Originally Posted by
Starship73
The reality is that corporations will increasingly use the following overall logic to calculate the carbon impact of a business flight:
The estimated/actual total CO2 emissions of a given flight will be split according to the mix of passenger and cargo payload. Eg if 30% of the payload was cargo and 70% was passengers and baggage, 70% of the emissions will be allocated to – and therefor have to be ‘accounted for’ – by the passengers. To use a highly simplified example, if the premium cabin takes up say 50% of the overall available floor space and accommodates say 100 passengers, whereas economy takes up the other 50% and accommodates say 200 passengers, it will be assumed that each premium seat emits twice as much CO2 as each economy seat. Therefore, each time an employee flies economy on this flight, they will use up half as much of the corporation’s carbon budget than if they had flown in the premium cabin. So in practice, the cabin class definitely does not make ‘zero difference’.
Yes, sadly they’ll hide behind calculations based on flawed logic that are only occasionally representative of short haul traffic load make ups that bare little resemblance to realities when transposed to longer haul traffic make up.
Now if the idea is to phase out or downsize J cabins it will be a win win for the airlines.
A small example, strip out a 12 seat mini cabin of J suites and install 24 PE seats in the same square footage of cabin real estate. Now the overall weight when that cabin is full has increased which has no other effect than to increase CO2 output of the flight, and there is zero representation of that reality or allowance for it.
On a revenue management side the difference in revenue per square foot of real estate for the miles flown and thus the fares between J and PE is negligible, they are on a par and we now see with new cabin layouts a trend for larger PE cabins. As they grow the fares associated too shall grow, the amount of lounge space needed to be rented from airport authorities can be reduced as traditional premium footprint reduces and more onerous entry rules to manage space available. This in itself would likely negate the cost of the increased fuel burden but it hasn’t meant a reduction in carbon footprint.
I agree it is a convenient model to hide behind in order to cut costs under the guise of green initiatives whist attempting to somehow stick to some sort of mythical carbon budget which is indeed a growing trend.
At the end of the day Pwc et al have zero impact on the amount of fuel I order and burn, none whatsoever. The only impact they can have is not travelling at all, everything else is mere window dressing but I do see where you are coming from.