Back to Squawk list
  • 21

What is a TaxiBot?

Schiphol Airport wants to automate taxiing from the gate to the runway. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Victor Engel 8
Reducing nitrogen emissions? There's nothing wrong with nitrogen emissions. I guess they mean nitrogen oxides.
Eric Kulisch 3
Thanks for fact checking on that. Nitrogen oxides are harmful. I'll double check and make that change to the story.
Teodor Onisor 7
How will this affect safety though? Surely starting the engine earlier gives you more time to notice issues.
patrick baker 5
if this method will taxi A380's, think of the hundreds of liters that will not be burned in taxi. THis is so obviously rational and reasonable, that it is well overdue to be put into opration.
Victor Engel 2
It doesn't just save on fuel, it should provide better air for the passengers as well. If you've ever been to an airport where long queues of planes are taxiing, you are familiar with having to breathe all that backwash air.
jeff slack 1
This was discussed as an option back in the 90s and then went quiet.
You are so right about the savings on fuel burn.
Eric Kulisch 1
Appreciate all the good feedback from readers.
21voyageur 0
A380 will be out of the picture in a little while. Significant gains will be realized based on a high volume of adoption over time (ie: lots of flights of all types of aircraft). Although the environmental pitch is nice, this is as much about cost and ticket prices as anything else. With the current insane spike, no surprise this story is in the news again. My 2 cents.
Nico Rowald 3
I wonder about engine wear. Firing it up right ahead of the runway and then giving it full throttle doesn’t feel right. Like don’t rev your car‘s engine when it’s is still cold.

Many airliners taxi out on one engine and start the other quite close to takeoff. If that was really bad for the engines I bet they wouldn't do it.
I am retired from the game, but each A/C generates pax support a c galley power, temp control comfort lights, and any emergency system needed.. BRAKES??? I agree that a BOT would save somewhat, but are we cutting any safety margins ? Lets have 100 engineers look and answer!!!
Crt Mori 1
Nice read. It does make perfect sense to go this path and I am surprised it was not done before.
SkyAware123 1
Not a bad idea, especially for the runway that is quite far from ams terminal.
plus a departing plane can be towed, and then another plane landing can be towed back by the same taxibot. Are they autonomous enough to return or go to the other end of the runway to pick up the next plane by themselves ? Otherwise the savings go out the door by all the people needed to drive these. It can be done.
Wayne Fox 1
I guess I've been watching too much "Air Disasters" on the Smithsonian network because the first thing I thought of was safety aspects. Semi-robotic tugs would end some of the incidents that have caused crashes at airports where visibility is restricted due to weather conditions and departing aircraft can't be seen by ATC operators in airports without ground radar for tracking taxiing aircraft. It could be a very important component when deicing aircraft during snow events. Straight from deicing to the runway under the time constraints deicing has. If the system could save even one life it would be worth the investment. The saving on emissions is a bonus.
Bruce Black 1
There is a warm up period that must be adhered to for each engine type. It can take 3 to 5 minutes. In winter it is longer. While the plane is saving fuel used to generate the energy to move the plane, if not from the aircraft engines is from a power plant that generates the electricity. The transmission of electricity over power lines has energy loses. So, they are just shifting the pollution to another neighborhood. 50 year pilot, retired B787 captain.
SkyAware123 1
Guess you've never heard of renewable energy. Granted it's not everywhere but an airport has so much roof space they can easily provide this.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

SkyAware123 5
dude, you need to read the fucking article. It mentions "CO2, nitrogen oxides and ultrafine particle emissions" Any fuel saved is a plus.
HP Baumeister 4
OMG - another lunatic
DNev -8
Lunatic, or someone open to looking at both sides of an issue. As you have so narrow-mindedly described my opinion, with one word, I would describe yours as delusional. But to each his own.
HP Baumeister 6
Well, I really would prefer it if you had focused on aviation topics.
I will stick to my "OMG". No idea what kind of background you have (or what your agenda is), but you are falling to charlatans and snake oil vendors.
It's actually VERY simple: Carbon has been accumulated on this planet for hundreds of millions of years in coal, oil and gas deposits. Huge amounts! We humans are burning this stuff over the course of some 100 years. Need I say more? Think about that.
But don't take my word, read this very short paragraph:
Of course breathing DOES NOT contribute to global warming!
Don't fall for the humbug you are helping to spread.


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.