Extra fuel burnt in air fee dodge
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a shame the thread has degenerated into a childish exercise of semi literates.
OKC when a source is cited it is spelt thus, not sited.
I can cite an article, about a building site where what I saw was a sight for sore eyes.
OKC when a source is cited it is spelt thus, not sited.
I can cite an article, about a building site where what I saw was a sight for sore eyes.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rubik101
1985 has summed it up nicely, but try looking at it another way instead of from departure point to destination.
What I mean is this: get yourself a chart of the London TMA - look at the amount of airports within a small area. Now look at the multitude of crossing tracks - both inbound and outbound routes as well as overflights.
You need to be at stack level or very near it by the time you reach the holding point - lets face it, if flying into LL,KK,SS you are quite likely to receive a hold of some description. If flying into other airfields in the LTMA (for example GW,LC,HI) you are increasingly likely to have to hold for a short while - and that likelihood is going to increase over the next few years until it becomes a certainty.
If you look at the volume of traffic versus the area of airspace, it is physically impossible to give you the ideal continuous descent profile from your cruise level.
If you work backwards as I suggest, you will see the problem.
The definitive (or near as damn it) reason that the 'early' descents occur is customer driven. The airlines (ATC's customer) collectively choose to fly to/from similar destinations (i.e. similar routes) at the same time - (just pop into a centre to see what I mean - you get Compton rushes Wobun rushes etc). The airlines do this because they are fulfilling the requirements of their customers. You can only fit so many aircraft in a piece of airspace - ANSPs try to provide the most efficient use of a particular piece of airspace whilst maintaining 100% safety - so to quote you and put the ball back in your court
Airspace is complex enough (particularly over SE England), although constantly being assessed to ensure that it is being used most efficiently, there is a limit to how many aircraft we can squeeze into it at once. Therefore, safety is the true definitive answer 
I totally agree with you - it is not the most efficient use, but these things must be a compromise of several factors (apart from safety) - there can be no other way.
1985 has summed it up nicely, but try looking at it another way instead of from departure point to destination.
What I mean is this: get yourself a chart of the London TMA - look at the amount of airports within a small area. Now look at the multitude of crossing tracks - both inbound and outbound routes as well as overflights.
You need to be at stack level or very near it by the time you reach the holding point - lets face it, if flying into LL,KK,SS you are quite likely to receive a hold of some description. If flying into other airfields in the LTMA (for example GW,LC,HI) you are increasingly likely to have to hold for a short while - and that likelihood is going to increase over the next few years until it becomes a certainty.
If you look at the volume of traffic versus the area of airspace, it is physically impossible to give you the ideal continuous descent profile from your cruise level.
If you work backwards as I suggest, you will see the problem.
The definitive (or near as damn it) reason that the 'early' descents occur is customer driven. The airlines (ATC's customer) collectively choose to fly to/from similar destinations (i.e. similar routes) at the same time - (just pop into a centre to see what I mean - you get Compton rushes Wobun rushes etc). The airlines do this because they are fulfilling the requirements of their customers. You can only fit so many aircraft in a piece of airspace - ANSPs try to provide the most efficient use of a particular piece of airspace whilst maintaining 100% safety - so to quote you and put the ball back in your court
I leave you to do the maths, or guess at the figures
I totally agree with you - it is not the most efficient use, but these things must be a compromise of several factors (apart from safety) - there can be no other way.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chrisbl
yes thank you for your contribution too:
and thats
??? 
yes thank you for your contribution too:
I can cite an article, about a building site where what I saw was a sight for sore eyes.
a good point well made
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chrisbl thank you for pointing out that I'd used the word 'site' versus 'cite' (now corrected... such that you might rest you anxious brow). That said, some might say that it's a shame that you didn't elaborate on the subject matter of this thread; aside from using it as a medium to bash an innocent grammatical error.
Therein, in case it's escaped you, the facts of the matter are that the BBC (a supposed public broadcaster with a duty of care for accuracy and truth) have concocted a story, citing 'facts' which, upon inspection, simply do not add up.
That flying via a Tango route adds 100 extra miles and uses more fuel is not in doubt.
But for the BBC to say:
is (imho) bordering on lying... and I've already proved that it doesn't save money overall.
The BBC quote some anonymous former Ops Dir as saying:
Duh, more consideration goes into using a Tango route than just the head / tail wind components, e.g. slot restrictions and / or maybe French ATC are in strike (again!), etc?!
Therein please do not loose sight of the fact that the BBC are broadcasting a report, in the public domain, which a good many folks - whom are not associated with the facts - will think is the truth.
It's to be noted that all the airline sources the BBC have quoted remain anonymous (oh what a surprise). But that the BBC have chosen to use a 'climate expert' (so called) whom has clear & publicly viewable links to a quasi-political 'green' lobbying group is no surprise!
I'm at loss as to how you might think that objecting to this tosh, i.e. by pointing out the very obvious iniquities of it, has "degenerated into a childish exercise" [sic] ?!
I've just seen a TV advert saying that they're going to broadcast this tosh on the TV as part of the 'South East Today' evening news (that's an audience of how many millions?)
Therein, in case it's escaped you, the facts of the matter are that the BBC (a supposed public broadcaster with a duty of care for accuracy and truth) have concocted a story, citing 'facts' which, upon inspection, simply do not add up.
That flying via a Tango route adds 100 extra miles and uses more fuel is not in doubt.
But for the BBC to say:
"Airlines are deliberately flying longer routes over the Atlantic Ocean to avoid paying air traffic control charges"
The BBC quote some anonymous former Ops Dir as saying:
"taking ocean routes when there was no clear wind advantage to do so"
Therein please do not loose sight of the fact that the BBC are broadcasting a report, in the public domain, which a good many folks - whom are not associated with the facts - will think is the truth.
It's to be noted that all the airline sources the BBC have quoted remain anonymous (oh what a surprise). But that the BBC have chosen to use a 'climate expert' (so called) whom has clear & publicly viewable links to a quasi-political 'green' lobbying group is no surprise!
I'm at loss as to how you might think that objecting to this tosh, i.e. by pointing out the very obvious iniquities of it, has "degenerated into a childish exercise" [sic] ?!
I've just seen a TV advert saying that they're going to broadcast this tosh on the TV as part of the 'South East Today' evening news (that's an audience of how many millions?)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the refuters of the BBC story are missing something very major here.
Jb 5000 and OKC have used their mathematical ability to demonstrate that the airlines can’t be saving money through this practice, especially if extra maintenance costs, and crew pay, are fully factored in.
That leaves two alternatives. Option 1) the BBC made this up completely and in fact no Tango routes are ever flown.
Option 2). Airlines are doing Tango routes even though they are not saving them money.
Option 1 is ridiculous, even to the most cynical journo-hater, and Thomas Cook admitted they did it.
Option 2 is not as improbable as it sounds because the internal accounting rules used by the airline may not accurately reflect all the costs. Companies can instruct accountants to calculate costs in certain ways. If most of the staff, maintenance, and depreciation costs are carried in a different column from operational costs, then a Tango routing flight might be saving an airline money, as it looks from one bean-counter’s cubicle, even though it may not when you broaden the outlook and examine the cost to the company as a whole.
Companies often set up “Chinese walls of costs” to make calculations easier within departments. If our maths chaps are right and the airlines are not really saving money, it would not be the first time internal accounting procedures designed to bring about more efficiency have ended up costing more in the end.
Jb 5000 and OKC have used their mathematical ability to demonstrate that the airlines can’t be saving money through this practice, especially if extra maintenance costs, and crew pay, are fully factored in.
That leaves two alternatives. Option 1) the BBC made this up completely and in fact no Tango routes are ever flown.
Option 2). Airlines are doing Tango routes even though they are not saving them money.
Option 1 is ridiculous, even to the most cynical journo-hater, and Thomas Cook admitted they did it.
Option 2 is not as improbable as it sounds because the internal accounting rules used by the airline may not accurately reflect all the costs. Companies can instruct accountants to calculate costs in certain ways. If most of the staff, maintenance, and depreciation costs are carried in a different column from operational costs, then a Tango routing flight might be saving an airline money, as it looks from one bean-counter’s cubicle, even though it may not when you broaden the outlook and examine the cost to the company as a whole.
Companies often set up “Chinese walls of costs” to make calculations easier within departments. If our maths chaps are right and the airlines are not really saving money, it would not be the first time internal accounting procedures designed to bring about more efficiency have ended up costing more in the end.
Keeping Danny in Sandwiches
Join Date: May 1999
Location: UK
Age: 76
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shall we try to raise this debate a little higher?
Most airlines use computer flight planning that calculates the cost of all routes between departure and destination and produces the cheapest, taking into account forecast winds, operating costs and overflight charges. Some days the winds favour one route, some days another. If the prime route encounters significant delays the airline will use the less optimum route to avoid delays and pictures on the 6 o'clock news of stranded passengers.
What I find rather strange is the BBC use of helicopters. I remember about a year ago they had the whole BBC news team up in Scotland with a wild and speculative piece about bird-flu and a couple of swans. We were all treated to the spectacle of the news presenter doing the news live from a helicopter. Needless to say the swans didn't have bird-flu and the story died. Now is there a lesson in carbon footprints in that wild "goose" chase?
Most airlines use computer flight planning that calculates the cost of all routes between departure and destination and produces the cheapest, taking into account forecast winds, operating costs and overflight charges. Some days the winds favour one route, some days another. If the prime route encounters significant delays the airline will use the less optimum route to avoid delays and pictures on the 6 o'clock news of stranded passengers.
What I find rather strange is the BBC use of helicopters. I remember about a year ago they had the whole BBC news team up in Scotland with a wild and speculative piece about bird-flu and a couple of swans. We were all treated to the spectacle of the news presenter doing the news live from a helicopter. Needless to say the swans didn't have bird-flu and the story died. Now is there a lesson in carbon footprints in that wild "goose" chase?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 30 West
Age: 65
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK Boys and Girls,
If you want to look at carbon footprints look to the world of Islam and the Haj.
250,000 Indonesians will be transported up to Saudi this year to perform Haj. Each of the aeroplanes that are used will go back empty, no freight, no revenue, no passengers. That is 50 - 80 tonnes of fuel each empty sector.
This is then repeated after Haj to repatriate 250,000 Indonesians.
This is only one part of the Haj.
Don't worry abot tango routes, worry about what is happening in Saudi
If you want to look at carbon footprints look to the world of Islam and the Haj.
250,000 Indonesians will be transported up to Saudi this year to perform Haj. Each of the aeroplanes that are used will go back empty, no freight, no revenue, no passengers. That is 50 - 80 tonnes of fuel each empty sector.
This is then repeated after Haj to repatriate 250,000 Indonesians.
This is only one part of the Haj.
Don't worry abot tango routes, worry about what is happening in Saudi
Alba Gu Brath
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Merseyside
Age: 55
Posts: 738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And whilst we are in the area javelin maybe we should consider the current fluffy bunny summit taking place in Bali. How much avgas has been consumed a) getting the bunnies to and from Bali and b) positioning the empty aircraft to other Indonesian airports due to lack of parking spaces at Bali? 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just watched the item on the BBC website.
2 things strike me
1 the BBC guy actually flies to Tenerife, er thats carbon saving, and 2 the woman stood on the beach going - "I recycle even the smallest bit of cardboard..." er well if it bothers you that much holiday in Bognor next time.
If you want to watch it its on BBC Kent
2 things strike me
1 the BBC guy actually flies to Tenerife, er thats carbon saving, and 2 the woman stood on the beach going - "I recycle even the smallest bit of cardboard..." er well if it bothers you that much holiday in Bognor next time.
If you want to watch it its on BBC Kent
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: south east UK
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
another nice BBC lie in the story is this basis for comparison:
nice comparison - a straight line direct flight as we all know we can take of from LGW, get passed to london control and get given "climb FL370, direct final approach fix Teneriffe" don't we.
and I'm not sure quite what aircraft model he is using because as far as I can work out an extra 100 miles at a speed of about 450 would cost me about 750 kgs of fuel, not 1.6 tonnes. 1.6 tonnes of extra fuel implies a fuel burn of 7.2 tonnes per hour, and yet the figures he uses are using fuel burns of considerably less.
To indicate just how much the BBC lie consider the next paragraph from the story.
The first flight (14.7 tonnes / 4:17) has a fuel burn of 3.43 tonnes per hour, and the shorter flight (13.1 tonnes / 3:57) has a fuel burn of 3.3 tonnes per hour, and then magically needs to burn 7.2 tonnes per hour,(before you ask about weight, carrying the extra tonne of fuel for 4 hours would cost about 150 - 200 kg fuel usage absolute max - about 30kg-40kg per hour which nowhere near accounts for the differences here)
also 100 mile difference would take about 12mins, not 20.
What a load of utter lies. This isn't even favourable use of statistics, its lies plain and simple.
I'm not sure quite why i'm picking holes in this story however as the BBC have never bothered worring about facts anyway, so quite why I should expect them to be correct now is beyond me.
Andy Farrar, of Air Data, based in Gatwick, calculated the fuel burnt on a tango route flight from Manchester to Tenerife on 16 November and compared it with an imaginary direct flight.
and I'm not sure quite what aircraft model he is using because as far as I can work out an extra 100 miles at a speed of about 450 would cost me about 750 kgs of fuel, not 1.6 tonnes. 1.6 tonnes of extra fuel implies a fuel burn of 7.2 tonnes per hour, and yet the figures he uses are using fuel burns of considerably less.
To indicate just how much the BBC lie consider the next paragraph from the story.
Mr Farrar said: "The flight which flew over the ocean used 14.7 tonnes of fuel and took four hours 17 minutes. "The direct route would have used 13.1 tonnes and have been shorter at three hours 57 minutes."
also 100 mile difference would take about 12mins, not 20.
What a load of utter lies. This isn't even favourable use of statistics, its lies plain and simple.
I'm not sure quite why i'm picking holes in this story however as the BBC have never bothered worring about facts anyway, so quite why I should expect them to be correct now is beyond me.
Last edited by 757_Driver; 3rd Dec 2007 at 18:07.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Bay ON Canada
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Combustion Chemistry
Some interesting numbers appearing early in this thread, but I don't think anybody has it right so far. I have a degree in Chemistry (from a well-known Scottish University) and my estimate is that if you burn a ton of kerosene you get just over 3 tons of CO2. The calc. goes like this (assuming kerosene to be hexane)
C6H14 + 9.5O2 = 6 CO2 + 7H2O
In weight terms 86 units of hexane gives 264 units of CO2, hence the 3:1 ratio.
Just trying to be helpful.(And snowed in and bored)
Jimbo
C6H14 + 9.5O2 = 6 CO2 + 7H2O
In weight terms 86 units of hexane gives 264 units of CO2, hence the 3:1 ratio.
Just trying to be helpful.(And snowed in and bored)
Jimbo
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at those wonderful little unit rates below - KK, LL, SS 
(thats EGSS) operators just love flying that extra hour through EG airspace just to reach T9, 12 or 16............ to get down to GCXX.
Inmagine if T routes became CDR_3++ (read: never open!)...and our French friends went on strike (its been ages since they last done that! mmm, a week ago?); let alone on a normal day, push and hold for 90 minutes etc etc
You know this is such a stupid article, incompetent, untrue, false and misleading that I cant even be bothered to write down my arguments even more!
Mr Journo (or anyone at the BBC) if you read this then please feel free to ask me why, and at the same time I would like to cancel my TV licence fee (I love SKY! hehe), oh no , hold on I cant do that, bit like those EG nav charges; rip off Britain!
EB 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7095
ED 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6737
LF 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6097
EG 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7749
EH 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4767
EI 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2495
LS 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6896
LP 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4822
LO 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 5805
LE 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7664
GC 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6775
AZ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 1329
LG 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4418
LT 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2685
LM 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3485
LI 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6766
LC 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3513
LH 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3029
EN 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6525
EK 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 5515
LJ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6077
LR 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3955
LK 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4647
ES 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4622
LZ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4273
LD 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2987
LB 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4844
LW 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6688
LU 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4324
EF 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3823
LA 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4305
LQ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3929
LY 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4155
(thats EGSS) operators just love flying that extra hour through EG airspace just to reach T9, 12 or 16............ to get down to GCXX.Inmagine if T routes became CDR_3++ (read: never open!)...and our French friends went on strike (its been ages since they last done that! mmm, a week ago?); let alone on a normal day, push and hold for 90 minutes etc etc
You know this is such a stupid article, incompetent, untrue, false and misleading that I cant even be bothered to write down my arguments even more!
Mr Journo (or anyone at the BBC) if you read this then please feel free to ask me why, and at the same time I would like to cancel my TV licence fee (I love SKY! hehe), oh no , hold on I cant do that, bit like those EG nav charges; rip off Britain!
EB 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7095
ED 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6737
LF 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6097
EG 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7749
EH 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4767
EI 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2495
LS 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6896
LP 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4822
LO 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 5805
LE 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 7664
GC 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6775
AZ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 1329
LG 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4418
LT 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2685
LM 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3485
LI 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6766
LC 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3513
LH 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3029
EN 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6525
EK 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 5515
LJ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6077
LR 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3955
LK 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4647
ES 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4622
LZ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4273
LD 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 2987
LB 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4844
LW 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 6688
LU 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4324
EF 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3823
LA 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4305
LQ 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 3929
LY 2007/12/01 2007/12/31 4155
Join Date: May 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 713
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe if the BBC journo was an expert in Tango routes, ATC routings, etc he might be a pilot instead of a journo.
If OKC was a bit more literate he might be a journo for the BBC instead of an aviator but at least he has the aptitude to be as economical with his facts which is a promising start.
.
As far as I know, they have just said that these routes are being used to avoid paying ATC charges; it may be the case that charges are being avoided, how is that lying?
If OKC was a bit more literate he might be a journo for the BBC instead of an aviator but at least he has the aptitude to be as economical with his facts which is a promising start.
Quote:
"Airlines are deliberately flying longer routes over the Atlantic Ocean to avoid paying air traffic control charges"
is (imho) bordering on lying... and I've already proved that it doesn't save money overall.
"Airlines are deliberately flying longer routes over the Atlantic Ocean to avoid paying air traffic control charges"
is (imho) bordering on lying... and I've already proved that it doesn't save money overall.
As far as I know, they have just said that these routes are being used to avoid paying ATC charges; it may be the case that charges are being avoided, how is that lying?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jimbo Canuck:
I think you'll find it's got more carbon atoms than that. C10H22 to C16H34 is the range I've seen quoted. Hexane is somewhat more volatile, somewhere between butane (gas at room temperature) and petrol (primarily octane).
assuming kerosene to be hexane
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 63
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chrisbl - I'd rather be an illiterate truth teller than an literate liar!
Therein please do be so kind as to tell us where it is that I've been economical with my facts?... i.e. what with you being an expert on airline jet ops et al and / or please also do tell us how many thousands of hours you've got flying large transport jets and / or how many years you've been working in the airline business, i.e. I'm just curious to confirm your bona fide's... wherein are you an amateur (e.g. BBC journo) or are you an airline professional ?!
You say:
Wherein I suspect that I strongly disagree with you about the damaging inference that has been made by the BBC.
By way of example, let's imagine that chrisbl is on his way to the filling station 'A' only to find that station 'A' has very long queues / a lengthy wait. However, looking down the road (5% further away) toward filling station 'B' the queues are a lot less... and therein chrisbl's time (=money!) is of the essence. And furthermore the fuel at filling station 'B' is cheaper! Uhm, so what's chrisbl to do?
Following on from this, how would chrisbl like some ne'erdowell at the BBC to write an article which either said and / or very-strongly-inferred that:
... would chrisbl think that was fair?
Moving swiftly on... I think what Lauderdale is alluding to, i.e. wrt 'unit ATC rates' is that maybe the UK, France, Spain, Portugal are taking the absolute piss when it comes to ATC charges... or else wise (and with my Devils Advocate hat firmly in place) how come the folks at the bottom of this list can provide the same level(?) of ATC service for substantially less £$€'s ?!
Price Area
----------------------
7749 UK
7664 Spain
7095 Belgium
6896 Lesotho
6775 Canary Isles
6766 Liechtenstein
6737 Germany
6688 Macedonia
6525 Norway
6097 France
6077 Slovenia
5805 Solomon Islands
5515 Uzbekistan
4844 Albania
4822 Portugal
4767 Holland
4647 Faro Islands
4622 Estonia
4418 Greece
4324 Luxembourg
4305 Iceland
4273 Slovakia
4155 Serbia
3955 Romania
3929 Bosnia Herzegovinia
3823 Finland
3513 Cyprus
3485 Malta
3029 Hungary
2987 Crotia
2685 Turkey
2495 Ireland
1329 Kazachstan
You gotta love the Irish !
Therein please do be so kind as to tell us where it is that I've been economical with my facts?... i.e. what with you being an expert on airline jet ops et al and / or please also do tell us how many thousands of hours you've got flying large transport jets and / or how many years you've been working in the airline business, i.e. I'm just curious to confirm your bona fide's... wherein are you an amateur (e.g. BBC journo) or are you an airline professional ?!
You say:
"As far as I know, they (the BBC) have just said that these routes are being used to avoid paying ATC charges; it may be the case that charges are being avoided, how is that lying?"
By way of example, let's imagine that chrisbl is on his way to the filling station 'A' only to find that station 'A' has very long queues / a lengthy wait. However, looking down the road (5% further away) toward filling station 'B' the queues are a lot less... and therein chrisbl's time (=money!) is of the essence. And furthermore the fuel at filling station 'B' is cheaper! Uhm, so what's chrisbl to do?
Following on from this, how would chrisbl like some ne'erdowell at the BBC to write an article which either said and / or very-strongly-inferred that:
"chrisbl, intentionally drives past the nearest filling station in order to avail him self of the faster service located at a filling station 5% further down the road... wherein this just goes to show what a total polluting hypocrite that chrisbl really is!"
Moving swiftly on... I think what Lauderdale is alluding to, i.e. wrt 'unit ATC rates' is that maybe the UK, France, Spain, Portugal are taking the absolute piss when it comes to ATC charges... or else wise (and with my Devils Advocate hat firmly in place) how come the folks at the bottom of this list can provide the same level(?) of ATC service for substantially less £$€'s ?!
Price Area
----------------------
7749 UK
7664 Spain
7095 Belgium
6896 Lesotho
6775 Canary Isles
6766 Liechtenstein
6737 Germany
6688 Macedonia
6525 Norway
6097 France
6077 Slovenia
5805 Solomon Islands
5515 Uzbekistan
4844 Albania
4822 Portugal
4767 Holland
4647 Faro Islands
4622 Estonia
4418 Greece
4324 Luxembourg
4305 Iceland
4273 Slovakia
4155 Serbia
3955 Romania
3929 Bosnia Herzegovinia
3823 Finland
3513 Cyprus
3485 Malta
3029 Hungary
2987 Crotia
2685 Turkey
2495 Ireland
1329 Kazachstan
You gotta love the Irish !
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Gatwick, UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AndyF
The extra fuel required to fly the Tango route is actually 834 Kgs (14949-14115) which, at $850/1000Kgs, works out at about £352.
So, the "saving" in overflight charges against fuel is £610 - £352 = £258
But the flight is (actually) 11 minutes longer, and I have no idea what that costs (in terms of £/hr).
One significant point that the programme (the bit I saw) didn't mention is that, as last week, the winds are often favourable to go to the Canaries over the ocean. Any sensible airline would take advantage of that - and probably return by the "direct" route, to avoid headwinds.
Apart from that, I didn't think that the programme was all THAT bad.
At least they mentioned the fact that oceanic routes avoid the (highly probable) likelihood of ATC problems and delays, and they allowed Monarch the chance to put their point of view.
A little more on WHY overflight charges are so high might have been appropriate.
So, the "saving" in overflight charges against fuel is £610 - £352 = £258
But the flight is (actually) 11 minutes longer, and I have no idea what that costs (in terms of £/hr).
One significant point that the programme (the bit I saw) didn't mention is that, as last week, the winds are often favourable to go to the Canaries over the ocean. Any sensible airline would take advantage of that - and probably return by the "direct" route, to avoid headwinds.
Apart from that, I didn't think that the programme was all THAT bad.
At least they mentioned the fact that oceanic routes avoid the (highly probable) likelihood of ATC problems and delays, and they allowed Monarch the chance to put their point of view.
A little more on WHY overflight charges are so high might have been appropriate.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Gatwick, UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AndyF
The figures given on the programme were not exactly what were calculated (and I could send you copies of the plans, if you wish).
The so-called "imaginary route" was a real enough one (routings were given to me, from "another provider").
The aircraft was a generic 757200, flown at M79 - performance data from Boeing.
So, no lies, I'm afraid.
Please see my other reply (above)
The so-called "imaginary route" was a real enough one (routings were given to me, from "another provider").
The aircraft was a generic 757200, flown at M79 - performance data from Boeing.
So, no lies, I'm afraid.
Please see my other reply (above)
Last edited by mfarrar; 4th Dec 2007 at 09:21.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Magic Kingdom
Posts: 655
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the BBC article in question:
The title should have been
"French/Spanish Promote Extra Carbon Emissions with High Charges"
A spokesman said: "By travelling via these Oceanic routes, the company avoids paying French and/or Spanish overflight charges and instead pays a much smaller Oceanic airspace overflight charge to the UK and Ireland.
"French/Spanish Promote Extra Carbon Emissions with High Charges"