Safe Speed Forums

Unfortunately there is another altogether different reason why commercial aircraft can't just lug excess fuel around the skies with them....weight.

Every extra Kilogramme of fuel reduces payload, be it passengers or freight.
Add extra uneccessary weight and you increase fuel consumption; aircraft need to climb to altitude to consume less fuel. Extra weight prolonges the climb time and increases fuel consumption.
Aircraft cannot just land with any old weight on board, they are certified to a maximum all-up landing weight. Exceeding the certified value places excess loads on the aircraft structure, particularly undercarriage

Agreed. But I guess that it would not be possible anyway for long-haul, even if the cost-benefit analysis proved favourable and the planes didn't exceed their rated landing weights.

Short-haul carriers presumably wouldn't have such major problems.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

Whatever the ins and outs and political considerations, it still irks me no end that when I spend £100 on fuel alone to drive my family to a holiday destination within England I am heavily subsidising others who choose to go abroad, nothwithstanding the fact that the fuel I burn will cause considerably less atmospheric "damage" than that used by the airliner.

If they really want to have international climate summits, then never mind all this Kyoto nonsense, why not straighten out some internationally imposed taxation on aviation fuel, commensurate with the typical tax rates for road vehicles.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Strewth! If they did that, the only people who'd be able to afford to fly would be all the government-and-green-lobby-sponsored "climate scientists" who appear to spend their time at dozens of frightfully important conferences in such hell-holes as Acapulco, Hawaii, Buenos Aires...

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

I'm sitting on the fence at the moment, but I have to ask what would be the effects on the prices of goods that come into the country by air? How much imported stuff comes in this way (bearing in mind that we're not the manufactering nation we once were)? If aviation fuel was taxed more heavily would we save money at the pumps by a commensurate reduction in fuel duty or would the stingy bar-stewards take the opportunity to get a bit more in the Chancellor's coffers? Would increases in retail prices of goods air freighted in wipe out that saving for Joe Average anyway?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

That is the point though.

If the tax on road fuel is for environmental reasons, and the punitive level is to discourage use, then a high aviation fuel tax is to discourage use. If the good cost too much because they cost too much to transport, then demand will go down, and less goods will be transported and less CO2 emitted.

How many of the flown products do you actually need?

Strawberries in November from Israel? Avocados in January from South Africa? If anything it will mean that we have to get used to having fruit and veg when in season, and that local farmers can compete.

What else is flown rather than the much cheaper shipped option? Not a lot really. Except all the first class foreign post, such as items purchased from foreign web sites at a much lower cost to that in the UK. And they will just attract a higher shipping cost.

Tax will presumably be paid a point of departure (i.e. filling), so countries with major hubs will earn a fortune.

The big losers, and this is why it will not happen, are the airlines, many of which are already close to bankrupt (in particular US carriers) or are state owned. Which ever way you look at it there will be a lot of lobbying against it, by people with a lot of money, and that is the fundamental difference between aircraft and roads. Airlines have money, and can give politicians little backhanders, while the average road user cannot. Hence the massive hypocrisy of halted road building and high fuel taxes for "environmental" reasons, while airport expansion is official policy.

Aircraft normally do not normally carry fuel that they do not intend to use (beyond the required safety reserve), but on very short trips (e.g. Aberdeen to Shetland) they normally carry enough for the return - not least because it is not unknown for the Shetland Airport to be closed at the last minute due to fog and the plane has to return without landing.

Yes, but that doesn't actually answer the question. I should have been clearer - I'm asking if anyone knows how much in money terms is currently coming in, how much fuel duty might drop and how much aviation fuel might rise if they were put on the same duty etc etc. It might be a good idea, but it might just shift the money we spend around a bit in which case are we actually going to be any better off? We can debate the point endlessly but without getting a clear idea about whether it's going to make the average person better or worse off, or not really make a difference, I'm still on the fence. And it's not comfy up here.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

you'd probably be a bit nervous if you worked in the tourism industry.

I think that I can answer that for you... The reduction on fuel duty would be precisely "Sweet F. A.".

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev

As we are now talking about a global economy I'm not sure how easy it would be to translate higher aviation fuel tax into reductions in road fuel prices and/or increases in the price of goods/services in any one country.
One thing I do know however, from an environmental standpoint, you can't simply bung a catalytic converter into the exhaust system of a gas turbine engine. Not saying nothing can be done at all, but its a LOT more complex than that so taxation to incentivise the aviation industry into producing cleaner engines is unlikely to have any immediate effect.

I don't think the aviation industry needs any extra incentive to reduce fuel consumption - profit margins should be enough for them.

We're not necessarily talking about consumption here though, its emissions that are the problem.

The flight for a family of four to florida would use as much fuel as a 1300cc car in 12 months.

bussiness men find it cheaper to get on an easy jet to doublin and then another to ediburgh rather than drive london to edinburgh.
some times these flights are priced at a penny each + airport tax.

The train price is often more than the flight
car 75%tax
train 25%tax
plane 2.5% tax

But they're unlikely to be the only ones on the plane. It's been said that per passenger mile civil jets are more fuel efficient than some cars, though I don't know how much truth there is in that. Rigpig? Would you know?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Working out fuel consumption for aircraft is a bit trickier than for car, its done by weight and is related to the amount of thrust the engine produces and its flight profile...blah blah, smartass crap
Last generation aero engines, as fitted to Boeing 767s, Airbusses etc can manage about 49 passenger miles per US Gallon, not too bad. But the latest generations of engine can do better still, clocking up some 80 passenger miles per US gallon.
And remember, a US Gallon is only 0.83 of an Imperial Gallon, so these latest gas turbines are knocking on for 100 passenger miles per gallon. It would be better still if they could start out at 39,000 ft - unfortunately they have to climb up there and that uses most juice of all.

my understamding was that thier share of the fuel was the equivilent of 12000 miles in a car.

take off twice + 6000 miles two adults two children + luggage

I found this on aircraft fuel consumption. The claimed rule of thumb is that an aircraft uses as much fuel as would be used by a single occupant car travelling the same distance.

from that page I went to the Your Jeorney here... which said london to florida,747, 80% full was 689 litres per person asuming the kiddies are half weight including thier luggage that is 2067 litres= 39.75 liters per week for me to run around in my car.... plenty to do my distance
12000 miles 413 gallons=29mpg my car actually does twice that if I try

A largely meaningless comparison unfortunately, because your car can't get you to Florida in any worthwhile timeframe. We're not comparing like with like; we could argue that a 50cc moped can do 100 miles+ per gallon easily, but it can't carry the weekly shopping, kids to school etc etc.
Cars do car things, aircraft do aircraft things. They're reasonably comparable on fuel consumption and getting better year on year, although obviously the law of diminishing returns will inevitably apply.

Whoever's responsible for that website clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler