skywardhunter

Interesting attempt.

1. As someone else said, define the terms
2. Survey and publish the presumed numbers
3. Get comments from the "perpetrators" before publishing

My thoughts:
1. The number of "runners" is so insignificant the effect on aviation demand and thus supply is negligible. More relevant would be asking how Bieber feels about global warming with his jet use
2. As mentioned travel bloggers arguably travel significantly more than mileage runners for even less significant reasons (if you don't, are you really a travel blogger?)
3. Global warming is real, it's a serious issue which is ignored or joked about by too many and saying that an individual making a decision shouldn't consider environmental impact is insufficient. I fly a lot and am guilty as any of it but if everyone were to consider the environmental impact of ALL their activities it could have a measurable positive impact (the city I live in is heavily drought-stricken, so much so that for the first time that I can remember there are water cuts)
4. This thread was started to promote a travel blog and the OP does not possess any journalistic skill
​​​​

zebes

I'll set aside the macro-level issues: mileage runners as a group, and whether they, as a proportion of the flying public, affect supply or demand on particular routes at all, which would have an influence on CO2 emissions.

At the individual level, which you seem to be asking about: if you're that concerned about your carbon footprint / "ethics of mileage running", then just make a donation to your preferred non-profit or political candidate that advocates for policies and practices that curb climate change. Then under some ethical frameworks, you will have "offset" the negative effects of your mileage runs.

JamesBigglesworth

Fewer. Not less.

And yes, the airline might streamline services if there were fewer passengers onboard. But you haven't established that "fewer passengers" = "mileage runners". How many passengers are MR's? Outside the US the practice is essentially unknown. Inside the US what is the percentage per flight? I'd suggest it's probably pretty small.

On a given flight on a given day it's probably insignificant in terms of additional fuel burn. That burn is a sunk cost, so your question is mis-aimed when you ask MR's. Ask the airlines because that's where your question belongs.

You also haven't offered any reasons why we should consider "environmental concerns" over any other. Why single that aspect? Why not single out, say, the healthcare concerns aspect? Or the ethics of the economic impact of taking advantage of mistake fares? The ethics of the economics are directly linked to the MR's, unlike the substantially sunk environmental costs of the flights.

seigex

But then how will they get those precious clicks from a travel forum?

FamTaYul

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that aviation is responsible for around 3.5% of anthropogenic (human sourced) climate change ... (Wikipedia)

That is, all the cargo and all the passengers in the World equals 3.5 %.

Of that 3.5%, mileage runners represent a minuscule fraction.

A non-issue indeed!

Time traveller

I suspect OP has missed out on a large segment of travelers (that are not discussed much here) that affect the environment and they are the non-revs. As a group, they are a huge group and probably a group that is more easily studied as they usually work for the airline industry or are closely related to those working for the airlines.

trooper

I travel as much as I can.... and yes, I don't always take the most direct route. BUT - I purchased a house a short walk from my workplace and drive my car LESS than 5000 miles per YEAR. I would suggest, with little fear of error, that the VAST majority of "your flying is environmentally unsound" types exceed MY carbon footprint significantly - just from THEIR car use....

Lets look at the REAL sources of atmospheric Co2.... but in the sense of "end user certificates"...what do I mean? Simple. I am not at ALL impressed by people who rail against "Big business" and "industry" regarding such things... but who own every product OF these manufacturing concerns.....and continue to consume....

EVERY product should come with a "Climate Change " rating......in the same way that our whitegoods come with electricity consumption ratings... so products with the worst environmental credentials would get 1 Star and so on....(PRIUS batteries anyone? lol) I suppose WE as consumers could try to research the relative "greeneess" of competing products ourselves of course....

skimthetrees

I once did mileage runs when it made sense for me. I agree with previous posters. The plane is flying with or with me.

Also, I would claim that any potential ethical issues of pure mileage runs are owned by the airlines. I would have been happy not to fly my mileage runs if the airline took my money and gave me credit for flying without flying but they will not allow it.

Doug Sauvage

I do feel conflicted about my carbon footprint. But travel is my life passion. I don't want to not see the world while I'm still middle aged in a gesture that will have little impact in the big picture. I'm doing more mileage runs this year than I have before. I went from traveling weekly in 2016 to barely traveling the first half of this year, then decided I wanted to catch up and make 75k. Gold is a lifesaver. today I canceled a mileage run that had me going SEA to JFK and back leaving at 9:30 and back to work by 11:30, but my boss scheduled a 10am meeting that was key, so I canceled just a few minutes before my flight. Now with 75k I will be able to book directly into row 6, which I used to do as a plain MVP but we lost that when premium came on. So as 75k even if I don't get upgraded to first I will have a good roomy coach seat. I do feel a bit conflicted about my contribution to carbon levels but my rationale is the technology will increasing be the solution to rising carbon. I asked myself, do I want to spend the next 20 years forgoing travel to save carbon, only to have the the problem mitigated with technology? by then I'll be 70 and will have missed out on seeing places in the world I've yet to hear about.

MSYtoJFKagain

Trying to drum up drama and traffic for your small blog by virtue signaling on a tiny part of the flying populace.

FCIan

traffic and click bait is only worth doing when you sell advertising space on your blog I don’t. I’m also highly unlikely to find any regular readers from FlyerTalk, as it’s readership is very different from mine.

I am here to challenge unnecessary waste and environmental impact because I am passionate about ethical travel and when you see something wrong you either call it out or become complicit.

I appreciate where sone people are coming from regarding the overall impact of air travel being a small percentage of emissions. Many emissions are essential however. I am talking about reducing waste. Surely if you have the presence of mind to recycle a wine bottle after drinking it, you would also have the presence of mind to fly the most direct route to where you are going?

soneone also said, travel bloggers are more wasteful and if I don’t fly a lot I’m not a real travel blogger. I do fly places but not that much. I work in travel and write more on the ethic of travel and cultural learning. I don’t mind if you want to categorise that as something else.

Virtue signalling is saying something to enhance your social standing in the group you are saying it to. I am saying something which is depreciating my social standing on FlyerTalk so that’s not a valid point either.

869

Or I could act in my own self interest. How much should I pay to fly non-stop when the alternative may cost less than 10% of the N-S flight? This is obviously not MR related, but surely you'd argue that the airline itself should put profits to the side and price their product to encourage "responsible" behavior.

tomasdev

1) No sir, that's not the way airlines work.

2) I see your point, I'm just saying MR is what? less than 0.1% of total flights in the world?

There are less than 700k users in FT. Let's assume that in addition with other forums/blogs there are 1 million people that do MRs every year. Again, probably only 10% of these communities do MRs, but let's assume 1 million (meaning most users)

1 million passengers doing MR
3.6 billion passengers flew during 2016

That's 0.027%

So no, we're not responsible for environmental crisis, whether some of us believe in it or not.

3)
That means shorter flights (such as SYR-LGA) are way worse than longer flights, and here we're all about the long distance, valuing MR by CPM. Go complain to those small towners.

4) Aviation is responsible for 12% of CO2 emissions from all transports sources

5) Renewable energies are a way better option than not-taking-MRs. Buy an electric car. Put solar panels at home.

DO NOT MESS WITH OUR MRs.

atxtraveler

I will discontinue my anthropogenic emittance when we cure the world of volcanoes.

sbjnyc

and cows?