mjcasta

Personally, I think it is only a matter of time with current / projected fuel costs and carbon emissions, before a weight based program is initiated. Some would of course parallel this to freight.

I throw out the thought of weight tariff established as a carbon offset program. Combine total passenger weight with luggage (aircraft weight) and apply an incremental charge. I have heard of a standard per pound charge for other carbon offset programs; but, could not access this at the moment.

Being that this is an offet program, it should also factor the mileage flown as well. This concept is already gaining traction around the world.

A formula of total weight x miles flown x (factor) = offset contribution. To streamline the process, the charges could be done in 500 increments for mileage and 50lb increments for total weight.

Further simplification; but, not accurate would be to designate an aircraft weight based system; with, distance traveled. Perhaps not as easy as PFC calculations; but, along the same line of thought. This would also allow airports to estimate revenue benefits subject to passenger counts and O&D data.

Not a penalty; but, a responsibility.

Expendetures from the program would go exclsuively towards "green" airport programs. Reclaimed and recyled water systems, solar arrays, planting of trees, natural light systems, non carbon emitting vehicles, mass transit options, etc.

Airports could only adopt the "green" credit after submitting detail plans and approval for utilization of the funds. Enforcement would include matching deductions of fedaral dollars for any missapopriation.

Carriers can petition for funds if they are ear marked directly for green initiatives such as non-carbon emitting vehicles, market frequency reductions, sustainable material programs, etc. Similar terms as above.

One early beneficiary will be the Denver Airport which would love to have light rail to the city; but, always shot down as it cannot be funded through PFC's. Being a definition of a green program, this would qualify and be embraced.

Although we had little control of the carbon emiited by the aircraft itself outside of lesser weight, we do have control over the amount of carbon emitted to provide the network to facilitate the flight.


Thoughts??

nd_eric_77

This could lead to some very strange expense report line items... and then clients asking consulting firms to send thinner consultants in order to cut airfare expenses.

Lufthomie

Gee, I sure would feel a whole lot better about myself knowing that I was paying for my greenhouse gas contribution.

I think not, just another way to extract another fee to go to some program where the funds are misdirected.

This sounds like material from Penn and Teller.

Rick Astley

For one thing, you should multiply distance by weight, not add them. They are two different measurements.

Secondly, it's an awful idea that promotes making our already-large government even larger and more intrusive. No thanks!

soitgoes

I think it's a horrible idea that would likely lead to savings for none and increased costs for many.

aviators99

Sorry that I've posted this to multiple threads, but:

If this happens, I want a rebate when I use the restroom for liquid waste.

Totoro

Why only liquid waste? Depending on the amount put out, the solid waste may weigh more

mjcasta

This has nothing to do with savings and all to do with reducing the carbon footprint of air transportation. Well thought out, this could lead to the largest "green" modernization of our airports as we know them.

Investment??? $8.00 - $50 per one way based on weight and miles flown. Who pays for it?? The people who use the aviation system, not the tax payers.

Funny how many will challenge a "green" offset which will fund facilities and services which will have substantial long term benefits; but, not lift a brow at the aditional concession fees charged by many airport services to build new facilities; i.e. rental car companies at SFO, DEN, DFW, etx.

You want to go where?

I would object to it because I don't believe voluntary carbon offset programs work. I can deal with cap and trade, but the voluntary market is, if you'll pardon the pun 'smoke and mirrors'. The only way to deal with carbon is to reduce your carbon footprint, not offset it by planting a theoretical tree which will get cut down by some poor guy who needs the wood to live, assuming it ever really got planted at all.

soitgoes

+1

A lot of the "offset" activity would take place whether or not anyone paid for it.

Occupationalhazard

Yep. And it will make the "moral mafia" happy, as well.

O/H

hobo13

If a tree is planted in the woods, but a greenie isn't told about it, does it still remove carbon from the atmosphere?

boberonicus

The costs of administering a program like this could be significant. Would passengers be weighed at the airport? On what equipment? Who would bear the administrative costs of collecting and distributing the fees? What oversight would be required to ensure that funds are reported, collected, and paid? Might the administrative costs actually exceed the revenue?

Robert

N965VJ

Perhaps the administrative costs could be funded by “fat taxes” levied by the food police.

BearX220

Nonsense. It's impossible to trace the dollars foolishly blown on "carbon offsets" to a cleaner environment. They are generally filtered through some "green" organization whose primary mission is its own upkeep. The way to promote post-carbon technologies is by spending your money with businesses (including airlines) that have the wherewithal to adopt them... not divert cash to puny, absurd tree-planting campaigns led by well-compensated greenies.

EXACTLY right. ^