Route of All Evil

Umbra on driving versus flying, again 13

Dear Umbra,

Your recent answer to the plane/train question prompts me to ask something that has always bothered me but that my little old brain can't figure out on my own. I know that planes are worse than other forms of transportation, but the plane is going to fly whether I'm on it or not. So I always wonder if it's really better for me to drive to Chicago in my car than it would be to grab an empty seat on a plane that's already going that way. In that sense, isn't it like the bus? Yes, the bus pollutes more than my car, but it has to drive the same route every day whether I get on or not. I understand that by buying a plane ticket, I am generating demand that the airlines then supply, in theory. They might add more routes and so forth. But that seems more like an issue for a regular traveler, not for a once-a-decade plane trip to Europe. Please help me get my head around this!

Beverly B.
Louisville, Ky.

Dearest Beverly,

Thank you. Two little old brains are better than one, so together perhaps we can puzzle through the good points you raise. Those of you who have just joined our travel smackdown, please visit the prior trains vs. cars and cars vs. planes question and the lively discussion that followed my thrilling use of math.

Give buses a transporting chance.

Have you heard that airlines are starting to charge fees for luggage -- not to mention using lighter-weight beverage carts, seats, and silverware -- to keep down fuel costs? From a fuel perspective, each additional passenger is like a giant walk-on suitcase. A heavier plane requires more energy to fly, hence it burns more fuel and emits more greenhouse gases than a lighter plane. For that reason, estimates of greenhouse-gas emissions for air travel are always accompanied by qualifiers about numbers of passengers. So weight is one reason not to jump on a plane.

Another reason is that -- as you rightly suspected -- the trips we take encourage those airlines to keep flying. Supply and demand affects air carriers much the same way it impacts the bus business. We can easily imagine how this works with the latter. Say we're making last-minute plans to travel from Louisville to Chicago for a windy weekend. We check the bus schedule, discover there are two buses per day, and buy tickets for one of the routes. We board the bus, and see that on a Friday it's practically deserted.

What would we logically conclude from our lonely ride with more-than-ample seat choices and full access to the bathroom? That few people choose to travel from Louisville to Chicago this way. And it would be no surprise the next year to find that the bus company had slashed the number of trips on that route. Likewise, if our bus had been sold out, we wouldn't be surprised if the services increased.

Bus companies -- whether they're offering intercity bus service (between cities) or local routes in town -- will supply vehicles to meet demand. That's logical, right? It doesn't matter whether you buy tickets far in advance or at the last minute; for intercity buses it doesn't matter whether you commute daily or hop on once a fortnight. Transit companies have figured out the typical load and try to serve that load. We all generally accept this rationale, and there's no reason not to extend it to the airline industry.

Just thinking of yourself as a surprise airline client doesn't discount you as a demand generator, either. In order to snag a decent profit, carriers have to take into account the frequently flying businesswoman and the once-yearly international vacationer. You, the individual traveler, matter to the airlines. And what the world needs now is fewer flying travelers and fewer planes in the air. So it's truly better not to fly if you can avoid it.

Buses, on the other hand, need your support. Out of all our road transportation options, intercity buses are the best choice vis-à-vis global warming. Within cities, meanwhile, buses are often the only form of public transport (one that's relatively kind to planet and pocketbook). Both types of bus services will be easy to expand if demand was to grow, and demand must grow. Though, like me, you may wish we could all ride affordable and frequent trains, the infrastructure for instantly expanding rail travel is simply not here. We need to increase our use of mass transit. Support buses by riding them when you can and voting to fund them when asked. And enjoy your trip to Chicago.

Windily,
Umbra

 

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. John former Marine Posted 4:22 am
    04 Aug 2008

    How much difference does weight make to a bus?I know that airplanes use more fuel the heavier your luggage is (although, apparently nobody has thought to charge passengers by the pound...that wouldn't be politically incorrect in today's fatso America).  How about buses?  Do they use significantly more fuel when you bring two suitcases instead of one or is the difference not measurable?  
    Also, while we're on the subject, I think that airplane tickets should be generated using a per seat and per pound formula.  There's no reason that I should have to squeeze in next to someone who takes up half of my seat and pay the same as him when the plane is using twice as much fuel to keep him at 30,000 feet.
    The only thing I don't like about the bus is that you get squeezed in by people with huge derrieres, which I generally think is bad manners.  

    Permalink

  2. Gustavion Posted 4:53 am
    04 Aug 2008

    As a businessman...As a businessman It is really only reasonable for me to fly because the time in transit is so much shorter compared to car, bus, or train.  I've had many heated conversations with my 'train friend' but I won't be convinced of an alternative to flying until something becomes equally efficient.

    Permalink

  3. Zephaniah Posted 9:34 am
    04 Aug 2008

    cap and demandIf we required fossil fuel companies to purchase allowances for the right to sell fuel,and reduce the number of allowances a few percent a year,  and then return the amount paid to taxpayers as cash dividends, then the cost of flying would go up and cost of trains down.

    Check out capanddemand.org  

    Permalink

  4. Fenrir Posted 9:47 am
    04 Aug 2008

    John former MarineYou're quite correct IMO. There should be a sort of program towards making each passenger pay for their respective weight... WITHOUT being politically incorrect or rude. Offending people is not the point here.

    I kept thinking and maybe setting weight ranges might help, but instead of making it more expensive, you could make a special discount to those below a certain weight range and charge the rest the same.

    That's my "two-cents-worth" ethical approach to the matter. Still, I think something along these lines will never be allowed in order to avoid problems. Hope no one gets offended btw!

    Permalink

  5. aearly Posted 9:59 am
    04 Aug 2008

    Better buses in MexicoThe US could take some lessons from Mexico on bus travel - I recently took two long distance trips from Mexico City and was very impressed by the luxurious and inexpensive buses that they use. Mexico City has several huge bus terminals where you can get buses to just about anywhere in Mexico - there are different classes of bus, but it does not cost that much more to travel in the better ones, and the experience was a very comfortable and pleasant way to travel.

    Permalink

  6. mmmoongoddess Posted 11:52 am
    04 Aug 2008

    Re-training U.S. travel habitsOnce in a while, watching that old chestnut of a holiday movie, White Christmas, I noted how everyone arrived via the local train station, even in rural Vermont (or whatever New England skiing habitat they were trying to portray).
    Here in Vermont today, as in most of the U.S., 'local trains' are mere memories of the past as routes were discontinued with the advent of the interstate highway system in the late 50's/early 60's.  Thousands of miles of tracks were ripped out and the right of ways became recreational bike paths.  
    I'd say it's time to re-train the nation and reestablish intercity rail AND rural bus routes. As the cost of fuel continues to rise, these routes will become literal lifelines to the elderly, disabled and others who can no longer afford to feed, repair, insure and maintain these  infernal combustion vehicles.

    Permalink

  7. allgoode21 Posted 12:04 pm
    04 Aug 2008

    Better buses in Latin America in generaltraveling around South America was a breeze with their inter-city bus systems, I really wish we could have terminals with cheap 4 - 6 hour bus rides in every city here.  I would travel so much more to see family, since I do not own a car, getting to cities that are hours away can be such a pain

    Permalink

  8. ebwolf Posted 1:56 am
    05 Aug 2008

    I think your logic is lacking...The airlines are charging for extra bags simply because they can. Consumers purchase tickets based on fares. The airlines are trying to increase fees anywhere they can without impacting ticket sales. Further, the fares have to be published several months in advance. So fares can't be changed as easily as fees.
    It's not about the weight of the bag or the passengers. The 737-700, for example, weighs 84,000 lbs empty. Add in another 45,000 lbs for fuel (6,875 gallons X 6.5 lbs/gal - a generous estimate) and the plane weights 129,000 lbs before the first passenger or bag is loaded. That same plane carries, at most, 149 passengers (but most US 737 aren't configured for "dense" seating, so the number is more like 140 passengers).
    That means there is 865 lbs of plane and fuel for every passenger. Unless you're really obese and carrying lots of bags, the plane and fuel weighs more than you.
    If the plane is going to fly, the best solution is to pack it to the gills. The nature of airplanes is that they don't use significantly more fuel when they are lightly loaded vs.heavily loaded.
    If the airlines are trying to reduce the weight in bags and things like beverage carts, it's to accomodate more passengers. I would bet that one of the reasons the 737 isn't configured densely in the US is because the plane can't take off with that many passengers.

    Permalink

  9. mtvyfan's avatar

    mtvyfan Posted 2:47 am
    05 Aug 2008

    Railways and emissionsThe only thing negative that I can see is if the passenger trains are reestablished, how much carbon is being emitted by cars waiting for the train to cross. Personally, I shut my car off while I'm waiting, but I notice that many people do not.
    Hey Umbra, what do you think that the difference in emissions would be. Passenger trains vs cars idling and waiting for them to cross the intersection. I'm really curious to know.

    Permalink

  10. ccbrewster Posted 4:34 am
    05 Aug 2008

    Rail routesUmbra-- You say that we don't have the infrastructure to expand rail service, yet we do have many rail routes that are not currently being used for passenger service. I realize that passenger trains would be contending with freight on these routes, with the resulting Amtrak-style delays. Yet the tracks are there and could be used. In addition, many old rights-of-way are still physically intact even if the tracks are missing. These could be rebuilt fairly easily. Where I live (near Minneapolis) many train routes that are still in use for freight were once used also for commuter trains. I've never gotten a clear answer on why these commuter trains could not be revived. (And I believe the subsidies that may be needed would be far lower than the costs of freeways.)

    Permalink

  11. John former Marine Posted 10:13 pm
    05 Aug 2008

    EB,Thanks for the break-down...it seems to make sense to me.  I had a strange feeling that the airlines were pulling more BS.  It doesn't surprise me...they get a new tax-payer financed bail-out every couple of years.  Maybe they're just "building their case" for their demands for more bail-out money.

    Permalink

  12. pacinopeer Posted 7:58 pm
    13 Aug 2008

    tiffany-jewelrywe supply many kinds of tiffany jewelry,such as

    Tiffany ring,

    tiffany earrings,

    tiffany necklaces,

    tiffnay pendants,

    Tiffany Bracelets,

    andTiffany Accessories. we hope you can enjoy shopping
    in http://www.tiffanysilvers.co.uk
    Are these Tiffany and Company Tiffany Bracelet,Tiffany Ring realy Tiffany and Company or are they a knock off of the real
    one? Tiffany jewelry and diamonds
    provider.Selections include silver rings, silver necklaces and the other tiffany jewelry
    RealExams Practice Engine help you to pass popular

    IT certification exams from Microsoft,

    Oracle, IBM,

    SUN, HP,Nortel etc at your
    first try.

    Permalink

  13. lovetiffanys Posted 2:23 am
    06 Nov 2008

    ti

    How do you find out how much is a tiffany jewelry without going to the store? I want... u do no that that is replica tiffany u can just google tiffany.

    Tiffany Bracelet

    Tiffany rings

    Tiffany ring

    Tiffany Rings

    Tiffany Bracelet

    Tiffany ring

    Tiffany necklaces

    tiffany necklaces

    Tiffany earrings

    Tiffany Earring

    Tiffany earrings

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement