Lack

You could reduce yours to offset mine...

FCIan

My argument exactly. People on this board are reliant on others to balance out their footprint. If everyone on the planet was like the average FTer then it would be game over. (note: it is obvious not every FTer produces huge amounts of carbon but the average seemingly does)

Lack

You are right. If everyone on the planet was doing it then it would be game over - mileage runs wouldn't have a point anymore.

My username was meticulously engineered to represent the number of efs given when someone tries to guilt me into sharing their lifestyle choices.

intuition

FCIan, I followed one of your suggested links to footprint calculators. As you call these "the facts" I would like to understand more about the actual calculations. I do understand any such calculator can't really be "the facts" as there has to be some simplifications in order to give me one metric based on just some 20 multiple-choice questions.

I dug into their explanations and while there were very few details, I did find this:

I then went ahead and downloaded the Defra 2017 conversion factors (full set for advanced users) and tried to replicate this number, as the distance is given and the fuel consumption of the aircraft is known. I also compensated for loadfactor, and evenly distributed the emissions per pax on the flight. However, I could not end up with that number, not even close.

Could you just outline the match involved reaching that number?

Lack

Maybe it was based on Al Gore's flying pattern, as in look for G6 fuel consumption and not that of a 400 passenger 777?

beyounged

oh man just when I start to think OP genuinely meant to start a discussion and might truly be a respectful guy...

OP you miss the very definition of MR, there will NEVER be a situation that makes everyone fly as much as an FTer, because that will not be "frequent flying" it will be normal flying. It is like saying "if everyone becomes top 1% then we can all have food on the table". MR will forever be a niche market, you will never be able to forcefully split MR the action from MR the motive. Sure, on a moving plane everyone APPEARS to be equally motivated to go some place, but only I know if this flight is 2% more expensive I would not be here. You cannot simply make MR's butt-in-seat portion a standalone action, because if you mean this then last minute deadheading of emplyees is as carbon costly as a vacationer's? A great example is the proposed CI TPE-ONT route, without demand where the hell would this route exist? And if it becomes reality, then the 777 must be hard to fill, then comes cheap transPac fares, and you bet I would jump on it first chance I got and do a few short turnarounds. I will contribute to some carbon footprints, but do I contriute as much as a Taiwanese who would LOVE to visit his relatives in Irvine? I just pick the low cpm and this happens to be the one, so for a MRunner he/she must always be helping filling planes instead of creating what economists call RIGID DEMAND, the kind of demand that drives airlines to open new routes like FRA-YZF and TPE-ONT. Our butts are in the seats come from the very fact it costs less per mile, and it means if airlines' pricing algorithms are correct, we are always flying a seat that would otherwise go empty. So no, it is not what the calculator spits out.

I strongly agree with the rest of the climate science community that there would be a carbon tax on everything, and I believe those who fill an airplane's seats first would have to pay the most. allow me to go mathematical: A typical demand mimics the logarithmic curve log(x+1) and the MRunnes are always the towards the far right of the axis when X--->∞.

skywardhunter

Being a US based calculator the average CO2 per mile is likely to be extremely high, given the many regional jets with fewer seats and older overall average airframe age. I fly 80% of the time on 777s with 400 seats and a very high load factor. I can't imagine that it's as simple as the calculator makes it seem. My flying alone would account for about 30 tonnes a year if it were correct and I don't fly that much compared to some here.

FCIan

The pithy comment you used to introduce yourself on this thread is indicative of your attempts to reject the guilty you feel but don't blame me for that feeling. If you knew you were doing nothing wrong, that feeling wouldn't exist.

Lack

Isn't the whole thread about offloading your guilt? Maybe if you changed some peoples behavior here you'd feel better about your life? Even if not, perhaps some worse offenders are going to reveal themselves so you can feel that at least you're not as bad?

I'd give you a pat on the back for trying, but I'd need to fly over...

FCIan

I don't think I am missing the definition. I am not saying all frequent flyers should stop flying frequently. I am suggesting that frequent flyers could stop mileage runs where there is no other purpose than flying to obtain miles or tier points. I personally see it as a wasteful practise. I know others disagree but to me, a responsible person would take an equal slice of the CO2 that the plane they fly on generates and not say 'its flying anyway so I get zero'.

That said, I should take responsibility for my actions. I lashed out at a pithy commenter who was attempting to trivialise this discussion - two wrongs don't make a right. I also am happy to admit that my research into this topic has only just began and is not fully formed and I thank you all for your contributions because it has developed considerably. I also cannot keep up with your superior mathematical brain - layman's terms please :-)

skywardhunter

It's not zero, but neither is it an equal share, if anything it's the marginal CO2 that their travel creates, primarily due to the additional weight and thus fuel consumption. The plane flies anyway, so a certain level of "overhead" cannot be attributed to the mileage runner.

Again you're picking on such a small group of people, ignoring those flying around in private jets for orgies in the far East or coke parties in Paris or whatever...

C W

I'd really love to hear it if you can actually construct an argument for how this works in a technical sense. Before we got bogged down in ad hominem ugliness it was an interesting debate. But just saying you believe it should be so is completely meaningless. It doesn't make it reality any more than me saying I believe global warming is predominantly due to unicorn farts.

Lack

Yes, you are. If everyone was doing mileage runs then there simply wouldn't be enough seats to fill, negating cost to benefit advantage. The miles would drop in value, negating to cost to benefit advantage. The status would have to be diluted, negating the cost to benefit advantage. Those wouldn't be mileage runs there, that would be just setting cash on fire.

But you're absolutely right on this being practice being wasteful. Many people would rather stay at home then squeeze into a metal tube, but that pretty much the only cost effective way of achieving the goal of mileage running.

So if you do want to make a difference, maybe hop on your high horse and crusade against the airlines who don't award miles on non-flown segments. Seems to me like they're the biggest offenders.

C W

I'm just curious, [MENTION=748430]FCIan[/MENTION], does the FC stand for First Class?

FCIan

From my experience, when an airline evaluates a routing for viability, they take into account every passenger who has flown the route, from VFRs to Holiday makers to mileage runners - they don�t discriminate. I think that shows we should each take an equal part of the CO2.

I hear that revenues play a big part in operational decisions. I believe if there are routes which are regularly flown by high-value clients - as many of you are - then they are also given more leyway to run in an inefficient way. They may even run as lost leaders. Perhaps with this is mind you are MORE culpable for CO2 on these types of flights. But personally I think an equal share is the most balanced approach.

I only have anacdotal testimony from my professional contacts contacts in the airline industry. It�s not hard evidence and none of us have access to the inner workings of airlines.