That's a really weird claim to me. Is your objection that the plane isn't carbon-neutral because it still has carbon emissions, and the claimed "neutrality" isn

That's a really weird claim to me. Is your objection that the plane isn't carbon-neutral because it still has carbon emissions, and the claimed "neutrality" isn't an inherent aspect of the plane but rather a choice by the company to offset the emissions elsewhere? What, in your opinion, is carbon-neutral? Is burning wood from a sustainably-managed forest carbon-neutral in your eyes?