4 ms·

Flying private has always been one of my bucket list items, but the fact that flying US coast-to-coast private has the same carbon footprint as 10k Americans(!)

Flying private has always been one of my bucket list items, but the fact that flying US coast-to-coast private has the same carbon footprint as 10k Americans(!) use per year is kind of appalling. There's a certain level of FU that's hard to rationalize.

mikeash 8y ago
There’s no way that number is correct. A 737 carries not quite 7,000 gallons of fuel, so that would imply the average American has a carbon footprint of 0.7 gallons of jet fuel per year, if you used the full capacity of a 737 to fly coast to coast. A 737 doesn’t fully drain its tanks on that trip, and smaller jets will use less.
- base698 8y ago
  He said private. So 1-4 people at 400 gallons per hour.
  - gok 8y ago
    That makes even less sense. Even if it's one person flying for 6 hours, 2400 gallons of burned kerosene is several orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than 10,000 Americans in a year. Edit: To put numbers on it, each American emits 16,500 kg of CO2 per year, 2400 gallons of jet fuel emits 21,360 kg of CO2. So it's more like one American's emissions in a year.
    - linuxasheviller 8y ago
      I misread this as comparing burning 2,400 gallons of kerosene versus burning 10,000 Americans and was becoming very concerned about where you are getting you data.
    - 24gttghh 8y ago
      >So it's more like one American's emissions in a year. That still seems horrible to me.
      - gok 8y ago
        I mean... it's not great. But it's only a few hundred dollars worth of carbon offsets, which is considerably less than the existing tax on the jet fuel.
        24gttghh 8y ago
        And that's only one way eh? Do 1 round-trip private trip a month and suddenly that's 24-people's worth of yearly emissions.
    - base698 8y ago
      I assume the private flying crowd is doing multiple flights per year. Let's say 1 a month? That'd get to 2 orders of magnitude away.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    Right, so considerably less fuel than a 737 carries. I used that as a worst case and it’s still orders of magnitude short.
  - briandear 8y ago
    1-4 people aren’t flying a plane that burns 400/hour. A Citation burns 160/hour and holds a heck of a lot more than 1-4. A Cirrus jet — perfect for 1-4 passengers burns 47 gallons per hour. Even a Gulfstream V burns 370 per hour and holds 12-16 passengers.
- JabavuAdams 8y ago
  Hmm, yes, obviously I must have misquoted the figure -- something's wrong. Even at one US person per year, it's pretty egregious and would be hard for me to rationalize.
fredley 8y ago
Just pay to go in one of those Instagram private jets then: https://www.thisisinsider.com/fake-private-jet-interior-inside-los-angeles-fred-segal-store-for-instagram-photos-2018-11 https://www.thisisinsider.com/fake-private-jet-interior-insi...
rbranson 8y ago
This seems a little hard to believe. Do you have a source?
bunderbunder 8y ago
There are a few services that sell empty seats on private jet flights. It can be pretty economical, sometimes even less expensive than commercial. IMO, the main advantage of flying private is the convenience of getting to bypass the whole airport experience. At least on the small business jet flights I've been on, the actual flight is less comfortable. The interior has nicer decor, but it's also cramped and noisy. And then, yeah, you have to eat nothing but rice and lentils for the next two months to try and offset the carbon.
- dharmon 8y ago
  > At least on the small business jet flights I've been on, the actual flight is less comfortable. The interior has nicer decor, but it's also cramped and noisy. But in this case you have to compare U.S. domestic business class to private travel, where I would argue the in-flight experience is still better on a small private jet. (I guess unless you are sharing a jet like the services you mention) If you're talking about first class, as this article is, then you're talking about long international flights. The cramped and noisy private jets won't take you non-stop from NYC to Tokyo, for example.
Shivatron 8y ago
As others have said, this is incorrect. Quickly planning a flight in ForeFlight from LAX direct JFK for a Citation X (a midsize, 12-passenger business jet) at Mach 0.8/FL510 gives a fuel burn of 6700 lbs. The same flight in a 737-900ER (~180 seats in three class configuration) at Mach 0.8/FL390 gives 22500 lbs. Even assuming the Citation has only 6 souls aboard, that's ~1000 lbs/pax for the private jet and ~125 lbs/pax for the 739—"only" 8x worse. Edit: I neglected to convert for the average American's carbon footprint (about 16500 kg CO2/yr as stated elsewhere in the thread). Each of the 6 Citation pax emits (21 lbs CO2/gal * 1000 lbs / 6.7 lbs/gal) = ~3.1k lbs CO2, or ~1400 kg CO2 during the flight—about 1/10 of the average yearly footprint.

mikeash 8y ago

There’s no way that number is correct. A 737 carries not quite 7,000 gallons of fuel, so that would imply the average American has a carbon footprint of 0.7 gallons of jet fuel per year, if you used the full capacity of a 737 to fly coast to coast. A 737 doesn’t fully drain its tanks on that trip, and smaller jets will use less.

base698 8y ago
He said private. So 1-4 people at 400 gallons per hour.
- gok 8y ago
  That makes even less sense. Even if it's one person flying for 6 hours, 2400 gallons of burned kerosene is several orders of magnitude less GHG emissions than 10,000 Americans in a year. Edit: To put numbers on it, each American emits 16,500 kg of CO2 per year, 2400 gallons of jet fuel emits 21,360 kg of CO2. So it's more like one American's emissions in a year.
  - linuxasheviller 8y ago
    I misread this as comparing burning 2,400 gallons of kerosene versus burning 10,000 Americans and was becoming very concerned about where you are getting you data.
  - 24gttghh 8y ago
    >So it's more like one American's emissions in a year. That still seems horrible to me.
    - gok 8y ago
      I mean... it's not great. But it's only a few hundred dollars worth of carbon offsets, which is considerably less than the existing tax on the jet fuel.
      - 24gttghh 8y ago
        And that's only one way eh? Do 1 round-trip private trip a month and suddenly that's 24-people's worth of yearly emissions.
  - base698 8y ago
    I assume the private flying crowd is doing multiple flights per year. Let's say 1 a month? That'd get to 2 orders of magnitude away.
- mikeash 8y ago
  Right, so considerably less fuel than a 737 carries. I used that as a worst case and it’s still orders of magnitude short.
- briandear 8y ago
  1-4 people aren’t flying a plane that burns 400/hour. A Citation burns 160/hour and holds a heck of a lot more than 1-4. A Cirrus jet — perfect for 1-4 passengers burns 47 gallons per hour. Even a Gulfstream V burns 370 per hour and holds 12-16 passengers.
JabavuAdams 8y ago
Hmm, yes, obviously I must have misquoted the figure -- something's wrong. Even at one US person per year, it's pretty egregious and would be hard for me to rationalize.

fredley 8y ago

Just pay to go in one of those Instagram private jets then: https://www.thisisinsider.com/fake-private-jet-interior-inside-los-angeles-fred-segal-store-for-instagram-photos-2018-11 https://www.thisisinsider.com/fake-private-jet-interior-insi...

rbranson 8y ago

This seems a little hard to believe. Do you have a source?

bunderbunder 8y ago

There are a few services that sell empty seats on private jet flights. It can be pretty economical, sometimes even less expensive than commercial. IMO, the main advantage of flying private is the convenience of getting to bypass the whole airport experience. At least on the small business jet flights I've been on, the actual flight is less comfortable. The interior has nicer decor, but it's also cramped and noisy. And then, yeah, you have to eat nothing but rice and lentils for the next two months to try and offset the carbon.

dharmon 8y ago
> At least on the small business jet flights I've been on, the actual flight is less comfortable. The interior has nicer decor, but it's also cramped and noisy. But in this case you have to compare U.S. domestic business class to private travel, where I would argue the in-flight experience is still better on a small private jet. (I guess unless you are sharing a jet like the services you mention) If you're talking about first class, as this article is, then you're talking about long international flights. The cramped and noisy private jets won't take you non-stop from NYC to Tokyo, for example.

Shivatron 8y ago

As others have said, this is incorrect. Quickly planning a flight in ForeFlight from LAX direct JFK for a Citation X (a midsize, 12-passenger business jet) at Mach 0.8/FL510 gives a fuel burn of 6700 lbs. The same flight in a 737-900ER (~180 seats in three class configuration) at Mach 0.8/FL390 gives 22500 lbs. Even assuming the Citation has only 6 souls aboard, that's ~1000 lbs/pax for the private jet and ~125 lbs/pax for the 739—"only" 8x worse. Edit: I neglected to convert for the average American's carbon footprint (about 16500 kg CO2/yr as stated elsewhere in the thread). Each of the 6 Citation pax emits (21 lbs CO2/gal * 1000 lbs / 6.7 lbs/gal) = ~3.1k lbs CO2, or ~1400 kg CO2 during the flight—about 1/10 of the average yearly footprint.