Flying: Low Price, High Cost

It's hard to ask people to believe the science when almost half of all Americans believe we were plunked down on earth in our present form within the last 10,000 years.

so you're saying that going faster by plane requires more energy? fascinating stuff.

oh and the anti-american potshot was so uniquely torontoist.

It's funny because I just flew a Porter flight back from Montreal on Monday, and didn't think the service was that spectacular. The additional cost (over Air Canada) was not really worth it, and the plane was actually quite loud! Now, I would have loved to have gone on the earlier flight when i got to the airport, but I was never told - by anyone on their team - until i saw it leave the gate...when I walked there. I doubt I will fly Porter again - it wasn't worth it - Next time I will take the train, and use both m laptop and mobile phone the whole time...while they are charging to boot!

The argument against flying, in terms of externalities is sound, except that it applies to all flights, not just the airline referred to in the first paragraph.

While the article refers to Porter Airlines flying out of Toronto City Centre, it goes on to argue the point of flying in general. I think the fairer comparison is between the same flight ( to Ottawa for example ), originating from Toronto City Centre and Toronto Pearson. I suspect the answer is that Porter is no worse, and if you factor in the travel on highways required to get anywhere near Pearson, its probably ahead.

The point regarding using the tax system, and more generally the price signal is well made, its far more effective then most methods used to encourage or discourage behaviour. I would support applying this to all flights, on the basis of distance traveled per passenger as a tax against environmental damage.

Cam: Easy for us to forget that flying is already a luxury inaccessible to most in the world. Since it's obvious that if everyone flew as much as we do it would be disastrous (not to mention impossible given remaining supplies of easily available, cheap oil), the least we can do is stop flaunting it.

As for your Economist numbers, as anyone looking at how to accomplish reductions knows there is no one "silver bullet." Sure airline travel is only one small piece of the puzzle, but small pieces are all we have.

I fly a lot for work - mostly back-and-forth to Montreal, but frequently out to Halifax, Calgary and Vancouver as well. Seriously, a lot - probably 3 times a month on average.

I don't think it's news that airplanes are some of the biggest polluters out there. It certainly wasn't news to me. Because these flights are an integral part of my job and can't be avoided, I did what I know a lot of my colleagues do - did some research, and paid to be carbon neutral (gold standard, natch).

The David Suzuki Foundation website has a lot of great information on going this route. I can't link to it here, but if you're someone who flies a lot, or someone who is interested in making their every day, grounded life carbon neutral as well, I recommend starting there and making an educated decision about where to send your money.

Sorry, Chris, but even though you may not mean it that way, it's Sin Tax... a 19th century concept that's absolutely all about opinions and punishment:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin_tax
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_tax_shift

The plane may contribute to climate change, but Porter uses Bombardier Q400 turboprop planes, and they are the least polluting planes (for commercial use) currently in use. Not the best, but better than driving for four hours in a gas guzzling suv or a greyhound behemoth.
His description of the trip was dead on, and it's definitely worth the extra seven dollars an hour.

Its all about a valid comparison.

I could get to Montreal using my bicycle or even walk and it would pollute less. Greyhound or VIA or driving are all much slower the flying for the most part: so they aren't directly comparable.

The only reasonable way is to cost out their relative environmental impacts and other externalities ( which I am confident flying is the greatest) and then tax them according to their per unit impacts; still leaving the customer with a choice of 4 or 5 ways to get to Montreal (or wherever)

You people have got to be joking! Who lets you write this kind of trash?

All those who lobby against this airport don't know what they are talking about. They are spreading nothing but lies about supposed "environmental impacts" and sinister "airport expansion".

Instead of talking in generalities, why don't you do some research and learn the facts?

FACT: Porter is flying THE MOST environmentally friendly aircraft in its class, requiring a fraction of the energy required to move the same number of people by heavy-polluting diesel locomotives. Via Rail is no friend of the environment.

FACT: City Centre Airport has not, nor can it BY LAW, expand. The Tripartite Agreement caps the number of flights, and prohibits jets!

FACT: The City of Toronto and others are using citizens groups to get you to fly out money loosing, bloated, pollution-causing Pearson International Airport. Heaven forbid someone offers innovative competition out of the Island!

People who continually criticize the Island Airport do not know the facts. Many are acting in their own personal interest rather than the environment. If they were they'd be spending more of their time crusading to knock down the Gardiner Expressway than a tiny airport that causes little or no pollution, carries the sick and injured to hospital over choked Toronto highways, and brings business to your city.

Nowhere have I seen such opposition to aviation than in parts of this country. Wake up people! Aviation drives economic growth and is so vital to a country of our size. High speed rail and other more enviro-friendly forms of travel won't work here because we don't have the population base. This is not Europe.

Its time to drop the debate. The airport is here, its well maintained, responsible, it plays a key role for a major city, and is not going away. We can either help support environmentally friendly aviation uses or continue to travel by far more polluting modes.

Jamie and Diane,

These numbers are based on averages from the UK
but they're quite recent:

Bus: 0.076 kgCO2/passenger-km
Passenger Rail: 0.049 kgCO2/passenger-km
Air (short haul): 0.180 kgCO2/passenger-km

since they're using new efficient planes, i would expect porter to have lower emissions than those stated here. but their planes would need to have emissions 60% below the average to be on par with busses. I wouldn't think that is likely.

S. Reinhardt: You're incorrect to claim that flying on Porter causes fewer emissions than taking the train, especially since we're talking about "short-haul" flights, the most polluting per kilometer of all air travel. Please see this graph, linked from here.

People fly because it's fast.

Yes, an obvious statement, but I think that the move away from using planes (an article I read somewhere said that within ten years commercial air travel as we know it will be radically different or gone completely) would have to go hand in hand with other changes-- less 24-hour everything, more vacation time, less demand to be in-office-on-the-ball-using-the-blackberry-every-second... we're just too instantly driven right now.

Everything's gotta give, cos we won't give up one or two time-saving devices on our own.

Jonathan is in good company - Al Gore flew Porter when he came to Toronto a few months back. Remember who he is Chris?

Given that turboprops burn about 2/3 of the fuel per passenger-km of the A320s and B737s of Air Canada and Westjet, we need less of those aircraft and more of Porter's. Yet Chris goes headhunting Porter using figures which include turbofans well as turboprops. Quelle surprise.

www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/perhaps_flying_1.php

Until we have an non-stop ICE, TGV or Shinkansen in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and Edmonton-Calgary corridors, running every hour, like Rapidair at 320km/h, people will choose to fly between these cities. This is existing technology, in service right now, if we have the will to build it. It's not Robert Deluce's job to build it, it's Ontario's, Alberta's, Quebec's and Canada's.

Comparative BTUs by transport modes from 1965.
www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_20.html

If I have to go to Ottawa to install equipment, a nine-hour round trip travel time is unacceptable. If I miss a train, a three hour average wait for the next one is unacceptable. It's unacceptable that there is no early morning VIA from Toronto to Kitchener. For people to use alternatives, there must be real alternatives to use.

Two gripes:

(1) The article seems suspiciously and stupidly motivated against Porter - if all air travel is the problem, as claimed, then why target one airline (is it cynical to suggest that this is island airport agitprop in disguise?). Air Canada/Westjet fly regular Toronto to Ottawa routes as well. As others note, Porter is greener than either of its competitors and, as an added benefit, is faster and thus expends less productive capacity per flight (the money for all your green spending fantasies has to come from somewhere). If you want to attack air travel generally, it is simply lazy and unfair to attach your message to one airline.

(2) To quote:
"These short-run flights are actually comparatively worse than longer flights, since a disproportionately large amount of fuel is used during takeoff and landing."

This is blindingly stupid. On this analysis, a two minute car ride is worse than a 30 minute one and the economically rational way to reduce car emissions would be to eliminate short drives first. If your concern is to reduce total net emissions, you are going about it exactly backwards. Unless the longer flight has somehow found a way to board/release passengers without landing and taking off. If you are trying to make your (very specious) argument, its best not to use a completely bullshit metric.

Sorry folks, you're comparing apples and oranges. Air Canada's load factors in the Toronto/Montreal/Ottawa triangle are close to capacity. Porter doesn't publish its numbers but there is a lot of anecdotal comment that planes are about 25% full and sometimes much less. If you want to calculate emissions per passenger carried, you'll find Porter is a much greater polluter.
Then factor in the empty buses it sends back and forth to the Royal York!
As to the "cost". Bear in mind that Porter is operating with the benefit of a $22 million start up settlement from the federal government and much lower rent and landing fees than Pearson. The cost is being maintained at artificially low levels with taxpayers,dollars. On a level landing field, taking into account these subsidies and lower passenger loads, the economic cost Porter needs to recover is much higher than the considerably more efficient Air Canada flights.

I don't think Chris is vilifying Porter so much as using it as an example of a product where the fiscal costs do not reflect the environmental cost; not as a specific example of a bad airline.

The point of the post was not to point the finger at individual companies, but to bring attention to the fact that, in many instances, it is far more financially viable and convenient to increase emissions than to curb them. If we are honestly going to make an effort to reduce emissions, would it not be a good idea to make environmentally harmful activities less attractive?

Also, to get into the muck of the short haul discussion, short haul flights are considered less efficient because in the course of a day, each plane is likely to make several more take offs and landings than long haul flights, which may only make one or two a day. If you assume that each plane spends the majority of it's day flying, the plane that makes more "stops", if you will, will consume more by virtue of the take off and landings.

x the x:
"This is blindingly stupid. On this analysis, a two minute car ride is worse than a 30 minute one and the economically rational way to reduce car emissions would be to eliminate short drives first."

If you're attempting to prove how stupid the argument is by drawing a comparison to another form of transportation that doesn't use substantially more fuel at the beginning or end of every journey then perhaps you should not be the first to cast the stupid-stones.

I am also eagerly awaiting the hover car revolution, but until then, you don't have a valid argument.

Furthermore, your flawed logic leads you to a sound conclusion (which you actually thought you were discrediting). If everyone resolved to relegate all shorter trips (usually in a car) to lower emission methods such as biking, walking or public transit, that would be a very positive thing. Some trips will necessitate a car, just like some trips will necessitate a plane. It's important that we don't use either frivolously, and paying the actual cost of the choice to use either will help to give us the needed perspective.

True.

Comment #34 added some much needed comic relief to the discussion.

You generate about a driving minute's worth of emissions starting your car. It is a ridiculous comparison.

I never made mention of where my emission reduction focus was, but you seem eager to group me into a category you aready have plenty of reasons to dislike.

The point is that showing the actual cost of these activities is enough for people to make decisions that will reduce emissions overall, regardless of what motivations you attribute to me or other environmentalists.

(1)"You generate about a driving minute's worth of emissions starting your car. It is a ridiculous comparison."

Which, on a two minute drive v. a 30 minute drive, totally fucks the comparison, doesn't it? The emissions generated by the starting of the engine amortized over 30 minutes will always be less than amortized over 2, which will suggest, as the author did and you defended, that the 2 minute drive is worse than the 30. In other words, a bullshit metric which cooks the analysis. As both engines were stated at some point, the consideration of the emissions generated by the starting are irrelevant to the analsyis. What is left? How much emissions are generated in flight, and demonstrably, Porter's are less and therefore a better alternative.

(2) "I never made mention of where my emission reduction focus was"

Oh really? "If everyone resolved to relegate all shorter trips (usually in a car) to lower emission methods such as biking, walking or public transit, that would be a very positive thing."

Not that I disagree that these volunary acts would hurt anyone, but as a public policy, they are inadequate and misleading. If I shelved my car which I drive once a week an ocassionally out of town, what sort of carbon impact would I be making? Put another way, environmentalism, you have my ear: tell me the best way to reduce my carbon footprint which will make the largest impact at the lowest cost. Foregoing one international flight a year? Or two short haul flights? Shelving the car or investing in clean fuels? No one benefits from being sold the lie that by augmenting at the margin their already carbon-efficient urban lifestyles will have a meaningful impact. Finding a substitute energy source to the coal that will fuel the next stage of China's development? I think this is a bit more important if we want to reduce emissions by the numbers suggested.

(3) "but you seem eager to group me into a category you aready have plenty of reasons to dislike." "regardless of what motivations you attribute to me or other environmentalists."

I didn't group you in any group. If you self-identify as a greenie with those beliefs, then the comment would apply, but that is as a result of your choice, not as a result of my intention. As well, hard to believe you are playing wounded when you entered the discussion solely to mock my comment with sarcasm and sactimony.

(4)"The point is that showing the actual cost of these activities is enough for people to make decisions that will reduce emissions overall."

Couldn't agree more that externalities should be factored to provide an inducement to greener consumption. I'd like to think that actual cost should exclude, however, irrelevant considerations. Also, call me skeptical, but by tinkering with the price system of flights (which are already laden with piles of price-distorting taxes, licensing fees, airport imrovement fees (i.e., disguised taxes)) isn't going to make much a difference, and alas won't have a meaningful effect on emissions.

Greener planes and plane fuels that lead to an immediate 1/3 reduction in emissions (per comment 27)? Explain to me why the author and green party candidate is against this again?

None of the energy density/km anaylsis posted here are present an accurate analysis of the specific comparison at hand here. 1) All of the aircraft statistics cited refer to jets, we know the Q400 burns less fuel than jets, in one analysis I've seen as much as 1/3 less but I can't find the data off hand now 2) all of the train statistics cited refer to European electric trains, that's not what we have we have diesel/electric "hydrids", for various reasons our rolling stock is also heavier that most of what is used in the UK, I don't have stats for VIA's per passenger carbon burn but it has to be somewhat more than what has been cited. 3) At least in the case of Ottawa the train, unlike a plane does not take an "as the crow flies" path so it travels somewhat longer distance on the path it does take (Toronto to Kingston along the lake then Northeast through Smiths Falls to Ottawa)

Also keep in mind that a plane, unlike a car actually does burn much less fuel per km at altitude than it does on climb/descent, this is just physics related to the air density. Also take into account the fuel burn related to taxiing at Pearson vs essentially no taxiing at the Island.

I'm suprised that nobody has pointed out that although air travel only makes up about 3% of the total carbon footprint there is a concern that due to the fact that it is being deposited directly into the upper atmosphere where they persist longer than ground level emissions that they therefore contribute much more than 3% to the greenhouse effect, that said since the Q400 flies lower than most jets (on these routes usually 18-20,000 feet, vs. 25-35,000 feet for jets)

One important point - building interurban passenger rail and/or retaining shorthaul flights at City Centre will put off the need for paving over Pickering farmland for the GTAA's long-wanted second airport. [See the GTAA website for details]

Building a new reliever airport on greenspace would be a disgrace and a savage cut into the prospects for local food growing, and I hope this is a point on which we can all agree. Pearson's passengers should be primarily international and served by highspeed regional rail and local mass transit. Existing airports like City Centre and Hamilton should handle short and medium range flights up to their maximum capacities before a shovel is put into Pickering lands, if ever.

@31 John Szold - If Mayor Miller hadn't killed the bridge Porter wouldn't have gotten the settlement dollars (from federal taxes). It also cost the City hundreds of thousands in legal fees. Nice going eh?

Also - the small Porter buses don't go to outside the Royal York but to Station Street, beside Union Station. Anyone willing to take a very short walk can pick up the streetcar to Union and a slightly longer one to Bathurst streetcar.

Personally I would have considered closing a Toronto airport but it would have been Downsview. When Boeing closed their 717 wing plant at Pearson a couple of years ago, there may have been an opportunity to induce Bombardier (who make Porter's planes there) to move into it. The Museum exhibits there could have moved to the Island Airport, making it a part of the lakeshore's cultural attractions together with the annual air show.

The Downsview Airport lands, in my view hugely underutilised could then have been redeveloped in conjunction with the existing Downsview Park to provide a huge opportunity for new housing on a brand new streetscape and employment with a cut-and-cover extension of Sheppard subway to Jane or even Pearson to link up the lines, improve east-west connections to York U and provide mass transit into one of Toronto's most disadvantaged areas.

Unfortunately the opportunity for this has passed and the City would probably have resisted transferring Bombardier taxes to Mississauga.

Diane, you've acknowledged that, 1) The Earth is, on average, getting warmer, 2) that warming is attributable to human activity, 3) there will be negative consequences for us. Since you're speaking as an authority on climactic changes I assume you're familiar with the IPCC's consensus report (which was even watered down due to American pressure), which explains that those consequences will mean death and displacement for hundreds of millions of people. Those who live in poverty will be most affected, while those who are wealthy will have done the most damage. It is morally reprehensible to cast that off as "tough shit," because we've made a decision that our lifestyles are more important than the lives of others.

Climate change is global and extremely complex; the local effects are very difficult to predict. Resource depletion is also global, and the WWF reports that we're now living 25% over the carrying capacity of our only planet. The UN's Millennium Ecosystem Assessment reported that 60% of the world's systems that support life are in decline.

Read that last sentence again. You should be thinking: "Life. Wait a minute, I'm alive! I need those systems!" For anyone else having a hard time identifying the difference between what's good for the environment and what's bad for it, here's a hint. Good means we maintain our ability to grow food, drink clean water, and breath the air. Bad means we loose any or all of those perks. And we're headed for very bad.

That's not anthropocentric; that's survival instinct.

Wow. Pretending that scientific consensus (in the form of the IPCC report, and every single article published in a peer-reviewed journal in the last decade, for example) doesn't exist is one thing. Suggesting that the obliteration of the human race wouldn't matter is another. I think we're done here.

Do remember that King Canute yelled at the waves in a demonstration of humility—the exact opposite of the hubris that's now threatening to be our undoing.

"Pretending that scientific consensus (in the form of the IPCC report, and every single article published in a peer-reviewed journal in the last decade, for example) doesn't exist is one thing..."

Every single article? Do you seriously mean that literally? Or will you claim that any counter-examples are not sufficiently "peer-reviewed" (and therefore outside the consensus)?

And note that it's hardly surprising that the IPCC reached a consensus, since the panel members were selected with that criteria in mind.

Note also that scientific consensus has been that the Earth is flat, was created in six days and sits at the centre of the universe... that evolution in false... that the heart is the seat of emotions... etc.

"...Suggesting that the obliteration of the human race wouldn't matter is another."

Your reading comprehension skills really are appalling. I never suggested it wouldn't matter to humans, only that it wouldn't matter much to the environment.

"Do remember that King Canute yelled at the waves in a demonstration of humility—the exact opposite of the hubris that's now threatening to be our undoing."

You're right about King Canute. But suggesting that we can control the environment with political action is the real act of hubris.

BTW, Porter is much more expensive than Via Rail. If, for example, I wanted to go to Montreal this weekend, it would cost 250 dollars for Via, and 660 dollars for Porter. The big difference is that Porter takes just over an hour, and the train takes at least 4 hours.

Whenever someone talks about the developing world being allowed or aided in reaching our standard of living I can't help but hear "so they're equally to blame for the mess we started and have known the drawbacks of for decades". The world - developed or not - will not benefit from another 600 million SUVs on the road, sating the 'needs' of a new billion-strong middle class.

Why is the alternative always framed as us losing out and them staying put? Why can't we change our standard of living to something more efficient and sustainable, and help the developing world develop in the same direction? Why shouldn't China and India and Malawi benefit from the last 20 years of environmental research and standards implemented in the West?

Diane, there is not a scientist in the world who would not jump at the chance to make a discovery that throws everything we know about the climate into complete disarray. Not one. As Thoreau, one of the commenters at the excellent libertarian blog Unqualified Offerings (and a scientist working with polymers) put it while dismantling precisely the argument you're putting up here (emphasis added):

I will simply argue that it isn’t they key issue here: While federal funds are a huge part of academic science, not all science is done in academic labs. Industrial and foundation labs may publish far fewer papers, but their researchers are still active in the community and serve as an important check. The fact that their findings so often match those of publicly funded researchers, and the fact that publicly funded researchers produce results that industry successfully builds on, suggests that while public funding is not necessarily efficient it is at least not a significant source of dishonesty or groupthink in basic science. Also, I could observe that science funding is generally competitive. Yes, yes, competition for public funds is still competition for public funds, but at the same time it is at least a competition based on data. Finally, and most important, there is great fame and glory in store for somebody who can prove a bigshot wrong, no matter how many federal grants that bigshot might have.

Well, no, Diane. You don't know much about him. If you did, you wouldn't have made a joke about inventing the Internet. See, here's the thing:

1. Vint Cerf, who is a vice-president at Google and the ACM's Turing Award winner in 2004 for inventing (along with Bob Kahn) the TCP/IP protocol suite that underpins the modern global Internet, thinks that Al Gore made a perfectly "straightforward" statement about his role in crafting the modern Internet, and that "[n]o one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President".

2. Diane, who is not vice-president of anything at Google, has never done anything worthy of the ACM's Turing Award, and has authored no Internet protocols that are used by millions of computers every day, thinks it's funny to take a cheap shot.

That's the sort of thing that shows your interest in the world as it actually exists is very, very low. In the purest sense of the word, you are ignorant. You know very little, refuse to learn, think nothing of actual domain experience, and have built a rationalization for all this being a good thing. (You looked at a page on Wikipedia? Well, here's a cookie.) And everything you've said so far shows that all this applies to your opinions on climate change, too.

I mean, even when you claim that you've learned something and agree "wholeheartedly", you haven't and you aren't. The scientist who wants to upset the apple cart - the real scientist who actually exists in the real world as opposed to your strawman creation - will go out there and prove global warming is all a farce. Why? Because every non-wingnut scientist thinks it's real. There will be no fame for being the 5214th guy to look at the evidence and see manmade climate change. Nobody will give a damn about that. You will not get onto the front page of the New York Times for finding more support for the consensus theory; you won't even get onto the front page of the Peterborough Observer.

Everyone who studies the history of science knows the name of Francesco Redi. Nobody who studies the history of science knows the names of the hundreds of other scientists whose work supported the theory of spontaneous generation.

Again: we have a case where every non-wingnut scientist thinks X, even if George W. Bush disagrees. You are trying to claim that therefore the scientific rebels are the ones who go out and prove X even harder! Because oil companies and rich white men!!! That's how they will get into the record books! That doesn't pass the sniff test. It doesn't even pass the laugh test. It might need cheat notes for the what-are-you-smoking test.

Go talk to some real scientists doing real science. (You can find a pile of them blogging at scienceblogs.com.) Ask them whether they'd rather be the one who makes a breakthrough or the one who supports the consensus. You might even find some real climate scientists out there you could email. Brace yourself and your sticking-it-to-The-Man-through-complete-agreement-with-the-establishment theory for disappointment if you do, though.

Dear Diane,

Please stop talkin' about me like you knooow me.

Love,
Science

Science gave me herpes.

Sorry for showing up so late... I just wanted to say that I am no longer worried about anthropogenic climate change, since the imminent arrival of peak oil and the end of cheap energy will likely see us all biking to Ottawa well before the environment collapses.

This scenario is already widely enough accepted that oil companies like BP and Chevron (who after all, have the inside track on how much oil is left) are now running ads warning us about it.

Stay with me, I'm sure I had a point when I came in here.

Oh yeah, it's one of those good news, bad news things - good for Gaia, not so much for industrial society. If you can't stand Al Gore and need a non-tree hugging reason to kick the hydrocarbon habit, the collapse of civilization works for me.

Like Patrick, I’m also late in the game here. Please excuse the poor decorum re longer posts, but many of you seem to want the real science on aircraft fuel emissions. Here are the answers and clarifications to some of the posts:

1. AIRCRAFT EMISSIONS

Jet / Turboprop averages per 1,000 Kilos (1,254 litres) of jet fuel burned:

CO2 = 3187 kg / 2744 kg
H2O = 1239 kg / 1067 kg
NOx = 21.12 kg / 18.19 kg
SO2 = 0.98 kg / 0.84 kg
CO = 0.56 kg / 0.48 kg

2. Automobile CO2 emissions:

Auto emission rates per unit of gasoline burned are very similar in fact to aircraft emissions. For example, a small car with fuel performance of 6.4 litres per 100 kilometres will emit 3.0 kilos of CO2 per kilo of gasoline burned. The differentiation, though, is on the release of water vapour at ground level versus high altitude. The high-level contrails and cirrus clouds created by H2O emissions are a problem not faced by ground based transport modes. And water vapour, not CO2, is the main global concern in terms of aviation emission impacts.

3. Inaccurate statements:

Post 15: Q400 is not the least polluting aircraft for commercial use. Emissions are essentially a function of amount of fuel burned. Yes, the more fuel efficient (as measured purely by fuel used per hour) an aircraft, the less emissions. In the case of the Q400, there are more fuel-efficient aircraft out there, including the ATR 72. The Q400 on a typical mission burns 1286 litres of fuel per hour, while the ATR 72 burns 823 litres. The airline industry normally measures fuel performance on a unit basis – per Available Seat Kilometre or per passenger.

To best understand fuel in the context of emissions, it is more valid to measure fuel performance on a per passenger basis (versus total available seats), or on another measurement, per Revenue Passenger Kilometre. Further, because each route flown is distance, the definitive unit measurement also takes distance into account.

Post 16: Air Canada no longer has Boeing 727 jets in its fleet. In fact, they retired the fleet type 15 years ago in 1992. But yes, the Boeing 727’s were definitely gas-guzzlers compared to modern commercial jets; for example, they consumed at least 800 litres per hour more than a similar capacity Airbus A320.

Post 19: Same comment as for Post 15. See aircraft stats I show below. The Q400 is not necessarily best-in-class for fuel consumption.

Post 21: From the UK rate of 0.180 kg you quote of CO2 per passenger kilometre for short-haul flights, that is closer to narrow-body jets. See the data below for turboprops as well.

Post 31: Excluding a relatively small 3.5% carrying cost of fuel per hour, the fuel burned and emissions discharged are what they are. Whether you fly full, half full, or empty, the fuel and emissions in total will be about the same. Also, generally, a larger aircraft generally uses more fuel and discharges more emissions per hour of flight. But yes, in an environmental context, you are right in that it comes down to fuel consumption and emissions let out per passenger or passenger kilometre.

Post 31 again: Even if talking on a per passenger basis, you can’t generalize about Air Canada flights just because the load factor has been in the low-mid 80% range lately. As I will show below, on a short haul flight using a jet versus a comparative Porter flight, select Air Canada jets burn more fuel and discharge more emissions per passenger and per passenger kilometre than either a Porter Q400 or the (other quoted turboprop here) ATR 72.

Post 32: Re the first part of your response to short versus long haul flights. Sorry, Chris is right per Post 8 and you are wrong. What you subsequently say is right, in that the ratio of absolute fuel burned during takeoff/landing is higher for short haul than for long haul flights. But what Chris implied, and I will clarify, is the different comparative “rates” of burn for each of three distinct phases of flight – climb, cruise and descent.

For example, a 140-seat Airbus A320 jet will consume 3 times more fuel on a per hour basis during its climb phase than during cruise. In comparison, a 70-seat Q400 turboprop consumes only 2 times more fuel during climb versus cruise. On the basis of this comparison, turboprops are more fuel-efficient than jets, making them more efficient for short haul flights.

Post 64: Not sure where your data is from. But this is what I see, based on an average distance of 370 kilometres (equal to the 200 nautical mile distance in your example), in terms of litres per passenger, assuming a slightly lower load factor of 75%:

- Q400 (70-seat capacity/52.5 avg. seats filled) = 28.4 fuel litres/passenger
- ATR 72 (68-seat capacity/51 avg. seats filled) = 22.0 fuel litres/passenger
- Economy car, 7.5 Lt/100 (5 seat capacity/2 avg. seats filled) = 13.1 fuel litres/passenger
- Mid-large car, 12.5 Lt/100 (5 seat capacity/2 avg. seats filled) = 21.9 fuel litres/passenger
- ERJ-175 jet (73-seat capacity/54.8 avg. seats filled) = 42.2 fuel litres/passenger
- Airbus A320 jet (140-seat capacity/105 avg. seats filled) = 30 fuel litres/passenger

Clearly, the ATR 72 (or Q400 for that matter) does not enjoy an 11% reduced rate of fuel consumption per passenger versus a typical, smaller European car nor versus a larger car. In fact, when you look below at the CO2 per passenger kilometre, the ATR 72 is actually 3% higher than a typical small car.

4. Emissions (kilograms) per Passenger Kilometre:
Here are the rates most pertinent to this discussion, for a 370-kilometre route with 75% of seats filled:

(a) CO2 / H2O

Q400 turboprop = 0.127 kg / 0.049 kg
ATR72 turboprop = 0.093 kg / 0.036 kg
ERJ-175 jet = 0.290 kg / 0.113 kg
A320 jet = 0.206 kg / 0.080 kg
Small car (2 seats filled) = 0.090 kg CO2 / H2O not available

5. Ticket taxes to artificially suppress demand:

It is valid to compare total costs that go into mounting any transport over an equivalent journey length, then on a per passenger kilometre basis. But I disagree with the punitive approach. Globally, air transportation is already a highly taxed form of transport.

In this country, for example, there are typically 7 taxes and surcharges on a domestic ticket, and GST applies not just to the base fare, but also to the Nav Canada fee, Air Transport Security Charge and Airport Improvement Fee. And in addition to a fuel cost surcharge there is also an Insurance surcharge. On a $100 one-way ticket between Toronto and Ottawa, taxes and surcharges are equal to 60% of the base fare.

Bottom line, in this country our passengers already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes and fees. It is a similar story in Europe. And passengers there could see additional fees if the E.U. succeeds in bringing airlines into the E.U. carbon trading scheme.

Airlines and engine makers have made tremendous strides the past 20 years in fuel efficiency. For their part, airlines are undergoing comprehensive reviews on how to operate their aircraft more efficiently – and are implementing the savings. Airlines are also working with civil aviation authorities to find more direct routings in order to save fuel by reducing distances.

Unfortunately, governments don’t always keep stride with the airline sector’s drive for efficiency. For example, airlines have been lobbying hard in Europe and elsewhere to simplify air traffic control networks, to enable more efficient handling and routing of aircraft both in the sky and at airports. For example, in addition to indirect routings, aircraft holding on the ground because of congested airports or congested airspace waste massive amounts of fuel. The airline sector is still waiting for many improvements in these areas.

The linear footprint of airline carbon emissions is only 2%-3% of total global emissions from all sources – and it is true that burning a kilo of fuel at 15 kilometres altitude has 4 to 5 times the impact as at sea level.

The airline sector is already taxed and fee-levied to death. Before you start imposing mandatory carbon taxes on passengers, you should also think about the impact on airline cargo…to be fair cargo would have to be included. You may have to re-consider biting into a Chilean strawberries in the middle of a Canadian winter when a carbon air tax makes that already expensive, but long-distance transported foreign fruit, that much more expensive.

If voluntary carbon offset schemes make any of us feel better about the airline rides we take, great. But if you really want to reduce the emission source (air travel) versus a feel good offset credit (which I do not dispute likely work as intended), instead of levelling a punitive tax you should simply consider flying less…perhaps by reducing trips to only those that are absolutely necessary. Instead of flying quarterly from Calgary to Chicago, perhaps next year you will find that three trips per year will suffice.

Robert J. Kokonis

President, AirTrav Inc.
Partner, BMB Fuel Consulting Services Inc.