|
If you truly wanted to save some fuel, how about banning duty free carriage on board and have it picked up at destination? Some items must get flown around the world for hundreds or thousands of hours before being sold.
I occasionally do a tankering flight but it is often to destinations where fuel supply is intermittent as well as expensive. As others have said, there are sound operational reasons for doing so sometimes and if we want to be serious, reducing holding delays and taxi times at busy airfields is much lower hanging fruit and is a win in all respects... |
What a load. Amazing how so many punters feel the need to comment on something they know nothing about. Here’s the news flash; All airlines have tankering policies !?!? Shocking isn’t it? Say you’re operating Sydney - Alice Springs. Alice Springs is in the middle of nowhere and JetA1 is extortionately expensive AND in limited supply. Of course you tanker fuel. You’re an idiot if you don’t. And much does it cost to transport fuel to the Alice in the first place ? Are you going to volunteer to pay a surcharge to NOT tanker ? People really need to get a grip on what they get outraged by.
|
Originally Posted by 733driver
(Post 10615910)
I think those who dismiss the environmental effects of tankering outright are a bit short-sighted. I am a bit tired of the standard response "this is such a small issue. It makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things". Maybe true. But all the little areas where we waste resources combined do make a big difference. It's like every industry saying: "We only contribute x% to worldwide carbon emissions. Again, true, but if every single one of those industries cut their emissions by say 25% then the effect would be massive. And yes, Human consumption, animals etc emit a lot of carbon. But that should be no reason to not minimize emissions/use of finite resources were we can.
As an industry we have lot's of room for improvement without having to ban flying or making it prohibitively expensive. If, with the help of governments, we could fly optimum levels and direct routes more often, spend less time in holding and in queues for departure, and yes, perhaps had to tanker fuel less frequently, that would all help. Now, I'm sot suggesting airlines should be forced to buy expensive fuel instead of tankering, but if governments are serious about cutting emissions then maybe it should be illegal to sell fuel at such prices that economic tankering makes sense for the airline. Just a thought. |
Originally Posted by flyer4life
(Post 10616023)
The policy at Air France (shorthaul at least) is to fly maximum speed for minimum flight times. You can often hear them in French asking ATC to order the aircraft ahead of them to speed up. That’s an entire airline with no interest in flying fuel efficient speeds. |
CO2 scare
After some 30 or 40 years of climate propaganda any impact of CO2 on climate has not been shown. There is a good chance that no evidence will ever appear.
The propaganda relies completely on so called projections through unsuitable guided and tuned models. Making the subject of this thread, the CO2 scare, somewhat silly. |
All is now resolved
British Airways reviews fuel tankering.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50365362 |
Yet another no-news. When I see numbers like "same as 100,000 people in a year", I start to smell the rat. Every London bus emits enough greenhouse gas to fill the Atlantic ocean three times over. Go try to fact check this. Until news outlets like BBC are chasing "hot" stories written by bored teenagers instead of promoting proper research, this planet is doomed.
|
One sided
From my experience working for a maintenance outfit at STN a few years ago, this is only part of the story. As someone said earlier in the thread, the fuel may be more expensive down route; it may also be of poor quality.
In addition airlines who pride themselves on quick (30 min) turnarounds will not be able to, as you can't refuel while pax are on board (unless the rules have changed), thus the turnaround would not be achievable. So rather one-sided reporting in my opinion... |
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 |
Carbon Dioxide is really good stuff, we don't have enough of it. It is food for plants, which by photosynthesis release from it (and from water) the Oxygen we breathe.
The main effect of fossil fuel use has been to green the planet, feeding us and preventing famine. The effect is huge. NASA say "increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth It is also worth noting that there is no scientific proof whatsoever that CO2 acts as a "greenhouse gas" in the earth's atmosphere. There is no correlation between CO2 levels and planetary temperatures. The Medieval Warming Period was some 1.5C warmer than the current one and the Roman Warming Period as much as 4C warmer, yet their CO2 levels were lower. However there is a correlation between Milankovitch Cycles and global temperature. These are caused by scientifically proven variation to the Earth's orbit due to the gravitational pull of the planets. |
old, not bold,
Which comes back to my contention that devising a much more co-ordinated European ATM system would pay dividends in every way for efficiency, costs, emissions and time keeping. If the ATM system worked more as a whole, rather than a set of different national systems, 'going round and round in the hold ' as you say, waiting to land could be very much reduced. Heathrow uses holding to maximise runway throughput, but it could also be done by a Europe-wide metering system to adjust arrivel times with far less holding. BUT, this needs Europe-wide co-operation, and politicians are not very good at that unfortunately. |
Originally Posted by Nomad2
(Post 10615813)
The only beneficiary of fuel tankering is the airline. It doesn't lead to cheaper fares.
A reduction in costs, does not lead to a reduction of fares- rather it leads to an increase in profit. Having said that, this Is pretty 'small beer', in the overall scheme of things. Agree it's not a direct consequence, but overall profitability and Income exceeding costs is what makes the industry financially sustainable (But perhaps not ecologically Sustainable!!) But agree it is small fry!! |
There is something missing from the BBC articles and that is that tankering is done to some rather surprising places. Glasgow fuel is mentioned as being 25% more expensive than Heathrow.
https://www.theguardian.com/business...ma-revelations |
Originally Posted by OMAAbound
(Post 10616112)
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! Out of interest, what do you think the snowflakes at Eurocontrol stand to gain from their scaremongering ? |
From the BBC article: Eurocontrol, the body which coordinates air traffic control for Europe, has calculated that tankering in Europe resulted in 286,000 tonnes of extra fuel being burnt every year, and the emission of an additional 901,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. |
It’s very basic organic chemistry. Each carbon atom from the fuel combines with two oxygen atoms from the air meaning the resulting waste product (CO2) is much heavier than the fuel. Likewise the very light hydrogen in the fuel combines with heavier oxygen at a ratio of 2:1 making water which is also heavier than the original fuel. 2 C12H26 + 37 O2 = 24 CO2 + 26 H2O That brought on a cold shudder! |
If tankering becomes an issue, what about ultra long-haul? QF's Project Sunrise and similar operations will be the next target no doubt: massive fuel load, tiny payload fraction, handful of pampered pax etc etc.
|
Originally Posted by EastMids
(Post 10616159)
From the BBC article: Seems like the airline industry has introduced a matter creation scheme - burn 286,000 tonnes of fuel and get 901,000 tonnes of carbon doixide! |
What about the cost of repeatedly lugging trolleys full of duty free booze and trinkets all over the world for sale on an aeroplane? Why not ship the duty free goods once by an environmentally friendly means, and collect at your destination? |
Originally Posted by sixgee
(Post 10616175)
What about the cost of repeatedly lugging trolleys full of duty free booze and trinkets all over the world for sale on an aeroplane? Why not ship the duty free goods once by an environmentally friendly means, and collect at your destination? |
A few textbook replies.
Climate change denial, use of the words fake news and snowflakes. Brexit voters perchance? 😂 |
Tankered fuel is actually cargo. Payload. |
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. |
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? |
Originally Posted by cessnapete
(Post 10616221)
What rubbish. Far more fuel/energ wastage/pollution is caused by inefficient ATC /lack of runway space, causing huge amounts of Holding time worldwide.
Originally Posted by fox niner
(Post 10616205)
Tankered fuel is actually cargo. Payload.
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. :O |
Originally Posted by OMAAbound
(Post 10616112)
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 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?? |
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.
|
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? |
Originally Posted by Fire and brimstone
(Post 10616234)
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?? |
When are the dogooders ever going to stop this cr@p, 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. |
Originally Posted by BDAttitude
(Post 10616370)
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? |
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...... |
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. |
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. |
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:
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. |
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 |
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
One of the good things about getting old is I won't have to put up with this crap for very much longer.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.