March 2008 Archives

In a guest editorial in Flight's Airline Business magazine, Greenpeace chief scientist Doug Parr argues that biofuels are simply not going to work as an acceptable substitute for kerosene.

Parr makes three broad points: there's not enough arable land to grow the required crops; opening up virgin land to fix that has unacceptable knock-on efects; the knock-on effects of using biofuels are anyway unpredictable and it is quite likely that their use will in fact increase greenhouse gas emissions.

I would say it wouldn't I, but I'm pleased to see Airline Business hosting this kind of piece, and I'm just as pleased to see Greenpeace making good use of it.

So you're an airline that sort-of, kind-of has some good green ideas that you're maybe doing already, or maybe not, but either way you're not really sure how you're going to get the message out that you are in fact doing something. Maybe doing quite a lot. Well, perhaps Aerobrand and Greenskies are the people for you. They'll show you how to make people hug an airline.

I know, I know...but we all need consultants sometimes. And you'll like Mike Miller at Greenskies. No harm calling.

Not an easy browse, but the Australian Transport Statistics Yearbook 2007 has plenty of stats on emissions of all kinds for those of you sufficiently dedicated to your various causes. You're looking for Chapter 10 / p133 onwards. Put the kettle on first!

Glenn Alderton's Qantas DC-3 picture shows the proverbial more innocent age and is featured purely in the interests of lightening up this post!

The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has produced a good round-up study of the FAA and NASA national noise-reduction programmes.

Following the furore over a near-empty American Airlines' transatlantic flight, now it's British Airways in the firing line. The exact circumstances that led to these BA flights operating empty aren't completely clear from the report in the Daily Telegraph of London.

A serious piece by a serious man. Airbus CEO Tom Enders, today writes about aviation and the environment in The Guardian.

An interestingly pitched article - addressed to the industry urging it to do better, but aired in public and noting the industry's achievements to date.

It's attracting plenty of comments - usual mix of sense and nonsense, but including some encouragingly engaged contributions from the anti-camp.

Environmentalists would do well to talk with Enders. He's a straight-talking German who somehow managed to survive the lethal Franco-German in-fighting that plagued Airbus' parent company EADs over the past couple of years. Among journalists he's respected for giving direct, considered answers and expecting intelligent treatment in return.

After I posted below about SAS' large number of Boeing MD-80s being something of an embarrassment to its green credentials, I noticed this lengthy discussion in the Dallas Morning News about American Airlines' similar dilemma. Our ACAS database shows that American has 300 of the type on its books. It's not thrilled about their fuel-burn, but it's not thrilled about replacing them with anything before the next-generation narrowbody from Boeing and Airbus comes along. I'm afraid this sort of thing is a very real obstacle to airlines making the kind of medium-term change that really would cut their emissions.

I have a degree of respect for SAS' environmental activity - they've been working at most of the issues for longer and more seriously than just about any other carrier. And they've been putting their money where their mouth is.