by Sheb » Sun 13 May 2007, 11:13:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PraiseDoom', 'H')ow in the hell is flying okay, planes gobbling a gazillion gallons of jet fuel every flight, but us Americans can't put 100 gallons into our SUV's to transport the family from Point A to Point B?
On a national level, for families, it's not. But the two modes of travel aren't in
totally different ballparks fuel-use-wise--it just depends on what kind of car we're talking, and how many people in the group.
For each passenger, flying requires about 1-gallon for every 52-miles:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=48121
So for a person driving alone, or a couple in a large SUV or pickup, flying can be better. But's that's the limit. For the car's we maybe
should be driving, flying a body takes more gas per mile than driving a car...and more so when your trip involves more than one person. And for a family of 3 or more, driving is almost
always the winner.
But with deals, and I don't know how this works, it can still be *cheaper* on the individual level (subsidies perhaps?) to fly rather than drive. Plus, most Americans, and people in general, have no idea how much fuel is burned moving their bulk through the air at 550-600mph. And there is a bit of misinformation as well, such as this little vignette:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story ... 78,00.html
If we Americans, really wanted to travel fuel-efficiently, we would have smaller cars, we'd take the train more and increase our passenger train infrastrure (something Europe has a leg up on). Ironically, in the U.S., taking a train cross-country (one of the more fuel-efficient methods) costs
more than flying (the least fuel-efficient manner).
But the truth is, most americans don't care about fuel efficiently. We want what we want, and we want it cheaply--at any cost.