Hi Mike and Winsplit,
What a ripper of a question! It sounds as though you have to provide
your own calculations to the powers that be, because I bet they can't
work out a fair calculation themselves. If you put the onus back on to
the CO2 police, I'm sure they will pull an arbitrary figure from the
air, so to speak. This will of course be costly to you, as they would
err on the side of rounding up.
For what my thoughts are worth, you might consider three arguments if
you have to negotiate your credits. Like fixed and variable costs in
any business, this applies to aircraft also.
Firstly, aircraft require a fixed reserve, variable reserve and
planned flight duration fuel. As there are many variables on a flight
by flight basis, the CO2 police would most likely use fair weather
flying based on theory printed on paper. Fair enough, but reality is
different. Therefore you could argue that your cargo consignment has
almost nil effect until a certain point. This suggests a sub-argument
that the airline is in fact responsible for the CO2 emissions up to
that point, then shared equally as the load increases due to your
consignment of dried fruit. Don't forget, the airline is also
profiting from your load of fruit.
Secondly, each flight will present a maximum brakes release or take
off weight restriction below the maximum published by the
manufacturer. This is based on the serviceability of the aircraft,
plus the weather conditions and runway usage. Fuel uplift is
negotiated down between the Load Controller and Captain to achieve
maximum uplift and minimum fuel requirements to minimise offload. Yes,
this is calculated to the last kilogram, or pound as it may be. The
total fuel uplift is not to be confused with the fuel energy burnt to
uplift your fruit.
Thirdly, Winsplit made a reasonable judgement based on the
calculation. I would like to see how they arrived at almost half a
tonne of CO2 per passenger. You suggest 60kg .. well, in Aus we use
84kg as an average passenger weight, including hand luggage. The US
carriers are about to increase their basic average weights of
passengers by the way. Funny about that. In fact a rough guide is
100kg per passenger, including both carry on and checked baggage.
That's only 12 passengers compared to your consignment of 1200kg Mike.
If your freight is to be compared to passengers, then the higher the
passenger weight, the better for your calculations. Using Winsplit's
example, that's nearing 6 tonne of CO2 from your fruit. I would argue
heavily against that.
Lets use a narrow bodied aircraft as an example. A 737 has a basic
weight of say roughly 35 tonne. Add 10 tonne of fuel, 100 passengers
with a bag each, plus 1200kg of dried fruit. That's a total uplift of
56,200kg. Your dried fruit represents just over 2% of the total
uplift.
OR .. the simplistic answer is this: As a very rough guide, each
additional tonne of weight requires an additional 30kg of fuel burnt
on narrow bodied jets. I hear you. Yes, it depends on flight duration,
actual weight and the curve calculation will increase at an increasing
rate. Hey, I said it's a very rough guide. If you can use it though,
it reduces your CO2 effect somewhat.
I hope I have helped rather than confused. I believe we have a
respected resident pilot in our midst here. I hope he might visit your
question with further clarity.
Final point. Rather than fork out greatly for credits, I would argue
strongly to reduce your costs. You might also like to visit Boeing in
Seattle, or even find an excuse to take a trip to Airbus Industries in
France.
All the best, Phil |
