Environmental Issues and Aircraft

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
2,731
Location
Toronto, Canada
Does anyone know the pollution emitted by aircraft per passenger-mile? I would think it is many times that emitted by the automobile. Yet I never hear environmental groups kick up any fuss about aircraft. Greenhouse emissions (CO2) must be much higher with aircraft. Besides, in the larger scheme of things, the average person going to work or shopping seems to me a more necessary function than someone flying to a vacation spot. IMO we need to tax jet fuel a lot more and apply that money towards reducing the overall tax burden on the average working family.
 
The C02 emissions are merely a footnote IMO.

The real 'meat' is in vapor trails. After 9/11, when no planes were flying, the average temp rose 2-3degrees F. I found that utterly amazing that airplanes alone cause that to happen solely due to the vapor trails! Amazing!!

"Trails of condensation held
In narrow paths of white
The sun is turning black
The world is turning gray"

Buster, Schmoe???
grin.gif
 
Not everyone flys for pleasure in fact I know many folks who fly for work on their own dime. I fly to and from work like most people commute in a car. Airlines(well their customers) already have a hefty tax levied on them per flight.

In addition if you drove 120 people from Houston to Seattle you actually think it will use less fuel? Heck, carpool them all in buses and it still would use more fuel and putting all them airline travelers on the road would really mess up interstate traffic.

Just for a rough guesse I think a 737 I regularly ride on uses an average of 900 gallons of fuel per hour. My regular time between gates of those two cities is 4.5 hours or 4050 gallons of fuel(this is averaged for havy taxi and take off fuel loads and light desent loads). Divided on a light load of 120 passengers we are looking at 33.75 gallons of fuel consumed per passenger between Houston and seattle. If each had to drive a car they would need to get over 72 MPG per passenger. You get them all(unrealisticly) in a 4 passenger car and it is obtainable at 18mpg per passenger But then you are putting 30 more cars on the road for each route. With all the extra traffic on surface roads getting good fuel effeciency is going to be more difficult and we haven't even gotten into the time factor or business impacts and revenue losses to companies and indivisuals who require timely travel in this get it done by tommorow morning business culture.

If you don't like the price of fuel, buy less.
 
"get it done by tomorrow business culture". How much of this culture is a consequence of the ease of air travel? I question the necessity of so much air travel. Taking your example of a trip from Houston to Seattle, how many people would drive by car if air travel wasn't available? I am guessing a lot fewer. In other words, a lot less fuel gets burned. Your Houston to Seattle passenger is burning 33.75 gallons of fuel in 4.5 hours, it takes a lot more time to use up that much fuel in a car. My point is that the availability of cheap air travel encourages a lot of extra fuel consumption. People think nothing of flying half way around the world. The same amount of fuel keeps my automobile running for months.
 
quote:

Originally posted by ToyotaNSaturn:
The C02 emissions are merely a footnote IMO.

The real 'meat' is in vapor trails. After 9/11, when no planes were flying, the average temp rose 2-3degrees F. I found that utterly amazing that airplanes alone cause that to happen solely due to the vapor trails! Amazing!!


grin.gif


What? Human activity, or the lack of it, influence temperature?
Ridiculous.
tongue.gif
 
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.
 
i saw a tv show once that said it takes less fuel to travel by jet compared to having the same ammount of people travel in groups of 2-3 per car to the same destination.
 
Life is a trade off.

300 people get in SUV's and drive from Rackdic to Bumfert, 1500 miles. All the fuel, all the stops, eating, stopping for craping, you'reaneighting, wear and tear, lubes, etc

Different 300 people with same buttweight fly to Bumfert from Rackdic in the same plane......

Which is worse? Dunno.
 
Not to mention the fact that engine manufacturers are trying harder than ever to squeek more fuel efficiency out of jet engines than ever before given the rise in jet fuel prices.

Also notice how many engines are on new airplanes these days. Even on long haul planes, 2 engines is becoming more and more the norm, replacing the old three-holers. A lot of that is in the name of fuel consumption.
 
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.

Well, you can always subsedize it and allow more people freedom. That's a good thing. (yes, I'm trying to figure where you were coming from and how it applied to these issues
confused.gif
)

If it's that important and necessary for you to fly so much ..somewhere along the line someone is picking up the tab and passing it on to those whom are the ultimate beneficiaries of your travel.

Under the freedom theory ..heck let's lift the CFC bans ...DDT ..diazinon ..lead paint ..leaded fuel. I WANT TO RUN LEADED FULL IN A NEW CAR and have a nice old fashion lead paint finish!!! My freedom is important!! Squeeze the slimes ..I'm more important than that!!!
tongue.gif
 
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".
 
Bryanccfshr, my only point is that there's no "free ride" on evironmental issues. Someone pays sooner or later. If you pollute now ..pay now. Otherwise you end up with one of those "privatized profits/socialized costs" deals. Freedom isn't even an issue in the mix of it for me. I don't expect to be able to afford all that I do today ..in the future ..at least without more work or sacrifice somewhere else.
dunno.gif


We're in for RADICAL alterations to our energy and environmental 'scape in a very short time. Business as usual is going to mean another word for change ..and not for the better in terms of costs.
 
Shannow,

Jet and diesel are not taxed? Diesel is taxed more here than gasoline and aviation fuel only 2.5 cents per gallon less than diesel. The way, in theory, transportation taxes are collected and spent through trust funds makes each mode pay its own way.

Jet airliner efficiency has come a long way. When the Boeing 707 was flying, each passenger could drive a Cadillac to the destination on the same amount of fuel.
 
The other thing to consider is that passenger aircraft are carrying more than just passengers when considering the cost per passenger mile.

I know we get parts on what's called an NFO or next flight out basis for critical computer systems.

Mail is carried and other small packages are shipped on passenger aircraft.

I don't know how you spread out the costs to accurately reflect that, perhaps costs / tonmile or some other measurement that reflects weight transported a certain distance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top