Poitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2486 times:
So there we are, 35 aircraft all lined up behind one another, each being towed by a tractor to the runway while the pax wait inside with no ventilation or air conditioning, and when we finally get to the run way, one of the engines won't start.
Right Richard -- you can tout the Sauna Bath as a feature!
Shamrock350 From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 5278 posts, RR: 16 Reply 3, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2460 times:
What about the cost of those "tractors", they will produce green house gasses and they dont run on air! I suppose he wants someone else to pay for that like the airport?
Legacy135 From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1050 posts, RR: 36 Reply 5, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2411 times:
Quoting Poitin (Reply 2): So there we are, 35 aircraft all lined up behind one another, each being towed by a tractor to the runway while the pax wait inside with no ventilation or air conditioning
Don't worry, some clever engineers invented a device called APU which cools those planes nicely down, gives you power for your IFE and even better, the pilots to prepare the cockpit.
Quoting Poitin (Reply 2): when we finally get to the run way, one of the engines won't start
It won't be started on the runway, as even a jet engine needs normally around four minutes before take off power can be applied, if the engine is cold. So if they encounter any hot- hung- or xx-start, the plane will simply be towed back to the stand, something that happens already yet, as the start up does normally not take place at the stands, but after or during the push back.
I personally would love to have the possibility and start shortly before entering the runway. Looking to the counter how much fuel gets burned on busy airports simply hurts and is a waist. Often engines are shut down again, if longer delays are announced. So, Sir Richard, I agree with you. This idea safes fuel and enviroment, keeps noise levels down and best: Your profit will even raise. How do we call this? A great "Win win situation"!
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 3792 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
I guess this will work well with the prevailing westerly winds but it will be interesting to see if the proposal is adopted when the wind is in the east. There really is not adequate access to the westerly end of 09R at LHR (that is always used for all departures towards the east) or 08L at LGW.
Access to LHR's 09R is by way of Taxiway A or B from T1, T2 and T3 (with T3 being used by VS) and Taxiway S from T4. So the only way a taxiway could be reserved for returning tugs would be to divert either towed aircraft from T3 or taxiing aircraft from T1, T2 and T3 across the active runway to Taxiway S. If this was done then the delays while waiting to cross the active runway could result in more pollution than is current, not less.
Similarly at LGW there are just two routes to the start of 08R, the disused 08L runway and Taxiway J.
I guess the best solution would be to devote one taxiway at both airports to tugged aircraft and returning tugs. Then when the wind was in the east the trial would just disrupt VS's aircraft and timings and not those of all the other airlines using LHR. And it would decrease the overall fuel burn.
It is also worth noting that for both airports (at least until T5 at LHR opens) the taxiing distance for a departure in an easterly direction is already longer for aircraft from all terminals that if they were taxiing for a departure in a westerly direction.
Supa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2103 times:
With a bunch of quad longhaul aircraft at delay prone airports, this measure can make good sense. Virgin Atlantic does not have a great number of flights, so you won't need that many tugs to make this work.
For those who say tugs use fuel too, that was not the point. Aircraft engines use so much more fuel than a diesel tug (or diesel locomotive, or diesel freight truck) that it's night and day. This is not PR nonsense, they might actually save a good deal of fuel on this, like several million $ annually.
Branson is probably against Kyoto taxes however. That's the real "fuel saving measure" in the wings.
LeonB1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2091 times:
Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 3): What about the cost of those "tractors", they will produce green house gasses and they dont run on air! I suppose he wants someone else to pay for that like the airport?
Tugs are provided by the handling agent, which VS pays to handle its flights.
Bhxforever From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2001, 564 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2091 times:
I thought towing 747s carrying pax and fuel distances accross airfields put too much strain and stress on the airframe, and was frowned upon by Boeing when UA did the same thing for their ultra long flights with 747-400s...
Planesarecool From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 3825 posts, RR: 19 Reply 10, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
It's a good idea, and i hope they can get other airports to do it, especially JFK, where recently i was queueing for over 45 minutes with 4 engines running.
Quoting Shamrock350 (Reply 3): What about the cost of those "tractors", they will produce green house gasses and they dont run on air!
They produce a lot less greenhouse gases and use a lot less oil. Also, these can be turned on and off a lot easier than aircraft engines. In my example at JFK, we were sat idle for 20 minutes - if we were on tug, the tug could have been switched off, therefore using no diesel, and then when we come to move again, it doesn't take 2 or 3 minutes to start the engine up.
September11 From United States, joined May 2004, 3176 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2036 times:
Quoting Planesarecool (Reply 10): where recently i was queueing for over 45 minutes with 4 engines running.
Quote: Successful tests in June of an onboard electric motor attached to the nose wheel of a Boeing 767 have shown that it may be a viable way of powering airplanes to move in and around gates, largely eliminating the use of airport tow tugs and jet engines now serving this purpose, as well as reducing emissions.
CanadianNorth
Passenger at 4A changed out, function checks serviceable.
ThePalauan From Guam, joined Oct 2006, 248 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1648 times:
If the airport authority is allowing this, they should have a special lane for the tug operators to drive through (maybe even having a part of the road going under active taxiways so as to prevent planes from having to stop for tugs returning to the ramp) so they don't have to get in the way of aircraft getting ready to depart and they have faster access back to the terminal so they can keep airport ops on schedule.
You can take the boy out of the island, but not the island out of the boy!
DeltaGuy From United States, joined Sep 2001, 4172 posts, RR: 29 Reply 15, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1343 times:
Quoting Raventom (Reply 14): This would cost a lot to build under ground tunnels for returning tugs.
I agree, and while it would be a good idea to save fuel on a 4-holer, after awhile that would have to be a pain in the arse, handling a whole que of tugged a/c, not to mention would get to be so expensive it'd negate the fuel saved. If these tugs are like a Supertug or equivalent where the nosewheel is directly pulled, I'm sure it won't be that bad, but an actual towbar and a whole crew to move it would be a pain IMHO.
Personally, the airlines don't need to be worried about throwing a bone to the hippie o-zone folks...need to be more worried about making money right now.
DeltaGuy
"The cockpit, what is it?" "It's the little room in the front of the plane where the pilot sits, but that's not importan
Coa747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1130 times:
I think that would create a bigger problem than it would solve now in addition to all the aircraft moving around tower controlers have to deal with hundreds of tugs running around. Because if Virgin does it than every other airline will want to do it. May I suggest to Sir Richard that next time he make a decision on what aircraft to buy he take his ego out of the equation. Or maybe take himself out of the equation all together and let the people who know how to run airlines do their job.
Cjbmibe From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 108 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1018 times:
SRB is an entrepeneur and he sets up businesses... If you knew anything about him you know would know he sold his 2nd ever business to finance VS through the 90's, it was a tough decision for him to make but he saw more promise in the airline.
Virgin's companies do sell quite a bit from his image but thats why they sell... he is charismatic and a genuine bloke. VS is favoured more than BA because it can be cheaper and the service is usually better. If you care to think back about 10 years BA tried to bad mouth VS out of the skies so the airline is a threat in its own right.
I don't think they would announce all this tug business without having thought it through. SRB has a big mouth and he usually gets his way but if its not viable or creates negligable effect then they would not go ahead with it. Of course it will create more ground traffic but it will be figured out and not left to the day, and using a relatively small diesel engine compared to 4 huge kerosene engines creates a direct cost saving, and extends to saving fuel. Plus it brings a cleaner enviornment to the local area.
And hippie o-zone freaks? SRB was one of them in the 60's, and BA refered to him as the grinning pullover. Anything to save a small part of the enviornment goes a long way when they are combined!
How can I soar like an Eagle when I have to work with these turkeys?
Miamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 21, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 962 times:
I can see an increase in incidents/accidents. Maybe even some NLG trunnions to change, wrecked gear doors. Or having a bag of extra shear pins...
Noble idea, but what happens when your last engine won't start, or a problem you could have resolved at the gate with your techs handy now requires a taxi back to the gate, and hopefully it won't be occupied.
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 6009 posts, RR: 47 Reply 22, posted (2 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 873 times:
What about tracks, much like aircraft carriers, to pull planes around the airport?
It would be expensive to install but would save fuel, polution, engine run-hours (mx cost), make ground traffic more organized and therefore even reduce accident/incidents, as miamiair mentioned. You could even only use it at peak hours, as well as start engines while you're still engaged with the track.
You could automize it to take aircrafts to certain runways/gates using certain paths, automizining/reducing ATC work load.
At least there won't be a chance of tugs getting runned over
PS: Less airport noise emition - make NIMBYs happy.
[Edited 2006-12-04 21:42:34]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 265 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2000, 2222 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined Mar 2005, 5278 posts, 
From United States, joined Jan 2004, 12969 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 1050 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2001, 564 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2002, 3198 posts, 
From Guam, joined Oct 2006, 248 posts, 
From Ghana, joined Jun 2004, 3340 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 6009 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
