Hacker News Reader

Comment by poidos | Hacker News Reader

Seems very wasteful to be taking extra, unnecessary flights for perks, no matter how big. I don’t care about the fliers’ money, that’s theirs to do what they want with. But the environmental costs are non-nil (even accounting for the fact that those flights would be going regardless of if they fly on them) and can’t be worth the perks for these privileged few.

View on HN

I don’t understand the environmental shaming. Does the plane work harder for each person that boards?

Seems like the plane is going to fly the route anyway. We’re not talking private jets here.

It does work harder by weight carried. There is some induced drag for every pound of lift and, in unaccelerated flight (most of it), lift and weight are exactly balanced.

My piston-engine airplane goes about 3% faster on the same fuel flow (power) at the end of a long flight than the start. That’s the effect of reduced drag from the lower weight.

Ok, so what’s the environmental impact of the individual?

I am not sure there would be much difference in impact since the airline would fill unused weight allowance with other cargo.

If you’re not reading a used book using a solar powered flashlight, it’s navel gazing.

Flying in a plane is basically the most carbon intensive thing normal people do. It's something like 1/4 ton of CO2 per hour per person. Per capita carbon emission in the US are ~15ton/yr.

(https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon...)

So being on a flight means that flight generates 1/4 ton of CO2 per hour more than if you weren’t on it?

don't be facetious, less demand for flights means less frequently scheduled flights.

extraneous flying results in more production of CO2 in more massive quantities.

I guess if the plane is going anyway..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com