Cutting Fresh Airflow on Most Planes
Dec 30, 2000 | 12:02 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 113
Cutting Fresh Airflow on Most Planes
Saw a short article in Parade Magazine, Dec 17, 2000 issue, page 15, on "Plane Air".
Talked about some committee representing the airline industry that proposed two items to save "millions of dollars a year in fuel costs for the airlines".
(1.) Installation of newer high-quality air filters to help prevent bacteria and viruses from being recirculated through a plaine's air system.
(2.) CUT OUTSIDE FRESH AIRFLOW ON MOST PLANES FROM 10 CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE DOWN TO FIVE !!!
Anyone else heard about this? Can we begin a protest??
Talked about some committee representing the airline industry that proposed two items to save "millions of dollars a year in fuel costs for the airlines".
(1.) Installation of newer high-quality air filters to help prevent bacteria and viruses from being recirculated through a plaine's air system.
(2.) CUT OUTSIDE FRESH AIRFLOW ON MOST PLANES FROM 10 CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE DOWN TO FIVE !!!
Anyone else heard about this? Can we begin a protest??
Dec 30, 2000 | 1:24 pm
#2
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: too far from the airport
Posts: 3,299
Oh no! This spells headaches and even more discomfort for all of us. This is certainly bad news, but where would you start a protest? I hope the FA's will begin some form of protest against the implementation of this measure too. Perhaps we could create a FT/FA coalition for this purpose...
Dec 30, 2000 | 5:40 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bryn Mawr PA & Wailea HI
Posts: 15,726
I read a number of scientific journals and magazines, but (un)fortunately Parade Magazine is not one of these. It would be strongly suggested you gather a few more facts before you begin protesting too loudly. For a starter, you should better define the units you quote......it would help us in the bleachers better understand the "problem" prior to getting a satisfactory solution (ps: it is probably cfm/passenger). I general, I totally agree aircraft air is very crappy, but so is most office air. In fact the outdoors in general aint too great in and near most large cities (and I often cough just walking by the front entrances of most office buildings with their hoards of happy puffers).
Should you wish to bone up on this airy subject, I suggest this article to start with: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/ecs.pdf . Good luck.
MisterNice
Should you wish to bone up on this airy subject, I suggest this article to start with: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/cabinair/ecs.pdf . Good luck.
MisterNice
Dec 31, 2000 | 6:15 pm
#4
Join Date: Aug 2000
Programs: I am an AS employee, but my comments do not represent the company in any official capacity.
Posts: 4,343
Mister Nice -
Thank you for posting that link. I found it fascinating reading. . . .
-levi
(edited for typo)
[This message has been edited by eastwest (edited 12-31-2000).]
Thank you for posting that link. I found it fascinating reading. . . .
-levi
(edited for typo)
[This message has been edited by eastwest (edited 12-31-2000).]
Dec 31, 2000 | 8:03 pm
#5
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Houston,TX US
Programs: DL-MM,SW-CP,A-List Preferred
Posts: 52
One way around that is to fly aircraft that has 100% fresh air, such as the Boeing 727 (which are becoming few and far between), and the new Boeing 717 (flown by Airtran, TWA, and Hawaiian).