Are Airlines Gonna Save The Planet?

[mm22 0]

Oil price is on the rise... so why not going a bit lighter and "drop off" a few things when we fly? certainly a few billions (?) are spent every year to lift up all those ice cubes people enjoy while flying around... so why not cut them to a minimum or cut them at all?This is one of the latest news I've heard about airlines cutting on their 'fringe' services, after starting to charge for soft drinks, water etc. over the past few years... now I don't think cutting on water is such a nice behavior, as passengers are deprived the right to take their own water on board and the shops at the gate are often not that cheap... additionally why should we purchase hundreds of plastic bottles for each flight when the same could be achieved with just a few larger tanks provided by the airline?ok people might argue water provided from tanks is not that good and hygienic conditions could be disputable and so on, so let's just put this aside and go back to out ice cubes I don't personally like to have ice in my drinks and i do my best trying to prevent waiters from putting any in my drinks, I don't always succeed... anyway I was just wondering if ice is of any use to our organism, is it always necessary to cool our throat down to nearly freezing level? what if we all just stopped using ice in our drinks especially when we are not in a tropical environment (I'm assuming planes do not offer a tropical environment)?again, drinking water is very important while flying, due to the low relative humidity in the cabin, and I happened to read from people wondering if any airline will ever be sued for causing dehydration in fliers or something like that...back (and to conclusions) to the ice... if airlines start using this no-ice-policy widely won't more people realize how unnecessary the use of ice cubes is? won't this make us reluctant to accept ice also in contexts other than planes? won't all that ultimately benefit our Earth? (how funny though, Earth being helped by some among the worst contributors to its ruin...)ok this was a little 'simplified' and provocative piece, but that's the way a debate should start, I think

[salamangkero 0]

Oil price is on the rise... so why not going a bit lighter and "drop off" a few things when we fly? certainly a few billions (?) are spent every year to lift up all those ice cubes people enjoy while flying around... so why not cut them to a minimum or cut them at all?

 

This is one of the latest news I've heard about airlines cutting on their 'fringe' services, after starting to charge for soft drinks, water etc. over the past few years... now I don't think cutting on water is such a nice behavior, as passengers are deprived the right to take their own water on board and the shops at the gate are often not that cheap... additionally why should we purchase hundreds of plastic bottles for each flight when the same could be achieved with just a few larger tanks provided by the airline?

 

ok people might argue water provided from tanks is not that good and hygienic conditions could be disputable and so on, so let's just put this aside and go back to out ice cubes I don't personally like to have ice in my drinks and i do my best trying to prevent waiters from putting any in my drinks, I don't always succeed... anyway I was just wondering if ice is of any use to our organism, is it always necessary to cool our throat down to nearly freezing level? what if we all just stopped using ice in our drinks especially when we are not in a tropical environment (I'm assuming planes do not offer a tropical environment)?

 

again, drinking water is very important while flying, due to the low relative humidity in the cabin, and I happened to read from people wondering if any airline will ever be sued for causing dehydration in fliers or something like that...

 

back (and to conclusions) to the ice... if airlines start using this no-ice-policy widely won't more people realize how unnecessary the use of ice cubes is? won't this make us reluctant to accept ice also in contexts other than planes? won't all that ultimately benefit our Earth? (how funny though, Earth being helped by some among the worst contributors to its ruin...)

 

ok this was a little 'simplified' and provocative piece, but that's the way a debate should start, I think

You are right; it really is a provocative piece and here I am, responding to your... provocation

 

I sincerely believe that people do not need to have ice clinking in their glasses. It is, however, a matter of personal taste. You are not a proponent of iced drinks, however, there are those of us who prefer to have ice in their drinks. My mother, for instance, always insists that soda must have ice. Personally, though, I believe that if a drink is cold enough, we don't need ice.

 

Oh, sorry. I just remembered that ice has some other uses. It serves, not just to freeze but also dilute the liquid it is immersed in. Ever tried drinking brandy or any hard drink without the "rocks"? I think it helps in slowing down the drinker's inebriation rate. Airline companies, after all, would not want their first-class passengers hollering in their seats or dancing naked on the aisle or, worse, throwing up on other passengers and crew.

 

In any case, I am personally not really against the elimination of ice in airline services. I wouldn't mind having no ice on my drink in dining places, provided that they serve their drinks cold enough. However, I would certainly want ice when I visit bars or clubs

 

I'm thinking of other things airlines could "drop off" like toothpicks, paper towels, salt, pepper and sugar. Then again, I have a sweet tooth so I would also be against the elimination of sugar

[mm22 0]

Oh, sorry. I just remembered that ice has some other uses. It serves, not just to freeze but also dilute the liquid it is immersed in. Ever tried drinking brandy or any hard drink without the "rocks"? I think it helps in slowing down the drinker's inebriation rate. Airline companies, after all, would not want their first-class passengers hollering in their seats or dancing naked on the aisle or, worse, throwing up on other passengers and crew.

that is so right! that's how bars save on drinks, by selling you ice cubes instead of brandy yeah I do agree sometimes it is a must to have ice, if you had to take a particular drink without ice then you might as well just don't drink it at all! (which would spare even more resources ahah) no, I am not that much against enjoying life and drinks for the sake of the environment

oh yeah sugar if another of those things I'd rather leave out... ok maybe my personal taste is a little bit too "energy saving"

[Stridr 0]

Interesting debate topic. First off I would like to say I am a person who is aware and do what I can to save the earth, within my means. The scope of this dabate is'nt very clear. On the subject of ice cubes, I admit I am one that can't live without cold drinks for a day. I believe many are no different from me. Airlines would not agree to not carrying ice cubes easliy, that business of air travel is all about comfort, and satisfying the customer to be world class.A bigger and more significant solution is related to your 'Oil price is on the rise' matter. Biofuels is a new and upcoming solution. Biofuel can be broadly defined as solid, liquid, or gas fuel derived from recently dead biological material.This distinguishes it from fossil fuels, which are derived from long dead biological material. Biofuel can be theoretically produced from any biological carbon source, though the most common by far is photosynthetic plants. Many different plants and plant-derived materials are used for biofuel manufacture. Biofuels are used globally, most commonly to power vehicles and cooking stoves. Biofuel industries are expanding in Europe, Asia and the Americas.Biofuels offer the possibility of producing energy without a net increase of carbon into the atmosphere because the plants used in to produce the fuel have removed CO2 from the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuels which return carbon which was stored beneath the surface for millions of years into the air. Biofuel is therefore more nearly carbon neutral and less likely increase atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases though doubts have been raised as to whether this benefit can be achieved in practice. The use of biofuels also reduces dependence on petroleum and enhances energy security.There are two common strategies of producing biofuels. One is to grow crops high in either sugar sugar cane, sugar beet, and sweet sorghum or starch from corn or maize, and then use yeast fermentation to produce ethyl alcohol (ethanol). The second is to grow plants that contain high amounts of vegetable oil, such as oil palm, soybean, algae, or jatropha. When these oils are heated, their viscosity is reduced, and they can be burned directly in a diesel engine, or the oils can be chemically processed to produce fuels such as biodiesel. Wood and its byproducts can also be converted into biofuels such as woodgas, methanol or ethanol fuel. It is also possible to make cellulosic ethanol from non-edible plant parts, but this can be difficult to accomplish economically.Biofuels play significant roles in a variety of international issues, including mitigation of carbon emissions levels and oil prices, deforestation and soil erosion, impact on water resources, and energy balance and efficiency. And that leads the world into the recent Food vs Fuel worldwide debate.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Ok so your saying that if people use less ice there be more water in the world? Possibly, but very unlikely since billions of gallons are used every year to the extent that more ocean water is being used for those $25 bottle waters. I think bottled water should be stop and I tell you why, its cuts down on the waste of plastic and trash, and less water is taken from the ocean. Of course, you could say that if they shut down the soda industry there would a lot more water and that it could used in places where water barely reaches. Heck farmers need more water then we do, however, because of pollution and use of pesticides the land that is used to growing crops on is getting worse and worse and so it is a matter of priority especially for people who get the dirtiest water in the world and have to pay hundreds of dollars just to get that water.Which leads into my next point, which is the fact that these companies are not spending enough money to actually purify water. Sure they do it, but they don't do it effectively enough because town water is like the worse water in the world and people know that but chose to ignore it. It occurred to me that at least 1000 years ago I would water was at its purest and that you could literally drink it right out of the rivers, but now I can't look at river water because it is so dirty and toxic that drinking from it might kill you. Water is needed, but this profiteers are making millions on something that was free to begin with and should stay that way.

[salamangkero 0]

Ok so your saying that if people use less ice there be more water in the world?

I think what mm22 means is that by cutting back on ice, airlines end up with (a bit) lesser load to lift up into the air, indirectly requiring less fuel thus saving up by a little bit since oil prices are rising. Oh, I must admit, I don't altogether know how it really goes. In any case, though, I really think that the availability of water is not the issue here

[mm22 0]

I think what mm22 means is that by cutting back on ice, airlines end up with (a bit) lesser load to lift up into the air, indirectly requiring less fuel thus saving up by a little bit since oil prices are rising. Oh, I must admit, I don't altogether know how it really goes. In any case, though, I really think that the availability of water is not the issue here

just following up the topic after vacation yes, that's right, what i meant with my post was "fuel savings through aircraft weight cut by not carrying ice cubes PLUS energy saved by not freezing and storing the water in the first place"... indeed the ice cubes are just an example of how airlines can save fuel, sure it's not easy to compromise on comfort, as someone pointed out in the above replies customers are expecting airlines to provide them with a high standard of comfort, else they might choose a different airline if the different comfort level is not reflected in price difference...

btw, I didn't take any ice during flights in my last vacation (how could I??) but I got the idea for yet another interesting (maybe...) point of debate: metal or plastic cutlery on board? metal is definitely better for the user experience and also in my opinion gives a better idea of the "class" of the airline, but is probably much heavier to carry than plastic cutlery... on the other hand if plastic cutleries are disposable, as often the case, their impact on the environment will probably be greater than their weight savings..

I haven't calculated nor researched the actual numbers but the feeling is that disposable cutlery should be best avoided wherever possible and the use of non-disposable cutlery favored (sure this will require washing thus energy consumption to be considered when finding the numbers)... perhaps a good solution would be using good quality plastic reusable cutlery with a much lower weight compared to metal and a comparable "comfort level"...

let's see what people think about that by the way interesting excursus on biofuels, I agree they are one of the most important ways to fight CO2, sure as Stridr mentioned there's an issue regarding the quota of "food stuff" devoted to biofuels production and all related socio-economical and political aspects... in my opinion the production of biofuels should be primarily boosted where organic refuse is 'naturally' available, for example in farms or some food processing plants..

[salamangkero 0]

I haven't calculated nor researched the actual numbers but the feeling is that disposable cutlery should be best avoided wherever possible and the use of non-disposable cutlery favored (sure this will require washing thus energy consumption to be considered when finding the numbers)... perhaps a good solution would be using good quality plastic reusable cutlery with a much lower weight compared to metal and a comparable "comfort level"

I feel the same too. Plastic cutlery exhibit an aura of, "I am disposable, hence you are assured of new (and clean) cutlery for your meals" However, they are, in my opinion, quite weak. I, personally, bear witness to the frustration with breaking of the tines of one's fork when applied to McDonald's chicken.

Steel cutlery, on the other hand, have this, "I am strong, hard, classy, durable and dependable," aura. Your respective Mama's cooking aside, there are few other edible substances in the world that refuse to yield to the power of steel. This, however, presents a few problems. For one, steel cutlery are rather heavy. Also, haphazard cleaning processes will eventually dull the brightest of these eating implements. I suppose steel cutlery can also exude a, "Whee, I am clean," aura if it has been thoroughly washed.

I have recently watched an episode of Big Bang Theory where Sheldon pointed out that carbon composites are almost as strong as titanium, yet not nearly as heavy. I also read on Wikipedia that carbon fiber has lesser density than steel, which makes it a very good compromise, if I could be so audacious to call it a compromise. Imagine an eating implement stronger than plastic, yet lighter than steel!

Now that I come to think of it, would it be possible to replace steel implements with non-steel? For one, I suppose we could start with the airplane's seats, the cabinet doors or what not?

The only thing I have not yet considered it the cost of manufacturing carbon fiber items, compared to manufacturing plastic or steel ones... Although I believe it will cost more to create carbon composite items versus plastic ones. I'm not sure about steel though...

[arnz 0]

Basically the service onboard the planes are starting to get slightly cut back in line with rising fuel costs. Although the "gap" between a full-service airline and a "low-cost" airline is still pretty huge. For example, the low cost airlines in Europe generally only provides water and charge for soft drinks/food, whilst the full-cost airline may provide the free food/free drinks, but may charge for any extra drinks/food after that.

[mm22 0]

I have recently watched an episode of Big Bang Theory where Sheldon pointed out that carbon composites are almost as strong as titanium, yet not nearly as heavy. I also read on Wikipedia that carbon fiber has lesser density than steel, which makes it a very good compromise, if I could be so audacious to call it a compromise. Imagine an eating implement stronger than plastic, yet lighter than steel!
Now that I come to think of it, would it be possible to replace steel implements with non-steel? For one, I suppose we could start with the airplane's seats, the cabinet doors or what not?

The only thing I have not yet considered it the cost of manufacturing carbon fiber items, compared to manufacturing plastic or steel ones... Although I believe it will cost more to create carbon composite items versus plastic ones. I'm not sure about steel though...

well, I think most metallic stuff on the airplane are aluminum, right? that's already much lighter compared to steel, certainly plastics or fancier materials could be lighter and offer the same mechanical properties.. the cost, as you mentioned, is what decides their usage ratio.. I think aeronautic industry is pretty much on the cutting-edge when it comes to reducing weight and the won't probably miss a chance to improve if it's worth the money

yeah it'll be great to have titanium or carbon fiber cutlery, I'm not sure though how many of them would the crew be able to recollect after the meal... it'd be pretty nice to have it at home as a souvenir and why not use it as an every day set after a few trips (on the same airline!!)

[arnz 0]

American Airlines iirc has a habit of leaving their planes aluminium, only deciding to put the decals and the logos on their planes today, even the newer Boeings. Airbus on the other hand, may have had a few planes painted white due to the different assembly of the Airbus planes. I personally think that leaving the plane silver does tend to save a fair bit of fuel and weight, although it doesnt seem to make planes look attractive. I remember Air Canada trying to leave one of their planes unpainted for a while, only deciding to paint the tail in the usual maple leaf. It wasnt a popular decision considering the outrage by the Airplane nuts, and the observations by the general flyers.

[mm22 0]

American Airlines iirc has a habit of leaving their planes aluminium, [...]

that's an interesting point as well... how much weight can one save by not painting the livery of their aircrafts? I'm not sure about the order of magnitude of this number, though the feeling is that it could be secondary to other parts, but sure everything counts especially in the long run!

on the other hand we could consider the example-setting side of the decision, something that goes like: "let's not paint our planes, silver is beautiful and our Earth can be spared dangerous chemicals and waste of resources!", that might eventually work out, who knows and sure enough the same concept could be extended to other areas of our life, cut off the 'unnecessary' will eventually benefit everyone, won't it? well, everyone but the ones who thrive on the 'unnecessary'... but then we will be asked: "so, what's necessary to us humans? some food and a place to sleep? is that all we are supposed to do on Earth?", well the answer could be complex and highly philosophical and we would spend yet more resources while trying to find this answer. But I do believe there is so much 'unnecessary' out there that a normal dose of common sense should be enough to start doing something about it