Originally Posted by
Excargodog
Except what they are “OK” with doesn’t change the geometry a bit - not if they truly want a smaller carbon footprint. Current regional flying just won’t provide that result. Lower frequency would, small turboprops would, electric eight or twelve pax short range aircraft would. But flying someone 100-200 miles south or north so they can land, taxi in at a crowded hub, unload, then reload, taxi out at a crowded hub, to then travel 1500 miles East or West is going to be pretty counterproductive if you are trying to save on carbon footprint.
Serious question, does anyone know how a 50 seat RJ compares with a reasonably modern car? Which has a bigger carbon footprint per mile? If we curtail the short haul 50 seater flights, I'm guessing we'll just incentivize driving? Might be a good thing (carbon footprint wise) if pax travel from COS-DEN in a packed 15 pax shuttle-van. Maybe not such a good thing if the pax all drive their F-150 to DEN.