Which is more efficient; putting 6 people in a 16 mpg SUV or 3 people in two 24 mpg cars? The argument is valid; by flying fewer flights on larger airplanes, airlines and consumers should be able to save money.

I also buy all my SUVs at dealerships with shelves.

Terrx: Which is more efficient; putting 6 people in a 16 mpg SUV or 3 people in two 24 mpg cars?

Putting 3 people each in two 35 MPG cars is more efficient.

subby was under the impression that there would be no math ...

Dinki

The SUV analogy is flawed- people aren't filling their SUV to capacity with passengers.


However, the airlines can [in theory] plan their routes appropriately to ensure decent seat-fillage. This is noticeably easier to do with long-haul extra big-ass planes than it is with the short-hop Canadair or Embraer regional jets.

not really the same things, subby

As far as I know, most SUV drivers aren't aware that their car can contain a second passenger.

SchlingFo: Putting 3 people each in two 35 MPG cars is more efficient.



New, from Honda Boeing!

Yeah, the A380 will have a lower CASM, but how many airlines need to fly 600-800 people across a long distance? Obviously, this would limit the natural market for A380s, and we've already seen the orders we expected - Singapore, Emirates, Qantas, BA, Air France, Lufthansa etc. I'd say Airbus will be lucky to squeeze out another 100 orders before year-end.

If you mean that these new aircraft aren't selling as well because of the credit crunch then you have a point there, subby, although you cleverly phrased the headline to mis-direct farkers to read it as large aircraft fuel usage = SUV gas usage.

/Nice troll?

spasemunki: As far as I know, most SUV drivers aren't aware that their car can contain a second passenger.

WINEER!!1!

If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going.

Terrx
Which is more efficient; putting 6 people in a 16 mpg SUV or 3 people in two 24 mpg cars? The argument is valid; by flying fewer flights on larger airplanes, airlines and consumers should be able to save money.

THIS

Dinki
The SUV analogy is flawed- people aren't filling their SUV to capacity with passengers.

AND THIS

NikolaiFarkoff: Dinki: The SUV analogy is flawed- people aren't filling their SUV to capacity with passengers.

Neither are a lot of European flights...subsidized national carriers ftw.

A lot of European flights nowadays, maybe a majority, are through low-cost carriers - RyanAir, EasyJet, Monarch, Vueling, etc. - or through package holiday airlines such as Thomson, Thomas Cook and First Choice. None of these are government subsidised, AFAIK.

Terrx: Which is more efficient; putting 6 people in a 16 mpg SUV or 3 people in two 24 mpg cars?

Putting 200 people on a train.

/Your argument is still valid :)

.

I thought the article was about how more efficient Jets should become popular, as they are more efficient, which is why they call them "more efficient". Kinda like how more efficient cars are selling better and keeping their resale value.

Englebert Slaptyback:

This is noticeably easier to do with long-haul extra big-ass planes than it is with the short-hop Canadair or Embraer regional jets.

Well the regional jet strategy seems to be to overbook them and let seat cancellations and rebookings take up the slack. And it works better than spoke-and-hub management at the moment anyway.

/I feel sorry for tall people tho

.

Subby fails basic math..

SUVs are useless. They are badly designed minivans for people who didn't want to be seen in minivans.

Trucks are extremely useful, if used for hauling. As a passenger vehicle, not so much.

Yes I have a minivan to schlepp my varmints around in.

It has carried more lumber, tools, and other heavy cargo than any of your SUVs. Because it has more cargo space. Don't argue the point.

And yeah it still looks lame.

90% of what we do is just to delude ourselves or someone else, so if buying an SUV is how you choose to delude yourself, so be it.

DistendedPendulusFrenulum: Terrx: Which is more efficient; putting 6 people in a 16 mpg SUV or 3 people in two 24 mpg cars?

Putting 200 people on a train.

/Your argument is still valid :)

.

Train travel is barely efficient and highly over expensive compared to the alternatives.

This is moot.

I've nearly perfected my teleporter.

The rats don't die instantly, now.

Dinki: The SUV analogy is flawed- people aren't filling their SUV to capacity with passengers.

THIS

Terrx: Which is more efficient

One baby in 3 trashcans?

The efficiency thing will be resolved when airlines start waiting until the plane is full before flying it to the destination. Some foreign airlines do this... you show up at the airport and you are told "we are not flying today, come back tomorrow". Then the next day (or the day after), the plane is full with everyone who was stuck waiting for a plane.
\works great when you're the only airline to choose from

wrappedintinfoil: SUVs are useless. They are badly designed minivans for people who didn't want to be seen in minivans.

Trucks are extremely useful, if used for hauling. As a passenger vehicle, not so much.

Yes I have a minivan to schlepp my varmints around in.

It has carried more lumber, tools, and other heavy cargo than any of your SUVs. Because it has more cargo space. Don't argue the point.

And yeah it still looks lame.

90% of what we do is just to delude ourselves or someone else, so if buying an SUV is how you choose to delude yourself, so be it.

My "useless" SUV pulls the boat, while hauling skiing equipment, the kids and their friends, two large dogs, and the wife to the lake and back. My pickup does not have the room, the old mini-van did not have the power.

Perhaps you next blanket statement will have more validity than your previous one.

Flash_NYC: The higher fuel prices will justify A-380 planes in the 800 passenger configuration, from now on known as the sardine-can configuration, rather than the 450 people with spas and gyms on board configuration that was pitched at the unveiling ceremony way back before most of our collective memory in 2006.

450 people, no we never said that. OK if we did, we didn't think anyone would believe that.

Anyway, shutup and board passenger 798.

Did you really believe anyone would use the 450 passenger configuration?

Sure there's a market for the A380. It's just not big enough to justify the design cost for anything other than a European jobs-program. I'm a Boeing baby, but I don't begrudge Europe subsidizing a big ass plane for the 10% of routes in the world that can use it.

I work for EADS, Airbus' parent company. The consensus around here is that we bet the farm and lost. Four, FOUR, A380s have been delivered so far and only 8 will go out the door by years end. The fly-away cost to Airbus of each one is about a billion USD. Billion, with a 'B'.

No doubt you know that they've sold for much less than that...

The SUV analogy aside.

Flights leave Phoenix headed to NYC every 20 minutes. Sending 1 380 every hour has got to be better than sending 3 widebodies.

mycatisposter: My "useless" SUV pulls the boat, while hauling skiing equipment, the kids and their friends, two large dogs, and the wife to the lake and back. My pickup does not have the room, the old mini-van did not have the power.

You're doing it wrong.

Sell the SUV, the boat, and the skiing equipment. Ditch the wife, kids, dogs and friends. Take the money and buy new clothes and a decent sports car that will attract hot, vapid young women who put out, then screw their brains out in expensive hotel rooms, charging room service to your ex-wife's credit cards, until you die.

Can we get pay-per-lb yet?

My last flight had 8+ 300lb fatties.

Terrx: Which is more efficient; putting 6 people in a 16 mpg SUV or 3 people in two 24 mpg cars?

Putting them in a 6 mpg bus with 40 other people. We're seeing a lot more of that around here lately.

Dinki: The SUV analogy is flawed- people aren't filling their SUV to capacity with passengers.

They're also not selling tickets and planning out trips weeks, if not months, ahead of time.

Provided they can sell enough of these planes, I really don't see the problem. Squeezing 800 passengers onto one big aeroplane can be very handy. And I'm not so sure that it'll be impossible to find airlines to buy these planes - as China and India pick up, there'll be more people flying on more routes, which is where bigger planes come in.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that Airbus plane designed to be a "regional" air plane, in that it will only go to major air ports. This is partly due, I believe, with the fact that most air ports do not have runways to support a jet of this size.

Because it will not serve most air ports, passengers will have to transfer onto another plane to get to their destination. In that sense, is it really more efficient than going on a non-stop flight?

I don't know much about the airline business, so again, please correct me if I'm wrong

ManicParroT: Provided they can sell enough of these planes, I really don't see the problem. Squeezing 800 passengers onto one big aeroplane can be very handy. And I'm not so sure that it'll be impossible to find airlines to buy these planes - as China and India pick up, there'll be more people flying on more routes, which is where bigger planes come in.

Yah, the A380 is not for the US and European markets, that's for sure. It's for international travel, and mostly the Asian market.

I have to work on Airbus planes from time to time. They are designed by the insane.

If we could just think of a way for incompetence to make a generator spin, the employees of Airbus could power the planet.

nobodys_goose: Train travel is barely efficient and highly over expensive compared to the alternatives.

Per person, trains are by far the most efficient motorized transport in terms of fuel consumption.

I know that in the US our passenger trains suck but I think it will slowly change. Freight is way up though. I've read that Union Pacific is having problems with gridlock because they've got so much stuff to move. Sorry to trucker's families but I'm really glad that more stuff is coming off the interstates and going by train. Probably improves car efficiency a little because people can stay at a more constant speed when there are less large, slow vehicles on the road.

/train nerd

miracledirt: This is moot.

I've nearly perfected my teleporter.

The rats don't die instantly, now.

They had to be unconscious first, didn't they?

NikolaiFarkoff: Dinki: The SUV analogy is flawed- people aren't filling their SUV to capacity with passengers.

Neither are a lot of European flights...subsidized national carriers ftw.

I wish that were true on all the European flights I take with Easyjet - they're almost always packed.

mycatisposter: 90% of what we do is just to delude ourselves or someone else, so if buying an SUV is how you choose to delude yourself, so be it.

My "useless" SUV pulls the boat, while hauling skiing equipment, the kids and their friends, two large dogs, and the wife to the lake and back. My pickup does not have the room, the old mini-van did not have the power.

Perhaps you next blanket statement will have more validity than your previous one.

Citing exceptions to the rule do not negate the rule, and if you don't think you're the exception ask this - what is the ratio of folks who buy for function vs buy for perceived social significance of SUVs and minivans?

But hey, you're trolling, I'm trolling, it's just argument for the sake of entertainment anyway. This one's old. Next.

We should limit mass transit buses to be over 45mgp efficient. Right subby?