Comments on: Up in the Air, Not So Much? http://www.notnews.org/life/up-in-the-air-not-so-much/ Philosophy, public affairs and pop culture. Thu, 01 Mar 2012 02:35:34 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Dave Thomer http://www.notnews.org/life/up-in-the-air-not-so-much/#comment-9115 Dave Thomer Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:29:56 +0000 http://www.notnews.org/?p=523#comment-9115 And that's not even factoring in the energy cost to produce and transport the donuts and coffee. I admit, I'm pretty bad at talking to people over the phone. But if the alternative is a bunch of travel hassle, I think I could get over it. If the price of air travel keeps going up, I'm sure I could. And that’s not even factoring in the energy cost to produce and transport the donuts and coffee.

I admit, I’m pretty bad at talking to people over the phone. But if the alternative is a bunch of travel hassle, I think I could get over it. If the price of air travel keeps going up, I’m sure I could.

]]> By: rjmason http://www.notnews.org/life/up-in-the-air-not-so-much/#comment-9114 rjmason Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:25:12 +0000 http://www.notnews.org/?p=523#comment-9114 I did quite a lot of traveling this year. The great majority of it could have been replaced by some form of teleconference. However, it doesn't seem to work that way. You show up somewhere, people give you coffee and donuts, you talk for a couple of hours, and *then* they agree to send you the Powerpoint slides that they could have emailed to you in the first place. It's stupid, but there it is. I did quite a lot of traveling this year. The great majority of it could have been replaced by some form of teleconference. However, it doesn’t seem to work that way. You show up somewhere, people give you coffee and donuts, you talk for a couple of hours, and *then* they agree to send you the Powerpoint slides that they could have emailed to you in the first place. It’s stupid, but there it is.

]]> By: Dave Thomer http://www.notnews.org/life/up-in-the-air-not-so-much/#comment-9110 Dave Thomer Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:28:47 +0000 http://www.notnews.org/?p=523#comment-9110 I have nowhere near the physics or the math skills to argue with the back of your envelope, although I would have to think that moving at several hundred MPH goes against some of the advantages you cite. But even if it uses less fuel to go a certain distance than it would by car, there's still the question of, Is it a good idea to travel this distance? Is a lifestyle that depends on lots of airplanes - not just passenger planes, but shipping planes like those empty FedEx planes cited in the New Republic piece - sustainable? I have nowhere near the physics or the math skills to argue with the back of your envelope, although I would have to think that moving at several hundred MPH goes against some of the advantages you cite. But even if it uses less fuel to go a certain distance than it would by car, there’s still the question of, Is it a good idea to travel this distance? Is a lifestyle that depends on lots of airplanes – not just passenger planes, but shipping planes like those empty FedEx planes cited in the New Republic piece – sustainable?

]]> By: rjmason http://www.notnews.org/life/up-in-the-air-not-so-much/#comment-9107 rjmason Mon, 18 Aug 2008 04:35:48 +0000 http://www.notnews.org/?p=523#comment-9107 I believe that the scapegoating of air travel as wasteful is way overdone. By my back-of-the-envelope, a person flying in a 747 burns only one-quarter to one-half as much fuel as they would driving the same distance alone in a typical car at freeway speeds. Some reasons this is so: (1) Aerodynamic efficiency is a top priority in airplane design. In car design, aerodynamics are a so-so priority, often compromised for other concerns including aesthetic styling. (2) Airlines do their level best to fly with full airplanes. Almost every car on the road has only a single person in it. (3) Cars have to overcome rolling resistance going over the ground. It's not clear to me that contact with the ground is a net benefit at high speeds. (4) Airplanes don't legally have to be built sturdy enough to survive head-on collisions with other airplanes. I believe that the scapegoating of air travel as wasteful is way overdone. By my back-of-the-envelope, a person flying in a 747 burns only one-quarter to one-half as much fuel as they would driving the same distance alone in a typical car at freeway speeds.

Some reasons this is so:

(1) Aerodynamic efficiency is a top priority in airplane design. In car design, aerodynamics are a so-so priority, often compromised for other concerns including aesthetic styling.

(2) Airlines do their level best to fly with full airplanes. Almost every car on the road has only a single person in it.

(3) Cars have to overcome rolling resistance going over the ground. It’s not clear to me that contact with the ground is a net benefit at high speeds.

(4) Airplanes don’t legally have to be built sturdy enough to survive head-on collisions with other airplanes.

]]>