Southwest Airlines may not own a plane with a headrest infotainment system, but it's still far and away the most enjoyable commercial flight you'll find in the US of A (save for
Virgin America, naturally). Granted, we'd like to see
in-flight WiFi offered on a few more of its flights (read: 100 percent of them), but hey, we'll take free checked bags and friendly employees any day of the week. We'll also take fuel savings and environment stewardship, both of which Southwest is aiming to give us by creating the planet's first "green plane." By utilizing recyclable InterfaceFLOR carpet, weight-saving seat covers and life vest pouches, a lighter foam fill in the seats and aluminum (as opposed to plastic) seat rub strips, the newfangled Boeing 737-700 ends up some 472 pounds lighter than a conventional one. The savings? 9,500 gallons of jet fuel per year. We're not sure when the bird is expected to take her first voyage, but here's hoping a few others are hatched in the near future.
[Via
DailyFinance]
Read - Southwest press release
Read - China View's fuel calculations
posted Oct 25th 2009 12:11AM
Southwest didn't "build" anything. Boeing built this plane. The interior was simply refreshed. Marketing ploy...
A green plane would be one that flys on Ethanol or Electricity and Batteries instead of Kerosene fuel.
@charbax
Seeing as how we are just starting to get "green" cars, I don't think a "green" plane will be arriving anytime soon. This plane is an improvement (environmentally) over previous planes, so at least they are heading in the right direction.
Boeing builds the plane's shell but the airlines outfit them to their specs, so Southwest did the interior which is why all the weight savings are from the inside (like teh chairs, etc...)
M
I don't think Southwest refreshed the interior as much as they HAD it refreshed by Boeing.
Most airlines don't do it themselves.
InterfaceFLOR designed the lightweight carpeting/flooring but the installation was performed by Southwest's maintenance crews in 2 hours, not by Boeing.
@Engadget
Why the hate? Are you that touchy that you can't take a little criticism. Get off it please.
@BigDaddyM
Boeing actually furnishes all the interior components at the time of building. Southwest just chooses which setup they want. But was this customized by Southwest after it was delivered, or did they retrofit an old plane, or did Boeing actually install these 'green' components?
...and they could save even more weight by simply using less paint.
Imagine how much fuel they can save if Americans started to lose some weight.
472 punds? That's like two overweight people.
LOL, well, if they have more than average obese people in flight, this would apply
You mean one overweight American.
It adds up when you consider how many flights this plane will make in it's lifetime
I thought the same thing. But it adds up to at least $30,000 a year, just for this plane. And if Southwest converted its entire feel, that would equate at to a savings of $16,410,000 (if a gallon of jet fuel costs $3).
Further, Southwest's net income was only $178 million in 2008. So, $16 million would be almost 10% of their NI.
Yeah- no kidding. Airlines should simply start charging by pound.
They would actually save more than this by imposing a weight limit on the passengers. And (depending on how much fuel is burned during takeoff) perhaps by flying shorter segments and thus, carrying less surplus fuel during the first half of the flight.
Or by going to headrests on seats that are 2 inches shorter, or by eliminating the refreshment cart, or by reducing the service crew by 1, or by.... umm... NOT allowing each (x150) passenger to carry an extra 50 pounds of luggage for free. Start charging for luggage again and use half the fee to buy carbon offsets, it would have a real impact on fuel usage by getting people to travel lighter, and would have a real PR impact by claiming "we're green by planting 10,000 trees per flight" or whatever.
This is just plain dumb, nothing but PR. Move along...
@ jay
Your just an idiot. Shaving off nearly $500 lbs from a passenger aircraft is pretty damn impressive. I mean they might handle like public tran. buses compared to more nimble aircraft (fighter jets, etc.) but they still have to be aerodynamic enough to, oh I don't know, fly efficiently to a make profit without charging their customers the price of a first born child.
Solid Improvement.
@ Jay - LOL, Why don't you start your own airline that treats its passengers like you suggest and see how fast it goes out of business! Your just another clueless hippie... go hug a tree!
@slick and wm: for calling people "idiot" and "clueless", maybe you should take a look at your own posts. It's "you're".
its funny, because i clicked on "comments" to write the exact same thing. its the same as when car manufacturers take everything out of their supercars to save 150 lbs, and sell it for $50k+ more. i definitely know a few (read: a bunch of) people that weigh 150lbs more than me..
Still, KLM is going to charge passengers $50 for every second piece of baggage (to the US and Canada only). Airlines are willing to do anything to squeeze that little extra money out of a flight so Jay's reasoning might actually become reality. Please note - I also disagree with it completely, I'm just saying that airlines might have no other choice in the future with fuel prices spiking and declining demand.
But what I'm really frustrated about is the fact that tax-free shopping is BEFORE the flight instead of after. I can't think of any reason why this is beneficial for anything. It's just a waste of fuel, really.
Instead of charging more for overweight people, they should just raise prices and charge less for skinny people. I'm as skinny as they come, and if they did this I'd be more likely to fly with them.
This is so ridiculous and Southwest is so full of shit!!! One of these planes weighs 84,000 pounds (without fuel or cargo) so making it 472 pounds lighter is only about one half of 1% of the plane's total weight (again, empty). Statistically, there is far more variation in total weight (plane + fuel + cargo) between one flight and the next, so what amounts to less than a quarter of one percent in total weight is completely negligible. I can't believe the gall of Southwest claiming that this is an environmentally friendly plane. Airplanes are about the worst polluters on the planet. While it is true that every little bit helps, this is so little that it is almost not even worth mentioning. I mean, that's like saying that it would have been much better if a guy was murdered by being stabbed on 19 times instead of 20. There's really no difference at all.
The energy savings will probably be negligible with all the fat people we have here. I KNOW SOMEONE FAT IS READING THIS. YES I'M TALKING TO YOU FATTY.
hahahahaha
That really hurts me. I'm going to go eat my feelings. Thanks, normie jackass :(
I certainly hope there are some penalties for people who are very overweight (like.. 250lb +). Charge them more for airline, healthcare, etc.
They can shave of weight from the plane by making the seats smaller. Then fat people can't even fly until they loose some weight.
Wow, shaving 472lbs off a car is quite an achievement- but on a 737 thats nothing.
This is surely a step in the right direction, but I wouldn't call it a "green" plane just yet... "less gray" is perhaps more accurate.
Calling less-harmful (but still harmful) things "green" (read: echoing the marketing hype) can contribute to diminished environmental concern among the public.
It's mostly blue.
FAIL
shut up, shut you face
That's so enemies can't see it from... below... when flying upside-down? O.o
How is 472lbs. significant at all? not serving any liquids during flight would save more weight. Since 1 gal weights around ~8lbs, they would just need to reduce their drinks by 59 gallons. LOL
What makes you think they haven't already done that too? That's the easy kind of stuff that the airlines do first. And how is saving the expense of 9,500 gallons of jet fuel a year not significant? Money is money... As the one article says, if you conservatively figure $2 gallon for jet fuel that's $19,000 a year saved. Is that kind of money significant to you? I'll bet it is to SW Airlines. If SW were to make these improvements to each 737 in their fleet as they come up for refit (~540 planes) they would eventually be saving over 5 million gallons of jet fuel a year. I'd call that significant.
Nobody wants them to stop serving drinks...
But yeah, 472 lbs isn't much on an airplane that weighs 154,000 lbs.
Actually the 154,500 lbs is the maximum takeoff weight fully loaded. The dry weight of the 747-700 itself is 84,100 lbs and 472 lbs represents a .56% weight reduction. As far as weight reductions go that's not bad for an existing plane undergoing a needed interior refit.
i don't know the numbers, but i'm guessing 9,500 gallons is nothing compared to what these planes eat in a year. probably just a publicity stunt.
So nothing is better than something...?
in terms of being "green" it's pretty insignificant - if the pollutants/greenhouse gasses created by burning a gallon of jet fuel are similar to those of burning a gallon of gasoline, this is similar to taking about 20 cars of the road (per plane). even if southwest did this for their entire fleet, that's pretty piddling. and in terms of an economic standpoint, it's possible they spent more on doing this than they'll make up in fuel costs.
If all the planes of all the airlines did this, I bet it would make a huge difference.
i wonder if the "new-plane smell" is anything similar to a new-car smell...
I think that for every 1 cent change in fuel prices it costs(or saves) all the air companies together 1 billion $? Maybe that's wrong, haha. Someone fact check me.
The Human brain is pre-disposed to believe in the fanciful and unverifiable. Hence throughout history one believes in the witchdoctor, fate, or the shibbloleth of Man Made Global Warming; sadly those who would believe in this lie will hobble the rest of the country with their green religion.
The hilarity of the new green inquisitors replacing the orthodox religious right would be hilarious, were it not for the coming economic, intellectual and technological stagnation...
...what makes me laugh, as I've already made mine and converted a significant portion to gold bullion, is how those who hate on religion adopt a cause that they fervently advance as surely as any Inquisitor of the Spanish period, or any Iman of today...
...most of us who can see the coming fall are ready...and we will raise a glass as you all burn. :))
"The Human brain is pre-disposed to believe in the fanciful and unverifiable."
Are you not religious? I'm not, and I'm not implying that you implied that you are, but I am asking for clarification.
" ... sadly those who would believe in this lie will hobble the rest of the country with their green religion."
What do you do for "the country," pray tell?
"The hilarity of the new green inquisitors replacing the orthodox religious right would be hilarious, were it not for the coming economic, intellectual and technological stagnation..." I'm sorry, "coming economic... stagnation?"
Am I wrong, or has it long been here (in America)? How exactly are concerns about global warming and strides toward increased fuel efficiency responsible for, among other things, the failure and bailout of General Motors?
" ...what makes me laugh, as I've already made mine and converted a significant portion to gold bullion, is how those who hate on religion adopt a cause that they fervently advance as surely as any Inquisitor of the Spanish period, or any Iman of today..."
I'm sorry, but it's not quite clear what exactly you've converted to gold bullion. You're not talking about World of Warcraft, are you? Probably not. So, how did you make your millions? Better yet: how did you protect it from those thieving, destructive environmentalists? Bonus question: What do you make of Warren Buffet's wind power effort?
" ...most of us who can see the coming fall are ready...and we will raise a glass as you all burn. :))"
Help me! I'm ready to learn! I don't want to burn! Save me, my lord! As you pointed out, "the Human brain is pre-disposed to believe in the fanciful and unverifiable," and, because I want to ever increase my intelligence and knowledge, I do hope that you can verify "the coming fall," and point out ways in which I can avoid it. So far, you haven't verified "the coming fall," and you've only implied that one way to stop it might be to oppose Southwest Airline's purchase and use of a more efficient jet liner.
P.S. What will be in the glass you'll raise as we all burn? I'm really into Brachetto d'Acquis these days, but I wonder if that's a good thing to drink during the burning. Would a Flaming Moe be more apropos? Please advise.
P.P.S. How can "the hilarity" NOT be hilarious?
"technological stagnation" wtf? I'd say the green movement has actually spurned technological innovation. We're moving away from stagnated technology like coal power and the combustion engine and instead developing the alternatives, causing new strides in solar power, wind power, battery tech, electrical engine tech etc.
Since when Southwest make planes?
472 pounds, or approximately 0.3% of the total weight of a 737-700. Excellent.
Between that and the underpaid pilots that work second jobs...
It's a pretty textbook case of greenwashing, more in the name of cost savings than actually being green. Still, every bit counts. I just hope the new foam isn't as hard as a rock. Southwest isn't as bad as some of its competitors when it comes to seat comfort.
Of course Southwest didn't this for the environment. When they said it's a "green" plane they were referring to all the money it's going to save them. If this actually cost them money they would never do it. The environmental PR value is just another bonus. ;)
There's probably close to that much weight in paint on the skin of the plane!
I think they spent the money they saved on the party the set out to celebrate saving the money.
472 pounds? in the words of bender: "put a one and two zeros before that or we pass!"
According to Boeing itself a 737-700 has a maximum takeoff weight of 154,500 lb. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/737family/pf/pf_700tech.html
If you're telling me that 472 lb makes that much of a difference in fuel savings per/year then they have a shitload more engineering to do to improve operating costs further. If I were present in a meeting with all these big wigs I'd be pissed that after all that work they could only shave 472 meesly pounds from the jet.
Yeah i'm sure there's thousands more pounds to be shaved off in there! It's not like Boeing gives any forethought to weight when they design a commercial jetliner... /sarcasm
Take out all the fancy LCD screens on the back of the seats for one. Ditch the in flight phones too. Take out the magazines and crap from the back of the seats. Hell, change the size of the windows...less multi layered (and heavy) glass...use carbon fibre for the over head storage areas instead of plastic... And you were saying? Hey dumbass, I am no engineer but I do have a brain and I think outside the box...what did you do to add value to my comment except blow air out of your ass...or what it your mouth?
Why don't you just go ahead and shut the airline down while your at it too. They DO have customers to service you know? Strip out all the stuff your talking about and those customers go elsewhere. Contrary to popular belief most airline passengers aren't green lovin' clueless hippies who dig stripped out planes with no creature comforts. While your at you why don't you strip out all those comfy airline seats and put school bus seats in there too? Think of all the weight that'll save! You do realize this was an interior refit of an existing plane don't you? Change the windows, huh, are you serious? Do you want then to rip out all the plastic and send it to a landfill and replace it with carbon fiber? you do know the chemicals used to make carbon fiber parts isn't exactly a green process, don't you? Geez, WTF are you talking about... this isn't a new plane that was designed from scratch. It's a used 737-700 with a dry weight of 84,100 lbs and shaving 472 lbs off represents a .56% weight reduction. That's a laudable accomplishment to achieve during the course of an otherwise already planned and needed interior refit.
WmPenn, I take it you're not very popular outside in the real world (outside of your Momma's basement) judging by most of the comments you make on here. I feel sad for you. Do you hate a lot of people? Are you mad at the world? Do a lot of people hate you? I hate you and I have not even met you...
Silly boy... your childish xbox live insults do not apply here, and your hate does not concern me.
Green? This plane is blue!
That's a 0.56% reduction in empty weight and a 0.31% reduction in max. takeoff weight. I mean, it isn't nothing, and the recyclability of some of the interior materials is sort of nice, but it really doesn't seem like much.
Fly 30-40 roundtrips a year and tell me you wouldn't fly any other airline but Southwest. Zero fatalities for any passengers of their planes in their entire 30+ year existence. Consistently the #1 on-time major domestic carrier. Don't base your entire opinion on the airline from the Dallas news.
Can we come up with a different phrase besides 'green'?
I think they're really referring to the green $$$ they'll be saving. Although 9500 gal. of fuel isn't that much savings overall, it's still almost $20k a year (current price for jet fuel is 2.019 per gallon).
@David I
Yeah and Frontier has the same (comparing another "economy" airline). And THEY have not be levied a huge fine (biggest in FAA HISTORY).\
I used to work in the airline industry. WN has no love from most carriers becuase of some pretty dirty tactics.
This isn't some dallas news thing (this was strictly the first article I found for this on a subject I already knew about) this is SAFETY.
And THEY DIDN'T follow it.
crap that was supposed to be up top....
Anyone else notice that it is one of the worst MPG per passenger of any commercial aircraft...?
Adding to that - Southwest has an entire fleet of ONLY these aircraft...?
Let them buy some new 787s - then they car wave the "we're green too" flag
If I see one tv ad with this "green" 737 I will be sick...
One of the worst MPG per passenger of any commercial aircraft? From what i've read the 737 actually has a pretty favorable MPG per passenger, especially the newer ones like the 737-700 that Southwest refitted. I thought their fuel economy was one of the reasons SW flies them exclusively? What jetliners are you comparing them to? BTW the lightest 787's weight over 125,000lbs more then the heaviest 737's (dry weight), it carries more passengers, and has greater range, so they aren't exactly in the same class. I'm not sure it's a practical replacement for the routes that Southwest flies.
I think people are forgetting that these planes are already pretty "light" in the first place. The fuselage is essentially an empty aluminum tube and the wings are hollow so that they can put fuel in there. Most of the weight is most likely in the engines and Boeing won't do much with those since changing them would require a complete re-certification of the plane. So if someone could point out where Boeing would be able to shave off pounds from an airframe that's essentially based on 30 year old technology...be my guest.
And the title is accurate. Boeing builds what their customers order so it would've been Southwest that went to Boeing and asked for this specific build.
Well the title is correct, but not for the reason you mentioned
Boeing did not make the plane under Southwest's orders
This is an existing 737 that is being refreshed inside a Southwest maintenance bay
Southwest hasn't ordered a new plane from Boeing - they have an entire fleet of old, used 737
are you kidding me? None of them did anything... southwest just took out the trash after one of the flights...
This is classic green washing. Im guesses it use leaded fuel like also.
"Southwest Airlines... far and away the most enjoyable commercial flight you'll find in the US of A". You're on drugs.
Amen. It's cheap, but that has nothing to do with the enjoyment of the flight itself. It also is using an aging fleet, doesn't serve real food, doesn't show a movie... And that's before the seat scramble. Why is it that if I miss checking in exactly 24 hours early, I have to sit in a middle seat between 2 fat people who just booked their flight 2 days before?
OK, who cares? I mean really? It still saves 9,500 gallons of jet fuel a year. You got a problem with that? That's not green enough for you? Whats wrong with getting a little PR value out of it too? Whatever their intentions it DOES benefit the enviroment. I hope your not another one of these people with rightgious concern for the enviroment and a $2,500/mo. utility bill, like Al Gore. Oh wait, that's right he buys carbon credits to offset the carbon footprint his gluttonous lifestyle creates so it's OK. Talk about green washing! Ughh!
I see that you're new to the internet forums... Let's go ahead and calm down and take a breather... Everything will be ok...
They modeled themselves after my old time favorite PSA. You have a choice and I'm happy your not ever going to be sitting next to me.
so check out THIS real world math. So southwest builds this plane and they are rolling it out with a bunch of fanfare.
It sheds 472lbs which will equate t...o 9500 gal / yr. The capacity of a 737 is approx 130 people. 30% of the american population can be described as one of the following: overweight, obese, or morbidly obese (25% obese! http://www.obesity.org/statistics/). Obese is defined as having a BMI > 30. Average height of an american man is 69.3 inches (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm).
Other useful notes
BMI = (weight in lbs *703)/(height in inches)^2
Healthy BMI = approx 20
SOOOOO, if we make a couple of assumptions for simplicity sake (all men on plane, planes all fly full, there are plenty more) if americans would stop being fat we could save how much fuel/yr?
SOLN:
about 60,000 gal/yr
If we only let skinny people fly not only would us healthy people have a much more pleasant flying experience but we would save the environment too!
I am sorry, but the word "green" is starting to become abused and by no means gives you the right to automatically constitute your product as environmentally friendly.
I agree too. I thought it was a "green plane" until I saw they took off some 400 odd pounds off the plane.
Hey... that's a 1.005 factor improvement in fuel efficiency... that's not something to laugh at... The next radically "green" achievement will require all passengers to take a dump BEFORE getting on the plane...
That's like getting 20.1 mpg vs getting 20.0mpg in your car (I did this math, REALLY), and calling your car GREEN...
The "GREEN RADICALS" will suggest you eat some prozzak, and the won't even read the link you posted... I know, how rude... but that's life... Those "GREEN" buttmunches, they're illogical and they can't be reasoned with, all they want is to hug and wear rainbow shirts...
You, on the other hand, are truely better than all of them... GO YOU... Who needs to listen to their whining about "green" and "what's good for the mother earth" (how gay is that?), when you can quote 3 numbers from the article, and you even know how to post links...You're truely amazing...
Hey, being concerned for the enviroment is a laudable thing. We all should be! But complaining about "green washing" when someone makes a real effort to improve their ways, just because you feel it isn't good enough, that's just being whiney. Many small steps can make a huge difference too, you know?
Yes, but saying you're not an addict anymore because you completed step one of twelve is jumping the gun. Let them take those many small steps before they say they've arrived.
Needs to be a law about making false claims about products being Green. This plane is not even close to being green.
Until planes use 100 % bio fuel or they are completely redesigned to be some kind of solar powered blimp glider cross they are never going to be green.
they save 274 million pounds of CO2 per million flights.
why not say 274 billion pounds of CO2 per billion flights.
to make it SOUND even bigger.
What is important is how much the CO2 the produce per flight not the (tiny) 274 pounds they save per flight.
Of course it is good thing that they are trying to reduce CO2.
But they create the CO2 and need to spend their money on getting rid of it not on some PR machine.
More pix...
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=N222WN&distinct_entry=true
Lard asses like Clinton, Gore, and fascist Michael Moore costs the airline industry $20 BILLION a year in extra fuel costs, hence according to themselves causes "man made" global warming if you believe that nonsense. They are a bunch of hypocritical slobs/idiots. If people like them (66% of population) just lost 20 plus pounds each...it would equal 4 TRILLION pounds in the U.S. alone. Now that is some savings!
Definitely an E for effort. They could also do what American Airlines does. Don't paint the plane. Think of the 10's of thousands of pounds of paint that would save. The paint weighs at lease 450 pounds.
In a related move United and American have removed all the seats in coach class, to let passengers shuffle around like the cattle they are essentially treated as.
This is an EXISTING plane structure - you can only make so many tweaks and changes... and it sounds like all these changes where in the interior.
Even with those limitations, the fact that they were able to shave a few hundred pounds off is still impressive, especially when factoring the amount of flying time a plane like this would see over the course of a year.
This is obviously not a massive step forward in improving the efficiency of aircraft, but working within the limitations of an existing plane, it's not a bad first step.
"far and away the most enjoyable commercial flight you'll find in the US of A"
Didn't know anyone actually enjoyed flying Southwest. When I'm not in the mood to play musical chairs just to get seated, I fly Jet Blue.
Also, I hope they made their seats a bit more comfortable -- they have some of the least comfortable seats of any U.S. airline. I frequently fly Airtran and they are worse in some ways, but at least their seats don't suck.
So, based on lots of the comments here I guess no one should even try to reduce consumption unless they can slash it by 50% or more? By the time that is solved we could have saved much more with incremental changes like this.
The more companies publicize stuff like this the more others may get the same idea but I guess keeping it a secret is better?
If a company realizes savings while also reducing consumption it is a bad thing? So "going green" is only allowed if it also costs a company money? Is that the real agenda, to make companies spend more? Much more changes will be made if it is also benificial finacially than a penalty, at least in the real world.
I have to agree with many people here; a 500 lbs difference isn't that big of a deal. If it is on economical to fly a plane with 500 less pounds, why not remove two seats? That would mean 2 less passengers (let's say 150lbs each), their luggage (about 50 lbs each) and the seats themselves (I'll take a light guess of 25 lbs), adding to a weight savings of 450 lbs. Yes you lose 2 paying customers, but you say 9,500 gallons of fuel a year.
If that 9,500 gallons was worth it, the airlines would have done it.
This is just more "Green" marketing. Southwest will make a lot off this, "Ma Earth" will not even notice a difference. It is like a fat guy going on a diet by cutting 9500 calories a year from his diet; he may lose a pound or 2, but if you weigh 300 lbs who cares.
I hate Southwest...
I guess every little bit helps, but why make such a huge deal if it's just one plane? If this sort of thing became an industry standard, now that would be something.