I don’t make a habit of swearing, but this morning has been testing, to say the least. Formerly known as the “World’s Favourite Airline” until the world decided that it wasn’t too fond of airlines pushing out carbon dioxide into its upper atmosphere, British Airways have decided, in its eternal wisdom, to kit out a couple of Airbus A318s for its most luxury conscious business travellers.
An article in The Guardian (which happens to carry popup adverts on its website for said airline), states:
“The route announced yesterday will see two daily flights between London City airport, next door to the capital’s financial district, and JFK. BA will use two Airbus A318 planes fitted out with flat beds and carrying a maximum of 32 passengers.”
“Willie Walsh, British Airways’ chief executive, said: ‘Given the range of corporate clients that we have based in and around London City, we thought it was a great opportunity. It’s about us being innovative and listening to our customers.’ “
I stared at this article, wondering how ostentaciously polluting it was possible to be, and short of having your own private jet, this is pretty close. The Airbus A318 is normally equipped to carry 107 passengers, but try to get hold of the carbon emissions figures for this aircraft and you find that Airbus have conveniently removed them from their information pages. Airbus’ head office in Toulouse likes to cut callers off when they mention carbon emissions, so I resorted to using the ClimateCare (don’t even think of going there to offset your flights - just don’t fly, for goodness sake!) calculator, which gives a typical return flight from London City to New York JFK as 1.55 tonnes of carbon dioxide. That’s about the same as the total annual carbon emissions for a person in Uruguay.
Turn a 107 seater plane into a 32 seater plane, like British Airways are doing, and you can then multiply the emissions per person, per flight by 3.31, giving each rich businessman (yes, they are almost all men) a total of 5.18 tonnes of carbon dioxide for their return flight. That’s 35% more than the total annual carbon emissions for a person in China!
This from a company that states:
“We are leading the climate change debate in our industry.”
If they are the leader in the industry then I think it is fair to say that you should never listen to an air executive when they talk about climate change.
“The route announced yesterday will see two daily flights between London City airport, next door to the capital’s financial district, and JFK. BA will use two Airbus A318 planes fitted out with flat beds and carrying a maximum of 32 passengers.”
“Willie Walsh, British Airways’ chief executive, said: ‘Given the range of corporate clients that we have based in and around London City, we thought it was a great opportunity. It’s about us being innovative and listening to our customers.’ “
I stared at this article, wondering how ostentaciously polluting it was possible to be, and short of having your own private jet, this is pretty close. The Airbus A318 is normally equipped to carry 107 passengers, but try to get hold of the carbon emissions figures for this aircraft and you find that Airbus have conveniently removed them from their information pages. Airbus’ head office in Toulouse likes to cut callers off when they mention carbon emissions, so I resorted to using the ClimateCare (don’t even think of going there to offset your flights - just don’t fly, for goodness sake!) calculator, which gives a typical return flight from London City to New York JFK as 1.55 tonnes of carbon dioxide. That’s about the same as the total annual carbon emissions for a person in Uruguay.
Turn a 107 seater plane into a 32 seater plane, like British Airways are doing, and you can then multiply the emissions per person, per flight by 3.31, giving each rich businessman (yes, they are almost all men) a total of 5.18 tonnes of carbon dioxide for their return flight. That’s 35% more than the total annual carbon emissions for a person in China!
This from a company that states:
“We are leading the climate change debate in our industry.”
If they are the leader in the industry then I think it is fair to say that you should never listen to an air executive when they talk about climate change.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following 6 comments
Don't worry, they can use biofuel
04.02.2008 21:44
"Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd., the British carrier controlled by billionaire Richard Branson, will conduct a biofuel test later this month with a Boeing 747. The plane will fly from London to Amsterdam, Netherlands, without passengers in a joint project with Chicago-based Boeing and engine maker General Electric. Co."
Chris
The problem with your calculations
04.02.2008 22:55
This service is to be welcomed. It will attract passengers who would otherwise use private aircraft - the Boeing Business Jet is quite capable of this route. First class customers are by far the most profitable for the airlines and the implicit subsidy enables the less wealthy to make journies they would othewise be unable to. It's all very well saying don't fly, and that may be practical in Europe, but it's difficult to cross the North Atlantic without an aircraft. If you have a couple of weeks to spare you could take a cruise liner I suppose, but have you seen their fuel consumption?
The reason for the growth in business aviation is that flying public transport has become such an awful experience. I regularly use a business aircraft (Learjet 31) in the US because I can get so much more work done that way, and my clients, including the British taxpayer consider that this is value for money. If you want fewer people to use business aircraft, you'll have to make public transport more far efficient and less unpleasant. More regular flights, so less waiting for connections, do away with all the security theatre, and walk up fares, like the railway.
Aircraft manufacturers are coy about CO2, but it is not difficult to calculate for various payloads from range and take off weight. An A320 on a 2000 mile sector compares favourably to single occupancy car use.
Mike
Joking aside
05.02.2008 09:37
If (bizarrely) your aren't, then you will know that payload is almost all fuel and superstructure - 65 humans only weighs 5 tonnes. The maximum takeoff weigh is 59 tonnes (
Keith
Homepage:
http://www.unsuitablog.com
ooh, Mike
05.02.2008 12:29
Whatever important mission you're on its gotta be so much more important than global sustainability. I would never dream of suggesting that you sit up while you're flying, never mind that you might look for alternatives to travel. I'm just glad you can enjoy the privileges you so obviously deserve.
oh i've gone all weak-kneed.
xxx
lem
Those five tonnes matter
05.02.2008 14:09
The aviation industry has many problems - eg aircraft racing across the North atlantic to be first into a 40 minute hold over LHR, 250 knot speed restrictions below FL100 causing aircraft to fly with the increased drag of extended flaps, VS running around with an empty 747 trialing biofuels (if it's safe for crew, it's safe for passengers). But provided a decent service to those willing to pay is not one of them. The question should be how can we run a sustainable aviation industry with a decent service for all. Some of us are working on that. We have a long way to go.
Mike
Sustainable?
08.02.2008 13:01
There is no such thing as sustainable aviation unless it is powered by renewable energy. Bio fuels are a complete joke.
Keith