Git Product home page Git Product logo

travel-impact-model's Introduction

Travel Impact Model 1.9.0

(Implementation of the Travalyst Shared Framework by Google)

Table of contents

Background

In this document we describe the modeling assumptions and input specifications behind the Travel Impact Model (TIM), a state of the art emission estimation model that Google’s Travel Sustainability team has compiled from several external data sources. The TIM aims at predicting carbon emissions for future flights to help travelers plan their travel.

Model overview

For each flight, the TIM considers several factors, such as the Great Circle distance between the origin and destination airports and the aircraft type being used for the route. Actual carbon emissions at flight time may vary depending on factors not known at modeling time, such as speed and altitude of the aircraft, the actual flight route, and weather conditions at the time of flight.

Flight level emission estimates

Flight level CO2 estimates

The Travel Impact Model estimates fuel burn based on the Tier 3 methodology for emission estimates from the Annex 1.A.3.a Aviation 2019 published by the European Environment Agency (EEA).

There are several resources about the EEA model available:

Additionally, the Travel Impact Model updates the fuel burn to emissions conversion factor to align with the ISO 14083 Fuel Heat Combustion factor and CORSIA Life Cycle Assessment, and breaks down emissions estimates into Well-to-Tank (WTT) and Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions.

Tank-to-Wake emissions account for emissions produced by burning jet fuel during flying, take-off and landing. Well-to-Tank emissions account for emissions generated during the production, processing, handling and delivery of jet fuel. Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions is the sum of Well-to-Tank (WTT) and Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions.

The EEA model takes the efficiency of the aircraft into account. As shown in Figure 1, a typical flight is modeled in two stages: take off and landing (LTO, yellow) and cruise, climb, and descend (CCD, blue).

alt_text

(Fig 1)

For each stage, there are aircraft-specific and distance-specific fuel burn estimates. Table 1 shows an example fuel burn forecast for a Boeing 787-9 (B789) aircraft:

Aircraft Distance (nm) LTO fuel forecast (kg) CCD fuel forecast (kg)
B789 500 1,727 5,815
B789 1000 1,727 10,770
B789 ... ... ...
B789 5000 1,727 52,375
B789 5500 1,727 57,430

(Table 1)

By using these numbers together with linear interpolation or extrapolation, it is possible to deduce the emission estimate for flights of any length on supported aircraft:

  • Interpolation is used for flights that are in between two distance data points. As a theoretical example, a 5250 nautical miles flight on a Boeing 787-9 will burn approximately 54902.5 kg of fuel during the CCD phase (where 54902.5 equals 52375 + (57430 - 52375)/2, with figures for 5000nm and 5500nm taken from Table 1).
  • Extrapolation is used for flights that are either shorter than the smallest supported distance, or longer than the longest supported distance for that aircraft type.
  • The Lower Heating Value from ISO 14083 (43.1 MJ/kg averaged over US and EU numbers from source Table I1 and Table I2) and CORSIA Carbon Intensity value (74 gCO2e/MJ from source Table 5) are used to calculate the jet fuel combustion to CO2 conversion factor of 3.1894. The CORSIA Life Cycle Assessment methodology is used to calculate a WTT CO2e emissions factor of 0.6465 (WTT 15g CO2e/MJ added to the TTW 74 gCO2e/MJ Carbon Intensity to total up to the WTW lifecycle Carbon Intensity of 89 gCO2e/MJ from source page 22 and Table 7). The factors used are as follows:
kg CO2e/kg of A1 jet fuel burn TTW [kg CO2e/kg] WTT [kg CO2e/kg] WTW [kg CO2e/kg]
CORSIA and ISO 3.1894 0.6465 3.8359

CO2e is short for CO2 equivalent and includes Kyoto Gases (GHG) as described here. Warming effects produced by short-lived climate pollutants (such as contrail-induced cirrus clouds) are not yet included in CO2e as calculated by the Travel Impact Model.

There is information for most commonly-used aircraft types in the EEA data, but some are missing. For missing aircraft types, one of the following alternatives is applied in ranked order:

  • Supported using the Piano-X data set: If an aircraft type is supported in the Piano-X data set and a comparable type is supported both in the Piano-X and the EEA data set, a correction factor is derived by comparing the Piano-X output for both types across a range of missions. The correction factor will be applied to the LTO and CCD numbers of the comparable type in the EEA database.
  • Supported by fallback to non-optimized aircraft type: If there are estimates in the EEA data set for an aircraft that is identical except for the lack of optimizations such as winglets or sharklets, the non-optimized counterpart is used for the estimate.
  • Supported by fallback to previous generation aircraft type: If there are estimates in the EEA data set for a previous generation aircraft type in the same family, from the same manufacturer, the previous generation aircraft is used for the estimate.
  • Supported by fallback to least efficient aircraft in the family: For umbrella codes that refer to a group of aircraft, the least efficient aircraft in the family will be assumed.
  • Not supported: For aircraft types for which none of the cases above apply, there are no emissions estimates available.

See Appendix A for a table with detailed information about aircraft type support status.

Data sources

Used for flight level emissions:

  • EEA Report No 13/2019 1.A.3.a Aviation 1 Master emissions calculator 2019 (link)
  • Piano-X aircraft database (link)
  • CORSIA Eligible Fuels Life Cycle Assessment Methodology (link)
  • ISO 14083 (link)

Breakdown from flight level to individual level

In addition to predicting a flight’s emissions, it is possible to estimate the emissions for an individual seat on that flight. To perform this estimate, it’s necessary to perform an individual breakdown based on three relevant factors:

  1. Number of total seats on the plane in each seating class (first, business, premium economy, economy)
  2. Number of occupied seats on the plane
  3. Amount of cargo being carried

The emission estimates are higher for premium economy, business and first seating classes because the seats in these sections take up more space. As a result, those seats account for a larger share of the flight's total emissions. Different space allocations on narrow and wide-body aircraft are considered using separate weighing factors.

Data sources

Used to determine which aircraft type was used for a given flight:

  • Aircraft type from published flight schedules

Used to determine seating configuration and calculate emissions per available seat:

  • Aircraft Configuration/Version (ACV) from published flight schedules
  • Fleet-level aircraft configuration information from the "Seats (Equipment Configuration) File" provided by OAG

Primary fallback for missing seat configuration

If there are no individual seat configuration numbers for a flight available from the published flight schedules, we query the fleet-level seating data for a unique match by carrier and aircraft. This is only possible in cases where a carrier uses the same seating configuration for all their aircraft of a certain aircraft model.

Outlier detection and basic correctness checking

If there are no individual seat configuration numbers for a flight available from the published flight schedules, nor from the fleet-level data, or if they are incorrectly formatted or implausible, the TIM uses aircraft-specific medians derived from the overall dataset instead. Basic correctness checks based on reference seat configurations for the aircraft are performed, specifically:

  • The calculated total seat area for a flight is the total available seating area. This is calculated based on seating data and seating class factors. For example, the total seat area for a wide-body aircraft would be:
    • 1.0 * num_economy_class_seats +
      1.5 * num_premium_economy_class_seats +
      4.0 * num_business_class_seats +
      5.0 * num_first_class_seats
  • The reference total seat area for an aircraft is roughly the median total seat area.
  • During a comparison step: If the calculated total seat area for a given flight is within certain boundaries of the reference for that aircraft, the filed seating data from published flight schedules is used. Otherwise the reference total seat area is used.

Factors details

Seating class factors

Seating parameters follow IATA RP 1726. An analysis of seat pitch and width in each seating class in typical plane configurations confirmed the accuracy of these factors.

  • Narrow-body aircraft
    • Economy and Premium Economy 1
    • Business and First 1.5
  • Wide-body aircraft
    • Economy 1
    • Premium Economy 1.5
    • Business 4
    • First 5

Load factors

Passenger load factors are predicted based on historical passenger statistics. TIM uses a tiered approach to determine passenger load factors. High resolution, specific data (i.e. by route) is preferred where available, and in the absence of more granular data, the model falls back to a generic value (i.e. global default).

Tier 1: Highly specific passenger load factors

  1. For flights within, to, and from the United States, we consider the T-100 historical dataset from the US Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics (see below for more details).

    • When the data is available for a given carrier, route, and month of travel, we calculate the aggregate passenger load factors, looking back up to six years.
    • When the data is available for a given carrier and month of travel, but not the specific route, we use the average passenger load factor across all the routes, up to six years back.
    • If fewer than three years of data are available, we consider ch-aviation load factors described below.
  2. For all other flights, we consider the historical load factor data provided by ch-aviation:

    • When the data is available for a given carrier and month of travel, we calculate the aggregate passenger load factors, looking back up to six years.
    • If fewer than three years of data are available, we use the global average fallback value instead as described below ("Global default passenger load factor").

Tier 2: Global default passenger load factor

  • For all other flights for which an equivalent public-domain dataset with similar granularity is not currently available, TIM falls back to use a load factor value of 84.5%. This value is derived from historical data for the U.S. from 2019.
  • An analysis of load factors sourced from publicly available airline investor reports indicates that this value is a good approximation for the passenger load factor globally.

Cargo load factors are not included.

Load factor data source specifics

T-100 from U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics and ch-aviation

  • Only data from the last six years is used.
  • Data is updated on a monthly basis (TIM version number will not increase).
  • Any month of data for which the overall load factor (aggregated over all airlines and routes) differs more than 10% from the average load factor since 2017 is removed as an outlier month. March 2020–February 2022 (inclusive) are removed from the data as a result.
  • To account for patterns of seasonality that do not correspond with the exact month of travel (e.g. public holidays), the previous and next month are taken into account for the average load factor of any given month of travel. E.g. For future flights in March, we aggregate over all flights in February, March, and April.

Example emission estimation

Let’s consider the following flight parameters:

  • Origin: Zurich ZRH
  • Destination: San Francisco SFO
  • Aircraft: Boeing 787-9
    • Economy seats: 188
    • Premium Economy seats: 21
    • Business seats: 48
    • First seats: 0

To get the total emissions for a flight, let’s follow the process below:

  1. Calculate great circle distance between ZRH and SFO: 9369 km (= 5058.9 nautical miles)
  2. Look up the static LTO numbers and the distance-based CCD number from aircraft performance data (see Table 1), and interpolate fuel burn for a 9369 km long flight:
  • LTO 1727 kg of fuel burn
  • CCD 52970 kg of fuel burn calculated
    • 52375 + (5058.9 - 5000) * (57430 - 52375) / (5500 - 5000) = 52970
  1. Sum LTO and CCD number for total flight-level result:
  • 1727 kg + 52970 kg = 54697 kg of fuel burn
  1. Convert from fuel burn to CO2e emissions for total flight-level result:
  • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 54697 * 0.6465 = 35362
  • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 54697 * 3.1894 = 174451
  • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: (54697 * 0.6465) + (54697 * 3.1894) = 209812

Once the total flight emissions are computed, let’s compute the per passenger break down:

  1. Determine which seating class factors to use for the given flight. In the ZRH-SFO example, we will use the wide-body factors (Boeing 787-9).
  2. Calculate the equivalent capacity of the aircraft according to the following
    C = first_class_seats * first_class_multiplier + business_class_seats * business_class_multiplier + …
    • In this specific example, the estimated area is:
      0 * 5 + 48 * 4 + 1.5 * 21 + 188 * 1 = 411.5
  3. Divide the total CO2e emissions by the equivalent capacity calculated above to get the CO2e emissions per economy passenger.
  • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 35362 / 411.5 = 85.934
  • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 174451 / 411.5 = 423.939
  • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 85.934 + 423.939 = 509.873
  1. Emissions per passenger for other cabins can be derived by multiplying by the corresponding cabin factor.
  • First:
    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 85.934 * 5 = 429.67
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 423.939 * 5 = 2119.695
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 509.873 * 5 = 2549.365
  • Business:
    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 85.934 * 4 = 343.736
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 423.939 * 4 = 1695.756
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 509.873 * 4 = 2039.492
  • Premium Economy:
    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 85.934 * 1.5 = 128.901
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 423.939 * 1.5 = 635.909
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 509.873 * 1.5 = 764.81
  • Economy:
    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 85.934
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 423.939
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 509.873
  1. Scale to estimated load factor 0.845 by apportioning emissions to occupied seats:
  • First:
    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 429.67 / 0.845 = 508.485
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 2119.695 / 0.845 = 2508.515
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 2549.365 / 0.845 = 3017
  • Business:
    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 343.736 / 0.845 = 406.788
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 1695.756 / 0.845 = 2006.812
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 2039.492 / 0.845 = 2413.6
  • Premium Economy:
    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 128.901 / 0.845 = 152.546
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 635.909 / 0.845 = 752.555
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 764.81 / 0.845 = 905.101
  • Economy:
    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO2e: 85.934 / 0.845 = 101.697
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 423.939 / 0.845 = 501.703
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO2e: 509.873 / 0.845 = 603.4

Note that the model generates emission estimates for all cabin classes, including cabin classes where the seat count is zero, as cabin classifications are not always consistent across data providers. Therefore, providing estimates for all cabin classes simplifies integration of TIM data with other datasets.

Legal base for model data sharing

The carbon emission estimate data are available via API under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA 4.0 open source license (legal code).

API access

Developer documentation is available on the Google Developers site for the Travel Impact Model API.

Versioning

The model will be developed further over time, e.g. with improved load factors methodology or more fine grained seat area ratios calculation. New versions will be published.

A full model version will have four components: MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH.DATE, e.g. 1.3.1.20230101. The four tiers of change tracking are handled differently:

  • Major versions: Changes to the model that would break existing client implementations if not addressed (e.g. changes in data types or schema) or major methodology changes (e.g. adding new data sources to the model that lead to major output changes). We expect these to be infrequent but they need to be managed with special care.
  • Minor versions: Changes to the model that, while being consistent across schema versions, change the model parameters or implementation.
  • Patch versions: Implementation changes meant to address bugs or inaccuracies in the model implementation.
  • Dated versions: Model datasets are recreated with refreshed input data but no change to the algorithms regularly.

Changelog

1.9.0

Adding carrier-level passenger load factors from ch-aviation for flights that are not already covered by the T-100 dataset from the US Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Also adjusting the load factors outlier exclusion criteria from 20% to 10% deviation from average load factor since 2017, resulting in removing March 2020–February 2022 (inclusive) (previously March 2020–February 2021). See the section on load factors for more details.

1.8.0

Adding Well-to-Tank (WTT) and Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions break-downs to all flight emissions. Updating the jet fuel combustion to CO2 conversion factor from the minimum value of 3.1672 to the value of 3.1894 (using Lower Heating Value from ISO 14083 and CORSIA Carbon Intensity value), and using the CORSIA Life Cycle Assessment methodology to implement a WTT CO2e emissions factor 0.6465. Reference: ISO, CORSIA.

1.7.0

Updating the jet fuel combustion to CO2 conversion factor from 3.15 based on the EEA methodology to 3.1672 to align with the CORSIA methodology’s recommended factor.

1.6.0

Adding carrier and route specific passenger load factors for flights from, to, and within the U.S., taking seasonality patterns into account. We are using data from the U.S. Department of Transportation Bureau of Transportation Statistics. For more details, see the section on load factors.

1.5.1

Adding a fleet-level source for seating configuration data. For airlines that don't file seating configuration information in flight schedules but use the same seating configuration for all their aircraft of a certain model, a fall back to the "Seats (Equipment Configuration) File" provided by OAG is performed.

1.5.0

Following recent discussions with academic and industry partners, we are adjusting the TIM to focus on CO2 emissions. While we strongly believe in including non-CO2 effects in the model long-term, the details of how and when to include these factors requires more input from our stakeholders as part of a governance model that’s in development. With this change, we are provisionally removing contrails effects from our CO2e estimates but will keep the labeling as “CO2e” in the model to ensure future compatibility.

We believe CO2e factors are critical to include in the model, given the emphasis on them in the IPCC’s AR6 report. We want to make sure that when we do incorporate them into the model, we have a strong plan to account for time of day and regional variations in contrails’ warming impact. We are committed to providing consumers the most accurate information as they make informed choices about their travel options.

We continue to invest into research and collaborate with leading scientists, NGOs, and partners to better incorporate contrails and other non-GHG impact into our model, and we look forward to sharing updates at a later date.

1.4.0

Initial public version of the Travel Impact Model.

Limitations

The model described in this document produces estimates of carbon emissions. Emission estimates aim to be representative of what the typical emissions for a flight matching the model inputs would be. Estimates might differ from actual emissions based on a number of factors.

Actual flight distances: When modeling the distance between a given origin and destination, the Great Circle Distance between the origin and destination airport is used, as opposed to the actual distance flown.

This simplifying assumption enables the model to be used even when precise flight path information is not available, such as when computing emission estimates for future flights.

Aircraft types: The emissions model accounts for the equipment type as published in the flight schedules. The majority of aircraft types in use are covered. See Appendix A for a list of supported aircraft types.

Some aircraft types are supported by falling back to a related model thought to have comparable emissions. See Flight level emission estimates for more details.

If no reasonable approximation is available for a given aircraft, the model will not produce estimates for it.

Cargo load factors: Cargo load is not yet supported in the model.

Engine information: Beyond the aircraft type, there are other aircraft characteristics that can have an effect on the flight emissions (e.g. engine type, engine age, etc.) that are not currently included when computing emission estimates.

Fuel type: The emissions model assumes that all flights operate on 100% conventional fuel. Alternative fuel types (e.g. Sustainable Aviation Fuel) are not supported.

Seat configurations: If there are no seat configurations individual numbers for a flight available from published flight schedules, or if they are incorrectly formatted or implausible, aircraft specific medians derived from the overall dataset are employed.

Contrail-induced cirrus clouds: Warming effects produced by short-lived climate pollutants such as contrail-induced cirrus clouds are not yet included in emissions as calculated by the Travel Impact Model.

Data quality

The CO2 estimates were validated by comparing against a limited amount of real-world fuel burn data. The finding was that the TIM is underestimating by 7% on average.

The EEA guidebook (chapter 4) cites sources from ICAO that estimate the uncertainty of the LTO factors between 5 and 10%. The CCD factor uncertainty is estimated between 15 and 40%.

Contact

We are welcoming feedback and enquiries. Please get in touch using this form.

Glossary

CCD: The flight phases Climb, Cruise, and Descend occur above a flight altitude of 3,000 feet.

CO2: Carbon dioxide is the most significant long-lived greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution anthropogenic emissions – primarily from use of fossil fuels and deforestation – have rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming.

CO2e: CO2e is short for CO2 equivalent, and is a metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases on the basis of their global-warming potential (GWP), by converting amounts of other gases to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide with the same global warming potential (source).

Contrail-induced cirrus clouds: Cirrus clouds are atmospheric clouds that look like thin strands. There are natural cirrus clouds, and also contrail induced cirrus clouds that under certain conditions occur as the result of a contrail formation from aircraft engine exhaust.

CORSIA: Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, a carbon offset and reduction scheme to curb the aviation impact on climate change developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Effective Radiative Forcing (ERF): Radiative forcing effects can create rapid responses in the troposphere, which can either enhance or reduce the flux over time, and makes RF a difficult proxy for calculating long-term climate effects. ERF attempts to capture long-term climate forcing, and represents the change in net radiative flux after allowing for short-term responses in atmospheric temperatures, water vapor and clouds.

European Environment Agency (EEA): An agency of the European Union whose task is to provide sound, independent information on the environment.

Google’s Travel Sustainability team: A team at Google focusing on travel sustainability, based in Zurich (Switzerland) and Cambridge (U.S.), with the goal to enable users to make more sustainable travel choices.

Great circle distance: Defined as the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere when measured along the surface of the sphere.

ICAO: The International Civil Aviation Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations.

ISO 14083: The international standard that establishes a common methodology for the quantification and reporting of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions arising from the operation of transport chains of passengers and freight (source), published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

LTO: The flight phases Take Off and Landing occur below a flight altitude of 3000 feet at the beginning and the end of a flight. They include the following phases: taxi-out, taxi-in (idle), take-off, climb-out, approach and landing.

Radiative Forcing (RF): Radiative Forcing is the instantaneous difference in radiative energy flux stemming from a climate perturbation, measured at the top of the atmosphere.

Short Lived Climate Pollutants (SLCPs): Pollutants that stay in the atmosphere for a short time (e.g. weeks) in comparison to Long Lived Climate Pollutants such as CO2 that stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

Tank-to-Wake (TTW): Emissions produced by burning jet fuel during takeoff, flight, and landing of an aircraft.

TIM: The Travel Impact Model described in this document.

Well-to-Tank (WTT): Emissions generated during the production, processing, handling, and delivery of jet fuel.

Well-to-Wake (WTW): The sum of Well-to-Tank (WTT) and Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions.

Appendix

Appendix A: Aircraft type support

Aircraft full name IATA aircraft code Mapping (ICAO aircraft code) Support status
Airbus A220-100 221 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Airbus A220-300 223 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Airbus A300-600 Freighter ABY A306 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A300-600/600C AB6 A306 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A300B2/B4/C4 AB4 A30B Direct match in EEA
Airbus A310 310 A310 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A310-300 313 A310 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A318 318 A318 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 32S A321 Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A319 319 A319 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A320-100/200 320 A320 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A320neo 32N Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Airbus A321 321 A321 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A321neo 32Q Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Airbus A330 330 A332 Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A330-200 332 A332 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A330-300 333 A333 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A330-900neo 339 A333 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Airbus A340 340 A345 Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A340-300 343 A343 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A340-500 345 A345 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A340-600 346 A346 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A350 350 A350 Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A350-900 359 A350 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A380 380 A380 Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A380-800 388 A380 Direct match in EEA
Airbus A320 (Sharklets) 32A Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Airbus A321 (Sharklets) 32B Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Airbus A350-1000 351 A350 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Antonov AN-148-100 A81 AN148 Direct match in EEA
Antonov AN-24 AN4 AN24 Direct match in EEA
Antonov AN-26/30/32 AN6 AN32 Mapped to least efficient in family
Antonov AN-32 A32 AN32 Direct match in EEA
ATR 42-300/320 AT4 ATR42 Mapped to similar model
ATR 42-500 AT5 ATR42 Direct match in EEA
ATR 42/ATR 72 ATR ATR72 Mapped to least efficient in family
ATR 72 AT7 ATR72 Direct match in EEA
Avro Regional Jet Avroliner ARJ Not supported
Avro Regional Jet RJ100 Avroliner AR1 Not supported
Avro Regional Jet RJ85 Avroliner AR8 Not supported
Beechcraft 1900 BE1 Not supported
Beechcraft 1900/1900C BES Not supported
Beechcraft 1900D BEH Not supported
Beechcraft C99 Airliner BE9 Not supported
Beechcraft Light Aircraft twin engine BET Not supported
Boeing 717-200 717 B717 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737 737 B734 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 737 Freighter 73F B734 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 737-200 732 B732 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-200 73M B732 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-200/200 Advanced 73S B732 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-300 733 B733 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-300 73N B733 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-300 (winglets) 73C B733 Mapped to non-optimized aircraft
Boeing 737-400 734 B734 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-400 73Q B734 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-500 735 B735 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-500 (winglets) 73E B735 Mapped to non-optimized aircraft
Boeing 737-600 736 B736 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-700 73G B737 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-700 (winglets) 73W Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Boeing 737-800 738 B738 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-800 (Scimitar Winglets) 7S8 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Boeing 737-800 (winglets) 73H Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Boeing 737-900 739 B739 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 737-900 (winglets) 73J B739 Mapped to non-optimized aircraft
Boeing 737MAX 8 7M8 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Boeing 737MAX 9 7M9 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Boeing 747 747 B744 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 747 Freighter 74F B744 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 747-400 744 B744 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 747-400 Mixed 74E B744 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 747-400F Freighter 74Y B744 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 747-8F (Freighter) 74N B744 Mapped onto older model
Boeing 747-8I 74H B744 Mapped onto older model
Boeing 757 757 B753 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 757-200 752 B752 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 757-200 (winglets) 75W Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Boeing 757-300 753 B753 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 757-300 (winglets) 75T B753 Mapped to non-optimized aircraft
Boeing 767 767 B764 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 767-200 762 B762 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 767-300 763 B763 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 767-300 (winglets) 76W Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Boeing 767-400 764 B764 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 777 777 B773 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 777 Freighter 77F B773 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 777-200/200ER 772 B772 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 777-200F Freighter 77X B772 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 777-200LR 77L B772 Mapped to similar model
Boeing 777-300 773 B773 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 777-300ER 77W B77W Direct match in EEA
Boeing 787 787 B789 Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 787-10 781 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Boeing 787-8 788 B788 Direct match in EEA
Boeing 787-9 789 B789 Direct match in EEA
Bombardier CS100 CS1 Not supported
Bombardier CS300 CS3 Not supported
British Aerospace 146 146 BAE146 Direct match in EEA
British Aerospace Jetstream 31/32/41 JST Not supported
British Aerospace Jetstream 32 J32 Not supported
British Aerospace Jetstream 41 J41 Not supported
Canadair Regional Jet CRJ CS900RJ Mapped to least efficient in family
Canadair Regional Jet 100 CR1 Not supported
Canadair Regional Jet 1000 CRK Not supported
Canadair Regional Jet 200 CR2 Not supported
Canadair Regional Jet 550 CR5 Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Canadair Regional Jet 700 CR7 CS700RJ Direct match in EEA
Canadair Regional Jet 900 CR9 CS900RJ Direct match in EEA
Cessna (Light Aircraft - single engine) CNC C208 Direct match in EEA
Cessna (Light Aircraft) CNA C208 Direct match in EEA
Cessna 208B Freighter CNF C208 Direct match in EEA
Cessna Citation CNJ C500 Direct match in EEA
Comac ARJ21-700 C27 Not supported
Convair 440/580/600/640 Freighter CVF Not supported
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-4 Caribou DHC Not supported
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-6 Twin Otter DHT DHC6 Direct match in EEA
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 DH8 DHC8 Direct match in EEA
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 200 DH2 DHC8 Mapped to non-optimized aircraft
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 300 DH3 DHC8 Mapped to non-optimized aircraft
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 400 DH4 DHC8 Mapped to non-optimized aircraft
Embraer 170 Regional Jet E70 E170 Direct match in EEA
Embraer 175 (Enhanced Winglets) E7W Supported via correction factor derived from Piano data
Embraer 175 Regional Jet E75 E175 Direct match in EEA
Embraer 190 E2 290 E190 Mapped onto older model
Embraer 190 Regional Jet E90 E190 Direct match in EEA
Embraer 195 E2 295 E195 Mapped onto older model
Embraer 195 Regional Jet E95 E195 Direct match in EEA
Embraer EMB-110 Bandeirante EMB E110 Direct match in EEA
Embraer EMB-120 Brasilia EM2 E120 Direct match in EEA
Embraer ERJ-135 Regional Jet ER3 E135 Direct match in EEA
Embraer ERJ-135/140/145 Regional Jet ERJ Mapped to least efficient in family
Embraer ERJ-140 Regional Jet ERD E145 Direct match in EEA
Embraer ERJ-145 Regional Jet ER4 E145 Direct match in EEA
Embraer RJ-170/175/190/195 Regional Jet EMJ Mapped to least efficient in family
Fairchild (Swearingen) Metro/Merlin SWM Not supported
Fairchild Dornier 328JET FRJ Not supported
Fokker 100 100 F100 Direct match in EEA
Fokker 50 F50 F50 Direct match in EEA
Fokker 70 F70 F70 Direct match in EEA
Ilyushin IL-76 IL7 IL76 Direct match in EEA
Ilyushin IL-96-300 IL9 IL96 Direct match in EEA
LET L410 Turbolet L4T L410 Direct match in EEA
McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Freighter M1F MD11 Direct match in EEA
McDonnell Douglas MD-80 M80 Not supported
McDonnell Douglas MD-83 M83 Not supported
McDonnell Douglas MD-87 M87 Not supported
McDonnell Douglas MD-88 M88 Not supported
McDonnell Douglas MD-90 M90 MD90 Direct match in EEA
Pilatus Brit-Norm BN-2A/B ISL/BN-2T BNI Not supported
SAAB 2000 S20 Not supported
Saab 340B SFB Not supported
SAAB SF 340 SF3 Not supported
Sukhoi Superjet 100-95 SU9 Not supported
Tupolev TU-154 TU5 Not supported
Xian Yunshuji MA-60 MA6 Not supported
Yakovlev YAK-40 YK4 Not supported
Yakovlev YAK-42 YK2 Not supported

travel-impact-model's People

Contributors

annadaisegarra avatar noman-aalian avatar stefanloerwald avatar woojink avatar xiangzhao avatar

Stargazers

 avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar

Watchers

 avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar  avatar

Recommend Projects

  • React photo React

    A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.

  • Vue.js photo Vue.js

    🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.

  • Typescript photo Typescript

    TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.

  • TensorFlow photo TensorFlow

    An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone

  • Django photo Django

    The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

  • D3 photo D3

    Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉

Recommend Topics

  • javascript

    JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.

  • web

    Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.

  • server

    A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.

  • Machine learning

    Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.

  • Game

    Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.

Recommend Org

  • Facebook photo Facebook

    We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.

  • Microsoft photo Microsoft

    Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.

  • Google photo Google

    Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.

  • D3 photo D3

    Data-Driven Documents codes.