Regulating the airlines for fuel consumption.

[Smackdown2019]

What are your thoughts shutting down the airlines to just weekends? Regulating the airlines should saves fuel consumption, thereby reducing the high need for high octane airplane fuel. Whereby reducing costs at the pumps.

Yes, US would probably be the lone wolf on the regulation, but perhaps the world would follow.

Thoughts?

[MontanaMama]

1. I'm afraid no one would get anywhere in a timely fashion

and airports would be packed with people and Covid. What if you had to be at a business meeting on a Wednesday but you could only fly on a Sunday? The costs of food and lodging would be unacceptable. I'd settle for airlines not wasting fuel. That could be regulated.

[Smackdown2019]

5. Zoom Meetings

Zoom Meetings have taken over in-person in business models. If it is a big company, then fly out on their jet. OR! Drive to it. The fuel consumption of these airlines are outrageous high.

[ruet]

6. Not That This Could Happen But...

I'd be willing to bet prohibiting Amazon from making weekend and holiday garbage deliveries would be much more effective.

[MontanaMama]

7. Not saying they're not outrageous.

However, I just now started researching flights for my husband to fly from Missoula, MT to Columbus OH for an appearance he's been asked to make at a trade convention as the outgoing president of the organization. Zoom isn't practical at all for these types of events. It is a 28 hour drive...minimum. It is outrageous for him to take a over week away from our family business to drive 3 days each way to attend. I live in a state where we can drive 12 hours one way and still be in the state. Good grief.

[unc70]

2. My thoughts: A really stupid idea

Only fly on weekends! Really?!

[ruet]

3. Where Do These Hair-brain Ideas Stem From?

We seem to get one or two a day. The US is not a dictatorship that gets to shut down businesses whenever it sees fit. ...not even discussing the minuscule effect this would have.

[Ace Rothstein]

19. They are so off the wall sometimes.

Just these cooked up scenarios that have no chance in hell of ever happening. This solution would likely be worse than the current problem.

[Lancero]

4. Aircraft are extremely fuel efficient with the sheer amount of people they carry.

Targeting high efficiency mass transport isn't exactly a good way to reduce fuel use.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

8. Lol no

Zoom meetings are not substitutes for everything. Some things must be attended in person. This idea would also destroy tourism dependent cities and absolutely piss off voters who don't have the time to waste 2-3 days driving for family vacations.

[Turbineguy]

9. Fuel is expensive.

It's self-regulating that way.

But we should explore all ideas!

[beaglelover]

10. Passenger planes also carry a lot of cargo and US Mail around the country. This is a

terrible idea.

[jimfields33]

11. Whoever would bring this up would be voted out of office fast.

[WarGamer]

12. How about regulating Chinese and Indian coal fired power plants?

You know... the ones that are being built and opened on a weekly basis?

[Zeitghost]

13. I'll ignore the very real and very serious political and legal problems...

And stick to the economics of the issue:

How would severely limiting air travel, which would significantly increase the much more fuel inefficient practice of long distance travel by car, decrease gasoline prices?

[hack89]

14. Jet fuel and auto gasoline are very different

Jet fuel is kerosene based and cannot be used in cars. So reducing jet fuel consumption will have no impact on pump prices.

[Ocelot II]

15. What a spectacularly dumb idea.

Airplane fuel isn't "high octane" - it's kerosene, which has an octane rating of around 25, and it's refined in an entirely different process from gasoline for cars. Try putting jet fuel in your car and see what happens; these fuels aren't even slightly interchangeable. And if you think airline fares are bad now, a harebrained scheme like that would make air travel a luxury for only the wealthy.

[Smackdown2019]

16. Segment suggests it's a bad idea

Okay...it's a bad idea...

But, most fail to understand the point ..

From Google om airplane fuel;

"The two most common fuels are Jet A and Jet A-1. While the former is used almost exclusively in the US, the latter is used globally. Both are made up of kerosene, a product of extremely refined oil."

Point is .... it's produced from OIL

[brooklynite]

18. Observation: you didn't propose to close all gas stations to cars

A bridge too far?

[Jedi Guy]

28. "Point is .... it's produced from OIL"

I feel like most everybody in the thread here is aware that both are produced from oil. Doesn't change the fact that it's a very silly suggestion.

[brooklynite]

17. Beyond ridiculous concept. Also illegal, absent new legislation.

Add to which: why "just weekends". Why aren't the leisure trips the ones you want to eliminate?

[Smackdown2019]

21. Actually it's legal through Congress

It's called regulation of commerce

[brooklynite]

22. There is no boilerplate "regulation off commerce" Law...

So regulating fuel use IS illegal absent new legislation (which, needless to say, you'll never pass in Congress).

[BannonsLiver]

20. Ludicrous.

That’s what I think.

[sarisataka]

23. Thought?

Jets do not run on gasoline. Gasoline and kerosene come out at different points in the refining process and are fairly independent of each other, i.e. an increase or decrease of one does not affect the other. Jet fuel kerosene is closer to diesel so would have no effect on pump prices of gasoline.

If anything, limiting the amount of flights would increase pump prices as ground transportation would have to fill the gap.

[Smackdown2019]

24. Fuel

Diesel, petroleum, kerosene, or gasoline.... ALL derived from barrels/pipelines of OIL.

POINT I was Making..... LARGE SUMS of OIL is produced for Airplane Fuel.


Yes I understand corporate fuels the economy, BUT is the corporate travel really necessary? Remember, 1% verses the 99% and that 1% profits off of the 99%. Yes economics is the name of the game, but when WAR drives the reason for high prices of OIL, avenues should be explored.

[sarisataka]

27. I don't think you get it

It is not a matter of x number of barrels of oil are dedicated to making jet fuel. It is x% of a barrel of oil can be made into jet fuel.

It is a matter of chemistry.

[Ron Green]

25. Eliminating all commercial air travel from trips of less than, say,

300 miles is a worthy goal. Anything shorter ought to be by rail, something the U.S. should have been reestablishing for the past 50 years.

The ultimate objective might be to get rid of most jet flight entirely.

[Ms. Toad]

26. Nope.

The need to travel long distances is not limited to weekends.

Business travel, funerals, acute illness of family members, etc.