Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
factsonly
Topic Author
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:38 pm

The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) has published a list of fuel efficient carriers across the North Atlantic.
The calculations are based on:

- TATL schedules
- aircraft type
- seating density
- pax load factor
- cargo carried

Aircraft fuel burn was found to be the most important driver of fuel efficiency overall, explaining almost 40% of the variation in airline fuel efficiency across carriers, followed by seating density, which accounted for one third of the variation. Freight share and passenger load factors were relatively less important.

full details: https://www.theicct.org/publications/tr ... nking-2017

Image
 
User avatar
afterburner33
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 8:46 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:45 pm

Interesting to see the difference between a fleet of 787s, and a fleet with a significant number of 747-400s...
 
deltalaw
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 5:47 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:47 pm

Surprised DL is as high as it is with the amount of 763's across the Atlantic.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13990
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:53 pm

afterburner33 wrote:
Interesting to see the difference between a fleet of 787s, and a fleet with a significant number of 747-400s...


I think you rather see how many seats they put in the aircraft. I am all for reducing CO2 footsprints, but this statistic is utter useless.
I don´t think the per seat fuel burn in Y Class on an LH A359 will be different from a Y-Seat on a NAS 787.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
jumpjets
Posts: 1486
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:17 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 12:53 pm

afterburner33 wrote:
Interesting to see the difference between a fleet of 787s, and a fleet with a significant number of 747-400s...


Was thinking that myself, plus those old workhorse BA 744s are pretty low density. I think the BA low J have 345 pax whilst their super hi J configuration only seats about 275 pax. Norwegian on the other hand in their modern 789s seat 344 pax and their 788 291.

So double whammy for BA - old planes and not many passengers per flight to 'share out' the fuel inefficiency between.
 
chiki
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:32 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:02 pm

Very good exercise, its just shows how much more pollution you contribute when you flies First or Bus, really wonder how it compares with pvt jets, trains
 
PHLspecial
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:14 pm

So Norwegian has plenty of full planes and high passenger counts along with fuel efficient planes. British Airways doesn't have full planes or possibly lower count of passengers along with along a mix of new and old planes. So by having more passengers means better fuel economy per seat mile? No wonder seats have been getting smaller.
 
User avatar
BWIAirport
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2016 10:29 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:19 pm

You can tell who has the newer planes
SWA, UAL, DAL, AWE, ASA, TRS, DLH, CLH, AFR, BAW, EIN, AAL, FFT | E190 DC94 CRJ2 B712 B733 B737 B738 B739 B744 B752 B753 B762 B77W A319 A320 A20N A321 A333 A343 A388 MD88
 
winGl3t
Posts: 322
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:52 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:36 pm

Not only newer plane, but also more dense seat count.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2182
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:36 pm

chiki wrote:
Very good exercise, its just shows how much more pollution you contribute when you flies First or Bus, really wonder how it compares with pvt jets, trains

Flying Norwegian burns just over 2 l/100 km per passenger. The average fuel burn for cars is likely higher, since your load factor is usually poor. You'd need at least two, and more likely three or four people in it to get the same efficiency.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8806
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:42 pm

winGl3t wrote:
Not only newer plane, but also more dense seat count.


Arguing that's it's newer planes when fuel burn explains less than 40% of the difference isn't statistically compelling.

factsonly wrote:
Aircraft fuel burn was found to be the most important driver of fuel efficiency overall, explaining almost 40% of the variation in airline fuel efficiency across carriers, followed by seating density, which accounted for one third of the variation. Freight share and passenger load factors were relatively less important.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:44 pm

Cool. 44 passenger km per liter is by my calculation 103 passenger miles per gallon. That is off the charts, especially passenger (meaning performed RPK?). 30 on the chart equals about 70 passenger miles per gallon, still quite good. Fuel efficiency per passenger isn't the most important metric, but it is interesting.
 
Samrnpage
Posts: 555
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:47 pm

BA must have a disadvantage vs competitors if their planes are using 20% for fuel for most flights.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3274
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:54 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
BA must have a disadvantage vs competitors if their planes are using 20% for fuel for most flights.


Look at the number of paid J seats they have on those flights compared to say DY and their number of paid W seats, then compare costs V revenue.

BA's costs may be higher, but their revenue is multiples of the same DY flight .
 
kimimm19
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 1:55 pm

Interesting that Swiss is so high with the lack of next-generation aircraft in their fleet (combination of 77W/A333. I guess they fly their least efficient long-haul plane (A343) elsewhere...
 
User avatar
ACCS300
Posts: 574
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:05 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:04 pm

Where's AC, they're a major North Atlantic player?
 
LH779
Posts: 115
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:31 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:06 pm

kimimm19 wrote:
Interesting that Swiss is so high with the lack of next-generation aircraft in their fleet (combination of 77W/A333. I guess they fly their least efficient long-haul plane (A343) elsewhere...


According to flightradar24 the 5 A343s fly to:
JNB
PVG
NRT
BOS

So only the the second daily flight to BOS is included in the ranking.
In the 2014 ranking (before they got the 77W and had 15 instead of 5 A343s) they were down in the bottom of the list with BA and LH.
 
codc10
Posts: 2935
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:12 pm

United is probably dragged down a bit by its 77Es being less fuel efficient on a per-pax basis. UA also has larger premium cabins, comparatively.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 9411
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:30 pm

Interesting is the position of Icelandair, flying mainly old 757 and 767, and only 3 737-8. Still they manage to be right on the industry average.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2259
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:37 pm

kimimm19 wrote:
Interesting that Swiss is so high with the lack of next-generation aircraft in their fleet (combination of 77W/A333. I guess they fly their least efficient long-haul plane (A343) elsewhere...


The 343 is actually pretty fuel efficient. It's MX intensive though.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10781
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:47 pm

Very interesting figures, lets hope efforts continue to be made well into the future.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Prost
Posts: 2593
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 2:58 pm

I don’t understand the purpose of this exercise. If you are traveling Y on a Norwegian 787 or Y on a KLM 787 you are having the same impact on the environment. This graph would make you believe you were being 22% more efficient traveling on Norwegian, which is patently false.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3646
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:02 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
afterburner33 wrote:
Interesting to see the difference between a fleet of 787s, and a fleet with a significant number of 747-400s...


I think you rather see how many seats they put in the aircraft. I am all for reducing CO2 footsprints, but this statistic is utter useless.
I don´t think the per seat fuel burn in Y Class on an LH A359 will be different from a Y-Seat on a NAS 787.

best regards
Thomas


The more seats you add the more fuel burned, but the less fuel per seat/trip. So on a per seat basis they would burn less fuel & put out less polution than the A350 from LH with a lower seat count.

LH has 293 or 319 on the A359 in thier fleet. DU has 291 on the 788 that burns less fuel/trip & 344 on the 789 which burns close to the same per trip. So on on per seat basis it could vary a great deal.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3646
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:06 pm

chiki wrote:
Very good exercise, its just shows how much more pollution you contribute when you flies First or Bus, really wonder how it compares with pvt jets, trains


Business jets would be much more pollution based on fuel burn & the very low passenger count.
ie: a CRJ-200 with 50 seats would burn less fuel per passenger than the similar 600 series Biz jet due to 2-8 passengers max for the same size aircraft.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13990
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:16 pm

rbavfan wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
afterburner33 wrote:
Interesting to see the difference between a fleet of 787s, and a fleet with a significant number of 747-400s...


I think you rather see how many seats they put in the aircraft. I am all for reducing CO2 footsprints, but this statistic is utter useless.
I don´t think the per seat fuel burn in Y Class on an LH A359 will be different from a Y-Seat on a NAS 787.

best regards
Thomas


The more seats you add the more fuel burned, but the less fuel per seat/trip. So on a per seat basis they would burn less fuel & put out less polution than the A350 from LH with a lower seat count.

LH has 293 or 319 on the A359 in thier fleet. DU has 291 on the 788 that burns less fuel/trip & 344 on the 789 which burns close to the same per trip. So on on per seat basis it could vary a great deal.


Of course. I was more thinking along the cabin floor space share of Y class ~ Share of trip fuel. Not quite, but J pax plus J seat weigh roughly the same as two Y pax with their seat + higher luggage allowance, catering and such for ~3 times the floor space occupied.
BA does not just have older aircraft in the mix, they also dedicate more floor space to premium classes as anyone else.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3646
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:32 pm

mxaxai wrote:
chiki wrote:
Very good exercise, its just shows how much more pollution you contribute when you flies First or Bus, really wonder how it compares with pvt jets, trains

Flying Norwegian burns just over 2 l/100 km per passenger. The average fuel burn for cars is likely higher, since your load factor is usually poor. You'd need at least two, and more likely three or four people in it to get the same efficiency.


If you fill a car to its 5 passenger average max you would still burn an enormous amount more fuel per passenger than a 787.


"in 2010, flying burned just 2,691 BTU per passenger mile—an improvement of 74 percent since 1970. That was 43 percent better than driving the average car, which gets about 21.5 miles per gallon (4,218 BTU per passenger mile).* It was better than buses as well."

Source: Michael Sivak, a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute.
Article: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... nment.html
 
factsonly
Topic Author
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 3:32 pm

Prost wrote:
I don’t understand the purpose of this exercise. If you are traveling Y on a Norwegian 787 or Y on a KLM 787 you are having the same impact on the environment. This graph would make you believe you were being 22% more efficient traveling on Norwegian, which is patently false.


The Norwegian vs KLM data are not apple-to-apple:

- Norwegian = B788/B789 only - I doubt any leased aircraft (A380-A330) are included in the analysis.
- KLM = Mix of B744, B772, B77W, B789, A333, A332

In addition the seating density, pax and cargo carried influence the data, which is presented per passenger-km/liter (should be RevenueKM/Liter).
 
Utah744
Posts: 240
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:04 pm

chiki wrote:
Very good exercise, its just shows how much more pollution you contribute when you flies First or Bus, really wonder how it compares with pvt jets, trains

What kind of routing over the Atlantic would the trains take?
You are never too old to learn something stupid
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:17 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Interesting is the position of Icelandair, flying mainly old 757 and 767, and only 3 737-8. Still they manage to be right on the industry average.


AFAIK optimum fuel efficiency occurs in the mid haul region. The fact Iceland is closer to NA than rest of Europe may allow them to haul less fuel.

Single aisle also is in theory more efficient use of fuselage area than a dual aisle. How the 767 remains competitive, I can't guess. At 259 seats, it is fairly dense and probably does not help, but does not hurt them much.

A321LR will have a big impact on all of this.
 
User avatar
PatrickZ80
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:33 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 4:31 pm

deltalaw wrote:
Surprised DL is as high as it is with the amount of 763's across the Atlantic.


The 767 is actually rather fuel-efficient, and you got to take into consideration it's probably the least fuel-efficient aircraft they got. Their 777s, 787s and A330 only contribute to a higher average.

Prost wrote:
I don’t understand the purpose of this exercise. If you are traveling Y on a Norwegian 787 or Y on a KLM 787 you are having the same impact on the environment. This graph would make you believe you were being 22% more efficient traveling on Norwegian, which is patently false.


But at least when you're flying Norwegian you're sure to fly a 787. When you're flying KLM you might fly a 787, but you might also fly a 747. When you're flying a KLM 787 you're just as fuel-efficient as when you're flying Norwegian, but when you're flying a KLM 747 you're not.

The reason Norwegian is on top isn't because they got the 787, the reason is they don't have anything else. Unless you're counting the 737MAX routes across the atlantic, but that's also a very fuel-efficient aircraft. But Norwegian doesn't have anything like the 747 that lowers their average.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2182
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:15 pm

rbavfan wrote:
mxaxai wrote:
chiki wrote:
Very good exercise, its just shows how much more pollution you contribute when you flies First or Bus, really wonder how it compares with pvt jets, trains

Flying Norwegian burns just over 2 l/100 km per passenger. The average fuel burn for cars is likely higher, since your load factor is usually poor. You'd need at least two, and more likely three or four people in it to get the same efficiency.


If you fill a car to its 5 passenger average max you would still burn an enormous amount more fuel per passenger than a 787.


"in 2010, flying burned just 2,691 BTU per passenger mile—an improvement of 74 percent since 1970. That was 43 percent better than driving the average car, which gets about 21.5 miles per gallon (4,218 BTU per passenger mile).* It was better than buses as well."

Source: Michael Sivak, a research professor at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute.
Article: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... nment.html

Modern medium sized cars burn around 4 l diesel* per 100 km and can seat 5 people. So you'd get somewhat less than 1 l / 100 km per passenger (inkl. driver). So you're more efficient than a plane.
But that is only true when running around full, which you're obviously not most of the time.

*Diesel is closer to kerosene than gasoline is.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2380
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:27 pm

Studies like this promote cattle class 9ab in a 789, imagine if Norwegian got the 787-10.
 
leghorn
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:47 pm

come a recession and those with the most economic planes stay flying. the number of first class and business class flyers will fall off a cliff and all that are left are economy passengers to cover the cost of the flight..

This report is a reminder to upper management in some airlines that they better replace some of their older planes sooner rather than later.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2259
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 6:56 pm

leghorn wrote:
come a recession and those with the most economic planes stay flying. the number of first class and business class flyers will fall off a cliff and all that are left are economy passengers to cover the cost of the flight..

This report is a reminder to upper management in some airlines that they better replace some of their older planes sooner rather than later.


Fuel economy is only part of the battle.

Capital costs on new 300m aircraft are a huge chunk of costs for airlines like Norwegian. Airlines with old paid off aircraft like Delta have the ability to park planes at almost no cost at all when things go south.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6755
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:04 pm

leghorn wrote:
come a recession and those with the most economic planes stay flying. the number of first class and business class flyers will fall off a cliff and all that are left are economy passengers to cover the cost of the flight..

This report is a reminder to upper management in some airlines that they better replace some of their older planes sooner rather than later.


While F/J flyers fall, so do Y class flyers, often even more so. Buying an airline ticket is nearly always optional.

GF
 
leghorn
Posts: 1297
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 9:13 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:51 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
leghorn wrote:
come a recession and those with the most economic planes stay flying. the number of first class and business class flyers will fall off a cliff and all that are left are economy passengers to cover the cost of the flight..

This report is a reminder to upper management in some airlines that they better replace some of their older planes sooner rather than later.


Fuel economy is only part of the battle.

Capital costs on new 300m aircraft are a huge chunk of costs for airlines like Norwegian. Airlines with old paid off aircraft like Delta have the ability to park planes at almost no cost at all when things go south.

A 737 Max A321LR capable of hopping across the Atlantic isn't 300 million.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2259
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 9:56 pm

leghorn wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
leghorn wrote:
come a recession and those with the most economic planes stay flying. the number of first class and business class flyers will fall off a cliff and all that are left are economy passengers to cover the cost of the flight..

This report is a reminder to upper management in some airlines that they better replace some of their older planes sooner rather than later.


Fuel economy is only part of the battle.

Capital costs on new 300m aircraft are a huge chunk of costs for airlines like Norwegian. Airlines with old paid off aircraft like Delta have the ability to park planes at almost no cost at all when things go south.

A 737 Max A321LR capable of hopping across the Atlantic isn't 300 million.


And the sky isn't pink.

This thread is mostly widebody specific. Even a used 777 can be had for 10m~, while a new A320 is 60+.
 
dispatchguy
Posts: 631
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 6:08 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Wed Sep 12, 2018 11:11 pm

A worthless chart - US fuel planning rules are much more archaic compared to any EASA/ICAO fuel rule. Comparing the same aircraft type in a given city pair, say 767 JFK-LHR, the EASA carrier will almost always carry less fuel than the 121 carrier will be required to because our fuel rules were written in the 1960s, when the 707 plied the skies.
Nobody screws you better than an airline job!
 
jomur
Posts: 380
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Thu Sep 13, 2018 6:19 am

Still doesn't make an airline profitable. Most pax will still fly the cheapest regardless of the green credentials...

Are fhe figures based on the aircraft being full or what fhey are actually carrying?
 
Blotto
Posts: 133
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2015 7:00 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:27 pm

What kind of study is that?
The only facts they use are the BTS numbers. All other data are assumptions. They assume DOW, TOW, fuel burn, diversions, holdings, etc. And once they are done with it, they divide by the number of Pax. And, surprise, dense configs come out as being fuel efficient. Doesn't need a study to get to that conclusion
 
TrojanSC
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:08 pm

Prost wrote:
I don’t understand the purpose of this exercise. If you are traveling Y on a Norwegian 787 or Y on a KLM 787 you are having the same impact on the environment. This graph would make you believe you were being 22% more efficient traveling on Norwegian, which is patently false.


PatrickZ80 wrote:
But at least when you're flying Norwegian you're sure to fly a 787. When you're flying KLM you might fly a 787, but you might also fly a 747. When you're flying a KLM 787 you're just as fuel-efficient as when you're flying Norwegian, but when you're flying a KLM 747 you're not.


747's aside, if you compare flying a Norwegian 789 and a KLM 789, and for the sake of argument, let's assume you're flying the exact same route in identical weather conditions, I think you will still be "more efficient," so to speak, when flying on the Norwegian 789 simply due to the fact that the Norwegian flight would be carrying more people in a higher density seating arrangement than the KLM flight.

However, what no one has mentioned yet is that even though Norwegian is supposedly the most efficient, how many of Norwegian's pax don't really have a need to travel and are only travelling because tickets to Europe are $350 next weekend, so why not?
Is Norwegian really serving the existing demand more efficiently or are they tapping into latent demand that would otherwise just choose not travel on a "normal priced" ticket, thus, contributing more unnecessary greenhouse emissions than their efficiency makes up for....
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20969
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:11 pm

TrojanSC wrote:
Prost wrote:
I don’t understand the purpose of this exercise. If you are traveling Y on a Norwegian 787 or Y on a KLM 787 you are having the same impact on the environment. This graph would make you believe you were being 22% more efficient traveling on Norwegian, which is patently false.


PatrickZ80 wrote:
But at least when you're flying Norwegian you're sure to fly a 787. When you're flying KLM you might fly a 787, but you might also fly a 747. When you're flying a KLM 787 you're just as fuel-efficient as when you're flying Norwegian, but when you're flying a KLM 747 you're not.


747's aside, if you compare flying a Norwegian 789 and a KLM 789, and for the sake of argument, let's assume you're flying the exact same route in identical weather conditions, I think you will still be "more efficient," so to speak, when flying on the Norwegian 789 simply due to the fact that the Norwegian flight would be carrying more people in a higher density seating arrangement than the KLM flight.

However, what no one has mentioned yet is that even though Norwegian is supposedly the most efficient, how many of Norwegian's pax don't really have a need to travel and are only travelling because tickets to Europe are $350 next weekend, so why not?
Is Norwegian really serving the existing demand more efficiently or are they tapping into latent demand that would otherwise just choose not travel on a "normal priced" ticket, thus, contributing more unnecessary greenhouse emissions than their efficiency makes up for....

Aviation is an elastic market. Do we prevent international travel? A very slippery slope.

Lightsaber
I cannot wait to get vaccinated to live again! Warning: I simulated that it takes 50%+ vaccinated to protect the vaccinated and 75%+ vaccinated to protect the vac-hesitant.
 
LH707330
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:39 pm

TrojanSC wrote:
Prost wrote:
I don’t understand the purpose of this exercise. If you are traveling Y on a Norwegian 787 or Y on a KLM 787 you are having the same impact on the environment. This graph would make you believe you were being 22% more efficient traveling on Norwegian, which is patently false.


PatrickZ80 wrote:
But at least when you're flying Norwegian you're sure to fly a 787. When you're flying KLM you might fly a 787, but you might also fly a 747. When you're flying a KLM 787 you're just as fuel-efficient as when you're flying Norwegian, but when you're flying a KLM 747 you're not.


747's aside, if you compare flying a Norwegian 789 and a KLM 789, and for the sake of argument, let's assume you're flying the exact same route in identical weather conditions, I think you will still be "more efficient," so to speak, when flying on the Norwegian 789 simply due to the fact that the Norwegian flight would be carrying more people in a higher density seating arrangement than the KLM flight.

However, what no one has mentioned yet is that even though Norwegian is supposedly the most efficient, how many of Norwegian's pax don't really have a need to travel and are only travelling because tickets to Europe are $350 next weekend, so why not?
Is Norwegian really serving the existing demand more efficiently or are they tapping into latent demand that would otherwise just choose not travel on a "normal priced" ticket, thus, contributing more unnecessary greenhouse emissions than their efficiency makes up for....


The classic problem of induced demand. The only way to fix this will be to put a price on CO2 in order to internalize the externality. From this standpoint, Norwegian's 789 will still be the most efficient solution, so while the per-pax fee will go down, the percentage on the $350 ticket will be higher.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2259
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Thu Sep 13, 2018 11:45 pm

dispatchguy wrote:
A worthless chart - US fuel planning rules are much more archaic compared to any EASA/ICAO fuel rule. Comparing the same aircraft type in a given city pair, say 767 JFK-LHR, the EASA carrier will almost always carry less fuel than the 121 carrier will be required to because our fuel rules were written in the 1960s, when the 707 plied the skies.


The US created ETOPS fuel requirements in the 1990's with TWA's 767's, what you're writing doesn't make much sense.

If the Europeans can't account for a single engine drift down in a twin or depressurization, I would be seriously concerned.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1611
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:48 am

leghorn wrote:
This report is a reminder to upper management in some airlines that they better replace some of their older planes sooner rather than later.

But not too soon. CORSIA baseline is 2019/2020, so ideally deliveries from 2021 to flatter the statistics and reporting.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 665
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:26 am

Save the planet; don’t fly J :bigthumbsup:
 
factsonly
Topic Author
Posts: 3038
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 3:08 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Fri Sep 14, 2018 9:34 am

Just to note that the Norwegian fuel performance efficiency is most likely inflated, as they also operate:

- ORY – EWR EuroAtlantic 777-200ER replaces Norwegian 787-9, 6 weekly
- FCO – EWR Privilege Style 777-200ER replaces Norwegian 787-9, 6 weekly
- LGW - FLL Wamos Air A330-200 replaces Norwegian B787-9, 7x weekly in winter.
 
TrojanSC
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 6:34 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Fri Sep 14, 2018 4:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Aviation is an elastic market. Do we prevent international travel? A very slippery slope.
Lightsaber


No no, that's not at all what I was suggesting. I merely wanted to point out that although they may be the most efficient, the notion that they're eco-friendly should be taken with a grain of salt. Same goes for most other ULCC's.

LH707330 wrote:
The classic problem of induced demand. The only way to fix this will be to put a price on CO2 in order to internalize the externality. From this standpoint, Norwegian's 789 will still be the most efficient solution, so while the per-pax fee will go down, the percentage on the $350 ticket will be higher.


I gotta admit, making aviation less accessible to the masses is kind of a bummer, but I'm not against a CO2 tax. I wonder if aviation will shift to a clean energy source in our lifetime..
 
LH707330
Posts: 2404
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:27 pm

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:22 pm

TrojanSC wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Aviation is an elastic market. Do we prevent international travel? A very slippery slope.
Lightsaber


No no, that's not at all what I was suggesting. I merely wanted to point out that although they may be the most efficient, the notion that they're eco-friendly should be taken with a grain of salt. Same goes for most other ULCC's.

LH707330 wrote:
The classic problem of induced demand. The only way to fix this will be to put a price on CO2 in order to internalize the externality. From this standpoint, Norwegian's 789 will still be the most efficient solution, so while the per-pax fee will go down, the percentage on the $350 ticket will be higher.


I gotta admit, making aviation less accessible to the masses is kind of a bummer, but I'm not against a CO2 tax. I wonder if aviation will shift to a clean energy source in our lifetime..

I don't think it needs to be regarded as a big problem, air travel is cheaper than it's ever been, and everyone's griping about jam-packed airports. Reducing a bit of the frivolous travel would also get people to travel shorter distances and invest more in local businesses.
 
snasteve
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:58 am

Re: Trans-Atlantic Fuel Efficiency by Airline 2017

Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:39 pm

I see fleet washing is paying off for Air France.. Good job! :D

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos