Airlines around the world are under a lot of pressure over their climate impact. This is most intense in Europe, where governments are seeking to curtail flights – limiting airport operations, and even banning flying short distances.
There’s a concerted effort among airlines globally to set climate goals in order to forestall greater regulation. And, in so doing, there’s a push for subsidies instead of regulation.
After the third quarter American Airlines call, executives met with employees for a state of the airline presentation and Q&A session (a recording of which was reviewed by View From The Wing). Airline CEO Robert Isom shared,
American Airlines consumes almost, it’s not quite you have to round up, consumes almost 1% of the world’s refined petroleum. We’re no different than Delta or United. The math is really simple. The U.S. consumes about 1/3 of the world’s refined petroleum. Aviation in the U.S. consumes about 10%. American Airlines represents about 25% of the U.S. capacity. The numbers don’t lie, but we’re dependent on this. It’s about 20-25% of our total operating expense. We know that this is something that we have to find a way to manage in a responsible fashion… there’s tremendous variability with the cost of refined petroleum… $1 in the cost of a barrel of oil amounts to almost $100 million swings in our P&L.
..The best ways we can reduce consumption and conserve and make sure that we’re sustainable in the long run is by flying new equipment…every new generation of aircraft engine consumes about 15% less fuel on a per capita basis.
He goes on to talk about more direct air traffic control routings and improving FAA’s service and technology.
And airlines are increasingly pushing for government subsidies of alternative fuels, but that may be pushing in the wrong direction.
Air travel represents about 3.5% of worldwide emissions. But half of that is cargo. And not all flights contribute equally to passenger air travel’s less than 2% of emissions. (In contrast, fashion and apparel is ~ 10% of carbon emissions but demands to wear used clothing doesn’t get nearly as much legislative fervor as regulating airlines.) Overall, per capita CO2 emissions in the United States are back to their 1913 levels. Here’s the relative decline since 1979:
It turns out that just 15% of flying leads to the formation of contrails. Hydrogen-based fuels won’t solve the contrails problem. But a 2,000 foot increase in cruise altitude reduces contrails 62% (a 4,000 foot increase would reduce it by 92%). To approach this, and it isn’t always possible, airlines need better meteorological data for flight planning. American Airlines and Google actually experimented with this and it works,
A group of pilots at American flew 70 test flights over six months while using Google’s AI-based predictions, cross-referenced with Breakthrough Energy’s open-source contrail models, to avoid altitudes that are likely to create contrails. After these test flights, we analyzed satellite imagery and found that the pilots were able to reduce contrails by 54%. This is the first proof point that commercial flights can verifiably avoid contrails and thereby reduce their climate impact.
Or you could be like Delta and buy fraudulent carbon credits.
Bob Isom is an idiot. I was very disappointed when Parker named him as his replacement. He has zero leadership qualities. Isom has gone deep under cover. No more crew news or limited visits.
Air France has a program that allows the customer to opt-in to a contribution towards sustainable / alternative fuel. Each flight identifies the contribution amount. The incentive to the customer is 1 Tier Point for each 10 Euros of contribution. Completely voluntary. Completely fair.
How do they expect to really change things huh ? I think most of the ideas have come from Complete clueless twits
The clothing v airlines point highlights the impact of targeting direct sources over trying to influence customers. Fossil fuel and plastics manufacturers have successfully pushed the discussion for years that the focus should be on the consumer not the producer. They have protected their profits and polluted the world. The CEO of AA is facing up to how his and other airlines fit into the climate picture. There have been huge improvements in aircraft fuel efficiency but still there is a consequence of flying.
Oh, yeah, buy fewer clothes too.
well, no, AA’s fuel burn is not JUST LIKE DL or UA’s.
DL burned 5% less fuel in the 3rd quarter than AA and managed to generate 7% more revenue even excluding the refinery.
UA burned even more fuel than DL but is closer to DL in revenue generating efficiency.
AA and UA simply have less fuel efficient fleets than DL – and part of that is driven by clinging to the 777 and part of it is because of a much higher use of RJs. There is no such thing as a new generation powered RJ in US carrier fleets.
And DL has saved billions in fuel expense from the refinery although the refinery is contributing very little right now. UA tried to buy a refinery but failed to follow in DL’s footsteps.
Yes AA could save more on fuel but it would have to stop clinging to its use of RJs to serve small cities which DL manages to serve as well with mainline aircraft. and UA sees what DL has done but can’t get Boeing to deliver the massive number of MAXs it has ordered. UA will get more new aircraft from Airbus in 2024 than from Boeing.
And AA’s biggest problem is revenue generating efficiency. All assets exist solely to generate revenue and profits. AA does the worst of the big 3 in that regard.
Currently, US oil production is at an all-time high. US oil production now is 15 percent higher than just four or five years ago. For those who want “drill baby drill,” we’re already there. That rate of supply will keep prices capped. Indeed, forecasts are for prices to decline (further) over the next year. This will give fuel-dependent industries more time to develop non-petroleum solutions. But, the fact is, transition ultimately needs to happen. (Before anyone marks my comment of “needs to happen” as that of a Green Party extremist, I’ll note that I have a significant investment in oil wells and “needs to happen” works against my financial interest.)
@Tim Dunn, a question. In general aviation, we saw a number of small jets with JT-15s refitted with quieter and more fuel efficient engines. And, when Stage 4 noise standards took effect, we saw engines on a number of mid-sized jets fitted with “hush kits.” Neither was inexpensive. Assuming a fuselage still has hours left, would it make financial sense for an airline to refit a 777 (or any other aircraft) with a newer generation engine? I realize it would be a huge capital investment but would it be offset by the lower fuel consumption? And, yes, there would be re-certification issues. Thanks for your thoughts.
putting new generation engines on aircraft requires the manufacturer usually to decide if it is worth it.
Hush kits were just about noise and did nothing for fuel efficiency.
There are no new generation RJs in the US regional carrier fleet because new generation engines are heavier mainline fleets have held the line on the weight limits on RJs. Plus, new generation engines work best at longer stage lengths and mainline pilots don’t want any more RJ flights or any more of them.
Airbus and Boeing will be able to produce more aircraft than they are and those new generation powered aircraft will last for 25 plus years – a far better use of technology than trying to re-engine an older airframe.
Because AA is doubling down on buying the E175 as it reaches the end of its life and are committed to a large regional jet fleet, they will have below average fuel efficiency for years to come. Who knows if they will ever become more efficient at generating revenue.
DL succeeds at both revenue generating and fuel efficiency. AS is closer to DL’s camp.
UA has the former.
AA is in the worst position of the 4 airlines that use regional jets.
Part of the reason that CO2 emissions are down to 1913 levels is that in 1913 the USA was building it’s way into being a manufacturing powerhouse. Now the USA is retreating from manufacturing. The demand for manufactured goods in the USA and Europe causes production to occur in China and other places. Lower CO2 emissions in the USA does not cause significant reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions. If you look at the “Annual carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions worldwide from 1940 to 2023” on Statista, the increase over the years has been an upsloping line that is more than seven times higher now than it was in 1940. Maybe solar cells on airplanes could lead to a reduction in the use of jet fuel in the future but the technology isn’t there yet. If solar becomes a part of the solution, then flying in daylight hours will be optimal. Efficient supersonic flight could then become part of the solution for longer flights.
Though I don’t see anyone talking about the biggest energy consumer in the U.S., an entity that consumes 1% of of the total used in this country. Possibly it’s the biggest single energy user in the world. That’s the Department of Defense.
@Tim Dunn
You are blending fuel efficiency with fuel cost. Fuel cost has no direct ties to CO2 production whereas fuel efficiency does. While Delta was more efficient using the formula in their earnings, gallons per 1000 ASM (15.2 vs 14.4), AA had a lower unit cost for fuel (2.50 vs 2.53/gal) in Q3. I feel like you are really twisting the purpose of this article to beat your Delta drum because of a single sentence.
no, I am not blending fuel efficiency with fuel cost.
I did talk about fuel efficiency and REVENUE generating efficiency.
I did NOT compare revenue efficiency to fuel cost.
And, right now, the refinery is not contributing anything to DL’s lower fuel costs.
AA’s fuel cost per gallon was lower in the 3rd quarter than DL – which has happened very few times since the refinery became DL’s.
DL’s total fuel cost to revenue generation is an appropriate comparison.
You can do the math on that if you would like.
AA still burns far more fuel and spends more on fuel than DL. and gets less passenger and cargo revenue per dollar spent on fuel than DL or UA
The more flights they cancel the more fuel they save. It appears to me that AA is doing its part.
Tim the article was not about Delta. What is your issue. Your incessant Delta shilling is embarrassing. Go back to fluffing your stocks on SA.