Sir Richard Branson has called on the industry to cut carbon output
Sir Richard Branson's Virgin Atlantic is to conduct a trial using 13 of its planes which could cut aviation fuel use and slash carbon dioxide emissions.
By towing its Boeing 747-400 aircraft to take-off areas at London airports during December it said it could save up to two tonnes of fuel per flight.
Aircraft will be towed to Heathrow and Gatwick runways to cut fuel burning.
Virgin said a reduction of 120,000 tonnes in carbon emissions a year could be made if extended across its fleet.
'Starting grids'
It is hoped to reduce the time engines are running before taking off to about 10 minutes.
"Towing aircraft from a stand substantially reduces the amount of time they need to taxi with their engines running and reduces the time spent queuing before take-off," said Virgin Atlantic spokesman Paul Charles.
Virgin Atlantic is working alongside airport operator BAA and National Air Traffic Services (Nats) during the trial, with a longer run-out expected in the first quarter of 2007.
Aircraft will be towed from their stand at the airport to so-called "starting grids" - which are holding areas, close to a runway, consisting of several parking bays for aircraft.
It means that aircraft can be towed closer to a runway before take-off.
Teams from Virgin Atlantic are also holding talks with the international airports in San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as JF Kennedy airport in New York, about the timing of similar trials.
Greenhouse gases
Virgin Atlantic is half owned by Sir Richard Branson and the other half by Singapore Airlines. The other aircraft in the fleet are five Airbus A340-300, and 17 Airbus A340-600.
Airlines are in the spotlight over the amount of carbon emissions which the industry is producing following falling fares and the growth of low-cost operators..
Aircraft are one of the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gases and environmentalists are calling on the government to take action to reduce their output of carbon.
Carbon dioxide emissions from aviation doubled during the 1990s while those from the rest of the economy fell. Currently, aircraft produce about 5.5% of UK emissions.
In September Sir Richard said that up to 25% of the world's aviation carbon dioxide emissions could be cut if airlines, airports and governments worked together.
He has also pledged Virgin Group profits worth $3bn (£1.6bn) towards renewable energy initiatives.
Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you long to return
RiddlePilot215 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 315 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2175 times:
One of my professors mentioned this in class the other day... I think it's a genius idea. Though I'm only wondering....is this idea good for the turbines? The whole point of a taxi really is to x-check and verify a number of things....Engine performance being one of them....
God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2123 times:
Finaly, I just heard that AA is investing in high speed tow eqipment for DFW and ORD so that they don't have to run the engines when shuffling the planes around between termninals and or hangers... this seams like a logical next step... could also help with alley congestion...
BCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2050 times:
Do you think for one minute that the owners of LHR/LGW, air traffic control etc will co-ordinate traffic, and the other airlines will wait for their take off run, whilst a small airline has its aircraft towed to the runway threshold, and still wait while the tow tug is detached from the aircraft and for the aircraft to start up its engines? My guess is that during the time it takes for the tow/detachment of the aircraft and then engine start, probably 10 aircraft could have taken off, so is Branson so naïve to think for one minute that he might save emissions/fuel whilst other aircraft are forced to wait, burning fuel etc in the process? Next dumb idea from Branson or the Virgin stables? And what would happen if the VS aircraft towed to the runway then finds something wrong with an engine on start-up and the aircraft has to return to the apron?
Quoting Mig21UMD (Thread starter): Virgin Atlantic is half owned by Sir Richard Branson and the other half by Singapore Airlines
Minor correction - 51% owned through offshore Branson Family Trusts and 49% owned by SQ.
Quoting Mig21UMD (Thread starter): He has also pledged Virgin Group profits worth $3bn (£1.6bn) towards renewable energy initiatives
Memories are short. Branson also pledged that all the profits from his contraceptive company would go towards research to find a cure for Aids. Branson sold the company, which was partly set up with a UK Government grant, along with his pledge to donate the profits to Aids research, so in the end he did not hand over a single dime to Aids research.
MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
Jonty From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 226 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1890 times:
Quoting BCAL (Reply 4): Do you think for one minute that the owners of LHR/LGW, air traffic control etc will co-ordinate traffic, and the other airlines will wait for their take off run, whilst a small airline has its aircraft towed to the runway threshold, and still wait while the tow tug is detached from the aircraft and for the aircraft to start up its engines? My guess is that during the time it takes for the tow/detachment of the aircraft and then engine start, probably 10 aircraft could have taken off, so is Branson so naïve to think for one minute that he might save emissions/fuel whilst other aircraft are forced to wait, burning fuel etc in the process?
Will it not be better coordinated in that while on the way to runway they get put in a queue position which will coordinate with the time when the plane is ready to depart? so that no one is waiting extra time.
And i assume the idea is to get others to do the same - therefore a proper system could be set up where no one would be left waiting as all would be in the bays in the queue!
Halls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1677 times:
Quoting BCAL (Reply 4): And what would happen if the VS aircraft towed to the runway then finds something wrong with an engine on start-up and the aircraft has to return to the apron?
That is the flaw that came to mind when I first heard about the plan. Just think of the traffic jams it would create if a plane had to be towed back to the gate.....
Richard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1548 posts, RR: 7 Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1578 times:
Quoting BCAL (Reply 4): Do you think for one minute that the owners of LHR/LGW, air traffic control etc will co-ordinate traffic, and the other airlines will wait for their take off run, whilst a small airline has its aircraft towed to the runway threshold, and still wait while the tow tug is detached from the aircraft and for the aircraft to start up its engines?
the answer is in the initial post:
Quoting Mig21UMD (Thread starter): Aircraft will be towed from their stand at the airport to so-called "starting grids" - which are holding areas, close to a runway, consisting of several parking bays for aircraft.
and:
Quoting Mig21UMD (Thread starter): Virgin Atlantic is working alongside airport operator BAA and National Air Traffic Services (Nats) during the trial
Willyj From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 464 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
Quoting BCAL (Reply 4): My guess is that during the time it takes for the tow/detachment of the aircraft and then engine start, probably 10 aircraft could have taken off, so is Branson so naïve to think for one minute that he might save emissions/fuel whilst other aircraft are forced to wait, burning fuel etc in the process?
Well I'm sure your guess is more accurate than an airline's... Did you actually read the article? The planes are to start their engines 10 minutes prior to takeoff to warm them up and make sure they're working properly. They will not be doing this on the runway holding up traffic behind them.
Have you ever sat in line at JFK during the evening rush (generally 6-9pm)?? I've been number 89 for takeoff before - something like 2 1/2 hours of taxi time - what a waste of fuel. The planes can't take up the gate space, but why not have a holding area they could be towed to to wait for their departure time - passengers could also use the lavs, etc since the planes aren't taxiing.
I don't understand why you are so against an idea to help the environment. Maybe Branson's main goal is to save money for the airline, but who cares. If it works, it's a win/win situation in my opinion. And if it works, it would be a better cost saving measure than cutting passenger amenities to save money like so many US carriers.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 214 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 315 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
