Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
Is 472lbs lighter really that big of a deal on a 737-700? It seems rather trivial, but they are touting a 9500gallon a year savings.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/23/ ... -about-th/
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/23/ ... -about-th/
Re: Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
I can't help but think about a couple dozen pax carrying some "holiday weight" to nullify all those painstakingly planning strategies.
Tell everyone to go on a diet, or empty their bladder before boarding? viewtopic.php?f=54&t=59113 Gimme a break.
In all seriousness, real strives can be made in technological advancements, doesn't the GE90 on the 777 save 20% (fuel economy) over comparable engines? Or maybe that includes the weight savings of all that carbon fiber they throw in.
Whatever, I guess it can't hurt, eh? Keeps the tree huggers happy.
In all seriousness, real strives can be made in technological advancements, doesn't the GE90 on the 777 save 20% (fuel economy) over comparable engines? Or maybe that includes the weight savings of all that carbon fiber they throw in.
Whatever, I guess it can't hurt, eh? Keeps the tree huggers happy.
-
North Shore
- Rank Moderator

- Posts: 5627
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
- Location: Straight outta Dundarave...
Re: Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
Those damn tree-huggers, doing their best to save the planet for the rest of us! 
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
-
poke-her player
- Rank 1

- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:27 am
Re: Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
absolutly if you include the distance flowen on one engine that figure skyrockets to 32%doesn't the GE90 on the 777 save 20% (fuel economy) over comparable engines?
- The Weasel
- Rank 3

- Posts: 100
- Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:53 pm
Re: Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
Yeah, eh. I hate all this modern efficiency, saving money, using one's brain to advance society. I really miss the good 'ol days, when you couldn't see a jet take-off 'cause of all that good old fashioned heavy black smoke pouring out the back of them finely tuned high-tech turbojets. Curse our progressive society!taylor498 wrote:Whatever, I guess it can't hurt, eh? Keeps the tree huggers happy.
Re: Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
I think my comments were taken a little out of context. I was mostly being sarcastic with my tree huggers comment. Just trying to lighten the mood around here. (I'm really trying, STL) The airlines have a desire to be seen as being more "green" and I think thats probably one of the goals of this SWA project. I own a car but I take the bus whenever I can. I walk to the store as opposed to driving. I don't use plastic bags. I recycle everything I can. Of course these weight saving improvements are good. I'm just saying, like the OP suggested, that they are going through an awful lot of expense and effort to shed a couple hundred pounds from a 150,000 pound machine. Progress made through R+D can perhaps be a better strategy in the long run.
Last edited by taylor498 on Sun Oct 25, 2009 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
sky's the limit
- Rank Moderator

- Posts: 4614
- Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:38 am
- Location: Now where's the starter button on this thing???
Re: Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
taylor498 wrote:I think my comments were taken a little out of context. I was mostly being sarcastic with my tree huggers comment. Just trying to lighten the mood around here. (I'm really trying, STL)
No worries.....!
I think any savings are good, but like most things "conservation" they don't actually reduce, but let us consume more. One 737 out of service would be FAR more savings than reducing the weight of the existing a/c.
It's the same as the fuel consumption argument in more efficient cars/trucks - it doesn't equal less overall consumption, just more total miles driven per units burnt.
Speaking of burnt, I just recycled 3 tonnes of horse crap into my garden.... Many shovel loads and one blown break line on a borrowed Jeep TJ later, I'm ready for a drink.
g
Re: Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
I'm with you on this one. The fact they are replacing plastic pieces with aluminum ones means the original plastic one are being discarded, or manufactured unnecessarily. While they are trying to be "green" and make a difference, what about going to the manufacturer and having changes made there when the plane is originally being built.taylor498 wrote:I think my comments were taken a little out of context. I was mostly being sarcastic with my tree huggers comment. Just trying to lighten the mood around here. (I'm really trying, STL) The airlines have a desire to be seen as being more "green" and I think thats probably one of the goals of this SWA project. I own a car but I take the bus whenever I can. I walk to the store as opposed to driving. I don't use plastic bags. I recycle everything I can. Of course these weight saving improvements are good. I'm just saying, like the OP suggested, that they are going through an awful lot of expense and effort to shed a couple hundred pounds from a 150,000 pound machine. Progress made through R+D can perhaps be a better strategy in the long run.
Where did all the old pouches the life vests were in go? I'm hoping not the landfill...
Re: Southwest's "eco-friendly plane"
Actually North Shore, many of those tree huggers are now admitting that their attempts are having no effect other than to burn a whole bunch of jet fuel going to conferences. So far we don't even know what the problems are, let alone how to solve them, let alone convinced anyone to pay the price to solve them.North Shore wrote:Those damn tree-huggers, doing their best to save the planet for the rest of us!