We often read stories about companies and businesses going green and being happier for it.  We see governmental regulations aimed at being cleaner “emitters” and taxes and credits being structured to force people to be pollute less.   A few years ago, the airline industry was being targeted by various “green” groups for being big polluters and being particularly damaging to the atmosphere.

So, is going green really good? 

As matter of fact, it is.  At least for the airline industry.  One reason you see a variety of airlines embracing the idea of being “green” and becoming involved in a variety of experiments is that, for the airline industry, almost every “green” effort translates into cost savings for the airline.

American Airlines discovered several years ago that by being just a little bit more proactive in their engine maintenance, they could extract a 1 to 2% gain in fuel efficiency.  Less fuel burned translates into less emissions in the atmosphere. 

Several airlines have participated in experimental flights using various “bio” fuels to see what does work and how well it works.  Interestingly enough, several of those experiments have revealed that the “bio” fuels often are *more* efficient than the petroleum based fuels.  They have more “energy” and therefore an aircraft burns less fuel per mile using the bio fuel.   We only lack the technology to mass produce some of these fuels at a cost effective price. 

Other airlines have been experimenting with continuous descent approaches to airports.  In the simplest sense, this is an airliner “gliding” from the top of its cruise altitude all the way to the runway.  Currently, airlines have to make “step” approaches to airports where they lose a few thousand feet of altitude and wait.  Then they are cleared to another lower level and when they reach that, they wait.  This results in a lot of throttle “jockeying” that wastes fuel.  Continuous descent approaches have been shown to reduce emissions by *tons* on a long haul flight.  And they are one reason why airlines are embracing the idea and pushing on the FAA hard to find ways to employ these at airports. 

Every time an engine manufacturer manages to eek out another 1 to 3% fuel efficiency these days, the gains aren’t just in reduced fuel burn but also in reduced toxic emissions.  Essentially, these gains come from burning fuel more completely and the more completely the fuel is burned, the fewer toxic emissions that result. 

Some airlines have discovered that just by washing their aircraft a little bit more results in a little less drag and that results in a little less fuel burn which then results in fewer emissions.  Others have figured out that aircraft sitting at gates running their APU (Auxiliary Power Unit aka a small jet fuel engine producing electrical and hydraulic power) units is wasteful.  Now they hook up ground power and ground airconditioning to the aircraft and that means fewer emissions.  Running a jet fuel engine to produce power on the ground results in lots of dirty emissions and its wasteful of fuel. 

Every “green” movement in the airline industry yields costs savings.  In this industry, even tiny savings on a per mile basis can result in millions of dollars saved every year.  That’s why you don’t hear about airlines protesting about being pushed towards being more efficient and less polluting.  The same is true for aircraft manufacturers and engine makers:  every effort made in this area means their customers save money.  A customer that can save just a few dollars per flight using your equipment potentially saves millions of dollars each year and that’s a huge sale advantage.

At the end of the day, being “green” has literally no downside for the airline and it’s a model industry for looking at ways to embrace it further.

Filed under: Trivia by ajax