Home

Awesome

Travel Impact Model 1.10.0

http://www.travelimpactmodel.org

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 predicts greenhouse gas (GHG) 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 GHG 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 CO<sub>2</sub>e 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).

Fixed fuel burn allocated during LTO, variable during CCD

(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:

AircraftDistance (nm)LTO fuel forecast (kg)CCD fuel forecast (kg)
B78950017275815
B7891000172710770
B789.........
B7895000172752375
B7895500172757430

(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:

Life Cycle StageCarbon Intensity Value from CORSIA <br> (g CO<sub>2</sub>e/MJ)Lower Heating Value from ISO 14083 <br> (MJ/kg)Factor <br> (kg CO<sub>2</sub>e/kg)
Tank-To-Wake (TTW)7443.13.1894 (= 74 * 43.1 / 1000)
Well-To-Tank (WTT)15 (= 89 - 74)43.10.6465 (= 15 * 43.1 / 1000)
Well-To-Wake (WTW)8943.13.8359 (= 7894 * 43.1 / 1000)

CO<sub>2</sub>e is short for CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub>e 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:

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

Data sources

Used for flight level emissions:

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 passenger 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:

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

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:

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.

Cabin ClassNarrow-body aircraftWide-body aircraft
Economy11
Premium Economy11.5
Business1.54
First1.55

Load factors

Passenger load factors are predicted based on historical passenger statistics. The 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 and its territories, 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

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

Example emission estimation

For this example, we'll use a flight from Zurich (ZRH) to San Francisco (SFO) on a Boeing 787-9 aircraft with the following seating configuration.

Cabin ClassSeats
Economy188
Premium Economy21
Business48
First0

To get the total emissions for the 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
      
  3. Sum LTO and CCD number for total flight-level result:

    1727 kg + 52970 kg = 54697 kg of fuel burn
    
  4. Convert from fuel burn to CO<sub>2</sub>e emissions for total flight-level result:

    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 54697 * 0.6465 = 35362
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 54697 * 3.1894 = 174451
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: (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 CO<sub>2</sub>e emissions by the equivalent capacity calculated above to get the CO<sub>2</sub>e emissions per economy passenger.

    • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 35362 / 411.5 = 85.934
    • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 174451 / 411.5 = 423.939
    • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 85.934 + 423.939 = 509.873
  4. 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 CO<sub>2</sub>e: 85.934 * 5 = 429.67
      • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 423.939 * 5 = 2119.695
      • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 509.873 * 5 = 2549.365
    • Business:
      • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 85.934 * 4 = 343.736
      • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 423.939 * 4 = 1695.756
      • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 509.873 * 4 = 2039.492
    • Premium Economy:
      • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 85.934 * 1.5 = 128.901
      • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 423.939 * 1.5 = 635.909
      • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 509.873 * 1.5 = 764.81
    • Economy:
      • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 85.934
      • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 423.939
      • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 509.873
  5. Scale to estimated load factor 0.845 by apportioning emissions to occupied seats:

    • First:
      • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 429.67 / 0.845 = 508.485
      • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 2119.695 / 0.845 = 2508.515
      • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 2549.365 / 0.845 = 3017
    • Business:
      • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 343.736 / 0.845 = 406.788
      • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 1695.756 / 0.845 = 2006.812
      • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 2039.492 / 0.845 = 2413.6
    • Premium Economy:
      • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 128.901 / 0.845 = 152.546
      • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 635.909 / 0.845 = 752.555
      • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 764.81 / 0.845 = 905.101
    • Economy:
      • Well-to-Tank (WTT) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 85.934 / 0.845 = 101.697
      • Tank-to-Wake (TTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 423.939 / 0.845 = 501.703
      • Well-to-Wake (WTW) emissions in kg of CO<sub>2</sub>e: 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 the TIM's data with other datasets.

Legal base for model data sharing

The GHG 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:

Changelog

1.10.0

Migrating data sources for aircraft performance for some aircraft models.

1.9.1

Expanding T-100 coverage to include US territories. See section on load factors for information on the T-100 dataset.

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 CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub>e emissions factor 0.6465. Reference: ISO, CORSIA.

1.7.0

Updating the jet fuel combustion to CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. While we strongly believe in including non-CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub>e estimates but will keep the labeling as “CO<sub>2</sub>e” in the model to ensure future compatibility.

We believe CO<sub>2</sub>e 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 GHG 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 CO<sub>2</sub> 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%.

How to cite TIM in publications

You are welcome to use the Travel Impact Model (TIM) in your publications. When referencing the TIM, please cite it as in the following example:

Google. (2022, April). Travel Impact Model (TIM) (Version A.B.C.YYYYMMDD) [Computer software]. Retrieved September 28, 2024 via API, https://github.com/google/travel-impact-model

The TIM is a dynamic model that is regularly updated with new data and methodologies. To ensure that others can access the same data and calculations you used, it is essential to include the version number and retrieval date in your citation.

BibTeX example:

@misc{google_tim_2022,
  institution = {Google},
  title = {Travel Impact Model (TIM)},
  year = {2022},
  month = {April},
  note = {Version A.B.C.YYYYMMDD. Retrieved September 28, 2024},
  url = {https://github.com/google/travel-impact-model}
}

If you access the TIM programmatically through the API, please mention this in your citation as well.

Contact

We welcome 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.

CO<sub>2</sub>: 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.

CO<sub>2</sub>e: CO<sub>2</sub>e is short for CO<sub>2</sub> 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 CO<sub>2</sub> 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 nameIATA aircraft codeMapping (ICAO aircraft code)Support status
Airbus A220-100221BCS1Direct match in EEA 2023
Airbus A220-300223BCS3Direct match in EEA 2023
Airbus A300-600/600CAB6A306Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A300B2/B4/C4AB4A30BDirect match in EEA 2019
Airbus A310310A310Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A310-300313A310Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A318318A318Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A318 (Sharklets)31ASupported via static correction factor based on literature review
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A32132SA321Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A319319A319Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A319 (Sharklets)31BSupported via static correction factor based on literature review
Airbus A320-100/200320A320Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A320neo32NA20NSupported via correction factor derived from EEA 2023 data
Airbus A321321A321Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A321neo32QA21NSupported via correction factor derived from EEA 2023 data
Airbus A330330A332Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A330-200332A332Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A330-300333A333Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A330-900neo339A333Supported via correction factor derived from EEA 2023 data
Airbus A340340A345Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A340-300343A343Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A340-500345A345Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A340-600346A346Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A350350A350Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A350-900359A350Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A380380A380Mapped to least efficient in family
Airbus A380-800388A380Direct match in EEA 2019
Airbus A320 (Sharklets)32ASupported via static correction factor based on literature review
Airbus A321 (Sharklets)32BSupported via static correction factor based on literature review
Airbus A350-1000351A350Supported via correction factor derived from EEA 2023 data
Antonov AN-148-100A81AN148Direct match in EEA 2019
Antonov AN-24AN4AN24Direct match in EEA 2019
Antonov AN-26/30/32AN6AN32Mapped to least efficient in family
Antonov AN-32A32AN32Direct match in EEA 2019
ATR 42-300/320AT4ATR42Mapped to similar model
ATR 42-500AT5ATR42Direct match in EEA 2019
ATR 42/ATR 72ATRATR72Mapped to least efficient in family
ATR 72AT7ATR72Direct match in EEA 2019
Avro Regional Jet AvrolinerARJNot supported
Avro Regional Jet RJ100 AvrolinerAR1Not supported
Avro Regional Jet RJ85 AvrolinerAR8Not supported
Beechcraft 1900BE1Not supported
Beechcraft 1900/1900CBESNot supported
Beechcraft 1900DBEHNot supported
Beechcraft C99 AirlinerBE9Not supported
Beechcraft Light Aircraft twin engineBETNot supported
Boeing 717-200717B717Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737737B734Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 737-200732B732Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-20073MB732Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-200/200 Advanced73SB732Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-300733B733Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-30073NB733Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-300 (Winglets)73CB733Supported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 737-400734B734Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-40073QB734Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-500735B735Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-500 (Winglets)73EB735Supported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 737-600736B736Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-70073GB737Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-700 (Winglets)73WSupported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 737-800738B738Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-800 (Scimitar Winglets)7S8Supported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 737-800 (Winglets)73HSupported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 737-900739B739Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 737-900 (Winglets)73JB739Supported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 737MAX 87M8Supported via correction factor derived from EEA 2023 data
Boeing 737MAX 97M9Supported via correction factor derived from EEA 2023 data
Boeing 747747B744Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 747-400744B744Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 747-400 Mixed74EB744Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 747-8I74HB744Mapped onto older model
Boeing 757757B753Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 757-200752B752Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 757-200 (Winglets)75WSupported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 757-300753B753Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 757-300 (Winglets)75TB753Supported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 767767B764Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 767-200762B762Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 767-300763B763Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 767-300 (Winglets)76WSupported via static correction factor based on literature review
Boeing 767-400764B764Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 777777B773Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 777-200/200ER772B772Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 777-200LR77LB772Mapped to similar model
Boeing 777-300773B773Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 777-300ER77WB77WDirect match in EEA 2019
Boeing 787787B789Mapped to least efficient in family
Boeing 787-10781Supported via correction factor derived from EEA 2023 data
Boeing 787-8788B788Direct match in EEA 2019
Boeing 787-9789B789Direct match in EEA 2019
Bombardier CS100CS1Not supported
Bombardier CS300CS3Not supported
British Aerospace 146146BAE146Direct match in EEA 2019
British Aerospace Jetstream 31/32/41JSTNot supported
British Aerospace Jetstream 32J32Not supported
British Aerospace Jetstream 41J41Not supported
Canadair Regional JetCRJCS900RJMapped to least efficient in family
Canadair Regional Jet 100CR1Not supported
Canadair Regional Jet 1000CRKNot supported
Canadair Regional Jet 200CR2Not supported
Canadair Regional Jet 550CR5CS700RJMapped to similar model
Canadair Regional Jet 700CR7CS700RJDirect match in EEA 2019
Canadair Regional Jet 900CR9CS900RJDirect match in EEA 2019
Cessna (Light Aircraft - single engine)CNCC208Direct match in EEA 2019
Cessna (Light Aircraft)CNAC208Direct match in EEA 2019
Cessna CitationCNJC500Direct match in EEA 2019
Comac ARJ21-700C27Not supported
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-4 CaribouDHCNot supported
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-6 Twin OtterDHTDHC6Direct match in EEA 2019
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8DH8DHC8Direct match in EEA 2019
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 200DH2DHC8Mapped to similar model
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 300DH3DHC8Mapped to similar model
De Havilland-Bombardier DHC-8 Dash 8 Series 400DH4DHC8Mapped to similar model
Embraer 170 Regional JetE70E170Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer 175 (Enhanced Winglets)E7WSupported via correction factor derived from EEA 2023 data
Embraer 175 Regional JetE75E175Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer 190 E2290E190Mapped onto older model
Embraer 190 Regional JetE90E190Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer 195 E2295E195Mapped onto older model
Embraer 195 Regional JetE95E195Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer EMB-110 BandeiranteEMBE110Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer EMB-120 BrasiliaEM2E120Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer ERJ-135 Regional JetER3E135Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer ERJ-135/140/145 Regional JetERJMapped to least efficient in family
Embraer ERJ-140 Regional JetERDE145Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer ERJ-145 Regional JetER4E145Direct match in EEA 2019
Embraer RJ-170/175/190/195 Regional JetEMJMapped to least efficient in family
Fairchild (Swearingen) Metro/MerlinSWMNot supported
Fairchild Dornier 328JETFRJNot supported
Fokker 100100F100Direct match in EEA 2019
Fokker 50F50F50Direct match in EEA 2019
Fokker 70F70F70Direct match in EEA 2019
Ilyushin IL-76IL7IL76Direct match in EEA 2019
Ilyushin IL-96-300IL9IL96Direct match in EEA 2019
LET L410 TurboletL4TL410Direct match in EEA 2019
McDonnell Douglas MD-80M80Not supported
McDonnell Douglas MD-83M83Not supported
McDonnell Douglas MD-87M87Not supported
McDonnell Douglas MD-88M88Not supported
McDonnell Douglas MD-90M90MD90Direct match in EEA 2019
Pilatus Brit-Norm BN-2A/B ISL/BN-2TBNINot supported
SAAB 2000S20Not supported
Saab 340BSFBNot supported
SAAB SF 340SF3Not supported
Sukhoi Superjet 100-95SU9Not supported
Tupolev TU-154TU5Not supported
Xian Yunshuji MA-60MA6Not supported
Yakovlev YAK-40YK4Not supported
Yakovlev YAK-42YK2Not supported