Let's say a CRJ with 44 people on it is going 1000 miles and they use 6000 lbs of fuel. That is about 1000 gallons. Let's assume that maybe 30 of them would have driven in separate cars (some are couples, most are singles, a couple of families are onboard.) That is only using 33 gallons of fuel per person. A car ride would use more than the 33 gallons of fuel for most cars. These numbers aren't 100% accurate, but they are well within the realm of realistic. The plane isn't that fuel inefficient compared to a car, and in many cases, it is far more fuel efficient. To make it seem like the plane is just a toxic nightmare to the environment is a huge stretch. With capacity down, load factors high, and using the "right sized" equipment for the given demand, airlines aren't just wasting massive quantities of fuel per passenger, they just do it on a larger scale than your car. Those numbers can be scaled up for bigger planes and longer distances too. Don't kid yourself by implying that airlines are terrible for the environment...they aren't good, but they are surely better than an individual driving, and that is the alternative for many who don't bus, train, or carpool.

Like the press release says, every action counts. People can choose to be green, or not to be green and the choices are relative. I mean Al Gore, Mr. Green has been accused of being terrible at times, using private jets and having a huge house with massive CRT's (as well as being on the BoD of Apple Computer.) Little things do add up, especially when it does done to scale.

If one wants to point an accusing finger, look at BA that has routinely flown empty planes back and forth (not for repositioning) across the pond, just to utilize their slots as lack of use could trigger a loss of them to another entrant. One of the (2) airlines that flew the SST, a fuel hog in the worst way? BA. Now that I think about it, BP is polluting the water around LA. Common denominator, the 1sty word in both is "British"...coincidence, or conspiracy?