JetBlue CEO Warns Flight Shaming Is Coming to the U.S

WaywardMemphian · Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:27 am

glideslope900 wrote:
How about the fact that flying is more efficient means of travel then by truck/automobile?

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstrea ... 103194.pdf

Not to mention safer and a better use of my time.

If I could fly back and forth to Memphis from Fayetteville AR for 25 bucks like I did between Paris and Barcelona in Europe this past summer and rent a car for 50 bucks for a weekend versus having to deal with the truck traffic between Little Rock and Memphis on I40 I would.

DarkSnowyNight · Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:28 am

DY789 wrote:
I have no idea how long it would take to drive from San Francisco to Portland or from Washington DC to Boston, but I bet it is a pain in the ass and would always fly. Until small little domestic flights in the UK become far too expensive to justify, then I will always look to fly.

I fully accept climate change is a real concern however why would I want to sit in my car for upto 8 hours to get to Scotland from the South Coast when I could fly in 1 hour. Not enough to incentivise travelling by train.

Just around ten hours in each case. For DC to BOS, I would personally much prefer to take a train. For short trips like that, it is important to recall what pain in aft end it is dealing with airports and airlines in general. In a case such as this, only a true emergency would get me in the air, but even then, it is still worthy of note that delays can and frequently do happen, and your three to four's worth of savings (it would not be more than that) can very easily vanish.

The only time I would ever fly such a short distance is when the airport itself is the destination, as is often the case for work. I suspect this is not the case for most people though.

angusjt · Fri Jan 24, 2020 7:47 am

Don't most commercial aircraft already pollute less per passenger then most cars?

Also stating the obvious here, but you can't run trains over the ocean and there aren't a whole lot of battery powered boats that can get you from Perth to New York etc. in any reasonable time frame.

CHRISBA35X · Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:04 am

smartplane wrote:
A family member was a senior manager in Imperial Tobacco. He didn't believe any measures would / could reverse the numbers smoking.

ICAO CORSIA steering group are already working on new measures from mid-decade, like linking JV's / interlining flights. There is a suggestion of how that can be taken a step further to be far more punitive.

Any individual, airline or country that believes they will be immune from such measures is in for an unpleasant surprise.

Spot on.

I'd argue that the damage has already been done with Skype and other online meeting tools now meaning that people generally - to some extent at least - don't have to fly for business any more and those choosing to (I'm one of them) will reduce in number over the next 20 years to the point where business travel will be a curio and nothing more.

Flight shaming will only make this process faster.

Bear in mind its not as if we as a business community are facing a lot of pushback from our companies in terms of pushing us to fly more for business and us execs are trying to reduce it etc. The opposite is true. I work/have worked for energy/oil companies who are allergic to spending money. People in my industry used to fly a lot and in premium classes. Now the premium class travel has gone even for long haul and the economy flight budgets are being pushed back and back as its cheaper to send an email and hold a VC. We used to go to all the seminars and conferences, not any more. Flight shaming and the environment has been a useful excuse for many employers to cut budgets back massively. Its low hanging fruit when your shareholders only care about your bottom line profitability as you can make excuses about revenue growth or lack of it.

Its clever in a way as my company will fly me AMS-IAH or AMS-SIN or AMS-PVG only after I get several signoffs from management, complete endless forms and declarations etc all designed to push me toward the video conference route. And if I get the green light I'll only be able to fly cheapest economy and only then if I fly on my weekend and not during company time. I cant even go non-stop very often - if its cheaper to go one-stop then that's what they'll book. If I want a flex ticket, checked bags etc I have to pay for it.

I wouldn't fly AMS-IAH/PVG/SIN etc in economy if I was doing it for personal reasons but I have to if I'm doing it for a multi billion dollar energy company. Its a long flight and its a waste of my weekend so I cant be bothered. VC all the way now, its not worth the effort and dramas to try to fly. Of course that's why it is how it is - to stop you from asking and push you toward the VC.

The environment is just an excuse!

MartijnNL · Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:15 am

catiii wrote:
Looking at that site almost every airline could make similar claims. JetBlue is the first carrier to fully offset their carbon footprint.

I thought it was easyJet.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/19/busi ... index.html

VSMUT · Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:33 am

phxa340 wrote:
Well .... people can talk all they want but if a 350 mile drive takes 6 hours and you can fly it in 50 minutes for 50 bucks .... you better bet all of these “climate activists” will be on that plane. FYI - not bashing the movement as global warming is real threat.

To be fair though, you need to add 2-3 hours before the flight and probably at least an hour after for transportation and waiting around. Suddenly you are only talking 4-5 vs 6 hours. Plus you won't have a car at the destination if you take the flight.

Swadian · Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:40 am

angusjt wrote:
Don't most commercial aircraft already pollute less per passenger then most cars?

Also stating the obvious here, but you can't run trains over the ocean and there aren't a whole lot of battery powered boats that can get you from Perth to New York etc. in any reasonable time frame.

Exactly. People often forget that the environmental impact of building and maintaining rail infrastructure is significantly greater than that of airports. When combined with the trains themselves, high-speed rail often ends up polluting more than airplanes. Example: You build a 500-mile rail line, it covers a 500-mile corridor in a certain direction. You build a few 2-mile runways, they cover every possible travel direction, without regard for oceans, rivers, or mountains.

Even in Europe, where billions are spent on high-speed rail, air travel (and even bus travel) grows at much faster rates. Because you can fly almost anywhere, but you can only drive a train to A, B, C, D, etc..

The best way to fix the problem isn't to build a bunch of rails. It's to promote Skype and other forms of communication, while making airplanes (and airports) ever more efficient.

kaitak · Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:40 am

I've heard a lot about the Flight Shaming thing, but how does it actually work? Do people just put up posts on Facebook (or other social media) saying "Jan Johansson is flying today! Why isn't he driving". Is there more to it? Do people get mocked or criticised - or even shunned - as a result of it?

Here in Ireland, we were - being an island - quite dependant on flying, so I don't see it taking off here. But that doesn't mean there won't be people who will try it.

Baldr · Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:48 am

strfyr51 wrote:
Exactly why would the USA worry about flight shaming? The sheer expanse of the USA east to west almost dictates flying. You could easily take trains in Europe. But
their area is different from Ours How much fuel do we spend yearly keeping carriers operating and training our Pilots? How much Oil I burned keeping our ships at sea? How much Nuclear waste is generated in keeping Subs and carriers operating? Nobody has the right to tell us JACK!!

The United States has a long history of meddling into the political affairs of other nations -- a history that spans at least a century and, since the end of World War II, extends into all regions of the globe, including western parliamentary polities. So, people from outside the U.S. do have the right to tell you jack.

BTW, the West Coast and the East Coast of the U.S. are eminently suitable for high speed rail corridors. One big problem in the U.S. is urban sprawl with little concern for urban planning -- a development that has been fueled primarily by automotive industry and fossil fuel industry interests. Also, U.S. airlines fear competition from high-speed rail and lobby against it.

VSMUT · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:05 am

angusjt wrote:
Don't most commercial aircraft already pollute less per passenger then most cars?

It's not even close according to some sources:

https://www.greenmatch.dk/blog/2016/03/ ... -du-rejser

223 grams of CO2 per km when you travel by plane vs 160 grams for a car and 37 grams for a diesel train.

This one generally says cars use a bit more, but once you have more than 1 person onboard, it is way, way better.:
https://travelandclimate.org/

angusjt wrote:
Also stating the obvious here, but you can't run trains over the ocean and there aren't a whole lot of battery powered boats that can get you from Perth to New York etc. in any reasonable time frame.

You obviously can't, but there are still tons of short, regional flights of less than an hour that could easily be replaced by better alternatives.

The more extreme people will say that you just shouldn't go to Australia, but I'm not going to take a stance on that.

TSS · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:06 am

glideslope900 wrote:
How about the fact that flying is more efficient means of travel then by truck/automobile?

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstrea ... 103194.pdf

The people that I refer to as "Hair Shirt Activists", those who want to make a big show of the sacrifices they're making in the name of environmentalism even though the way they're doing things might be much more detrimental to the environment than if they just did things the normal way, will dispute or ignore any figures you present in order to maintain their self-imposed martyrdom.

Case in point: A friend of mine's ancient Norge (possibly Crosley, either way 40+ year old) refrigerator died and his landlord offered to replace it with a brand-new, modern, efficient, frost-free 14 cubic foot model. My friend declined, saying that he'd rather buy a tiny dorm-sized refrigerator instead "because it would be more energy-efficient". When he told me about this I pointed out that the dorm-sized refrigerators were grossly inefficient and that the fridge his landlord offered would use less power than a dorm-sized one while also doing a far superior job overall. Upon hearing this he visibly swelled and said "I refuse to believe that!!". Fine dude, don't believe me, look at the stickers on new refrigerators that say what the expected power usage is and compare for yourself. Of course he decided to go with the normal refrigerator in the end, but thereafter he would launch into a long-winded and colorful rant at the slightest provocation about what a crime against humanity it is that tiny refrigerators meant for college dorm rooms aren't very energy-efficient.

angusjt · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:31 am

VSMUT wrote:
angusjt wrote:
Don't most commercial aircraft already pollute less per passenger then most cars?

It's not even close according to some sources:

https://www.greenmatch.dk/blog/2016/03/ ... -du-rejser

223 grams of CO2 per km when you travel by plane vs 160 grams for a car and 37 grams for a diesel train.

This one generally says cars use a bit more, but once you have more than 1 person onboard, it is way, way better.:
https://travelandclimate.org/

angusjt wrote:
Also stating the obvious here, but you can't run trains over the ocean and there aren't a whole lot of battery powered boats that can get you from Perth to New York etc. in any reasonable time frame.

You obviously can't, but there are still tons of short, regional flights of less than an hour that could easily be replaced by better alternatives.

The more extreme people will say that you just shouldn't go to Australia, but I'm not going to take a stance on that.

I stand corrected re my first point, I was only quoting a stat I heard too long ago, but still the point that air travel can't be feasibly replaced by rail and ship certainly stands.

Living in Perth myself it would be an absolute nightmare to travel without airplanes, many of the major regional centers in Western Australia themselves are too far from each other and isolated to sustain any real rail connection, same for other states. Northern Canada would be another example, it would be borderline impossible to build a rail line that goes as far out as places like Whitehorse & Yellowknife.

I do like the idea of cutting back on many shorter 1hr flights, the entire SYD/MEL/CBR/BNE quadrangle is a good example of where better rail connections are needed, another alternative I've thought about is encouraging airlines to use larger airplanes on short sectors, such as Virgin Australia using a 777-300 on a SYD-MEL sector in place of 3 737-800s. Obviously i'm no expert, just pure thought.

rbavfan · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:33 am

airlinewatcher1 wrote:
As an eco-conscious traveler, my personal approach is to reduce unnecessary flying however possible, and trying to use alternative forms of transportation such as bus/train and driving or carpooling. When I do fly, I also try to make a point fly on newer, more fuel-efficient aircraft such as the Boeing 787 and Airbus A220. Avoid older aircraft if possible. I purchase carbon offsets. Travel coach. Pack light. Not a perfect solution, but I do what I can, however I can.

I know it's not always possible or practical, especially for longer distances and travelling overseas. But I believe the climate crisis has reached a point where we all need to be aware and try to do our part. 2019 was the hottest year on record and Australia is burning up. I'm not against air travel by any means, but climate change is real and I also want the airlines to become more vigilant of their role and how they can improve. Nothing beats the convenience and ease of air travel, but unfortunately it has also come at a cost. It has a reputation for being polluting. I hope alternatives to jet fuel can be developed.

Yes Austrailia is burning. But a country with much smaller aviation footprint burning is not a good choice for "climate change" argument. Austrailia has far fewer cars & busses than the US or the EU. So how is climate change from carbon burning machines the problem in Australia? What other climate isuues are causing their issue?

Baldr · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:42 am

Swadian wrote:
angusjt wrote:
Don't most commercial aircraft already pollute less per passenger then most cars?

Also stating the obvious here, but you can't run trains over the ocean and there aren't a whole lot of battery powered boats that can get you from Perth to New York etc. in any reasonable time frame.

Exactly. People often forget that the environmental impact of building and maintaining rail infrastructure is significantly greater than that of airports. When combined with the trains themselves, high-speed rail often ends up polluting more than airplanes. Example: You build a 500-mile rail line, it covers a 500-mile corridor in a certain direction. You build a few 2-mile runways, they cover every possible travel direction, without regard for oceans, rivers, or mountains.

Even in Europe, where billions are spent on high-speed rail, air travel (and even bus travel) grows at much faster rates. Because you can fly almost anywhere, but you can only drive a train to A, B, C, D, etc..

The best way to fix the problem isn't to build a bunch of rails. It's to promote Skype and other forms of communication, while making airplanes (and airports) ever more efficient.

Railway infrastructure is characterised by high investment costs and long lifetime of components and systems. Also, rail tracks don't require salt during winter operations. In contrast, road salt is destroying cars, infrastructure and the environment; as rebar corrodes, the concrete around it crumbles. So, while the road infrastructure is crumbling prematurely, railway infrastructure can last for centuries.

As for the carbon footprint of rail infrastructure vs. other forms of transport, here are a couple of links:

The new UIC report, “Carbon Footprint of Rail infrastructure” analyses the main existing reports and methodologies in the field and provides guidelines, recommendations and best practices for the calculation of the carbon content of all phases of rail services including infrastructure construction.

The report firstly makes a qualitative comparison with ten existing previous studies to gauge how each methodology can be compared and used for other purposes, in terms of calculation approaches, boundaries, standardisation, applicability, etc.

Following such in-depth review of the existing literature, the second phase of the study quantitatively calculates the effect of the methodology on the results. Three typical corridors representative of three most relevant types of rail traffic (high speed, suburban and freight) have been selected. The three selected examples come from different geographical countries and contexts, such as a suburban line in the Netherlands, a high-speed corridor in Japan and freight services in Sweden.

For each corridor, the most relevant methodologies have been applied to quantify the carbon footprint of everyone, explaining the different results among the methodologies and analysing the methodology most suitable to be implemented in different cases and scenarios.

After performing the analysis, the IFEU study (Matthias Tuchschmid et al, 2010) appears as the most accurate, transparent and transposable methodology to be used for most corridors, giving accurate and reliable results with a reasonable amount of data needed.

The report “High Speed Rail and Sustainability” and the accompanying background “Carbon Footprint of High Speed Rail Lines” produced by UIC and Systra, which take four case studies of high-speed rail lines (two in Europe and two in Asia) and carries out a transparent, robust assessment of carbon emissions for each route, including the planning, construction (track and rolling stocks) and operation phases is identified as one of the most robust methodologies for double electrified, high-speed lines.

The report “Carbon Footprint of Rail Infrastructure” also calculates the payback time required to compensate the CO2 emissions due to the rail infrastructure construction, thanks to the modal shift from more carbon-intensive competitor modes (road or planes). For all three cases studies, the CO2 emissions payback time (less than 15 years) is much shorter than the average lifetime of the infrastructure.

Building new rail infrastructure saves CO2 after one to three decades depending on traffic as a the main key factor for a quick payback, so accurate traffic estimations must be performed during the planning phase of a new railway infrastructure to know the payback of the construction in terms of carbon footprint, and for other relevant KPIs.

As the main conclusions of the report and to engage further carbon emission mitigation when building new or maintaining railway infrastructure, this report also advises the inclusion of Carbon Arbitration Funds into the procurement of new railways. The Carbon Arbitration Funds would engage the bidders to perform detailed carbon emissions inventories, and more importantly deliver on lowering carbon emissions during the construction phase of the railway infrastructure. Precedents in some European countries show a great potential to mitigate carbon embedded into the infrastructure in the most cost efficient way.

Another relevant conclusion is that including carbon footprint of railway infrastructure in the Eco-Tools information would reward those making an effort to mitigate carbon emissions over the construction, re-construction and re-building of the line by using more carbon efficient procedures. It would create a win-win situation, where the rail sector reinforces its sustainability lead, and where infrastructure and railway operators are further engaged to mitigate CO2 emissions, evaluating possible advantages of investments in railways as a solution to reduce carbon footprint in transport.

https://uic.org/com/uic-e-news/508/article/new-uic-report-carbon-footprint-of-rail-infrastructure?page=modal_enews

Rail transport is the most electrified transport sector, the IEA says. Globally, three-quarters of rail passenger movements and half of rail freight relies on electricity.

This means it is “uniquely positioned” to take advantage of the rise of renewables in the electricity mix.

It is also the most energy-efficient means of motorised passenger transport, and is far more efficient than road freight and aviation, as the chart below shows.

Rail accounts for 8% of the world’s motorised passenger movements and 7% of freight transport, yet uses just 2% of the world’s transport energy demand, the report says.

Global rail energy demand has remained relatively constant in recent years, adds the report. Since 2000, it has fallen in the EU and Japan, increased in Russia, China and India, and stayed relatively constant in North America. Diesel freight trains account for roughly half of rail energy use, while electricity accounts for the rest.

It also acts as an “oil saver”, the IEA says. If all services performed by railways were instead carried by planes, cars and trucks, transport-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be 1.2bn tonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2e) per year higher, the report says. This is equivalent to the CO2 emissions of the whole of Africa.

As it stands, around 0.3% of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels come from rail, says the report (this compares to around 2% for global aviation). However, the emissions from trains vary widely, depending on if they are powered by diesel or electricity, as well as how that electricity is generated.

Electric trains can reduce emissions compared with diesel-powered trains, says the IEA, but only if the power generation mix is not dependent on fuels with high carbon content, such as coal. This is shown in the chart below.

The report notes:

“The much lower carbon intensity of rail (per passenger- or tonne-km) compared with most other modes of transport, means the rail sector already plays a key role in containing global GHG emissions. Looking forward, efficient electric motors and increasingly low-carbon power mixes could enable rail to contribute substantially to achieving zero-emission mobility from a well-to-wheel (WTW) perspective.”

However, as the report notes, emissions from railway construction and maintenance must also be taken into account when assessing the capacity of rail projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Railway lines – in particular, those with numerous tunnels, viaducts and bridges – use large amounts of concrete and steel.

According to the IEA, environmental life-cycle assessments show that the rail projects best able to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) are those that minimise the need for large amounts of steel, iron and concrete in construction; have a high passenger or freight throughput; and help to shift away from other modes of transport with even higher carbon intensities, such as car, trucks and aviation.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/eight-chart ... -emissions

VSMUT · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:44 am

angusjt wrote:
Living in Perth myself it would be an absolute nightmare to travel without airplanes, many of the major regional centers in Western Australia themselves are too far from each other and isolated to sustain any real rail connection, same for other states. Northern Canada would be another example, it would be borderline impossible to build a rail line that goes as far out as places like Whitehorse & Yellowknife.

I do like the idea of cutting back on many shorter 1hr flights, the entire SYD/MEL/CBR/BNE quadrangle is a good example of where better rail connections are needed, another alternative I've thought about is encouraging airlines to use larger airplanes on short sectors, such as Virgin Australia using a 777-300 on a SYD-MEL sector in place of 3 737-800s. Obviously i'm no expert, just pure thought.

Australia is a minor blip on the screen, you barely have 25 million people. You have challenges that can't be solved in other ways anyway. It is the US and EU that need to pull themselves together. The distances are short and the population density extremely high. You can make a massive impact on emissions if you make those two travel in a much greener way. I'm not even talking about abolishing air travel completely, just the pointless overland less than 1 hour flights.

rbavfan · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:46 am

VSMUT wrote:
angusjt wrote:
Don't most commercial aircraft already pollute less per passenger then most cars?

It's not even close according to some sources:

https://www.greenmatch.dk/blog/2016/03/ ... -du-rejser

223 grams of CO2 per km when you travel by plane vs 160 grams for a car and 37 grams for a diesel train.

This one generally says cars use a bit more, but once you have more than 1 person onboard, it is way, way better.:
https://travelandclimate.org/

angusjt wrote:
Also stating the obvious here, but you can't run trains over the ocean and there aren't a whole lot of battery powered boats that can get you from Perth to New York etc. in any reasonable time frame.

You obviously can't, but there are still tons of short, regional flights of less than an hour that could easily be replaced by better alternatives.

The more extreme people will say that you just shouldn't go to Australia, but I'm not going to take a stance on that.

So if the plane has 150 passengers for 223grams of CO2/km that is 1.486g/passenger/km.
The car has say 4 passengers for 160grams of CO2/km that is 40g/passenger/km.
However most cars have 1 passenger in them so that works out to 160g/passenger/km for over 50% of car travelers.
I don't know the average number of passengers on trains your referring to, but thats 109 times the pollution per passenger.

See how you can use figures on CO2 output to create a false point when you fail to devide by the number of people using that emmision level? By that view if we stopped flying & all drove we would have 109 times the pollution. Hows that for being "woke."

Also the article linked note the CO2/km but the writer compaired the transports without figuring Co2/pass/km. So their article is looses all credibility. You have to look at how people travel. Including in groups (Planes/trains or mostly single (cars) otherwise you loose the argument.

Looks at the a321neo fuel burn/pass & total vs the 757 of similar size. The a321neo is burning 20+ % less fuel than the 757.Thats 20+% lless CO2 output!

VSMUT · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:50 am

rbavfan wrote:
So if the plane has 150 passengers for 223grams of CO2/km that is 1.486g/passenger/km.
The car has say 4 passengers for 160grams of CO2/km that is 40g/passenger/km.
However most cars have 1 passenger in them so that works out to 160g/passenger/km for over 50% of car travelers.
I don't know the average number of passengers on trains your referring to, but thats 109 times the pollution per passenger.

See how you can use figures on CO2 output to create a false point when you fail to devide by the number of people using that emmision level? By that view if we stopped flying & all drove we would have 109 times the pollution. Hows that for being "woke."

It is already divided per passenger. It is 223 grams of CO2 per passenger.

rbavfan · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:54 am

VSMUT wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
So if the plane has 150 passengers for 223grams of CO2/km that is 1.486g/passenger/km.
The car has say 4 passengers for 160grams of CO2/km that is 40g/passenger/km.
However most cars have 1 passenger in them so that works out to 160g/passenger/km for over 50% of car travelers.
I don't know the average number of passengers on trains your referring to, but thats 109 times the pollution per passenger.

See how you can use figures on CO2 output to create a false point when you fail to devide by the number of people using that emmision level? By that view if we stopped flying & all drove we would have 109 times the pollution. Hows that for being "woke."

It is already divided per passenger. It is 223 grams of CO2 per passenger.

Look at the chart posted in the article. It clearly shows per km. It does not show per km per passenger. Which means it was designed to increase the rage in the people shaming crowd. Not present clear facts to learn from.

rbavfan · Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:01 am

VSMUT wrote:
angusjt wrote:
Living in Perth myself it would be an absolute nightmare to travel without airplanes, many of the major regional centers in Western Australia themselves are too far from each other and isolated to sustain any real rail connection, same for other states. Northern Canada would be another example, it would be borderline impossible to build a rail line that goes as far out as places like Whitehorse & Yellowknife.

I do like the idea of cutting back on many shorter 1hr flights, the entire SYD/MEL/CBR/BNE quadrangle is a good example of where better rail connections are needed, another alternative I've thought about is encouraging airlines to use larger airplanes on short sectors, such as Virgin Australia using a 777-300 on a SYD-MEL sector in place of 3 737-800s. Obviously i'm no expert, just pure thought.

Australia is a minor blip on the screen, you barely have 25 million people. You have challenges that can't be solved in other ways anyway. It is the US and EU that need to pull themselves together. The distances are short and the population density extremely high. You can make a massive impact on emissions if you make those two travel in a much greener way. I'm not even talking about abolishing air travel completely, just the pointless overland less than 1 hour flights.

Opps crossed referenced 2 different post.

N14AZ · Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:08 am

I think many posters misunderstand the meaning of „flightshaming“ (I agree, the term is horrible).

I know several housewives who fly three times a year from Central Europe to Spain: 1 x with their families and the other two times for making party, cheating their husbands and so on... okay, let‘s say to make sport (no contradiction, right?) and so on.

The idea is not to travel to Spain by train but to reconsider if it is really necessary to fly three times a year for vacation/fun only.

cpd · Fri Jan 24, 2020 11:16 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
I'll never be ashamed to fly. Anyone who is ashamed cannot call themselves an aviation enthusiast. I'll advance the throttle with a big smile on my face every time and think "this one's for Greta".

I’m not ashamed not to fly, it’s a necessary evil being stuck in a toothpaste tube with wings jammed in there for 13 hours.

Yes I’m flying business (or first) but I still dislike it. Far too slow.

enilria · Fri Jan 24, 2020 1:57 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
enilria wrote:
catiii wrote:

JetBlue is 100% carbon neutral for domestic flights beginning in July. International flights are already governed by Corsia. They put their money where their mouth is.

Frontier actually started the movement to be green in the USA, although I’d say it is cynical.

https://www.flyfrontier.com/green/?mobile=true

That seems like a joke or people are really stupid. Take a look at their "Upgraded Green Class":

Tray tables custom-built for modern technology
Guaranteed overhead storage for carry-ons
WIFI Free environment with freedom from your inbox
Planet-Priority seating with Personal Space Protection (no reclining seats)
Eco-friendly service items (no straws!)
Personalized entertainment choices with latest technology (brought by you)
Broad selection of food (also brought by you)
Peace of mind that you've made a thoughtful and responsible choice

So having no onboard wifi, seats that don't recline, no entertainment, and no onboard snacks is an upgrade? Hahaha wow

That was the cynicism...

enilria · Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:00 pm

stl07 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
enilria wrote:
Frontier actually started the movement to be green in the USA, although I’d say it is cynical.

https://www.flyfrontier.com/green/?mobile=true

That seems like a joke or people are really stupid. Take a look at their "Upgraded Green Class":

Tray tables custom-built for modern technology
Guaranteed overhead storage for carry-ons
WIFI Free environment with freedom from your inbox
Planet-Priority seating with Personal Space Protection (no reclining seats)
Eco-friendly service items (no straws!)
Personalized entertainment choices with latest technology (brought by you)
Broad selection of food (also brought by you)
Peace of mind that you've made a thoughtful and responsible choice

So having no onboard wifi, seats that don't recline, no entertainment, and no onboard snacks is an upgrade? Hahaha wow

It's more of a joke than anything, their social media team is starting to take a page from NK. And honeslty speaking, when you are on a high-density ULCC, you are more green than on an a321t with a major portion of the plane reserved for a small amount of people.

I think it is somewhat cynical as pointed out. I saw the launch event for this and it was presented with complete seriousness, but I do agree that reducing comfort is in perfect step with the green movement, so whether it is funny or not, it is still true that higher seat density is "greener". AOC's private jet use is at the other end of the spectrum.

PHLspecial · Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:33 pm

Swadian wrote:
angusjt wrote:
Don't most commercial aircraft already pollute less per passenger then most cars?

Also stating the obvious here, but you can't run trains over the ocean and there aren't a whole lot of battery powered boats that can get you from Perth to New York etc. in any reasonable time frame.

Exactly. People often forget that the environmental impact of building and maintaining rail infrastructure is significantly greater than that of airports. When combined with the trains themselves, high-speed rail often ends up polluting more than airplanes. Example: You build a 500-mile rail line, it covers a 500-mile corridor in a certain direction. You build a few 2-mile runways, they cover every possible travel direction, without regard for oceans, rivers, or mountains.

Even in Europe, where billions are spent on high-speed rail, air travel (and even bus travel) grows at much faster rates. Because you can fly almost anywhere, but you can only drive a train to A, B, C, D, etc..

The best way to fix the problem isn't to build a bunch of rails. It's to promote Skype and other forms of communication, while making airplanes (and airports) ever more efficient.

It cost a ton a lot to maintain airports as well. Driving vehicles everywhere to inspect runways etc...

The thing is people are using teleconference more and more. Not need to promote that.

Is rail a bad solution then? Is the purpose of rail to move a lot of people from point A-B-C? Imagine Boston, NYC, Philly, And DC without rail. The Northeast airspace is congested, you know this. Rail has its place in connecting short city pairs. Air travel is good for longer distances. Again why do I need a flight from PHL to NYC? It's less then 100 miles why not have rail?
Besides most airports are not in city centers unlike rail. Again air travel makes sense for 500 miles and above unless you are on an island.

PHLspecial · Fri Jan 24, 2020 2:55 pm

glideslope900 wrote:
How about the fact that flying is more efficient means of travel then by truck/automobile?

https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstrea ... 103194.pdf

The study briefly touch on how short hops on a plane burns a lot of fuel. My question is which is more efficient a flight of 150 people going from NYC to DC or a train of 150 from NYC to DC? A flight from Philly to NYC or train from Philly to NYC. There is a point where a plane is more efficient than a train or car at some distance. Under that distance a train would be more efficient.

Aesma · Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:44 pm

Carbon offsetting looks good but I've never heard someone serious about the global warming issue even mention it. I think many companies are scams. Also, I've read studies (I think there was a thread about it here) that planting trees the wrong way increases carbon emissions instead of doing the supposed capture of carbon.

Aesma · Fri Jan 24, 2020 5:49 pm

seat1a wrote:
A big shot friend of mine in ops at DL told me recently that if there's a major volcanic eruption, the soot and smoke and all the crap that spews from the earth, would be equivalent to all the aircraft emissions since first engine flight.

I would then ask the climate enthusiasts what to do about that? You can't control nature.

No need to control it, as it's not true.

There is no question that very large volcanic eruptions can inject significant amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens vented approximately 10 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in only 9 hours. However, it currently takes humanity only 2.5 hours to put out the same amount.

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

Kno · Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:02 pm

In most cases flying is better for the environment than driving.

In the states we don't have efficient rail systems and our public transportation is a mess in most cities so most resort to driving.

bhill · Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:39 pm

I will fly from SEA to PDX ANYTIME over driving if I can. It can take over an hour to drive from downtown Seattle to the frikken airport!!

bennett123 · Fri Jan 24, 2020 6:55 pm

Not sure that I follow you.

If you drive why would you go to the Airport in the first place?.

SheikhDjibouti · Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:04 pm

rbavfan wrote:
So if the plane has 150 passengers for 223grams of CO2/km that is 1.486g/passenger/km.
The car has say 4 passengers for 160grams of CO2/km that is 40g/passenger/km.
However most cars have 1 passenger in them so that works out to 160g/passenger/km for over 50% of car travelers.
….thats 109 times the pollution per passenger.

Because that analysis makes perfect sense? :shakehead:

VSMUT wrote:
It is already divided per passenger. It is 223 grams of CO2 per passenger.

Now you see, that does make actual sense.

rbavfan wrote:
Look at the chart posted in the article. It clearly shows per km. It does not show per km per passenger. Which means it was designed to increase the rage in the people shaming crowd. Not present clear facts to learn from.

Are you serious?
An article setting out to present a green agenda happily provides figures showing that flying is 109 times less polluting than travelling by car? Why would they do that?

You realize that your interpretation also gives us a car with a relatively small engine (say 120bhp) producing almost as much pollution as an aircraft with two huge engines (easily well in excess of 12,000 bhp) (160g CO² vs 223g)
And that passes the sniff test for you? Next you will be telling us that Jet A-1 is made from jelly beanz.

It is so wrong, I barely know where to even start.

How about why did you limit yourself to 150 pax on this aircraft? That only makes sense if every aircraft on the planet is a 737. Why didn't you choose an A380 with 500 pax. Then your figures would look even more dramatic. And stupid. All those tons of jelly beanz making vapor trails at 40,000', and all for just 223g CO² per km. :banghead:

And how does a bus with a bluddy great diesel engine only produce 27g CO² whilst a car produces 160g? How can that be? (spoiler alert - it doesn't seem very likely)

The simple and screamingly obvious answer is that these numbers do not make any sense unless they are per passenger. Most people do not to be told that..
Then again, most people once they have been told, would see how wrong they had been and keep very quiet.

See how you can use figures on CO2 output to create a false point when you fail to devide by the number of people using that emmision level? By that view if we stopped flying & all drove we would have 109 times the pollution. Hows that for being "woke."

You were dead right about creating a false point.

DDR · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:31 pm

This is bs. Sorry, but in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, and China, the distances are so great that its better to put 100+ people together in a plane to get them from point A to point B. An A321 carrying 200 people 1000km has to be better than 200 cars driving the same distance.

Short haul flying may be different, I don’t know.

Miamiairport · Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:38 pm

Who like AOC that wants to rid the US of all air travel? Then is confronted by the (alternate) press at DCA ready to take a flight back to LGA (in F no doubt). Claims she's too busy for the train.

ewt340 · Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:34 pm

DDR wrote:
This is bs. Sorry, but in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, and China, the distances are so great that its better to put 100+ people together in a plane to get them from point A to point B. An A321 carrying 200 people 1000km has to be better than 200 cars driving the same distance.

Short haul flying may be different, I don’t know.

While I agree that flight shaming especially for long-haul are stupid. China actually spent lots of money building HSR network that actually cost effective (subsidized) and works better in terms of saving times for many passengers. Because chinese airlines always late all the time (because of the air restrictions).

It's no different compared to tax cuts that airlines often get in the US. So some domestic flights in countries like the US, Canada, Russia and China would be quite useless if these government actually spent some times and money to developed their rail network.

Aesma · Fri Jan 24, 2020 10:56 pm

DDR wrote:
This is bs. Sorry, but in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, and China, the distances are so great that its better to put 100+ people together in a plane to get them from point A to point B. An A321 carrying 200 people 1000km has to be better than 200 cars driving the same distance.

Short haul flying may be different, I don’t know.

The main issue in the US is not the distances but the number of flights. US people fly way more than everybody else. With only 2 weeks vacation, somehow.

DL717 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:28 am

PHLspecial wrote:
catiii wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
Flights under 150 miles really shouldn't be a thing? Why does PHL to BWI exist? Wouldn't be easier to drive or train? I know not all of it is ideal but these short hops seem wasteful

It’s not there to carry the PHL pax to BWI. It’s there to carry the PAX coming from LHR to BWI

They have BA at BWI. The fares just don't seem justify the connecting flight when you could drive one hour to PHL or BWI for flights.

So I have to fly BA? Flights full? Guess I’m out of luck then.

PHLspecial · Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:33 am

DL717 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
catiii wrote:

It’s not there to carry the PHL pax to BWI. It’s there to carry the PAX coming from LHR to BWI

They have BA at BWI. The fares just don't seem justify the connecting flight when you could drive one hour to PHL or BWI for flights.

So I have to fly BA? Flights full? Guess I’m out of luck then.

I'm don't see your point? It's way cheaper to connect at CLT then doing a connecting flight at PHL.

DL717 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:56 am

DDR wrote:
This is bs. Sorry, but in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, and China, the distances are so great that its better to put 100+ people together in a plane to get them from point A to point B. An A321 carrying 200 people 1000km has to be better than 200 cars driving the same distance.

Short haul flying may be different, I don’t know.

Averaged out the plane is better over any vehicle that uses gas or diesel in terms of seat miles. There was a study done a few years ago, 2012/2013 that showed planes were 40% more efficient on a seat mile basis vs. any car. It wasn’t always that way. The efficiency between the two crossed over in the late 1980s and aircraft fuel efficient has outpaced cars since, cars basically flattened out. Cars improved a bit when hybrids hit the market, but they didn’t cheap much. I’m sure new aircraft engines of late are changing that dynamic again. The study wouldn’t have captured the GTF/LEAP.

You could use an electric car, but have fun with the stops....or hopping the pond.

DL717 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:05 am

PHLspecial wrote:
DL717 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:

They have BA at BWI. The fares just don't seem justify the connecting flight when you could drive one hour to PHL or BWI for flights.

So I have to fly BA? Flights full? Guess I’m out of luck then.

I'm don't see your point? It's way cheaper to connect at CLT then doing a connecting flight at PHL.

There are a multitude of variables that would drive a decision on which flights to take. Maybe the flights are full. Maybe I don’t want to fly down to CLT only to fly back past BWI/PHL. Maybe I’m not even going to London. You’re looking at this from the standpoint of a leisure traveler where only price is the focus. That’s not a realistic position for a transportation system as flexible as air travel. This isn’t Amtrak.

There are 3 flights a day between the two markets on American, all three are RJs feeding the PHL hub. No big deal. Maybe 1 or 2 people a day are on those flights actually traveling between the two cities, probably less, which tells you all you need to know about rail demand.

If people want to drive that distance, good for them. Don’t get caught in a winter storm. Your life will suck.

catiii · Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:41 am

PHLspecial wrote:
DL717 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:

They have BA at BWI. The fares just don't seem justify the connecting flight when you could drive one hour to PHL or BWI for flights.

So I have to fly BA? Flights full? Guess I’m out of luck then.

I'm don't see your point? It's way cheaper to connect at CLT then doing a connecting flight at PHL.

Comical. Overfly Baltimore to then backtrack.

PHLspecial · Sat Jan 25, 2020 5:44 am

catiii wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
DL717 wrote:

So I have to fly BA? Flights full? Guess I’m out of luck then.

I'm don't see your point? It's way cheaper to connect at CLT then doing a connecting flight at PHL.

Comical. Overfly Baltimore to then backtrack.

Just looking at fares from BWI to a connecting flight to PHL to some other destination is just over priced. Again what is the point of a route that is only 100 miles apart worth it to fly? The fares don't make sense to me.

SheikhDjibouti · Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:00 pm

DL717 wrote:
Averaged out the plane is better over any vehicle that uses gas or diesel in terms of seat miles. There was a study done a few years ago, 2012/2013 that showed planes were 40% more efficient on a seat mile basis vs. any car.

Your argument would be so much stronger if you could find that survey, or indeed any other, that confirms these numbers.

Failing that, I'm sure I read somewhere that flying was SIX TIMES more polluting than travelling by car.
Of course I can't back that up either, so you would probably say it is worthless.... or that my memory was unreliable. Et tu Brute?

The article presented at the start of this thread does not support your 40% claim (nor my equally ridiculous "6x"). Perhaps we should both stick to verifiable facts?

DL717 wrote:
It wasn’t always that way. The efficiency between the two crossed over in the late 1980s and aircraft fuel efficient has outpaced cars since, cars basically flattened out.

Ok, I guess cars in the US must be a special case that somehow missed out on the technological revolution enjoyed by the rest of the world.

Back in the day I used to drive a variety of vehicles that managed 22-28 mpg between them. I might have got 35 mpg from the best of them, on a long run.

Right now, today, there are five vehicles on the premises; and the absolute worst is my daughters. She cries because she "only" gets 44 mpg. In 1985 I could have only dreamed of those numbers.
But in my yard today, the pick of the bunch is 12 years old, cost me $800 and goes like a rocket whilst delivering 67 mpg,
(to be fair you wouldn't like it because the aircon is u/s, and at this precise moment it needs another $500 spent on it to tighten up the brakes, replace a broken headlight, and a few service items, but I reckon it's worth keeping it running a while longer)

Gulfstream500 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:06 pm

DL717 wrote:
DDR wrote:
This is bs. Sorry, but in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, and China, the distances are so great that its better to put 100+ people together in a plane to get them from point A to point B. An A321 carrying 200 people 1000km has to be better than 200 cars driving the same distance.

Short haul flying may be different, I don’t know.

Averaged out the plane is better over any vehicle that uses gas or diesel in terms of seat miles. There was a study done a few years ago, 2012/2013 that showed planes were 40% more efficient on a seat mile basis vs. any car. It wasn’t always that way. The efficiency between the two crossed over in the late 1980s and aircraft fuel efficient has outpaced cars since, cars basically flattened out. Cars improved a bit when hybrids hit the market, but they didn’t cheap much. I’m sure new aircraft engines of late are changing that dynamic again. The study wouldn’t have captured the GTF/LEAP.

You could use an electric car, but have fun with the stops....or hopping the pond.

Although, electric cars are not exactly the answer to saving the environment, yet. These cars still use fossil fuels when you charge them - only 17% of power grid energy is from renewable sources. Not to mention, the manufacturing of batteries is not good for the environment, either.

SheikhDjibouti · Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:21 pm

DDR wrote:
This is bs. Sorry, but in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, and China, the distances are so great that its better to put 100+ people together in a plane to get them from point A to point B. An A321 carrying 200 people 1000km has to be better than 200 cars driving the same distance.

I am quite prepared to agree with you regarding 1000km (and more) - I doubt if the planet or the individuals concerned would benefit from driving those distances, unless they could make something of the journey itself (i.e. a "road trip")

Short haul flying may be different, I don’t know.

Indeed. So let's start by applying an element of fairness here.
Is it fair to compare one A321 packed full with 200 people versus 200 cars each with a single occupant? :shakehead:

If you were describing commuting - maybe.

But if you are describing anything over 80km, ask the question how many of those vehicles are single occupant?

Conversely, when you next get on board an A321, have a look around and see how many passengers are single, and how many are in groups of 2, 3 or even 4 people travelling together. They might be families, friends, or even business colleagues attending the same conference/training seminar/important HQ meeting.

I am not going to even guess what percentage that might be, but your argument would be much stronger if you avoided simple mistakes such as basing your argument on every car carrying just one occupant. Comparisons with downtown commuting are not valid here.

94717 · Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:36 pm

DDR wrote:
This is bs. Sorry, but in countries like the US, Canada, Russia, and China, the distances are so great that its better to put 100+ people together in a plane to get them from point A to point B. An A321 carrying 200 people 1000km has to be better than 200 cars driving the same distance.

Short haul flying may be different, I don’t know.

Proably true for the next 5-7 years until the car is electric using power from windmills.

Me and my family go frequent from our home in stockholm region to Alicante spain. Week trips by airplane and the longer summer vacationby car. We plan now to use interrail instead for 2021 costing us 480 Euros both ways with a nice stop in Paris and Barceöona / Madrid.

My next business trip Södertälje - suburb of stockhol Hannover I go by train. I calculate this as a bit longer time bu not too much.

Leaving my house 6.45. AM Arrives at train station 7 AM.
Train leaves 7.35.
I arrive in hannover 18.35 in front of my hotel and meet my colleges over dinner. Work full thursday and friday until lunch.

My train go back to stockholm 12.00. I eat lunch in copenhagen and arrives in my house 12 pm.

A flight the same distance,

Leaving from home at 7 am because of traffic.

Arrives at Arlanda 9.30 for catching a airplane around 12.00 with security controls to hamburg.
Arrives at hamburg around 13.30. Takes a cab to the train station to catch a train to hannover 15.00.
Arrives hannover 17.00.

On the way home takes a train from hannover to hamburg 12.00. Arrives around 14.00
Takes cab to airport to catch train 17.00 arrives stockhol 19.30.
Drives home arrives home 21.00 after picking up car at parking and driving home with little traffic.

Now they high speed train stockholm copenhagen and copenhagen hamburg with bridges over femarn. Then the time in 10 years stockholm hamburg. For me will be less door to door hamburg hannover köln. And similar berlin with train as with air.

In Europe the building of new rail tracks are driven by highways being full and the old rail system needed for cargo and local trains.

catiii · Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:36 am

PHLspecial wrote:
catiii wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
I'm don't see your point? It's way cheaper to connect at CLT then doing a connecting flight at PHL.

Comical. Overfly Baltimore to then backtrack.

Just looking at fares from BWI to a connecting flight to PHL to some other destination is just over priced. Again what is the point of a route that is only 100 miles apart worth it to fly? The fares don't make sense to me.

Because it’s not flown for the PDEW going BWIPHL, it’s for the Pax going from BWI to the world via PHL.

stl07 · Sun Jan 26, 2020 5:22 am

I fully support flight shaming for non-rural EAS towns. The US government pays millions for sometimes up to 6 empty flights a day that could be driven in an hour or less to nearby larger cities.

TSS · Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:45 am

stl07 wrote:
I fully support flight shaming for non-rural EAS towns. The US government pays millions for sometimes up to 6 empty flights a day that could be driven in an hour or less to nearby larger cities.

One of the most egregious examples of EAS abuse was (I think it was cut in the last review) Macon, Georgia, located 80 miles or less of good freeway from ATL.

T18 · Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:15 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
But in my yard today, the pick of the bunch is 12 years old, cost me $800 and goes like a rocket whilst delivering 67 mpg,
(to be fair you wouldn't like it because the aircon is u/s, and at this precise moment it needs another $500 spent on it to tighten up the brakes, replace a broken headlight, and a few service items, but I reckon it's worth keeping it running a while longer)

67 mpg? That must be some other gallon than the US kind as 67 mpg would be beyond a brand new hybrid stateside.

luckyone · Sun Jan 26, 2020 6:20 pm

n7371f wrote:
Oh you speak for every liberal in SEA...OK.

PHLspecial wrote:
n7371f wrote:
Flight shaming would be the most dramatic in Seattle where the woke liberals and socialists love their Alaska. What would they do? What side would they take?

What are you talking about? I'm super liberal. Logic dictates what people do flawed or not. The whole point is to fly when we need too. In the U.S. yeah you fly when it's over 500 miles. Otherwise it's way cheaper to drive or train.

The point is us liberals want more trains connecting city pairs that are in reasonable distance. Like Portland, Seattle, Vancouver. Atlanta and it's near by cities.

People will take the side of logic. Flight shame the routes the are under 100 miles. Besides people will still fly liberal or not.

The poster speaks for them about as much as you apparently do, OK.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net