See post #1, and pretty well every subsequent one. :ugh:

Unless you have reinvented the laws of aerodynamics, it's an undisputed fact that a heavier aircraft burns more fuel than a lighter one. You and your colleague are the only posters who seem to be denying that.

But don't take my word for it - a glance at the backside of every payload/range chart ever drawn is all you should need.

Y'all seem to have missed that this fuss all started as a puff piece for a BBC tv programme.

You often see such "news" on BBC News pages.

Yes, it does, doesn't it, but I left it there because that's what the ICAO Carbon Emissions Calculator (also linked in my last post) produced for an A320 family LHR-MUC. Or maybe I misinterpreted it; I put the link in so that people could check. (Hint............................. and when you have done that, please let me know if you get a substantially different figure.)

I think it's unbelievable that in these discussions that some refer to carbon in the atmosphere when it is a black solid stuff and there is none.

Now CO2. That's better. There is supposed to be 400 ppm CO2s in the atmosphere. Fine, so far so good, But that means there is 999600 ppm that is not CO2

I like to tell people that don't know this stuff to compare it to one meter in length and it comes out at 0.4mm. less than the thickness of my thumb nail. Another version is the proportion of time in a year to pass. CO2 part passes in 3.5 hours. Then there is the version to tell the US citizens. A 1 million dollar stack of 100 dollar bills comes to 40 inches. You take the top 4, $100 and see how thin that is and I'll take the other 9996 bills.

I hope some of this makes sense to some of you, but it's all just to show how minuscule the amount of CO2 is in the atmosphere.

The infamous above-referenced Eurocontrol paper quotes 3.6 tonnes for a 600 nm sector, based on the fuel burn of typical aircraft types used in Europe. LHR-MUC is 510 nm (GC).

What the Panorama programme missed was the fantastic job that the airlines and crews do in planning and loading the minimum amout of fuel needed on each sector taking into account the weather and expected delays.
Compare this to a BBC producer that drives a large car into central London probably with a full tank of fuel because he or she can't be bothered to calculate his fuel requirement for the trip and fill his tank accordingly.

Could a BBC whistleblower tell us what car the producer drives and where from so we can calculate the CO2 emitted.

STOP PRESS

BBC Panorama progamme looking for whistleblower to reveal how airlines fly over built up areas with only a minimum amount of fuel on board.

But per passenger, you are taking up a lot more. Your seat is heavier, your bigger seat area takes up a bigger percentage of the fuselage weight, you have a bigger baggage allowance, you have more cabin crew per passenger, you have food served on proper plates, and if you are anything like me, you are fatter ;)

If you were so kind as to read what other people actually say instead of jumping head first into a useless argument, you would know that "both me and my colleague" are arguing not whether a heavier aircraft consumes more fuel, but rather that the fuel at the destination is more expensive because it takes more effort to deliver it there. And delivering fuel is more expensive because it has to go on a fuel truck, then a tanker, then through a pipeline, etc, etc, etc. It is an undisputed fact that trucks and tankers consume a lot of fuel and produce harmful gases. Therefore, the fuel at the destination may be more harmful to the environment than the one tanked from the point of origin and it may be beneficial to tank fuel from the said point of origin rather than buy it at the said destination.

umm... what???????

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.

I'd be interested to see an analysis that shows, for any place on Earth to which commercial air transport exists, that getting fuel there by air uses less fuel or produces less pollution than getting it there by any other means.

Really!? Is it undisputed? An organization called Friends of the Earth, an entrenched crowd of tree-huggers, states that trains use more fuel per passenger than an airplane. Hence their long-standing slogan: "The best trip is the one that's never taken".

Uses less fuel OR produces less pollution? Those two are not the same. Airplane uses high-quality kerosene with minimum sulfur content while barges and trucks use the heaviest fuels. As for the "analysis", I refer you to my answer above to the Brit who advocates shooting down passenger airplanes every time their crew mistakely dials a wrong squak code.

That's the worst piece of chemistry since I took pen to paper.

Correctly balanced equation, but a very bad conclusion. Doesn't quite work like that.

These headlines nicely highlight the folly of the plaintive cry "why oh why isn't aviation fuel taxed?" - well do that and it will create marked price difference between inside and outside that tax regime, and in turn - massively increase the use of fuel tankering.

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt need to fly around, rather than over France several times a year.

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt spend 30 minutes drawing race tracks over London.

I wonder how much CO2 would be saved if we didnt have to drive aircraft from Polderbaan across the Netherlands to the terminal, then wait another 20 minutes for a gate.

What about the massive amounts of fuel tankered into AKL/NZAA when the fuel pipeline from the refinery was severed?

Virtually every trans Tasman flight filled up in Australia to minimise uplift in NZ.

Even longhauls were tankering to avoid being stuck on the ground

Introducing a straw man argument like that isn't the best way of demonstrating that you have any interest in a serious analysis. :ugh:

Rocchi, the average person weighs around 75kg's. Yet a couple of milligrams of VX, Sarin. or GB will kill you dead. That's far less than the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not about the amount, its about the effect.

Simple, for your grandchildren, Dont tanker, reduce your carbon footprint
 

“We’re investing in new aircraft and innovative technology to reduce our carbon footprint in an industry where there’s no current alternative to jet fuel,” Walsh said that aviation represented only 2% of global CO2 emissions, and that the airline group’s steps were one part of a broader solution to make aviation less polluting.¨
IAG Chief Executive Willie Walsh said in a statement.

Not tankering for economic reduces your/our carbon footprint, its basic math. Yet a formula needs to be agreed so that airlines are not gouged at expensive fuel destinations, by law.
Wake up, please, we are facing a climate emergency, the melting of the glaciers, just look at the antarctic and Greenland. For those climate change deniers you have been conned by propaganda, Exxon knew 20 years ago for sure.
So why not make a effort on this particular issue? Just remember this moment in 25 years as your children and grandchildren ask you what you did? We need to make the paradigm shift as you do know what the fuel burn of an extra ton of jetfuel is, right?

Simple, economic tankering by carrying extra fuel to save money, increases your carbon footprint, and landing distance. PERIOD!
As per the IAG policy and Willie Walsh statement it will be more difficult for companies in the IAG to force pilots to tanker for profit, without being hypocrtical.

To Tanker ( economical ) OR NOT to Tanker. That is the question

After having tankered for many years to save my company/s money. I am guilty and would like to repent. Now, As per the climate emergency, has to take priority and this is backed up by facts and objetive scientists. I will be tankering the minimum, and enough extra fuel for safety and diverting, etc, etc, as we the planet is going from a yellow caution into a red warning light situation. Just look at Iceland, Greenland and the fires in California and coral reefs.

The tantrum aside, there is no place for any kind of politics in the cockpit. Your job is flying, NOTHING else. The rest is up to other people outside the aircraft. You can discuss it all you like when you're not at work but once you are in your seat, EVERYTHING else must disappear from your head.

In one of my previous lives it was my task to actually encourage the Ops department regarding maximum fuel CFP's and tankering fuel.

A couple of prime examples, for one season we weekly had a B757 positioning in from LTN (where the fuel cost index was 86%) to CWL (where the fuel cost index was 100%) to operate a CWL/LCA (a 4.5 hour sector), to tanker fuel in from LTN would cost around 4% so, weekly, on a 4.5 hour sector we could save 10% on the fuel.

Another prime example was CWL/KLX, once weekly where CWL was 100% and KLX a staggering 151%.

As has already been suggested, if an airline is top be truly green then cease flogging duty frees and cuddly toys, forbid any excess baggage, all cargo needs to go by surface transport, strip the paint off and go naked fuselage las do AA etc. etc. etc.