See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278671041

The Carbon Cost of Aircraft Ground Handling:

Using Electric Tugs to Improve Environmental
Sustainability of Ground ....

Conference Paper · June 2015

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3260.4327

CITATIONS READS

0 372

3 authors:

Glenn Baxter Roberto Sabatini

Suan Dusit Rajabhat University RMIT University
26 PUBLICATIONS 40 CITATIONS 361 PUBLICATIONS 2,351 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Graham Wild
RMIT University
94 PUBLICATIONS 393 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Defence Avionics and Mission Systems View project

Cognitive Processing and Machine Learning for Aerospace/RPAS Human-Machine Interfaces and
Interactions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Roberto Sabatini on 18 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This is the author pre-publication version. This paper does not include the changes arising from the revision, formatting and publishing
process. The final paper that should be used for referencing is: G. Baxter, R. Sabatini and G. Wild, “The Carbon Cost of Aircraft Ground
Handling: using Electric Tugs to Improve Environmental Sustainability of Ground Operations”, in proceedings of International Symposium on
Sustainable Aviation, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
International Symposium on Sustainable Aviation ISSA-2015-000
May 31- June 3, 2015
Istanbul, TURKEY

THE CARBON COST OF AIRCRAFT GROUND HANDLING: USING ELECTRIC TUGS TO

IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OF GROUND OPERATIONS

Glenn Baxter, Roberto Sabatini, and Graham Wild

School of Aerospace Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, RMIT University
Melbourne, Australia, 3001
[email protected]
SUMMARY
The g rou nd han dlin g of aircraft is an essential part of the aviation i ndustry chain and
contributes significantly to the aviation carbon footpri nt . Push back using electric tugs is an
ideal way to red uce the carbo n e missions of aircraft ground handli ng. In this work we
present a co mp arative carb on cost assessment of using di esel and electric ai rcraft tugs for
push b ack. Considering a variety of oper ational and technical factors in the analysis and
assuming in dustry averages, we show that the use of electric tugs contributes to a reduction
of 2.5 ti mes in ca rbo n d ioxide e missions as compared to diesel tugs. In airports s ourcing
electricity f rom green er opti ons , this factor would improve above 2.5. As a representative
case study, we consider Copen hag en Airports low cost terminal, Go . When modelling the
carbon cost for th is termin al , a n emission reduction factor of 4.2 would be achieved by using
electric tugs for all aircraft push back operati ons .

Keywords: Aircraft tug, airport operations, ground handling, ground operations.

INTRODUCTION emissions most frequently discussed and

accounted for), aircraft ground operation CO2
Airline operations at an airport are tasked with
emissions and other gaseous emissions can also
the facilitation and execution of airlines flight
be significant at airports (International Airport
schedules, in addition to the movement of
Review, 2010). These emissions from aircraft and
passengers, luggage, and air cargo in accordance
from equipment used at airports are contributing to
with all relevant safety and security requirements
climate change and to localized air pollution (Daley,
(Wu 2010). One of the main differences between
2010). Accordingly, sustainability is a critical
the traditional (full service network) and low cost
concern of modern airport operations (Baxter et al.,
carriers (LCC) is in terms of the aircraft turnaround
2014), and specifically, the air pollution generated
process. For a LCC, the turnaround process’
by airport operations and its subsequent impact on
effectiveness is governed by (Pitt & Brown, 2001):
the airport environment (Mirosavljević et al., 2011).
 The facilities provided at the airport’s aircraft Consequently, the global community is currently
stand; paying considerable attention to the impact that
 The proximity of the apron area to the airport’s airports and air transport operations have on the
runway(s); environment (International Airport Review, 2010). In
 The airport’s gate facilities; and response to this and considering the increasing
 The airport passenger departure lounge. cost of fuels, airport operations are turning towards
less fuel consuming practices, such as, switching
In response to the requirements of LCC at airports, off APUs (Auxiliary Power Units) on board aircraft
low-cost terminals are being constructed by and replacing them with ground power and ground
airports. A low cost terminal, literally a terminal at air. This makes nose-in and nose-out operations
an airport which is designed specifically for use by with a push back tug essential.
a LCC, is highly focused on the reduction of cost
and time (Hanaoka & Saraswati, 2011). Aircraft The aim of this work is to address the research
turnaround times on the apron are fast, typically 20 question: what is the carbon cost of aircraft ground
minutes (Ashford et al., 2013). It is now common handling, and can the use of electric push back
practice to have aircraft towed to and from a gate tugs reduce this relative to conventional diesel
with the aid of a tug, facilitating rapid turnaround tugs? This requires a quantification of the carbon
times while reducing noise emissions and cost associated with the operation of both diesel
mitigating safety concerns associated with power in and electric tugs, utilizing average values. From
and power out ground operations. here, to assess the impact in the real work context,
a case study of a low cost terminal was performed,
Sustainability, an essential facet of modern specifically Copenhagen Airport’s new Go terminal.
business practices, needs to be applied across the
aviation industry. This implies that all players need
to do their part to ensure sustainability of the BACKGROUND
aviation industry as a whole. The operations
undertaken at airports have a variety of impacts on When an aircraft is on the ground between
both local communities and the natural flights, a range of ground handling tasks are
environment. In addition to the CO2 emissions required to be performed in a short period of time.
generated by aircraft in flight (the source of These tasks, referred to as the aircraft turnaround
This is the author pre-publication version. This paper does not include the changes arising from the revision, formatting and publishing
process. The final paper that should be used for referencing is: G. Baxter, R. Sabatini and G. Wild, “The Carbon Cost of Aircraft Ground
Handling: using Electric Tugs to Improve Environmental Sustainability of Ground Operations”, in proceedings of International Symposium on
Sustainable Aviation, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
Baxter et al. ISSA-2015-000

operations, include flight catering, cabin cleaning, Lufthavne”) pages from the company website and
and passenger check-in. Aircraft turnaround annual reports.
operations are essential to prepare an aircraft to
conduct it’s following outbound flight (Wu, 2010).
Aircraft turnaround operations may be provided by Quantitative Method
an airline (self-handling), by another airline, by the
airport authorities, or by an independent specialist Further document analysis facilitated the
ground handling firm holding a license to operate collection of quantitative data. This qualitative data
at an airport (Ashford et al., 2013). was then utilized in a simulation of typical carbon
produced by aircraft pushback tugs, both diesel and
In order to improve apron utilization, many electric, and the associated operation thereof.
airports are equipped with aerobridges and nose-in Dooley (2002) indicates that a simulation method
aircraft stands. When ready for flight departure, the enables the researcher to answer the question
aircraft needs to be pushed back into a position “what if?” The purpose of the simulation in this work
where it can start its own engines (Kazda & Caves, is to compare the “performance” difference
2007). Thus, the pushback operation involves the between two options in terms of aircraft push back
aircraft with the passengers and cargo on-board tugs. Axelrod (1997) lists performance as one of the
(for a combination airline), or a freighter aircraft that key uses of simulation based research. This work
is loaded with cargo being pushed backwards from utilized a discrete event simulation (Law & Kelton,
the aircraft’s parking position (for example, the 1982), which is appropriate to situations in which
gate) to the taxiway, where the crew can then start variables only change a finite number of times (in
the aircraft engines (Du et al., 2014). Aircraft push- the case of this work, there are only two options).
back tugs of different designs are being used to
perform this function (Kazda & Caves, 2007).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

METHODOLOGY The Case: Copenhagen Airport

Design Copenhagen Airport (CPH) is located in

Kastrup, approximately 11 km southwest of central
In order to understand the carbon cost of airport Copenhagen. CPH is the major airport in
ground handling, in terms of aircraft push back, an Scandinavia, and acts as the transfer point for air
embedded design was utilized (Leedy & Ormrod, traffic travelling between national/regional airports
2013). In an embedded design, qualitative and (located in Scandinavia as well as the area south of
quantitative techniques are used in parallel, with the Baltic Sea) and the other parts of the world.
one dominating. To assess the carbon cost of CPH also functions as the hub for Scandinavian
airport operations, the quantitative aspect was Airlines (SAS) and is therefore one of the Star
more significant. Alliance hubs (Copenhagen Airports A/S, 2015).
CPH has a total of 108 aircraft stands which
include 9 domestic and 43 international stands with
Qualitative Method
passenger loading bridges. There are also 54
Environmental sustainability of airport and remote stands and 2 stands for helicopter
aircraft ground handling operations is an emerging operations (Copenhagen Airports A/S, 2015). In
area of study. Edmondson & McManus (2007) state excess of 60 airlines operate services to and from
that the most appropriate research method for an CPH. The two largest airlines are SAS, with 42 per
emerging area is qualitative. A case study approach cent of traffic, and Norwegian, with a 16 per cent
was therefore selected for this aspect of the traffic share. EasyJet is the third largest airline, with
research as this approach facilitates the exploration a 6 per cent traffic share (Copenhagen Airports A/S,
of complex phenomena (Yin, 2014). 2015). In 2014, CPH direct services were operated
to 157 destinations, including 27 intercontinental
The data collected in the study was analysed
and 16 dedicated all-cargo destinations
using content analysis (Krippendorff, 2013).
(Copenhagen Airports A/S 2015).
Content analysis is a research tool that can be
utilised to determine the presence of certain In 2010, CPH opened CPH Go, a dedicated low
concepts within texts. Content analysis procedures cost pier. CPH Go is currently operated by easyJet,
are used by researchers to describe, analyse and Ryanair and Transavia, all LCCs. To operate at
summarise trends and observations from the data CPH Go an airline must meet specific efficiency
that have been gathered (Green, 2011). As such, requirements. The most relevant of this is that the
data for the qualitative facet of this work was turnaround must not exceed 30 minutes. The
obtained from a range of documents, company benefits to LCCs for utilizing CPH Go are lower
materials available on the internet, and records as charges than the rest of the airport terminal
sources of case evidence. Documents included infrastructure. Also of note is the requirement that at
“Copenhagen Airports A/S” (or “Københavns least 90% of passengers must check-in
electronically (including self-service kiosks). CPH
2
This is the author pre-publication version. This paper does not include the changes arising from the revision, formatting and publishing
process. The final paper that should be used for referencing is: G. Baxter, R. Sabatini and G. Wild, “The Carbon Cost of Aircraft Ground
Handling: using Electric Tugs to Improve Environmental Sustainability of Ground Operations”, in proceedings of International Symposium on
Sustainable Aviation, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
Baxter et al. ISSA-2015-000

Go is an extension to the existing terminal (Trowse et. al, 2013). In contrast, we used a factor
structure, on the east side, with direct access to six of 1.001 kg/kWh for the average dirtiest form of
gates. CPH Go has a capacity for 6 million electricity generation (Moomaw, 2001). From here
passengers per annum. Fig 1 shows a map view of knowing the daily consumption, the CO2
CPH, and the inset of the figure shows the terminal contribution can be determined. The average daily
building, where the CPH Go pier is the extension to consumption for a diesel tug is 40 litres per day. A
the left of the inset. typical electric tug capable of moving Airbus A320s
and Boeing 737s (typical LCC aircraft), consumes
16kWh of electricity per day.
In addition to this, the indirect cost of
maintaining the tugs needs to be calculated. There
are two parts here; the overhead of the business in
terms of electricity consumption, 19.8 kWh/h is the
energy consumption for an average medium
workshop (Office of the Tasmania Economic
Regulators, 2013). There is also the electricity
consumed by the employee, where 0.5kWh/h is the
average energy consumption for a person (Office of
the Tasmania Economic Regulators, 2013). Both of
these combine with the 1.001 kg/kWh to determine
the relevant CO2 emissions.
Fig.1. CPH located in Kastrup, Denmark. Inset:
Terminal layout (Copenhagen Airports A/S 2015). Table 1 shows the relevant CO2 contributions. It
Map data ©2015 Google is clear that for a single tug, there is a substantial
saving in terms of direct operations. Specifically, we
see a fivefold reduction in the direct operating
A Single Aircraft Push Back Tug carbon costs. The indirect costs are every similar,
with a slight reduction due to the lower number of
When we look at large transport category
hours it takes to maintain an electric tug. The
aircraft, we notice that the majority of push backs
overall factor is then 2.5. That is, using an electric
are assisted by diesel powered tugs. So instead of
tug produces 2.5 times less carbon dioxide. Again
using the engines on board the aircraft for
with the use of renewable sources of electricity this
propulsion, a diesel engine is used on the ground.
number will reduce dramatically, potentially by a
The overall emissions may be reduced by such a
factor of 100.
strategy, specifically from the aircraft. However,
emissions (albeit lower) are simply transferred to
the ground operation. The electric tug is a much Table 1. Daily CO2 contributions for aircraft tug ops
more attractive solution in terms of improving the Diesel Electric
sustainability of ground operations. Fig. 2 shows Fuel* 40 ltr/day 16 kWh/day
typical diesel and electric tugs used for aircraft push *Average per day =107 kg/day = 21.0 kg/day
back. Maintenance 5 hours 3 hours
Operator = 2.50 kg/day = 1.50 kg/day
Maintenance 5 hours 3 hours
Overhead = 99.1 kg/day = 59.5 kg/day
Total = 208.6 kg/day = 82.0kg/day

The Case of CPH GO

The result of the previous section can be
expanded to consider a complete low cost terminal,
such as CPH Go. Using CPH Go as the case, there
Fig.2. The left image shows a typical diesel tug
(authors image) and the right images shows an
are 6 aircraft bays, each with a tug, operating
electric tug (Lektro, 2014). throughout the day given the 30 minute turn around
requirement. First the average “dirty” global
conversion factor for CO2 emissions needs to be
To determine the environmental impact of adjusted. That is, Denmark has a vast mixture of
aircraft ground handling we need to look at the energy generation sources, with coal accounting for
factors contributing to aircraft tug’s carbon 48% (Danish Energy Agency 2013). In addition to
emissions. Both direct and indirect costs must be coal the other sources of electricity generation
considered in this analysis. The most obvious direct include geothermal, natural gas, oil, solar, and
cost is the fuel consumption. For the diesel tug a wind. The result of this mix is that the amount of
factor of 2.663 kg of CO2 per litre was used CO2 per kilo Watt hour is lower in Denmark;
3
This is the author pre-publication version. This paper does not include the changes arising from the revision, formatting and publishing
process. The final paper that should be used for referencing is: G. Baxter, R. Sabatini and G. Wild, “The Carbon Cost of Aircraft Ground
Handling: using Electric Tugs to Improve Environmental Sustainability of Ground Operations”, in proceedings of International Symposium on
Sustainable Aviation, Istanbul, Turkey, 2015.
Baxter et al. ISSA-2015-000

specifically, 0.44 kg/kWh (Danish Energy Agency, Danish Energy Agency, 2013, Annual Energy Statistics:
2013). The updated numbers are given in Table 2. Energy Statistics 2013 [online], [cited 29 March 2015].
http://www.ens.dk/en/info/facts-figures/energy-statistics-
The results now indicate a factor of 11.6 indicators-energy-efficiency/annual-energy-statistics
improvement in terms of the direct operating carbon
Dooley, K. 2002. Simulation research methods, in Baum, J.
costs of the electric tug relative to the diesel tug.
(ed.), Companion to Organizations, London, UK: Blackwell,
Table 3 shows the projected annual results. 829-848.
Each number has the same factor, and this is 4.2. Du, J.Y.; Brunner, J.O.; Kolisch, R. 2014. Planning towing
Therefore, in CPH Go, utilising an electric aircraft processes at airports more efficiently, Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 70:
push back tug will result in 4.2 times less CO2
293-304.
emissions.
Edmondson, A.C.; McManus, S.E. 2007. Methodological fit
in management field research, Academy of Management
Review 32(4): 1155-1179.
Table 2. Daily CO2 contributions for aircraft tug ops
Green, R.A. 2011. Case study research: A program
in Denmark evaluation guide for librarians. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-
Diesel Electric CLIO.
Fuel* 107 kg/day 9.23 kg/day Hanaoka, S.; Saraswati, B. 2011. Low cost airport terminal
*Average per day locations and configurations, Journal of Air Transport
Maintenance Management 17(5): 314-319.
1.10 kg/day 0.66 kg/day
Operator International Airport Review. 2010. UK Airport Operators
Maintenance launch new guidelines to reduce aircraft ground emissions
43.6 kg/day 26.2 kg/day [online], [cited 20 February 2015]. Available from Internet:
Overhead http://www.internationalairportreview.com/2717/airport-
Total 151.7 kg/day 36.1 kg/day news/uk-airport-operators-launch-new-guidelines-to-reduce-
aircraft-ground-emissions/
Table 3. Annual CO2 contributions for aircraft tug ops International Air Transport Association. 2015b. Ground
at CPH Go operations [online], [cited 29 March 2015]. Available from
Diesel Electric Internet: https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/ops-
infra/pages/ground-handling.aspx
Each tug 151.7 kg/day 36.1 kg/day
Kazda, A.; Caves, R.E. 2007. Airport design and operation.
Tug fleet 910 kg/day 217 kg/day 2nd edn. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
Total 332 ton/year 79 ton/year Krippendorff, K. 2013. Content analysis: An introduction to
its methodology. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
CONCLUSIONS Law, A.M., Kelton, W.D. 2000. Simulation Modeling and
Analysis. 3rd edn. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
In conclusion, we have shown that even in the
Leedy, D.R.; Ormrod, J.E. 2013. Practical Research:
worst case scenario (electricity produced by coal
Planning and Design. 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
burning), the utilisation of electric push back tugs Pearson.
for aircraft ground handling would reduce direct
Mirosavljević, P.; Gvozdenović, S.; Čokorilo, O. 2011. A
CO2 emissions by a factor of 5, and total CO2 model of air traffic assignment as part of airport air pollution
emissions by a factor of 2.5, both when compared management system, Aviation 15(4): 92-100.
to diesel push back tugs. In the case of CPH Go, a Moomaw, W., P. Burgherr, G. Heath, M. Lenzen, J. Nyboer,
European low cost terminal with a capacity of 6 A. Verbruggen, 2011, Annex II: Methodology. In IPCC
gates, the result was a net reduction of 253 tonnes Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate
of CO2 per year, corresponding to a direct emission Change Mitigation, edited by O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-
reduction factor of 11.6, and a total emission Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P. Matschoss, S. Kadner,
T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von
reduction factor of 4.2.
Stechow. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press
Office of the Tasmania Economic Regulators, 2013,
REFERENCES Electricity, [online], [cited 17 June 2014],
Ashford, N.J.; Stanton, H.P.M.; Moore, C.A.; et al. 2013. http://www.energyregulator.tas.gov.au/
Airport operations. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pitt, M.R.; Brown, A.W. 2001. Developing a strategic
Axelrod, R. 1997. Advancing the art of simulation in the direction for airports to enable the provision of services to
social sciences, Complexity 3(2): 16-22. both network and low-fare carriers, Facilities 19(1-2): 52-60.

Baxter, G.; Wild, G.; Sabatini, R. 2014. A sustainable Trowse, G., Ross, J., Groulx, D., and Molloy, D., 2012, At
approach to airport design and operations: A case study of the end of the line: approaches for adding sustainable
Munich Airport, in Engineers Australia (Eds.). Proceedings energy to rural maritime communities. In 4th Int’l
of the Practical Response to Climate Change (PRCC) 2014 Conference on Ocean Energy ICOE, October 17, 2013,
Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 25-27 November. Dublin, Ireland.

Copenhagen Airports A/S, 2015, Profile: a quick overview Wu, C.L. 2010. Airline operations and delay management:
[online], [cited 29 March 2015]. http://www.cph.dk/en/about- Insights from airline economics, networks and strategic
cph/profile/Facts-about-CPH/A-quick-overview/ schedule planning. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

Daley, B. 2010. Air transport and the environment. Yin, R.K. 2014. Case study research: Design and methods.
Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing. 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
4

View publication stats