Registered Members Login:
   
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

6 Pages (Click to Jump) V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »    
 
  
Reply to this topic

The future of airlines
alonso
post Posted: Jul 18 2008, 11:11 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 2,593
Thanks: 100


Airlines face painful carbon cost
Clancy Yeates
July 18, 2008

ANALYSTS are saying some heavy carbon users could suffer under an emissions trading scheme, while other, more fortunate, polluters could be cushioned.

Despite generous concessions to electricity generators, the cost of emitting carbon could slice anywhere between 2 per cent and 24 per cent off profits in aviation, steel-making and other industrial manufacturing, according to various estimates.

Many ambiguities of the scheme remain - most importantly the overall cap to be imposed on carbon emissions - which will determine the cost to business. But the uncertainty has not stopped broking houses from estimating which companies will take the biggest hit, and airlines could be among the worst affected.

Assuming a carbon price of $20 a tonne, UBS analysts Simon Mitchell and Ramoun Lazar said Qantas could face an extra $81 million in costs, or 6 per cent of pre-tax profits, while Virgin Blue's costs would rise by $31 milllion, or 24 per cent of pre-tax profits.

The Federal Government's green paper says transport fuel taxes will be cut to ease the burden of higher costs in the scheme's early stages. But it also says domestic aviation is not a "strongly affected industry", despite fuel accounting for almost 30 per cent of airlines' costs.

"Aviation and rail appear to have raw exposure to the scheme, whereas road will receive a concession," the UBS analysts said.

The chief risk officer at Qantas, Rob Kella, said his company was disappointed that the airlines' position had not been specifically recognised.

"Qantas accepts the role of an emissions trading scheme as part of a suite of measures and is prepared to play its part - but we will need time to adjust to a cost of carbon through the allocation of free permits at the beginning of the scheme."





--------------------
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true"

"What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." Adam Smith
 
balance
post Posted: Jul 10 2008, 12:44 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 5,584
Thanks: 587


In reply to: watchmaker on Thursday 10/07/08 12:33am

Cruising sure can be a destination in itself but doubt many would pay a few g's tied up at the wharf.
Just kidding , point taken.Cruising is a holiday, flying sucks no matter what.
lol , aglow indeed.I guess it'll happen.All sorts of ideas regarding permanent cruising on a large scale, self sustaining seaborne colonies etc.
No sure what fuel the liners use, I guess its mostly heavy oil but as someone already posted some ships do use gas turbines using a diesel/kero/Jet1A type fuel.

My guess is the news piece was produced in response to the alternative of using aircraft as "the" means of international travel.Of course time is the key for so many so flight will remain the mode of A to B transport and it will need oil for quite some time yet.

Alonso dont know the answers to you question. Just a news piece that popped up.Climate change may turn out to be crap but if we all end up with a more sustainable cleaner planet I still think its worth pursuing , anyway thats not the thread.

I remember a some years back I think it was in the back pages of the Fin Rev that passengers would be weighed in and fares paid accordingly.Turned out to be April 1st.





--------------------
Day Trader: Lowest form of life in the known universe.
Shorter: Can limbo under a day trader.
Investor: Salt of the Earth.Sits to the right of God (Warren Buffet)
Share prices are only ever manipulated down.
Paper losses are not really losses.
Chat site posters always know better & know more than anyone about anything.
I'm 29.
The cheque is in the mail.
 
Damon22
post Posted: Jul 10 2008, 11:09 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 278
Thanks: 23


In reply to: jeeves on Wednesday 09/07/08 08:23pm

Good post, jeeves, but there is one important aspect to consider that makes the analysis a bit more complex. To wit, an aircraft that is empty doesn't have to take so much fuel on board to reach a destination compared to a fully-loaded aircraft. The aircraft carrying passengers then has to burn more fuel to fly the additional fuel required to safely reach its destination so the weight of the additional fuel required has to be added to the weight calc. Keep up the good posts.

 
alonso
post Posted: Jul 10 2008, 10:04 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 2,593
Thanks: 100


In reply to: balance on Wednesday 09/07/08 08:35pm

moreover, would there not be a higher carbon emission (which as a global warming skeptic - a pejorative term by the way - I think is a load of bunkum) in the increased refining for jet fuel as compared with bunker oil.
by the way, your figures for the Boeing or the A380 are presumably per passenger/kilometere too?

whatever, the fallout is happening . .

http://business.smh.com.au/airline-to-cut-...80710-3crk.html



--------------------
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true"

"What is prudence in the conduct of every private family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." Adam Smith
 
watchmaker
post Posted: Jul 10 2008, 12:33 AM
  Quote Post


Posts: 741
Thanks: 45


QUOTE (balance @ Wednesday 09/07/08 08:35pm)

Interesting read, although its not a good analogy. Cruise ships are a destination unto themselves, whereas aircraft are mere transport to a destination, and happen to carry self loading freight.

Further, the bunker oil inside a ship costs less than JetA, a lot less. Added to this, if we substituted the lightweight self loading freight, for real cargo, say tractors, ships beome financially interesting.

And one more, the US Navy heavyweights are mostly nuclear powered, with a recent decision by the Navy to built the smaller onshore attack vessels with nuclear power plants.

One might imagine Carnival Lines could answer the pollution call by going the same way. No doubt their passengers would be aglow with this prospect: Cheaper fares, and non stop travel

 
balance
post Posted: Jul 9 2008, 08:35 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 5,584
Thanks: 587


Interesting news article...

Cruise ships emit three times more carbon emissions than aircraft, new research has revealed.
Research suggests that cruising is more environmentally damaging than flying, even when the ship is at capacity
Carnival, which comprises 11 cruise lines, said in its annual environmental report that its ships, on average, release 712.kg of CO2 per kilometre. Carnival's ships carry, on average, a maximum of 1,776 passengers. This means that 401g of CO2 is emitted per passenger per kilometre, even when the boat is entirely full. This is 36 times greater than the carbon footprint of a Eurostar passenger and more than three times that of someone travelling on a standard Boeing 747 or a passenger ferry.

This week the Passenger Shipping Association (PSA) revealed that a ferry, on average, releases 120g of CO2 (per passenger, per kilometre).

Some scientists believe that the damage caused by emissions that are released in the upper atmosphere is twice those at sea. Even if this is true, a cruise ship's emissions would still be nearly three times those of the new Airbus A380.




--------------------
Day Trader: Lowest form of life in the known universe.
Shorter: Can limbo under a day trader.
Investor: Salt of the Earth.Sits to the right of God (Warren Buffet)
Share prices are only ever manipulated down.
Paper losses are not really losses.
Chat site posters always know better & know more than anyone about anything.
I'm 29.
The cheque is in the mail.
 


jeeves
post Posted: Jul 9 2008, 07:23 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 217
Thanks: 12


All you skinny people are missing one very important thing. When you sit in a seat you occupy a certain area of space on that plane. the weight of that space is very large in comparison to the body weight of the person in the seat. ie in a jumbo there ar 425 people in a plane weighing 350 tonnes including fuel the weight per person is ~825kg of plane so if there is a 50kg difference in the passenger weight ie 60kg vs 110kg that equates to only 5.5% more weight. The cost of an airfare is probably only 60% at the most of the fare cost so any effect from weight would be 3% so barely worth the hassle of weighing people.

What people should be asking is why are the charges so much for excess baggage.

jeeves

 
ComUnNoTerms
post Posted: Jul 9 2008, 06:33 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 72
Thanks: 2


In reply to: swuzzlebubble on Wednesday 09/07/08 03:25pm

Using the same logic as "Paying a fat duty" there would be a case for an extra skinny person to a "very skinny discount".

The weight for fare setting whilst ideal for American Airlines might not work to well for Ethiopian Airlines however.



Keep up the good ideas people

C

 
Vilmac
post Posted: Jul 9 2008, 04:28 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,321
Thanks: 22


In reply to: swuzzlebubble on Wednesday 09/07/08 03:25pm

Stop it Swuzzle,

I am laughing so much I am losing weight.



--------------------
[i][b]Who said money does not grow on trees?[/b][/i]
 
swuzzlebubble
post Posted: Jul 9 2008, 03:25 PM
  Quote Post


Posts: 1,088
Thanks: 119


Another aspect to all this is should anyone pay for excess weight/bagage on a half empty plane?

 
 


6 Pages (Click to Jump) V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic


You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.


TERMS OF USE  -  CONTACT ADMIN  -  ADVERTISING