Flying with a reduced carbon footprint?
Oct 27, 2010, 6:13 pm
#16
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 352
Oct 27, 2010, 6:19 pm
#17
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 352
+1 Totally agree with this. The most efficient, environmentally superior transport mode up to 400 miles in route length is high-speed passenger rail. For example, Eurostar currently claims to operate "carbon-neutral" and sets a good example. For that matter, try to avoid regional jet flights, if that is possible, especially in congested air corridors surrounding major airports. At some of these corridors, high speed rail maybe, or shall we say, should be available instead.
Wide body aircraft such as an A330, A345, 767, 777 and future 787, 747-8I and A350s should be introduced/reintroduced in congested air corridors to maximize capacity and minimize emissions. Why insist pax fly in Y in a narrow body a/c when the real issue here is to provide more capacity on the plane comfortably via a widebody cabin where these planes will generate less emissions per pax for the routes they serve?
Finally, I agree with the above quote. The plane is going to leave with or without you. So you may as well be on the plane...
Wide body aircraft such as an A330, A345, 767, 777 and future 787, 747-8I and A350s should be introduced/reintroduced in congested air corridors to maximize capacity and minimize emissions. Why insist pax fly in Y in a narrow body a/c when the real issue here is to provide more capacity on the plane comfortably via a widebody cabin where these planes will generate less emissions per pax for the routes they serve?
Finally, I agree with the above quote. The plane is going to leave with or without you. So you may as well be on the plane...
More importantly, though, airlines aren't stupid. They pay for fuel!!! Airlines have a huge incentive to fly more fuel-efficient airplanes.
When you see an airline that is not using the most fuel-efficient aircraft on a particular route, there's a good reason for it, and avoiding that flight just to be "green" is not being green, it's being naive.
About a third of the population (the obese) could reduce carbon emissions by airplane or car by losing weight. That would be a REAL reduction, not some phony baloney carbon offset program or something as silly as picking a flight with a "better" aircraft type.
Oct 27, 2010, 10:09 pm
#18
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: Enough to travel better
Posts: 2,020
I think your assumption that a widebody plane is "better" is not true. I read somewhere that the 757 is the most fuel efficient airplane, in terms of fuel per passenger.
More importantly, though, airlines aren't stupid. They pay for fuel!!! Airlines have a huge incentive to fly more fuel-efficient airplanes.
When you see an airline that is not using the most fuel-efficient aircraft on a particular route, there's a good reason for it, and avoiding that flight just to be "green" is not being green, it's being naive.
About a third of the population (the obese) could reduce carbon emissions by airplane or car by losing weight. That would be a REAL reduction, not some phony baloney carbon offset program or something as silly as picking a flight with a "better" aircraft type.
More importantly, though, airlines aren't stupid. They pay for fuel!!! Airlines have a huge incentive to fly more fuel-efficient airplanes.
When you see an airline that is not using the most fuel-efficient aircraft on a particular route, there's a good reason for it, and avoiding that flight just to be "green" is not being green, it's being naive.
About a third of the population (the obese) could reduce carbon emissions by airplane or car by losing weight. That would be a REAL reduction, not some phony baloney carbon offset program or something as silly as picking a flight with a "better" aircraft type.
I think you've quoted my post but tried to discussed other things like fuel efficiency. My argument didn't discussed that. The thoughts above come from the standpoint of travel demand, capacity, travel congestion and how that might affect emissions. OTOH, I am not arguing with you regarding which transport mode one should take within shorter distances to save on carbon footprint, emissions, etc. To me, that is public transport, walking and biking.
All I'm saying is that you might have to take a regional flight, if nothing else convenient is available, then fine, do as you please. For longer flights, what I am trying to say is you may as well fill the seat on the plane, make the airline some money (maybe) and give yourself some mobility because that plane is going to leave whether you're on it or not.
Oct 27, 2010, 10:40 pm
#19
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: BOS
Programs: AA PLT,VS Silver,SPG gold, Hilton, AMEX Plat, BA nothing.
Posts: 3,312
Finally some sensible perspective on this issue. The best way to influence airlines on carbon issues is to patronize carriers that have the intent and wherewithal to invest in cleaner propulsion (Branson / VS, for example)... not pay alms to some murky, disconnected "carbon offset" outfit whose operators are undoubtedly making a nice living playing on peoples' guilt and naivete.
MY wife is always asking me to lower my methane footprint.....