Did COVID 19 Kill The Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet?

Even though British Airways had slated to retired their entire fleet by 2024, did the COVID 19 pandemic hasten the demise of the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet?

By: Ringo Bones

When the civil aviation celebrated the 50^th Anniversary of the maiden flight of the “Queen of the Skies” back in February 2019, the Boeing 747 was notably remembered for democratizing global air travel during the 1970s. First thought of as a stop-gap measure by Boeing’s design team at Seattle during the late 1960s before the global airline industry would start using the supersonic capable Concorde and competing designs as their primary fleet, who knew that value-for-money subsonic speed air travel would define the airline industry for the rest of the 20^th Century. Before the Concorde was retired, the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet was the second fastest operational civilian commercial plane with a top speed of just over 650 miles per hour. And it also achieved a record first back in 1989 when it flew nonstop from London to Sydney.

A number of airline companies already retired their fleet of 747s during the second half of 2019 and in the United States the venerable Jumbo Jet was relegated as an air freight carrier. British Airways had planned on retiring their planes in 2024 but has brought it forward four years sooner because of the air travel downturn due to the COVID 19 pandemic. Last year, British Airways is the world’s largest operator of the Jumbo Jets with 31 planes in the airline’s fleet. For all intents and purposes, it could be said that that COVID 19 pandemic actually killed the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet as a civilian passenger aircraft, or at least hastened its retirement.

As a four-engine subsonic aircraft, the Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet is far less efficient than modern twin-engine models that are made almost entirely of high-strength composites – such as the Airbus A350, Boeing’s own 787 Dreamliner or even the older Boeing 777 – all of which are cheaper to run in terms of fuel consumption. And by retiring their fleet of Boeing 747 Jumbo Jets, British Airways might just achieve their goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

British Airways Fuel Tankering Debacle: Environmental Hypocrisy in the Airline Industry?

After a British Airways whistleblower’s recent revelations, is the global airline industry as a whole guilty of “environmental hypocrisy”?

By: Ringo Bones

A British Airways whistleblower has just recently revealed an industry-wide practice that deliberately adds weight to flights that invariably increased greenhouse gas emissions on every flight. A practice called “Fuel Tankering” sees planes filled with extra fuel because they fill up on airports where the aviation fuel is priced cheaper than their home base or their final destination airports. After the British Airways’ whistleblower’s revelations on the BBC Panorama, it shows that the British Airways’ fleet of planes generated an extra 18,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide as of 2018 through fuel tankering.  Cost savings made on a single flight range from as small as just 10-quid or 10 UK£ - but in some situations, the savings can run for hundreds of pounds.

British Airways were accused of “environmental hypocrisy” and “green washing” after airing adverts and public relations spin on the airline company’s commitment to lower their greenhouse gas emissions and more recently on their commitment on solidarity with the global Climate Emergency movement.  If the global airline industry had been practicing fuel tankering during the past few years, their overall additional carbon dioxide emissions would be an additional 900,000 tonnes per year. John Sauven, Greenpeace UK’s executive director, told the BBC that this was a “classic example of a company putting profit before planet”

Aerotoxic Syndrome: Unrecognized Occupational Health Hazard to Pilots and Cabin Crew?

Aerotoxic Syndrome, also known as Toxic Cabin Air Syndrome, could be poised to become as the airline industry’s version of the dreaded “Gulf War Syndrome?

By: Ringo Bones

As of March 28, 2019, five of the UK’s largest airlines are facing legal action which claims pilots and cabin crew are regularly exposed to toxic fumes during flight. The Unite Union said legal notice has been served in 51 cases, the majority of which are against British Airways. Easyjet, Thomas Cook, Jet2 and Virgin Atlantic are also subject to the legal action over “aerotoxic syndrome”. The Unite Union, which represents airline staff, claims pilots and crew are exposed to frequent “fume events” when air drawn into the aircraft becomes contaminated by toxic compounds. The Unite Union says the fumes – which originate from the oil used to lubricate the jet engines – contain organophosphates and trichlorophenol and long-term exposure can lead to chronic ill effects and life threatening conditions. Pardon me but two of the chemicals mentioned here reminded me of nerve gas / cholinesterase inhibitor chemical agent precursors suspected of causing the dreaded “Gulf War Syndrome” that affected a large number of troops who served during Operation Desert Storm back in 1991.

Sadly the science behind aerotoxic syndrome is still under dispute by the world’s leading occupational health authorities. Aerotoxic Syndrome is a phrase coined by Chris Winder and Jean-Christophe Balouet in 2000 to describe their claims of short-term and long-term ill-health effects caused by breathing airline cabin air which was alleged to have been contaminated to toxic levels that exceed established parts per million safe levels with atomized engine oils or other chemicals. An assessment by the UK’s House of Lords Science and Technology Committee found that claims of health effects were unsubstantiated. An update in 2008 found no significant new evidence. As of 2013, aerotoxic syndrome is still not recognized in medicine. Could aerotoxic syndrome / toxic cabin air syndrome just become the global airline industry’s Gulf War Syndrome?

Can British Airways Boost It’s “Green Credentials”?

Given that the world’s airline companies are viewed as the main contributors of man-made carbon dioxide even though they just contribute about 3-percent overall, will British Airways’ plan to make kerosene from domestic wastes eventually boost the airline company’s “green credentials”?  

By: Ringo Bones

Even though they only contribute around 3-percent of the overall man-made carbon dioxide emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere, the world’s airline companies has since been under somewhat unfair scrutiny when it comes to those man-made activities that exacerbates the ongoing climate change that could eventually result in sea-level rise and an increase in the number of droughts and rainfall pattern disruption. But will the British Airways’ plans to make aviation grade kerosene from domestic wastes eventually lower their overall carbon dioxide emissions?

At present, conservative funded think-tanks are still publishing data that the manufacture of hydrocarbon-based fuels from biomass and related material like domestic and agricultural wastes offer no less overall carbon dioxide emission reduction as opposed to refining these fuels directly from crude oil. The very fact that most of the world’s crude oil supply comes from less-than-friendly nation-states only bolster every tenured scientists’ attempts at making hydrocarbon based fuels from “alternative” and “renewable” sources.  

Willie Walsh, Chief Executive of IAG – International Airline Group, the parent company of British Airways – says there are already plans to create a facility to make aviation grade kerosene for use in their jet airliners from domestic wastes. Even though the spot price of crude oil has now dropped from 110 US dollars per barrel at the start of 2014 to around 85 US dollars per barrel at present, the British Airways kerosene manufacturing plant that will open around 2017 will still be cost competitive with crude oil sourced aviation grade kerosene even if the spot price of crude oil falls to around 50 US dollars per barrel.