Extra fuel burnt in air fee dodge

[clicker]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

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

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

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

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

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

[WHBM]

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

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

[ford cortina]

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

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

Now where's my V8

[Old King Coal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Nb. Edited due typo.

[blablablafly]

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

Extra fuel burnt by political inability to get aviation sorted

Main points:

• Inability by politicians to get a single European sky sorted on a political level and Eurocontrol instead of by local agencies nor investing enough in it
• Ianability of politicians to understand that 90% of military area's are redundant but we keep flying around them
• Inability that a lot of the noise sensitive routes to EBBR for instance cause major extra fuel burn
• Ianability to get sufficient runways build or less runways but in a more effiecient location saving millions on holding for Heathrow

Now mr BBC go and get a real job and dont you worry about our extra 100 miles extra and get the REAL issues sorted! (or does that sound like work instead of like an easy soundbite article...)

[yeoman]

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

Can't think why.

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

[flyingbug]

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

Can't think why.

I agree,

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

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

[jb5000]

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

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

Assuimg 1 litre of jet fuel weighs 820g.

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

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

[757_Driver]

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

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

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

[flyingbug]

The thread is in jetblast,

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

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

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

I think most people will find my enquiries perfectly acceptable.

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

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

Thank you

J

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

[Monarch Man]

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

[Old King Coal]

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

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

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

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

Uhm?!

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

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


Nb. Edited due typo's.

[055166k]

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

[speedrestriction]

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

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

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

sr

[Taildragger67]

Here is the thread which alerted PPRuNers to the journo (j1972) sniffing around.

[rubik101]

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

[Old King Coal]

Wrt the BBC's 'climate expert', is it me or does this look like the bio of a bonefide tree-hugger personified?

Ms Mari Martiskainen <-- click the link.
Post: Research Officer
Location: Freeman Centre - University of Sussex
Email: [email protected]
Telephone numbers Internal: 3630 or 8166
UK: [phone] or [phone]
International: [phone] or [phone]

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

Role
Mari joined the Sussex Energy Group in SPRU in July 2006, and her current projects include work on consumer behaviour and energy demand.

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

Also have a look at: http://www.green-alliance.org.uk (do a search for Mari Martiskainen)


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

[1985]

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

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

[ROSUN]

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

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...icle339824.ece