Comments on: Pilots Claim Pressure To Use Less Fuel
Union: US Airways Wants Pilots To Use Less Fuel Than They Feel Is Safe To Save Money
Add a Comment See all 51 Comments
- How much do you want to bet the airlines get away with it then in a few months their is an accident and they blame it on human error.
Then of courese these CEO''s will run to the government and ask to be forgiven by some law. Dam we deserve better it is really getting out of hand. - Reply to this comment
- smithli65 do your advertising some where else this not a commercial site for making money. If we want to hear your mother talk nasty we know where she lives and how much she charges.
- Reply to this comment
- If the government made it illegal to speculate on oil prices, this would not happen But then the big oil companies would not have record profits either.
- Reply to this comment
- so, Republican President, Democratic PResident or independent..........we need to bring our jobs back to the USA, we need to send illegals home, employ the legal immigrants and bring jobs back to america......producing products that will last because we can once again be proud of our nation.
--------------------------
Posted by whatinthewld at 12:20 AM : Jul 17, 2008
Too much effort; if it can''t be accomplished in one day, most Americans wouldn''t go for it. - Reply to this comment
- The wealthy oil speculators can drive the price of oil (and gas) through the roof many times over. They have no need to care, as they have their own planes with their own pilots and maintenance crews. They can "filler up" whenever and wherever they like.
Their only concern is if a airliner full of us serfs crashes on one of their ranches or golf courses.
Oh, and their other concern is how much your safety gets in the way of their profits! - Reply to this comment
- strict control on luggage is the single most effective way to reduce fuel costs. One checked bag, with weight limits and ONE carry-on with STRICT size limits would go a long way.
- Reply to this comment
- Yer telling me that somebody who buys an airline ticket is responsible for polluting the skies?
- Reply to this comment
- Who allocates what people pay for? Its theirs. If they want to waste it, so be it! Its paid for.
Posted by donnie700
Not quite, when that waste polutes EVERYONE''S air and uses up resources the rest of the population needs. Your trip to LA is wasting fuel that someone may not be able to buy to use to heat their house- oil is a FINITE supply, and every gallon burned adds to the air polution. - Reply to this comment
- Now we know why many of my pilot friends call them US SCARE!!!
Sounds like they are trading safety for profits in my opinion.... - Reply to this comment
- But even a high speed train going 300 mph is half the speed of a jumbo jet
Posted by donnie700"
By that logic I guess if you could get from Miami to LA a few hours faster we should burn down the redwood forests to do it.
Before commercial airplanes a coast to coast trip took WEEKS. When you figure the time messing with airports, security, checkin, getting TO the airport, parking, the trip time itself is trivial even if the trip time was doubled by the plane flying half the speed they do now to save fuel.
Most people dont NEED to fly coast to coast, they may go from Miami to Daytona or LA to Portland Oregon. A few more hours isn''t going to make any difference.
Now multiply that fuel use per plane by how many FLIGHTS per day go on- THOUSANDS, and the picture becomes clearer as does the waste.
Business meetings do not have to always be done in person, the trouble today with people is they are SPOILED and it''s too easy to hop on a plane and take a trip for some stupid reason. Commercial air travel WILL come to a halt at some point when the costs are too high and these conglomerates who built the huge infrastructures, terminals and employ 20,000 can''t stay in business.
When fuel hits $10 a gallon few are going to pay $1,000 for a ticket and the airlines will start folding and that will be the end of this love affair with formerly cheap air flights for trivial reasons. - Reply to this comment
- "Planes do not always fly full either- loads of empty seats."
Well then that theres the problem. Planes should be equiped with compartmented people modules. And if there''s not enough people in that flight? Take the module out, and use it fer cargo. - Reply to this comment
- Who allocates what people pay for? Its theirs. If they want to waste it, so be it! Its paid for.
- Reply to this comment
- Yah but thats 5 gallons per mile of transporting 400 people and umpteen tons of cargo. You can''''t compare a jumbo to a suv. Its not the same thing..
Posted by donnie700 "
No one is comparing a plane to an suv, the issue is it''s STILL wasted fuel for nothing more productive than moving people around and back, often for very trivial reasons. Then there is the polution from burning all those TONS of fuel.
If it was burnt fuel that was used for something productive like food production, or permanent like building low-income housing that''s a different story, but just transporting someone''s fat azz to go sight seeing is a total waste of limited fossil fuel and that waste and demand drives up prices etc.
A significant amount of fuel is wasted just transporting people, NOT heating your home, growing food or producing goods.
If the choice came down to you heating your home this winter or taking a trivial airplane trip , which would you choose?
Planes do not always fly full either- loads of empty seats. - Reply to this comment
- The most economical car on the planet gets 60mpg. It carries 4 people. Divide that by 100, and ya get a half a mile a gallon. Add 300 tons of cargo, and likely you''ll git alot worse than 5 gallons per mile..
- Reply to this comment
- But even a high speed train going 300 mph is half the speed of a jumbo jet. And thats what yer paying fer.. That convenience of hoping on a giant bus, and 4 hours later being on the other end''a the country. As apposed to 3 days later..
- Reply to this comment
- The most ergonomical mode of transportation is high speed rail.
- Reply to this comment
- The empty weight of the 747-400 is 393,200 pounds, and its maximum takeoff weight is 910,000 pounds.
- Reply to this comment
- Yah but thats 5 gallons per mile of transporting 400 people and umpteen tons of cargo. You can''t compare a jumbo to a suv. Its not the same thing..
- Reply to this comment
- A 747-400 that flies 3,500 statute miles (5,630 km) and carries 126,000 pounds (56,700 kg) of fuel will consume an average of five gallons (19 L) per mile.
All that fuel WASTED to do nothing more permanent or productive than transporting aunt Mildred''s fat azz over 4 state lines just to have a thanksgiving dinner and then return on Monday. - Reply to this comment
- LOL they cut out a movie center to save fuel, has anyone looked up what the dam plane WEIGHS?
The 747-400 wing each weighs 95,000 pounds
A 747-400 consists of 147,000 pounds (66,150 kg) of high-strength aluminum.
A 747-400 that flies 3,500 statute miles (5,630 km) and carries 126,000 pounds (56,700 kg) of fuel will consume an average of five gallons (19 L) per mile.
As any idiot can see, 500 pounds is like taking a notepad out of your car to save fuel on a trip. - Reply to this comment
