5 ms·

> is asking the world’s 1% to give up their cessnas really too much I wish this "only the 1% fly planes" crap would stop already. Yes, GA isn't exactly cheap,

by S201 3y ago

> is asking the world’s 1% to give up their cessnas really too much I wish this "only the 1% fly planes" crap would stop already. Yes, GA isn't exactly cheap, but there are many upper middle class families with RVs, boats, trucks, and vacation homes that are more expensive than a shitbox 1970's Cessna is and no one whines about how it's only the 1% that enjoy those pursuits. Not to mention the many more people in partnerships and flying clubs to split the fixed costs across multiple people. The short of it is that GA is an expensive hobby just as many other upper middle class hobbies are, but an accessible one for many more than the 1%. The people that proclaim how it's only the ultra rich who enjoy aviation are admitting that they know absolutely nothing about the actual general aviation community.

abricq 3y ago
"only the 1% fly" is not true, but "only the 11% fly" is a fact [1]. About the 1%: "1% of the population emits 50% of the commercial aviation's emission". You can keep going like that to show that it is indeed reserved to an upper-part of the society. Maybe the ultra-rich are not the only one flying, but they are responsible for a bigger part of the problem than the upper middle class. Maybe the misunderstanding comes from the fact that we're looking at the global population. Global warming being a global problem, looking only at the population of your region is not a sufficient reasoning. I live in Switzerland, I guaranty that it's a lot more than 11% of the population that flies. At the end of the day, it's a question of moral and of fairness: do we want to live a life-style which can't be generated to the entire global population and which will ultimately lead to extreme conditions for future-generations and poorer social-classes than ours ? Is it fair that 1 person out of 10 gets to fly while the 9 others will have to pay the same consequences ? My personal answer is that it should not be a personal decision, but that politicians should keep these numbers to start making laws such as taxing kerosene to the same level as cars' fuel. [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802...
- hnav 3y ago
  you aren’t going to foist those kinds of global limits on the rest of the world, especially not with billions of people in asia emerging from poverty for the first time. They’re going to consume, fly, eat meat and interact with power-hungry AIs. The only way forward is through engineering our way towards minimizing the impact of these activities. The CFC ban was only successful because it was easy to replace them.
  - tonyedgecombe 3y ago
    Then we aren’t going to achieve it because there is no solution to emissions from air travel that doesn’t look like vapourware.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    I've come around to believing this as well, but the problem is that that also means that humanity is most likely doomed. Yet another reason I'm glad I never wanted to have children, but now seeing them just makes me sad.
- S201 3y ago
  > Is it fair that 1 person out of 10 gets to fly while the 9 others will have to pay the same consequences? This isn't an aviation unique topic. You can replace "fly" in that sentence with countless other activities and the same tradeoff applies as virtually every activity currently involves carbon emissions at some point. There is a massive difference between an airliner's emissions flying from US to Europe and your local GA pilot cruising to the next town over to get lunch on the weekend though. Does that person need to fly to do that? No, they could drive. But the guy that wants to go cruise around the lake all day on his boat or drive his semi-truck sized RV to go camping for the weekend doesn't need to do either of those activities yet no one here has a moral problem with that.
  - test6554 3y ago
    I’m working on getting my PPL now and it’s a lot of work. Claims of elitism are going to be thrown around for anything that is difficult and worthwhile. Flying is not the issue. Carbon emissions are. That sounds like something that can be resolved to varying degrees of satisfaction one way or another.
    - hotpotamus 3y ago
      > Flying is not the issue. Carbon emissions are. Are you flying without carbon emissions? I believe this is possible now, and in fact the best use I've seen for electric planes is takeoff/landing training because their range is so limited.
esoterica 3y ago
GA involves spraying lead over and poisoning the (mostly low income) communities that live near airports. Probably the most evil hobby you could possibly take up in modern society.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  No longer, there's a generally certified lead-free fuel available that's rolling out over the next years [1], and on top of that there's fully electric ultralights. [1] https://www.flyingmag.com/g100ul-avgas-replacement-set-to-soon-hit-pumps/ https://www.flyingmag.com/g100ul-avgas-replacement-set-to-so...
- hnav 3y ago
  the only reason it’s so hard to get rid of 100LL is because the regulations make it so. The automotive industry was able to get rid of lead 50 years ago.
- S201 3y ago
  Alright, here we go yet again with the "leaded gas from GA is going to kill us all!" scare mongering. First, the GA fleet worldwide uses 500 tons of lead per year. Compared to 5,000,000 tons when leaded car gas was in use. That's a 99% reduction in lead pollution, so let's not be so dramatic and claim that flying a piston GA plane is "evil" and that we're all going to die from it and how it's poisoning low income communities in particular. Last I checked there are many middle and upper middle class neighborhoods that exist near regional airports. I know this all too well because those are the same NIMBYs that move in next to an airport that has existed there for the past century and then try to close it because of noise complaints. Second, since I'm sure you don't know, most GA planes can fly perfectly fine on unleaded gas. Some engines are diesel and some burn Jet A (the same as airliners), none of which have lead. Some small trainer aircraft are electric now too. Third, unleaded G100UL exists, is certified, and is actively being rolled out. If only we could get the FAA to stop doing what they always do, which is move as slow as glaciers about anything related to GA. I'm not going to defend leaded gas, we all want to see it gone if for nothing else than to take away this ridiculous talking point from the ignorant. It should have been done 50 years ago if the FAA wasn't boneheaded, but I'm also not going to loose sleep over burning a minuscule amount of lead when natural lead sources and lead pipes/paint still exist in the world. By the way, my home water source is a well 250ft from the end of a runway. I've had lab tests run on it for lead and it's well below the EPA limit. I put my health where my mouth is, I look forward to the day when it's all unleaded fuel being burned but until then it's not something that concerns me.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> wish this "only the 1% fly planes" crap would stop already It seems to be a European obsession. Generously, because intercontinental flights are super cheap compared to similarly-scheduled and more eco-friendly rail. (As well as to America. Our mandatory taxes are more than a budget European flight.) Less generously, because it's a popular bogey bear.
namdnay 3y ago
but "upper middle class" in the US is the 1% ! I think it starts at something like 60k income per family member (so 120k for a couple)
- S201 3y ago
  You have a funny notion of "the 1%." Unless you're in a very low cost of living area $60k in the US is barely scraping by, even $120k/yr in high COL areas like the Bay Area is basically a poverty wage. At large, something like 12% of US households are over $200k/yr. The top 1% of income is considerably higher than that so I have no idea where you're getting $60-120k from unless you're comparing against global incomes, but that's not accounting for local cost of living levels making it an apples-to-oranges comparison.
  - namdnay 3y ago
    yes I'm talking about the global 1%. i.e. us, who are polluting far far more than our fair share

by S201 3y ago

abricq 3y ago

"only the 1% fly" is not true, but "only the 11% fly" is a fact [1]. About the 1%: "1% of the population emits 50% of the commercial aviation's emission". You can keep going like that to show that it is indeed reserved to an upper-part of the society. Maybe the ultra-rich are not the only one flying, but they are responsible for a bigger part of the problem than the upper middle class. Maybe the misunderstanding comes from the fact that we're looking at the global population. Global warming being a global problem, looking only at the population of your region is not a sufficient reasoning. I live in Switzerland, I guaranty that it's a lot more than 11% of the population that flies. At the end of the day, it's a question of moral and of fairness: do we want to live a life-style which can't be generated to the entire global population and which will ultimately lead to extreme conditions for future-generations and poorer social-classes than ours ? Is it fair that 1 person out of 10 gets to fly while the 9 others will have to pay the same consequences ? My personal answer is that it should not be a personal decision, but that politicians should keep these numbers to start making laws such as taxing kerosene to the same level as cars' fuel. [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307779 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802...

hnav 3y ago
you aren’t going to foist those kinds of global limits on the rest of the world, especially not with billions of people in asia emerging from poverty for the first time. They’re going to consume, fly, eat meat and interact with power-hungry AIs. The only way forward is through engineering our way towards minimizing the impact of these activities. The CFC ban was only successful because it was easy to replace them.
- tonyedgecombe 3y ago
  Then we aren’t going to achieve it because there is no solution to emissions from air travel that doesn’t look like vapourware.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I've come around to believing this as well, but the problem is that that also means that humanity is most likely doomed. Yet another reason I'm glad I never wanted to have children, but now seeing them just makes me sad.
S201 3y ago
> Is it fair that 1 person out of 10 gets to fly while the 9 others will have to pay the same consequences? This isn't an aviation unique topic. You can replace "fly" in that sentence with countless other activities and the same tradeoff applies as virtually every activity currently involves carbon emissions at some point. There is a massive difference between an airliner's emissions flying from US to Europe and your local GA pilot cruising to the next town over to get lunch on the weekend though. Does that person need to fly to do that? No, they could drive. But the guy that wants to go cruise around the lake all day on his boat or drive his semi-truck sized RV to go camping for the weekend doesn't need to do either of those activities yet no one here has a moral problem with that.
- test6554 3y ago
  I’m working on getting my PPL now and it’s a lot of work. Claims of elitism are going to be thrown around for anything that is difficult and worthwhile. Flying is not the issue. Carbon emissions are. That sounds like something that can be resolved to varying degrees of satisfaction one way or another.
  - hotpotamus 3y ago
    > Flying is not the issue. Carbon emissions are. Are you flying without carbon emissions? I believe this is possible now, and in fact the best use I've seen for electric planes is takeoff/landing training because their range is so limited.

esoterica 3y ago

GA involves spraying lead over and poisoning the (mostly low income) communities that live near airports. Probably the most evil hobby you could possibly take up in modern society.

mschuster91 3y ago
No longer, there's a generally certified lead-free fuel available that's rolling out over the next years [1], and on top of that there's fully electric ultralights. [1] https://www.flyingmag.com/g100ul-avgas-replacement-set-to-soon-hit-pumps/ https://www.flyingmag.com/g100ul-avgas-replacement-set-to-so...
hnav 3y ago
the only reason it’s so hard to get rid of 100LL is because the regulations make it so. The automotive industry was able to get rid of lead 50 years ago.
S201 3y ago
Alright, here we go yet again with the "leaded gas from GA is going to kill us all!" scare mongering. First, the GA fleet worldwide uses 500 tons of lead per year. Compared to 5,000,000 tons when leaded car gas was in use. That's a 99% reduction in lead pollution, so let's not be so dramatic and claim that flying a piston GA plane is "evil" and that we're all going to die from it and how it's poisoning low income communities in particular. Last I checked there are many middle and upper middle class neighborhoods that exist near regional airports. I know this all too well because those are the same NIMBYs that move in next to an airport that has existed there for the past century and then try to close it because of noise complaints. Second, since I'm sure you don't know, most GA planes can fly perfectly fine on unleaded gas. Some engines are diesel and some burn Jet A (the same as airliners), none of which have lead. Some small trainer aircraft are electric now too. Third, unleaded G100UL exists, is certified, and is actively being rolled out. If only we could get the FAA to stop doing what they always do, which is move as slow as glaciers about anything related to GA. I'm not going to defend leaded gas, we all want to see it gone if for nothing else than to take away this ridiculous talking point from the ignorant. It should have been done 50 years ago if the FAA wasn't boneheaded, but I'm also not going to loose sleep over burning a minuscule amount of lead when natural lead sources and lead pipes/paint still exist in the world. By the way, my home water source is a well 250ft from the end of a runway. I've had lab tests run on it for lead and it's well below the EPA limit. I put my health where my mouth is, I look forward to the day when it's all unleaded fuel being burned but until then it's not something that concerns me.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> wish this "only the 1% fly planes" crap would stop already It seems to be a European obsession. Generously, because intercontinental flights are super cheap compared to similarly-scheduled and more eco-friendly rail. (As well as to America. Our mandatory taxes are more than a budget European flight.) Less generously, because it's a popular bogey bear.

namdnay 3y ago

but "upper middle class" in the US is the 1% ! I think it starts at something like 60k income per family member (so 120k for a couple)

S201 3y ago
You have a funny notion of "the 1%." Unless you're in a very low cost of living area $60k in the US is barely scraping by, even $120k/yr in high COL areas like the Bay Area is basically a poverty wage. At large, something like 12% of US households are over $200k/yr. The top 1% of income is considerably higher than that so I have no idea where you're getting $60-120k from unless you're comparing against global incomes, but that's not accounting for local cost of living levels making it an apples-to-oranges comparison.
- namdnay 3y ago
  yes I'm talking about the global 1%. i.e. us, who are polluting far far more than our fair share