BA Whistleblower Reveals Tankering of Fuel - BBC
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.
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
Qantas to launch London-Sydney test flight despite new sustainability pledge
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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:
EUROCONTROL - Fuel Tankering Economic Benefits and Environmental Impact
EUROCONTROL - Fuel Tankering Economic Benefits and Environmental Impact
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.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: where I lay my hat
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this does is distort the facts.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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?
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 788
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 447
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(https://petrolog.typepad.com/climate...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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Civ/HAL/SHY/FYY/PWK/AAS/WAD/AVI/GPT/BZN/BSN/WAD/BAS/FLK/WIT/MND/WAD/WIT/WAD/Civ
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Qantas to launch London-Sydney test flight despite new sustainability pledge
And for those who like to see aircraft in the dark, VH-ZNJ is in Qantas 100th birthday colours.