Criteria for an environmentally friendly airline
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Up in the air. Sweden sometimes
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criteria for an environmentally friendly airline
Trying to figure out ten (or five) criteria to use in order to measure and benchmark airlines against each other in regard to environment.
Happy for all your ideas
Happy for all your ideas
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"green flights"
Every time an airline does one of these for PR purposes, they've coordinated with ATC to get an expedited taxi, and continuous descent approach, and other special routings to save fuel. Regular flights don't get this kind of special attention.
Couple things an airline can do include cleaning up maintenance and painting processes, not carrying extra weight (catering supplies) etc., but it's mostly "greenwashing". You can do a bit with little stuff like turning off the hangar lights and using GPU power whenever possible, but it is a dirty industry.
Each new generation of airplane does things a little better, like LED instead of fluorescent lighting for cabin interiors, but you're not going to retrofit existing models for something like that.
Couple things an airline can do include cleaning up maintenance and painting processes, not carrying extra weight (catering supplies) etc., but it's mostly "greenwashing". You can do a bit with little stuff like turning off the hangar lights and using GPU power whenever possible, but it is a dirty industry.
Each new generation of airplane does things a little better, like LED instead of fluorescent lighting for cabin interiors, but you're not going to retrofit existing models for something like that.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criteria for an environmentally friendly airline
And doesn't waste time and energy getting twitched about cult fads and meaningless sloganising.
Greenwashing. mmm. Bullsh!t is green, isn't it?
LEDs instead of flourescents! Just about sums up the green movement when that's suggested to an airline as an "environmental" saving. That would save how much fuel on a transatlantic? A pint? And how many hundreds of thousands of extra tons of fuel does the industry have to burn to generate the profit to pay the millions in certification costs for something that won't come into effect for 20 years?
Sounds like a well thought out plan to me. not. (ie a typical Green one...penny not very wise, millions foolish)
"Lend me your abacus Swampy, I can't get enough noughts behind the decimal point on mine"
We'd get there a whole lot better and faster if we listened to engineers and economists instead of kooks, druids and spaced-out sociology students.
...I'll get my coat
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 15th Dec 2010 at 14:10.
Join Date: Feb 1998
Location: Formerly of Nam
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Criteria for an environmentally friendly airline
2. No use of APU
3. No use of GPUs/GTSUs
4. No pushback tugs
5. No baggage trains. All bags carried by hand.
6. All aircraft locked up. Everyone goes home.
Greenie airline nirvana complete.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Up in the air. Sweden sometimes
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, seriously, I am collecting wisdom for a project.
I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.
More: weight reduction in general, such as better ways to distribute tax-free than onboard. Maximize cabin factor, invest in finding better fuel, cīmon, letīs pack this...
I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.
More: weight reduction in general, such as better ways to distribute tax-free than onboard. Maximize cabin factor, invest in finding better fuel, cīmon, letīs pack this...
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You really have to get your terms of reference sorted out. Modern living has never been green and never will be. Ever since we started burning fossil fuels we have been "un-green." So what you are looking for is the least polluting method (which still isn't green). So the first thing is to stop the poor from travelling - why do we need to go to Spain or Orlando for a holiday? Stay at home for your holidays. Then you'll have to stop them (the masses) eating mange tout from Kenya. And you'll have to stop shipping - that really pollutes as do cars...
The ideas you have already are worthwhile and are savings worth having, but even if all added together will be but a mere a piss in the ocean.
The you have to do the green vs greenback maths. I could save a considerable amount of fuel by flying at minimum drag speeds, but would cost my employer a fortune. Is that what you want to hear?
I'm afraid Agaricus bisporus has got it spot on.
PM
The ideas you have already are worthwhile and are savings worth having, but even if all added together will be but a mere a piss in the ocean.
The you have to do the green vs greenback maths. I could save a considerable amount of fuel by flying at minimum drag speeds, but would cost my employer a fortune. Is that what you want to hear?
I'm afraid Agaricus bisporus has got it spot on.
PM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Up in the air. Sweden sometimes
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okey, rephrasing.
There is a demand from the public that the airline industry should show good will to fly more environmentaly.
The public and the governments will support those airlines that adapt as many fuel/noise/carbon lowering measurements as possible. A small step as a whole, but a giant step in our business.
I also know that there are political discussions that atc will favour airlines with upgraded equipment to land in advance, if they use curbed approaches. And there is more to come...
Now, ten criterias to use, benchmarking airlines, finding out who does the most.
Donīt be a cynic.
There is a demand from the public that the airline industry should show good will to fly more environmentaly.
The public and the governments will support those airlines that adapt as many fuel/noise/carbon lowering measurements as possible. A small step as a whole, but a giant step in our business.
I also know that there are political discussions that atc will favour airlines with upgraded equipment to land in advance, if they use curbed approaches. And there is more to come...
Now, ten criterias to use, benchmarking airlines, finding out who does the most.
Donīt be a cynic.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paparomeodelta,
Do you have the remotest idea what you are talking about?
Madoff's Ponzi scheme has already faded into insignificance, compared to the "anthropogenic global warming" scam and the billions of your and my money already being pumped into it.
Do you know how much carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide, mind you, not carbon) needs to be added to the atmosphere to push up the 'global' temperature by 2°C? You don't? Look it up. It's about twice as much as there is currently.
How much of that are we humans adding of that at the moment? About 3%.
How much is aviation adding to that? About 3% of those 3%.
How much are your LED lights going to reduce that? About 0.00001%, I would say.
What is the reality?
The reality is that the aviation industry, over the years, has been reducing fuel consumption significantly, not because of some sort of "do-gooder" "green" mentality, but simply because it makes economic sense.
Unlike wind mills, solar farms or coal-fired power stations, they're not subsidised to the same extent, you know?
CJ
Do you have the remotest idea what you are talking about?
Madoff's Ponzi scheme has already faded into insignificance, compared to the "anthropogenic global warming" scam and the billions of your and my money already being pumped into it.
Do you know how much carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide, mind you, not carbon) needs to be added to the atmosphere to push up the 'global' temperature by 2°C? You don't? Look it up. It's about twice as much as there is currently.
How much of that are we humans adding of that at the moment? About 3%.
How much is aviation adding to that? About 3% of those 3%.
How much are your LED lights going to reduce that? About 0.00001%, I would say.
What is the reality?
The reality is that the aviation industry, over the years, has been reducing fuel consumption significantly, not because of some sort of "do-gooder" "green" mentality, but simply because it makes economic sense.
Unlike wind mills, solar farms or coal-fired power stations, they're not subsidised to the same extent, you know?
CJ
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Auckland, NZ
Age: 79
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a lot of denial of reality going on here, isn't there?
One obvious measure is minimum fuel-burn per bum-mile, which also turns out to be quite good for profits.
The other big win is probably more in ATC and routing, rather than anything any individual airline can do.
I wonder why people are so sure that all concern about climate change is bullcrap? Surely it could not be that it is inconvenient? Maybe they just like to position the airline industry in opposition to most of the world's governments, which I am sure is a very good strategy for preserving jobs.
One obvious measure is minimum fuel-burn per bum-mile, which also turns out to be quite good for profits.
The other big win is probably more in ATC and routing, rather than anything any individual airline can do.
I wonder why people are so sure that all concern about climate change is bullcrap? Surely it could not be that it is inconvenient? Maybe they just like to position the airline industry in opposition to most of the world's governments, which I am sure is a very good strategy for preserving jobs.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Up in the air. Sweden sometimes
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy now, ChristiaanJ. I am not lobbying about global warming, and I have never even mentioned LED lights, those are of course insignificant.
I am talking about that the industry is under attack, and we have to do something to show that we are taking the public opinion seriously.
The project I am working on, together with one of the worlds most prestigious universitys, has EU support and is aiming towards finding criterias on how airlines can benchmark themselves, in a friendly competition leading to a better environment in regard to emission, noise etc.
So I am politely asking for input to find five or ten criterias as headlines for this benchmark.
I love a great fight, but not here and now, and only about women...
I am talking about that the industry is under attack, and we have to do something to show that we are taking the public opinion seriously.
The project I am working on, together with one of the worlds most prestigious universitys, has EU support and is aiming towards finding criterias on how airlines can benchmark themselves, in a friendly competition leading to a better environment in regard to emission, noise etc.
So I am politely asking for input to find five or ten criterias as headlines for this benchmark.
I love a great fight, but not here and now, and only about women...
Join Date: May 2009
Location: sfo
Age: 70
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a comment to an earlier post I'd made-I thought the OP was talking about overall "green" operations, including waste disposal, etc. You guys have any idea how many fluorescent tubes are on a 744, and how often they're changed, and where all the mercury vapor in the tubes goes, and where all the glass goes, and how these things are shipped all over, when every F039WWBCAC tube I've seen in the last 10 years is made in Mexico? Where I'm at, it's illegal to throw one in the trash. I'm not advocating saving fuel by switching lighting, FFS.
/rant
/rant
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am talking about that the industry is under attack, and we have to do something to show that we are taking the public opinion seriously.
In my opinion, it's high time the industry got its finger out, not by pandering to the "public opinion" any longer, which has been manipulated by the greenies and the warmers for far to long, but by being "pro-active" and pointing out their contribution to the global economy, their negligeable contribution to "global" pollution, or their continuous efforts to become more efficient (if only just to survive, against efforts to tax them out of existence).
The project I am working on, together with one of the worlds most prestigious universities, has EU support and is aiming towards finding criterias on how airlines can benchmark themselves, in a friendly competition leading to a better environment in regard to emission, noise etc.
Compared to agriculture, fishing, road and maritime transport, deforestation, depletion of water resources, etc. etc..... aviation only has a totally negligeable impact on the environment.
The sooner the aviation industry "strikes back" the better.
So I am politely asking for input to find five or ten criterias as headlines for this benchmark.
Let me 'brood' a few hours....
Some essential criteria will be useful, not only for 'friendly competition' (was there ever such a thing?), but also to assess what really does need to be done for aviation to take back its rightful place in the reality of things...
CJ
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Up in the air. Sweden sometimes
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, it sounds like one more of those "projects" that are devised to qualify for a lot of grant money, without any base in reality.
But, I also want to add that one airline and one of the aviation industries giants are pumping in substantial money into this, so it is not really a project without reality. The industry sees this as imperative when the whole society is struggling with environmental issues. The finger will lead to nothing good...
As one pointed out before, this particular project is working with some substantial stuff, such as straighter routing, better ATC, curbed GPS approaches and much more.
The reason why Iīm not more precise in what I want is that i donīt want to limit thinking inside the envelope, I want you guys to turn every stone. So all thoughts on the topic are welcome. Good ideas can turn better, and bad ideas can turn into good ideas...
Last edited by paparomeodelta; 16th Dec 2010 at 22:30.
If motor vehicles had condensation trails coming out their exhausts I don't think we'd have to worry about the public percepation of the greenery (or otherwise) of aviation.
The herd look at the sky and see condensation trails and think it's all pollution!
"Global Warming" - another crime committed by governments as an excuse to rake in more taxation.
The herd look at the sky and see condensation trails and think it's all pollution!
"Global Warming" - another crime committed by governments as an excuse to rake in more taxation.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.
So getting yet more earache about fuel savings for a further, and distinctly unproven eco reason is a step too far. We did it years ago, but for a more compelling reason. We can't do it again.
The public need educating about what the facts are re aviations contribution to carbon emissions, but I know that's dreamland. Logic is the first victim in this sort of battle.
Simply turning off the city's office lights at night, plus other blindingly obvious ways energy is squandered - turning the heating down a degree or two, street lights off after 1230 etc would have a thousand times more effect that beating aviation up for savings it cannot make...but that's logic, so let the empty cities blaze all night, seems they're doing no harm...Still, sorting that would make the "public" actually do something themselves and they wouldn't like that. Much easier to beef about something remote, like airlines.
Finally, I guess English isn't your native tongue, but curbed and idling are not aviation terms and PBM is an acronym I'm not familiar with. You'll get more credibility using correct terminology so please get that right in your report. By idling I imagine you mean holding - (wasting time flying in circles) but doing this on GPS is no different to using a beacon fuel wise. I don't know what you mean by curbed, sorry, but most approaches/departures are already as expeditious as is reasonably practical and cannot be shortened easily - for that same old reason, cost. The same applies to airways.
Sure, there will be small ways here and there but they ain't going to amount to a whole row of beans, I expect another 2% savins are no longer operationally possible in the main. So our potential savings are 3% times 3% times 2%. ie four fifths of five eighths of **** all.
Lobby to switch off Belgium's street lights instead!
ps. Eco insanity. London's first Hydrogen powered buses are on the streets and being hailed as "carbon free". Dr Goebbels eat your heart out, the Big Lie is still hard at work. The hydrogen is made from hydrocarbon (ie oil or natural gas) and every ton of the wretched stuff produces between 7 and 11 Tons of carbon in it's manufacture. ( I read that yesterday 16 Dec, I think in The Times,). If only they knew.
Go tell that to the public too.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 16th Dec 2010 at 23:53.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, seriously, I am collecting wisdom for a project.
I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.
More: weight reduction in general, such as better ways to distribute tax-free than onboard. Maximize cabin factor, invest in finding better fuel, cīmon, letīs pack this...
I mean things like PBN, curbed, green, approaches, idling on gps instead of beacons, and not so curbed while en route, but straight between destinations. Also curbed takeoffs on GPS to reduce noise.
More: weight reduction in general, such as better ways to distribute tax-free than onboard. Maximize cabin factor, invest in finding better fuel, cīmon, letīs pack this...
There is very little an airline can do in flight, because of ATC and other regulations. "Noise reduction" profiles already cause more fuel to be burned on takeoff, and ATC interference in published arrivals and approaches already cause more fuel to be burned in the descent.
How much less energy is used if air conditioning and electricity is provided by a ground station instead of an APU? Just because the energy cost/accounting is transferred elsewhere doesn't make it "greener."
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a demand from the public that the airline industry should show good will to fly more environmentaly.
The public and the governments will support those airlines that adapt as many fuel/noise/carbon lowering measurements as possible. A small step as a whole, but a giant step in our business.
I also know that there are political discussions that atc will favour airlines with upgraded equipment to land in advance, if they use curbed approaches. And there is more to come...
Now, ten criterias to use, benchmarking airlines, finding out who does the most.
Donīt be a cynic.
The public and the governments will support those airlines that adapt as many fuel/noise/carbon lowering measurements as possible. A small step as a whole, but a giant step in our business.
I also know that there are political discussions that atc will favour airlines with upgraded equipment to land in advance, if they use curbed approaches. And there is more to come...
Now, ten criterias to use, benchmarking airlines, finding out who does the most.
Donīt be a cynic.
Reducing full-flap use on approach also reduces safety margins due to faster landings, more tire wear, and longer rollouts. Is "green" a suitable substitute for safety margin? If so, how many additional mishaps, injuries, and fatalities are acceptable?
Turning off the air conditioning on the ground will save significant fuel. Where is the public support? Reducing the "smoothness" of transitions will reduce fuel consumption in many cases. Where is the public support?
What upgraded equipment is going to yield landing priority? Where? What happens to the other airplanes that are delayed? Won't they more than offset any reduction in fuel consumption? Please define a "curbed approach." I have no idea what that is.
Cynical?!? How about realistic and analytical instead of naive...