Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
sevenair
Topic Author
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:25 am

Just wondering what flights would have the worst carbon footprint per passenger. I understand that flight loads will vary by day or by year, but are any flights chronically empty with very low load factors or a low number of seats compared to what it can handle? I don't meant repositioning flights but per revenue flight.

I personally feel:

BA 787 flights. Very low density. Some very long routes.
BA A318. Very low density. Long route. CAT1 at LCY - relatively high G/A rate.
QF 787 PER-LON. Low density. Very long. Lots of fuel burned simply to carry fuel.
QF A380 LAX-JFK. Massive aircraft. Low loads. Very inefficient.
AA A321 Transcons. Seating just over 100 (120 less than maximum), long flight.
EC/La Compagnie NYC-PAR. Low density. Long flight. Relatively fuel inefficient.
Heathrow slot sitters. Not sure if they still exist but they were terrible.
Great Lakes 9 seater B1900s. Seating half the amount that they can.
WOW West Coast A333 flights. Great idea. High density. But chronically low loads from what I've heard.

Can anyone think of others.
Last edited by atcsundevil on Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Title clarification
 
skyhawkmatthew
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:42 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:28 am

QF doesn't, and never has, operated the A380 LAX-JFK. However, the 747 is probably just as bad on that sector.
Qantas - The Spirit of Australia.
 
sevenair
Topic Author
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:31 am

My mistake. I was convinced they did as a continuation of one of the TPAC flights from Australia. Oops.
 
jomur
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:37 am

Any cruise ship or basically any shipping... Shipping is a far bigger problem than aviation when it comes to pollution and emissions.
 
steman
Posts: 1644
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2000 4:55 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:45 am

jomur wrote:
Any cruise ship or basically any shipping... Shipping is a far bigger problem than aviation when it comes to pollution and emissions.


How so? One vessel can carry many times over the amount of cargo than even the biggest air freighter can carry.
I don´t know the numbers but I doubt that a container ship burns more fuel than the total number of cargo planes needed to carry the same amount of freight.
 
jomur
Posts: 361
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:52 am

steman wrote:
jomur wrote:
Any cruise ship or basically any shipping... Shipping is a far bigger problem than aviation when it comes to pollution and emissions.


How so? One vessel can carry many times over the amount of cargo than even the biggest air freighter can carry.
I don´t know the numbers but I doubt that a container ship burns more fuel than the total number of cargo planes needed to carry the same amount of freight.


ITs down to the type of fuel (heavy fuel oil), age of ships and no real control over shipping emissions. You have to take all shipping together and its far worse than all aircraft, which tend to be newer and have much more control and reasons to reduce emissions.
 
sevenair
Topic Author
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:19 am

I'd imagine SQs Premium only NYC service by A340-500 was also pretty bad.

Does anyone know what the load factors are like on QF LAX-JFK. Given this flight and the low density cabins operated by AA A321, United p.s., Delta and JetBlue Mint, the route as a whole must be pretty bad. Not to mention the vast frequencies on the City pair.
 
steve6666
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 1:58 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:17 pm

sevenair wrote:
BA 787 flights. Very low density. Some very long routes.


But a very fuel efficient aircraft. I'd have thought the Super-Hi J 747 with only 275 seats and the RR powered 777s with F, that have barely more seats than a 787-9, would be bigger polluters per person in the BA fleet.
A306, A318, A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A346, A388, B722, B732, B733, B734, B735, B73G, B738, B742, B744, B752, B753, B762, B763, B764, B772, B773, B77W, B787-8, BAe-146, Cessna Something, DC-10, E175, E195, ERJ145, MD-11, MD-80, PA Something
 
zackapan
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:25 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:44 pm

jomur wrote:
steman wrote:
jomur wrote:
Any cruise ship or basically any shipping... Shipping is a far bigger problem than aviation when it comes to pollution and emissions.


How so? One vessel can carry many times over the amount of cargo than even the biggest air freighter can carry.
I don´t know the numbers but I doubt that a container ship burns more fuel than the total number of cargo planes needed to carry the same amount of freight.


ITs down to the type of fuel (heavy fuel oil), age of ships and no real control over shipping emissions. You have to take all shipping together and its far worse than all aircraft, which tend to be newer and have much more control and reasons to reduce emissions.


Not one to argue but this I would say is wrong, need to read shippings MARPOL annexes along with the fact that it is highly controlled now. zones around the world (called ECA's) where shipping has to run off diesel and low sulphur fuels.
 
DexSwart
Posts: 748
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 11:08 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 12:46 pm

sevenair wrote:
.

Does anyone know what the load factors are like on QF LAX-JFK. Given this flight and the low density cabins operated by AA A321, United p.s., Delta and JetBlue Mint, the route as a whole must be pretty bad. Not to mention the vast frequencies on the City pair.


QF do not offer the flight as a stand alone and one cannot buy tickets for that flight seperately.

QF funnel passengers from MEL, BNE, and SYD onto the 747 that came from BNE, and then take them to JFK. That's why QF have a bunch of early morning arrivals so close together at LAX.

I'm booked on that very flight this coming Feb, and when I reserved my seat, it seemed there were only two or so rows open, out of all the Economy seats availible.

They run it pretty full.
Durban. Melbourne. Denver. Hong Kong.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3165
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:17 pm

steman wrote:
jomur wrote:
Any cruise ship or basically any shipping... Shipping is a far bigger problem than aviation when it comes to pollution and emissions.


How so? One vessel can carry many times over the amount of cargo than even the biggest air freighter can carry.
I don´t know the numbers but I doubt that a container ship burns more fuel than the total number of cargo planes needed to carry the same amount of freight.


Cruise ships, you are not travelling to get to a destination, you are going around on a vacation and back to the port you started.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3165
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:21 pm

sevenair wrote:
Just wondering what flights would have the worst carbon footprint per passenger. I understand that flight loads will vary by day or by year, but are any flights chronically empty with very low load factors or a low number of seats compared to what it can handle? I don't meant repositioning flights but per revenue flight.

I personally feel:

BA 787 flights. Very low density. Some very long routes.
BA A318. Very low density. Long route. CAT1 at LCY - relatively high G/A rate.
QF 787 PER-LON. Low density. Very long. Lots of fuel burned simply to carry fuel.
QF A380 LAX-JFK. Massive aircraft. Low loads. Very inefficient.
AA A321 Transcons. Seating just over 100 (120 less than maximum), long flight.
EC/La Compagnie NYC-PAR. Low density. Long flight. Relatively fuel inefficient.
Heathrow slot sitters. Not sure if they still exist but they were terrible.
Great Lakes 9 seater B1900s. Seating half the amount that they can.
WOW West Coast A333 flights. Great idea. High density. But chronically low loads from what I've heard.

Can anyone think of others.


Go arounds at London City are due to the challenging steep approach. Flight planners usually get an alternate diversion planned before take-off if the airport is going to be below minimums.
 
sevenair
Topic Author
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 1:38 pm

LCY is also CAT1 only. This, coupled with the steep approach will increase the amount of unsuccessful approaches and thus the carbon footprint.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 2:01 pm

b747400erf wrote:
steman wrote:
jomur wrote:
Any cruise ship or basically any shipping... Shipping is a far bigger problem than aviation when it comes to pollution and emissions.


How so? One vessel can carry many times over the amount of cargo than even the biggest air freighter can carry.
I don´t know the numbers but I doubt that a container ship burns more fuel than the total number of cargo planes needed to carry the same amount of freight.


Cruise ships, you are not travelling to get to a destination, you are going around on a vacation and back to the port you started.


Many cruises start at one port and end at another. My son and his wife recently cruised the Med, starting at Barcelona and ending at Venice (about 14 ports). Also two plane trips each way.

Many vacations involve a number of flights, perhaps somewhat circular. My honeymoon involved a rental car for about half the distance, a couple of boats, and ultimate return by air. We've also done a vacation by rail going out and by air coming back.

What really matters is the fuel type and burn per person per mile or some similar metrics (or by ton in the case of freighters).
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:09 pm

Leo Dicaprio's recent 8000mile private jet flights to pick up awards, when telling us all the dangers of too much carbon emission.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3165
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:16 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
b747400erf wrote:
steman wrote:

How so? One vessel can carry many times over the amount of cargo than even the biggest air freighter can carry.
I don´t know the numbers but I doubt that a container ship burns more fuel than the total number of cargo planes needed to carry the same amount of freight.


Cruise ships, you are not travelling to get to a destination, you are going around on a vacation and back to the port you started.


Many cruises start at one port and end at another. My son and his wife recently cruised the Med, starting at Barcelona and ending at Venice (about 14 ports). Also two plane trips each way.

Many vacations involve a number of flights, perhaps somewhat circular. My honeymoon involved a rental car for about half the distance, a couple of boats, and ultimate return by air. We've also done a vacation by rail going out and by air coming back.

What really matters is the fuel type and burn per person per mile or some similar metrics (or by ton in the case of freighters).


And compare the emissions from a cruise ship to different transportation from Barcelona to Venice.

Cruise ships are the worst emitors and most take you back to the port you started.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3165
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:19 pm

airzona11 wrote:
Leo Dicaprio's recent 8000mile private jet flights to pick up awards, when telling us all the dangers of too much carbon emission.


Most of their trips are to give publicity to a campaign they are supporting at the time, and it gives them a quick travel option there and back. Many wealthy travellers spend money on green carbon credits to offset the travel they do. The speeches on behalf of campaigns does more good to offset any carbons from their private jet many times over. This comment section is sounding a lot like Fox News.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:34 pm

b747400erf wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
b747400erf wrote:

Cruise ships, you are not travelling to get to a destination, you are going around on a vacation and back to the port you started.


Many cruises start at one port and end at another. My son and his wife recently cruised the Med, starting at Barcelona and ending at Venice (about 14 ports). Also two plane trips each way.

Many vacations involve a number of flights, perhaps somewhat circular. My honeymoon involved a rental car for about half the distance, a couple of boats, and ultimate return by air. We've also done a vacation by rail going out and by air coming back.

What really matters is the fuel type and burn per person per mile or some similar metrics (or by ton in the case of freighters).


And compare the emissions from a cruise ship to different transportation from Barcelona to Venice.

Cruise ships are the worst emitors and most take you back to the port you started.


The transportation was not only from Barcelona to Venice, but to 14 different cities beginning at Barcelona and ending at Venice. Please try to keep a few simple facts straight. You would need to compare 14 different airline flights, many times over (since there were more than 2,000 passengers on the cruise), before judging which form of transportation had the larger carbon footprint.

If all those people flew to all those destinations, at any average of 200 passengers per aircraft, it would have taken 280 flights. Possibly quite a few more since a lot of relatively short hops would have been involved.

Any please stop regurgitating statements unsupported by facts. Do a little research and then tell us the fuel usage, per passenger, by different forms of transportation. Without ascertaining the facts and then using those facts in argument, you are just bloviating.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:49 pm

sevenair wrote:
Just wondering what flights would have the worst carbon footprint per passenger. I understand that flight loads will vary by day or by year, but are any flights chronically empty with very low load factors or a low number of seats compared to what it can handle? I don't meant repositioning flights but per revenue flight.

I personally feel:

BA 787 flights. Very low density. Some very long routes.
BA A318. Very low density. Long route. CAT1 at LCY - relatively high G/A rate.
QF 787 PER-LON. Low density. Very long. Lots of fuel burned simply to carry fuel.
QF A380 LAX-JFK. Massive aircraft. Low loads. Very inefficient.
AA A321 Transcons. Seating just over 100 (120 less than maximum), long flight.
EC/La Compagnie NYC-PAR. Low density. Long flight. Relatively fuel inefficient.
Heathrow slot sitters. Not sure if they still exist but they were terrible.
Great Lakes 9 seater B1900s. Seating half the amount that they can.
WOW West Coast A333 flights. Great idea. High density. But chronically low loads from what I've heard.

Can anyone think of others.


"Bad" relative to what?

For example, the Great Lakes Beech 1900s rarely carried more than 9 passengers anyway; that's part of their financial problems.

Or the BA A318s - if this service didn't exist, would one of the options be an increased use of corporate jets? Would that be better or worse?

What's your "pet theory" solution? No flights until the aircraft is full at some government mandated seating configuration?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
zackapan
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2011 5:25 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:51 pm

Think this got alittle off topic but if intrested in shipping in terms of pollution read this http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/environme ... ution.aspx it gives alittle insight in to what is being done in terms of pollution (i can tell you from experience it makes my job so much harder) as for planes i was always told (may have read somewhere) that the lighter the aircraft the less fuel burn as the engines have to work less to maintain height, hence why the 787 is made from the materials it is.
 
TheOldDude
Posts: 152
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 8:02 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 4:55 pm

Interesting that in a forum about aviation we denigrate posters because of their political beliefs, and news organizations because of perceived political bias.

A bigot is "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance". Let's not demonstrate that we are bigots by name calling and denigrating others.
 
robsaw
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:14 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:14 pm

TheOldDude wrote:
Interesting that in a forum about aviation we denigrate posters because of their political beliefs, and news organizations because of perceived political bias.

A bigot is "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance". Let's not demonstrate that we are bigots by name calling and denigrating others.


So, let's stick to the facts about carbon emissions then.

The highest carbon emitters are going to be on the oldest aircraft, with the least efficient engines, that use the most fuel per passenger and typically fly the shortest routes (because proportionately more fuel is burned during inefficient taxi and during climb-out portions of the overall journey).

As for ships vs planes, as both burn relatively similar fossil fuels the carbon emissions are relatively similar per tonne of fuel burned. What differs is other emissions due to the type of fuel and how it is burned, such as soot, nitrous oxides and sulfur. Ships obviously have a greater impact on the low-level atmosphere and are notably significant contributors to airborne pollution in harbor cities. What I don't know precisely is how harbours compare to airports in terms of emissions.
 
incitatus
Posts: 3380
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:45 pm

sevenair wrote:
Just wondering what flights would have the worst carbon footprint per passenger. I understand that flight loads will vary by day or by year, but are any flights chronically empty with very low load factors or a low number of seats compared to what it can handle? I don't meant repositioning flights but per revenue flight.

I personally feel:

(...)


I do not agree with the wording of the thread and it seems simply a tirade against premium cabins.

Ultimately the majority of people traveling in premium cabins are doing so for work reasons. Their companies determined that the ability to sleep and relax en-route is worth the price compared to time to recover from a long trip. Often times their companies are paying more per square foot of space in the plane than people flying coach. So one could say this "Hall of Shame" enablers are subsidizing those backpackers that bought the rock-bottom seats in coach.

The mass of unwashed can fight with those business class travelers that can afford Dove soap bars all day long. Wall Street bankers will be savoring beluga caviar with Russo-Baltique vodka while watching the fight broadcast via satellite from the comfort of their airborne Gulfstream 650s. Wink. Wink.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
SonaSounds
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:59 pm

sevenair wrote:
WOW West Coast A333 flights. Great idea. High density. But chronically low loads from what I've heard.

Can anyone think of others.


Well the first 6 months in operation at SFO (June16 thru Nov16) they have averaged an 89% LF across 340 seats......wouldn't call that low loads at all
 
User avatar
ptharris
Posts: 265
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:58 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:07 pm

b747400erf wrote:
steman wrote:
jomur wrote:
Any cruise ship or basically any shipping... Shipping is a far bigger problem than aviation when it comes to pollution and emissions.


How so? One vessel can carry many times over the amount of cargo than even the biggest air freighter can carry.
I don´t know the numbers but I doubt that a container ship burns more fuel than the total number of cargo planes needed to carry the same amount of freight.


Cruise ships, you are not travelling to get to a destination, you are going around on a vacation and back to the port you started.


Yup. Just putt-putting around in the tropical waters somewhere. Or better yet, putt-putting around the Arctic. Like Bruce Willis said in Armageddon "You know how much that clunker burns in fuel an hour?" (or something to that effect)
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you.
 
eaa3
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:17 pm

SonaSounds wrote:
sevenair wrote:
WOW West Coast A333 flights. Great idea. High density. But chronically low loads from what I've heard.

Can anyone think of others.


Well the first 6 months in operation at SFO (June16 thru Nov16) they have averaged an 89% LF across 340 seats......wouldn't call that low loads at all


With an average of just over 300 (given a load factor of 89%) passengers on an A330-300, that's bound to be one of the most efficient flights in the world. Compare that with a 217 passenger A330-300 from Lufthansa with an average load factor of 75% (their current system wide load factor) and you'll get about 162 passengers. That means that the WOW flight is about twice as efficient.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1777
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:18 pm

b747400erf wrote:
airzona11 wrote:
Leo Dicaprio's recent 8000mile private jet flights to pick up awards, when telling us all the dangers of too much carbon emission.


Most of their trips are to give publicity to a campaign they are supporting at the time, and it gives them a quick travel option there and back. Many wealthy travellers spend money on green carbon credits to offset the travel they do. The speeches on behalf of campaigns does more good to offset any carbons from their private jet many times over. This comment section is sounding a lot like Fox News.


Not sure what the Fox News has to do with it. The question is basically what is the least efficient flights you can think of, and I gave a factual answer (Leo spoke about Climate change during that trip). I am sorry you chose to look over that.

Back to the post. The Concordes were efficient from a time aspect, but on the gallons per person per mile, not the best.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3628
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 6:28 pm

robsaw wrote:
TheOldDude wrote:
Interesting that in a forum about aviation we denigrate posters because of their political beliefs, and news organizations because of perceived political bias.

A bigot is "one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance". Let's not demonstrate that we are bigots by name calling and denigrating others.


So, let's stick to the facts about carbon emissions then.

The highest carbon emitters are going to be on the oldest aircraft, with the least efficient engines, that use the most fuel per passenger and typically fly the shortest routes (because proportionately more fuel is burned during inefficient taxi and during climb-out portions of the overall journey).

As for ships vs planes, as both burn relatively similar fossil fuels the carbon emissions are relatively similar per tonne of fuel burned. What differs is other emissions due to the type of fuel and how it is burned, such as soot, nitrous oxides and sulfur. Ships obviously have a greater impact on the low-level atmosphere and are notably significant contributors to airborne pollution in harbor cities. What I don't know precisely is how harbours compare to airports in terms of emissions.


So for years AA & Delta were the biggest carbon emitters & Delta will continue that award.
 
SonaSounds
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:03 pm

eaa3 wrote:
SonaSounds wrote:
sevenair wrote:
WOW West Coast A333 flights. Great idea. High density. But chronically low loads from what I've heard.

Can anyone think of others.


Well the first 6 months in operation at SFO (June16 thru Nov16) they have averaged an 89% LF across 340 seats......wouldn't call that low loads at all


With an average of just over 300 (given a load factor of 89%) passengers on an A330-300, that's bound to be one of the most efficient flights in the world. Compare that with a 217 passenger A330-300 from Lufthansa with an average load factor of 75% (their current system wide load factor) and you'll get about 162 passengers. That means that the WOW flight is about twice as efficient.


Exactly, don't know where OP is getting his statistics from to say those flights are doing bad. WOWair is going from 5x weekly to daily at SFO starting this summer. They averaged 94%, 94%, and 97% LF across June, July, and August respectively this past summer. Even with an 80% LF for November this flight is doing extremely well. LCC move lots of people in one aircraft more efficiently than most of the legacy carriers.
 
sevenair
Topic Author
Posts: 2959
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2001 7:18 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:31 pm

incitatus wrote:
sevenair wrote:
Just wondering what flights would have the worst carbon footprint per passenger. I understand that flight loads will vary by day or by year, but are any flights chronically empty with very low load factors or a low number of seats compared to what it can handle? I don't meant repositioning flights but per revenue flight.

I personally feel:

(...)


I do not agree with the wording of the thread and it seems simply a tirade against premium cabins.

Ultimately the majority of people traveling in premium cabins are doing so for work reasons. Their companies determined that the ability to sleep and relax en-route is worth the price compared to time to recover from a long trip. Often times their companies are paying more per square foot of space in the plane than people flying coach. So one could say this "Hall of Shame" enablers are subsidizing those backpackers that bought the rock-bottom seats in coach.

The mass of unwashed can fight with those business class travelers that can afford Dove soap bars all day long. Wall Street bankers will be savoring beluga caviar with Russo-Baltique vodka while watching the fight broadcast via satellite from the comfort of their airborne Gulfstream 650s. Wink. Wink.


You refer to economy class passengers as 'unwashed' and accuse me of launching a tirade on Premium cabins. Oh how I've missed a.net.

Ok so I made an error on the WOW air flights. It seems that they're actually quite efficient, especially given the high density A321 flights they offer. Here is an example. This, coupled with persistent low fares made me put two and two together. I made an error. I hope the community can forgive me.
https://youtu.be/xNbYDNgp5CI
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8348
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:48 pm

Any route which gets frequency over capacity for the convenience of making connections. Say a market that has 1--15 smaller, partially full flights a day instead of 3a day with a larger type. that are more full.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
Theseus
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:46 pm

I am interested in aeronautics, like to travel by air, but am also very concerned about environment in general and carbon emission in particular (so I am very willing to adapt my behavior to mitigate the consequences of my travels), so I consider the topic of this thread very seriously.

However, I have to say that this thread seems quite "fact-free" so far, with many comparisons without any hard number, or even a definition of a measure of comparison (not sure how to compare J-only flights, ULR flights, long flights with supposedly low load factor...). It is not easy to make a general measure, so maybe more progress can be made on more specific questions, like a comparison between long haul point-to-point, and the same flight with a stop (though most likely a slightly longer distance, unless the stop point is right on the normal route), or a comparison between a transcon flight on a narrow-body and the same on a wide-body, on a per passenger basis...
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 1248
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:02 pm

jomur wrote:
Any cruise ship or basically any shipping... Shipping is a far bigger problem than aviation when it comes to pollution and emissions.


The OP asked about carbon emissions.

The carbon emissions from shipping on a per-ton-mile of freight basis are far lower than aircraft.

Leisure cruising is a very different market that is hard to compare for many reasons. However, it does start with a very notable difference in mass allocation - a moderately large cruise ship today may carry 5 times as many passengers as an A380, but weigh (displacement vs. MTOW) about 150 times as much.

The concern raised with marine shipping is the relatively limited (in some countries non-existant) pollution controls, especially sulfur dioxides. This is in the process of changing in the US and Europe due to new regulations enacted over the last decade or so.

b747400erf wrote:
How can you be a pilot and be a science denier? Do you believe your aircraft is getting in the air through magic?


Disclaimer: the following is not a commentary on climate change. It is about why the above quote fails at its intended purpose of convincing others of the poster's position on climate change.

Science is not a matter of universal and automatic acceptance of every conclusion arrived at scientifically.

To do so would actually be anti-scientific, and often fallacious, as scientific methods are often applied and interpreted imperfectly, resulting in flawed conclusions. As a result, effective science relies heavily on critical review by others and repeatability, and those outside of the field of study depend on effective communication of the results and understanding of why confidence may or may not be held in them.

Understanding the scientific principals underlying lift, gravity, drag, and thrust is radically different from understanding the principles behind planetary heat transfer and energy balance.

It is not at all inconsistent for somebody to understand the physics of flight but know very little about thermodynamics.

The sooner you recognize that, the more likely you are to respond with reasoned appeals to the research of others that stands some chance of actually being convincing, instead of resorting to insults that pretty much guarantee you will be ignored.
 
eaa3
Posts: 953
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:49 am

Re: Carbon Emission Hall of Shame

Tue Jan 24, 2017 11:21 pm

sevenair wrote:
incitatus wrote:
sevenair wrote:
Just wondering what flights would have the worst carbon footprint per passenger. I understand that flight loads will vary by day or by year, but are any flights chronically empty with very low load factors or a low number of seats compared to what it can handle? I don't meant repositioning flights but per revenue flight.

I personally feel:

(...)


I do not agree with the wording of the thread and it seems simply a tirade against premium cabins.

Ultimately the majority of people traveling in premium cabins are doing so for work reasons. Their companies determined that the ability to sleep and relax en-route is worth the price compared to time to recover from a long trip. Often times their companies are paying more per square foot of space in the plane than people flying coach. So one could say this "Hall of Shame" enablers are subsidizing those backpackers that bought the rock-bottom seats in coach.

The mass of unwashed can fight with those business class travelers that can afford Dove soap bars all day long. Wall Street bankers will be savoring beluga caviar with Russo-Baltique vodka while watching the fight broadcast via satellite from the comfort of their airborne Gulfstream 650s. Wink. Wink.


You refer to economy class passengers as 'unwashed' and accuse me of launching a tirade on Premium cabins. Oh how I've missed a.net.

Ok so I made an error on the WOW air flights. It seems that they're actually quite efficient, especially given the high density A321 flights they offer. Here is an example. This, coupled with persistent low fares made me put two and two together. I made an error. I hope the community can forgive me.
https://youtu.be/xNbYDNgp5CI



You're forgiven ;)

Btw. I looked at that video, and I think it might be slightly deceptive. The front of the cabin of one of their A330's is exclusively extra leg room seats. They tend to fill those only with people that pay for extra leg room unless the load is high enough that they need the seats. I think what might have happened is that there weren't too many that paid for the extra leg room and therefore his part of the cabin was pretty empty. That plane could still have had 70% load factor.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:24 am

There was a topic on the climate change in aviation discussion almost exactly a year ago. It may contain some info pertinent to this discussion viewtopic.php?f=3&t=602455

Please keep in mind that this discussion is on the carbon footprint of specific routes or aircraft, not the relative merits of the climate change debate. Many users have posted their own viewpoints on the evidence or lack thereof in this debate, and that's not what this thread exists for. Please carry that discussion over to Non Av for those wishing to engage in those debates, because this thread isn't the place. Please try to keep things on topic and aviation related in this thread.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:27 am

Not sure what cruise ships have to do with anything when the OP asked which flights have the most carbon footprint per passenger. But I believe the flights he listed would be near the bottom of the list.

Some of the worst:
Canadian North & Peruvian B737-200 flights
Iran Air A300 flights
Air Transat and Iran Air A310 flights
Iran Aseman B727-200 flights
Kabo Air 747-200 flights
United States Air Force VC-25 flights
 
User avatar
precure787
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:19 pm

I flew ANA 787 from San Jose to Narita, and it carries fewer passengers (169 total: 46 first, 21 business, 102 economy) compared to Southwest's 737-800 (175 total). Given that, airlines have a tendency to increase the number of seats in a smaller aircraft to reduce carbon emissions per passenger. For example, Spirit Airlines carries more than 200 passengers in their A321s, while United carries up to 364 passengers (28 Polaris, 102 Economy Plus, 234 Economy) in their domestic non-ER 777-200, which is lower than that of the 747-400. This also prompted many 777 operators to use the 3-4-3 layout in the economy class as well.
Edward Zen/Precure 787
 
User avatar
precure787
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: Flights with Potentially High Carbon Emissions

Mon Jan 30, 2017 4:23 pm

IPFreely wrote:
Not sure what cruise ships have to do with anything when the OP asked which flights have the most carbon footprint per passenger. But I believe the flights he listed would be near the bottom of the list.

Some of the worst:
Canadian North & Peruvian B737-200 flights
Iran Air A300 flights
Air Transat and Iran Air A310 flights
Iran Aseman B727-200 flights
Kabo Air 747-200 flights
United States Air Force VC-25 flights


Most private jets have the higher carbon emissions per capita. Same thing with Trump's 757 (which Donald Trump used to fly in prior to his presidency)
Edward Zen/Precure 787

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PatrickZ80 and 17 guests

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