Cost of “fuel tankering”?

blockski · Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:28 pm

zeke wrote:
Not a very well thought out article.

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.

So, how much does that same practice increase the carbon emissions of those modes? Nobody's suggesting a standard that any vehicle should carry on the fuel required for a single journey. Instead, given the need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, this seems like a perfectly good place to start.

The airlines are considered the villain here because they're emitting tons more carbon than is necessary - and doing so simply to save a few bucks.

11C · Tue Nov 12, 2019 4:56 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
This thread started as the 'cost of tankering', but has now morphed into the carbon emitted by flying around with extra fuel.

Meanwhile there is another active thread about LHR. If you have a post 6am arrival slot they will not let you land before the 6am curfew. How is it ok to make a plane circle for 30-45 min because favorable winds make them too early? What is more important noise or the pollution this extra flying creates?

Carbon emissions are a “cost.” Thinking of environmental destruction as “free” is what got us to this point. Everything has a cost, and we must weigh the cost and then make an informed decision about whether the benefit is worth the cost.

BravoOne · Tue Nov 12, 2019 6:34 pm

Maybe this was the source of the original discussion?

https://www.eurocontrol.int/publication ... tal-impact

RetiredWeasel · Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:08 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
Meanwhile there is another active thread about LHR. If you have a post 6am arrival slot they will not let you land before the 6am curfew. How is it ok to make a plane circle for 30-45 min because favorable winds make them too early? What is more important noise or the pollution this extra flying creates?

Upper level winds both realtime and forecast in today's modern world are pretty damn accurate. Based on the flight plan, no airline is going to release an aircraft that gets to the destination 30 minutes prior to the curfew and then have to hold and burn fuel. That's why the flight plan may give a "wheels up no earlier than XXXXZ". Yes, there are exceptions but they're not that common.

WPvsMW · Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:17 am

frmrCapCadet wrote:
ps re[:] Hawaii, given that much of the world's oil is transported by ships why would Hawaii have more expensive oil (if they do)?

Hawaii used to have two refineries... now there is one. Most of the crude refined at that refinery comes from Indonesia. Oahu fuel is cheap compared to Neighbor Island fuel... reflected in higher pax fares on mainland/OGG.KOA.LIH.ITO routes, and why most of WN flights back to CONUS depart from HNL (IIRC, OGG has some WN nonstops back to CONUS, but not KOA).

hitower3 · Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:33 pm

Dear all,

Let me try to get back to the original question and put some numbers on it.
I will use the simplified formula "Hourly consumption equals 4% of actual aircraft weight" mentioned earlier, which should apply to A320ceo / B738 category aircraft. I heard a figure of 2,6% for the A350, too.

Based on this simplified formula, the price difference between departure airport and arrival airport must be greater than 4% (2,6%) per hour of flight in order to justify tankering.

Of course, the tankered quantity of fuel is limited by:
- The MTOW of the aircraft at departure airport
- The MLW at destination airport
- The quantity of fuel required for the return leg

Best regards,
Hendric

11C · Wed Nov 13, 2019 3:14 pm

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.

It’s weird how science has been correct so many times, but they just can’t get this one right, or did they?

stxbohn · Wed Nov 13, 2019 6:50 pm

WPvsMW wrote:
frmrCapCadet wrote:
ps re[:] Hawaii, given that much of the world's oil is transported by ships why would Hawaii have more expensive oil (if they do)?

Hawaii used to have two refineries... now there is one. Most of the crude refined at that refinery comes from Indonesia. Oahu fuel is cheap compared to Neighbor Island fuel... reflected in higher pax fares on mainland/OGG.KOA.LIH.ITO routes, and why most of WN flights back to CONUS depart from HNL (IIRC, OGG has some WN nonstops back to CONUS, but not KOA).

My wheelhouse - WPvsMW is right basis the crude oil source for the remaining 95 kbd of refining capacity on Oahu - it doesn't come out of the ground around Hawaii and costs to ship it there. The PAR Refinery roughly makes 10,000 bbl/420,000 gal of jet fuel a day which probably doesn't cover the entire demand of the islands. It's also not the most complex or efficient refinery in the world so that the cost of production is higher. Jet refined on Oahu then has to be barged to the other islands - added logistics, added expense. I know I've seen clean oil tankers bring in supplemental jet, gasoline and diesel to the islands. This is not cheap to do and it will not come from California/Mainland US due to the Jones Act (requires US Flagged shipping costing at least 3x foreign flagged freight). This island cost vs. a plane coming from a major airport in California/Oregon/Washington which would mostly have a pipeline from one of the west coast refineries - tankering some amount of the return legs to the mainland absolutely seems like it could pay off. Would love to see some of those economics and what percentage of return fuel on all flights originated "not from Hawaii".

WPvsMW · Thu Nov 14, 2019 3:33 am

Informative post, stxbohn! I wasn't sure about the volume of refined products being imported. IIRC, for big naval exercises based at Pearl, fuel is tankered in since the Red Hill tanks are dry. Surface fleet turbines burn jet A just fine.

Sokes · Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:13 am

Dalmd88 wrote:
This thread started as the 'cost of tankering', but has now morphed into the carbon emitted by flying around with extra fuel.

Meanwhile there is another active thread about LHR. If you have a post 6am arrival slot they will not let you land before the 6am curfew. How is it ok to make a plane circle for 30-45 min because favorable winds make them too early? What is more important noise or the pollution this extra flying creates?

Don't captains know about wind beforehand?

Starlionblue · Fri Nov 15, 2019 12:34 am

Sokes wrote:
Dalmd88 wrote:
This thread started as the 'cost of tankering', but has now morphed into the carbon emitted by flying around with extra fuel.

Meanwhile there is another active thread about LHR. If you have a post 6am arrival slot they will not let you land before the 6am curfew. How is it ok to make a plane circle for 30-45 min because favorable winds make them too early? What is more important noise or the pollution this extra flying creates?

Don't captains know about wind beforehand?

Yes they do. And so do First Officers. And flight planners.

It isn't a perfect science, however. On any given flight, you might be forced to a higher or lower level than planned, get shortcuts, have to deviate around weather, and so on. The longer the flight, the more possible variation.

There might also be a curfew at the departure forcing an earlier than desired takeoff time.

Lrockeagle · Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:17 am

11C wrote:
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.

It’s weird how science has been correct so many times, but they just can’t get this one right, or did they?

You mention how many times they got something right but not how many times they got things wrong? Interesting. I’m not getting into the climate money grab stuff but your argument is hella flawed

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 15, 2019 9:39 am

Lrockeagle wrote:
11C wrote:
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.

It’s weird how science has been correct so many times, but they just can’t get this one right, or did they?

You mention how many times they got something right but not how many times they got things wrong? Interesting. I’m not getting into the climate money grab stuff but your argument is hella flawed

Please, humor us and give examples of how many times, since we have modern science, science had consistently been chasing the wrong answer for decades. There are exactly zero cases, so your argument is a straw-man from the get go. We do by now have decades worth of predictions from Scientists and Climate Change deniers, and Science has been consistently right*, while the deniers predictions having been consistently wrong.
Its good that nation states are starting to sue companies for damages, the Oil industry has known about the dangers for decades (Exxon correctly predicted it in 1980) and did not just chose to do nothing, but to pour billions into spreading misinformation. Thy will ultimately pay for it the same way the Tobacco industry did, only with a bill an order of magnitude or so higher.

Fuel tankering should be made illegal asap, with something fine a 70 ~ 80 USD fine attached to each ton.

Gruß
Thomas

*and by that i mean conservatively the data is often at the upper end of predictions,

kalvado · Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:15 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
[
Please, humor us and give examples of how many times, since we have modern science, science had consistently been chasing the wrong answer for decades. There are exactly zero cases, so your argument is a straw-man from the get go. We do by now have decades worth of predictions from Scientists and Climate Change deniers, and Science has been consistently right*, while the deniers predictions having been consistently wrong. ,

Climate science alone had 2 major-major predictions which turned out to be wrong. According to accepted scientific methodology, this means existing theories had to be abandoned. Depending on what is the definition of "science" you're using, of course.
First one - consequencies of fires during first Iraq campaign. Tambora-style effects were predicted; nothing actually happened.
Second one, quite infamous, was hockey stick.
There are quite a few examples where violating methodology principles for commercial reasons results in serious consequences. And that is where the main weakness is..

CosmicCruiser · Fri Nov 15, 2019 1:58 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
This thread started as the 'cost of tankering', but has now morphed into the carbon emitted by flying around with extra fuel.

Meanwhile there is another active thread about LHR. If you have a post 6am arrival slot they will not let you land before the 6am curfew. How is it ok to make a plane circle for 30-45 min because favorable winds make them too early? What is more important noise or the pollution this extra flying creates?

so true, I remember an airport in Calif. (Long Beach I think) that had an early morning curfew like that. We would start adjusting our speed when we got close and then keep asking the tower to say the time all the way down final until he said "0600". Once we had to go around by cutting it too close and we're in a 727! Yeah the go around was louder than us landing!!

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Nov 15, 2019 2:37 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Lrockeagle wrote:
11C wrote:

It’s weird how science has been correct so many times, but they just can’t get this one right, or did they?

You mention how many times they got something right but not how many times they got things wrong? Interesting. I’m not getting into the climate money grab stuff but your argument is hella flawed

Please, humor us and give examples of how many times, since we have modern science, science had consistently been chasing the wrong answer for decades. There are exactly zero cases, so your argument is a straw-man from the get go. We do by now have decades worth of predictions from Scientists and Climate Change deniers, and Science has been consistently right*, while the deniers predictions having been consistently wrong.
Its good that nation states are starting to sue companies for damages, the Oil industry has known about the dangers for decades (Exxon correctly predicted it in 1980) and did not just chose to do nothing, but to pour billions into spreading misinformation. Thy will ultimately pay for it the same way the Tobacco industry did, only with a bill an order of magnitude or so higher.

Fuel tankering should be made illegal asap, with something fine a 70 ~ 80 USD fine attached to each ton.

Gruß
Thomas

*and by that i mean conservatively the data is often at the upper end of predictions,

I presume you then board the exact amount of gas or diesel in your vehicle for each trip plus a small reserve. If electric, charge to the charge level needed. If you don’t you’re as much of a problem as the airlines and similar effects.

Outlawing tankering would be impossible to monitor or enforce, sets a bad standard with potentially bad outcomes.

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:13 pm

kalvado wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
[
Please, humor us and give examples of how many times, since we have modern science, science had consistently been chasing the wrong answer for decades. There are exactly zero cases, so your argument is a straw-man from the get go. We do by now have decades worth of predictions from Scientists and Climate Change deniers, and Science has been consistently right*, while the deniers predictions having been consistently wrong. ,

Climate science alone had 2 major-major predictions which turned out to be wrong.

Actually they haven't.

According to accepted scientific methodology, this means existing theories had to be abandoned.

Correct, but no theory has been proven wrong*, but those models that didn't yield predictions in line with reality where discarded, hence the scientific method was followed. Since we can use past weather data to check if models can predict the development until today correctly, those models have gotten really good.

First one - consequencies of fires during first Iraq campaign. Tambora-style effects were predicted; nothing actually happened.

Aside of that, while being a subset of man made climate change, this not having anything to do with the climate change challenges we have today and are talking about, the model has not been proven wrong, as it hasn't been tested. The model was based in the assumption that putting out all those fires would take years, because with the methods known at the time it would have. With suddenly lots of oil well fired to put out, fire fighting technology went into overdrive and those fires where put out much, much quicker.
As far as CO2 was concerned those fires where irrelevant, they emitted less than 2 weeks worth of CO2 in the seven month until the last fire put out, but modelled the effects of the particulate matter in the atmosphere. While it predicted correctly what effect all the stuff would have on climate, temperatures dropped by ~6°C in the area, it failed to correctly model how the soot would move in the atmosphere. One of the major promoters of that hypothesis, Carl Sagen, later wrote in one of his books how and why they got it wrong. So much for not following the scientific method.

Second one, quite infamous, was hockey stick.

Infamous in deed, and quite entertaining these days. Fun fact: the Mann et al. "Hockey Stick" Paper has shown itself to be correct within its stated margin of error ..... 13 years ago. And yet, here you are, still paddling it....

There are quite a few examples where violating methodology principles for commercial reasons results in serious consequences. .

Yup, those made by climate change denying lobby organisations frequently do.

Best regards
Thomas

*well, those of the deniers have failed colossally

tommy1808 · Fri Nov 15, 2019 3:20 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Lrockeagle wrote:
You mention how many times they got something right but not how many times they got things wrong? Interesting. I’m not getting into the climate money grab stuff but your argument is hella flawed

Please, humor us and give examples of how many times, since we have modern science, science had consistently been chasing the wrong answer for decades. There are exactly zero cases, so your argument is a straw-man from the get go. We do by now have decades worth of predictions from Scientists and Climate Change deniers, and Science has been consistently right*, while the deniers predictions having been consistently wrong.
Its good that nation states are starting to sue companies for damages, the Oil industry has known about the dangers for decades (Exxon correctly predicted it in 1980) and did not just chose to do nothing, but to pour billions into spreading misinformation. Thy will ultimately pay for it the same way the Tobacco industry did, only with a bill an order of magnitude or so higher.

Fuel tankering should be made illegal asap, with something fine a 70 ~ 80 USD fine attached to each ton.

Gruß
Thomas

*and by that i mean conservatively the data is often at the upper end of predictions,

I presume you then board the exact amount of gas or diesel in your vehicle for each trip plus a small reserve. If electric, charge to the charge level needed. If you don’t you’re as much of a problem as the airlines and similar effects.

If your car uses 40ml of gasoline per litre in the tank I would recommend a new car. On top of that, different from an airliner, I need to optimise fuel carried vs. fuel burn vs. extra distance to fill up*. Also I already voluntarily pay that charge on my gas (well, for the car my employer does), my heating gas and my flying. So I am not expecting anything I am not willing to pay for.

Outlawing tankering would be impossible to monitor or enforce, sets a bad standard with potentially bad outcomes.

You are right. Better to put those 80$ on each ton upon import.

Best regards
Thomas

*I do really not pass a single filling station on my regular trips other than weekly shopping trips.

GalaxyFlyer · Fri Nov 15, 2019 7:03 pm

Som you’d put an incentive to reduce fuel uplifts (reserves) to avoid the tax? Bad incentives there. I wouldn’t pretend to argue the climate science. I just look around and see how much petroleum is embedded in modern life—it ain’t changing unless everyone willingly reduces drastically their standard of living.

In 2018, the US used 7.5 billion barrels of oil, see the difficulty in replacing that energy with non-polluting means anytime soon? That’s 1.275E12 kilowatts of energy.

GF

blockski · Sat Nov 16, 2019 12:40 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Som you’d put an incentive to reduce fuel uplifts (reserves) to avoid the tax? Bad incentives there. I wouldn’t pretend to argue the climate science. I just look around and see how much petroleum is embedded in modern life—it ain’t changing unless everyone willingly reduces drastically their standard of living.

In 2018, the US used 7.5 billion barrels of oil, see the difficulty in replacing that energy with non-polluting means anytime soon? That’s 1.275E12 kilowatts of energy.

GF

Likewise, if we don’t dramatically reduce emissions starting right now, we will be willingly and dramatically reducing our standards of living.

Climate change has serious costs. We’re bearing them right now. It’s only going to get worse.

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Nov 16, 2019 3:38 pm

And nobody, besides a few true believers, acts like that is true. Among voters, climate change is way down the list of concerns. If true believers, the Gore’s for example, don’t act it’s important no one else will.

BA777FO · Sun Nov 17, 2019 6:19 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Fuel tankering should be made illegal asap, with something fine a 70 ~ 80 USD fine attached to each ton.

Gruß
Thomas

I'm curious. Who decides whether I'm tankering or taking increased fuel because my congested destination is also expected to be in LVPs when I arrive? Or there's a forecast of thunderstorms at the destination?

Generally, where tankering occurs it's because fuel uplift/storage is expensive and/or limited. In that case, there may be some Caribbean islands where the fuel is required to be shipped in and may cause more emissions than simply tankering in the first place.

But you won't get anything passed if it's going to impinge on my decision as licence holder what fuel I uplift into my aircraft in order to conduct the flight safely.

tommy1808 · Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:38 am

BA777FO wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Fuel tankering should be made illegal asap, with something fine a 70 ~ 80 USD fine attached to each ton.

Gruß
Thomas

I'm curious. Who decides whether I'm tankering or taking increased fuel because my congested destination is also expected to be in LVPs when I arrive?.

if your flight/fuel planning software has a "add this much fuel to safe on fuel at the destination" and you tank that on top at anything else, you are tankering.
That is not the type of thing that airlines do by gut feeling.

best regards
Thomas

Starlionblue · Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:59 am

BA777FO wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Fuel tankering should be made illegal asap, with something fine a 70 ~ 80 USD fine attached to each ton.

Gruß
Thomas

I'm curious. Who decides whether I'm tankering or taking increased fuel because my congested destination is also expected to be in LVPs when I arrive? Or there's a forecast of thunderstorms at the destination?

Generally, where tankering occurs it's because fuel uplift/storage is expensive and/or limited. In that case, there may be some Caribbean islands where the fuel is required to be shipped in and may cause more emissions than simply tankering in the first place.

But you won't get anything passed if it's going to impinge on my decision as licence holder what fuel I uplift into my aircraft in order to conduct the flight safely.

Two entities decide on any extra fuel beyond the legal minimum.
- The flight planner compiles the flight plan, typically with lots of help from software. This will have fuel number on it based on historical consumption, with additions for possible delays due weather or congestion on the day.
- The PIC can decide to take additional fuel beyond flight plan fuel because he/she feels that it is likely that there will be additional holding or weather deviations compared to what the computer has spat out.

(The PIC also makes a decision whether to take more or less fuel based on the final zero fuel weight, which has typically changed since the flight plan was produced.)

Neither of these additions (by planner or PIC) are "tankering". They are just extra fuel beyond the legal minimum. Tankering by definition has to do with taking fuel with you to avoid purchasing as much at the next stop(s).

blockski · Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:53 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
And nobody, besides a few true believers, acts like that is true. Among voters, climate change is way down the list of concerns. If true believers, the Gore’s for example, don’t act it’s important no one else will.

What does "acts like it is true" mean? You can act however you like, it doesn't change the fact that gravity is true. If you don't believe in gravity, then feel free to jump off a bridge. You'll come face to face with the truth rather quickly.

If what you're saying is that few people are acting as if climate change is a problem, then I'd disagree. I'd also point out that even if folks aren't taking political action to solve the problem, that doesn't mean the problem isn't real.

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:11 pm

Gravity isn’t the same as climate change—climate science is far more complex, subject to judgement calls on very diverse data. Gravity is easily described by simple Newtonian mechanics.

You’re asserting elsewhere we something like 10-12 years before climate change becomes irreversible—the order book for airliners is nearing that long, oil and gas exploration is based on much longer time frames and investment continues; mortgages are 20-30 years in term but banks aren’t refusing to write mortgages fearing the collateral will worthless. Industrial investment time frames aren’t being altered by the likelihood that the investments are going to fail to provide returns. China opens a coal fired power plant monthly or more often. There’s no landslide push for nuclear power which really could address CO2 emissions. Smart money isn’t changing except where massive government intervention is occurring, I’m looking at you, Germany.

blockski · Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:23 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Gravity isn’t the same as climate change—climate science is far more complex, subject to judgement calls on very diverse data. Gravity is easily described by simple Newtonian mechanics.

There's no 'judgment call' on the basics of climate change. It's happening, it's true. There's no question of interpretation. The simple chemistry and basic physics of the greenhouse effect and combustion are not in doubt.

If you want to argue that the impacts of climate change won't be that bad, that's one thing. But if you're going to assert that climate change isn't true, then you might as well be denying the existence of gravity.

You’re asserting elsewhere we something like 10-12 years before climate change becomes irreversible—the order book for airliners is nearing that long, oil and gas exploration is based on much longer time frames and investment continues; mortgages are 20-30 years in term but banks aren’t refusing to write mortgages fearing the collateral will worthless. Industrial investment time frames aren’t being altered by the likelihood that the investments are going to fail to provide returns. China opens a coal fired power plant monthly or more often. There’s no landslide push for nuclear power which really could address CO2 emissions. Smart money isn’t changing except where massive government intervention is occurring, I’m looking at you, Germany.

Yes, climate change is a really challenging problem to solve, precisely because it happens on such long time scales and involves such diffuse responsibility.

However, if you're saying any of this is evidence that climate change isn't true, that's just hogwash.

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Nov 18, 2019 8:33 pm

You might check this and get back to me,

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

I’m fairly certain, mankind will adjust. I’m also fairly certain using threatening, panicked arguments, using climate change as a means of promoting a political agenda of collectivism won’t work. Much of the language used is more reminiscent of medieval church proclamations than science open being being challenged.

I’m humble enough to say I, as a layman, don’t understand it, so I’m not going around making huge claims that disaster awaits us.

prebennorholm · Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:38 am

I have never - NEVER - driven an extra mile to fill cheaper gas. :liar:

BA777FO · Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:54 am

tommy1808 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Fuel tankering should be made illegal asap, with something fine a 70 ~ 80 USD fine attached to each ton.

Gruß
Thomas

I'm curious. Who decides whether I'm tankering or taking increased fuel because my congested destination is also expected to be in LVPs when I arrive?.

if your flight/fuel planning software has a "add this much fuel to safe on fuel at the destination" and you tank that on top at anything else, you are tankering.
That is not the type of thing that airlines do by gut feeling.

best regards
Thomas

When I get my flight plan it'll have the fuel figures broken down into trip fuel, reserve fuel, alternate/diversion fuel, taxi fuel and contingency. I have the discretion and responsibility as licenced crewmember, to ensure that the fuel I decide to uplift ensures the safe conduct of the flight. If my destination is expected to be in LVPs, or thunderstorms all around or a variety of other reasons (I choose a different alternate, expect a different runway to be in use, anything really) then I can and am obliged to uplift the additional fuel I deem to be necessary.

If the company provides me with information that fuel is cheaper at home base than destination (or vice versa) and I uplift additional fuel for the safety reasons above, who is going to determine, in your proposed tax, whether I've uplifted for tankering purposes or for safety reasons?

In India, during monsoon season for example, the nearest suitable diversion from Mumbai might be Chennai rather than the closer Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Delhi etc. So if I take extra fuel to allow 30 minutes holding into Mumbai (not atypical) plus a diversion to Mumbai but end up managing to land without much holding by catching a lucky break in the storms, are you going to claim I've tankered because I've landed with more fuel onboard than if I was genuinely tankering through somewhere like Antigua or St. Lucia?

There are lots of flaws in your proposal and the industry simply won't accept anything that adversely affects safety.

BA777FO · Tue Nov 19, 2019 6:59 am

Starlionblue wrote:
Neither of these additions (by planner or PIC) are "tankering". They are just extra fuel beyond the legal minimum. Tankering by definition has to do with taking fuel with you to avoid purchasing as much at the next stop(s).

My point was how do you (or the organisation responsible for assessing whether I've tankered or noy in order to tax me) determine whether the extra that I've uplifted is for safety reasons or for financial gain? I've uplifted an extra 30 minutes holding fuel and extra for a more distant "bolt hole" diversion airfield but land without a delay, are you going to.tax me on my safety-related decision to uplift more fuel? Who and how is that decided?

tommy1808 · Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:11 am

BA777FO wrote:
If the company provides me with information that fuel is cheaper at home base than destination (or vice versa) and I uplift additional fuel for the safety reasons above, who is going to determine, in your proposed tax, whether I've uplifted for tankering purposes or for safety reasons?.

hence i wrote above that it is better to carbon tax all fuel at the appropriate level.

best regards
Thomas

BA777FO · Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:42 am

tommy1808 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
If the company provides me with information that fuel is cheaper at home base than destination (or vice versa) and I uplift additional fuel for the safety reasons above, who is going to determine, in your proposed tax, whether I've uplifted for tankering purposes or for safety reasons?.

hence i wrote above that it is better to carbon tax all fuel at the appropriate level.

best regards
Thomas

The EU already has an ETS for carbon for European airlines.

But good luck with your quest of getting every ICAO member signing up to that. Also without violating the Chicago Convention too.

tommy1808 · Tue Nov 19, 2019 9:53 am

BA777FO wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
If the company provides me with information that fuel is cheaper at home base than destination (or vice versa) and I uplift additional fuel for the safety reasons above, who is going to determine, in your proposed tax, whether I've uplifted for tankering purposes or for safety reasons?.

hence i wrote above that it is better to carbon tax all fuel at the appropriate level.

best regards
Thomas

The EU already has an ETS for carbon for European airlines.

But good luck with your quest of getting every ICAO member signing up to that. Also without violating the Chicago Convention too.

Remind me, when did the EU sign the Chicago Convention again?

Best regards
Thomas

BA777FO · Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:56 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

hence i wrote above that it is better to carbon tax all fuel at the appropriate level.

best regards
Thomas

The EU already has an ETS for carbon for European airlines.

But good luck with your quest of getting every ICAO member signing up to that. Also without violating the Chicago Convention too.

Remind me, when did the EU sign the Chicago Convention again?

Best regards
Thomas

An ETS is not a direct tax on fuel in the manner that you are advocating.

Thomas45 · Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:41 pm

This is just another money-grab. You always see this kind of thing on the news just before they add another tax

11C · Mon Dec 09, 2019 4:25 pm

Lrockeagle wrote:
11C wrote:
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.

It’s weird how science has been correct so many times, but they just can’t get this one right, or did they?

You mention how many times they got something right but not how many times they got things wrong? Interesting. I’m not getting into the climate money grab stuff but your argument is hella flawed

Not really. Science is the pursuit of fact. Theories are put forth, endlessly tested, and ultimately rejected if they can be falsified. Evolution is a good example of a scientific fact (accepted by the scientific community). Because some dispute evolution based on their personal beliefs has no bearing on evolution’s standing as a fact. It’s like the moon landings, achieved through the application of scientific fact. Some still dispute that they happened. It is always easy to spot the agenda behind climate denial because it is always about money. Oddly, many states, corporations, and other entities are moving forward with the assumption that we are damaging the earth. Believe it or not, there will be lots of money earned by people who put forth the technology to solve this problem, and I’m guessing coal won’t end up as the solution.

zeke · Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:13 pm

Dalmd88 wrote:
How is it ok to make a plane circle for 30-45 min because favorable winds make them too early? What is more important noise or the pollution this extra flying creates?

I sit on the ground with passenger boarded and aircraft zipped up until my flight time (which takes into account favorable winds on the day) plus a fudge for taxi out will allow a landing at the destination. I can understand 5-10 minutes holding as sometimes we get unplanned shortcuts or better conditions, however 45 minutes holding is way too early.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net