NationStates Jolt Archive

Well for one thing they pollute more than any other form of transport and they make a horrible noise. They are not esssential, people can survive without holidays. WE should only use them for buisness trips and non holiday realted things and trips that are important

Great, I wish you luck taking on some of the largest companies in the world, assorted national governments and the European Union.

i'm not doing that i'm saying why they are bad

You live in England. It takes at most 24 hours to drive from one end of the island (Penzance say) to the other (John O Groats). I live in Brazil. Here it would take about two weeks to drive from one end of the country (Chui) to the other (The Border with Venezuela and Columbia).

So you can do away with aeroplanes if you want, but we are going to keep them, unless you can suggest an alternative, that is.

Well for one thing they pollute more than any other form of transport and they make a horrible noise. They are not esssential, people can survive without holidays. WE should only use them for buisness trips and non holiday realted things and trips that are important

Out of curiosity, how would one determine which trips were "important"?

Well for one thing they pollute more than any other form of transport and they make a horrible noise. They are not esssential, people can survive without holidays. WE should only use them for buisness trips and non holiday realted things and trips that are important

Maybe YOU can survive without holidays. A much better argument would be saying that people survived without them for years. Especially as you don't seem to want to get "rid" of them. Why is your business trip more important than my holiday?

there are many alternatives don't you realise

well holidays are not exactly "essential". we can live without holidays can't we?

Well for one thing they pollute more than any other form of transport and they make a horrible noise. They are not esssential, people can survive without holidays. WE should only use them for buisness trips and non holiday realted things and trips that are important
Why didn't you title this thread "Death to tourism! Death to tourism!"?

there are many alternatives don't you realise

Much slower alternatives. Without airplanes, I would not be able to see my sister because she lives over 2,000 miles away. If you've ever been on a long car trip, you'll know why.

I'm not attempting to kill off tourism. There is other ways to go abroad. If we continue to use planes maybye we could use them less. don't you Americans know of GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

I'm not attempting to kill off tourism. There is other ways to go abroad.
None are as fast, efficient, or cost affective.

don't you Americans know of GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE
To be honest? You sound like you just came home from 5th grade where you learned about global warming and are freaking out and making a big fuss because things your dumbass teacher said. None of your statements are informed or thought out.

yes okay but planes pollute sooooooooooooooooooooooo much

yes okay but planes pollute sooooooooooooooooooooooo much
Don't you have a mall to go to?

I'm not attempting to kill off tourism. There is other ways to go abroad. If we continue to use planes maybye we could use them less. don't you Americans know of GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

One aeroplane produces far less polution per man mile than the same number of people making the same journey by car or bus. So let's do away with cars instead. Keep the aeroplanes for medium to long distance journeys, and make the short ones by bicycle or on horseback. (You can walk if you prefer.) :rolleyes:

one plane trip from, lets say london to new york pollutes as much as a months worth of driving does. and thats a FACT

Plus they put out all that nasty Carbon Dioxide WAY higher than any photosynthesis can happen. Global warmers deluxe. Not to mention all that greenhouse water vapor.

Ban airplanes!

there are many alternatives don't you realise

....like...?

thank you. someone who knows what is right

Why don't we compromise? We'll get rid of all aeroplanes, and only use airplanes from this moment forth?

yes okay but planes pollute sooooooooooooooooooooooo much
Less per person per mile then cars or a lot of other alternatives maybe you want to do some research before you make such claims

one plane trip from, lets say london to new york pollutes as much as a months worth of driving does. and thats a FACT
Lol you are comparing one airplane to one car? Do you really want to be taken seriously? (hint your failure is in the fact that a plane moves hundreds of people while a car moves less then ten on average)

no, ban airplanes and keep aeroplanes.

But really, I care about the environment, i know about global warming etc. But planes are pretty vital.
Plus i want to be an aeronautical engineer when im older, so nobody aint banning planes till i make one.

I have done alot of "research" as you idiots call it and i think i know wahts right

Yea, good luck trying to take my airplane away from me! I pilot a Piper Cherokee 140 and there's no way I'm giving that up. Everything pollutes! Trains pollute, cars pollute, even cows pollutes, do you want to get rid of all of those too? Like it or not, Aviation is now a permenant fixture in our society and global society. I love aviation and all it has to offer, and you sound really ignorant of the aviation business. I suggest you actually do some reasearch into Boeing Dreamline 787 aircraft, and the new quieter and cleaner engine they'll be putting on the aircraft. Even on the General Aviation level we're reducing pollution with new technology.

Long Live Aviation!

I have done alot of "research" as you idiots call it and i think i know wahts right
Lol well then you would be wrong.

We don’t take things at face value specially when they are incorrect.

one plane trip from, lets say london to new york pollutes as much as a months worth of driving does. and thats a FACT
Ok, a plane going from London to New York travels probably 500mph and carries I would say 200-300 passengers. The maximum carload would be 7 people (a standard van) going 75-80 mph. Calculate the polution output of a van per hour then the polution output of 40 vans driving the distance to New York in more than 6 times the time it would take for a plane to get there (assuming a straight line on flat terrain and no stopping).

Yea, good luck trying to take my airplane away from me! I pilot a Piper Cherokee 140 and there's no way I'm giving that up. Everything pollutes! Trains pollute, cars pollute, even cows pollutes, do you want to get rid of all of those too? Like it or not, Aviation is now a permenant fixture in our society and global society. I love aviation and all it has to offer, and you sound really ignorant of the aviation business. I suggest you actually do some reasearch into Boeing Dreamline 787 aircraft, and the new quieter and cleaner engine they'll be putting on the aircraft. Even on the General Aviation level we're reducing pollution with new technology.

Long Live Aviation!
What he/she seemed to be referring to in his/her so far poor argument is commercial aviation

Ok, a plane going from London to New York travels probably 500mph and carries I would say 200-300 passengers. The maximum carload would be 7 people (a standard van) going 75-80 mph. Calculate the polution output of a van per hour then the polution output of 40 vans driving the distance to New York in more than 6 times the time it would take for a plane to get there.

owned!

What he/she seemed to be referring to in his/her so far poor argument is commercial aviation

Well the OP never really specifies, so until he/she does, I just assume he/she means all forms of aviation. Including General Aviation.

But... but... airplanes and airports are so coool!!!!! :eek:

Well the OP never really specifies, so until he/she does, I just assume he/she means all forms of aviation. Including General Aviation.
I understand I just figured I would mention it. I picked it up mostly from referencing general business trips and holiday travel. While you can take those on smaller or private airplanes they by and large are more associated with commercial air travel

yes okay but planes pollute sooooooooooooooooooooooo much


what are you 12? I’m not joking; really who thinks their argument is made stronger by adding as many o's on to the word so as possible.

I have an even better way to solve global warming, kill of all humans. that plan doesn’t have much reason to it, but nor does yours. With out Airplanes (really who says aero?) many of the worlds economies would collapse do to the simple fact, their is no faster way to transport goods. From a purely economic stand point you’re saying we should take a hack saw to our foot because it may step on some flowers.

And if we just limit it to "business" this will kill off entire areas, and some nations will find most of their economy killed. With out Air travel tourism will die for the most part. Me and my family are going to Ireland, I love Ireland, I identify with my Irish past, but their is no way I’m going to take a boat over their. I’m getting on a plan and flying.

one plane trip from, lets say london to new york pollutes as much as a months worth of driving does. and thats a FACT

But does it produce more then 50 cards do? Or maybe 100? Each jumbo jet has more then one person on it, you may not know that, since you seem to be about 12 from your statements I mentioned above, but they have many many people on it, that is why they are more efficient then cars. One person using 1/30th the gas is more wasteful then 90 people using the gas. It’s the law of numbers.

But... but... airplanes and airports are so coool!!!!! :eek:

Yes, yes they are. Behold, the Cirrus SR-22!

http://www.trade-a-plane.com/graphics/coverphotos/2005/July3.jpg

and it's mighty cockpit!

http://www.utility-aircraft.com/images/images%2004/cirrus%20SR22%20PFD%20MFD%20GPS.JPG

I have done alot of "research" as you idiots call it and i think i know wahts right

*a lot
*I
*I
*what's
*(right).

I understand I just figured I would mention it. I picked it up mostly from referencing general business trips and holiday travel. While you can take those on smaller or private airplanes they by and large are more associated with commercial air travel

Yea, I can see that, I just use my Cherokee 140 for my air travels, hate the airline, with their TSA's searching me and feeling me up! Wouldn't be so bad if it was a chick that was feeling me up.

Yea, I can see that, I just use my Cherokee 140 for my air travels, hate the airline, with their TSA's searching me and feeling me up! Wouldn't be so bad if it was a chick that was feeling me up.
Understandable if you have access to such things

I'm not attempting to kill off tourism. There is other ways to go abroad. If we continue to use planes maybye we could use them less. don't you Americans know of GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Other ways to go abroad? That cause LESS polution? Do you have ANY IDEA how much fuel it takes to move a boat across the atlantic?

....like...?

I'm still waiting for an answer

Other ways to go abroad? That cause LESS polution? Do you have ANY IDEA how much fuel it takes to move a boat across the atlantic?

That's actually a good argument.

Air is less dense than Water. Aircrafts are built to be both aerodynamic and to carry passengers. The more aerodynamic an aircraft is, the less fuel it needs to operate.

Water is more dense than Air, boat seem to try to be aquadynamic, but also carry the largest amount of load, however, it takes a boat more fuel to go through water than it takes an aircraft to move through air.

So in conclusion, Aircraft is more efficent than boats!

Well for one thing they pollute more than any other form of transport and they make a horrible noise. They are not esssential, people can survive without holidays. WE should only use them for buisness trips and non holiday realted things and trips that are important
I'm pretty convinced at this point that you are not an enviromentalist at all but rather a troll masquerading as one to make fun of them.

I liked Jesussaves better.

Well for one thing they pollute more than any other form of transport and they make a horrible noise. They are not esssential, people can survive without holidays. WE should only use them for buisness trips and non holiday realted things and trips that are important

I believe that a lot of air transport is used for business travellers and air freight.

It's the most fuel efficient method of transport in terms of passenger-mile.

As an example, the common 747 is one of the most fuel efficient means of transport on a unit of fuel per passenger-mile.

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0502/et0502s8.html

Also a lot less polluting than you state:

Saving fuel has benefits in addition to cutting costs. For every pound of fuel saved, there are equivalent reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides. Modern aircraft engines have about 85 percent fewer emissions for every pound of fuel burned than engines built in the 1970s.

In fact, the idea that airplanes are among the worst polluters is highly inaccurate. According to a 1999 report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, airplane-fuel emissions total less than 3 percent of man-made emissions that might contribute to climate change. By far the biggest producers of emissions are cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, power plants, home heating systems and industrial manufacturing.

How could we have a mile-high club without airplanes? Come on, think damnit!

That's actually a good argument.

Air is less dense than Water. Aircrafts are built to be both aerodynamic and to carry passengers. The more aerodynamic an aircraft is, the less fuel it needs to operate.

Water is more dense than Air, boat seem to try to be aquadynamic, but also carry the largest amount of load, however, it takes a boat more fuel to go through water than it takes an aircraft to move through air.

So in conclusion, Aircraft is more efficent than boats!
While planes are getting nowhere near trying to reduce their own pollution, they are trying to get better fuel efficiency due to rising fuel costs and the idiotic need they feel to lower prices and compete with budget airlines.

Modern aircraft engines have about 85 percent fewer emissions for every pound of fuel burned than engines built in the 1970s.
What they don't mention is most planes are still using 15-20 year old planes with 15-20 year old engines because updating planes and their parts costs money.
Not to mention that study is 7 years old and a recent one has come out stating planes are major effectors of global warming due to emmission of carbon at high altitude and a lack of any protocols requiring them to try and lower emissions or otherwise decrease their pollutting.

It seems that the starter of this thread has retreated to where he came, I kinda guessed he had surrended when he started calling anyone who disagread with him idiots and couldnt really respond to any of our points

While planes are getting nowhere near trying to reduce their own pollution, they are trying to get better fuel efficiency due to rising fuel costs and the idiotic need they feel to lower prices and compete with budget airlines.

Better fuel efficiency translates to less emissions.

You, are DUMB. If people couldnt fly, they'd simply drive everywhere. And then their cars you know, dont pollute at all *cough*.

While planes are getting nowhere near trying to reduce their own pollution, they are trying to get better fuel efficiency due to rising fuel costs and the idiotic need they feel to lower prices and compete with budget airlines.

Ehh actually you're wrong on the first part. General Eletric has built an engine that pollutes less.

Lets ban people. All the CO2 they produce. Damn.

Ehh actually you're wrong on the first part. General Eletric has built an engine that pollutes less.

That can't possibly be true, as it would contradict the well-known view that companies are evil, love to pollute, and never do anything good in the world. Especially when it comes to technology, they can't be trusted to do anything like that without being forced to do so.

Ehh actually you're wrong on the first part. General Eletric has built an engine that pollutes less.
That's great but it doesn't mean shit unless every airline buys a new plane or buys new engines for every single one of its old planes. New engines don't pollute less than old ones if they are never used.

they can't be trusted to do anything like that without being forced to do so.
I thought they were being forced to.

Lets ban people. All the CO2 they produce. Damn.


this is the perfect solution to our problem, with out those annoying people everything will be better


im sure the thread starter will agree with us

What about cows, eh? You know how much they produce, with their foul butt emissions.


Ehh actually you're wrong on the first part. General Eletric has built an engine that pollutes less.

Yeah, but he said that planes are getting nowhere near trying to reduce their own pollution. General Electric doesn't have any planes working for it in R&D last I knew.

That can't possibly be true, as it would contradict the well-known view that companies are evil, love to pollute, and never do anything good in the world. Especially when it comes to technology, they can't be trusted to do anything like that without being forced to do so.

LOL. Eh, yea, but in the world of aviation if you want to stay on top you have to come out with the latest and greatest thing all the time. I mean look at the Airbus 380 and the Boeing 787.

I thought they were being forced to.

Nope.

In fact, the idea that airplanes are among the worst polluters is highly inaccurate. According to a 1999 report issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, airplane-fuel emissions total less than 3 percent of man-made emissions that might contribute to climate change. By far the biggest producers of emissions are cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, power plants, home heating systems and industrial manufacturing.

"Because we know it benefits our customers and the public, we target performance beyond the regulatory compliance," said Bill Glover, director of Airplane Environmental Performance Strategy for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. "It just makes good business sense."

The business case behind Boeing's constant search for improved fuel consumption is the desire to build airplanes its customers will prefer, and that means a family of jets that are fuel efficient and better for the environment. In recent years, fuel efficiency has become one of the most important selling features of an airplane.

Economics and rising fuel prices, and the demand for cheaper tickets is driving them to increased fuel economy and lower emissions.

Well for one thing they pollute more than any other form of transport and they make a horrible noise. They are not esssential, people can survive without holidays. WE should only use them for buisness trips and non holiday realted things and trips that are important
You know what else we don't need? Oil. Fuck that shit. It pollutes, it's expensive, it funds terrorism. It's not essential. People can use horse-drawn carts and farms can plow with oxen.

Nope.



Economics and rising fuel prices, and the demand for cheaper tickets is driving them to increased fuel economy and lower emissions.
1999 report. Irrelevant.
Not to mention planes contribute through the effects of contrails on the higher atmosphere.

You know what else we don't need? Oil. Fuck that shit. It pollutes, it's expensive, it funds terrorism. It's not essential. People can use horse-drawn carts and farms can plow with oxen.

I thought we killed all the oxen.

*rubs chin thoughtfully* I wonder what pollutes more; an airplane on an eight hour cross-country flight, or 200 cars on a 3 day cross-country drive.

1999 report. Irrelevant.
In what way?

Are you saying that we're flying substantially far more aircraft than we were in 1999, when they accounted for 3 percent of all emissions?

Care to provide evidence for your assertion?

1999 report. Irrelevant.

Yea, but the trends in fuel cost and the fact they want to keep their ticket prices down have keep going in the same direction, so it should be logical to assume that it's still accurate today in the year 2006.

In what way?

Are you saying that we're flying substantially far more aircraft than we were in 1999, when they accounted for 3 percent of all emissions?

Care to provide evidence for your assertion?
It isn't just carbon that is planes' problem.

Other ways to go abroad? That cause LESS polution? Do you have ANY IDEA how much fuel it takes to move a boat across the atlantic?
Not to mention the movement of alien species due to ballasting is much higher than the movement of alien species due to air movement.
Oh, and dumping of waste in the water vs. only being able to do so at certain points (airports)

Ehh actually you're wrong on the first part. General Eletric has built an engine that pollutes less.
So has Pratt and Whitney iirc...and I'm fairly sure that Rolls Royce has one soon to be completed.

That would be the major three companies..

It isn't just carbon that is planes' problem.

Elaborate - I doubt that combustion varies that much in its proportions.

Gas turbines (which jet engines are) are much more efficient than any other form of internal combustion. Most electrical power generation is not in the form of gas turbines if it's burning fuel, so that means the jets are already ahead on that note.

I would assume that if jets are making 3 percent of the carbon, they're probably close to making 3 percent of any of the other pollutants - perhaps less, especially when compared to coal fired powerplants.

So has Pratt and Whitney iirc...and I'm fairly sure that Rolls Royce has one soon to be completed.

That would be the major three companies..

Yea, forgot about those. I just kept on thinking about that commerical with the dancing elephants and gariffee sticking their heads into the air.

Yea, forgot about those. I just kept on thinking about that commerical with the dancing elephants and gariffee sticking their heads into the air.


i like that ad

i like that ad

It was a bit dissapointing, I was hoping one of the garriffe would get hit by one of the engine. I'm cruel and sadistic I know.

I'm not attempting to kill off tourism. There is other ways to go abroad. If we continue to use planes maybye we could use them less. don't you Americans know of GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Don't airplanes use less fuel per passengar than any other form of transportation with the possible exception of trains?

And trains don't tend to work too well over oceans.

I have done alot of "research" as you idiots call it and i think i know wahts right

Classic.

So - who's puppet are you?

I'm still waiting for an answer
http://website.lineone.net/~dee.ord/Tudor/Galleon%201550%20p78.jpg

Classic.

So - who's puppet are you?

I would have to say Truth and Concious.

You know what else we don't need? Oil. Fuck that shit. It pollutes, it's expensive, it funds terrorism. It's not essential. People can use horse-drawn carts and farms can plow with oxen.

Nice to know the Amish will be ok when the world collapses then :)

Don't airplanes use less fuel per passengar than any other form of transportation with the possible exception of trains?

And trains don't tend to work too well over oceans.

Per passenger-mile.

Yes.

And less fuel per passenger-mile means fewer emissions per passenger-mile (funny thing, chemistry).

But don't let that sway anyone from the belief that all companies are evil and looking for nastier ways to do business.

Nice to know the Amish will be ok when the world collapses then :)

Yea, those damn Amish knew ALL alone!

I would have to say Truth and Concious.

Who?

Cospiracy!: The Amish own the air companies to make it seem businesses are evil so we revert to the old simple life. It makes sense I tells ya :eek:

The amount of pollution caused by planes to the amount of pollution caused by cars is like 1:100, and yet cars are much less needed.

Cospiracy!: The Amish own the air companies to make it seem businesses are evil so we revert to the old simple life. It makes sense I tells ya :eek:

No, it is far more sinister then that, they hope to destroy the world so that only the Amish are left!

Cospiracy!: The Amish own the air companies to make it seem businesses are evil so we revert to the old simple life. It makes sense I tells ya :eek:

We just need to drive to their area of the country and use vacuum cleaners to suck up all their clean air.

AIR IN A CAN CIRCA SPACE BALLS

everything is in space balls

But..but...planes are public transport, and public transport's more eco-friendly right?

But..but...planes are public transport, and public transport's more eco-friendly right?

Huh? :confused:

Let's hear it for Zeppelins!

Zepplines, yippy, more hindinburgs. Whens the last time we heard "oh the humantiy"

best line ever. hahah

Zepplines, yippy, more hindinburgs. Whens the last time we heard "oh the humantiy"
Let's hear it for helium!

Let's hear it for helium!

Great we'll all have squeaky voice and sound like Alvin and the Chimpmunk.

Who?

Eh a poster not too long ago that actually thought North Korea was a great country and that we could learn from them.

Yea, forgot about those. I just kept on thinking about that commerical with the dancing elephants and gariffee sticking their heads into the air.
haha...I enjoy those

but half of my family is employed by Pratt or another UTC corp...so yeah. I find out a bit too much about alot of stuff.

Great we'll all have squeaky voice and sound like Alvin and the Chimpmunk.
Let's hear it for cabins separated from helium-filled airbags!

haha...I enjoy those

but half of my family is employed by Pratt or another UTC corp...so yeah. I find out a bit too much about alot of stuff.

lol yea, I like Lycoming myself. They make top grade General Aviation engine. :)