A Japanese airline is taking its weight-saving efforts to new heights, asking passengers on some of its flights to visit the toilet before flying.
The unusual request is one of a number of measures being tried out by All Nippon Airways to reduce fuel consumption.
ANA estimates that if half its passengers went to the bathroom before boarding, it could reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 4.2 tonnes a month, said company spokeswoman Megumi Tezuka.
The airline will also recycle paper cups and plastic bottles, and use chopsticks produced from wood from forest thinning projects, as part of its efforts to become more environmentally friendly.
The measures are being trialled on 38 domestic flights and four international flights — on the Tokyo-Singapore route — during October.
The move follows earlier steps by airlines to reduce the weight of flights by trimming the size of in-flight magazines, slimming the handles of forks and spoons and using lighter drink trolleys and porcelain.
ANA announced in April its first annual loss in six years as the global economic downturn reduced the number of people taking to the skies.
It is not the only airline looking to the lavatory to save money. Irish budget airline Ryanair has previously said it is considering charging passengers to use on-board toilets.
AFP
By: swerve - 21st October 2009 at 21:34
… What was stuck in my head was the USAF Galaxies and C-17’s taking off with 20-30% fuel NOT on board. This allows them to put more freight on (To the weight of the missing fuel). Then, once airborne and the MTOW is satisfied, they team up with a Tanker and get a full tank. Great idea.
It adds risk. The additional risk is small enough to be acceptable to the military, but not to civilian airlines or regulators. It’s also expensive. It burns more fuel overall, means you need a stock of tankers, takes up more T/O & landing slots, more ramp space. The military do it because the absolute load is more important to them than the cost. Commercial airlines have other priorities.
I wrote in and suggested that the duty free shopping should be done at the point of arrival. This would save several hundred litres/kg or lbs per flight, not only giving some weight to the personal oxy bottle but save TOW as well. I was rejected out of hand.
I’m in complete agreement with you on this. It’s crazy to fly several hundred kilos of glass, water, alcohol etc. from one airport, to another airport where they probably sell exactly the same goods.
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st October 2009 at 17:41
Has April 1st come late this year? :confused:
I agree, this must be some sort of joke.
Mind you, I bet Ryanair would consider it.
By: Ren Frew - 18th October 2009 at 01:55
I think they’re just taking the p*ss 😀
I think you’re talking cr@p there Steve…:)
By: PMN - 18th October 2009 at 00:15
And, tenthije, reducing flightspeed would have two affects. It would actually make the engine run less economical. Even when fuel was as cheap as water the Civil airliners have always sought ways to save fuel-burn. Running slow is not one of them.
I’m sure Southwest would disagree! They slowed the speed their aircraft cruise at by around 5 knots (if I remember rightly) to save fuel and it seemed to have a positive effect.
Paul
By: old shape - 17th October 2009 at 23:20
Makes sense to me.
If 200 pax each passed 5 fl ounces (1/4 pint) that take off weight would be lowered by 62.5 lbs. That’s half a passenger. I would like to be able to quickly shave off 65lbs from a design feature! Almost 20% of a jet’s fuel is gulped on the take off. No, that’s not right…….correct me please? What was stuck in my head was the USAF Galaxies and C-17’s taking off with 20-30% fuel NOT on board. This allows them to put more freight on (To the weight of the missing fuel). Then, once airborne and the MTOW is satisfied, they team up with a Tanker and get a full tank. Great idea.
After the Manchester air crash (737 in the 80’s) there was a bit of discussion about why every passenger couldn’t have their own oxygen bottle. Weight was the dismissing answer. I wrote in and suggested that the duty free shopping should be done at the point of arrival. This would save several hundred litres/kg or lbs per flight, not only giving some weight to the personal oxy bottle but save TOW as well. I was rejected out of hand.
And, tenthije, reducing flightspeed would have two affects. It would actually make the engine run less economical. Even when fuel was as cheap as water the Civil airliners have always sought ways to save fuel-burn. Running slow is not one of them. It would impinge on timetables…which woulds eventually flush out to an aircraft being held overnight in a place not ideal thus the airline would need more aircraft – which we would pay for in higher prices and that aircraft would not run to it’s full capacity thus being even less green.
By: galdri - 17th October 2009 at 00:09
Hehehehe reminds me of an old guy I used to fly quite a lot with.
We had loaded the Cherokee to the brim with grub for a long day out flying. When we arrived at our first stop, I put a bit too much fuel in the tanks, so ended up overweight. The old guy had the answer! He maintained that if the four of us ate all the sandwiches and drank all the coffee we would no longer be overweight:eek::D
Seems like ANA is useing similar reasoning, only the other way around:D
By: steve rowell - 16th October 2009 at 22:43
Has April 1st come late this year? :confused:
I think they’re just taking the p*ss 😀
By: Grey Area - 16th October 2009 at 07:50
Has April 1st come late this year? :confused:
By: tenthije - 15th October 2009 at 22:44
I’m all in favour of being environmentally friendly, but how insane can you be? The effect of this crap proposal (look mom, I made a pun!) is marginal. Why not look at measures that actually will help. For instance, reduce the flightspeed by a few percent to get really noticable results. On a short haul flight the difference won’t even be noticed!
Sign In
October 15, 2009 at 10:22 pm