[PDF] Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking 2014

View - Download Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking 2014

Previous PDF

Next PDF

nOVeMBer 2015

BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS |

SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON

T

RANSATLANTIC AIRLINE

F UEL E FF

ICIENCY RANKING, 2014

IRENE KWAN AND

DANIEL RUTHERFORD, PH.D.

acknOWleDgeMenTs The authors would like to thank Anastasia Kharina, Xiaoli Mao, Guozhen Li, Bill Hem- mings, Vera Pardee, Benjamin J ullien, Tim Johnson, and Dimitri Simos for their review of this document and overall support for the project. We would also like to thank Professor

Bo Zou (

U niversity of I llinois at C hicago) for his contribution to statistical analyses included in the report. This study was funded through the generous support of the Oak and C limateWorks Foundations. I nternational

Council on Clean Transportation

1225
I

Street NW, Suite 900

Washington D

C 20005
USA communications@theicct.org www.theicct.org

© 2015

I nternational

Council on Clean Transportation

i TA

BLE OF

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

....................................iii

1. INTRODUCTION

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 a irline selection

2.2 fuel burn modeling

2.3 fuel eciency calculation

.....................................6 2.4 O ther variables inuencing airline eciency

3. RESULTS

..9 3.1 The least ecient airlines use up to 51% more fuel than best-in-class .......................9 3.2 s

pecic drivers of fuel eciency vary by carrier ..............................................................12

3.3 a ircraft fuel burn and operational practices are the key drivers of airline eciency 3.3.1 a ircraft fuel burn varies substantially among carriers 3.3.2 O perational practices dier across carriers 3.3.3 Dierences in seating conguration and aircraft fuel burn explain most of the fuel eciency gap ........................................................................ ................................19 4. CONCLUSIONS, POLICY IMPLICATIONS, AND NEXT STEPS .......................................22

REFERENCES

APPENDIX A: DETAILED METHODOLOGY

..29

APPENDIX B: MODEL VALIDATION

..............34 ii iccT

REPORT

ii L

IST OF

F

IGURES

Figure ES-1.

fuel eciency of the top 20 airlines on transatlantic routes, 2014 ..................iii

Figure ES-2.

fuel eciency on prominent transatlantic routes, 2014 .......................................v

Figure 1.

fuel eciency of the top 20 airlines on transatlantic routes, 2014 ..........................9

Figure 2.

fuel eciency on prominent transatlantic routes, 2014

Figure 3.

key drivers of airline fuel eciency ........................................................................

..........20

Figure 4.

90%
condence intervals for key variables inuencing airline fuel eciency .............21

Figure A1.

flight paths in the n orth atlantic (left) and en route extra distance own vs. en route great circle distance (right) .........32

Figure A2.

reference line for normalizing aircraft metric values ..............................................33

Figure A3.

a irline-reported vs. modeled fuel eciency L

IST OF

TA BLES

Table 1.

a irlines evaluated

Table 2.

load factors on 2014 transatlantic ights ........................................................................

...4

Table 3.

key modeling variables ........................................................................ .......................................6

Table 4.

a irline transatlantic eet characteristics in 2014

Table 5.

a irline operational parameters ......................19

Table 6.

regression model of airline fuel eciency .......................................................................20

Table A1.

Transatlantic belly freight load factors for u.s. carriers by aircraft type, 2014 ........29

Table A2.

Transatlantic belly freight load factors by aircraft type, 2014 ...............................30 TransaTlanTic airline fuel efficiency ranking, 2014 iii E X ECUTI V E SUMM A RY s urprisingly little public information is available about the fuel eciency, and therefore carbon intensity, of international ights. This report summarizes the rst public, transparent assessment of the fuel eciency of the top 20 airlines operating nonstop transatlantic passenger ights linking e urope to the u.s. and canada. This study combines the highest quality publicly available and commercial operations data with sophisticated aircraft fuel burn modeling to benchmark the fuel eciency of carriers on a passenger kilometer basis. The study explains the fuel eciencies of individual carriers and highlights the most important drivers of eciency in the aggregate. figure es -1 illustrates the fuel eciency of the 20 carriers analyzed. n orwegian a ir s huttle, the world"s seventh largest low-cost airline, was the most fuel-ecient airline on transatlantic routes, on average providing 40 passenger kilometers per liter (pax-km/ l ) of fuel on its predominately Boeing 787-8 eet. a irberlin, g ermany"s second largest airline, came in second with a fuel eciency of 35 pax-km/ l , though burning 14% more fuel per passenger kilometer than n orwegian, followed by aer lingus, the national ag carrier airline of ireland, with a fuel eciency of 34 pax-km/ l kl M royal Dutch airlines, air canada, aeroot russian airlines, Turkish airlines, and air france were tied for fourth place with an average fuel eciency of 33 pax-km/ l . Delta a ir l ines, which had the largest transatlantic market share of any carrier, and i celandair, which operates an old eet of Boeing 757 aircraft from its hub in reykjavik, both provided the industry average fuel eciency of 32 pax-km/ l (indicated by the dotted blue vertical line).

Pax-km/L fuel

Excess fue

l/ pax-km 40 -

1. Norwegian

35 +14%

2. Airberlin

34 +20% 3. Aer Lingus

33 +22% 4. KLM

33 +22% 4. Air Canada

33 +22% 4. Aeroot

33 +22%

4. Turkish

33 +22%

4. Air France

32 +26% 9. Delta

32 +26%

9. Icelandair

31 +30%

11. Iberia

31 +30%

11. American

31 +30% 11. Alitalia

30 +36% 14. United

29 +38% 15. US Airways

29 +38% 15. Virgin Atlantic

29 +38% 15. Swiss

28 +44%18. Lufthansa

28 +44% 18. SAS

27 +51% 20. British Airways

INDUSTRY AVERAGE

Figure ES-1.

fuel eciency of the top 20 airlines on transatlantic routes, 2014 Many legacy carriers displayed below average fuel eciency on transatlantic operations, includ ing the u.s. carriers american airlines, united airlines, and us airways, along with spain"s iberia a irlines and i taly"s a litalia. Virgin atlantic, a British airline and subsidiary of the Virgin group, and swiss international air lines, the ag carrier airline of switzerland, tied with us airways for iv iccT

REPORT

iv

15th place with fuel eciency of 29 pax-km/

l

The least ecient airlines were lufthansa german

a irlines, sas s candinavian a irlines and British a irways, who were collectively responsible for

20% of the transatlantic available seat kilometers (

ask s) but burned at least 44% more fuel per passenger kilometer than n orwegian. figure es -2 compares the fuel eciency of these carriers on specic routes rather than on an overall airline basis. i t presents fuel eciency (pax-km/ l ), along with the absolute carbon dioxide (cO 2 ) emissions in kilograms, for a nonstop round-trip itinerary on the most prevalent transatlantic route own for each airline. figure es -2 shows that n orwegian, the most ecient airline overall, is also the most ecient airline on its most prominent route between n ew york"s John f. kennedy international airport (Jfk) and Oslo airport (Osl), the busiest airport in norway. The average fuel eciency on this route was 42 pax-km/ l , about 4% more ecient than its overall eciency (40 pax-km/ l and equivalent to about 720 kg cO 2 per passenger round trip. a irberlin, kl

M, and

aer lingus also retained their top four rankings in this analysis, each averaging 36 pax-km/ l on their most frequent transatlantic routes. l ufthansa and British a irways were the least ecient on their top routes, frankfurt (f ra ) to J f k and london Heathrow (lHr) to Jfk, respectively. The gap between the most ecient airline on a route basis was about 57%, or almost 6% larger than overall. O n average, a nonstop transatlantic ight averaged about one tonne of cO 2 emissions per passenger round trip, or equivalent to emissions from a 35-km daily commute in a

Toyota

Prius over a work year.

The report investigates key drivers of the observed fuel eciency gap across carriers. factors investigated include the average fuel burn of the aircraft operated along with operational param eters like aircraft seating conguration, passenger load factor, and belly freight carriage. s eating conguration and the average fuel burn of aircraft operated were found to be the two most important drivers overall, collectively explaining about 80% of the variation in airline fuel e ciency. Passenger load factor and freight carriage were found to be relatively less important. The impact of premium seating on emissions is substantial: rst class and business seats accounted for only 14% of ask s own on transatlantic routes but were responsible for approximately one third of overall emissions. O ther conclusions of this work are as follows: 1. The signicant gap (up to 51%) between industry leaders such as norwegian air shuttle and legacy carriers such as l ufthansa, sas , and British a irways reveals a large disparity in airline fuel eciency on transatlantic operations. s urprisingly, the transatlantic eciency gap is roughly double that seen for the u.s. domestic market, which was only 25% in 2014. 2. The very high fuel eciency of norwegian air shuttle demonstrates the central role of technol- ogy in reducing cO 2 emissions from the aviation sector. a irlines that invest in new, advanced aircraft are more fuel-ecient than airlines that use older, less ecient aircraft.

This nding

draws attention to the importance of reducing aircraft fuel burn, in particular the role of new, more advanced aircraft types in improving overall airline eciency. 3. The 50%+ gap in fuel eciency suggests there is a large and underestimated potential for in-sector cO 2 emission reductions. This highlights the role for additional policies to limit avia- tion emissions, notably the cO 2 standard being developed by the i nternational c ivil aviation O rganization ( icaO) and a global market-based measure (MBM) to price aviation carbon. 4.

finally, accurate and transparent data are the cornerstone for assessing the fuel eciency of airlines. improved data reporting would help travelers concerned about their carbon

footprint make more informed purchasing decisions and help policymakers craft policies to reduce the environmental impact of ying.

NORTH ATLANTIC OCEAN

CARIBBEAN SEA

NORTH SEA

BLACK SEA

R E D S E A

LABRADOR

SEA

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

B A L T I C S E A

FRENCH GUIANA

WESTERN

SAHARAWEST BANK

AUSTRIANETHERLANDS

FRANCEGERMANYDENMARK

ITALY

MALTAGREECESPAINBELGIUM

SWITZ.

TURKEY

CYPRUSGEORGIAFINLANDICELAND

UNITED

KINGDOM

IRELAND

PORTUGAL

ISRAEL

NIGERIA

BURUNDIRWANDA

ALGERIA

LIBYA EGYPT SUDAN

ETHIOPIA

KENYA

TANZANIADEM. REP.

OF CONGOCENTRAL

AFRICAN REPUBLIC

UGANDA

quotesdbs_dbs21.pdfusesText_27

[PDF] a380 vs b747 8i

[PDF] a380 vs boeing 747 800

[PDF] a380 weight

[PDF] a380 weight fully loaded kg

[PDF] a380 wing dimensions

[PDF] a86 duplex tunnel paris

[PDF] a86 ouest tunnel paris france

[PDF] a86 paris tunnel height

[PDF] a86 tunnel under paris

[PDF] a86 west tunnel paris

[PDF] a86 west tunnel paris france

[PDF] aa 20 questions test

[PDF] aa accounts

[PDF] aa annual report 2018

[PDF] aa benefits