Non-stop or One-stop?

If you fly from say, Shanghai to Kuala Lumpur, do you prefer a non-stop flight or a stopover at Hong Kong?

If you are a business traveler who goes to China many times a year, you probably prefer a non-stop flight as you can’t wait to meet your loved ones. If, on the other hand, you are a leisure traveler who visits Shanghai for the first time, you may not mind spending an hour or two shopping in Chek Lap Kok Airport.

According to blogger Jam, a non-stop flight is more environmental friendly. In his post, Green Traveler Guide, he writes:

“In the case that flying is inevitable, choose direct flight. Minimize stopovers. This is because carbon emissions are the worst during take off and landing.”

If Jam’s theory is correct, a jet also burns more fuel during take off and landing.

However, Dean Foust and Justin Bachman, journalists of BusinessWeek, believe otherwise. They write:

“With roughly 30% of the weight of any transcontinental flight consisting of the fuel alone, meaning airlines are burning fuel just to carry fuel, carriers can be expected to replace many of those longer non-stops with one-stop flights, intended largely for refueling.”

Now I am confused. Is non-stop flight better than one-stop flight in terms of fuel economy and carbon emission, or vice versa?

If one-stop flight really turns out to be more economical, it will have an impact on the budget airlines such as AirAsia, which traditionally thrive on offering point-to-point flights. With oil price soared past $140 per barrel, will their business model survive

Links:

Jam: Green Traveler Guide

BusinessWeek: You Think Flying Is Bad Now…