3 ms·

The provider here is the one developing the plane though - harbour air isn't building a plane to sell to other operators, they're the one operating the flights.

The provider here is the one developing the plane though - harbour air isn't building a plane to sell to other operators, they're the one operating the flights. If they really want to drive costs down, they must have decided this is a good way to do it. But yeah, I think they're mostly selling the image here. Being able to fly to Whistler in half the time of driving and tell the people you're meeting there that you took the greener method is worth a lot to some people (and that's a good thing)

Scoundreller 6y ago
Entirely possible the airline is getting paid to trial the tech. Not sure where else in the world people would even pay more for such short hops because it’s electric. I’m sure Whistler city council is looking for a way to ban carbon av emissions on their landing lake. Probably can’t because feds, but they would if they could.
- ska 6y ago
  > Not sure where else in the world people would even pay more This doesn't match what the company is saying - they are looking at it as a way to reduce running costs, not increase ticket prices. As far as the benefits on emissions side, I suspect it has little to do with marketing "green" to ticket buyers, and more to do with mollifying groups pressuring the harbor authorities to reduce allowed # of flights.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    > mollifying groups pressuring the harbor authorities to reduce allowed # of flights. I doubt they’ll be any happier if the flights were “green”, but they may have shot themselves in the foot if pollution was their core complaint. But I’ve seen how these things go. Toronto Island airport wanted to expand to operate turbojets. Somehow complaints about noise helped kill the project, even though turboprops are basically turbojets with a wharbling propellor. The noise studies showed that the loudest things were loud cars and motorcycles at the waterfront...
    - ska 6y ago
      True, the thing about advocacy groups like this is that their stated goals are not always their actual goals. Might just be driven by NIMBY. At any rate, I was thinking of the pollution angle which has some currency in the area.

Scoundreller 6y ago

Entirely possible the airline is getting paid to trial the tech. Not sure where else in the world people would even pay more for such short hops because it’s electric. I’m sure Whistler city council is looking for a way to ban carbon av emissions on their landing lake. Probably can’t because feds, but they would if they could.

ska 6y ago
> Not sure where else in the world people would even pay more This doesn't match what the company is saying - they are looking at it as a way to reduce running costs, not increase ticket prices. As far as the benefits on emissions side, I suspect it has little to do with marketing "green" to ticket buyers, and more to do with mollifying groups pressuring the harbor authorities to reduce allowed # of flights.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  > mollifying groups pressuring the harbor authorities to reduce allowed # of flights. I doubt they’ll be any happier if the flights were “green”, but they may have shot themselves in the foot if pollution was their core complaint. But I’ve seen how these things go. Toronto Island airport wanted to expand to operate turbojets. Somehow complaints about noise helped kill the project, even though turboprops are basically turbojets with a wharbling propellor. The noise studies showed that the loudest things were loud cars and motorcycles at the waterfront...
  - ska 6y ago
    True, the thing about advocacy groups like this is that their stated goals are not always their actual goals. Might just be driven by NIMBY. At any rate, I was thinking of the pollution angle which has some currency in the area.