The Slimfast Diet for Airplanes
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 07.15.08
From cover of Airplane! by Robert Grossman
We learned in back in high school physics that it takes energy to move a mass, and the more mass, the more energy. Paul Kedrosky lists some of the tiny moves that airlines are making to squeeze every ounce out, which add up to big savings in fuel.
- One airline saved over 17 gallons/year per pound of weight per airplane after shedding inflight phones, ovens, excess potable water, and some galley equipment on an older fleet
- In removing seatback phones from its MD-80s and B737-400s, another airline shed 200 pounds per airplane, translating into 3,400+ gallons saved annually
- Alaska Airlines indicated in March 2004 that removing just five magazines per aircraft could save $10,000 per year in fuel; also, the airline has reduced the weight of catering supplies
- Air Canada considered stripping primer and paint from its 767s to save 360 lbs. per plane
- JetBlue and US Airways and others have moved toward a paperless cockpit By removing six seats, JetBlue reduced A320 weight by approximately 904 pounds
- Airlines have been able to remove ovens, trash compactors, or even entire galleys, due to the elimination of hot meals on selected flights; others are using lighter seats;
- they have also removed magazine racks and replaced hard cabin dividers with curtains
- AirTran ordered carbon fiber Recaro seats for its 737-700s to shave 19.4 pounds per row, resulting in estimated fuel savings of $2,000 per year per aircraft
- Alaska’s new beverage cart, at 20 lbs. lighter, could save $500,000 in annual fuel costs
- Some airlines flush lavatories during extended ground delays to minimize takeoff weight
Different Airline Tactics to Save Fuel (or Squeeze Passengers)
Jumbos Landing in 'Idle' - Saving Fuel Through Gliding Descent ...
US Airways to Start Charging for Checked Baggage, Drinks
Jet Blue Reduces Its Carbon Footprint :
Airlines Shaving Costs Everywhere They Can
New Airline Selling England By The Pound
Solar-Powered Street Lights to Illuminate Parts of Baghdad
|
Another Reason We Like Prefab, and Why Architects Shouldn't Design Cars
|
The artwork Treehugger is using in this article is by artist Robert Grossman.
I'm assuming it's being used without authorization as not even a simple credit is given.
I'm really disappointed that my beloved Treehugger would display such flagrant disregard for copyright.
The artwork Treehugger is using in this article is by artist Robert Grossman.
I'm assuming it's being used without authorization as not even a simple credit is given.
I'm really disappointed that my beloved Treehugger would display such flagrant disregard for copyright.
You are right and I will add a credit.
Airlines have always been fanatic about fuel savings. These are all great ideas.
They are also integrating train/bus ticketing into some legs, so (hypothetical example) if you want to fly to Budapest from NY, they sell you a train ticket to DC, and the flight leaves from there.
The art is also the poster art for Airplane! (a personal favorite).
I think seats have to be the next thing to be changed. Current airline seats seem pretty heavy. I know there are tight regs about strength, fire resistance, and the stupid requirement for the seat cushion to function as a flotation device but I still have to think they could lighten the seats. Hopefully in the process they could make them less bulky creating a little more room. More comfortable would also be nice. The seats in newer generation Boeing and Airbus planes are pretty decent bu the seats in older planes like the MD-80 are instruments of torture!
I have heard that they go as far as removing a few peanuts from every bag and saved thousands in fuel.
Seriously.. i did
Those fuel savings figures are all over the place. A 20 lb savings on beverage carts saves a half million dollars a year, while twenty pounds saved IN EACH ROW only saves $2,000 per year? And what is the carbon footprint of this carbon fiber and the cost of those seats?
Obviously, reducing weight that doesn't affect performance is a benefit. Most likely, airlines will use the weight savings to carry more people and baggage, making more money but not necessarily reducing fuel consumption.
Get rid of the wheels. Not on the plane, but on the baggage. If you can't carry it on, you can't carry it on.
Same goes for checked baggage - if you need a sherpa to handle those bags for your weekend trip to Florida, you are packing too much.
They should buy their employees so they can cut some pounds
IF the carbon fiber seats lead to compounded cutting of fuel consumption over the long haul, I doubt their carbon footprint is relevant. After all, aluminum has a very high carbon footprint too, perhaps even higher.
I think there's savings to be made as well using scheduling/marketing. Expand Priceline-like ticketing, so you don't choose your exact departure, and the plane leaves within a RANGE of times, allowing more last-minute connection changes. That way, you could consolidate two feeder flights into one at the last minute, if there was inadequte booking on either.
@jon: The seat savings is $2000 per year per aircraft. I presume the half million saved by the cart is for the entire fleet.
jon- the stats in the post must have come from different sources. The units are different. In the two examples you mentioned, the 20 pound reduction saves a half million over the entire fleet, while the seats save 2000 per aircraft.
Jon, I believe the one is per aircraft, the other for the entire fleet.
As for the rest, yes one does have to wonder about how long it will take to make up for putting all the new stuff in.
I heard that they are going to start surcharging you if you are over a certain body weight.
Just kidding, well, maybe it will happen.
As a certified obese person (240 lbs, 6 foot) I welcome anything which wil induce me losing weight. I hereby waive any right to a fat-discrimination lawsuit.
They should be charging for body and luggage weight. We ship packages according to weight, since the amount of energy to move the package a given distance is proportional to the weight. Obviously, fuel is only part of the ticket price, so a 300 pound person won't pay twice as much as 150 pound person. But the fuel surcharge should take weight into account.
I like the idea of weighing passengers and there luggage to determine fuel surcharge.
Airplane designers have always been concerned about weight in a major way, but now that philosophy is in the way you use the plane and what you put in it.
The same is true for cars. The Honda Insight saves a more fuel by being only 1800 lb and aerodynamic than being hybrid. The insight could save a lot more by making it simpler and removing power door locks, power windows, power steering, power hatch activation. You could also remover the spare tire and tool kit if you have AAA.
Absolutely, weigh me and all my luggage. Charge me a base weight / ticket, say 100lbs, and charge additional from there. Do not separate out passenger vs luggage weight: it is total weight that is important. I would 1. Buy lighter luggage. 2. Eliminate that extra pair of shoes/coat/book. 3. Get lighter laptop. 4. Drop extra fat pounds before that big trip. 5. Utilize the airport UPS stations that would quickly emerge.
This would add an unpredictable element to check in. Would I have to declare my weight ahead of time and pay more if I exceed that weight? When would I be weighed? At the counter for my luggage and at the gate for myself and carry on? There certainly would be a cost to the airlines and to efficiency for this type of pricing.