Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
readytotaxi wrote:Always good to save money, with the advance of IFE why not scrape it and have a E version and save a LOT more money?
ual763 wrote:I love all the people on here just brushing this off as crumbs. Well, 170k gallons is a lot. And also, procurement costs will more than likely be cheaper as well. That money will easily renovate a lounge. All by reducing the weight of paper used. Very interesting. And yes, it is important. Let's not forget, Bob Crandall took one of the three olives in the first class salads away and calculated the savings from that. It's these cost savings, when added up, that make a huge difference! Bravo United!
ual763 wrote:I love all the people on here just brushing this off as crumbs. Well, 170k gallons is a lot. And also, procurement costs will more than likely be cheaper as well. That money will easily renovate a lounge. All by reducing the weight of paper used. Very interesting. And yes, it is important. Let's not forget, Bob Crandall took one of the three olives in the first class salads away and calculated the savings from that. It's these cost savings, when added up, that make a huge difference! Bravo United!
BartSimpson wrote:ual763 wrote:I love all the people on here just brushing this off as crumbs. Well, 170k gallons is a lot. And also, procurement costs will more than likely be cheaper as well. That money will easily renovate a lounge. All by reducing the weight of paper used. Very interesting. And yes, it is important. Let's not forget, Bob Crandall took one of the three olives in the first class salads away and calculated the savings from that. It's these cost savings, when added up, that make a huge difference! Bravo United!
The point is - I seriously doubt there are any savings by having 15 lb less paper on board. The engines just won't "feel" the difference. A B767-300 has an MTOW of appr. 350,000 lb - substract 15 lb from it (that's 0.5 % of 1 %): you really think it burns less fuel? In comparison - if you do a marathon with 159.992 lb body weight instead of 160 lb, do you think you would be faster?
Of course, 170,000 gallons savings would be nice, but it just won't happen.
HALtheAI wrote:Or what if flight attendants went back to wearing skimpy outfits? The airline execs in the '60s and '70s understood that everyone had to make sacrifices to help save the planet..
LAXintl wrote:Basic premise is that there is a cost to carry every pound on board.
While individual savings might be negligible, across a fleet of hundreds of aircraft operating millions of hours a years the numbers add up fast.
Most major airlines incorporate airframe and interior furnishings weight management into their fuel conservation programs.
HALtheAI wrote:Or what if flight attendants went back to wearing skimpy outfits? The airline execs in the '60s and '70s understood that everyone had to make sacrifices to help save the planet.
Sadly, the feminists disagreed.
IPFreely wrote:
Many of the feminists are also environmentalists. I suggest a movement toward skimpy outfits -- possibly mesh -- be started. We must call them lightweight or green, not skimpy. And of course the benefits are only expressed in terms of carbon dioxide.
blueflyer wrote:HALtheAI wrote:Or what if flight attendants went back to wearing skimpy outfits? The airline execs in the '60s and '70s understood that everyone had to make sacrifices to help save the planet..
We should also put passengers and their carry-ons on a scale and charge them by the pound.
Aliqiout wrote:BartSimpson wrote:ual763 wrote:I love all the people on here just brushing this off as crumbs. Well, 170k gallons is a lot. And also, procurement costs will more than likely be cheaper as well. That money will easily renovate a lounge. All by reducing the weight of paper used. Very interesting. And yes, it is important. Let's not forget, Bob Crandall took one of the three olives in the first class salads away and calculated the savings from that. It's these cost savings, when added up, that make a huge difference! Bravo United!
The point is - I seriously doubt there are any savings by having 15 lb less paper on board. The engines just won't "feel" the difference. A B767-300 has an MTOW of appr. 350,000 lb - substract 15 lb from it (that's 0.5 % of 1 %): you really think it burns less fuel? In comparison - if you do a marathon with 159.992 lb body weight instead of 160 lb, do you think you would be faster?
Of course, 170,000 gallons savings would be nice, but it just won't happen.
It is just basic physics. It's not about what an engine "feels". Every pound that has to be lifted to 30,000 feet takes the same amount of energy, and every gallon of fuel is able to supply a certain amount of energy to lift things. At the margins it is not that simple, but in the normal operating range of UAs airplanes the relationship is nearly linear.
The energy that is not used to lift those 15 lbs now doesn't have to be used. Every flight, of course has much greater variation, but every flight would have had 15 more pounds without this change.
The speed of a running human is more complicated, but less energy (calories) will have to be used for the lighter person.
Yes, the percentages are very small, but that does not mean they are not real.
Aliqiout wrote:It is just basic physics. It's not about what an engine "feels". Every pound that has to be lifted to 30,000 feet takes the same amount of energy, and every gallon of fuel is able to supply a certain amount of energy to lift things. At the margins it is not that simple, but in the normal operating range of UAs airplanes the relationship is nearly linear.
The energy that is not used to lift those 15 lbs now doesn't have to be used. Every flight, of course has much greater variation, but every flight would have had 15 more pounds without this change.
The speed of a running human is more complicated, but less energy (calories) will have to be used for the lighter person.
Yes, the percentages are very small, but that does not mean they are not real.
BartSimpson wrote:Let us compare the two scenarios - with exactly the same plane, the same weather, the same route (incl. the same altitude change), etc. so that the only difference in the scenarios is the weight (15 lb less weight in the second scenario). Are the fuel pumps (or whatever is responsible for injecting the kerosine into the engines) really able to adjust the amount of needed fuel in such infinitesimal quantities? I'd rather say that the only "saving" will be that the vertical and / or horizontal accelaration is a tiny (most certainly immeasurable) fraction higher in the second scenario.
WN737MAX wrote:One other thing to consider with this is they are probably saving money on producing the magazines too. Less paper used for each magazine = lower raw material cost.
BartSimpson wrote:Aliqiout wrote:It is just basic physics. It's not about what an engine "feels". Every pound that has to be lifted to 30,000 feet takes the same amount of energy, and every gallon of fuel is able to supply a certain amount of energy to lift things. At the margins it is not that simple, but in the normal operating range of UAs airplanes the relationship is nearly linear.
The energy that is not used to lift those 15 lbs now doesn't have to be used. Every flight, of course has much greater variation, but every flight would have had 15 more pounds without this change.
The speed of a running human is more complicated, but less energy (calories) will have to be used for the lighter person.
Yes, the percentages are very small, but that does not mean they are not real.
I am not an engineer so you are of course welcome to correct me. I understand that in principle the savings are there, but I can not really imagine that in reality engine settings can be adjusted to this tiny impact.
Let us compare the two scenarios - with exactly the same plane, the same weather, the same route (incl. the same altitude change), etc. so that the only difference in the scenarios is the weight (15 lb less weight in the second scenario). Are the fuel pumps (or whatever is responsible for injecting the kerosine into the engines) really able to adjust the amount of needed fuel in such infinitesimal quantities? I'd rather say that the only "saving" will be that the vertical and / or horizontal accelaration is a tiny (most certainly immeasurable) fraction higher in the second scenario.
With other words, the savings depend on the technology and not on the actual physics.