Source: Getty Images
Qantas is testing a non-stop flight between
London Heathrow and Sydney. A similar flight was conducted late last month
between New York and Sydney. The idea is to test the viability of
ultra-long-haul services.
Qantas also announced this week a
commitment to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and also capping net emissions
from 2020 onwards. It became the third airline to make the net zero by 2050
pledge after Air France and British Airways. At the same time British Airways
also announced it will offset
carbon emissions for all its UK domestic flights from 2020
But this week the carrier was in the middle
of a media storm for its non-eco-friendly practice of fuel-tankering, ie
carrying more fuel than necessary to avoid having to refuel at a destination
airport.
It looks as if carriers’ "sustainability"
brand image and their financial strategies may be on a direct collision course.
Confused? Don’t be. Everyone in travel is
facing the same conundrum because their stakeholders and clients have
conflicting objectives.
Qantas is routing a routine delivery of a
Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner from Washington State to Australia via Heathrow and on
to Sydney rather than the more direct route across the Pacific.
The test flight will replicate the earlier
New York-Sydney flight in not carrying paying passengers but mostly employees
(a few frequent travellers and press were on the JFK flight) who will be
closely monitored. Food and drink and sleep and physical movement will be
monitored and health benchmarks such as blood pressure and heart rate will be
recorded.
There is probably a demand, most likely
from time-poor business travellers, for non-stop, long-haul flights yet, if the
New York test is anything to go by, there could be big issues around jet lag
and effects on passenger health.
But this flight, like the New York flight,
will fly almost empty which will burn more fuel than necessary. In his book Advanced Aircraft Flight Performance Antonio
Filippone claims that ultra-long-haul flights are not the most fuel-efficient
way to fly. Filippone maintains that modern aircraft (in his case a Boeing
777-300 but this would be very similar to a Dreamliner) should optimally refuel
every 3,450 miles. Qantas’s test flight from Heathrow to Sydney is more than
10,000 miles.
BA practises fuel-tankering because
aviation fuel costs can be significantly higher at some airports. The practice,
which was revealed on a BBC
Panorama programme, used a flight to Italy as an example. The practice is
not unique to BA and is common on short-haul European flights. Researchers have
estimated that it is used on 20%
of all European flights.
Fuel-tankering also cuts aircraft
turnaround time. Dead time on an airport tarmac for airlines is like empty
rooms for hoteliers—distressed inventory, revenue lost for ever.
British Airways and Qantas are commercial
operations whose owners want profits which are aided by cost-minimising
practices such as fuel tankering and revenue maximising opportunities which a
non-stop Kangaroo flight might yield.
But to attract travellers they also must
practise consumer-friendly policies such as reducing total carbon emissions with
tactics such as encouraging the usage of biofuels.
Are the two strategies compatible for
aviation companies? Is keeping both socially-conscious travellers and
cost-conscious finance departments happy possible in corporate travel
programmes?