CRJ200flyer
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:33 pm

US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:08 pm

KLM recently called for less short haul flying in Europe, and I thought a separate thread specifically looking at US aviation might be interesting.

A few weeks ago, I went through the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and created this this infographic of US commercial aviation fuel consumption.

The US commercial fleet burns roughly 2 million gallons of fuel per hour, or 7.6 million liters per hour. While aircraft have become more fuel efficient on average, as the amount of flying continues to rise, fuel consumption has been rising every year again since 2013.

Note this review is looking at aircraft, not the tens of thousands of ground vehicles supporting the operation. (As a side note, as an airline pilot, one thing that irritates me is tugs and baggage loaders sitting around idling when not in use. I see it all the time while pre-flighting).

Image

https://m.facebook.com/CommercialAviationInfographics/

A question brought up in the European thread for reducing fuel consumption was increasing aircraft size and decreasing frequency. Looking at one example, LaGuardia, a 2016 article found high daily frequencies between some city pairs. Checking a few weeks ago, Delta was operating around 17 daily flights just to Atlanta.

Image

https://airwaysmag.com/airports/real-problem-laguardia-airport/

Another thought I had are taking a second look at very short routes. Routes I fly such as Saginaw-Detroit or Lansing-Detroit or Columbus, GA-Atlanta where we spend more time taxiing than actually flying (most of those flights are 15-20 minutes air time. On the Columbus route, I’ve done it in 12 minutes. Drive between the airports is an hour!)

There are also looks at air traffic control and aircraft design (including paint):

https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwyman/2018/07/20/new-technology-may-help-airlines-cut-pricey-fuel-consumption-and-meet-environmental-regulations/

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/06/150610-technologies-could-reduce-airplane-emissions/

What are some ideas for reducing the airlines fuel consumption and carbon emissions? Please, let’s keep this thread focused on the US and not devolve into a debate about climate change. Thank you.
 
AZa346
Posts: 142
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:58 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:27 pm

I think that something that could be done is to have electric tugs that pull the planes short of the runway amd the engines are turned on only 5 minutes before CTOT. this could be useful especially at those airport that have long tale off backups
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:29 pm

Getting rid of RJ’s. $1,000 fee on any departure below 100 seats.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
CRJ200flyer
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:33 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:36 pm

AZa346 wrote:
I think that something that could be done is to have electric tugs that pull the planes short of the runway amd the engines are turned on only 5 minutes before CTOT. this could be useful especially at those airport that have long tale off backups


A captain and I were just discussing this while stuck taxiing for an hour in PHL a few days ago, listening to aircraft after aircraft hit minimum fuel and have to return to the gate for more gas. If they had been towed to the runway, they would’ve been set to go and saved hundreds to thousands of pounds of fuel (in the case of the UPS MD-11 that went fuel critical when, ironically, finally number one for the runway).
 
msycajun
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 4:13 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:43 pm

An easy solution would be to tax jet fuel and use that funding to replace landing fees or per passenger charges. That would encourage higher average gauges, more efficient operations, and more efficient/newer aircraft, while keeping the average costs to airlines/consumers flat. Alas, the simplest solutions are rarely used in this country.

Having just flown back from FRA where there are hundreds of trains per day (all electric) which stop directly at the airport, one can see that the US has a long way to go in improving transportation to airports. And with the reliability they have there, plus the central location of the stations, flying into a big airport and then hopping on a train actually beats most of those short connecting flights both in time and experience.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18155
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:52 pm

Wow, lots of suggestions to move business. We are already in an era of mega urbanization. So mid size cities will lose much of the service.

Will the taxes be spent on aviation, or at least transportation to/from the airport?

I notice the 18 year integration. Compare to many other uses.

It would do more to tax TV viewing and air conditioning hours. Those burn more fuel.

We need rail, but we need a system where it is economical to build and run. Automated trains, allow less corrupt bidding.

Taxing for the sake of taxing hurts business and unless China and India are onboard, we are just exporting jobs.

I'm for rail. Heck, build boring project tunnels to LAX easing fuel use idling (all must be electric) and the hassle.

We need solutions that aren't just punitive.

Everyone does realize this will reduce aviation salaries? Airlines are run as a business. The business is elastic (higher fares, fewer customers). A city builds wealth on transportation.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5883
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:11 pm

CRJ200flyer wrote:
A question brought up in the European thread for reducing fuel consumption was increasing aircraft size and decreasing frequency. Looking at one example, LaGuardia, a 2016 article found high daily frequencies between some city pairs. Checking a few weeks ago, Delta was operating around 17 daily flights just to Atlanta.


Carriers have - by whatever criteria they use - determined that this frequency is optimal. (It may be some function of avg fare, connectivity, available gates/aircraft/crew - whatever.) If you want to cut frequency in favor of reducing CO2 emissions you're imposing a suboptimal regime. (I'd argue that costs should fall on the industry that creates the emissions.)

So, do you want to cut a carrier's frequency, or cut the number of competitors on a route?
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5883
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:13 pm

lightsaber wrote:
It would do more to tax TV viewing and air conditioning hours. Those burn more fuel.


Some states have outlines for fully carbon-neutral electricity by 2045. Show me the plans by AA/DL/UA to be completely carbon-neutral by 2045.
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:16 pm

lightsaber wrote:
Wow, lots of suggestions to move business. We are already in an era of mega urbanization. So mid size cities will lose much of the service.

Will the taxes be spent on aviation, or at least transportation to/from the airport?

I notice the 18 year integration. Compare to many other uses.

It would do more to tax TV viewing and air conditioning hours. Those burn more fuel.

We need rail, but we need a system where it is economical to build and run. Automated trains, allow less corrupt bidding.

Taxing for the sake of taxing hurts business and unless China and India are onboard, we are just exporting jobs.

I'm for rail. Heck, build boring project tunnels to LAX easing fuel use idling (all must be electric) and the hassle.

We need solutions that aren't just punitive.

Everyone does realize this will reduce aviation salaries? Airlines are run as a business. The business is elastic (higher fares, fewer customers). A city builds wealth on transportation.

Lightsaber


Rail is impractical in the USA. Too slow and expensive for the distances required.

HSR costs more than 1 million a mile to build. An entire network would be in the trillions of dollars. A 3bn+ link between NYC and LA (if it's even possible with Current property rights) would take 18-20 hours to ride. Nobody is signing up for that.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2111
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:41 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Wow, lots of suggestions to move business. We are already in an era of mega urbanization. So mid size cities will lose much of the service.

Will the taxes be spent on aviation, or at least transportation to/from the airport?

I notice the 18 year integration. Compare to many other uses.

It would do more to tax TV viewing and air conditioning hours. Those burn more fuel.

We need rail, but we need a system where it is economical to build and run. Automated trains, allow less corrupt bidding.

Taxing for the sake of taxing hurts business and unless China and India are onboard, we are just exporting jobs.

I'm for rail. Heck, build boring project tunnels to LAX easing fuel use idling (all must be electric) and the hassle.

We need solutions that aren't just punitive.

Everyone does realize this will reduce aviation salaries? Airlines are run as a business. The business is elastic (higher fares, fewer customers). A city builds wealth on transportation.

Lightsaber


Rail is impractical in the USA. Too slow and expensive for the distances required.

HSR costs more than 1 million a mile to build. An entire network would be in the trillions of dollars. A 3bn+ link between NYC and LA (if it's even possible with Current property rights) would take 18-20 hours to ride. Nobody is signing up for that.


NYC-LA isn't exactly short haul. We are talking about routes where check-in+security+boarding/deboarding+actual flying = train time
 
CRJ200flyer
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:33 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:42 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Wow, lots of suggestions to move business. We are already in an era of mega urbanization. So mid size cities will lose much of the service.

Will the taxes be spent on aviation, or at least transportation to/from the airport?

I notice the 18 year integration. Compare to many other uses.

It would do more to tax TV viewing and air conditioning hours. Those burn more fuel.

We need rail, but we need a system where it is economical to build and run. Automated trains, allow less corrupt bidding.

Taxing for the sake of taxing hurts business and unless China and India are onboard, we are just exporting jobs.

I'm for rail. Heck, build boring project tunnels to LAX easing fuel use idling (all must be electric) and the hassle.

We need solutions that aren't just punitive.

Everyone does realize this will reduce aviation salaries? Airlines are run as a business. The business is elastic (higher fares, fewer customers). A city builds wealth on transportation.

Lightsaber


Rail is impractical in the USA. Too slow and expensive for the distances required.

HSR costs more than 1 million a mile to build. An entire network would be in the trillions of dollars. A 3bn+ link between NYC and LA (if it's even possible with Current property rights) would take 18-20 hours to ride. Nobody is signing up for that.


I have not heard anyone suggesting a new transcon high speed railroad, that’s an extreme example to use. But railroads on regional routes would be more efficient, say Chicago to Detroit. And more practically, high speed rail within cities to transport passengers from outlying areas to the airport (like Saginaw and Lansing to Detroit, to eliminate those regional jet routes).
 
MohawkWeekend
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:06 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:42 pm

Question for Anet computer experts - could a program (AI) be developed that coordinates aircraft dispatch to the active runways? Working in conjunction with human ground controller, you could limit the number of aircraft in the line burning fuel. The system could build in time for safety checks etc.
I agree too on the ground equipment - all of that could be electrified. Considering how little a tug or baggage tractor actually moves, you'd think this would be low hanging fruit for carbon reduction. And the charging systems could be right there too
When I was on the ramp (years ago) we'd leave equipment running all the time.
300 319 320 321 707 717 720 727 72S 737 73S 734 735 73G 738 739 747 757 762 ARJ B11 C212 CRJ CR2 CR7 CR9 CV5 D8S DC9 D9S D94 D95 D10 DH8 DTO EMB EM2 E135 E145 E190 FH7 F28 F100 FTRIMTR HRN L10 L15 M80 M90 SF3 SWM
 
CRJ200flyer
Topic Author
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:33 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:50 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:
A question brought up in the European thread for reducing fuel consumption was increasing aircraft size and decreasing frequency. Looking at one example, LaGuardia, a 2016 article found high daily frequencies between some city pairs. Checking a few weeks ago, Delta was operating around 17 daily flights just to Atlanta.


Carriers have - by whatever criteria they use - determined that this frequency is optimal. (It may be some function of avg fare, connectivity, available gates/aircraft/crew - whatever.) If you want to cut frequency in favor of reducing CO2 emissions you're imposing a suboptimal regime. (I'd argue that costs should fall on the industry that creates the emissions.)

So, do you want to cut a carrier's frequency, or cut the number of competitors on a route?


I think I see your point. It may be an optimal revenue and profit generating regime, but it doesn’t mean it’s the most environmentally optimal regime. To your question, ideally I would want to cut the frequency, not the competitors (take Delta’s 17 daily flights to Atlanta, or American’s 15ish daily flights to ORD, etc)
 
anshabhi
Posts: 2111
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:40 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:56 pm

MohawkWeekend wrote:
Question for Anet computer experts - could a program (AI) be developed that coordinates aircraft dispatch to the active runways? Working in conjunction with human ground controller, you could limit the number of aircraft in the line burning fuel. The system could build in time for safety checks etc.


Systems like that have always existed. Any authority which distributes slots at airports must be using them to maximize flights.
AI is just a fancy name for any computer software which makes predictions.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1731
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:00 pm

An immediate ban on all 4 engine planes would be start
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1962
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:30 pm

CRJ200flyer wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Wow, lots of suggestions to move business. We are already in an era of mega urbanization. So mid size cities will lose much of the service.

Will the taxes be spent on aviation, or at least transportation to/from the airport?

I notice the 18 year integration. Compare to many other uses.

It would do more to tax TV viewing and air conditioning hours. Those burn more fuel.

We need rail, but we need a system where it is economical to build and run. Automated trains, allow less corrupt bidding.

Taxing for the sake of taxing hurts business and unless China and India are onboard, we are just exporting jobs.

I'm for rail. Heck, build boring project tunnels to LAX easing fuel use idling (all must be electric) and the hassle.

We need solutions that aren't just punitive.

Everyone does realize this will reduce aviation salaries? Airlines are run as a business. The business is elastic (higher fares, fewer customers). A city builds wealth on transportation.

Lightsaber


Rail is impractical in the USA. Too slow and expensive for the distances required.

HSR costs more than 1 million a mile to build. An entire network would be in the trillions of dollars. A 3bn+ link between NYC and LA (if it's even possible with Current property rights) would take 18-20 hours to ride. Nobody is signing up for that.


I have not heard anyone suggesting a new transcon high speed railroad, that’s an extreme example to use. But railroads on regional routes would be more efficient, say Chicago to Detroit. And more practically, high speed rail within cities to transport passengers from outlying areas to the airport (like Saginaw and Lansing to Detroit, to eliminate those regional jet routes).


Demand on those routes is already too small to justify the expense. A couple thousand fly between Chicago and Detroit a day at most.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:34 pm

Just yesterday … man made global warming ?

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/A ... 5155.shtml
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 4:42 pm

AZa346 wrote:
I think that something that could be done is to have electric tugs that pull the planes short of the runway amd the engines are turned on only 5 minutes before CTOT. this could be useful especially at those airport that have long tale off backups


That’s just going to create congestion, having tugs just running around the airfield.
 
Sancho99504
Posts: 642
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:44 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:35 pm

We would see an instant reduction in fuel consumption if the bureaucratic bs was eliminated.
Take NextGen for example;
Years behind schedule, billions over budget, no real idea when it will be fully implemented.

NextGen opens up the ability to have more movements during inclement weather, especially places like SFO, EWR, LGA and JFK.


Cleaning up delays at those airports and opening up more direct routings across the system would cut fuel usage at least 20%.
As the NEO, Max and CS become the dominant aircraft in the US fleets, that's another 15% reduction.

The CR2 and ERD/ER4 will be gone by 2030, MD80s gone by the end of 2020..... that's a lot of fuel savings right there.
kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
 
c933103
Posts: 3826
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 5:35 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:
A question brought up in the European thread for reducing fuel consumption was increasing aircraft size and decreasing frequency. Looking at one example, LaGuardia, a 2016 article found high daily frequencies between some city pairs. Checking a few weeks ago, Delta was operating around 17 daily flights just to Atlanta.


Carriers have - by whatever criteria they use - determined that this frequency is optimal. (It may be some function of avg fare, connectivity, available gates/aircraft/crew - whatever.) If you want to cut frequency in favor of reducing CO2 emissions you're imposing a suboptimal regime. (I'd argue that costs should fall on the industry that creates the emissions.)

So, do you want to cut a carrier's frequency, or cut the number of competitors on a route?

I can bet factors that carriers taken into account when allocating number of daily flights between city pairs haven't include CO2 emission as part of their criteria yet. That will be changed once relevant measures are implemented
When no other countries around the world is going to militarily stop China and its subordinate fom abusing its citizens within its national boundary, it is unreasonable to expect those abuse can be countered with purely peaceful means.
 
User avatar
SierraPacific
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 1:48 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 6:01 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:

Rail is impractical in the USA. Too slow and expensive for the distances required.

HSR costs more than 1 million a mile to build. An entire network would be in the trillions of dollars. A 3bn+ link between NYC and LA (if it's even possible with Current property rights) would take 18-20 hours to ride. Nobody is signing up for that.


I have not heard anyone suggesting a new transcon high speed railroad, that’s an extreme example to use. But railroads on regional routes would be more efficient, say Chicago to Detroit. And more practically, high speed rail within cities to transport passengers from outlying areas to the airport (like Saginaw and Lansing to Detroit, to eliminate those regional jet routes).


Demand on those routes is already too small to justify the expense. A couple thousand fly between Chicago and Detroit a day at most.


I agree not even close to enough demand for a high speed rail line. And on top of that, I wouldn't be surprised if over 70-90 percent of the flight are connections especially on routes like Lansing to Detroit. I have never met someone who has actually chosen one of these short routes to fly without having another flight tagged onto it (for example Columbus GA-Atlanta Ga-London) simply because it makes no sense to fly it independently when a car will get you directly to the destination way quicker. TSA killed the market for customers to actually use these short flights without having a connection after.

For those advocating high-speed rail, just look at the disaster that unfolded with the California High Speed rail and imagine that on a nationwide scale.
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:18 pm

Reducing frequency only reduces carbon emissions if the fuel consumption per seat goes down. e.g. 3*A321NEO may burn less fuel than 2*767. Though there are obvious wins by replacing 717s/737-600/A318s with A220s or the ongoing gradual improvements with NEO/MAX/787/A350s being less thirsty than what went before.

I'd be interested to know the difference in fuel burn of an A321ULR v 707 on JFK-LHR as they're roughly the same size.

On the Rail side of things, there are parts of the US/Canada where it would work and parts where it wouldn't. The current Acela Express is a great location, but needs investment to bring it up to European speeds. Los Angeles to San Francisco is a good distance, the problems are with politicians not railway engineering. At a guess, Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, Milwaukee-Chicago-Detroit-Toronto-Montreal, Miami-Orlando-Jacksonville-Atlanta.

Outside those routes, just improving existing routes can help, in the UK most of the mainlines are 125mph on Victorian alignments. Tilting trains, replacing level crossings with bridges, flyovers at junctions and signalling improvements can do a lot to improve speeds into cities. The only reason anyone flies from Manchester/Leeds to London is to connect at Heathrow now, 2 hours on the train is much faster for those who are actually going to London. HSR would change this situation from Edinburgh & Glasgow.
 
PhilMcCrackin
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:54 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:20 pm

msycajun wrote:
An easy solution would be to tax jet fuel and use that funding to replace landing fees or per passenger charges. That would encourage higher average gauges, more efficient operations, and more efficient/newer aircraft, while keeping the average costs to airlines/consumers flat. Alas, the simplest solutions are rarely used in this country.

Having just flown back from FRA where there are hundreds of trains per day (all electric) which stop directly at the airport, one can see that the US has a long way to go in improving transportation to airports. And with the reliability they have there, plus the central location of the stations, flying into a big airport and then hopping on a train actually beats most of those short connecting flights both in time and experience.


Customers have proven time and time again that they want frequency and smaller aircraft versus larger aircraft and less frequency.

High speed rail in this country is a pipe dream. Most people would rather drive than take a train, or take a flight beyond that. It works in Europe because they've had the infrastructure for decades and Europe is much more dense population-wise than America is. High speed rail is also insanely expensive to build. They're building a "high speed" line between St. Louis and Chicago right now. Train speeds top out at 110 mph and it's probably a grand total of 300 miles of track, if that. It's a $2 billon project. Something of the quality that Japan has where trains can run upwards of 200 mph would be astronomically expensive.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 7:33 pm

Being in the middle of the US, I can fly or drive as the only realistic choice even for drives upto 8hrs you can arrive sooner driving because of timings depending on where you are headed. So form of improved regional transportation would be welcome I am not expecting High speed rail to every tiny town, but linking mid size cities to each other and to larger centers should be possible.

For raol to be viable it has to be.

1) Quicker than driving

2) Cheaper than flying.

It also needs to be connected by other transportation options at both ends, and thats probably a hurdle that will not be over come. Getting a rental car at the end of journey say only 25% quicker than driving aint going to fly.....
 
bennett123
Posts: 8947
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:31 pm

Phil

Are you serious about trains topping out at 110mph.

We had trains doing 125mph in 1975.

I think that the new trains since 2014 do 140mph.
 
Turnhouse1
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:03 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Phil

Are you serious about trains topping out at 110mph.

We had trains doing 125mph in 1975.

I think that the new trains since 2014 do 140mph.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_main_line

Mr Brunel's Billiard table was build in 1841, it was only really limited by locomotive power and as you say has been 125mph for a long time. The signalling and avoiding stopping services are what stops anything faster, plus London to Bristol/Cardiff is already quite fast. The upgrade does include a connection to LHR from the west.
 
Kilopond
Posts: 469
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:08 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:01 pm

bennett123 wrote:
Phil

Are you serious about trains topping out at 110mph.

We had trains doing 125mph in 1975.

I think that the new trains since 2014 do 140mph.


Sorry to interfere, you didn`t ask me, but I got something to add: it is a well-established common wisdom that trains become inefficient at speeds over 160 km/h. Aerodynamic drag is the unavoidable reason. A solution to that problem would be trains running in underpressure tubes. But that`s much too expensive in real life, as a failed Swiss project demonstrates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro
 
afgeneral
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 2:43 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:16 pm

Nope, this war against working class and middle class flying needs to be countered vigorously.

Man made climate change may be a fact, but CO2 emission reduction needs to come from energy production, manufacturing and ground / sea transportation. Easy pickings, especially in energy.

Air transportation should be left alone because it contributes significantly to living standards and jobs.
 
Babyshark
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:23 pm

Shouldn't all flying be banned immediately? Why wait?
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:36 pm

afgeneral wrote:
Nope, this war against working class and middle class flying needs to be countered vigorously.

Man made climate change may be a fact, but CO2 emission reduction needs to come from energy production, manufacturing and ground / sea transportation. Easy pickings, especially in energy.

Air transportation should be left alone because it contributes significantly to living standards and jobs.

We live in an imperfect world.

Many citizens would like to enjoy US standards of health, safety and nutrition, but..... Many citizens would like a holiday.... Many citizens would like a new Ferrari or Bentley, or...................

Every responsible industry is pointing at the others. For example, the maritime industry suggests CO2 emission reductions need to come from surface and air transportation, except maritime.

Air transportation contributes significantly to senior management and shareholder wealth, not to general living standards and jobs. The industry exports jobs and imports cheap labour.

Fuel taxes and other initiatives designed to depress demand, are similar to JV's, designed to manage (depress) capacity to maximise profits, except hopefully fuel and emission tax proceeds are really used for citizens, rather than the pockets of a few.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:11 pm

Good post. There are a number of ways to skin this (these) cat(s).
Efficient ground operations sounds like it has immediate rewards.
I understand new ATC and more direct lanes is another.
While short hops likely should be reduced, Regionals connecting isolated towns to cities are a good thing
From an economist point of view, offsets are good and effective, i.e., aviation fuel carbon tax supporting electric car purchases
Good bio fuels are likely in the future, more of the type algae using waste materials, than ethanol from corn
Train going three hours (200-400 miles) at average speeds of 70-110 mph between large population centers are an obvious solution
Dedicated bus lanes on freeways and city arterials are immensely effective (and hated by single car driver extremists)
Those same buses (plus specialty small vehicles) when driven autonomously will kill trains and sub 300 miles planes
Last edited by frmrCapCadet on Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3152
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sun Jul 14, 2019 1:24 pm

Res California HSR - There simply isn't enough 'there' between LA and the Bay Area. Plus geology is a killer. Dedicated HOV3-4 lanes and lightly subsidized buses(causing SOV drivers to become terrorists) would be relatively cheap to experiment and might be highly efficient. There should be two class buses - standard 2-2 abreast and 1-2 abreast, as well as security cameras.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
tomcat
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:17 pm

c933103 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
CRJ200flyer wrote:
A question brought up in the European thread for reducing fuel consumption was increasing aircraft size and decreasing frequency. Looking at one example, LaGuardia, a 2016 article found high daily frequencies between some city pairs. Checking a few weeks ago, Delta was operating around 17 daily flights just to Atlanta.


Carriers have - by whatever criteria they use - determined that this frequency is optimal. (It may be some function of avg fare, connectivity, available gates/aircraft/crew - whatever.) If you want to cut frequency in favor of reducing CO2 emissions you're imposing a suboptimal regime. (I'd argue that costs should fall on the industry that creates the emissions.)

So, do you want to cut a carrier's frequency, or cut the number of competitors on a route?

I can bet factors that carriers taken into account when allocating number of daily flights between city pairs haven't include CO2 emission as part of their criteria yet. That will be changed once relevant measures are implemented


Between the late 90s and 2008, the oil price went from less than $30 a barrel to $160 a barrel. In particular, it remained above $75 for at least 3 years (mid-2005 till mid-2008). Are there any empirical evidences that this has impacted the flight plannings, like reducing frequencies in favor of higher aircraft sizes, besides the replacement of older aircraft and increasing the cabin densities thanks to the use of the slim seats. Talking about cabin density, I think that this opportunity has now been exhausted for the economy class. One way to make denser cabins going forward would be to put a higher premium on the lie-flat seats and push part of the business class demand towards premium economy seats. That way, for a given size of aircraft more people could be carried or a given amount of passengers could be carried with a smaller aircraft. In the low cost arena, I believe that the cabin densities can't be increased anymore since the seat numbers are close to the certified limits of the current aircraft.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
 
User avatar
FredrikHAD
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:49 pm

Kilopond wrote:
bennett123 wrote:
Phil

Are you serious about trains topping out at 110mph.

We had trains doing 125mph in 1975.

I think that the new trains since 2014 do 140mph.


Sorry to interfere, you didn`t ask me, but I got something to add: it is a well-established common wisdom that trains become inefficient at speeds over 160 km/h. Aerodynamic drag is the unavoidable reason. A solution to that problem would be trains running in underpressure tubes. But that`s much too expensive in real life, as a failed Swiss project demonstrates:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swissmetro

The Germans must be absolute idiots then, running trains at 300 km/h (the new ICE 4). They have been doing 250 km/h for a decade at least, so they seem to have another opinion about the feasibility of high speed trains.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3731
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: US Commercial Aviation Fuel Consumption

Tue Jul 23, 2019 9:57 pm

So have the dastardly Japanese and French, both in excess of 180mph. How dare they ignore physics,

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