320 family LHR-MUC. Or maybe I misinterpreted it; I put the link in so that people could check. (Hint............................. and when you have done that, please let me know if you get a substantially different figure.)

The infamous above-referenced Eurocontrol paper quotes 3.6 tonnes for a 600 nm sector, based on the fuel burn of typical aircraft types used in Europe. LHR-MUC is 510 nm (GC).

[sky9]

What the Panorama programme missed was the fantastic job that the airlines and crews do in planning and loading the minimum amout of fuel needed on each sector taking into account the weather and expected delays.
Compare this to a BBC producer that drives a large car into central London probably with a full tank of fuel because he or she can't be bothered to calculate his fuel requirement for the trip and fill his tank accordingly.

Could a BBC whistleblower tell us what car the producer drives and where from so we can calculate the CO2 emitted.

STOP PRESS

BBC Panorama progamme looking for whistleblower to reveal how airlines fly over built up areas with only a minimum amount of fuel on board.

[malanda]

But isn't there a counter argument, albeit a minor one, that the fact that there are considerably less seats in C Class amounts to less weight?
But per passenger, you are taking up a lot more. Your seat is heavier, your bigger seat area takes up a bigger percentage of the fuselage weight, you have a bigger baggage allowance, you have more cabin crew per passenger, you have food served on proper plates, and if you are anything like me, you are fatter ;)

[UltraFan]

See post #1, and pretty well every subsequent one. :ugh:

Unless you have reinvented the laws of aerodynamics, it's an undisputed fact that a heavier aircraft burns more fuel than a lighter one. You and your colleague are the only posters who seem to be denying that.

But don't take my word for it - a glance at the backside of every payload/range chart ever drawn is all you should need.

If you were so kind as to read what other people actually say instead of jumping head first into a useless argument, you would know that "both me and my colleague" are arguing not whether a heavier aircraft consumes more fuel, but rather that the fuel at the destination is more expensive because it takes more effort to deliver it there. And delivering fuel is more expensive because it has to go on a fuel truck, then a tanker, then through a pipeline, etc, etc, etc. It is an undisputed fact that trucks and tankers consume a lot of fuel and produce harmful gases. Therefore, the fuel at the destination may be more harmful to the environment than the one tanked from the point of origin and it may be beneficial to tank fuel from the said point of origin rather than buy it at the said destination.

[Gauges and Dials]

Airstripflyer makes the relevant point

If you tanker fuel to a place like the Seychelles or Kathmandu because it's expensive, that fuel has ALREADY been tankered there in trucks and boats. Which are less efficient than planes in the first place.

umm... what???????

[Gauges and Dials]

It is an undisputed fact that trucks and tankers consume a lot of fuel and produce harmful gases.
Equally undisputed is that moving a given load a given distance by air, uses many times the amount of fuel, and produces many times the amount of harmful gases, as moving the same load the same distance by trucks and tankers.

Therefore, the fuel at the destination may be more harmful to the environment than the one tanked from the point of origin and it may be beneficial to tank fuel from the said point of origin rather than buy it at the said destination.
I'd be interested to see an analysis that shows, for any place on Earth to which commercial air transport exists, that getting fuel there by air uses less fuel or produces less pollution than getting it there by any other means.

[UltraFan]

Equally undisputed is that moving a given load a given distance by air, uses many times the amount of fuel, and produces many times the amount of harmful gases, as moving the same load the same distance by trucks and tankers.
Really!? Is it undisputed? An organization called Friends of the Earth, an entrenched crowd of tree-huggers, states that trains use more fuel per passenger than an airplane. Hence their long-standing slogan: "The best trip is the one that's never taken".

I'd be interested to see an analysis that shows, for any place on Earth to which commercial air transport exists, that getting fuel there by air uses less fuel or produces less pollution than getting it there by any other means.

Uses less fuel OR produces less pollution? Those two are not the same. Airplane uses high-quality kerosene with minimum sulfur content while barges and trucks use the heaviest fuels. As for the "analysis", I refer you to my answer above to the Brit who advocates shooting down passenger airplanes every time their crew mistakely dials a wrong squak code.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

It’s very basic organic chemistry. Each carbon atom from the fuel combines with two oxygen atoms from the air meaning the resulting waste product (CO2) is much heavier than the fuel. Likewise the very light hydrogen in the fuel combines with heavier oxygen at a ratio of 2:1 making water which is also heavier than the original fuel.

2 C12H26 + 37 O2 = 24 CO2 + 26 H2O

That brought on a cold shudder!

That's the worst piece of chemistry since I took pen to paper.

Correctly balanced equation, but a very bad conclusion. Doesn't quite work like that.

[Time Traveller]

These headlines nicely highlight the folly of the plaintive cry "why oh why isn't aviation fuel taxed?" - well do that and it will create marked price difference between inside and outside that tax regime, and in turn - massively increase the use of fuel tankering.

[flight_mode]

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt need to fly around, rather than over France several times a year.

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt spend 30 minutes drawing race tracks over London.

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt have to drive aircraft from Polderbaan across the Netherlands to the terminal, then wait another 20 minutes for a gate.

[Chris2303]

What about the massive amounts of fuel tankered into AKL/NZAA when the fuel pipeline from the refinery was severed?

Virtually every trans Tasman flight filled up in Australia to minimise uplift in NZ.

Even longhauls were tankering to avoid being stuck on the ground

[DaveReidUK]

As for the "analysis", I refer you to my answer above to the Brit who advocates shooting down passenger airplanes every time their crew mistakely dials a wrong squak code.

Introducing a straw man argument like that isn't the best way of demonstrating that you have any interest in a serious analysis. :ugh:

[Mk 1]

Rocchi, the average person weighs around 75kg's. Yet a couple of milligrams of VX, Sarin. or GB will kill you dead. That's far less than the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not about the amount, its about the effect.

[Jimmy Hoffa Rocks]

“We’re investing in new aircraft and innovative technology to reduce our carbon footprint in an industry where there’s no current alternative to jet fuel,” Walsh said that aviation represented only 2% of global CO2 emissions, and that the airline group’s steps were one part of a broader solution to make aviation less polluting.¨
IAG Chief Executive Willie Walsh said in a statement.

Not tankering for economic reduces your/our carbon footprint, its basic math. Yet a formula needs to be agreed so that airlines are not gouged at expensive fuel destinations, by law.
Wake up, please, we are facing a climate emergency, the melting of the glaciers, just look at the antarctic and Greenland. For those climate change deniers you have been conned by propaganda, Exxon knew 20 years ago for sure.
So why not make a effort on this particular issue? Just remember this moment in 25 years as your children and grandchildren ask you what you did? We need to make the paradigm shift as you do know what the fuel burn of an extra ton of jetfuel is, right?

Simple, economic tankering by carrying extra fuel to save money, increases your carbon footprint, and landing distance. PERIOD!
As per the IAG policy and Willie Walsh statement it will be more difficult for companies in the IAG to force pilots to tanker for profit, without being hypocrtical.

To Tanker ( economical ) OR NOT to Tanker. That is the question

After having tankered for many years to save my company/s money. I am guilty and would like to repent. Now, As per the climate emergency, has to take priority and this is backed up by facts and objetive scientists. I will be tankering the minimum, and enough extra fuel for safety and diverting, etc, etc, as we the planet is going from a yellow caution into a red warning light situation. Just look at Iceland, Greenland and the fires in California and coral reefs.

[UltraFan]

After having tankered for many years to save my company/s money. I am guilty and would like to repent. Now, As per the climate emergency, has to take priority and this is backed up by facts and objetive scientists. I will be tankering the minimum, and enough extra fuel for safety and diverting, etc, etc, as we the planet is going from a yellow caution into a red warning light situation. Just look at Iceland, Greenland and the fires in California and coral reefs.

The tantrum aside, there is no place for any kind of politics in the cockpit. Your job is flying, NOTHING else. The rest is up to other people outside the aircraft. You can discuss it all you like when you're not at work but once you are in your seat, EVERYTHING else must disappear from your head.

[Harry Wayfarers]

In one of my previous lives it was my task to actually encourage the Ops department regarding maximum fuel CFP's and tankering fuel.

A couple of prime examples, for one season we weekly had a B757 positioning in from LTN (where the fuel cost index was 86%) to CWL (where the fuel cost index was 100%) to operate a CWL/LCA (a 4.5 hour sector), to tanker fuel in from LTN would cost around 4% so, weekly, on a 4.5 hour sector we could save 10% on the fuel.

Another prime example was CWL/KLX, once weekly where CWL was 100% and KLX a staggering 151%.

As has already been suggested, if an airline is top be truly green then cease flogging duty frees and cuddly toys, forbid any excess baggage, all cargo needs to go by surface transport, strip the paint off and go naked fuselage las do AA etc. etc. etc.

[neville_nobody]

Equally undisputed is that moving a given load a given distance by air, uses many times the amount of fuel, and produces many times the amount of harmful gases, as moving the same load the same distance by trucks and tankers.

I would suggest that is very much disputed if it comes to fuel tankering. Given that the flight is going anyway the only consideration is the extra fuel burn of the carriage of fuel which I would suggest over long distances is more efficient in a aeroplane, and that's before we calculate the environmental impact of the road.

[DaveReidUK]

This might be an opportune moment to mention that tomorrow, 14th November, QF will fly a B789 on delivery non-stop from Heathrow to Sydney, presumably aiming to better the 20:09 flight time they set in August 1989 with a similar non-stop B744 flight.

Qantas to launch London-Sydney test flight despite new sustainability pledge (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/qantas-flight-sydney-heathrow-london-direct-boeing-climate-change-a9198826.html)

[lcolman]

The stats come from Eurocontrol, that well-known collection of fake news purveyors. They even provide a simple diagram to help those who can't get their head around the issue:

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/549x561/tankering_c2fb3bd5622bc435007d46faabb3c92962facdb1.jpg
EUROCONTROL - Fuel Tankering Economic Benefits and Environmental Impact (https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication/fuel-tankering-european-skies-economic-benefits-and-environmental-impact)

The problem with climate change diagrams in general is that they are misleading.

Taking your example - that Extra Fuel Burnt bar coloured nicely in red to look alarming, doesn't mean anything as there is no indication of the quantities involved, starting airport, destination airport, trip distance - basically there is no information there apart from alarmist propoganda.

There is also no assessment of the impact of fuel uplift at the destination - since some airports are remote and need to truck fuel to the airport, there is an environmental impact there.

I for one am all for very efficient uses of resources, the more efficient - the better, but this sort of rubbish only muddies the waters and lets the loonies on both sides loose.

As for aviation in general, lets not forget that the whole industry emits 2% of global emissions. To offset these emissions completely there is a simple solution - the human race needs to eat a little less meat.

Lets get real about what and who the real culprits here are, and tackle those rather than virtue signalling by attacking a very visible industry.

[Torquelink]

Prediction: Boeing will launch the NMA/797 and it will become a massive success.

Why? Because, as the world ontinues to obsess over aircraft emissions, tankering etc., the 797 will offer the lightest, most economical, 5,000 mile range, 220 - 270 seater - capable of linking any city pairs in the world with one tech stop: saving truly massive amounts of fuel and emissions. Yes, there'll be the cost of the stops and increased cycles etc but airlines won't care about that because their punters - and the world at large - won't: they just want to be seen making huge strides on the emissions front. Slightly tongue in cheek but if tech stops reduce overall fuel burn through eliminating the weight of tankered fuel, why not go the whole hog and eliminate the weight of the airframe no longer needed to carry it . . and the weight and thrust of the engines no longer needed to propel it?

[Stan Woolley]

Interesting discussion. I think the various arguments shows us, once again, that how people think is often as much about bias as anything else.

While there may be good reasons for tanking fuel in certain situations, my personal experience of it has been basically to burn extra fuel to save money on short to medium haul flights. There is also no doubt that a LOT of fuel is wasted by holding and early descents, at least in Europe. I remember being told by an RAF transport pilot that he remembered a ‘large scale’ jolly to the US to ensure that the current budget was used up, so as the next one wouldn’t be reduced.

I think its good practise to try and be thoughtful about the use of the planets limited resources, no matter what else we may or may not believe.

[DaveReidUK]

Taking your example - that Extra Fuel Burnt bar coloured nicely in red to look alarming, doesn't mean anything as there is no indication of the quantities involved, starting airport, destination airport, trip distance - basically there is no information there apart from alarmist propoganda.

The graphic (which is not mine, but Eurocontrol's) isn't intended to stand alone but to form part of the report for which I provided the link (and which does include numerical data).

But I agree that the proportions of the chart are a tad misleading in that the size of the tankering penalty shown would equate to a stage of at least 6 hours, probably longer, where although you could in theory carry round trip fuel, you almost certainly wouldn't.

As for colouring it red, an expression involving rags and bulls springs to mind. :O

[lcolman]

The graphic (which is not mine, but Eurocontrol's) isn't intended to stand alone but to form part of the report for which I provided the link (and which does include numerical data).

But I agree that the proportions of the chart are a tad misleading in that the size of the tankering penalty shown would equate to a stage of at least 6 hours, probably longer, where although you could in theory carry round trip fuel, you almost certainly wouldn't.

As for colouring it red, an expression involving rags and bulls springs to mind. :O

Having read the report that goes along with it, Eurocontrol have not calculated the impact of getting fuel to any of the airports involved in the flight simulations, or taken into account the impact of getting fuel to the originating airport.

This is why I have an issue with reports like this thrown out there, they look as the issue only in isolation when they are definitely not.

Having said that, reports like this are like red rags and I think I'm almost certainly a bull!:}

[Ian W]

Rocchi, the average person weighs around 75kg's. Yet a couple of milligrams of VX, Sarin. or GB will kill you dead. That's far less than the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not about the amount, its about the effect.

There are no observations in the real atmosphere that show that CO2 has any impact on atmospheric temperature. The adiabatic lapse rates are not affected by CO2 and these are repeatedly confirmed by balloon sondes.
Historically, changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere lags changes in temperature, at all timescales. Therefore, no causal relationship in the real world atmosphere can be shown by observational measurement or correlation.

[midnight cruiser]

Is Heathrow still fed by a pipeline directly from Fawley refinery? - if so, that presumably would make the carbon costs of delivery to the airplane almost nil.

[lcolman]

Is Heathrow still fed by a pipeline directly from Fawley refinery? - if so, that presumably would make the carbon costs of delivery to the airplane almost nil.

Indeed it is, and it's this sort of information that is left out of documents like the one above from Eurocontrol.

All this does is distort the facts.

[Torquelink]

Is Heathrow still fed by a pipeline directly from Fawley refinery? - if so, that presumably would make the carbon costs of delivery to the airplane almost nil.

It is and is in the process of being replaced with a new pipeline following more or less the same course as the old one.

[old,not bold]

Is Heathrow still fed by a pipeline directly from Fawley refinery? - if so, that presumably would make the carbon costs of delivery to the airplane almost nil.Only if it's downhill all the way......somewhere in the background where the energy to shift the stuff along the pipe is being generated, and that has an impact. Maybe not much compared to road tankers, but not almost nil either.

Afterthought; OK, if the fuel company generates the electricity to drive the pumps using wind or solar energy, it's almost nil. But do they?

[OldnGrounded]

Afterthought; OK, if the fuel company generates the electricity to drive the pumps using wind or solar energy, it's almost nil. But do they?

I'm sure they don't, but, even if they did, it would only be "almost nil" if the energy used to build the pumps; manufacture the pipes, fittings, etc.; fabricate the materials; mine the ores; and on and on was also generated by renewables, using only renewable energy sources to produce the wind generators, photovoltaic panels, etc. . . .

It's "embodied energy" and it often far exceeds the energy needed for operation of a system, while its production may also generate more emissions than energy for operation.

The bottom line is that there are no simple answers to the questions and potential problems associated with this issue.

Nevertheless, given that carbon emissions (among other related things) are worthy of serious attention, and even given that emissions associated with airline operations are as well, it really doesn't make much sense to put tankering very high on the list of concerns.

[occasional]

A quick look at a map seems to show that GLA is no farther from its nearest refinery than LHR, and is actually nearer to the source of the oil, so, if fuel is being tankered from LHR to GLA, it would suggest that the market is not functioning effectively. That might reasonably provoke some investigation.

[Alpine Flyer]

If you tanker fuel to a place like the Seychelles or Kathmandu because it's expensive, that fuel has ALREADY been tankered there in trucks and boats. Which are less efficient than planes in the first place.

The amount of energy spent/CO2 generated to transport fuel to the Seychelles by ship can't be more than the amount spent to take it there by plane. Ships generate less than 1/10 the CO2 per tonne-km than aircraft, trucks a bit more but still less than aircraft.
(https://petrolog.typepad.com/climate_change/2009/09/carbon-emissions-from-aircraft-and-ships.html)

Tankering might not be our main problem but it's an easy to point out environmental "sin" where we place profit/cost over emissions. The main point to make on behalf of airlines is that passengers direct airlines to do everything as cheaply as possible because they mainly go by price when buying tickets. We'd all fly Neos, Maxes, A220s and E2s if only passengers paid a premium to fly on environmentally friendly airplanes. As they don't we don't.

[TURIN]

Running Ridges


But isn't there a counter argument, albeit a minor one, that the fact that there are considerably less seats in C Class amounts to less weight?

Nope. Your average, electric, full function flat bed reclining business class seat is so heavy it has to be lifted in and out of the aircraft with a trolley. A standard economy class triple seat (which takes up a similar space) can be manhandled in and out by a couple of ten stone weaklings like me.

If you want to fly people around economically, then cram them in Ryanair style. I'm not talking about finances here, merely countering the argument. Airlines can make more money from premium paying passengers, but as far as fuel burn per passenger is concerned then all aircraft should be economy seating only, and only take off when full.
I hope it never happens in my life time, I like my creature comforts up front.

[unclenelli]

RAF tankered (Standard Jeppesen-trained procedure) into Kandahar for several years because road tankers were being targetted by road-side bombs. Tri-Stars & C17's would arrive overweight and offload fuel into bladders to fuel in-country C130s/Helos to supplement the road tankers that DID make it through!
It was an Operational MUST!

But burning fuel to carry fuel is a commercial expense which could be minimised. At the end of the day, saving money on buying/using fuel IS an eco-saving, whether economically or environmentally.
Whichever method is employed, the result is a reduced usage of fossil fuel = reduced costs!
Don't send it by ship, then land, only to get it blown skywards with no resultant productive usage = useless waste, So take it in by air = useful fuel for departures from KDH!
Win/Win as far as I can see!

[DaveReidUK]

Don't send it by ship, then land, only to get it blown skywards with no resultant productive usage = useless waste, So take it in by air = useful fuel for departures from KDH!

Sounds like good advice for all the carriers operating into war zones.

[Rocchi]

Mk1 and Ian W
Cherry picking at its best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=8455KEDitpU&feature=emb_logo

[KelvinD]

This might be an opportune moment to mention that tomorrow, 14th November, QF will fly a B789 on delivery non-stop from Heathrow to Sydney, presumably aiming to better the 20:09 flight time they set in August 1989 with a similar non-stop B744 flight.

Qantas to launch London-Sydney test flight despite new sustainability pledge (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/qantas-flight-sydney-heathrow-london-direct-boeing-climate-change-a9198826.html)

Interestingly, the aircraft making the Sydney flight, VH-ZNJ, line number 66704, will be preparing to depart LHR (06:00) while the inbound Perth service will be arriving with its predecessor off the Boeing line. Line number 66073, VH-ZNI.
And for those who like to see aircraft in the dark, VH-ZNJ is in Qantas 100th birthday colours.

[Slfsfu]

I fill my car with petrol once a fortnight. Perhaps I should just put enough in, each day, for the trips that day. How much tankering is there in 30 million UK cars. Perhaps that may help to put some perspective on this.

I'm not a pilot, just SLF, but this sort of "outrage" gets my goat. In my mind it represents a total failure to think an issue through

[Fire and brimstone]

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt need to fly around, rather than over France several times a year.

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt spend 30 minutes drawing race tracks over London.

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt have to drive aircraft from Polderbaan across the Netherlands to the terminal, then wait another 20 minutes for a gate.


I'll spell it out for you: "TOO MANY AIRCRAFT".

[pilotmike]

There are no observations in the real atmosphere that show that CO2 has any impact on atmospheric temperature. The adiabatic lapse rates are not affected by CO2 and these are repeatedly confirmed by balloon sondes..
How could CO2 concentrations possibly affect adiabatic lapse rates, which are caused by expansion due to reduced pressure with altitude? It seems you are muddling adiabatic lapse rates with environmental lapse rates, which are indeed affected by a whole host of factors.

[DaveReidUK]

I fill my car with petrol once a fortnight. Perhaps I should just put enough in, each day, for the trips that day. How much tankering is there in 30 million UK cars. Perhaps that may help to put some perspective on this.

No need, there are already several posts above explaining the difference in the respective numbers between tankering fuel in the air and on the road.

Unless you have a car that does 550 mph at 35,000 ft, that is. :O

[Sholayo]

Yeah, but think about number of cars doing this daily.

&

[wiggy]

Yes, it does, doesn't it, but I left it there because that's what the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator (https://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/CarbonOffset/Pages/default.aspx) (also linked in my last post) produced for an A320 family LHR-MUC. Or maybe I misinterpreted it; I put the link in so that people could check. (Hint............................. and when you have done that, please let me know if you get a substantially different figure.)

Sorry for slow response...for completeness and to try and close out this particular sub-discussion about A320s and european sectors ... having consulted a current flight planning source (not the ICAO Calculator) :oh: I reckon 3000 kg, plus or minus maybe a hundred or two as burn for LHR-MUC on a 320, maybe 4 tonnes for a 321 at typical weights might be a reasonably accurate figure.

[mattyj]

Why doesn’t the United Nations offer all the carbon offset taxes it’s raising/raised since this (ponzi) scheme was introduced to anyone or any organization that can design a massive scale carbon sink that can capture atmospheric CO2/methane etc so we can use our human ingenuity to solve the problem rather than transferring cash around. You can’t buy your way to heaven and also I have an unformed opinion about the carbon credit scheme and the way it’s set up. If you’re setting caps per head of population and making polluting countries buy cap space of relatively low polluting countries it’s a neat way of transferring wealth from the first world to the third world..not enough questions about the purpose of the system are being asked

[OMAAbound]

Can I also make a valid point here.

As everyone is moaning about the effects of flying on the earth etc, I haven’t seen anyone from the eco-society make a fuss regarding Qantas’ LHR-SYD flight today, as part of an ‘experiment’!

So the snowflakes aren’t happy when an Airline tankers to save fuel, to keeps cost low. But when it comes to experiments and p1ssing away profits, that’s totally fine!

Talk about hypocrisy at its finest!

OMAA

[wiggy]

Can I also make a valid point here.

As everyone is moaning about the effects of flying on the earth etc, I haven’t seen anyone from the eco-society make a fuss regarding Qantas’ LHR-SYD flight today, as part of an ‘experiment’!

So the snowflakes aren’t happy when an Airline tankers to save fuel, to keeps cost low. But when it comes to experiments and p1ssing away profits, that’s totally fine!
Your point might not be completely valid..AFAIK it's the second leg of the delivery flight, so unless they were going to ship the hull from Seattle to Sydney it was going to have to be flown there anyway.. (though I accept routing via LHR my be somewhat suboptimal from an environmental POV)

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london-project-sunrise/

[Blackfriar]

Airstripflyer makes the relevant point

If you tanker fuel to a place like the Seychelles or Kathmandu because it's expensive, that fuel has ALREADY been tankered there in trucks and boats. Which are less efficient than planes in the first place.

If you tanker fuel from a place like Jeddah because it's cheaper than LHR - well guess where the fuel in the pumps in LHR came from?

Excellent point!

[OMAAbound]

Your point might not be completely valid..AFAIK it's the second leg of the delivery flight, so unless they were going to ship the hull from Seattle to Sydney it was going to have to be flown there anyway.. (though I accept routing via LHR my be somewhat suboptimal from an environmental POV)

https://simpleflying.com/qantas-london-project-sunrise/

Not entirely, they’ve flown it SEA-LAX-LHR-SYD and in the process burned well in excess of 150 tonnes of fuel. All in the name of an experiment.

Haven’t heard anyone from #TeamEco beating Qantas about doing such a irresponsible thing!

OMAA

[Dannyboy39]

To be fair, if you're doing 150T for SEA-LAX-LHR-SYD - over 30 hours in the air, that is bloody good efficiency in comparison to the older types!

The 787 probably does LHR-PER with less fuel than a 747 from LHR-MIA. These efficiency improvements are conveniently forgotten by the eco mob.

[TURIN]

Not entirely, they’ve flown it SEA-LAX-LHR-SYD and in the process burned well in excess of 150 tonnes of fuel. All in the name of an experiment.

Haven’t heard anyone from #TeamEco beating Qantas about doing such a irresponsible thing!

OMAA
You need to get out more. The environmental impact was ALL they talked about on every news feed I saw on this story.

In fact the head of Qantas basically said that as aviation globally only contributes 2% of the CO2 , Its a non issue.

[EEngr]

The reason why fuel is way more expensive at some places is because of the costs to get the fuel to that place.
And what are the effects of local fuel taxes on the cost? I suspect that a part of the outrage being manufactured here is due to the loss of revenue at a few pricey airports.

[OMAAbound]

You need to get out more. The environmental impact was ALL they talked about on every news feed I saw on this story.

In fact the head of Qantas basically said that as aviation globally only contributes 2% of the CO2 , Its a non issue.

My apologies as I haven’t seen anything, I’ve been polluting the planet carrying vital pharmaceuticals to the USA.

As a skeptic in the whole global warming campaign, and most of us have stated already on here, Aviation contributes a minor part to it, and the minor part to which it contributes is worthwhile. The pharmaceutical supplies my cargo company just delivered, the numerous thousands of aid workers airlines carry around the world, the food it’s supplies, the water it carries, the clothing it supplies... The list is endless.

This thread has slightly drifted, but, tankering will continue as long as airlines continue to operate! Period!

OMAA

[Vasco dePilot]

Most mornings over Heathrow there is a queue of aircraft holding as they wait for the 0600 curfew to end. At times this builds from around 0545 and often involves 12 or so aircraft. I did it myself for a couple of decades so tried to calculate my "extra" carbon emisions based on average air holding times - I ran out of zeros on my calculator.

This holding is far more damaging than tankering and I did try to avoid it by slowing down en-route but arriving at the back of that queue still brought the dreaded " take up the hold at Lambourne - maintain FL 160 - at least 20 mins delay"..........

I second that, as can every BA pilot. Whenever I am challenged by a person who is anti LHR third runway, I tell them about the huge amount of fuel wasted in holding patterns. Generally, I get looked at in disbelief.
We should be doing much more as an industry, we should be highlighting the efficiencies we continue to make. We should emphasise the efficiency of moving (E.g.) 62,000 tonnes of payload from Mumbai to LHR in ten hours at a cost of about 72 tonnes of fuel. Compare that with a cruise ship I was on recently which carried 568 pax for 17 days burning 75 tonnes of Bunker oil per day while she was sailing. Aviation needs to blow its trumpet much more loudly, and emphasise that one pax’s fuel/mile in a B777-300ER is vastly more efficient than two pax’s fuel/mile using a typical family car in the UK.
Vasco (Retd BA 777s)

[DaveReidUK]

I second that, as can every BA pilot. Whenever I am challenged by a person who is anti LHR third runway, I tell them about the huge amount of fuel wasted in holding patterns.

And you should continue to do so.

Having said that, how can you be sure that if and when LHR build a 3rd runway, airlines won't add routes and schedules up to the point where the airport is back operating at 99% capacity, but now with 1½ runways' worth of arrival holding ? Or are you suggesting that the airport should operate 24/7 ?

[Vasco dePilot]

Dave, we can speculate it could lead to same holding plus extra for third runway. Your guess is as good as mine.

[Chris2303]

Having said that, how can you be sure that if and when LHR build a 3rd runway, airlines won't add routes and schedules up to the point where the airport is back operating at 99% capacity, but now with 1½ runways' worth of arrival holding ?

It's called "induced demand" commonly know as "build it and they will come"

[172_driver]

We should be doing much more as an industry, we should be highlighting the efficiencies we continue to make. We should emphasise the efficiency of moving (E.g.) 62,000 tonnes of payload from Mumbai to LHR in ten hours at a cost of about 72 tonnes of fuel. Compare that with a cruise ship I was on recently which carried 568 pax for 17 days burning 75 tonnes of Bunker oil per day while she was sailing

You're not shifting 62000 tonnes of payload for the price of 72 tonnes of fuel. Maybe 62 tonnes. And that's pretty poor bang for the buck compared to shipping (unless time is cruicial)

Edit: If you actually meant 62 tonnes there was no need for decimals..

[Fire and brimstone]

You're not shifting 62000 tonnes of payload for the price of 72 tonnes of fuel. Maybe 62 tonnes. And that's pretty poor bang for the buck compared to shipping (unless time is cruicial)

Edit: If you actually meant 62 tonnes there was no need for decimals..

Do you know how many trees you have to plant to offset just your cruise?

[Australopithecus]

Do you know how many trees you have to plant to offset just your cruise?

Interesting question. So a bit of research in the forestry tables suggests that one 20 year old pine tree has a carbon content of 1 tonne +/- 10%. That’s the equivalent of 1.8 tonnes of CO2. So to offset my year of 737 flying I have to plant 5,600 trees and wait 20 years. But first I have to plant another quarter million trees to offset just my previous flying. Well, that’s my Sunday gone...

On edit: Using the available metrics, the air transport industry would need to plant out one million acres every year.
In one state of Australia alone more than that has burned in bushfires and we are only a third of the way through fire season.

[marchino61]

1 tonne of carbon is surely not equivalent to 1.8 tonnes CO2.

Molar weight of carbon = 12 g. Molar weight of CO2 = (12 + 2 * 16) g = 44g.

This implies 1 tonne carbon is equivalent to 4.4 tonnes CO2.

[PAXboy]

Pipelines to LHR. I had meant to reply earlier, as well as the Southern pipeline, there is a feed from the North. The fuel storage and distribution at Buncefield, Hemel Hempstead feeds direct. This gives the airport diversity of supply. Needed when Buncefield went off line for an extended period following an explosion in December 2005.

[Old King Coal]

Later today I will be flying an international football team back from a match they're playing in Southern Africa to their home city in West Africa (a flight time of approx 9 hours in each direction) and thereafter ferrying the aircraft back to base in Northern Europe (a flight time of 6 hours, devoid of passengers, in each direction)... therein a grand total of 30 hours of flying (requiring only +63 tons of fuel... it's a VIP config 737 with only 56 seats - ergo it's rather light and therein 'frugal' ) all in order for them to be able to play a 90 minute football match. Next week I'll be ferrying down to southern Spain to collect a premier league team and fly them to Russia for them to play a match, thereafter take them back to Spain and then ferry back to base. Oh how I laugh when I go into a UK supermarket and am required to spend 5p to obtain a plastic bag.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

1 tonne of carbon is surely not equivalent to 1.8 tonnes CO2.

Molar weight of carbon = 12 g. Molar weight of CO2 = (12 + 2 * 16) g = 44g.

This implies 1 tonne carbon is equivalent to 4.4 tonnes CO2.

Why would you measure a gas in a mass unit? One mole of mass @STP is 22.4L.

You've made two conversions to make one.

Plus not entirely sure what the obsession with weight of "carbon" is, surely it's the volume of CO2 that is the issue. I've never even weighed dry ice.

Only reason to work out a molar mass to volume is to work out partial pressure.

[DrCuffe]

The customary units for carbon emissions is tons of CO2. In talking about passenger aircraft for comparison purposes, it might make sense to compare carbon emissions per passenger mile. In this case I think a modern aircraft at full load compares favorably to a passenger car with 1 or two passengers. A bus full of people will do significantly better, but a bus with three passengers does worse. For Electrified rail, the efficiency is higher again, but the calculation now has to talk about the efficiency of the fossil fuel component of the generating mix applying in the country of travel.

[Fire and brimstone]

Interesting question. So a bit of research in the forestry tables suggests that one 20 year old pine tree has a carbon content of 1 tonne +/- 10%. That’s the equivalent of 1.8 tonnes of CO2. So to offset my year of 737 flying I have to plant 5,600 trees and wait 20 years. But first I have to plant another quarter million trees to offset just my previous flying. Well, that’s my Sunday gone...

On edit: Using the available metrics, the air transport industry would need to plant out one million acres every year.
In one state of Australia alone more than that has burned in bushfires and we are only a third of the way through fire season.









Unfortunately there won't be room to plant this many trees, in the UK, anyway, as we have to leave room for millions upon millions of new affordable homes (all built on the flood plains, as trees would get washed away).

If anything, we will need to cut down more trees to make the space, and provide building materials.

OR, we could just build them, and offset our huge carbon footprint by planting replacement trees in Scandinavia, to replace the ones imported by ship to feed our building program.

Naturally, all this will be done in a sustainable way.

"Simples".

[jimmievegas]

Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.

[wiggy]

Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.

Good luck with getting the internet to work like that - The forums would be a pretty quiet place if people who were non-experts were not allowed to contribute to debates...imagine how quiet Pprune would be if only real pilots were allowed to post...

BTW what's a "real scientist"???

[TURIN]

Oh how I laugh when I go into a UK supermarket and am required to spend 5p to obtain a plastic bag.

Why? Adding 5p to the supermarket bill has got bugger all to do with offsetting CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is an attempt to reduce plastic pollution. It has been remarkably successful. We are a stingy bunch over here.

[Trinity 09L]

There is a new rail service for fuel from Isle of Grain to Colnbrook agreed between BA & BP, but they are also moving the railhead and fuel connection at Colnbrook.:hmm:

[Chris2303]

Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.

Why, when even the scientists can't agree?

[golfyankeesierra]

Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.
Indeed, we are not scientists. But Critical thinking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) is what we do on a daily basis and what we are (or should be) expert on.

[PAXboy]

Chris2303

Why, when even the scientists can't agree
Please clarify which scientists you refer to and what they do not agree about. The range of options is very wide.

[marchino61]

Pilots, you're not scientists. Please stop pretending that you are - stick to what you're expert on and leave the real scientists to do their job.

I am a scientist, and fail to see what volume has to do with the mass of a gas. I stand by my calculation that 1 tonne carbon equals 4.4 tonnes CO2 until someone proves me wrong.

[marchino61]

Why would you measure a gas in a mass unit? One mole of mass @STP is 22.4L.

You've made two conversions to make one.

Plus not entirely sure what the obsession with weight of "carbon" is, surely it's the volume of CO2 that is the issue. I've never even weighed dry ice.

Only reason to work out a molar mass to volume is to work out partial pressure.

I made no conversions. All my calculations are in mass., Yours, on the other hand, make no sense.

[Australopithecus]

It depends who I google, but in Australia they talk about CO2 equivalents, and I see that they use a conversion of 1:3.67.

In this dry country 15 trees are required to offset one tonne. (!) the planting density means around 100-300 tonnes per hectare at year 30. Not real good

[Lake1952]

Why? Adding 5p to the supermarket bill has got bugger all to do with offsetting CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is an attempt to reduce plastic pollution. It has been remarkably successful. We are a stingy bunch over here.

Not that many years ago, we all shifted from paper bags to plastic to save the trees! Ah, the law of unintended consequences...

[pilotmike]

1 tonne of carbon is surely not equivalent to 1.8 tonnes CO2.

Molar weight of carbon = 12 g. Molar weight of CO2 = (12 + 2 * 16) g = 44g.

This implies 1 tonne carbon is equivalent to 4.4 tonnes CO2.
Or 3.67...

[marchino61]

Or 3.67...
That is correct.

[cessnaxpilot]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/opinion/climate-change-travel.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

[Australopithecus]

That article was written by a guy who founded a travel company. Its central premise is illogical. The comments section is worth reading however, as they are with many NYT articles.

[cessnaxpilot]

That article was written by a guy who founded a travel company. Its central premise is illogical. The comments section is worth reading however, as they are with many NYT articles.

Yes. But tourism is a big driver for a lot of economies. “flight shaming” is just ridiculous. Stop the economic machine and see how it impacts people far and wide.

[Australopithecus]

I agree that the economic machine looms large in any argument, especially the part of the economy inhabited by whomever is arguing against change.

The world's carbon output is actually the chemical signature of the economic churn of 7.5 billion people. What to do? Can we wait until new technologies replace fossil fuels? Can we afford to subscribe to the fiction of “clean coal”? Can we avoid fixing population growth until its too late?

My family and I are trying to offset all of our personal carbon footprint, but it takes a lot of effort and some money.

Biological systems fail the same way that most other things do: slowly for a long time, then all at once.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

I am a scientist, and fail to see what volume has to do with the mass of a gas. I stand by my calculation that 1 tonne carbon equals 4.4 tonnes CO2 until someone proves me wrong.

Trust me it does. The atomic weight of an element doesn't make it "heavier". Otherwise we'd have lithium floating all about us. NO2 if you use atomic weights is a lot "heavier" than NaF for instance. I know which is the solid though.

Comparing masses of gasses and liquids/solids really is an "apples and pears" situation.

Unless you compress the gas.

[Old King Coal]

Why? Adding 5p to the supermarket bill has got bugger all to do with offsetting CO2 in the atmosphere.

It is an attempt to reduce plastic pollution. It has been remarkably successful. We are a stingy bunch over here.

According to Gov UK: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/single-use-plastic-carrier-bags-why-were-introducing-the-charge/carrier-bags-why-theres-a-5p-charge#benefits-why-theres-a-charge

carbon savings of £13 million.

[tdracer]

Old King Coal, according to several studies on this side of the pond, a reusable shopping bag has to be used somewhere between 150 and 1000 times before it becomes a net environmental benefit compared to the typical disposable plastic bag. Something those government studies tend to leave out. Furthermore, many people don't just toss that 'disposable' shopping bag after they get home, they repurpose it to carry their lunch, line a garbage can, or pick up pet waste. Instead, they now purchase dedicated plastic bags for that purpose - which are typically heavier gage plastic and so use more net plastic (carbon) than the disposable ones. I used to use the paper shopping bags to line my trash cans - but now they cost 10 cents each - roughly 3 times more than it costs to just buy the plastic bag trash can liners.
I take a two week ski trip to Breckenridge, Colorado ever year. Breck implemented those mandatory fees on shopping bags years ago, so those thousands of skiers sitting in the 40 deg. C outdoor hot tubs (most heated with natural gas) - in sub freezing temperatures (often way below freezing - as in sub zero F) - can feel good about their carbon footprint. :ugh:
I'm all for protecting the environment, but today far too much of what passes for environmentalism is really just virtue signaling hypocrisy.

[marchino61]

Trust me it does. The atomic weight of an element doesn't make it "heavier". Otherwise we'd have lithium floating all about us. NO2 if you use atomic weights is a lot "heavier" than NaF for instance. I know which is the solid though.

Comparing masses of gasses and liquids/solids really is an "apples and pears" situation.

Unless you compress the gas.

Your argument lacks coherence. You are conflating mass, density and volume.

[Mk 1]

Old King Coal, according to several studies on this side of the pond, a reusable shopping bag has to be used somewhere between 150 and 1000 times before it becomes a net environmental benefit compared to the typical disposable plastic bag. Something those government studies tend to leave out. Furthermore, many people don't just toss that 'disposable' shopping bag after they get home, they repurpose it to carry their lunch, line a garbage can, or pick up pet waste. Instead, they now purchase dedicated plastic bags for that purpose - which are typically heavier gage plastic and so use more net plastic (carbon) than the disposable ones. I used to use the paper shopping bags to line my trash cans - but now they cost 10 cents each - roughly 3 times more than it costs to just buy the plastic bag trash can liners.
I take a two week ski trip to Breckenridge, Colorado ever year. Breck implemented those mandatory fees on shopping bags years ago, so those thousands of skiers sitting in the 40 deg. C outdoor hot tubs (most heated with natural gas) - in sub freezing temperatures (often way below freezing - as in sub zero F) - can feel good about their carbon footprint. :ugh:
I'm all for protecting the environment, but today far too much of what passes for environmentalism is really just virtue signaling hypocrisy.
The ban on single use plastics isn't about carbon footprint. Its an effort to try and keep the hundreds of millions of pieces of single use plastic produced every day from ending in landfill or worse, ending up in the environment killing animals.

[tdracer]

The ban on single use plastics isn't about carbon footprint. Its an effort to try and keep the hundreds of millions of pieces of single use plastic produced every day from ending in landfill or worse, ending up in the environment killing animals.

Yet, something like 90% of the 'free' plastic floating around in the environment (i.e. not properly disposed of, and hence a potential danger) originate in Asia in 8 specific areas. None of which are making any meaningful effort to reduce their use or impact.
Meanwhile, most of the rest of use are actually using more plastic due to the ban on single use plastics. I find it rather amusing that if I buy somethings at a grocery store, I either have to provide my own bag or pay a fee - but if I buy the exact same things at a fast food restaurant, they are more than happy to put it into multiple single use bag - no charge - and no one seems to care.

[bringbackthe80s]

Forget about tankering. This whole minimum fuel thing is CRAZY!

cavok? Great, 45 min extra fuel please
(did you say drone? No problem l, you’ll thank me later).