Hacker News Reader

Totally agree. No strong reason how CO2 emissions are affected by padding - yes IF there is additional time circling in the air, but then the airline is rarely solely responsible and a clear financial incentive exists.

Note that the bottom half of the article is a sales pitch for his business flow product!

View on HN

> No strong reason how CO2 emissions are affected by padding

Quite often airliners arriving at my local airport ask ATC for a dogleg course for 'additional track miles' on approach to pad their arrival time or burn-off fuel.

It's purely a request by the pilots, not a traffic issue. CO2 being traded directly for convenience.

Requesting additional track miles could be because the aircraft wasn't yet configured for landing, perhaps because ATC held the aircraft high due to traffic, or because the pilots didn't manage the decent well.

There are also maximum landing weights (which are different from max takeoff weights) which could potentially be a factor.

That doesn't seem to be related to padding. Airlines still like to arrive early. If there's no gate available, it's cheaper for the airline to wait on a taxiway than to circle in the air. Fuel costs are a major driver of airline profitability, hence airlines have no incentive to spend time in the air if it's not absolutely necessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com