I would suggest that is very much disputed if it comes to fuel tankering. Given that the flight is going anyway the only consideration is the extra fuel burn of the carriage of fuel which I would suggest over long distances is more efficient in a aeroplane, and that's before we calculate the environmental impact of the road.

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

The problem with climate change diagrams in general is that they are misleading.

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.

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?

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. :O

Having read the report that goes along with it, Eurocontrol have not calculated the impact of getting fuel to any of the airports involved in the flight simulations, or taken into account the impact of getting fuel to the originating airport.

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!:}

There are no observations in the real atmosphere that show that CO2 has any impact on atmospheric temperature. The adiabatic lapse rates are not affected by CO2 and these are repeatedly confirmed by balloon sondes.
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.

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.

Indeed it is, and it's this sort of information that is left out of documents like the one above from Eurocontrol.

All this does is distort the facts.

It is and is in the process of being replaced with a new pipeline following more or less the same course as the old one.

Only if it's downhill all the way......somewhere in the background where the energy to shift the stuff along the pipe is being generated, and that has an impact. Maybe not much compared to road tankers, but not almost nil either.

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?

I'm sure they don't, but, even if they did, it would only be "almost nil" if the energy used to build the pumps; manufacture the pipes, fittings, etc.; fabricate the materials; mine the ores; and on and on was also generated by renewables, using only renewable energy sources to produce the wind generators, photovoltaic panels, etc. . . .

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.

The amount of energy spent/CO2 generated to transport fuel to the Seychelles by ship can't be more than the amount spent to take it there by plane. Ships generate less than 1/10 the CO2 per tonne-km than aircraft, trucks a bit more but still less than aircraft.
(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.

Nope. Your average, electric, full function flat bed reclining business class seat is so heavy it has to be lifted in and out of the aircraft with a trolley. A standard economy class triple seat (which takes up a similar space) can be manhandled in and out by a couple of ten stone weaklings like me.

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.

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!

Sounds like good advice for all the carriers operating into war zones.

Mk1 and Ian W
Cherry picking at its best.

Interestingly, the aircraft making the Sydney flight, VH-ZNJ, line number 66704, will be preparing to depart LHR (06:00) while the inbound Perth service will be arriving with its predecessor off the Boeing line. Line number 66073, VH-ZNI.
And for those who like to see aircraft in the dark, VH-ZNJ is in Qantas 100th birthday colours.