Dispatch/operational towing for reducing emissions?
 

To me it seems that using jet engines for taxiing is bad for so many reasons: engines are not the most efficient for ground use, source of unnecessary emissions, engine lifetime is wasted and FOD risk, etc...

Virgin Atlantic tried dispatch towing about 15 years ago but it seems it didn't really work out for them that time. However, as time passed, environmental issues are getting more pressing. For instance, ICAO passed a resolution for capping/offsetting CO2 emissions (CORSIA), but there is really no viable alternative fuel for flying.

Do you think that this would make operational towing a viable option? Why is it not being done right now? Or will the associated difficulties continue to keep airlines from doing this?

I thought it was a dumb idea back then..... I don't think I was wrong.

Towing will make a congested airport even more congested.

You guys aware of Taxibot? I think it is used more to save fuel than for emissions, but the idea is the same.

The only concern is the weight of the electric motor in the nose gear in that case. If it causes increased fuel burn during flight it might actually increase emissions.

According to Vegans and vegetarians, meat-eaters cause the most damage in regards to climate change. :E

That's going to be one hell of a motor to pull any aircraft over 150T! The weight and stress added to the gear alone would probably make it unfeasible. As for tugs - when under tow the engineer has responsibility for the process including clearance of obstacles and other aircraft - this would not change, which means you now tie up that person for probably 45mins-1hr per aircraft which is not a good use of manpower.

Do we need to do something yes, and RETI is the probably the best compromise so far. The most effective way to cut emissions = less aircraft. The time has come to accept that it no longer makes sense to pursue the ideal that "everyone can fly". They should not. The risks associated with flying justify high safety considerations and that comes at a cost. Unfortunately airlines, manufacturers and regulatory authorities now seem to deem cost/profit margins as more important that safety and that means a reduction in safety margins is necessary just to allow Joe Public to travel halfway around the world for a few bucks! Perhaps the cost of a ticket should have matched inflation all these years, that would have kept the demand down and thus aviation-related emissions. One look at a global view on Flightradar gives a scary perspective on just how many aircraft there are up there at any one time! Yes it would mean less jobs but if we are truly looking at effective ways to cut emissions then we have to look at changing our mindset that an annual holiday abroad or numerous trips for business meetings are an absolute necessity.

My tuppance worth...and yes I'm an airline pilot so I understand the effect of what I'm saying.

All silly. There are much more pressing issues, and this isn't one of them.

Uplinker - how much does such a system weigh? Total - not just the motor but the extra wiring, controls, etc.
500 miles is a short flight - at least on this side of the pond typical flight length for an A320/737 sized aircraft is over twice that (which would proportionally increase the cruise fuel burn due to the extra mass of the system)

The video is over 2 year old, not sure if the project actually took off and why not. They have a bucket of arguments if you are looking for the possible pros.

Note that fuel savings is not what's marketed.

Have you forgot to factor in the fact that you will be taking off with cooler engines..? A five/ten minute taxy will warm most of the engine lubricant much more than just starting one minute before take off.