Transatlantic airline fuel efficiency ranking, 2017

WHITE PAPER

SEPTEMBER 2018

TRANSATLANTIC AIRLINE FUEL EFFICIENCY RANKING, 2017
Brandon Graver, Ph.D., and Daniel Rutherford, Ph.D.

www.theicct.org [email protected]
BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Tim Johnson, Andrew Murphy, Anastasia Kharina, and Amy Smorodin for their review and support. We also acknowledge Airline Data Inc. for providing processed BTS data, and FlightGlobal for Ascend Fleet data.
International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005 USA [email protected] | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT © 2018 International Council on Clean Transportation

TRANSATLANTIC AIRLINE FUEL EFFICIENCY RANKING, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. iii 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 2 2. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Airline selection.................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Fuel burn modeling.......................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Fuel efficiency calculation.............................................................................................................6 3. RESULTS................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Airline comparisons.......................................................................................................................... 7 3.2 Aircraft-specific analysis.................................................................................................................8 3.3 Drivers of transatlantic airline efficiency..................................................................................9 3.4 Airline-specific analysis..................................................................................................................13 3.5 Route comparisons..........................................................................................................................17 4. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS................................................................................... 20 4.1 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 20 4.2 Next steps............................................................................................................................................21 5. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX A: MODEL VALIDATION.......................................................................................26 APPENDIX B: ADJUSTED 2014 TRANSATLANTIC FUEL EFFICIENCY............................. 27
i

ICCT WHITE PAPER
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Airlines evaluated............................................................................................................................ 3 Table 2. Aircraft types used on transatlantic operations................................................................. 4 Table 3. Key modeling variables................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4. Airline operational parameters................................................................................................10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES-1. Fuel efficiency of 20 airlines on transatlantic passenger routes, 2017............. iii Figure ES-2. Key drivers of transatlantic airline fuel efficiency, 2014 and 2017......................iv Figure 1. Fuel efficiency of 20 airlines on transatlantic passenger routes, 2017...................... 7 Figure 2. Fuel efficiency of aircraft types used on transatlantic routes, 2017.........................9 Figure 3. Key drivers of transatlantic airline fuel efficiency, 2014 and 2017............................. 11 Figure 4. Comparison of transatlantic market capacity provided by each
aircraft type, 2014 and 2017...................................................................................................................12 Figure 5. Fuel efficiency for airlines serving New York-London routes.....................................17 Figure 6. Fuel efficiency for airlines serving Los Angeles-London routes.............................. 18 Figure 7. Fuel efficiency for airlines serving New York-Paris routes.......................................... 18 Figure 8. Fuel efficiency for airlines serving New York-Reykjavik routes................................ 19 Figure A-1. Airline-reported versus modeled fuel efficiency........................................................ 26 Figure B-1. Adjusted fuel efficiency of 20 airlines on transatlantic
passenger routes, 2014...........................................................................................................................27
ii

TRANSATLANTIC AIRLINE FUEL EFFICIENCY RANKING, 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Public information on airline fuel efficiency remains scarce. Starting in 2013, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) began assessing the fuel efficiency of U.S. airlines on domestic operations for 2010, with subsequent updates for 2011 through 2016. In 2015, the ICCT compared the fuel efficiency of 20 major airlines operating in the transatlantic market, specifically nonstop passenger flights between North America and Europe. This report updates that ranking.

Figure ES-1 illustrates the fuel efficiency of the 20 carriers analyzed. Passenger-based fuel efficiency was estimated after correcting for cargo carried on passenger flights, referred to as belly freight, which increases the absolute burn of a given flight but improves the fuel efficiency per unit of mass moved. Norwegian Air Shuttle was the most fuel-efficient airline on transatlantic operations in 2017, with an average fuel efficiency of 44 passenger-kilometers per liter of fuel (pax-km/L), 33% higher than the industry average. British Airways (BA) ranked as the least fuel-efficient, falling 22% below the industry average. On average, BA burned 63% more fuel per passengerkilometer than Norwegian. The gap between the most- and least-efficient transatlantic airlines has grown since the 2014 rankings.

Norwegian WOW air SWISS
KLM
Turkish Air France Thomas Cook Virgin Atlantic Icelandair
Iberia Delta Scandinavian American Austrian Aer Lingus Alitalia Aeroflot United Lufthansa British Airways

Average Fuel Economy [pax-km/L]
39 37 36 35 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 33 33 33 33 33 31 30 27 INDUSTRY AVERAGE

Excess Fuel/pax-km

44

—

+ 13%

+ 19%

+ 22%

+ 26%

+ 26%

+ 26%

+ 26%

+ 29%

+ 29%

+ 29%

+ 29%

+ 33%

+ 33%

+ 33%

+ 33%

+ 33%

+ 42%

+ 47%

+ 63%

Figure ES-1. Fuel efficiency of 20 airlines on transatlantic passenger routes, 2017.

The report also assesses key drivers of the observed fuel efficiency gap across carriers (Figure ES-2). Factors investigated include aircraft fuel burn, seating density, passenger load factor, and freight share of total payload. Of these, aircraft fuel burn was found to be the most important driver overall, explaining almost 40% of the

iii

ICCT WHITE PAPER

variation in airline fuel efficiency across carriers, followed by seating density, which accounted for one third of the variation. Freight share and passenger load factors were relatively less important. The importance of seating density as a driver of fuel efficiency has increased since 2014 due to the expansion of carriers like Norwegian and WOW air, which operate transatlantic flights with higher seat counts and a lower percentage of premium seats compared to competitors.

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

15% 35%

Freight Share

Passenger Load Factor

17%

Seating Density

Aircraft Fuel Burn

11%

33%

40%

20%

30%

20% 10%

30%

39%

0% 2014

2017

Figure ES-2. Key drivers of transatlantic airline fuel efficiency, 2014 and 2017.

Other conclusions of this work include:
»» The industry average fuel efficiency improved from 33 pax-km/L in 2014 to
34 pax-km/L in 2017 after adjusting for a common modeling methodology. This improvement could be attributed to an increase in fuel-efficient aircraft. Between 2014 and 2017, the margin to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) carbon dioxide (CO2) emission standard for the average transatlantic aircraft improved from 8% to 5%, while passenger load factor, seating density, and freight share varied very little.
»» Major improvers in the ranking from 2014 to 2017 include Virgin Atlantic
(30 to 35 pax-km/L) and Aeroflot Russian Airlines (30 to 33 pax-km/L). These improvements are linked to the increased use of more fuel-efficient aircraft— the Boeing 787-9 for Virgin Atlantic and Boeing 777-300ER for Aeroflot. The introduction of new supersonic aircraft, which are expected to have fuel efficiencies around 7 pax-km/L, could reverse Virgin Atlantic’s efficiency gains.
»» The estimated gap between the most and least fuel-efficient transatlantic airlines
widened since 2014. Norwegian’s average fuel efficiency increased by 3 pax-km/L, while British Airways’ decreased by 1 pax-km/L. Although the fuel efficiency of

iv

TRANSATLANTIC AIRLINE FUEL EFFICIENCY RANKING, 2017 British Airways’ fleet increased and average passenger load factors were similar in 2014 and 2017, the freight share of total payload and average seating density of BA’s fleet fell during this time.
»» There was an inverse relationship between aircraft size and fuel efficiency on
transatlantic operations—as aircraft weight, or maximum takeoff mass (MTOM), increases, fuel efficiency declines. This is predominantly because aircraft with four engines are generally less fuel-efficient than those with two.
1

ICCT WHITE PAPER
1. INTRODUCTION
Public information on airline fuel efficiency remains scarce. U.S. carriers report quarterly fuel burn and operations by aircraft type and market, whether domestic or international, to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Fuel burn data is not required from foreign carriers, nor are similar data sets published by governments outside of the United States. Several online carbon calculators, including from the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO, n.d.), ClimateCare (2017), and individual airlines (United Airlines, n.d.), can be used to estimate fuel consumed and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions over origin-destination pairs for passengers and air freight. These calculators do not provide carrier or flightspecific comparisons and are designed mostly to support carbon offsetting programs rather than to help consumers choose more fuel-efficient flights or carriers.
Starting in 2013, the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) began assessing the fuel efficiency of U.S. airlines in its benchmark study of domestic operations for 2010 (Zeinali, Rutherford, Kwan, & Kharina, 2013), with subsequent updates for 2011 through 2016 (Kwan, Rutherford, & Zeinali, 2014; Kwan & Rutherford, 2014; Kwan & Rutherford, 2015; Olmer & Rutherford, 2017). The gap between the most and least efficient airlines on U.S. domestic operations was 26% in 2016. This led the ICCT to compare the fuel efficiency of 20 major airlines operating in the transatlantic market, specifically nonstop passenger flights between North America and Europe. For 2014, there was a 51% gap between the most and least efficient airlines flying over the North Atlantic (Kwan & Rutherford, 2015). Overall, airlines with more fuel-efficient aircraft, less premium seating, and higher passenger and freight load factors operated more fuel-efficient flights.
This report updates the previous work on transatlantic fuel efficiency using refinements from a study of transpacific airline fuel efficiency (Graver & Rutherford, 2018). According to an ICAO forecast of future airline traffic, in 2020 “Europe and Asia/Pacific will have the largest share of CO2 emissions from international aviation with 36.6% and 31%, respectively, followed by North America with 14.8%” (ICAO, 2013). There are some notable differences between the transpacific and transatlantic markets. Whereas twin-aisle and very large aircraft are also used on transatlantic flights, more premium flight offerings are available for the Asian market, typically resulting in fewer seats on each plane.
In addition, the amount of freight transported between Asia and the United States, both in dedicated freighter aircraft and in the cargo hold of a passenger plane, dwarfs what is carried between the United States and Europe. In addition, average flight distances across the Atlantic Ocean are shorter than across the Pacific.
For the first time in the transpacific rankings, we directly integrated primary, as opposed to estimated, data of freight carriage on passenger flights into the methodology. Belly freight accounted for approximately 25% of the total payload mass moved on transpacific flights (Graver & Rutherford, 2018).
The balance of this report is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the methodology used to estimate airline fuel efficiency. Section 3 presents and discusses the average fuel efficiency of the incorporated airlines and aircraft, and on key routes. Section 4 offers conclusions along with potential future work to refine and extend the methodology presented.
2

TRANSATLANTIC AIRLINE FUEL EFFICIENCY RANKING, 2017

2. METHODOLOGY
In a previous ICCT study (Graver & Rutherford, 2018), a methodology was derived to estimate airline fuel efficiency on nonstop transpacific routes. An international flight schedule database and detailed operational data reported to the BTS were used to model airline fuel burn for 20 major airlines. The estimated airline fuel efficiencies were validated using activity and fuel burn data reported by three U.S. carriers. The same methodology was used in this study.
All airlines operating flights to, from, and in the United States must report operations data to the BTS. The data are made available to the public via the BTS T-100 database. We purchased T-100 International Segment data from Airline Data Inc., which completes quality assurance and control procedures on the BTS data. The T-100 data provide information on air carrier, flight origin and destination, frequency, distance, aircraft type, seats available, passenger load factors, and freight transported. Separately, fuel burn reported through BTS Form 41 financial data was used to validate the fuel burn modeling (see Appendix A). Calendar year 2017 was used in this analysis.

2.1 AIRLINE SELECTION
The 20 airlines with the greatest capacity on nonstop flights from the United States to Europe, as defined by ICAO, were analyzed. Unlike the 2014 transatlantic rankings, flights to and from Canada were excluded because operations data for those flights are not publicly available. Table 1 presents the 20 airlines analyzed in this report, along with each airline’s total number of transatlantic flights, average flight length, share of available passenger seat kilometers (ASKs), share of available freight tonne kilometers (ATKs), and the prevalent aircraft used by each airline. More information on the aircraft types used in 2017 for transatlantic flights is included in Table 2.

Table 1. Airlines evaluated

Airline Aer Lingus Aeroflot Air France Alitalia American Austrian British Airways Delta Iberia Icelandair KLM Lufthansa Norwegian Scandinavian

Flights performed
8,844 3,156 12,159 4,521 36,426 2,949 30,549 45,435 4,420 7,467 7,055 21,121 10,641 7,107

Average flight length (km) 5,888 8,579 7,249 7,643 6,893 7,797 7,073 6,818 7,034 4,856 7,649 7,749 7,166 7,278

Share of ASKs 3% 2% 6% 2% 12% 1% 11% 14% 2% 1% 3% 10% 4% 2%

Share of ATKs 2% 1% 5% 2% 13% 2% 11% 14% 2% 1% 3% 9% 4% 3%

Most prevalent aircraft
Airbus A330-300 Boeing 777-300ER Boeing 777-300ER Airbus A330-200 Boeing 777-200ER Boeing 767-300ER Boeing 747-400 Boeing 767-300ER Airbus A330-300 Boeing 757-200 Boeing 747-400 Airbus A340-600 Boeing 787-8 Airbus A330-300

continued

3

ICCT WHITE PAPER

Airline

Flights performed

Average flight length (km)

Share of ASKs

Share of ATKs

Most prevalent aircraft

SWISS

7,310

7,537

3%

3%

Airbus A330-300

Thomas Cook

2,281

7,180

1%

1%

Airbus A330-200

Turkish

7,065

9,346

4%

4%

Boeing 777-300ER

United

43,214

6,805

13%

13% Boeing 767-300ER

Virgin Atlantic

14,515

7,124

6%

8%

Boeing 787-9

WOW air

4,262

5,077

1%

1%

Airbus A321

Total

280,497

7,028

100%

100% Airbus A330-300

Note: ASK = Available seat kilometers. ATK = Available tonne kilometers. Source: Airline Data Inc. (2018)

Table 2. Aircraft types used on transatlantic operations

Aircraft

MTOM (tonnes)

Typical seating capacity

Cargo capacity
(m3)

Number of engines, max.
thrust

Range (km)

Airbus A318

68

107

21

2 @ 106 kN

5,750

Boeing 737-700

70

128

27

2 @ 116 kN

5,570

Boeing 737-800

79

160

44

2 @ 120 kN

5,436

Boeing 737 MAX-8

82

162

44

2 @ 130 kN

6,570

Airbus A321

94

185

52

2 @ 147 kN

5,950

Boeing 767-300ER

187

261

114

2 @ 282 kN

11,070

Boeing 767-400ER

204

296

139

2 @ 270 kN

10,415

Boeing 787-8

228

242

137

2 @ 280 kN

13,620

Airbus A330-200

242

247

132

2 @ 316 kN

13,450

Airbus A330-300

242

277

158

2 @ 316 kN

11,750

Boeing 787-9

254

290

173

2 @ 320 kN

14,140

Boeing 757-200

255

200

43

2 @ 193 kN

7,250

Boeing 757-300

273

243

62

2 @ 193 kN

6,295

Airbus A340-300

277

277

162

4 @ 151 kN

13,500

Airbus A350-900

280

325

162

2 @ 375 kN

15,000

Boeing 777-200ER

298

313

202

2 @ 417 kN

13,080

Boeing 777-300ER

352

396

202

2 @ 513 kN

13,650

Airbus A340-600

368

380

208

4 @ 249 kN

14,600

Boeing 747-400

397

416

160

4 @ 282 kN

11,250

Boeing 747-8I

448

410

176

4 @ 296 kN

14,816

Airbus A380-800

575

544

184

4 @ 311 kN

15,200

Note: MTOM = maximum takeoff mass. Sources: Airbus (2017); Airbus (2018); Boeing (1999); Boeing (2008); Boeing (2010); Boeing (2011); Boeing (n.d.)

4