Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat

Fuelly Conomy

<< < (2/2)

waveydavey:
Cheers for that; I still can't find it on FAA but if you look up that max fuel of a 747-400 and the range the numbers work out about that.

I reworked ours as I knew they must be wrong; we are not as good but then we don't put the emissions at 30 000 foot!
And you don;'t get a weeks holiday on a 747!

thermidorthelobster:

--- Quote from: waveydavey on September 20, 2008, 16:49:30 ---I reworked ours as I knew they must be wrong; we are not as good but then we don't put the emissions at 30 000 foot!
And you don;'t get a weeks holiday on a 747!

--- End quote ---

You mean the QM2?  I was under the impression that fuel economy per passenger on a ship was waaaay better than flying.

waveydavey:
Most ships it would be but for the size we really don't have that many passengers so the per pax figure is not so good.

Certainly if we packed them in how they do on an aircraft there would be no comparison at all.

Also my numbers were based on a low occupancy whereas the jumbo was max; how often do they do that?

Lucy1978:
Can't remember where we got the figures from but we worked outthe carbon footprint of the two of us driving to Morocco in the 101 (about 10mpg average) was smaller than flying. Not that we were going to fly anyway :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page