Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CWL757
Topic Author
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:43 pm

Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:40 am

Apologies if it's already been discussed, but activists managed to breach the perimeter at CDG and paint a 777 Green. This ain't just stupid and illegal, it's dangerous. It looks like they've painted over various sensors that will probably now need to be replaced.
https://mobile.twitter.com/greenpeacefr ... ance-groen
A319, A320, 738, 743, 744, 752, 772, 788, C150, E175, E190, F70, R22
 
flutter
Posts: 10
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:56 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:25 am

I am a big proponent of making our ways of life more sustainable and I am very worried about the future of our planet (rather humanity, planet will be fine). But this is a criminal act and actually will not "paint" greenpeace in a very good light.
 
User avatar
LH748
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:44 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:30 am

Sure, wasting resources to destroy something is super ecological...
306 310 318 319 320 321 333 343 388 ATR72 733 737 738 739 743 744 748 752 753 763 764 772 77W 788 CRJ7 CRJ9 E170 F100 MD11 RJ1H
AA AB AC AF AK AZ BA DE DL EW FD FR HF HG IB IR MF KU LH LT LX OD TG TK TP UA VJ VN WN W6 YP YW
 
777
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 9:21 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:32 am

Really hope the AF’s lawyers will play hard with them!
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5366
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:40 am

It looks like F-GSPB, the second oldest 777-200ER in the fleet, 23 years old. Wasn't this one of the 777s they were going to scrap?

Image

Image

It looks like the Terminal 3 apron. I guess we are lucky they went for the 777 and not the nearby Concorde.

CWL757 wrote:
This ain't just stupid and illegal, it's dangerous. It looks like they've painted over various sensors that will probably now need to be replaced.


The aircraft is in storage with the sensors, probes and ports covered over, so they'll probably be fine. Will probably need to be stripped down and repainted however. They also put a ladder up on the wing and climbed onto the top of the fuselage, so who knows what sort of damage they caused up there.

BlueberryWheats wrote:
I hope that's ethically locally sourced organic vegan biodegradable green paint and they rode there on bicycles.


Or just the train or RER. Those are electric in France.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1530
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:58 am

I hope they were wearing masks.
 
MileHFL400
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:42 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:10 pm

What absolute fools. I hope they have to pay for the rework! That will teach them to go round vandalizing things they can’t afford
Thanks and best Regards
AA
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1627
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:12 pm

Was the paint a Broccoli or Asparagus based formula?
"To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 1158
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:16 pm

777 wrote:
Really hope the AF’s lawyers will play hard with them!


With the current business climate, this particular frame might (hypothesis) have just had it. If this "paintjob" is what actually pushes this airplane into retirement and scrapping, AF lawyers could actually staple a large bill to culprits. I wonder if Greenpeace would step up and pay it, or the individuals would have to pay themselves.
AN4 A40 L4T TU3 TU5 IL6 ILW I93 F50 F70 100 146 ARJ AT7 DH4 L10 CRJ ERJ E90 E95 DC-9 MD-8X YK4 YK2 SF3 S20 319 320 321 332 333 343 346 722 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 74M 757 767 777
Ceterum autem censeo, Moscovia esse delendam
 
micstatic
Posts: 823
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:18 pm

what kind of security do they have at CDG?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15850
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:59 pm

IMHO AF could be disruptive, take the high road, and engage with greenpeace to have a greenpeace logo jet to raise awareness.

I’m very supportive of the sustainability message that greenpeace has, and I think most airlines are, as sustainably and improved efficiency are hand in hand. Lots of airlines have carbon offset programs, you don’t see that when taking a taxi, bus, train.

In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Rossiya747
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 2:56 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:08 pm

How is this supposed to help solve climate change again?
223 319 320 321 332 333 346 388 734 737 738 739 38M 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 77W 788 789 208 CRJ2 E145 E190 UA DL AA WN AC CM 4O AV 2K FI DY D8 SK LH EI FR U2 IB OS LX BA VS BT PS MS SA SW QR EY HY AI 9W TG SQ MH AK D7 QZ BR NH CA QF MI LV/IB VY AL
 
hervebkk
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:01 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:18 pm

Have they been arrested by police or security forces at least?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25749
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:20 pm

So stupid.

Putting green on a non-green plane isn't going to make it more environmentally friendly.

Maybe they should have painted it black to show all the carbon it burns or brown because it's a crappy plane.

zeke wrote:
In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.

In reality environmentalism is a huge threat to aviation so aviation highlights every tiny thing they can think of to try to greenwash themselves.

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:

Image

Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
capshandler
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:45 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:21 pm

I think AF has a massive marketing opportunity here. If they turn this into an opportunity by being more ambitious on the environment issue (they already are but they don’t communicate it well) and pardon the offendants as well as committing with Greenpeace on specific actions, it can have a great impact on French society (which are part of the owners of AF by the way.)

No need to say that to understand this it’s important to understand France first.
 
N766UA
Posts: 8379
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:22 pm

LOL 9 people got in with giant ladders in the middle of the day?? What kind of garbage security...
 
CRJockey
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:26 pm

CWL757 wrote:
Apologies if it's already been discussed, but activists managed to breach the perimeter at CDG and paint a 777 Green. This ain't just stupid and illegal, it's dangerous. It looks like they've painted over various sensors that will probably now need to be replaced.
https://mobile.twitter.com/greenpeacefr ... ance-groen


Hyperbole, much? Why would it be dangerous? Guess an enormous green patch of paint will be quite visible during pre flight check. And, oh dear, sensors be replaced? You mean like as in an everyday occurence, where a mechanic changes a sensor?

You people get excited easily...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15850
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:27 pm

Revelation wrote:
In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:

Image

Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566


Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
sunking737
Posts: 1730
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:27 pm

Come on folks, this was staged by Greenpeace and AIRFRANCE....
"Don't believe it unless its parked on the ramp, or printed in the schedule...SUBJECT TO CHANGE"
Retired MSP Ramper
 
N766UA
Posts: 8379
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:28 pm

Revelation wrote:
So stupid.

Putting green on a non-green plane isn't going to make it more environmentally friendly.

Maybe they should have painted it black to show all the carbon it burns or brown because it's a crappy plane.

zeke wrote:
In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.

In reality environmentalism is a huge threat to aviation so aviation highlights every tiny thing they can think of to try to greenwash themselves.

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:

Image

Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566


That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15850
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:37 pm

N766UA wrote:
There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.


There are way more vehicles about, literally millions (around 100 million new vehicles a year, around 17 million new vehicles alone in the USA each year), compared to between 1000-2000 new airliners worldwide a year.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25749
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:40 pm

zeke wrote:
Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.

Sorry, but the chart says 'per passenger per km traveled' so it is normalized.

N766UA wrote:
That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

True, but that doesn't give aviation a pass, it's still inefficient per pax/km and a lot of those trips are low priority activities.

It's surely enough to make the aviation industry feel threatened, which is my main point.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tomcat
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:56 pm

Revelation wrote:

zeke wrote:
In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.

In reality environmentalism is a huge threat to aviation so aviation highlights every tiny thing they can think of to try to greenwash themselves.

In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:

Image

Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566


This chart needs some footnotes.

For one, domestic flights in the European context don't reach high altitude or spend only a small fraction of their duration up there. So the secondary effects are much more reduced than shown on this chart.

Second, the 6g of CO2 emission per pax.km achieved by the Eurostar is only that low because it's running mostly in France where electricity generation has already been near carbon-free for 40 years. Run the same train between Hamburg and Munich with the same load factor and it will emit close to 50g CO2 per pax.km. The same remark is valid for the domestic - non-HST - rail services.

Finally, the A220, the A320NEOs and the 737MAX are now becoming the new standard while the average seating densities are further increased, so the CO2 emission of the domestic flights in Europe will be getting closer to 100g per pax.km very soon. For the record, pre-MAX Ryanair is averaging at less than 70g per pax.km of direct CO2 emissions.

For those who want to limit their travel related CO2 emissions, the way to go is coach service. It's also the cheapest option of travel.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 1:58 pm

N766UA wrote:
That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

On a per-trip basis, aircraft still emit massively more CO2 (and some other pollutants).

One return flight FRA-JFK emits ~ 3,500 t of CO2, per passenger, on average. That's equivalent to 10 years of a typical daily commute by car.

Aircraft only contribute 3% of the worldwide CO2 emissions but for an individual person, flying is one of the most polluting activities. It's just that 80% of all people have never stepped aboard an airplane, and even more have never taken a long haul flight.

You have to be rich in order to pollute.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:06 pm

So will this plane be retired, as it might require a whole repaint? I don't think AF would want to spend money on repaints, especially since they are retiring some 777-200(ER)s.
Boeing is re-engining the 707 tonight, with Shinkai as the CEO and FLAIRPORT as the CFO. He has the 757 tooling in giant snowglobe that tracks flights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub82Xb1 ... iceboxHero
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15850
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:17 pm

Revelation wrote:
Sorry, but the chart says 'per passenger per km traveled' so it is normalized.


Sorry there is something seriously wrong about the graph then, cars are inefficient because they are heavy for what they carry, engines are inefficient for the power they produce, they start and stop for traffic control, and they have the addition of road friction.

For as long as as I can remember cars use about twice as much fuel per passenger per 100 km.

Then there is the latent manufacturing inefficiency of the car itself, most would only travel 10-15000 km per year. A typical aircraft will fly 3 million km a year, fewer aircraft are built each year as a fleet they are used more efficiently, most cars sit around and do nothing 20 hours a day.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
jeffh747
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 6:32 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:24 pm

How on Earth were these people able to get airside?! I'm not sure what's more alarming, the act that they committed, or the fact that one of the world's busiest airports has such lackluster security. Fortunately this time it was these crazy environmental protestors with no ulterior motive. Shame on CDG.

Also, ironically that shade of green looks nearly identical to the color that UTA painted their doors. So that's kind of neat.
ATR-72-600, A318 A319 A320 A320neo A321 A321neo A332 A333 B717 B727 B734 B73G B738 B739 B752 B762 B763 B772 B788 CRJ2 DHC6 DHC8-300 E145 E190 MD82 MD83 MD90 SF340B
 
Antarius
Posts: 3438
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:35 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Sorry, but the chart says 'per passenger per km traveled' so it is normalized.


Sorry there is something seriously wrong about the graph then, cars are inefficient because they are heavy for what they carry, engines are inefficient for the power they produce, they start and stop for traffic control, and they have the addition of road friction.

For as long as as I can remember cars use about twice as much fuel per passenger per 100 km.

Then there is the latent manufacturing inefficiency of the car itself, most would only travel 10-15000 km per year. A typical aircraft will fly 3 million km a year, fewer aircraft are built each year as a fleet they are used more efficiently, most cars sit around and do nothing 20 hours a day.


Please cite a source then.
Militant Centrist
Let's all just use some common sense
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4547
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:37 pm

flutter wrote:
I am a big proponent of making our ways of life more sustainable and I am very worried about the future of our planet (rather humanity, planet will be fine). But this is a criminal act and actually will not "paint" greenpeace in a very good light.


Correct. Apart from it being wrong in terms of vandalism, property damage etc, you can be sure that this event will be used to paint anyone who is remotely supportive of reducing CO2 emissions as an eco terrorist.

Also, as with any security breach event, it means that planespotters will be treated with more suspicion and derision by security.

CRJockey wrote:

Hyperbole, much? Why would it be dangerous


Exactly, its not as if AF is going to put it into service without a full maintenance checkup.
First to fly the 787-9
 
User avatar
jscottwomack
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:44 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:38 pm

Think of all the Chemical Solvents used to Strip Paint and what that does to the environment. Not sure they thought of that when doing this. They may have just done more damage to the earth than a plane flying around......
TWA, Ozark, Braniff, Piedmont, USAir, American, Delta, Frontier, Midwest Express, Western, Eastern, Southwest, Northwest, PanAm, United, Mississippi Valley, Britt, Continental, Trans America, Midway, America West, National, American Trans Air, Sun Country
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5366
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:50 pm

Revelation wrote:
So stupid.

Putting green on a non-green plane isn't going to make it more environmentally friendly.

Maybe they should have painted it black to show all the carbon it burns or brown because it's a crappy plane.


Isn't the main point of this action to protest greenwashing? You pretty much said it yourself:

Revelation wrote:
In reality environmentalism is a huge threat to aviation so aviation highlights every tiny thing they can think of to try to greenwash themselves.



Greenpeace France posted this on their Facebook page:

Greenpeace activists broke into the tarmac at Roissy - Charles de Gaulles airport to expose the government's greenwashing on the air. ✈️
In the face of the climate emergency, air traffic needs to be reduced. However, as the Climate Bill arrives in the next few weeks, all measures to reduce traffic are largely insufficient.
Minister of Transport, promises us a hypothetical green plane. As we know, the green plane will not save the climate.

https://www.facebook.com/greenpeacefrance/


N766UA wrote:
That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.


How is that even remotely relevant? People need cars to go to work or shopping, they are vital to peoples lives. Distances involved are way shorter. The vast majority of airplane passengers can continue their lives perfectly fine without flying. As per the Lufthansa topic, only 30% of passengers travel for business. The auto industry is arguably taking bigger steps to reduce emissions. Fully electric vehicles have long since become a common sight. Aviation still has a long way to go.


zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
Sorry, but the chart says 'per passenger per km traveled' so it is normalized.


Sorry there is something seriously wrong about the graph then, cars are inefficient because they are heavy for what they carry, engines are inefficient for the power they produce, they start and stop for traffic control, and they have the addition of road friction.

For as long as as I can remember cars use about twice as much fuel per passenger per 100 km.


Aircraft waste energy just staying up. Cars only spend energy moving forward. Aircraft engines are inefficient because they aren't optimised for a single speed - they have to be overbuilt to ensure adequate safety in case of an engine failure. Starting and stopping for traffic isn't relevant in this comparison, aircraft don't compete with intra-city transportation.

SAS posts fuel consumption figures per kilometer. The A320neo has a fuel consumption according to SAS of 0,024 l/km per seat, or 2.4 liters per 100 km. A modern car will burn 4-5 liters per 100 km, so once you have more than 1 person onboard, the car will beat the plane. The best cars I can find are now pushing 33 km/l, so are starting to match the latest jets with just a single occupant. That is of course assuming every single seat on the jet is filled, which is far from certain.


zeke wrote:
Then there is the latent manufacturing inefficiency of the car itself, most would only travel 10-15000 km per year. A typical aircraft will fly 3 million km a year, fewer aircraft are built each year as a fleet they are used more efficiently, most cars sit around and do nothing 20 hours a day.


A relevant point, but I'm not sure it is in favour of aviation. The aircraft might last a long time, but components are readily swapped and scrapped. Most engines these days aren't even overhauled or stripped for spares. When it comes to major checks, they are sent to the smelter. Ditto for many of the thousands of other components found in aircraft.
Last edited by VSMUT on Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
meh130
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 12:02 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 2:54 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Or just the train or RER. Those are electric in France.


Yes, but France generates most of its electricity with zero-carbon nuclear power plants, and Greenpeace hates those more than airplanes.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15850
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:06 pm

Antarius wrote:

Please cite a source then.


It’s difficult to cite one source as each airline typically will publish their results and no private car user will publish their results

From https://blog.openairlines.com/how-much- ... -consuming

“To put it into perspective with other means of transport such as cars, this indicator is often given in litres per 100 km per passenger. Therefore, the previous numbers would be around 3.2L / 100PK. However, in different environmental reports from major airlines we can see that overall numbers are higher ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.

According to the United Kingdom Department of Transport, new cars are burning from 8L/100K (in 2000) to 5.4 L/100K (in 2016) which is higher than most airlines figures per passenger. Considering in addition, the average speed of an aircraft (1000 km/h), makes that difference even more interesting.”
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
ojjunior
Posts: 1018
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:31 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:10 pm

How long did those idiots take to do that?
Did they get in the airport during security lunch hours?

Damn this is beyond embarrassing for CDG security heads.
 
BrianWilkes
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2018 12:03 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:10 pm

Well you all complain about the euro white liveries!
 
planecane
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:13 pm

zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:

Image

Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566


Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.


It doesn't take into account speed of travel either. Especially for medium to long haul, air travel is MUCH faster yet still pretty efficient per mile.

It also doesn't say what generation of aircraft they are using as each new generation uses 10-20% less fuel and thus emits 10-20% fewer emissions per km.

Aviation is the only transportation industry that was focused on improving fuel efficiency significantly without government intervention.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:21 pm

zeke wrote:
ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.
new cars are burning [...] 5.4 L/100K (in 2016)

That matches well with the previously posted numbers, doesn't it? Per your numbers, cars use 1.3 - 1.4 times as much fuel. In the graph, cars emit 1.3 - 1.7 times as much CO2.
Of course only as long as there are no passengers in the car.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5366
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:21 pm

planecane wrote:
zeke wrote:
Revelation wrote:
In reality aviation is an inefficient use of energy and is often used for superfluous activities so it should feel threatened.

Stuff like this scares them, and it should:

Image

Ref: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566


Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.


It doesn't take into account speed of travel either. Especially for medium to long haul, air travel is MUCH faster yet still pretty efficient per mile.

It also doesn't say what generation of aircraft they are using as each new generation uses 10-20% less fuel and thus emits 10-20% fewer emissions per km.


It is per kilometer, not per hour.


planecane wrote:
Aviation is the only transportation industry that was focused on improving fuel efficiency significantly without government intervention.


Oh come on, the is disingenuous, and a downright lie. The auto industry has been improving for decades without government intervention. Elon Musk didn't kickstart the electrical car revolution because of government intervention. High speed rail was electric from day 1.
 
tomcat
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:26 pm

zeke wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Please cite a source then.


It’s difficult to cite one source as each airline typically will publish their results and no private car user will publish their results

From https://blog.openairlines.com/how-much- ... -consuming

“To put it into perspective with other means of transport such as cars, this indicator is often given in litres per 100 km per passenger. Therefore, the previous numbers would be around 3.2L / 100PK. However, in different environmental reports from major airlines we can see that overall numbers are higher ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.

According to the United Kingdom Department of Transport, new cars are burning from 8L/100K (in 2000) to 5.4 L/100K (in 2016) which is higher than most airlines figures per passenger. Considering in addition, the average speed of an aircraft (1000 km/h), makes that difference even more interesting.”


So the figures you quote here are perfectly confirming the figures in this chart. The thing is, there is no point to debate on the respective emissions of the cars and aircraft. In the eyes of Greenpeace, they are equally bad in comparison with the French "nuclear" HSTs. That's where the environmentalist are brilliant: they quote the very best figures for the HSTs while these are only valid in France and probably Norway. This information is then repeated out of its context around the world while in reality, the emission of the non-French HSTs are worse than the good old coach services.
 
planecane
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2017 4:58 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:42 pm

VSMUT wrote:
planecane wrote:
zeke wrote:

Aviation is very efficient, the graph is midleading as is it not normalised for distance covered.

Do numbers again on a per km basis aviation is very efficient, cars should be the most inefficient.


It doesn't take into account speed of travel either. Especially for medium to long haul, air travel is MUCH faster yet still pretty efficient per mile.

It also doesn't say what generation of aircraft they are using as each new generation uses 10-20% less fuel and thus emits 10-20% fewer emissions per km.


It is per kilometer, not per hour.


planecane wrote:
Aviation is the only transportation industry that was focused on improving fuel efficiency significantly without government intervention.


Oh come on, the is disingenuous, and a downright lie. The auto industry has been improving for decades without government intervention. Elon Musk didn't kickstart the electrical car revolution because of government intervention. High speed rail was electric from day 1.


The auto industry improved efficiency because (at least in the US), the federal government started imposing mpg standards that each manufacturer had to meet.

Elon Musk wouldn't have had a viable business plan to start Tesla if not for the US government electric vehicle subsidy that could make the initial models somewhat affordable. The push towards electric in general is an outgrowth of raising the minimum corporate average fuel economy (CAFE).

If a manufacturer wants to sell big profitable trucks and SUVs they've got to have a high enough mix of electric vehicles to bring up the average. You also have states like CA banning ICE sales after 2035. All of that is government intervention.

The aviation industry has been improving fuel efficiency voluntarily from early in the jet age. The motivation is financial due to fuel costs but it doesn't matter what the motivation is, the fact is that they did.

High speed rail is likely electric because of the increased fuel consumption to go faster. The early designers probably realized that using diesel would cost a lot more than electric. Since electric trains don't need to deal with expensive batteries and recharging there is very little downside. Pretty much just the cost of the electric distribution to go along with the tracks.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5366
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:43 pm

tomcat wrote:
zeke wrote:
Antarius wrote:

Please cite a source then.


It’s difficult to cite one source as each airline typically will publish their results and no private car user will publish their results

From https://blog.openairlines.com/how-much- ... -consuming

“To put it into perspective with other means of transport such as cars, this indicator is often given in litres per 100 km per passenger. Therefore, the previous numbers would be around 3.2L / 100PK. However, in different environmental reports from major airlines we can see that overall numbers are higher ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.

According to the United Kingdom Department of Transport, new cars are burning from 8L/100K (in 2000) to 5.4 L/100K (in 2016) which is higher than most airlines figures per passenger. Considering in addition, the average speed of an aircraft (1000 km/h), makes that difference even more interesting.”


So the figures you quote here are perfectly confirming the figures in this chart. The thing is, there is no point to debate on the respective emissions of the cars and aircraft. In the eyes of Greenpeace, they are equally bad in comparison with the French "nuclear" HSTs. That's where the environmentalist are brilliant: they quote the very best figures for the HSTs while these are only valid in France and probably Norway. This information is then repeated out of its context around the world while in reality, the emission of the non-French HSTs are worse than the good old coach services.


The ICE in Germany runs 100% on renewables.

Electricity has some rather significant advantages, even if the electrical plant runs completely off conventional fossil fuels. Electricity through a copper wire is a much more efficient way of transporting energy to where it is needed. Electric motors are simpler, more efficient and lighter. They last an eternity. Electrical grids aren't limited to a single source (unlike planes). Even in Germany with all its polluting coal plants, non-renewables only make up 49% of the total energy produced. The other half is clean.
 
tomcat
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:08 pm

VSMUT wrote:
tomcat wrote:
zeke wrote:

It’s difficult to cite one source as each airline typically will publish their results and no private car user will publish their results

From https://blog.openairlines.com/how-much- ... -consuming

“To put it into perspective with other means of transport such as cars, this indicator is often given in litres per 100 km per passenger. Therefore, the previous numbers would be around 3.2L / 100PK. However, in different environmental reports from major airlines we can see that overall numbers are higher ranging from 3.85L /100PK for Lufthansa to 4.2, 4.3L / 100PK for Delta or Emirates.

According to the United Kingdom Department of Transport, new cars are burning from 8L/100K (in 2000) to 5.4 L/100K (in 2016) which is higher than most airlines figures per passenger. Considering in addition, the average speed of an aircraft (1000 km/h), makes that difference even more interesting.”


So the figures you quote here are perfectly confirming the figures in this chart. The thing is, there is no point to debate on the respective emissions of the cars and aircraft. In the eyes of Greenpeace, they are equally bad in comparison with the French "nuclear" HSTs. That's where the environmentalist are brilliant: they quote the very best figures for the HSTs while these are only valid in France and probably Norway. This information is then repeated out of its context around the world while in reality, the emission of the non-French HSTs are worse than the good old coach services.


The ICE in Germany runs 100% on renewables.

Electricity has some rather significant advantages, even if the electrical plant runs completely off conventional fossil fuels. Electricity through a copper wire is a much more efficient way of transporting energy to where it is needed. Electric motors are simpler, more efficient and lighter. They last an eternity. Electrical grids aren't limited to a single source (unlike planes). Even in Germany with all its polluting coal plants, non-renewables only make up 49% of the total energy produced. The other half is clean.


Please see the following figures of average CO2 intensity for electricity generation (2016):
France: 58.5 gCO2/kWh produced
EU average: 295.8 gCO2/kWh (= 5x France average)
Germany: 440.8 gCO2/kWh (= 8x France average, so the German HSTs are at 50g CO2 per pax.km)

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-5#tab-googlechartid_chart_11_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_ugeo%22%3A%5B%22European%20Union%20(current%20composition)%22%3B%22France%22%3B%22Germany%22%5D%7D%7D

The thing is that unless one is off-grid, one doesn't get to choose the source of its electricity. One only gets the "average" electricity injected in the grid. Buying electricity from renewable producers doesn't change that reality. It will be the same for the aircraft when they will be burning synthetic fuels or hydrogen.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5366
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:34 pm

tomcat wrote:
The thing is that unless one is off-grid, one doesn't get to choose the source of its electricity. One only gets the "average" electricity injected in the grid. Buying electricity from renewable producers doesn't change that reality. It will be the same for the aircraft when they will be burning synthetic fuels or hydrogen.


No, that's not how it works. Your share is only what that producer you selected puts into the grid.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14055
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:49 pm

zeke wrote:
IMHO AF could be disruptive, take the high road, and engage with greenpeace to have a greenpeace logo jet to raise awareness.

I’m very supportive of the sustainability message that greenpeace has, and I think most airlines are, as sustainably and improved efficiency are hand in hand. Lots of airlines have carbon offset programs, you don’t see that when taking a taxi, bus, train.

In reality aviation is at the forefront of efficiency and innovation.


This stunt aside, what Greenpeace does very regularly in France, and has done for decades, is breach nuclear power plant perimeters to harp on about their dangers.

Nuclear being basically CO2 free...

The last few times they were saying on top of the potential for accidents that terrorists could get in, if they could. The answer was that gendarmes had them in the scope of their sniper rifles but didn't shoot since they saw it was clowns not terrorists...
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
teachpdx
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:51 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 4:59 pm

VSMUT wrote:
Elon Musk didn't kickstart the electrical car revolution because of government intervention.


Tesla wouldn’t yet be profitable if it weren’t for government intervention. They make a large portion of their revenue from selling regulatory credits to less efficient automakers. Without that incentive, there would be little reason to operate the company... and it wouldn’t be profitable.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/03/fiat-ch ... tesla.html

Automakers who struggle to meet stringent CO2 emissions standards in Europe can buy credits from less-polluting auto companies to meet new emission limits, or to lower their penalties if they do not stay within the standards.

Selling these regulatory credits has been an increasingly important part of Tesla’s business as the automaker has pushed toward sustained profitability. In 2020, Tesla generated $1.58 billion in revenue from sales of regulatory credits, nearly tripling its 2019 figure of $594 million. That’s greater than the company’s profit of $721 million reported in 2020, which was its first profitable year.
Up Next: THIS YEAR IS CANCELLED!!!
 
asuflyer
Posts: 661
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:48 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:00 pm

 
tomcat
Posts: 702
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 4:14 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:00 pm

VSMUT wrote:
tomcat wrote:
The thing is that unless one is off-grid, one doesn't get to choose the source of its electricity. One only gets the "average" electricity injected in the grid. Buying electricity from renewable producers doesn't change that reality. It will be the same for the aircraft when they will be burning synthetic fuels or hydrogen.


No, that's not how it works. Your share is only what that producer you selected puts into the grid.


So the ICEs don't run when there is no wind? What you describe is only a convention.

Again, what's important is to figure out what would happen if all the domestic and trans-continental flights were replaced tomorrow by train services. Unless they would be diesel trains, these train would run with the average electricity available accros Europe (295 gCO2/kWh) or more precisely, with the marginal electricity output that would be produced to satisfy this new demand. This electricity would come from gas- and coal-fed power plants at the moment (> 500 gCO2/kWh).
Last edited by tomcat on Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 14055
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:10 pm

tomcat wrote:
So the figures you quote here are perfectly confirming the figures in this chart. The thing is, there is no point to debate on the respective emissions of the cars and aircraft. In the eyes of Greenpeace, they are equally bad in comparison with the French "nuclear" HSTs. That's where the environmentalist are brilliant: they quote the very best figures for the HSTs while these are only valid in France and probably Norway. This information is then repeated out of its context around the world while in reality, the emission of the non-French HSTs are worse than the good old coach services.


In France we also have degrowth advocates that hate high speed trains, as speed is bad and unnecessary. We should all travel on donkeys' backs. Well, we shouldn't travel at all, really.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 4020
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:40 pm

This seems awfully fishy...a bunch of people with ladders and long extension brushes stroll onto the tarmac, climb up on top of a plane and have time to open up paint cans and apply to the aircraft before any security personnel show up? It defies belief - sorry I don't buy it
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 2154
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Air France 777 painted green by Greenpeace.

Fri Mar 05, 2021 5:57 pm

mxaxai wrote:
N766UA wrote:
That chart is misleading. There are WAY more cars and buses than there are airplanes. Seriously, look at what cars and buses emit and then think of how many millions more cars and buses there are on the road than planes in the sky.

On a per-trip basis, aircraft still emit massively more CO2 (and some other pollutants).

One return flight FRA-JFK emits ~ 3,500 t of CO2, per passenger, on average. That's equivalent to 10 years of a typical daily commute by car.

Aircraft only contribute 3% of the worldwide CO2 emissions but for an individual person, flying is one of the most polluting activities. It's just that 80% of all people have never stepped aboard an airplane, and even more have never taken a long haul flight.

You have to be rich in order to pollute.

3,500 tonne of CO2 per passenger???

Let's see, 1 gallon of Jet Fuel releases 9.57 kg of CO2 per gallon (source). So, 3,500 tonne would be 3,500,000 kg of CO2, i.e. 365,726 gallons of jet fuel per pax on a single flight... That's a lot of fuel in a single plane.

Let's say you meant to say 3,500 kg of CO2 per pax; that would be 365-366 gallons per pax; a widebody running FRA-JFK is most likely at least 250 passengers, so that'd be 91,500 gallons of Jet Fuel for a return trip, or 45,750 gallons per leg. Only the 777-300ER or 777-200LR/777F can carry that much (almost 48,000 gallons); the 787 carries "only" 33,000 gallons and the A350 "only" between 37,000 (A350-900) and 42,000 gallons (A350-1000). Using a 777-300ER or 777-200LR to carry 250 pax on a 3,350 NM trip is highly inefficient; there are better alternatives.

Your number is incorrect first (3,500 tonne - three thousand five hundred tonne), and even is "corrected" to 3,500 kg seems inaccurate.

FRA-JFK-FRA is 12,400 km by air (undoable in a car, but we'll allow it for the sake of argument - source); so, that'd be 95 hours of driving at 130 km/h, or 12 days driving 8 hours per day (actual driving, not including rest every 2 hours, lunches/dinners, refueling, etc). How much CO2 will be generated by 12 days worth of food, lodging, transporting fuel in various remote locations, road repairs, tire wear, etc?
Let's say your CO2 number for a plane is 3,500 kg per pax for a FRA-JFK return trip on a 250-pax plane: again, that would be 365-366 gallons per pax, or 1,400 L per pax. That'd be equivalent to 12 L / pax.100km; quite high for a 4-passenger car, but then again you'd have to add all the ancillaries needed to driving 12,400 km.

FYI, medium-haul flights such as FRA-JFK is around 3 L/100km per available seat (source), i.e. around 7.6 kg of CO2 per 100km per pax; or 940 kg per pax for FRA-JFK-FRA, not 3.5 tonne.

I'll be glad to be proven wrong...

Who is online

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