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 11th Nov 2019, 15:56
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 57
A few textbook replies.

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

Brexit voters perchance? 😂
mike current is online now  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 16:10
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 636
Tankered fuel is actually cargo. Payload.
fox niner is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 16:23
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: North
Posts: 48
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.
aerodestination is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 16:35
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 917
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?
cessnapete is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 16:47
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by cessnapete View Post
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

Originally Posted by fox niner View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 16:49
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not Aviation House
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by OMAAbound View Post
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??
Fire and brimstone is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 17:46
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 3,950
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.
fireflybob is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 19:29
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: EDSP
Posts: 154
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?
BDAttitude is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 20:22
  #69 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,327
Originally Posted by Fire and brimstone View Post
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! So very well done, Emma, a world saving idea!

ShyTorque is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 21:21
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,194
When are the dogooders ever going to stop this [email protected], 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.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 21:58
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,894
Originally Posted by BDAttitude View Post
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.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 22:10
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 416
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......
Magplug is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 22:46
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 0
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.
david340r is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 22:52
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,194
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.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 22:55
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,549
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.
Rated De is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 22:57
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 16,194
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
NutLoose is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2019, 23:36
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Spain and Gibraltar
Posts: 34
Swings and roundabouts!

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.
Nil by mouth is online now  
Old 12th Nov 2019, 00:29
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 2,679
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.

TURIN is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2019, 01:38
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Melbourne
Age: 57
Posts: 29
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
Savage175 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2019, 01:43
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Aust
Posts: 51
One of the good things about getting old is I won't have to put up with this crap for very much longer.
deja vu is offline  

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.