http://www.tmz.com/2006/10/18/celebs...but-guzzle-gas

 

Sorry but this is just another article trying to denegrade hybrids based upon things having nothing to do with the hybrid. It is a lame ad hominem attack and appeals to the basest level.

I don't care if a hybrid owner smokes, drinks, screws or flies an airplane. What that article shows and appeals to is a repuslive shade of green called envy.

Bob Wilson

 

Anyone who flies commercially knows that if you have to keep schedules (shooting) and delay means downtime and costs in excess of thousands of dollars, the wise thing is to fly private jets. In the long run money is saved in the form of unwasted resources. Given our commercial flight TSA security checks and the hassle of not being allowed to even carry a bottle of water aboard, who would in the right mind fly commercial if they can afford private jets?

 

Bob said it.

Besides, until there's a hybrid aircraft for these celebrities to take to do their work, just what do you expect them to fly? Commerical or private jet, they both burn fossil fuel. There is not yet an alternative form of transportation that meets those cross-country or international transportation needs. They've adopted the one option they do have -- hybrid or electric cars or SUVs.

 

Excellent point!

Use the right tool for the right job.

Bob Wilson

 

bwilson,

This article isn't trying to denegrate hybrids, its trying to denegrate hypocrite celebrities. There's no indictment of the hybrid there, there's just some evidence that some of these celebs are trying to portray a green image when its easy, but don't care when it comes to burning fuel while flying.

 

How is it hypocritical if they have no other option to transport themselves cross-country or internationally? Should they take hot air balloons? Sorry, burn fossil fuels. Gliders? Not very predictable a form of transportation, and most require a standard aircraft to tow them to adequate gliding altitude/where thermals are. Cross-country electric bus trip? Only if they can somehow do their shooting from the back of the bus because that will eat into every movie producer's schedule to have his/her whole cast and crew waylayed for weeks. Steam ship? Oops, burning coal. Train? Same thing.

Until celebrities sprout wings, I don't see how you expect them to fly any other way.

You've never flown on an aircraft? Surely you feel an aircraft serves needs a Prius, Insight, etc. cannot.

 

I think we need to think in terms of mpg per person. If a private jet only carries a celebrity and his or her entourage then that's perhaps 8 people. A jetliner might burn 2-3 times more fuel but carries one to two hundred passengers.

If you unloaded a 747 and put all the passengers on separate private jets, it's much more wasteful.


http://www.sightline.org/publication...2_04_airtravel

 

I was recently on a commercial flight from San Antonio to Denver, CO. There were maybe 14 passengers onboard, plus 4 air stewards and at least two in the cockpit (pilot & copilot).

I was surprised the airline would book a flight with so few people.

So, don't be so quick to say that commercial flight is more logical.

Further, where is your data on how many people fly on the average professionally owned private jetliner (this includes celebrities in movies, as well as professional sports stars, politicians, corporate CEOs and other executives, etc.)

Most people who take this perspective would probably say even a movie star like Angelina Jolie, who owns and flies her own private aircraft (a Cirrus SR22; for the uninitiated, it's the aircraft with a built-in parachute for engine-out failure.) Nevermind that dollar per dollar it's probably *the* most logical form of transportation for her -- she doesn't have to hire a pilot and crew, she doesn't have to rent an aircraft or pay a fractional or full ownership on a jet, the fuel costs are lower than a private jet, and while it's slower than a private jet it's vastly faster and more flexible than a car/truck/van/bus. She can fly it to Southern Mexico and then to Hollywood and then to NYC.

I think people are vastly oversimplifying this as they always do when it's "us" vs. "them". Too easy, gang. Logic complicates things... but is worth the effort, imho.

And, yes, my husband's a licensed General Aviation pilot with an instrument rating. We rent single engine aircraft to fly (Cessna Skyhawks, almost exclusively) and will probably never own our own aircraft, unless it's a fractional ownership in one someday. I don't see that *entirely different form of transportation* that *has no "hybrid" alternative yet* as "hypocritical".

People spend so much time trying to be "greener than thou"... celebrities are an easy target. At least extrapolate it out to our own, small little lives, you know.. the ones we actually have control over. But that requires work and dedication, and that's too hard. It's easier to point fingers and judge. Soooo much easier.

P.S. Those 747 passengers put on private jets wouldn't necessarily be more wasteful. How often have you had layovers to cities and states you don't even remotely need to be in, when flying commerically? With a private jet, you fly STRAIGHT SHOT to where you need to go. Tell me that's burning more fuel, per person, than a jetliner that hauls me off to Dallas from San Antonio before taking me to Florida or NYC.

 

I could agree with:

". . . its trying to denegrate hypocrite hybrid owners."

It doesn't matter whether the hybrid owner is a celebrity or humble old me who flew a jet instead of walking, taking a bus, hitch-hiking or riding a bamboo bicycle to Texas to pickup his hybrid. That article is an ugly shade of green-eyed envy of hybrid owners who in this case, happen to be successful.

That article reminds me that "You should not covet thy neighbor's 'donkey'." Today's donkeys are different modes of transportation.

Bob Wilson