If you are a business traveler who goes to
“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