Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA To Operate A "Green" Flight Transatlantic.  
User currently offlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3052 posts, RR: 3
Posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9104 times:

Did not see this posted today,pls delete is double.

Another site ATW is reporting that,
United Airlines planned to operate two "green corridor" transatlantic demonstration flights Saturday "using state-of-the-art flight planning to reduce environmental impact and save fuel."
and predicted it would "save nearly 6,400 pounds of fuel and will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 20,000 pounds" on the flights.

Are they talking about Saturday gone or Saturday coming?
It requires a lot of careful planning and help from NATS and Nav Canada.
Now I can this working with one plane and everyone helping out but if all the transatlantic traffic wanted to do this
in the future because of the savings doubt the system would be able to cope.   


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24326 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 9084 times:

It was the 5th.

See:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United...erates-bw-2835180588.html?x=0&.v=1



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3035 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8689 times:

"coordinate with O’Hare ground control to minimize taxi time to the runway thereby reducing taxi fuel burn."

How does this save overall fuel and carbon emissions?

If this aircraft is given ATC priority on the ground (or in the air for that matter), then by default other aircraft are delayed... burning more fuel than they normally would have. Somehow I don't think the extra fuel burned by other aircraft is added into the fuel savings when these PR events are reported.

[Edited 2010-06-07 12:46:34]


FLYi
User currently offlinejetboy757 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 53 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8418 times:

Same thing happened with Japan Airlines at HNL. The aircraft was given ground priority. The 747 was also able to depart 8L instead of 8R which all heavies must use due to noise abatement. Japan Airlines noted on their website that they were able to save huge amounts of fuel by departing 8L, but there's no way the state of Hawaii is going to let all heavies depart 8L.

User currently offlineSomeone83 From Norway, joined Sep 2006, 3173 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8379 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 2):
If this aircraft is given ATC priority on the ground (or in the air for that matter), then by default other aircraft are delayed... burning more fuel than they normally would have. Somehow I don't think the extra fuel burned by other aircraft is added into the fuel savings when these PR events are reported.

Well, you must consider that this was just a test, and the point was to show how much can be saved op optimizing the flight. And this was just a test, to show what's possible


User currently offlineSolarFlyer22 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Nov 2009, 819 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8353 times:

I'd rather see them convert a plane to run on biofuel or something less polluting. Tickets would be pricier but I prefer to use a carbon offset for travel when I feel environmentally conscious. I think BA uses www.carbonfund.org.

User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3035 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8214 times:

Quoting Someone83 (Reply 4):
and the point was to show how much can be saved op optimizing the flight. And this was just a test, to show what's possible

But it wasn't possible without affecting other aircraft. How much was really saved when other aircraft are delayed or inconvenienced?

And the bit about using ground air conditioning and power at the gate instead of the aircraft's APU? That's actually been SOP at many airlines for several years.



FLYi
User currently offline764 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8205 times:

Hmmm.... I can't help but be a little sarcastic. United causes a lot of the congestion at O'Hare through its United Express operations (If they'd service more destinations mainline, there would be less flights and hence less congestion). And then they prioritize one aircraft and call that a demonstration of "green" possibilities? How about reducing congestion and delays in the first place? That would be a far greener move in my opinion.

User currently offlineLarshjort From Denmark, joined Dec 2007, 1352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8160 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 6):


But it wasn't possible without affecting other aircraft. How much was really saved when other aircraft are delayed or inconvenienced?

And the bit about using ground air conditioning and power at the gate instead of the aircraft's APU? That's actually been SOP at many airlines for several years.

Wouldn't it be possible to reorganizeground traffic to optimize the flow thereby reducing carbon emissions?

/Lars



139, 306, 319, 320, 321, 332, 34A, AN2, AT4, AT5, AT7, 733, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 146, AR1, BH2, CN1, CR2, DH1, DH3, DH4
User currently offlineTOMMY767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8146 times:

Quoting 764 (Reply 7):
United causes a lot of the congestion at O'Hare through its United Express operations (If they'd service more destinations mainline, there would be less flights and hence less congestion). And then they prioritize one aircraft and call that a demonstration of "green" possibilities? How about reducing congestion and delays in the first place? That would be a far greener move in my opinion.

Honestly you could apply the same logic to any airline that runs tons of feeder aircraft at a busy airport. Take CO at EWR for instance. They would have less delays if they operated bigger aircraft and less RJs on short haul routes and that would technically be more "green" and relieve congestion at EWR. However that isn't COs preferred business model (could very well change with the UA merger in the future though.)

In some ways I feel like this is old news. Hasn't UA done this "green" mission with a 747 as recently at last year?



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3035 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8111 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 8):

Wouldn't it be possible to reorganizeground traffic to optimize the flow thereby reducing carbon emissions?

I would imagine ground traffic is already optimized as much as they can considering the huge amounts of traffic, runway assignments based on departure fixes, etc. Its not like ATC will route an aircraft inefficiently just for kicks. I was based at ORD in the past, the ground controllers there are excellent and keep traffic moving as much as they can.

[Edited 2010-06-07 14:35:30]


FLYi
User currently offlinemurchmo From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7130 times:

Publicity. I'm kinda sick of all this "green " stuff. I go to restaraunts andthe put a freaking label on a bench that was made from recycled materials. I wonder what the label cost to make. None of these tests will matter for a long time if they don't get more people and more money behind these new systems to actually implement them.


to strive to seek to find and not to yield
User currently offlineFly2HMO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 6875 times:

Quoting murchmo (Reply 11):
Publicity. I'm kinda sick of all this "green " stuff. I go to restaraunts andthe put a freaking label on a bench that was made from recycled materials. I wonder what the label cost to make. None of these tests will matter for a long time if they don't get more people and more money behind these new systems to actually implement them.

I feel ya. The green movement is more about $$$ than anything.


User currently offlineVZLA787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 99 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5722 times:

It doesn't matter if they only do it once. It has to be a continuous effort to be a "green" operator. Anybody (with the right help) can be "green" for a one-time operation, but being "green" on a long-term basis is what really counts.
What a shame........


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2169 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4949 times:

Quoting 764 (Reply 7):
How about reducing congestion and delays in the first place? That would be a far greener move in my opinion.

Obvious. Replace 2 CRJs by 1 A319, 2 transcon 757s by 1 777, 2 t-atl A330 by 1 A380, et voila, adios to your congestion. Something which will almost undoubtedly happen once consolidation of the money-leaking US airline industry and optimization of their numerous hubs is achieved.
Plus, 1 larger aircraft has better CASM than 2 small aircraft, so, again, BIG savings here in consumed fuel.

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 8):
Wouldn't it be possible to reorganize ground traffic to optimize the flow thereby reducing carbon emissions?

I'd be curious to see how much of the fuel consumption ground traffic (i guess you mean airplanes on taxi ways and lined up for take off) accounts for vs flights themselves. Really, focus should be on efficiency in flight i think. Fortunately, fuel also costs money, so what is good for airlines' budgets is equally good for the environment... same goes with our cars and how we use them, and our heat/air conditioning, etc...

Quoting SolarFlyer22 (Reply 5):
I'd rather see them convert a plane to run on biofuel or something less polluting.

Not necessarily a desirable move, considering that growing plants for biofuels will increase our dependence on heavily industrialized agriculture, associated with ground and water pollution by fertilizers and pesticides, plus all the energy needed to go from a seed in the soil to the fuel itself.... As well as increased pressure on land that could otherwise be used for growing plants for human consumption, possibly resulting in substantial price increase of food, with serious consequences at least in developing countries.
I'm not stating that biofuels should be ignored as potential alternative energy, but energy efficiency and optimization of our needs for fuel consumption may have better short-term effects and may cost much less to implement, for aviation and everything else... This experiment by UA follows this logic. Of course, as many have pointed out, it is not perfect, but this is why experiments are done.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineGothamSpotter From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 586 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

Quoting Larshjort (Reply 8):
Wouldn't it be possible to reorganizeground traffic to optimize the flow thereby reducing carbon emissions?

FAA is currently running a trial at JFK where departures can only taxi to depart at a pre-scheduled time designated by ATC. In theory it should reduce the size of departure queues, reduce taxi time and fuel use, and allow passengers to hang out in the terminal rather than rotting onboard a taxiing plane. In practice I'm not sure how well it works because there's still limited gate space, looking forward to seeing the results.


User currently offlineCYatUK From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2006, 810 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4162 times:

I was on UA 944 ORD-FRA on Saturday and the pilot mentioned that we were to try and burn approximately 5% less fuel mainly by minimising taxi at ORD, minimising the crossing length where possible, using variable levels over the Atlantic and climbing at lower rates than normal.

The flight callsign was United 944 Green and for the crossing we had blocked the whole range from FL380 to FL390.

I was surprised that a number of Controllers had no idea why the flight was called Green despite this being on the flight plan and kept asking the pilot about it.



CY@Uk
User currently offlineflyfree727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 645 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 2849 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 14):
Obvious. Replace 2 CRJs by 1 A319, 2 transcon 757s by 1 777, 2 t-atl A330 by 1 A380, et voila, adios to your congestion

AMEN!!!
But the airlines continute to say passengers want FREQUENCY, so they schedule RJ's hourly that sometimes carry 10-12 people, yet receive the same priority ot ORD as a 777.

AA ORD


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UA To Operate YHZ-IAD In June posted Thu Mar 16 2006 21:58:25 by Yhz78
AZ Given Green Light To Operate At GIG posted Fri Mar 14 2008 11:47:20 by AF086
Has An Airline Ever Forgotten To Operate A Flight? posted Sun Jun 11 2006 00:38:11 by Gilesdavies
What Does It Cost To Operate A Flight? posted Thu Mar 9 2006 22:12:30 by CityAirline
UA To Start Second IAD GRU Flight posted Mon Apr 4 2005 18:18:07 by Unitedtristar
UA To Add An Additional LAX-MEX Flight posted Thu Mar 17 2005 21:35:34 by Iowaman
UA To Begin B777 ORD-OGG-KOA-ORD Flight posted Tue Jul 27 2004 05:11:57 by Flyua
Air India To Operate Special JNB Cricket Flight posted Wed Mar 19 2003 23:00:53 by B747-437B
777-300, To Operate A 50 Minuites Flight? posted Wed Aug 21 2002 10:31:04 by Fly_emirates
MH To LGW Relief Flight posted Thu Apr 22 2010 06:34:31 by MAS777