Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
SRQLOT wrote:Based on distance and time wouldn’t it be more then $51?
SRQLOT wrote:Now this article just focuses on carbon emissions as it’s a hot thing right now, but how much more money does actually cost to fly this much fuel????!!!!
Based on distance and time wouldn’t it be more then $51?
peterinlisbon wrote:They could reduce tankering by making the price of fuel cheaper.
TripleDelta wrote:SRQLOT wrote:Based on distance and time wouldn’t it be more then $51?
That's $51 after you tally the extra consumption due to the increased weight. You fly from A to B with extra fuel, return back from B to A - and when you land, you have 51 extra dollars "in pocket".
SRQLOT wrote:I have not heard of this term before for commercial airlines, but of course knew it has been a common practice for a while now to save money.
SRQLOT wrote:Ah ok thank you, I guess I read the article too fast, but rereading it doesn’t explain that the savings are after all the costs of carrying the extra fuel, especially to explain to non aviation crowd.
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:I hope they are also calculating the stress to the airplane of landing heavy. Not overweight, of course, but I'd love to know how they calculate "wear and tear" per flight.
TripleDelta wrote:SRQLOT wrote:I have not heard of this term before for commercial airlines, but of course knew it has been a common practice for a while now to save money.
As an aside, direct savings are not the only point of tankering. In short haul and regional ops, for example, not needed to refuel at the destination can shave 5-10 minutes off your ground time - very useful if you're expecting delays (slots) or are already running late.
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:I hope they are also calculating the stress to the airplane of landing heavy. Not overweight, of course, but I'd love to know how they calculate "wear and tear" per flight.
SRQLOT wrote:If yes maybe airlines should have calculations made if flying more fuel is actually the answer to saving money if it’s minimal cost difference at another airport.
PSAatSAN4Ever wrote:I hope they are also calculating the stress to the airplane of landing heavy. Not overweight, of course, but I'd love to know how they calculate "wear and tear" per flight.
TripleDelta wrote:SRQLOT wrote:Ah ok thank you, I guess I read the article too fast, but rereading it doesn’t explain that the savings are after all the costs of carrying the extra fuel, especially to explain to non aviation crowd.
Likely because the author doesn't understand it him/herself, and merely jumped on the very fashionable "eco/bash airlines" bandwagon.
TUGMASTER wrote:It’s also the reason SQ gave up with the A340-500 non stop US flight.... they had to tanker so much fuel, just to run the ship
peterinlisbon wrote:They could reduce tankering by making the price of fuel cheaper. I don't support any of this so-called journalism. This is just an attempt to manipulate public perception so that when they impose another massive tax on aviation, people won't complain too much. If governments cared about the environment they wouldn't be flying around in their own personal 747s.
ltbewr wrote:Tankering fuel has to be carefully done. For example, if have a 1st stage flight that usually has a full load of pax, their bags and cargo, you may be pushing limits of take off max weights so tankering can't be done. Recall as to a business jet in February, 2005 that crashed with no fatalities just off the end of the runway at NJ's Teterboro (TEB) airport. It had a full load of pax, their freight and tankered fuel as cheaper at TEB than at the airport based at (in Florida) or its destination.
You may have airports with frequent delays so may have to carry more fuel to cover. If making a series of short hops, then not needing to refuel saves time and as is said, time is money. Some airports may have more efficient fueling systems that may mean less need to tanker. Operations out of high/hot airports may mean not tankering so not to limit pax/bags/cargo load.
Dalmd88 wrote:Say the flight operates every day. At the end of the year that is $18651. Airlines make money by paying attention to little gains spread across a lot of flights.
frmrCapCadet wrote:It would be interesting is someone could come up with real world figures, even if only for a few hypothetical flights.
ps res Hawaii, given that much of the world's oil is transported by ships why would Hawaii have more expensive oil (if they do)?
MKIAZ wrote:Would probably need to be in the hundreds to justify it.
VolvoBus wrote:frmrCapCadet wrote:It would be interesting is someone could come up with real world figures, even if only for a few hypothetical flights.
ps res Hawaii, given that much of the world's oil is transported by ships why would Hawaii have more expensive oil (if they do)?
Most of what is shipped is what comes out of the ground. Most of what is burned by way of aviation or road for example is refined. What sort of refinery capacity do the islands have ?
TUGMASTER wrote:It’s also the reason SQ gave up with the A340-500 non stop US flight.... they had to tanker so much fuel, just to run the ship
MKIAZ wrote:And what happens when one day there is a medical emergency or MX issue just after takeoff requiring a return to origin and dumping fuel?
LH707330 wrote:Taxing excess leftover fuel might create perverse incentives, say in a place where trucking the fuel in costs a lot of CO2.
AirKevin wrote:LH707330 wrote:Taxing excess leftover fuel might create perverse incentives, say in a place where trucking the fuel in costs a lot of CO2.
So new question. How would whoever is charging this proposed tax know what the amount of excess fuel actually is. You certainly wouldn't be landing with almost no fuel on a regular basis when you take into consideration reserve fuel requirements.
How many public transport vehicles be it a taxi, ferry, train, bus, or a private vehicle only carries the fuel required for a single journey ? Why are airlines considered to be the villain here.
backseatdriver wrote:How many public transport vehicles be it a taxi, ferry, train, bus, or a private vehicle only carries the fuel required for a single journey ? Why are airlines considered to be the villain here.
Good to see whataboutism as an argument to do nothing is alive and well here.
As one of the great polluters in the world, I'm pleased that airline management executives are even looking at this from a standpoint of sustainability and environmental impact. There are operational challenges to any system changes, but perhaps there is a better way of doing things and they should study that. The article sites incremental cost savings as a result of tankering, but what's to be said about the incremental benefits of change that can provide benefit to our environment?
Babyshark wrote:The article is not well thought out because it makes the assumption that man made global warming
Babyshark wrote:The article is not well thought out because it makes the assumption that man made global warming or man made climate change is real and pins it on the airlines.
I mean it's a real religion but it's not a real thing.