[PDF] Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking 2017





Previous PDF Next PDF



Noise Comparison Analysis A380 vs. B747

11 Feb 2009 Comparison between B747-400 and A380 with long-haul flights: LAX to Melbourne. LAX to Sydney. • Comparison of noise levels from aircraft.



An Analysis of the Competitive Actions of Boeing and Airbus in the

31 Aug 2021 Boeing and Airbus aircraft model comparison; B747-100 vs. A380. BOEING. B747-100. AIRBUS. A380. First Date of Flight. 9 February 1969.



Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking 2017

9 Sept 2018 In 2015 the ICCT compared the fuel efficiency of 20 major airlines ... In contrast



INVESTIGATING THE AIRBUS A380: WAS IT A SUCCESS

Figure 2: Shower suite on Emirates A380. 26. Figure 3: Full service bar on Qatar A380. 26. Figure 4: Airbus A380 vs. Boeing 747 comparison chart.



Departure Noise Mitigation: Main Report

9 Jul 2018 A340s/B747-400s. New larger four-engined aircraft such as the A380 will also climb more slowly compared to the aircraft they are replacing.



CO2 emissions from commercial aviation: 2013 2018

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/CO2-commercial-aviation-oct2020.pdf



Noise data for the first three years of Airbus A350 operations at

for the A350 are compared to equivalent measurements for other aircraft types of aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400 Boeing 777-300ER and Airbus A380.



Airbus vs. Boeing in Superjumbos: Credibility and Preemption

and launch a 555-seat superjumbo plane known as the A380. aisle jets seating 100-200 passengers to the twin-aisle Boeing 747-400 seating more than.



The Airplane of the Next Twenty Years

Comparison of designs. • Penalties. • Other Factors. • Conclusion A380-100. Boeing 747X Stretch picture: ... 747-400 vs. 747X Stretch. 19.2. 1043



Aerodynamic Analysis of a Blended-Wing-Body Aircraft

Appendix 1: Comparison of Three Aircraft. (Airbus A380 Boeing B747-400 and B777-300) ……………………..... 136. Appendix 2: Specification of Trent 900 …

SEPTEMBER 2018WHITE PAPER

Brandon Graver, Ph.D., and Daniel Rutherford, Ph.D. BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON The authors thank Tim Johnson, Andrew Murphy, Anastasia Kharina, and Amy Smorodin for their review and support. We also acknowledge Airline Data Inc. for providing processed BTS data, and FlightGlobal for Ascend Fleet data.

International Council on Clean Transportation

1225 I Street NW Suite 900

Washington, DC 20005 USA

communications@theicct.org www.theicct.org @TheICCT © 2018 International Council on Clean Transportation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

....................................iii 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 3. RESULTS ........................................................................ 4. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS ........................................................................ ..........20 5. REFERENCES ........................................................................

APPENDIX A: MODEL VALIDATION

..............26 APPENDIX B: ADJUSTED 2014 TRANSATLANTIC FUEL EFFICIENCY ............................27

WHITE PAPER

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES-1.

Figure ES-2.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure A-1.

Figure B-1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

27British Airways

30Lufthansa

31United

33AeroRot

33Alitalia

33Aer Lingus

33Austrian

33American

34Scandinavian

34Delta

34Iberia

34Icelandair

35Virgin Atlantic

35Thomas Cook

35Air France

35Turkish

36KLM

37SWISS

39WOW air

44Norwegian

Excess

Fuel/pax-km

+ 13% - + 19% + 22% + 26% + 26% + 26% + 26% + 29% + 29% + 29% + 29% + 33% + 33% + 33% + 33% + 33% + 42% + 47% + 63%

INDUSTRY AVERAGE

Average Fuel Economy [pax-km/L]

Figure ES-1.

WHITE PAPER

30%39%20%

33%

35%11%15%

17% 0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

20142017

Freight Shar

e

Passenger Load Factor

Seating Densit

y

Aircraft Fuel Burn

Figure ES-2.

WHITE PAPER

1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

METHODOLOGY

2.1

AIRLINE SELECTION

Table 1.

AirlineFlights

performedAverage ight length (km)Share of

ASKsShare of

ATKsMost prevalent

aircraft

Aer Lingus

Aeroot

Air France

Alitalia

American

Austrian

British Airways

Delta

Iberia

Icelandair

KLM

Lufthansa

Norwegian

Scandinavian

continued

WHITE PAPER

AirlineFlights

performedAverage ight length (km)Share of

ASKsShare of

ATKsMost prevalent

aircraft SWISS

Thomas Cook

Turkish

United

Virgin Atlantic

WOW air

Total280,4977,028100%100%Airbus A330-300

Note: ASK = Available seat kilometers. ATK = Available tonne kilometers. Source: Airline Data Inc. (2018)

Table 2.

AircraftMTOM

(tonnes)Typical seating capacityCargo capacity (m 3 )Number of engines, max. thrustRange (km)

Airbus A318

Boeing 737-700

Boeing 737-800

Boeing 737 MAX-8

Airbus A321

Boeing 767-300ER

Boeing 767-400ER

Boeing 787-8

Airbus A330-200

Airbus A330-300

Boeing 787-9

Boeing 757-200

Boeing 757-300

Airbus A340-300

Airbus A350-900

Boeing 777-200ER

Boeing 777-300ER

Airbus A340-600

Boeing 747-400

Boeing 747-8I

Airbus A380-800

Note: MTOM = maximum takeo mass. Sources: Airbus (2017); Airbus (2018); Boeing (1999); Boeing (2008);

Boeing (2010); Boeing (2011); Boeing (n.d.)

2.2

FUEL BURN MODELING

Table 3.

TypeVariableSources

Airline scheduled ights

Airline-specic aircraft

parameters

Aircraft weights

Aircraft fuel burn

Other operational variables

WHITE PAPER

payload kg seats departures load factor pax 100kg
pax freight kg departures

Operations Specication B043

2.3

FUEL EFFICIENCY CALCULATION

a i fuel L a fl fuel L a,i departures a,i pax km/L a fl i payload kg a,i distance[km] a,i fuel L a

100kg/pax

3.

RESULTS

3.1

AIRLINE COMPARISONS

27British Airways

30Lufthansa

31United

33Aeroflot

33Alitalia

33Aer Lingus

33Austrian

33American

34Scandinavian

34Delta

34Iberia

34Icelandair

35Virgin Atlantic

35Thomas Cook

35Air France

35Turkish

36KLM

37SWISS

39WOW air

44Norwegian

Excess

Fuel/pax-km

+ 13%— + 19% + 22% + 26% + 26% + 26% + 26% + 29% + 29% + 29% + 29% + 33% + 33% + 33% + 33% + 33% + 42% + 47% + 63%

INDUSTRY AVERAGE

Average Fuel Economy [pax-km/L]

Figure 1.

WHITE PAPER

3.2

AIRCRAFT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS

0510152025303540

45

0100200300400500600

Average Fuel Eciency [pax-km/L]

Maximum Takeo Mass [tonnes]

A318 (32 seats)A380-800

B747-8

I

B747-400A340-600

B737-800B737 MAX-8

A321

B767-300ER

B767-400ER

B787-

8B787-9A350-900

B777-300ER

B777-200E

R

A340-30

0

B757-200B757-300

A330-300

A330-200

INDUSTRY AVERAG

E

B737-700

(86 seats)

Twin engin

eQuad engine

Figure 2.

3.3

DRIVERS OF TRANSATLANTIC AIRLINE EFFICIENCY

WHITE PAPER

Table 4.

RankAirlinePassenger

load factorFreight share of total tonne-kmPremium seating shareOverall seating density (seats/m 2 a

Aircraft

fuel burn b

1Norwegian

2WOW air

3SWISS

4KLM

T5Turkish

T5Air France

T5Thomas Cook

T5Virgin Atlantic

T9Icelandair

T9Iberia

T9Delta

T9Scandinavian

T13American

T13Austrian

T13Aer Lingus

T13Alitalia

T13Aeroot

18United

19Lufthansa

20British Airways

Industry Average81%21%14%1.01+5%

a As measured by seats per square meter or RGF. See footnote 1 for details. b

As measured by the average margin

of aircraft to ICAO's CO 2 standard. See footnote 2 for details.

30%39%20%

33%

35%11%15%

17% 0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

20142017

Freight Shar

e

Passenger Load Factor

Seating Densit

y

Aircraft Fuel Burn

Figure 3.

WHITE PAPER

0%3%6%9%12%

15%

0%3%6%9%12%15%

Capacity, 2017

Capacity, 2014

0.50%

0.25%0%

B747-40

0B767-300ERA330-300

B777-200ER

A330-20

0

A380-800

B777-300E

R

B757-200

B767-400ER

A340-300

quotesdbs_dbs22.pdfusesText_28
[PDF] boeing 747 vs a380 size

[PDF] boeing 747 vs airbus a380

[PDF] boeing 747 vs airbus a380 size

[PDF] boeing 787

[PDF] boeing 787 case study

[PDF] boeing 787 case study answers

[PDF] boeing 787 dreamliner case study answers

[PDF] boeing 787 fuel consumption per hour

[PDF] boeing 787 manufacturing a dream case study analysis

[PDF] boeing 7e7 case study pdf

[PDF] boeing a380 capacity

[PDF] boeing a380 emirates interior

[PDF] boeing a380 for sale

[PDF] boeing a380 fuel capacity

[PDF] boeing a380 rc plane