Re: (OT:) Liberals! Whay you so stupid!?!?! Pt 3 (QSLIM, listen up!! ;)

"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:n8Rti.5394$jk4.498@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:23:53 -0500, dh wrote:

Reducing the size of the aircraft...so you still have the same number of
flights with smaller planes. You're still using about the same amount of
fuel, and spewing about the same amount of pollutants in the air. With
the current state of the art of aircraft engines, you get much more
economy out of flying a larger aircraft with more people (higher
Per-passenger MPG /
lower Per-passenger pollutants) than you do from flying smaller
aircraft. Of course, you only get that scale the MORE people you pack
onto an aircraft. That's why those people should take that vacation
flight.

Give it up. You're still wrong. First, as I showed, a plane that's
lightly loaded requires less fuel to get to its destination than one
that's heavily loaded.

Again, one more time, not significantly. You're better off running a plane
at full capacity, the cost (and fuel economy) is optimized at a full load.
Your per-passenger MPG is a lot more with a full load.

Your claim was not "not significantly," your claim was "NOTHING." "Zero."

That is wrong.

Whether or not it is significant is a matter of opinion. I'd say a years'
worth of driving is significant. Most airline CEOs would jump at the chance
to save a few hundred gallons of fuel per flight.

As for "better off at full capacity," economically that is true. However,
your post was not about economics, it was about carbon footprint.

When you go on to say "same number of flights with smaller planes...
using
about the same amount of fuel," that's also wrong and to even think about
making the claim is stupid.

You're using the same amount of fuel, but MOVING FEWER PEOPLE ABOUT.

A 777 uses 7.51 gallons/nautical mile. A 767 uses 4.01 gallons/nautical
mile. Source: Boeing. The 777 is the larger plane.

And the per-passenger MPG is about the same. So it makes little or no
difference. Like I've been saying since I started this thread.

No, your original post said, "So, instead of 200 people, the jet takes off
with 175 people..."

That plane will use less fuel (see chart) and, if people keep staying home
to reduce their CO2 footprint then, eventually, the airline will adapt,
using smaller planes or flying less often. Smaller planes use less fuel.
The 777 uses 7.5 gallons/nautical mile and the 767 uses 4.01
gallons/nautical mile.

Flying less often would also use less fuel. Care to take a run at denying
that?

If the passengers stay home to reduce their carbon footprint, an airline
will either run fewer flights (and I'm surprised you haven't come up with
some half-assed argument about how this wouldn't save fuel) or you use
smaller planes (which, in spite of your assertion, would also use less
fuel).

They probably wouldn't use fewer flights. They cater to the business
person, who wants convenience. The other passengers pad the flight, but if
someone wants to travel from NY to LA, they are going to go with the
carrier that caters to them.

They cater to making money. Trans-oceanic flights are overnight or all-day
affairs. Exact time and frequency of departure may not be all that
important. Carried to it's logical conclusion, your business model has
nearly empty planes leaving every 10 minutes. I'd like to see that
airlines' income statement, it would be such a delightful shade of crimson.
If trans-oceanic timing was really important, the Concorde would still be
flying.

If they decide to keep the same schedule, they will probably seek to use
smaller planes, which cost less to lease and use less fuel.

That last bit, larger planes flying full are more efficient than smaller
planes flying full, that's probably true, presuming planes of the same
vintage.

Thank you. This is what I have been trying to say.

No, that is not what you were trying to say. That is something you finally
said after you'd gotten several other things wrong, in a desperate attempt
to avoid having to recognize the fact that you were wrong. What you
actually said was that the difference in fuel consumption (and CO2
production) between a heavily loaded plane and a lightly loaded plane was
"NOTHING." And "zero." And, in fact, that is wrong.

By the way, I actually checked on large vs small plane fuel efficiency and
it seems the 767 gets more passenger-mpg than the 777 in two-class
configuration at maximum range with full passenger payload. The 777 might
do better in single-class or three-class configuration or at different
ranges In either event, although a larger plane might ordinarily get better
fuel economy per person, it seems this isn't always the case.

Overall, it is more
economical to fly a larger plane filled to the brim. The exception is the
puddle jumper airlaines that fly predominantly 737s. They fill the plane
at a reduced rate, because they know a full plane get better per-passenger
economy. That's fine for them, but for the Big Guys, who have invested
heavily in 777s and 787s, the object is to fill the plane.

And when they don't fill the plane, they fly less often or smaller planes.
Your original post was predicated on the idea that 25 people decided not to
fly, to reduce their carbon footprint. With 25 fewere passengers, the plane
will use less fuel. Those 25 passengers reduce CO2 emissions by staying
home.

There is a drop dead point where reducing the weight is not going to make
any difference in economy, so it is better to fly full.

From a carbon perspective, that is wrong, unless we're talking about the
idiocy of flying empty. Which only Hachiroku Air would do.

Unless, at Hachiroku Air, you're going to fly 130 people on far more
737s than necessary just to spite Al Gore.

No...BBJs. A 737 that's been converted to a 'Business Jet'. They carry
*FAR* fewer passengers in the Lap of Luxury. Maybe 30-50 passengers per
flight.

The 737 BBJ was simply an example of payload to range calculation. I'm
sure that any airline other than Hachiroku Air will find a smart way to
handle the situation.

There was also a payload to range calculation for the 767 there, too.

Unless the airlines are run by idiots. In which case, we've found
you a job.

And yet, the point goes over your head like an underutilized 777...

When you're wrong, lame attempts at humor won't help. Give it up.

Let's recap...

You said the difference in fuel consumption between a fully loaded plane
and a more lighly loaded plane was "NOTHING" (your emphasis with caps)
and
"zero." That's wrong. "Insignificant?" That's a matter of opinion.
Like I said, if you could save an airline a few hundred gallons of fuel
per flight, you'd be a hero... As Cathy F. pointed out, the fuel for 200
miles of flying times 18 flights equals a trans-Atlantic flight (but you
didn't appear to understand that, either). That much fuel in gasoline or
diesel would be a year's worth of driving. See chart. Learn to read
charts. See chart again.

The reality is, even though we can argue it ad infinitum, the AIRLINES are
not going to adopt it! They are going to fly the largest plane possible
with the fullest load. Period. All the theoretical stuff doesn't matter,
because that's not airline policy.

So, once again, the airline is going to fly a 777. Whether that plane has
175 or 200 people doesn't matter. It's going to fly.

The difference in fuel for a 777 with 200 people is not significantly more
than with 175 people. It would be better to fill the plane.

Economically, for the airline, this is true. Your post was not about
economics. Your post was a sneering attack on the idea of greenies staying
home to reduce their carbon footrpint. And your post was wrong. Your
subsequent posts had additional dimensions of wrong. You have finally made
a correct statement but your original post is still wrong. And your latest
post is also wrong in those same assertions.

So, those 25 people who THINK they are doing something by staying home,
aren't. In fact, they are doing the WRONG thing.

Not true. If 25 people stay home once, the plane flies lighter and uses
less fuel once. If those 25 people represent a trend and demand is
declining, the airline will adapt with fewer flights or smaller planes.
Exactly how they choose to address this is a matter of economics. Your post
was not about economics.

Your subsequent assertion that smaller planes use "about the same" amount of
fuel as a large plane was stupid and wrong.

All they get is the Warm Fuzzies, which as we all know, does nothing to
save the planet. The plane flies, 175 or 200 people. Economies of scale
say it's better flown with a full compliment. That's what it was designed
for.

This is true but your assertion was that staying home made no difference.
This is not true; the plane will use less fuel if it carries less weight.

Then, when you said the same number of flights with smaller planes would
use "about the same amount of fuel," you could be right - but only if
7.51
is "about the same" as 4.01. Maybe it's just me but I don't think 7.51
is
"about the same as" 4.01. If a recipe, say, called for 4.01 cups of
flour, I don't think I'd pitch in 7.51 cups of flour and call it good.

Again, Per Person economy.

Your post was not about per-person economy, that's something you brought
along later when you found out you were wrong and were desperate to avoid
facing the fact. And, in the case of the 777/767, the problem of which
plane gets the best per-person fuel economy is murky.

I'm rarely wrong. It makes me look bad. Something that you don't seem to
worry about much....

Ditch the arrogance; it's not working in your favor.

But it sure is fun!



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: (OT:) Liberals! Whay you so stupid!?!?! Pt 3 (QSLIM, listen up!! ;)
    ... fuel, and spewing about the same amount of pollutants in the air. ... First, as I showed, a plane that's ... When you go on to say "same number of flights with smaller planes... ...
    (alt.autos.toyota)
  • Re: ndc: Pentagon Flight 77 on 9/11/01 Where did all the people/plane/wreckage go?
    ... That is because that plane was not traveling at full speed. ... an "fuel inerting system". ... day and am taking a ride this morning on a restored B-17. ... Bombadiers Nose station? ...
    (rec.music.gdead)
  • Re: What Used Plane For First Time Purchase?
    ... You'd think it's easy to get fuel, but I wish I had a dollar for every time I've stopped at an airport and found fuel unavailable due to any number of reasons. ... The 172 had a mediocre engine from 1977-1980 known as the H model engine. ... I would prefer a plane that had from 180 to 200hp. ... High wing or low wing doesn't really matter (I trained in a Cessna 152). ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: First time in 6.5 million flying hours for Boeing 777
    ... Indeed they noted that " levels of water found in fuel recovered after the ... same time in order to to stop both engines. ... The Hope lifeboat crew putting to sea in an unsafe boat to go to the aid of a stranger, ... Military pilots have, IIUC, chosen to stay with their stricken plane and hence gone to their deaths, rather than eject and let the plane crash onto a densely populated area. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Rec.Aviation OSH report
    ... These are destined to be the "regular 'ole engines" in the years to come. ... But the Rotax is not every tolerant of 100LL fuel. ... if the plane goes into production. ...
    (rec.aviation.homebuilt)