Tanker Mission Implication on a Civil Aerial Refuelling Transport System’s Benefit Evaluation

As the emphasis on initiatives that can improve environmental efficiency while simultaneously maintaining economic viability has escalated in recent years, attention has turned to more radical concepts of operation. In particular, the cruiser–feeder concept has shown potential for a new generation, environmentally friendly, air-transport system to alleviate the growing pressure on the passenger air-transportation network. However, a full evaluation of realizable benefits is needed to determine how the design and operation of potential feeder-aircraft configurations impact on the feasibility of the overall concept. This paper presents an analysis of a cruiser–feeder concept, in which fuel is transferred between the feeder and the cruiser in an aerial-refueling configuration to extend range while reducing cruiser weight, compared against the effects of escalating existing technology levels while retaining the existing passenger levels. Up to 14% fuel-burn and 12% operating-cost savings can be achieved when compared to a similar technology-level aircraft concept without aerial refueling, representing up to 26% in fuel burn and 25% in total operating cost over the existing operational model at today’s standard fleet technology and performance. However, these potential savings are not uniformly distributed across the network, and the system is highly sensitive to the routes serviced, with reductions in revenue-generation potential observed across the network for aerial-refueling operations due to reductions in passenger revenue.

Improving Feasibility of Point to Point Operations Through Civil Aerial Refuelling

Re-imagining of the aerial transportation system has become increasingly important as the need for significant environmental and economic efficiency gains has become ever more prevalent. A number of studies have highlighted the benefits of the adoption of air to air refuelling within civil aviation. However, it also opens up the potential for increased flexibility in operations through smaller aircraft, shifting emphasis away from the traditional hub and spoke method of operation towards the more flexible Point to Point operations. It is proposed here that one technology can act as an enabler for the other, realising benefits that neither can realise as a standalone. The impact of an air-toair refuelling enabled point to point system is discussed, and the affect on economic and environmental cost metrics relative to traditional operations evaluated. An idealised airport configuration study shows the difference in fuel burn for point to point networks to vary from -23% to 28% from that of Hub and Spoke depending on the configuration. The sensitive natures of the concepts are further explored in a second study based on real airport configurations. The complex effect of the choice of a Point to Point or Hub and Spoke system on fuel burn, operating cost and revenue potential is highlighted. Fuel burn savings of 15% can be experienced with AAR over traditional refuelling operations, with point to point networks increasing the available seat miles (by approximately 20%) without a proportional increase in operating cost or fuel.

'Battling in Brussels': The DUP and the European union

Although the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) does not conform to the model of Europeanization outlined by Ladrech (2002), there is some evidence of change along the lines identified by De Winter and Gomez-Reino (2002) with reference to other European ethnoregionalist parties. For example, the DUP has certainly adapted its behaviour and policies at both local and European levels with a view to exploiting new political opportunities offered by Europeanization. However, De Winter and Gomez-Reino's argument that participation in European institutions has made formerly-Eurosceptic ethnoregionalist parties 'moderate Eurocritics' does not fully apply to the DUP. The DUP continues to demonstrate a number of Eurosceptic characteristics, including ones grounded in extreme religious interpretations of the purpose and process of European integration. Nevertheless, the party's Eurosceptic outlook does not prevent it from being willing to 'battle in Brussels' (as put in its 2009 manifesto for the European elections) in order to serve domestic (party) interests - a tactic not dissimilar to the DUP's approach to Northern Ireland politics in general.

A Constitution of Social Governance for the European Union

This chapter considers the EU’s socio-economic constitution under the lens of humaneness. It argues that the EU’s unique socio-economic constitution demands equilibrium of socio-economic integration instead of widening the gap between economic integration at EU levels and social integration at national levels. While the EU lacks the legislative competences to achieve this equilibrium, the constitutional principle still prevails. Indeed, the EU competences reflect its own values as well as the socio-economic constitutions of its constituent Member States. These frequently do not allow for total state-governance of social spheres such as working life, education, care or other social services. Instead, societal actors are given scope to (co-)govern these spheres at national levels. Accordingly, the apparent tension between the EU’s socio-economic values and principles and its limited competences in the social policy field can be resolved through a dynamic interpretation of the EU Treaties towards a “constitution of social governance”. This interpretation reads the Treaties as authorising governance by societal actors. The chapter connects the idea of humanness to the ideals of social governance at EU level and proposes two options for practical application of the concept. These are rules for trans-national labour markets based on European collective labour agreements and a European higher education sector developed by agreements between universities.

Using Comparative Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication:The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights Compared

This article examines the relationship between the methods that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) use to decide disputes that involve ‘human’ or ‘fundamental’ rights claims, and the substantive outcomes that result from the use of these particular methods. It has a limited aim: in attempting to understand the interrelationship between human rights methodology and human rights outcomes, it considers primarily the use of ‘comparative reasoning’ in ‘human’ and ‘fundamental’ rights claims by these courts. It is not primarily concerned with examining the extent to which the use of comparative reasoning is based on an appropriate methodology or whether there is a persuasive normative theory underpinning the use of comparative reasoning. The issues considered in this chapter do some of the groundwork, however, that is necessary in order to address these methodological and normative questions.

Researching gender democracy in the European Union: challenges and prospects

working paper no 5, 2008