That assumes that one's need is automatically a claim on a third party's life, which is not the case. For there to be a claim there needs to be direct harm show

That assumes that one's need is automatically a claim on a third party's life, which is not the case. For there to be a claim there needs to be direct harm shown, otherwise there is no claim, there is only the possibility of willing, unforced charity from the third party if they choose to provide it. In the alleged ethical dilemma I was responding to there is clearly no claim that would bar fast passenger travel per se. There is possibly a claim in a round about way if the externalities of carbon output are not taxed at their marginal cost via a carbon tax, but that is not a reason an ethical dilemma to be considered for fast travel, it is an ethical dilemma of improperly priced externalities and would again not be a reason to bar fast passenger travel.