Canada-U.S. transborder airline fuel-efficiency ranking

WWW.THEICCT.ORG© INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, 2017

This study assesses and compares the

fuel efficiency of airlines serving 10

transborder routes between Canada

and the United States for the 12 months

between March 2016 and February

2017. The fuel eciency of nine airlines

flying these routes—five based in

Canada and four in the United States—

are ranked based on the Piano 5 aircraft

modeling software and U.S. Bureau of

Transportation Statistics ﬂight data.

Among the 10 selected routes, the

smallest gap between best and worst

performance was 6% on the Montreal-

New York route, and the largest was

36% on the Montreal-Miami route. On

certain routes, the gap was driven by

aircraft choice, as larger planes are

generally more fuel-efficient than

smaller ones and turboprops are more

fuel-ecient than jet planes of compa-

rable size.

Short-distance flights in general are

more fuel-intensive per passenger kilo-

meter than longer ones. In this study,

we found that flying about 200 km

between Seattle and Vancouver is on

average 2.6 times as fuel-intensive per

passenger kilometer as flying 2,200

km between Montreal and Miami.

However, the effect of stage length

on fuel eciency decreases as stage

length increases.

This study corroborates that aircraft

are the most carbon-intensive means

of travel compared with cars, buses,

and trains (Kwan, 2013; Rutherford

& Kwan, 2015) based on passenger

miles per gallon of gasoline equiv-

alent (MPGge). The working paper

ends with a discussion of conclusions,

policy implications, and recommenda-

tions for future work.

1. INTRODUCTION

The expanding commercial air trans-

port industry aects the global climate.

According to the International Air

Transport Association (IATA), world-

wide revenue passenger kilometers rose

7.4% in 2015, the fastest annual growth

since 2010 (IATA, 2016). According

to the International Energy Agency

(IEA), carbon dioxide (CO

) emissions

from international aviation doubled in

the past 25 years, the fastest growth

among all transportation modes (IEA,

2017). If current trends persist, aviation

emissions will triple by 2050.

To mitigate the rise in CO

emissions

from aviation, the International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO) estab-

lished two aspirational goals for inter-

national flights: improving fuel effi-

ciency by 2% annually and zero net

growth of aviation CO

emissions after

2020 (ICAO, 2010). In March 2017,

ICAO formally adopted new global

aircraft CO

emission standards which

member states are expected to imple-

ment starting in 2020. In addition,

ICAO’s Carbon Offsetting Reduction

Scheme for International Aviation is

expected to come into eect around

the same time.

Some ICAO member states established

their own fuel-efficiency improve-

ment goals, including Canada, the host

country of ICAO headquarters. Canada

set a target of at least 2% annual

improvements in fuel efficiency until

2020 (Government of Canada, 2015).

Canadian airlines’ fuel efficiency has

been improving by about 1% a year

in terms of revenue passenger kilo-

meters per liter, similar to the rate of

improvement shown by airlines in the

United States for domestic operations

(Government of Canada, 2015; Kwan &

Rutherford, 2014). More than 27 million

passengers flew between the United

States and Canada in 2016, account-

ing for about 1.9% of total international

WORKING PAPER 2017-16

anada-U.S. transborder airline

fuel-efficiency ranking

Authors: Chaoqi Liu, Anastasia Kharina

Date: December 29, 2017

Keywords: Transborder, Airline fuel eciency

Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the assistance of our colleague Dr. Brandon Graver in the modeling and analysis, and thank Dr. Daniel Rutherford

for his thorough review. This study was funded through the generous support of the Environment and Climate Change Canada.

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

2 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2017-16

aviation passengers (ICAO, 2016).

This number is projected to double to

56 million by 2037 (Federal Aviation

Administration, 2017).

Despite regulatory efforts to curb

aviation emissions, policymakers and

consumers often lack access to infor-

mation that would help them choose

less-polluting carriers and ﬂights. To

close this gap, the ICCT has produced

a series of airline fuel-efficiency

rankings for U.S. domestic and trans-

atlantic routes.

In this report, we analyze and compare

the fuel efficiency of air carriers

serving 10 select routes between

Canada and the United States. We

also identify contributing factors and

explain the gap between the best

and worst performers for each route

by assessing the role of technology

level and operational parameters

in airline fuel efficiency. Finally, we

compare the fuel eciency of aircraft

to ground transport on shorter routes

where a traveler may choose between

dierent modes.

2. METHODOLOGY

This study follows the methodology

of previous ICCT route-based analyses

(Zeinali et al., 2013; Kwan & Rutherford,

2015). Aircraft fuel burn was computed

based on a simple metric of pas-

senger kilometers per liter of jet fuel

(pax-km/L).

The scope of this study was limited

to direct transborder ﬂights between

the United States and Canada using

publicly available data from the U.S.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

(BTS). The most recent data available

at the time of study was used, encom-

passing a 12-month period between

March 2016 and February 2017.

1 For more information, see http://www.

theicct.org/spotlight/airline-fuel-eciency

2.1 ROUTE SELECTION

To identify the most suitable origin-

destination city pairs, we analyzed

BTS T-100 International Segments

data, taking into account geographic

coverage, scheduled traffic volume,

number of airlines serving the route,

and stage length.

To avoid potential bias from ranking a

single airport pair between two major

cities, we identiﬁed major metropolitan

areas in Canada based on methodol-

ogy developed by Brueckner, Lee, and

Singer (2013) to cover a wider range of

competing airports in a region where

people choose to travel. Then, we listed

the busiest transborder routes between

these Canadian cities and those in the

United States. Finally, we eliminated

city pairs served by fewer than three

airlines, and selected 10 routes under

the principle of maximizing the vari-

ation of stage length and coverage

(north-south, east-west). The selected

routes are presented in Table 1.

2.2 FUEL BURN MODELING

U.S. airlines report quarterly fuel burn by

aircraft type to BTS, but no data is cur-

rently collected at the level of city-city

pairs. Furthermore, the fuel consump-

tion of Canadian airlines is not available

in the BTS database, so the fuel burn

for each ﬂight was modeled in Piano

The Ascend Fleets online database

(Ascend Flightglobal Consultancy,

2017) provided additional data on the

aircraft operated by each airline.

We calculated the payload for each

ﬂight. Because BTS data is recorded

monthly, “Onboard Passengers” is the

sum of the onboard passengers of

each ﬂight in one month. The number

of passengers for each ﬂight was then

estimated by dividing the number of

onboard passengers by the number

of departures. Each passenger is esti-

mated to weigh 100 kg, an industry-

wide standard, including their luggage.

To model fuel burn, Piano 5 requires

the variants of each aircraft type, such

as engine types, winglets, maximum

takeo weight (MTOW), and number

of seats. The Ascend fleet database

provides detailed specifications for

each individual aircraft possessed by

air carriers globally. Since air carriers

often deploy many variants the same

aircraft type, the most common variants

according to Ascend were used in Piano

5 modeling. At times, we found data

conﬂicts between BTS and Ascend. For

2 For more information see http://www.lissys.

demon.co.uk/Piano5.html

Table 1. Selected routes and corresponding airports

Route Airports*

Passengers**

(Thousands)

Calgary-Houston YYC - IAH, HOU 431

Calgary-San Francisco YYC - SFO 181

Montreal-Miami YUL - MIA, FLL, PBI 707

Montreal-New York YUL - LGA, EWR, JFL 882

Toronto-Chicago YYZ, YTZ - ORD, MDW 1,066

Toronto-Los Angeles YYZ - LAX 714

Toronto-New York YYZ, YTZ - LGA, EWR, JFK 2,476

Toronto- Orlando YYZ - MCO 683

Vancouver-Los Angeles YVR - LAX, SNA 949

Vancouver-Seattle YVR - SEA 626

* Airport names corresponding to each code are presented in Appendix A

** Within the analysis period (March 2016 – February 2017)

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

WORKING PAPER 2017-16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 3

example, one BTS ﬂight record contains

an aircraft type that the correspond-

ing airline does not operate, according

to Ascend. To resolve the conﬂict, the

respective airline’s fleet website was

consulted to determine which aircraft

type to use in Piano 5. The modeling

variables and sources used in this study

are presented in Table 2.

More details on the precise fuel burn

modeling methodology applied can be

found in reports by Zeinali et al. (2013)

and Kwan and Rutherford (2015). A list

of mainline carriers and their aliates

along with their RPK distribution is

presented in Appendix B.

2.3 FUEL-EFFICIENCY

CALCULATIONS

To compare the fuel eciency of each

route r across all operations, we calcu-

lated the average of aggregated data

from all ﬂight records i, each pertain-

ing to a unique airline-aircraft combi-

nation, according to Equation 1:

pax-km/L

r,i

× SL

r,i

× ND

r,i

(Eq. 1)

where NP = number of passengers

SL = stage length in kilometers

FB = ﬂight fuel burn in liters

ND = number of departures

Similarly, the fuel eciency of airline

a serving route r was calculated by

summing the fuel burn, RPKs, and

departures for the i number of aircraft

types it uses on each route:

pax-km/L

r,a

r,a,i

× SL

r,a,i

× ND

r,a,i

(Eq.2)

where NP = number of passengers

SL = stage length in kilometers

FB = ﬂight fuel burn in liters

ND = number of departures

Finally, airlines were ranked from

lowest to highest on the metric of

passenger kilometers per liter of fuel

for each city-city pair.

3. RESULTS

3.1 COMPARISONS BETWEEN

ROUTES

Figure 1 presents the average fuel

efficiency in pax-km/L serving the

10 Canada-U.S. transborder routes.

Table3 summarizes the stage length

as well as the average fuel eciency

and load factor by route. As the ﬁgure

and table indicate, the average fuel

eciency for dierent routes varies

from as low as 12 pax-km/L to as high

as 32 pax-km/L. On average, ﬂying

between Vancouver and Seattle is

estimated to be more than 2.6 times

as fuel intensive as flying between

Montreal and Miami on a passenger-

kilometer basis. The average load

factor among the 10 routes varies

from a high of 89% to a low of 75%.

Table 2. Key modeling variables

Types Variables Sources

Aircraft used

Aircraft type BTS T-100 International Segments

Engines

Ascend Fleets; Piano 5

Winglets

MTOW

Seats

Mission performed

Stage length BTS T-100 International Segments

Payload BTS T-100 International Segments

Operational parameters

Taxi time Zeinali et al. (2013)

Fuel reserve FAA Part 121; Piano 5

Flight level Piano 5 default values*

Speed Piano 5 default values

* Except for YVR-SEA route where a cruise ﬂight level value of 180 (18,000 ft) was used to allow

sucient cruise time in Piano modeling.

Seattle

Vancouver

San Francisco

Los Angeles

Average pax-km/L

Calgary

Houston

Chicago

Toronto

Orlando

Miami

Montreal

New York

Figure 1. Average fuel eciency of ﬂights between the 10 Canada-U.S. transborder routes.

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

4 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2017-16

3.2 RANKINGS FOR EACH ROUTE

Table 4 shows the airline fuel effi-

ciency rankings of the 10 transborder

routes. In general, airlines that mainly

operate narrow-body or turboprop

aircraft—Alaska, Air Transat, Porter,

and WestJet—were more efficient

than legacy carriers such as American,

Delta, and Air Canada. Those carriers

usually ranked at or below average

because they typically outsource trans-

border ﬂights to aliates that mainly

ﬂy less fuel-ecient regional jets. More

detailed information regarding opera-

tional parameters for each airline by

route is available in Appendix C.

Table 5 presents the fuel efficiency

scores for airlines serving the Montreal-

Miami route, the most fuel-efficient

route in this study, where on average

one liter of jet fuel is enough to trans-

port one passenger as far as 32 km.

Air Transat was the most fuel-ecient

of the five airlines that flew directly

between Montreal and Miami between

March 2016 and February 2017. The

low-cost leisure airline based in Montreal

scored 38 pax-km/L by flying “all

economy” 189-seat Boeing 737-800s

on most of their flights. Sunwing

Airlines, also a low-cost carrier based

in Canada, was the second-most fuel-

ecient airline on this route. Similar to

Air Transat, Sunwing exclusively ﬂew

189-seat Boeing 737-800s between

Montreal and Miami but burned 3%

more fuel than Air Transat, reﬂecting

a lower load factor. American Airlines

also flew 737-800s exclusively on

this route, although its lower seating

density of 160 seats per aircraft reﬂect-

ing premium-class seating resulted in

lower fuel eciency and 19% more fuel

burned per passenger kilometer.

Table 4. Fuel-eciency rankings on 10 routes between Canada and the United States

Route

Fuel eciency

Montreal-Miami Air Transat

Sunwing

Airlines

Air Canada

American

Airlines

WestJet —

Toronto-Orlando Air Transat WestJet

Sunwing

Airlines

Air Canada — —

Toronto-Los Angeles WestJet Air Canada

American

Airlines

— — —

Calgary-Houston

United

Airlines

WestJet Air Canada — — —

Vancouver-Los Angeles WestJet Air Canada

United

Airlines

American

Airlines

Delta Airlines —

Calgary-San Francisco WestJet Air Canada

United

Airlines

— — —

Toronto-Chicago

United

Airlines

Porter

Airlines

American

Airlines

Air Canada — —

Toronto-New York

Porter

Airlines

Air Canada Delta Airlines

United

Airlines

American

Airlines

WestJet

Montreal-New York

United

Airlines

Delta Airlines

American

Airlines

Air Canada — —

Vancouver-Seattle

Alaska

Airlines

Air Canada Delta Airlines — — —

Table 3. Route comparisons

Routes

Stage length

(km)

Average fuel

eciency (pax-km/L) Load factor

Toronto-Los Angeles 3,501 31 83%

Calgary-Houston 2,813 29 81%

Montreal-Miami 2,236 32 84%

Vancouver-Los Angeles 1,742 29 86%

Toronto-Orlando 1,698 32 85%

Calgary-San Francisco 1,640 28 89%

Toronto-Chicago 704 20 80%

Toronto-New York 566 19 80%

Montreal-New York 527 16 78%

Vancouver-Seattle 204 12 75%

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

WORKING PAPER 2017-16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 5

Unlike the four other airlines which

operate their own ﬂeets, Air Canada

relied on its subsidiary, Air Canada

Rouge, to carry the majority of its pas-

sengers on this route. Flying Boeing

767-300ERs, Airbus 319s and Airbus

321s, Air Canada Rouge transported

94% of Air Canada’s customers

between Montreal and Miami, putting

Air Canada in third position with 33

pax-km/L.

Of all the routes analyzed in this study,

the largest gap between the best and

worst performer was found on the

Montreal-Miami route. The worst per-

former, WestJet, burned 36% more

fuel than Air Transat. This large gap

could be explained by a combination

of aircraft selection and load factor.

WestJet mainly ﬂew Boeing 737-700s

ﬁtted with 130 seats, compared with

160-189 seats on competitors’ larger

Boeing 737-800 variants. In addition,

it had the lowest load factor, 78%

compared with the average of 84% on

this route.

While the eect of aircraft type selec-

tion is not very clear on the Montreal-

Miami route, it becomes more

apparent on shorter routes within

the range limits of regional jets. An

example is the Calgary-San Francisco

route presented in Table 6. On this

route, WestJet used its own Boeing

737-800s for 99% of the ﬂights, pro-

viding the highest fuel eciency at 33

pax-km/L despite having the lowest

load factor.

Air Canada, which outsourced its oper-

ations to Jazz Aviation’s Bombardier

CRJ 705, ranked second with 27 pax-

km/L, burning 22% more fuel per pas-

senger mile than WestJet. Similarly,

United Airlines outsourced most of its

operations on this route to Skywest

Airlines. The regional aliate ﬂew an

all-regional jet ﬂeet on this route with

32% more fuel consumed on average

than WestJet. If United were to serve

this route using its own single-aisle

aircraft, used on only 3% of operations

on this route, it would have ranked

second. This phenomenon of regional

aliates dragging down the fuel-e-

ciency scores of mainline carriers is

also apparent on the Toronto-Chicago

and Toronto-New York routes.

On very short routes, for example the

527 km Montreal-New York route pre-

sented in Table 7, only a slight varia-

tion in fuel efficiency was observed.

Regional affiliates provided the vast

majority of all operations on this route

except for Air Canada, which ﬂew 12% of

its own operations while assigning 88%

to Jazz Air and Sky Regional Airlines.

Almost all flights on this route were

carried out using 50-75 seat regional

jets, with a relatively small variation of

load factor among airlines.

More detailed information about the

fuel-eciency ranking on these routes

and others in this study are available in

Appendix C.

3.3 STAGE LENGTH AND AIRLINE

FUEL EFFICIENCY

Many factors inﬂuence airline fuel e-

ciency, including stage length, aircraft

choice, seating density, and load factor,

among other variables. One obvious

trend observed during this analysis is

the relationship between stage length

and fuel eciency.

As shown in Figure 2, there is a good

correlation between stage length and

fuel eciency. Overall, ﬂights ﬂown

over longer distances are more fuel-

ecient. However, the sensitivity of

fuel eciency declines as stage length

approaches 4,000 km. For example,

Table 5. Montreal-Miami fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative

fuel burn Load Factor

Passenger

1 Air Transat 38 - 86% 5%

2 Sunwing Airlines* 37 +3% 80% 3%

3 Air Canada 33 +15% 85% 62%

4 American Airlines 32 +19% 85% 21%

5 WestJet 28 +36% 78% 8%

*Sunwing ﬂew only six months of the 12-month analysis period

Table 6. Calgary-San Francisco fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative

fuel burn Load Factor

Passenger

1 WestJet 33 - 83% 29%

2 Air Canada 27 +22% 91% 18%

3 United Airlines 25 +32% 91% 53%

Table 7. Montreal-New York fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative

fuel burn Load Factor

Passenger

1 United Airlines 17 - 82% 10%

2 Delta Airlines 17 - 77% 30%

3 American Airlines 17 - 81% 17%

4 Air Canada 16 +6% 77% 43%

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

6 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2017-16

the 3,051 km ﬂight between Toronto

and Los Angeles is about twice the

1,698 km distance between Toronto

and Orlando. However, ﬂying between

Toronto and Orlando is on average

about as fuel intensive on a passenger

mile basis as ﬂying between Toronto

and Los Angeles.

In addition, the scatter between

airline fuel eciency on the middle

of the chart—for routes roughly

between 1,500 km and 3,000 km in

distance—is visibly wider than the

scatter on either end of the distance

spectrum. This may be related to

how airlines select the aircraft they

ﬂy, which is discussed in more detail

in Subsection 3.3.2.

In the following we discuss two aspects

that affect the relationship between

stage length and airline fuel eciency:

the inherent nature of aircraft fuel e-

ciency and airline ﬂeet strategies.

3.3.1. Aircraft fuel-eciency

performance on dierent

stage lengths

Figure 3 represents the percentage of

block fuel

used by a Boeing 737-800

carrying the same payload ﬂying dif-

ferent stage lengths as modeled in

Piano 5. In general, the longer the

stage length, the smaller the fraction

of fuel burned for the most fuel-

intensive phases of ﬂight: takeo and

climb to cruise altitude. On a 700 km

route, nearly three-quarters of block

fuel is used for takeoff and climb,

compared with 29% for 2,200 km and

20% for 3,500 km. As a result, the

aircraft’s fuel eciency over 2,200 km

is 33 pax-km/L and over 3,500 km,

34 pax-km/L. Those compare with 26

pax-km/L over 700 km.

3 Block fuel is the fuel burn required from gate

to gate, including taxi, landing and takeo,

climb, cruise, and descent.

3.3.2. Stage length and airline

ﬂeet strategies

Stage length also has an indirect

eect on fuel eciency by inﬂuenc-

ing aircraft choice. While low-cost

carriers tend to operate all their own

ﬂights, mainline carriers have a dier-

ent strategy. They are more likely to

fly single-aisle jets on longer routes

and outsource shorter-route opera-

tions to regional airlines. These ali-

ates usually ﬂy smaller regional jets or

in some cases turboprops.

= 0.82523

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

4,000

Fuel Eciency (Pax-km/L)

Stage Length (km)

Vancouver-Seattle

Montreal-New York

Toronto-New York

Toronto-Chicago

Calgary-San Francisco

Toronto-Orlando

Vancouver-Los Angeles

Montreal-Miami

Calgary-San Francisco

Toronto-Los Angeles

Figure 2. Stage length versus fuel eciency

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

700 km 2,200 km 3,500 km

pax-km/l

Boeing 737-800 fuel distribution on dierent stages of ﬂight

Takeo Climb Cruise Descent

Fuel eciency

Figure 3. Percentage of fuel used by ﬂight stage and distance.

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

WORKING PAPER 2017-16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 7

Figure 4 maps the fuel efficiency of

several aircraft types included in this

study over different stage lengths.

This graph supports the earlier obser-

vation about the relationship between

fuel eciency and stage length for a

given aircraft. Larger aircraft tend to

be more ecient on a per-seat basis at

a given range. Finally, when compared

among short-haul aircraft, turboprops

are more fuel-ecient than regional

jets. At the ranges over which these

aircraft directly compete—1,500-2,500

km, the fuel-eciency gap tends to be

the highest.

Given a stable market between

Canadian and U.S. cities, airlines have

the option of either flying narrow-

body planes with fewer departures, or

ﬂying regional jets with more depar-

tures. Most carriers choose more

departures using regional planes,

probably because flying narrow-

body aircraft would mean lower load

factors and increased risk of missing

revenue from travelers sensitive to

departure times. Flying regional jets

with more departures might generate

more revenue per unit of time, which

may increase proﬁts despite the pos-

sibility of higher maintenance costs

and overall increased fuel cost caused

by low fuel eciency.

3.4 COMPARISON WITH

OTHER MODES

When traveling relatively short dis-

tances, for example under 800 kilome-

ters, ﬂying may not be the only option

and a traveler might reasonably choose

between traveling in a car, plane, bus,

or train. Four routes in this study fall

into this category: Vancouver-Seattle

(204 km), Montreal-New York (527

4 Because aircraft maintenance is done on

a takeo-landing cycle basis, planes ﬂown

at a higher frequency are inherently more

expensive to maintain.

km), Toronto-New York (566 km), and

Toronto-Chicago (704 km).

Based on previous calculations by

Kwan (2013), Rutherford and Kwan

(2015), and analysis results from this

study, Table 8 compares the average

aircraft fuel efficiency on the four

routes and other transportation

modes on a similar interurban trip.

To take into account the difference

in energy density between different

fuels, we use miles per gallon gasoline

equivalent as metric. As a reference, a

Ford Explorer 4WD has a highway fuel

eciency of 24 miles per (US) gallon,

or 9.8 liter/100km.

It is important to note that we assume

an occupancy of two in a passenger

vehicle. This a conservative approach

compared to other studies on vehicle

occupancy for longer trips. For

example, Santos, McGuckin, Nakamoto,

Gray, & Liss (2011) derived a value of

2.2 while Schiffer (2012) concluded

B737-800

A320-200

B737-700

CRJ 700

EMB-175

EMB-145

DHC8-400

0 1,000 2,000 3,000

4,000

Fuel eciency (pax-km/L)

Stage length (km)

Source: Piano 5

Applied 80% load factor

Fuel eciency of each type may vary and is sensitive to seat conﬁguration

Single aisle

Regional Jet

Turboprop

Figure 4. Fuel eciency on dierent stage lengths by aircraft type

Table 8. Fuel eciency of various transportation modes. Source: Kwan (2013), Rutherford

& Kwan (2015)

Mode/Route

Average Fuel Eciency

(MPGge)

Plane: Vancouver - Seattle 25

Plane: Montreal - New York 34

Plane: Toronto - New York 40

Plane: Toronto - Chicago 42

Train (Amtrak) 51

SUV car (e.g. Ford Explorer 4WD) 48

Hybrid car (e.g. Honda Civic Hybrid) 93

Bus (Greyhound) 152

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

8 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2017-16

that auto occupancy rates for long-

distance trips are 3.1, compared to 1.5

for urban or rural travel.

While a longer stage length means a

more fuel-ecient ﬂight, a comparison

with other transportation modes shows

that on a comparable distance ﬂying

is the least fuel-ecient way of travel-

ing. An exception in this case is driving

alone in a car with low fuel eciency,

such as a sport utility vehicle (SUV).

4. CONCLUSIONS, POLICY

IMPLICATIONS, AND

NEXT STEPS

This study compared airline fuel e-

ciency on operations encompass-

ing 10 transborder routes between

Canada and the United States. In

general, most of the fuel efficiency

gap between the best- and worst-

performing airlines can be explained

by the use of dierent aircraft types.

On longer routes, airlines flying

single-aisle aircraft are more likely

to record better fuel eciency than

those ﬂying regional jets. On shorter

routes, airlines that ﬂy turboprops are

more efficient than airlines that fly

regional jets. These gaps indicate that

airline fuel eciency can be signiﬁ-

cantly improved. While aircraft manu-

facturers and airlines can narrow the

significant gap by improving tech-

nology and operations, it would be

more likely to happen if supported by

government regulations or incentives.

On comparable routes where passen-

gers have the option to take dierent

modes of transportation, ﬂying is more

fuel-intensive than any other mode.

This could also be considered when

designing incentives to reduce green-

house gases from transportation.

Future updates may be beneﬁcial in a

couple of ways. As with the few pub-

lished U.S. domestic airline fuel e-

ciency rankings, a year-on-year com-

parison may provide insights on how

the industry evolves. In addition, it

would be helpful to evaluate how new

aircraft purchases influence airlines’

fuel eciency. Air Canada, for example,

plans to replace 45 Embraer E190s

with the new Bombardier C-Series air-

planes in 2019 (Air Canada, 2016).

The scope of this study may be

expanded in the future as data avail-

ability improves. Greater transparency

in airline fuel efficiency and emis-

sions would be supported if Canada

began collecting airline data similar

to that summarized in BTS T-100

International Segments data. Primary

fuel-use data would allow the analysis

of actual, as opposed to modeled,

Canadian domestic airline fuel effi-

ciency and provide a more compre-

hensive snapshot of airline perfor-

mance in Canada. More transparent

data in general can allow researchers

to present more accurate results and

help policymakers make more evi-

dence-based decisions.

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

WORKING PAPER 2017-16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 9

5. References

Air Canada (2016). Air Canada to purchase Bombardier C

Series as part of its ﬂeet renewal program [press release].

Retrieved from https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.

php?s=22103&item=137441

Brueckner, J. K., Lee, D., & Singer, E. (2013). City-pairs versus

airport-pairs: a market-deﬁnition methodology for the airline

industry. Review of Industrial Organization, 44, pp 1-25.

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-012-9371-7

Bureau of Transportation Statistics (2017). Load factor. Retrieved

from https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.

aspx?Data=5

Federal Aviation Administration (2017). FAA aerospace forecast

ﬁscal years 2017-2037. Retrieved from https://www.faa.gov/

data_research/aviation/aerospace_forecasts/media/FY2017-

37_FAA_Aerospace_Forecast.pdf

Government of Canada (2013). Canada’s action plan to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions from aviation 2013 annual report.

Retrieved from https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/policy/

TC_ActionPlanGasEmiss2013-E.pdf

International Air Transport Association (2016). Annual review

2016. Retrieved from http://www.iata.org/about/Documents/

iata-annual-review-2016.pdf

International Civil Aviation Organization (2016). Annual report of

the council, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.icao.int/annual-

report-2016/Pages/default.aspx

International Civil Aviation Organization (2010). Resolution

A37-19: Consolidated statement of continuing ICAO

policies and practices related to environmental protec-

tion—climate change. Retrieved from https://www.icao.int/

environmental-protection/37thAssembly/A37_Res19_en.pdf

International Energy Agency (2017). CO

emissions from

fuel combustion highlights, 2017. Retrieved from https://

www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/

CO2EmissionsfromFuelCombustionHighlights2017.pdf

Kwan, I. (2013). Planes, trains, and automobiles: counting carbon

[blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.theicct.org/blogs/

sta/planes-trains-and-automobiles-counting-carbon

Kwan, I., Rutherford, D., & Zeinali, M. (2014). U.S.

domestic airline fuel eciency ranking, 2011–

2012. Retrieved from http://www.theicct.org/

us-domestic-airline-fuel-eciency- ranking-2011–2012

Kwan, I., & Rutherford, D. (2015). Transatlantic airline fuel e-

ciency ranking, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.theicct.org/

publications/transatlantic-airline-fuel-eciency-ranking-2014

Kwan, I., & Rutherford, D. (2014). U.S. domestic airline fuel e-

ciency ranking, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.theicct.org/

us-domestic-airline-fuel-e ciency-ranking-2013

Li, G., Kwan, I., & Rutherford, D. (2015). U.S. domestic airline fuel

eciency ranking, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.theicct.

org/us-domestic-airline-fuel-eciency-ranking-2014

Rutherford, D. & Kwan, I. (2015). Choose your own adventure: by

plane, car, train, or bus? Retrieved from http://www.theicct.org/

blogs/sta/choose-your-own-adventure-plane-car-train-or-bus

Santos, A., McGuckin, N., Nakamoto, H.Y., Gray, D., & Liss, S.

(2011). Summary of travel trends: 2009 national household

travel survey. Report FHWA-PL-11-022. U.S. Department of

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington.

Schier, R. G. (2012). NCHRP Report 735: Long-Distance and

Rural Travel Transferable Parameters for Statewide Travel

Forecasting Models (Rep. No. 735). Washington D.C.:

Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.

U.S. Government Publishing Oce (2017). Electronic code

of federal regulations title 14 chapter i subchapter g part

121 subpart u 121.639 Fuel supply: all domestic operations.

Retrieved from https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a14

e871aeadfa4ea32759040552ecc26&mc=true&node=se14.3.121_

1639&rgn=div8

Zeinali, M., Rutherford, D., Kwan, I., & Kharina, A. (2013). U.S.

domestic airline fuel eciency ranking, 2010. Washington, DC:

ICCT. Retrieved from http://www.theicct.org/ us-domestic-

airline-fuel-e ciency-ranking-2010

Zou, B., Elke, M., & Hansen, M. (2012). Evaluating air carrier fuel

eciency and CO

emissions in the U.S. airline industry.

Retrieved from http://www.theicct.org/evaluating- air-car-

rier-fuel-e ciency-and-co2-emissions-us-airline-industry

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

10 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2017-16

Table A1. Airports on Toronto - Los Angeles route

Airport code Airport Name

YYC Calgary International Airport

IAH George Bush Intercontinental Airport

HOU William P. Hobby Airport

Table A2. Airports on Vancouver - Los Angeles route

Airport code Airport Name

YVR Vancouver International Airport

LAX Los Angeles International Airport

SNA John Wayne Airport

Table A3. Airports on Montreal - Miami route

Mainline Aliates

YUL Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport

MIA Miami International Airport

FLL Fort Lauderdale–Hollywood International Airport

PBI Palm Beach International Airport

Table A4. Airports on Toronto - New York route

Mainlines Aliates

YYZ Toronto Pearson International Airport

YTZ Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport

LGA LaGuardia Airport

EWR Newark Liberty International Airport

JFK John F. Kennedy International Airport

Table A5. Airports on Calgary - Houston route

Airport code Airport Name

YYC Calgary International Airport

IAH George Bush Intercontinental Airport

HOU William P. Hobby Airport

Table A6. Airports on Toronto - Orlando route

Mainlines Aliates

YYZ Toronto Pearson International Airport

MCO Orlando International Airport

Table A7. Airports on Toronto - Chicago route

Mainlines Aliates

YYZ Toronto Pearson International Airport

YTZ Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport

ORD Chicago O’Hare International Airport

MDW Chicago Midway International Airport

Table A8. Airports on Montreal - New York route

Mainlines Aliates

YUL Montréal–Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport

LGA LaGuardia Airport

EWR Newark Liberty International Airport

JFK John F. Kennedy International Airport

Table A9. Airports on Calgary - San Francisco route

Mainlines Aliates

YYC Calgary International Airport

SFO San Francisco International Airport

Table A10. Airports on Vancouver - Seattle route

Mainlines Aliates

YVR Vancouver International Airport

SEA Seattle–Tacoma International Airport

APPENDIX A: List of Airports

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

WORKING PAPER 2017-16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 11

Table B1. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Toronto - Los Angeles route

Mainlines Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

Air Canada Air Canada 81% 2018

American Airlines American Airlines 12% 309

WestJet WestJet 7% 170

Table B2. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Vancouver - Los Angeles route

Mainline Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

Air Canada

Air Canada 37% 615

Air Canada rouge LP 6% 103

WestJet WestJet 34% 563

Delta Airlines Compass Airlines 16% 268

United Airlines

Skywest Airlines 5% 89

United Air Lines 0.1% 2

American Airlines Compass Airlines 1% 14

Table B3. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Montreal - Miami route

Mainline Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

Air Canada

Air Canada rouge LP 58% 924

Air Canada 4% 58

American Airlines American Airlines 22% 343

WestJet WestJet 8% 133

Air Transat Air Transat 5% 74

Sunwing Airlines Sunwing Airlines 3% 48

APPENDIX B: Airline RPK Distribution by Route

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

12 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2017-16

Table B4. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Toronto - New York route

Mainlines Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

Air Canada

Air Canada 38% 531

Sky Regional Airlines 9% 126

Air Canada Regional (Jazz Air) 0.3% 4

WestJet WestJet 17% 240

Porter Airlines Porter Airlines 15% 215

American Airlines

Trans States Airlines (New code) 6% 80

Republic Airlines 3% 37

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp 0.3% 4

American Eagle Airlines (Envoy

Air)

0.1% 2

Delta Air Lines

Endeavor Air 4% 63

Delta Air Lines 2% 23

GoJet Airlines 1% 10

Shuttle America Corp. 0.02% 0.3

United Airlines

ExpressJet Airlines (ASA) 4% 51

Republic Airlines 1% 18

Shuttle America Corp. 0.20% 2

Table B5. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Calgary - Houston route

Mainlines Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

United Airlines United Airlines 60% 727

Air Canada Air Canada Regional (Jazz Air) 29% 348

WestJet WestJet 11% 138

Table B6. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Toronto - Orlando route

Mainlines Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

Air Canada Air Canada rouge LP 62% 719

WestJet WestJet 28% 320

Sunwing Airlines Sunwing Airlines 6% 66

Air Transat Air Transat 5% 53

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

WORKING PAPER 2017-16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 13

Table B7. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Toronto - Chicago route

Mainlines Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

United Airlines

United Air Lines 24% 177

Skywest Airlines 4% 28

ExpressJet Airlines (ASA) 2% 19

GoJet Airlines 2% 18

Republic Airlines 2% 13

Shuttle America Corp. 1% 4

Trans States Airlines (New code) 0.20% 1

Air Canada

Sky Regional Airlines 19% 142

Air Canada 13% 101

American Airlines

American Eagle Airlines (Envoy

Air)

17% 126

Porter Airlines Porter Airlines 16% 120

Table B8. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Montreal - New York route

Mainlines Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

Air Canada

Sky Regional Airlines 27% 125

Air Canada Regional (Jazz Air) 11% 53

Air Canada 4% 20

Delta Airlines

Endeavor Air Inc. 17% 77

GoJet Airlines 8% 35

ExpressJet Airlines (ASA) 4% 20

Shuttle America Corp. 1% 4

American Airlines

Trans States Airlines (New code) 17% 77

Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp 1% 4

Republic Airlines 0.10% 0

United Airlines

ExpressJet Airlines (ASA) 8% 36

Republic Airlines 2% 10

Shuttle America Corp. 0.30% 1

Table B9. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Calgary - San Francisco route

Mainlines Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

United Airlines

Skywest Airlines 51% 151

United Airlines 3% 10

WestJet WestJet 27% 80

Air Canada Air Canada Regional (Jazz Air) 19% 56

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

14 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2017-16

Table B10. Mainline-aliate RPK distribution on Vancouver - Seattle route

Mainlines Aliates Share of RPKs RPKs (Millions)

Alaska Airlines

Horizon Air 26% 34

Alaska Airlines 17% 22

Delta Airlines

Compass Airlines 19% 24

Skywest Airlines 15% 20

Air Canada Air Canada Regional (Jazz Air) 23% 29

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

WORKING PAPER 2017-16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 15

Table C1. Montreal - Miami fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 Air Transat 38 - 5% 86% Boeing 737-800 85%

2 Sunwing Airlines 37 3% 3% 80% Boeing 737-800 100%

3 Air Canada 33 15% 62% 85% Boeing 767-300ER 46%

4 American Airlines 32 19% 21% 85% Boeing 737-800 100%

5 WestJet 28 36% 8% 78% Boeing 737-700 94%

Table C2. Toronto - Orlando fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 Air Transat 35 - 5% 79% Boeing 737-800 100%

2 WestJet 32 9% 28% 85% Boeing 737-800 67%

3 Sunwing Airlines 31 13% 7% 69% Boeing 737-800 100%

3 Air Canada 31 13% 61% 87% Boeing 767-300ER 65%

Table C3. Toronto-Los Angeles fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 WestJet 32 - 7% 84% Boeing 737-700 75%

2 Air Canada 31 3% 80% 83% A320-100/200 32%

3 American Airlines 29 10% 13% 79% A319 76%

Table C4. Calgary-Houston fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 United Airlines 33 - 60% 81% A320-100/200 35%

2 WestJet 26 27% 11% 71% Boeing 737-700 71%

3 Air Canada 25 32% 29% 80% Bombardier CRJ 705 100%

APPENDIX C: Airline Fuel Eciency and Operational Parameters

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION WORKING PAPER 2017-16

Table C5. Vancouver-Los Angeles fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 WestJet 31 - 35% 84% Boeing 737-800 55%

1 Air Canada 31 - 4% 90% Airbus 320-100/200 58%

2 United Airlines 26 19% 5% 92% Embraer EMB-175 67%

3 American Airlines 24 29% 1% 93% Embraer EMB-175 100%

4 Delta Airlines 23 35% 17% 82% Embraer EMB-175 100%

Table C6. Calgary-San Francisco fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 WestJet 33 - 29% 83% Boeing 737-800 99%

2 Air Canada 27 22% 18% 91% Bombardier CRJ 705 99%

3 United Airlines 25 32% 53% 91% Embraer EMB-175 66%

Table C7. Toronto-Chicago fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 United Airlines 23 - 32% 85% Boeing 737-900 20%

2 Porter Airlines 20 15% 20% 64% Bombardier Dash 8 400 100%

3 American Airlines 19 21% 16% 86% Embraer EMB-145 54%

3 Air Canada 19 21% 32% 80% Embraer EMB-175 56%

Table C8. Toronto-New York fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 Porter Airlines 20 - 17% 71% Bombardier Dash 8 400 100%

2 Air Canada 19 2% 44% 84% BombardierEMB-190 45%

2 Delta Airlines 19 2% 6% 86% Bombardier CRJ-900 61%

3 United Airlines 18 11% 5% 86% Embraer EMB-145 70%

4 American Airlines 17 15% 9% 82% Embraer EMB-145 62%

4 WestJet 17 16% 19% 71% Boeing 737-600 49%

CANADA-U.S. TRANSBORDER AIRLINE FUEL-EFFICIENCY RANKING

WORKING PAPER 2017-16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 17

Table C9. Montreal-New York fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 United Airlines 17 - 10% 82% Embraer EMB-145 75%

1 Delta Airlines 17 - 30% 77% Bombardier CRJ-900 38%

1 American Airlines 17 - 17% 81% Embraer EMB-145 94%

2 Air Canada 16 6% 43% 77% Embraer EMB-175 60%

Table C10. Vancouver-Seattle fuel eciency by airline

Rank Airline

Fuel eciency

(Pax-km/L)

Relative fuel

burn

Passenger

share Load factor Prevalent aircraft type

Prevalent

aircraft type

share of ASKs

1 Alaska Airlines 13 - 43% 76% Bombardier Dash 8 400 60%

2 Air Canada 12 8% 25% 68% Bombardier Dash 8 400 75%

3 Delta Airlines 10 30% 33% 78% Embraer EMB-175 49%