3 ms·
It is highly inefficient to make an additional landing to fuel up. The tax would have to be obscene to make the numbers work out for an airline to tanker.
by pathseeker 7y ago
It is highly inefficient to make an additional landing to fuel up. The tax would have to be obscene to make the numbers work out for an airline to tanker.
- londons_explore 7y agoI don't think so. Even a 20% fuel tax in the EU would probably make a few EU neighbour states lay down extra long runways so a plane can land, fuel up, and takeoff again, all without opening the doors or maneuvering/reversing. They could probably do 5 minutes with practice. It would save $10k easily for a big plane.
- chopin 7y agoYou can make it time efficient, but not fuel efficient. As well approaching and departing procedures add to the time, so you spend at least 30min on it. Add the diversion and you lose even more time. This would make only sense for very long flights. Refueling with passengers on board has safety considerations as well.
- londons_explore 7y ago> but not fuel efficient. It's totally fuel efficient. You burn fuel coming down to land and taking off again, but you save more fuel by not having to carry the weight of fuel for your whole journey, but instead only enough fuel to get to the next stop off point. You could make it time efficient if you designed an airport specifically for this purpose. No passenger terminal. No steps/trucks. Drive in/drive out fuel fill stations. No delay to land or landing slots (since the airport can be built in the middle of nowhere with super cheap land it needn't be runway constrained).