Environmental Issues and Aircraft

[warrior pilot]

Airlines pay a fee to use the airports. Airlines pay a fee per passanger for security, air traffic control weather services. heck, they want to take over the air traffic control cause they think they can do it better and cheaper. Yes we pay for everything in aviation. No free rides here unless you're a congressman going on a junkit... Errr official business

 

[Gary Allan]

Is the FAA totally sustained by aviation? That is, are no "general funds" given to sustain the bureaucracy

Or is it like the dept that allows trees to be cut down. The tab figured out to $5 for every $1 they charged to private industry for the environmental impact studies and whatnot.

 

[rpn453]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:
Down here, there's the continued debate about subsidisation of the flight industry.

Govt argues that they aren't subsidised, while the rest of us pay 50c/l plus for any petroleum fuel used for transport.

When the call is made to tax airlines like motorists, bus companies, and trains, the airlines complain that they "couldn't compete".

---

That would anger me; they simply shouldn't exist if they can't do it without subsidization.

I've also wondered how the emissions standards of jet engines compare to those of automobiles.

Whatever process costs less almost certainly uses less total energy, and I still haven't found flying to be close to as cost-effective as driving alone in a mid-sized car for me. That's only for trips of 1500 miles or less though, since I've never gone very far. Flying might be more cost-effective for longer trips.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

As you may know Gary I work in the oil production industry. I was hired to work in Alaska but given the choice and the limited housing available in that state at a cost I could afford like many of my co-workers commute from the lower 48. Not only is it cost effective but it is time saving as well it would take more than a week to make the drive to work. If ground transport was effecioent we would have to ride a bus from anchorage to deadhorse....Instead 5 round trips are made a day to transport the workforce back and forth to anchorage .. Each worker is on an everage of a 2 week on and off schedule. If it was cheaper for the oil companies to drive us.. they would.

 

[OriginHacker21]

On the topic of gas with airplane vs car:

I work 220 miles away from home and carpool with a co-worker who also owns a small private plane (Mooney) which we sometimes take.

Car averages 37MPG (1.8 gallons per hour)???
Airplane averages 9 gallons per hour

Car uses 6 gallons for 220 miles.
Plane uses 11 gallons at the end of the day. (Not counting gas to drive from airport to house and airport to work).


Takes car about 1 hour and 45 minutes for 110 miles. Avg. 4 hours for full 220 miles.
Takes plane 30 minutes to fly from airport to airport with 15+15minutes to drive from house to airport and airport to house. So 1 hour each way with plane. (2 hours per day)


With price of gas - you save a lot (20+ per day) driving the car at the cost of time. But the airplane does "pollute" quite a bit more than a car.

Hope that provides some input with environmental issues and aircraft...

 

[George7941]

Even if aircraft consumed less fuel per passenge-mile, it is the enormous energy consumption that aircraft enable that has me concerned. To take the example of living in the lower 48 states and flying to Alaska every two weeks, if air travel wasn't so cheap the oil companies would have their workers live in Alaska for much longer periods of time, maybe six months at a time. Then there would be no aircraft or car travel back and forth from Alaska. To slam me because I am Canadian is a cheap shot, I don't like Socialism any more than you so, unfortunately it is true that Canadians, in general, are more Socialist than Americans. Just because you are concerned about the environment does not necessarily make you a Socialist. The automobile has been heavily criticized by the Environmentalists and deservedly so IMO, I just do not see much criticism of airtravel from the Environmentalists

 

[Jimbo]

George,

You havent been following the European take on this. The "greens" want to tax airline travel more specifically to reduce the amount of it. This, I think, is what you are talking about.

France is trying to tax aviation fuel more to "feed the hungry in Africa". I dont know what that has to do with the environment, but heck, why not?

The International Civil Aviation Organization happens to have its HQ in Canada. Most countries in the world with airlines sign ICAO treaties. One of those treaties basically requires that aviation fuel taxes be used for aviation uses. Canada charges additional fees for all air traffic control services, so I doubt that general funds subsidize aviation.

Here in the USA, trust fund dollars to get intermingled with general funds in order to reduce the deficit numbers, and then are handed out by congress to fund the FAA and other transportation agencies, giving the appearance that income taxes are being used for transportation. It gets worse. Congress recently passed a law diverting jet fuel taxes into the highway trust fund. This furthur subverts the whole concept of each transportation mode paying its own way.

 

[rpn453]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bryanccfshr:
Sounds socialist to me. Redistrubution of energy...Ooops never mind I see where your from now and you see nothing wrong with theft and taking freedom from others.

---

C'mon, I know you love us!

I didn't even notice the tax comment on the original post. I think taxes should be standardized, and not favor any particular industries. Any excess tax should only be used for purposes directly related to and supporting the industry being taxed. Free markets must be allowed for society to progress.

Sort of

A healthy blend of socialism and capitalism is a necessity! We need to work together AND we need to be rewarded for our contributions.

 

[javacontour]

My tax plan has always been to tax everyone from the ages of 2X (say 21, 25, whatever) to 70 at their portion of a set of core government services. National Defense, International Relations, and Defense of the Constitution.

Do away with the IRS and put each member of the house in charge of collecting the money from his/her district by monthly, quarterly, or annual billing.

I would outlaw ALL tax deductions from paychecks, forcing the government to send tax bills and citizens to pay the taxes to their representative.

This would show them exactly what they are paying for, it would level the playing field, since everyone benefits from these core, constitutionally mandated federal services, and everyone would know who their congressman was.

EVERYONE in that taxible age group would pay the EXACT same amount as everyone else. No more taxing the "rich" at higher rates, no more giving free rides to folks who cannot or will not get a better job. No more taxing citizens for every federal government boondoggle. There will still be boondoggles, but a lot fewer.

For everything else federally, such as the FAA, the costs would be charged to those using the services. So those taxes would be charged only to those who use or directly benefit from those services, such as passengers or those who ship by air.

People don't neighbor any more. I believe a big part of this is because the federal government has stepped in to take care of folks and we now have a generation of folks who don't feel the need to do so.

Start cutting the net, let folks know that the government will ONLY defend the US from others. All that other stuff is rightfully yours, your states and your local governments job.

Look at the fallout from Katrina. The news was more about who was going to blame who instead of getting the job done.

So get the federal government out of the picture. People will still help, and it may even be more effective if Uncle Sam is only occupied with National Defense.

 

[Matt_S]

I can't seem to find a number on this right off hand, but I think if you look at the number of miles people travel everyday by car, boat, train, bus, air, etc. you'd find that air travel accounts for a relatively small number of miles compared to various forms of road transport, especially cars. Based on what I've seen, air travel creates slightly less CO2 per passenger mile than the average car with only one driver and no passengers. Trains and busses can easily exceed planes in this respect.

Given that, I think environmentalists have chosen to focus on the form of transportation where they can have the biggest impact: cars. Also, companies like GE are leading the way in terms of creating cleaner, more efficient jet engines. As the older jets are phased out of service, the amount of pollution they're responsible for will decrease accordingly.

Also, let's not lose sight of the fact that we've come a LONG way in terms of air pollution and the environment. It used to be common for industries and even home owners to burn coal for heat. Now that's rare, being relegated to utilities and only a few industries. Where it does exist, it's heavily regulated. At the height of the industrial revolution, we were in much worse shape than today. This doesn't mean we should give up and stop looking for ways to improve, but we've definitely made a LOT of progress over the years, as much as some don't want to acknowledge that.

 

[Bryanccfshr]

I apologize for the slam on your nationality, I love Canadians in many ways.
Air travel is here to stay an d I dearly depend on it as many depend on ground transportation to get to work.
If you worked in an industry that required you to travel to far corners of the earth to get to work sites (many of which you would not want to bring your family to) then you would probably appreciate airtravel more. If wasn't doing my job someone else would have too so if I dropped out of my field Someone else would have to step into my place.
In the time that I typed this 1875 barrels of crude were delivered to port from my worksite.

 

[outrun]

Jet travel is hear to stay. I have no objection to projects such as GE's new engines

Greedy Goverments seeking to enviro tax already endangered carriers is beyond me. What do greens expect us to do? Ride Titanics across the Atlantic when we only get 30 days vacation to begin with?

 

[oilyriser]

I'm always amazed that a jet plane can do 60 or 70 passenger-mpg, going at 700 miles per hour. If my car could go that fast, it would get about 3 mpg.

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Greedy Goverments seeking to enviro tax already endangered carriers is beyond me. What do greens expect us to do? Ride Titanics across the Atlantic when we only get 30 days vacation to begin with?

---

It took me 12 years to get 20 days of vacation. You're in an extremely small minority. If your position makes 30 days vacation easily attainable (an upper post in some company) ..then you can surely afford the higher tariff that may be levied against air travel for it's excess use of fuel.

Keep in mind, people, that effiency can only get you so far. Total usage will surely trump effiency when stuff gets too expensive. Most air travel is unnecessary when compared to altnatives AT SOME COST. When the resources are expensive enough ..you'll see the non-need for a great deal of air travel.

 

[MarkC]

"In the time that I typed this 1875 barrels of crude were delivered to port from my worksite."

And 11,800 barrels were consumed. ( A conservative estimate).

 

[javacontour]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gary Allan:

quote:

---

Greedy Goverments seeking to enviro tax already endangered carriers is beyond me. What do greens expect us to do? Ride Titanics across the Atlantic when we only get 30 days vacation to begin with?

---

It took me 12 years to get 20 days of vacation. You're in an extremely small minority. If your position makes 30 days vacation easily attainable (an upper post in some company) ..then you can surely afford the higher tariff that may be levied against air travel for it's excess use of fuel.

Keep in mind, people, that effiency can only get you so far. Total usage will surely trump effiency when stuff gets too expensive. Most air travel is unnecessary when compared to altnatives AT SOME COST. When the resources are expensive enough ..you'll see the non-need for a great deal of air travel.

---

Or the US military where everyone gets 30 days leave/year.

But Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays are considered leave if they are included in your dates for leave.

Of course, maybe you can get a pass instead of leave.

But that's one organization where you get the same leave, regardless of tenure.

 

[Gary Allan]

That's about the only exception that I can think of. But I doubt that unless your duty station is somewhere in NATO that a family trip Europe is in your plans.

 

[Matt89]

Sure, I get 30 days paid leave a year...but good luck taking them

Between duty stations every 3-4 years you can swing 20+ days if your command can afford it or makes it a priority.

Ironically, sometimes it feels like it's not worth taking leave because you end up working twice as hard before (to prepare for it) and after (to catch up)...I imagine a lot of people in supervisory positions / salary jobs feel that way.