News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Employee #1: Tumblr. Parent comment

Re:Employee #1: Tumblr by djrobstep on Thursday August 11, 2016 @12:32AM (#12266308)
If we're going to be insufferably pedantic here, the plane burned more fuel because he was on it, because it had to fly at a marginally higher angle of attack because of the extra weight.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Employee #1: Tumblr by joneholland on Thursday August 11, 2016 @05:58AM (#12267079)
Nope.

http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/aviation/Occupancy.html

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Employee #1: Tumblr by hyperpape on Thursday August 11, 2016 @09:54AM (#12268204)
"uses the following example to illustrate this: with an occupancy rate of 51%, the fuel burned per passenger-km is 0.176 lb. In comparison, a load factor of 100% corresponds to fuel burned per passenger-km of only 0.112 lb (RCEP, 2003)."

.176 is not double .112, it's only 57% more, so it seems that doubling occupancy results in a 27% increase in total fuel usage ( (2 * .112) / .176).

That's much better than a linear increase, but it's hardly zero. Am I doing the math correctly? (Ignoring the 50% vs. 51% difference).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Employee #1: Tumblr by skj on Thursday August 11, 2016 @10:00AM (#12268254)
"less fuel per passenger", the claim made in your link, is not the same as "less fuel", the claim you're refuting.
[ Parent | on HN ]