Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

BA Whistleblower Reveals Tankering of Fuel - BBC

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

BA Whistleblower Reveals Tankering of Fuel - BBC

Old 19th Nov 2019, 02:39
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: timbuktu
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by pilotmike View Post
Or 3.67...
That is correct.
marchino61 is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2019, 13:02
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29
cessnaxpilot is online now  
Old 20th Nov 2019, 20:45
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 723
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.

Last edited by Australopithecus; 20th Nov 2019 at 20:47. Reason: grammar
Australopithecus is online now  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 00:37
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Australopithecus View Post
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.
cessnaxpilot is online now  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 01:33
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 723
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.
Australopithecus is online now  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 01:46
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Manchester
Age: 41
Posts: 572
Originally Posted by marchino61 View Post
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.
Ex Cargo Clown is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 04:33
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Monrovia / Liberia
Age: 58
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
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/public...heres-a-charge
  • carbon savings of £13 million.
Old King Coal is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 04:56
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,457
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.
I'm all for protecting the environment, but today far too much of what passes for environmentalism is really just virtue signaling hypocrisy.
tdracer is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 06:00
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: timbuktu
Posts: 95
Originally Posted by Ex Cargo Clown View Post
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.
marchino61 is offline  
Old 21st Nov 2019, 20:32
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by tdracer View Post
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.
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.
Mk 1 is offline  
Old 22nd Nov 2019, 03:38
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 64
Posts: 2,457
Originally Posted by Mk 1 View Post
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.
tdracer is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2019, 04:54
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: hang on let me check
Posts: 493
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).
bringbackthe80s is offline  

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

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.