PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   BA Whistleblower Reveals Tankering of Fuel - BBC (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/627119-ba-whistleblower-reveals-tankering-fuel-bbc.html)

mike current 11th Nov 2019 15:56

A few textbook replies.

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

Brexit voters perchance? 😂

fox niner 11th Nov 2019 16:10

Tankered fuel is actually cargo. Payload.

aerodestination 11th Nov 2019 16:23

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.

cessnapete 11th Nov 2019 16:35

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?

DaveReidUK 11th Nov 2019 16:47


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.

Good to see that whataboutery is alive and well at PPRuNe


Originally Posted by fox niner (Post 10616205)
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. :O

Fire and brimstone 11th Nov 2019 16:49


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

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??

fireflybob 11th Nov 2019 17:46

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.

BDAttitude 11th Nov 2019 19:29

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?

ShyTorque 11th Nov 2019 20:22


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??

That famous actress, Emma Thompson has the answer. She plants lots of trees and flies economy! :D So very well done, Emma, a world saving idea!


NutLoose 11th Nov 2019 21:21

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.

DaveReidUK 11th Nov 2019 21:58


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?

One of the great things about PPRuNe is all the interesting "facts" that one learns. :O

Magplug 11th Nov 2019 22:10

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......

david340r 11th Nov 2019 22:46

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.

NutLoose 11th Nov 2019 22:52

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.

Rated De 11th Nov 2019 22:55

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.

NutLoose 11th Nov 2019 22:57

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

Nil by mouth 11th Nov 2019 23:36

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.

TURIN 12th Nov 2019 00:29

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.


Savage175 12th Nov 2019 01:38

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

deja vu 12th Nov 2019 01:43

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 03:34.


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