This thread is doing the most. Seriously? How popular a route is with non-revs doesn't affect the capacity used. Nor should an airline employee think twice about traveling for any reason because that's why we are in this business.

Worry about the major pollutants, not ever increasingly efficient aircraft. Airplanes burn less and less fuel, people make a bigger and bigger deal about them. Because logic.

vinaixa wrote:

ua900 wrote:

OP, your source article is from April 2020 and speaks mainly about "a huge environmental waste in the US" in the wake of a "96% drop in passenger numbers because of coronavirus restrictions has not been matched by cuts in flights". One could have reasonably argued back then with social media pics of 4 passengers on a given flight that it was an "environmental waste", but it was also a very selective snapshot, "a level not seen since 1954" and load factors have certainly recovered a lot since that low point.

Sure, the quote is selective but that's why I included the source for everyone to assess. I do see an environmental advantage in operating three flights at full capacity than four flights where the planes are 70% full. That's the idea I have in mind, in simple terms, about the environmental impact of flying with empty seats.

That might be true for point to point flying, but the reason four aircraft are scheduled is because someone assessed that the frequency matters. What about people who fly to Spain or the UK to connect? Should they wait an extra day, get a rental car, a hotel room, plus the drive to and from their connecting airport just because the forth flight got consolidated?

Also, the crew scheduling and aircraft provisioning including route planning need to be factored in. Some crew members may have commuted for nothing, and an aircraft might now RON at an unintended place and be missing at the gate the next morning in wherever it was supposed to fly next. I see lots of impact there too, including environmental impact.

I think in simple terms you're right, it would make sense. But given all the complexities that go in scheduled air travel, I think the disadvantages would outweight the benefits.

exFWAOONW wrote:

More guilt over nothing.

I agree. All threads like this do is make people hate climate activists.

izbtmnhd wrote:

Negligible when compared to China’s coal consumption for it’s electricity needs alone.

There are way bigger fish to fry before worrying about something like this, IMHO.

Could not have been said any better!

Until China take some responsibility for their emissions there is no point in any of us doing anything, I am in Australia and we are killing our economy to lower emissions and we only contribute 0.4%. Fly drive or take a train... carry on!

A few staff taking empty seats (even if its 10,000 seats world wide per year) is not going to impact the environment one nano amount. I suggest the OP worry about other more important things.

ua900 wrote:

That might be true for point to point flying, but the reason four aircraft are scheduled is because someone assessed that the frequency matters. What about people who fly to Spain or the UK to connect? Should they wait an extra day, get a rental car, a hotel room, plus the drive to and from their connecting airport just because the forth flight got consolidated?

Also, the crew scheduling and aircraft provisioning including route planning need to be factored in. Some crew members may have commuted for nothing, and an aircraft might now RON at an unintended place and be missing at the gate the next morning in wherever it was supposed to fly next. I see lots of impact there too, including environmental impact.

I think in simple terms you're right, it would make sense. But given all the complexities that go in scheduled air travel, I think the disadvantages would outweight the benefits.

Maybe if you were talking about the difference between say, two 77Ws & five 38Ms... But at the other end, does Bay Area-LAX really need close to 100 dailies? Seems doubtful.


I realize that frequency is somewhat treasured here, but it is, in the end, something of a luxury. I get that it is complicated, but it was made that way, and can be unmade too. Disadvantages outweighing advantages there exist more or less because airlines and some passengers want them too. While that is the point of a business, if the same people really wanted to, those issues could be worked out, and it is unlikely the company would care much about convenience for the people tasked so with.

I say this because now it is not a popular opinion, but all indicators are there that a significant degree of consolidation will have to eventuate here and elsewhere. The most optimistic projections for corporate travel returning to 2019 levels occupy most of the decade. Leisure looks better, but that is also elastic and tied to the economy at large.
And then yes, there is the environmental angle to consider.

All of these things do put pressure on the massive amount of frequency along a lot of major routes. Two similar sized, single aisle planes, operating within the same alliance, JV or carrier departing within 20 mins to the same destination will become very hard to defend in the coming years.

usflyer msp wrote:

I agree. All threads like this do is make people hate climate activists.

People angered at this would be made mad at anything. Regard accordingly...

usflyer msp wrote:

exFWAOONW wrote:

More guilt over nothing.

I agree. All threads like this do is make people hate climate activists.

Shooting the messenger, so to speak? I think the thread is pointless, but I don’t have anything against people who are raising important issues about our planet, and its climate, and our impact on both.

exFWAOONW wrote:

More guilt over nothing.

Yep!

a36001 wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Negligible when compared to China’s coal consumption for it’s electricity needs alone.

There are way bigger fish to fry before worrying about something like this, IMHO.

Could not have been said any better!

Until China take some responsibility for their emissions there is no point in any of us doing anything, I am in Australia and we are killing our economy to lower emissions and we only contribute 0.4%. Fly drive or take a train... carry on!

A few staff taking empty seats (even if its 10,000 seats world wide per year) is not going to impact the environment one nano amount. I suggest the OP worry about other more important things.

Here's the thing...according to the IEA, global coal consumption is growing at a 4.5% pace this year. It's forecast to level off until 2025. After that most of the US and European reductions become so small that China and India will control the market. Most analysts expect consumption to grow again with China building more power plants than it's retiring.

As long as this forecast is true, you could ground every single aircraft for this decade and it's not going to make a difference to stop CO2 increases.

And this is just coal.

Much bigger fish in the ocean.

Sorry to go a bit non-av here but arguing over non-revs is just pointless unless it's just to figure out the total for some other broad analysis, IMHO.

11C wrote:

I agree that we have to explore everything, but with such pressing needs, we also have to prioritize what actions can be taken, which goals we set, etc. I think we are in the weeds with this topic, as far as priorities go. It would be akin to treating a patient with a hangnail, while asking the patient with the severed artery to wait a few minutes.

While Topics/Threads that make one think outside the box are interesting, I could not agree more with the comment above. Kind of like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

vinaixa wrote:

AeroAndy wrote:

Why are we even talking about this?

The people who are pumping bitterness into this thread need to calm down!

Reality != bitterness.

Let's not forget that trucks are, by far, the most used method of carrying stuff worldwide, so planes are way behind in the line to be blamed.

Here's my simple attempt to answer the question based on my experience in a global airline's network planning and environmental teams.

All that needs to be measured is the additional weigh of carrying non rev pax. Generally a pax and bag weighs about 100kg and an average sector length is about 1000km. As a rule of thumb, every additional 100kg of weight requires about 20kg of fuel per 1000km flown. That produces about 60kg of CO2.

I don't know how many non revs there across the globe, but 2%-4% could be a reasonable estimate. That could mean 135m non rev pax sectors out if the 4.5 bIllion pax who flew in 2019.

At 60kg each, it gives a total of about 8.1m tonnes. That's the same as produced by Latvia in a year.

This is an estimate, but hopefully it helps answer the original post. Interesting question, thanks for asking.

Https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2019 ... -2019.aspx

https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emiss ... y-country/

There are three type of people posting on this thread:

•Those who have provided a detailed answer to the question

•Those who are posting their views on China

• Those who are shooting the messenger (OP) for raising a legitimate question, but have otherwise not made a contribution of their own

Interesting that some users say this thread is pointless but then use it as a platform for their political views on China?

With this thread I intended to look at the environmental impact of Staff Travel compared to general travel, as opposed to turning this into an existential question on non-rev travel (which would kind of be like shooting myself in the foot).

Nobody in this thread is trying to make you feel guilty about your air travel.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Maybe if you were talking about the difference between say, two 77Ws & five 38Ms... But at the other end, does Bay Area-LAX really need close to 100 dailies? Seems doubtful.


I realize that frequency is somewhat treasured here, but it is, in the end, something of a luxury. I get that it is complicated, but it was made that way, and can be unmade too. Disadvantages outweighing advantages there exist more or less because airlines and some passengers want them too. While that is the point of a business, if the same people really wanted to, those issues could be worked out, and it is unlikely the company would care much about convenience for the people tasked so with.

I say this because now it is not a popular opinion, but all indicators are there that a significant degree of consolidation will have to eventuate here and elsewhere. The most optimistic projections for corporate travel returning to 2019 levels occupy most of the decade. Leisure looks better, but that is also elastic and tied to the economy at large.
And then yes, there is the environmental angle to consider.

All of these things do put pressure on the massive amount of frequency along a lot of major routes. Two similar sized, single aisle planes, operating within the same alliance, JV or carrier departing within 20 mins to the same destination will become very hard to defend in the coming years.

With all due respect, the LA Metro area is home to 13 million people, and the Bay Area is home to 7 million people. Correct me if 'm wrong, but 100 dailies in each direction at 200 seats each would result in 40,000 seats, or the ability of 0.002% of the population these metro areas to visit one another through air travel. That doesn't include provisions for the 33% connecting pax at LAX or the 22% connecting pax at SFO. In my view, supply and demand create the 100 dailies, not a wish for frequency. If these flights were to lose money, I'd wager that you'd see fewer.

Sources: https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/l ... _2019.ashx
https://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo/sfo-to ... -forecasts

As someone who has taken Amtrak in CA, I can tell you that virtually no one goes from Emeryville to Bakersfield and connects to the Amtrak bus to LA. I can tell you that I-5, Highway 99 or the 101 all clog up in metro areas, but generally not between say Gilroy and Ventura. It takes 6-7 hours by car if there's little traffic and you're not going too deep into the respective metro area and a train will take even longer.

And no saving money on these either compared to flying unless you're a family of four taking advantage of a very cheap rental deal and can reign in your kids' spending at the stops. 0.002% of people moving between these two areas isn't a whole lot on the balance. I for one would have had a hard time connecting to UA 1 to SIN via train or car, as would my luggage.

Much better to grab a window seat and watch the CA coastline for an hour, followed by a pit stop the Amex Centurion lounge at SFO on my connection. Beats schlepping suitcases to and from a rental car center or through BART from Emeryville to SFO IMHO. And FWIW I don't mind them flying widebodies there. One of my best ones was a UA 744 from SFO to LAX. No complaints if they wanted to use 777s tomorrow.

vinaixa wrote:

With this thread I intended to look at the environmental impact of Staff Travel compared to general travel, as opposed to turning this into an existential question on non-rev travel (which would kind of be like shooting myself in the foot).

Nobody in this thread is trying to make you feel guilty about your air travel.

I think that got covered as well, no? For example in my reply #37. When you look at a number of other responses, I think you'll find that most people here will see non-revving as a part of total compensation where you might get paid less in the industry but have the ability to fly anywhere you want provided you can find a seat and are willing to take the risk of not flying positive space or on a revenue ticket. I can imagine it can be stressful and quite a gamble, so to those who do non-rev travel, in my book they've earned it.

At least in the US, I see that our domestic flights are often full again, so the environmental impact of filling the last 5 open seats on a plane with 200 seats is marginal at best. 5 non-rev people against 195 rev pax. 30 additional suitcases would make a bigger dent there than the 5 non-revs. And my last intra-EU flights were pretty full as well.

ua900 wrote:

With all due respect, the LA Metro area is home to 13 million people, and the Bay Area is home to 7 million people. Correct me if 'm wrong, but 100 dailies in each direction at 200 seats each would result in 40,000 seats, or the ability of 0.002% of the population these metro areas to visit one another through air travel.

...

Much better to grab a window seat and watch the CA coastline for an hour, followed by a pit stop the Amex Centurion lounge at SFO on my connection. Beats schlepping suitcases to and from a rental car center or through BART from Emeryville to SFO IMHO. And FWIW I don't mind them flying widebodies there. One of my best ones was a UA 744 from SFO to LAX. No complaints if they wanted to use 777s tomorrow.

No, I do not think you are wrong about any of that. What I think is that 100 dailies are indeed wasteful as hell —nevermind the ATC burden to Bay Area in particular. That is a flight every fourteen minutes, though realistically more often if remove the hours when flights are not operated. And a lot of those are not even 200 seaters. E75s seem to be all over the place on that sector.

No, what I am saying is that there is room to consolidate a lot of that to larger equipment. This saves on staff, fuel, MX, and flow control. There was a time in my life when I was flying that route quite a lot for work. I cannot possibly see how it would be problematic to go from one every 14 minutes to one every 25.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

...No, what I am saying is that there is room to consolidate a lot of that to larger equipment. This saves on staff, fuel, MX, and flow control. There was a time in my life when I was flying that route quite a lot for work. I cannot possibly see how it would be problematic to go from one every 14 minutes to one every 25.

I don't mind your thought experiment. It's an interesting thing to consider, at least to me.

But who are you to be the arbitrator of such things? Your "one every 14 minutes to one every 25" might then be further altered to one flight ever 40 minutes and so on - an incremental approach to restricting flights.

So again, who gets to decide? Shall we have a Central Planning Committee, Komissar?

Or do we let the market decide? Granted, the current market has it's faults, but which is worse?

vinaixa wrote:

For those who are wondering why I asked the question in the first place:

My employer asked if having me fly between UK and Spain for work a couple times would work against the organisation's environmental goals. My view is that the answer to that question needs to take into account that I was travelling StandBy, which would have a smaller environmental impact than conventional travel, based on your answers.

So it's not an issue of me exploring flying guilt, but rather looking for informed answers to a reasonable question.

The problem is, flying standby for work is against the policies of ZED-MIBA/IATA. So be careful about that one. *unless your employer IS the airline, then they can make you fly standby on their own airline.

We've terminated a handful of employees over the years for doing this - even if it was their spouse, registered guest, parents, and even employee. Fed Ex even tracks interline discount shipments to make sure its not for things like EBAY or other commercial reasons.

usxguy wrote:

vinaixa wrote:

For those who are wondering why I asked the question in the first place:

My employer asked if having me fly between UK and Spain for work a couple times would work against the organisation's environmental goals. My view is that the answer to that question needs to take into account that I was travelling StandBy, which would have a smaller environmental impact than conventional travel, based on your answers.

So it's not an issue of me exploring flying guilt, but rather looking for informed answers to a reasonable question.

The problem is, flying standby for work is against the policies of ZED-MIBA/IATA. So be careful about that one. *unless your employer IS the airline, then they can make you fly standby on their own airline.

We've terminated a handful of employees over the years for doing this - even if it was their spouse, registered guest, parents, and even employee. Fed Ex even tracks interline discount shipments to make sure its not for things like EBAY or other commercial reasons.

100% correct. Said another way, if you are using standby employee travel to make money via some other form...then it's a terminable offense. Our company newsletter just so happened to remind people of this the other day...