Upgraded: Self-service air travel
It’s not for everyone (yet) but who wouldn’t want to strap on wings and jet engines and hit the skies at 186 mph? Rocket-powered Yves Rossy points the way. Click the video above to see him in action. Nuts.

Upgraded: Ryanair profits in a time of high oil prices
Continental and United may be laying off workers and cutting flights wholesale, and other airlines are folding (see: Silverjet), but EuroCheapskate Supreme Ryanair’s profits went up 20%. But they’re not completely immune from the price of oil: They predict they’ll break even, going forward, if oil were to hover around $130/bbl. Try breaking even at that price in the US of A.

Downgraded: Appeasing your eco-guilt
The U.N.’s International Civil Aviation Organization is creating a standard for carbon offsets for air travel, to create some sort of standardization to this unregulated low-information market. Good, in theory. But it’s controversial, of course. “The calculator measures only carbon dioxide emissions from burning jet fuel, and will ignore other, possibly multiplying warming effects from water vapor and nitrous oxide emissions.”

Upgraded: Non-sequitur headlines
Confusing headline: “Sector roundup: Airlines, diabetes meeting.” Give that airline a shot of insulin!

It’s been a tough few weeks, so the posting machine has been running a bit slow. Time to clear some of the backlog:

Survivor: Skybus edition
Jaunted’s Mark Johnson played anthropologist in the airline world last week, doing some participant-observation onboard ultra-cheap negative-frills airline Skybus. The whole saga, with videos and pictures, can be found here. Photo above is Mark’s pic of a $9/hour Skybus flight attendant selling goods (on commission). Ah, the ubiquitous Toblerone, official chocolate of 35,000 feet. But ice wine? And those crew uniforms look remarkably like the folks in those hotels.com TV ads…

Bonus: Skybus is adding three cities to their roster. “Hartford/Springfield” — which is really Westover Metropolitan (CEF), 19 miles from Bradley (BDL). “Jacksonville/Daytona Beach” — which is really St. Augustine/St. John’s County (UST), a whopping 42 air miles from Jacksonville (JAX). And San Diego. Yes, it’s really San Diego. One out of three ain’t bad.

At least he didn’t threaten the flight attendants
The TSA reportedly detained director Mike Figgis for five hours at LAX, after he told security screeners that he was in town to “shoot a pilot.” What, LAX employees never heard the television-industry parlance of “pilot”? UPDATE: This never happened. Mike Figgis himself says it’s BS. But it’s a good story, I tells ya.

Arthur Frommer had better watch out
Latest competitor to Fodor’s, Frommer’s, and Lonely Planet? Borat!

Canadian citizenship for Kip Hawley?
Even though the Canadian government has created their own security lists, Canadian airlines are still using American no-fly lists. Will TSA Director Kip Hawley freedom baggies be far off?

I’d rather pay for my mortgage with miles
Gary Leff wants to pay his mortgage by credit card, so he can earn points. And it will soon be possible, via American Express and a small set of lenders, who take a $395 fee up front. Years ago, I checked out a rental apartment that let you use Visa to pay your rent. (I didn’t rent it.) The apartment sucked, but think of the miles I left on the table!

Villa livin’
Wendy Perrin has written a great guide to finding an affordable villa or vacation home. But the prices she mentions are still not ultra-cheap. I’m already a villa convert: In December 2005, my wife and I rented a small beachfront house in Anguilla. The house had its own pool, looked across the strait to the beautiful, mountainous island of St. Martin (or St. Maarten, if you prefer), and cost a little over $200 per night. It had no butler service, and, while comfortable, it wasn’t “luxury,” but it was amazing value.

Spend green to go green?
The city of Denver wants passengers to buy carbon offsets when they fly out of DEN. They’re setting up kiosks that let you buy offsets just like you might buy that Mutual of Omaha travel insurance. At the same time, Republican Congressmen are, perhaps ironically, championing a greater role for the federal government: regulating carbon offsets. Might not be a bad idea. I’m all for supporting the environment, but I’m suspicious of the offset idea. This skeptical op-ed in the Times of London doesn’t help.

Explosive curry
Explosive curry damages a Boeing 747. Say no more.

Boxers = Boeing, briefs = Airbus
Great moments in headline writing: “Hong Kong tycoon buys B787 jet after seeing passenger in underpants.”

Yes, that hamster is happy to see you
Jetlagged? Try popping a Viagra. After all, it works for hamsters!

Downgraded: Presidential security
The Secret Service is overburdened. So they’re bringing in the TSA! If presidential candidates look like they haven’t washed their hair, because their shampoo was confiscated, this will be why. God help us all.

(image)

Reader Ben writes:

Did you see the article in the NYT about buying carbon offsets to “atone” for emissions for flights, etc.? It’s something I may actually do this year as a karmic compromise for the international flights I take. What do you think about these offsets?

As the article indicates, there’s no consensus on whether offsets are a good thing or not. (Offsets are cash payments to a third party, which promises to plant trees or invest in technologies that reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, thereby “offsetting” the damage done to the environment. You can offset flights, you car, your home’s energy use, or pretty much anything.)

It’s good that you’re thinking about the environmental impact of travel, but as some will argue, it’s just a feel-good patch that doesn’t truly offset your behavior. In fact, it could justify your flying more, putting even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, because you feel you’re doing the right thing.

On the other hand, if you’re going to fly anyway, why not do something good for the environment — even if it’s a small gesture. Every little bit helps, right? And maybe, just maybe, the awareness of the carbon-burn problem will spur some people to implement environmentally friendly changes in other aspects of their lives besides air travel. And you might even get a certificate. Whoo.

So I’m torn. I haven’t done it yet, but would consider it. I’d be sure to check the effectiveness of the organization that’s sponsoring the offset first, to make sure the money is spent wisely and administered efficiently. (There are several different offset providers.) Assuming they’re a nonprofit, I’d look them up on CharityNavigator. If they’re not a nonprofit, I’d ask why not.

Have you ever bought a carbon offset? Would you? Sound off in the comments!

Related:
- Burn, baby, burn: Silverjet makes carbon offsets mandatory
- Reduced-guilt flying now readily available for online purchase
- Are open skies dirty skies?

(image)

Northwest axes its standby program
While yesterday’s guest blogger Tyler Colman couldn’t hop on the earlier flight of his choice on American Airlines, he should thank his lucky stars that American still actually has free standby as an option.

Today, with a press release that trumpets the good news and buries the sad reality, Northwest proudly proclaimed the expansion of its “FlyNow option,” which allows travelers to confirm flight changes on the day of travel for a $25 fee. But here’s the real nitty-gritty:

Northwest WorldPerks Elite customers will still maintain the ability to stand by for alternate flights throughout the entire day of departure and will not incur a fee if a seat becomes available. Beginning April 24, all other customers traveling on non-refundable tickets will be charged a $25 fee for same day flight changes, whether boarding via standby status or confirming through the FlyNow option. The $25 fee for boarding via standby status replaces the current option that allows non-Elite customers traveling on non-refundable tickets to stand by for eligible flights at no cost.

Bottom line: Free standby is gone at Northwest, much like it’s no longer available at US Airways. You’ll pay $25 to confirm, or to standby. Why isn’t there a discount for the non-guaranteed standby option?? (Hat tip to reader Sarah in the comments!)

United kills Silver Wings Plus and Ameniti
United has pulled the plug on its two travel clubs. Silver Wings Plus, aimed at seniors, and Ameniti, targeting paying business and first class flyers, are closing shop at the end of June 2007. Ameniti was fairly short-lived, but Silver Wings Plus was around forever. The clubs each cost money to join and provided discounts for certain tickets. (Ameniti gave free companion tickets on full-fare tickets.) But therein was the problem. Much like learning the rules of a frequent flyer program seems to require an advanced degree, the rules for getting the benefit of these clubs weren’t always obvious. Members will receive prorated membership fee refunds. (Thanks to reader Richard!)

Delta to offer carbon offsets
Travelers feeling guilty about the carbon emissions spewing out of their plane’s jet engines will be able to buy carbon offsets through the Delta website beginning June 1. It won’t be mandatory, like all-business class Silverjet requires. It’s more like Expedia and Travelocity’s optional offsets.

Some seat changes on American cost $15
Bought your American Airlines ticket from a travel agent or website other than aa.com? Then you’ll pay $15 to change your seat assignment over the phone with the airline. Seat changes via the American website are still free.

(image)

Silverjet, the latest entrant in the all-business class segment of travel between New York and London, has done something no other airline has ever dared: imposed mandatory fees to cover the environmental effects of the trip.

Silverjet, which is working with the Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Management, said the exact cost of the carbon charge had yet to be calculated, but was likely to be between £10 and £20 for each passenger.

Expedia and Travelocity recently partnered with third-party organizations like TerraPass to give customers the option of buying so-called carbon offsets — monies that go toward planting trees and other carbon dioxide-reducing environmental projects. (If you want to go beyond offsetting your flights, you could also opt for the 8-week “carbon diet.”)

But Silverjet, which just began taking bookings for its service between Newark and London-Luton (flights start on January 25, 2007), is the first airline to require such a charge.

The move isn’t purely charitable. CEO Lawrence Hunt puts it succinctly: “If the airline industry does not do something about [emissions] then it will get regulated to hell by the European and UK governments.”

This might be the start of a trend among European airlines, but don’t expect Asian or American airlines to follow suit anytime soon.

Related:
- Reduced-guilt flying now readily available for online purchase
- Do we really need ANOTHER all-business class airline to London?
- Silverjet IPO enables third London-New York all-business-class airline
- Are open skies dirty skies?

Both Expedia and Travelocity rolled out similar features yesterday, allowing travelers buying airline tickets to placate their guilt over the environmental effects of air travel by purchasing carbon offsets. The way it works: You pay money to pay for trees and carbon-dioxide reducing environmental projects. The price you pay depends on the distance flown.

The programs are fully voluntary, and link up with existing programs such as TerraPass, which has been pushing carbon offsets for some time.

Amusingly, both Expedia and Travelocity claimed to be the first online travel agency to offer such a service. (If it’s a battle between press releases, Travelocity’s hit the wire an hour earlier. First to the gate!)

My question: Should they charge premium cabin passengers more than they charge economy passengers? On the one hand, you take up more room on the plane, as measured by square footage. On the other hand, you’re not really adding any more weight to the equation, so your presence in the front vs. the back doesn’t change the fuel requirements. Any ethicists out there want to take this on?

–

Separately, the European Union is pushing for limits on the amount of greenhouse gases which airlines legally produce each year. Treating airlines like power plants, the system would allow for “carbon trading” — companies that go over their emissions quota are required to buy “credits” for their overage from cleaner competitors. Since companies thereby have incentives to reduce emissions, both by avoiding fees, and by potentially profiting off the sale of credits, emissions trading schemes are widely viewed as successful. We’ll see how it works in aviation.

Related:
- Are open skies dirty skies?
- Buy, not fly, green

I admit that I have always felt a little guilty about the environmental impact of air travel. For the most part, I consider myself eco-friendly: I recycle, I keep the heat low, I avoid unnecessary driving, I have a very fuel efficient car, I contribute to environmental causes, I buy local produce when it’s in season, and I turn the lights off when I leave the room. My two biggest eco-sins: long, hot showers, and travel.

Suggesting that people fly less is not at all common in the United States. In fact, the ecological impact of aircraft is conspicuous by its very absence in the recent coverage of microjets or air-commuting. (Whether this reflects geography, awareness, or policy is a matter for debate.) Across the pond, though, the United Kingdom seems to be engaged in a vigorous debate over the morality of airplane travel. Organizations like Plane Stupid and FlightPledge seek to raise awareness of the environmental effects of all those miles.

In the context of the recent debate over “open skies” treaties, George Monbiot makes the most forceful case against air travel. (Apparently, his editors felt his original title “We are all killers” was too inflammatory, though…) Monbiot’s argument is a powerful one, especially when you mull over the numbers. (The version of the article republished on his personal site contains footnotes to back up the data he presents.) Read the whole thing.

Of course, not everyone agrees. The counterpoint by Jowett and Wiltshire (who represent the airport and airline industries, respectively) suggests that carbon trading may be a solution. In such a scenario, pollutive industries (like airlines) would buy credits from cleaner industries; logic suggests that this would spur innovation on both sides. Companies seeking to sell credits to dirtier counterparts would have incentives to build up “clean” credits, and smog-belchers would replace old equipment and seek greater efficiency in order to lower their costs.

I admit arguments advanced by Monbiot and others give me pause. Yet I’m one of the hypocrites he mentions — willing to concede that air travel is bad for the environment, but not yet willing to stop traveling. I try to appease myself with arguments based on fuel economy, like this:
The distance between Los Angeles and Auckland is approximately 13,000 miles round trip. Boeing estimates that the average 747 will burn 5 gallons of fuel per mile, so the round trip would burn 65,000 gallons. An Air New Zealand 747 carries just under 400 people when completely full. Let’s assume that the plane is only 80% full, though — 320 people on board. (They don’t sell out every flight, after all.) Therefore, the roundtrip fuel burn is approximately 203 gallons per person, or 64 miles per gallon per person (mpg/p). If the plane is full, then that number rises to 80 mpg/p. Fairly efficient transportation, right? Right?…

Maybe the “enemy” shouldn’t be air travel in general, but short hops on small, inefficient (and often uncomfortable) planes. Smaller regional jets are less eco-friendly on a per-person basis. The fuel burn at full capacity for a Canadair Regional Jet is approximately 34 mpg/p — a big drop in fuel economy from the 747. Larger, modern planes (especially Boeing’s forthcoming 787) burn less fuel per passenger, and should be favored, at least until planes start flying on solar power… A viable carbon trading system could help reduce emissions, but even then, long distance travel would mean negatively impacting the environment.