Wonder how emissions/seat/km on representative routes differs from the larger planes?
Given that landing and takeoff is particularly bad for emissions if you're avoiding a change of planes I guess that might be a win ? Not as big a win as not flying but better ...
Given that the first example they give is NYC-LON it's a question that interests me.
I find the other trade off (against the extra fuel consumption from each takeoff and climb) interesting. Additional fuel is consumed to carry the weight of the additional fuel required for a longer range (and so that is recursive). For example, under the Weight - Flight Distance heading of the Fuel Economy in Aircraft Wikipedia page, it notes that for trips above 3000 NM, it is more efficient for a 777-300 to make a stop for refuelling.
the issue with big planes is that they're more efficient if you fill them up.
with 747 or 380 sized planes that was always a tenuous proposition at best. if it's not full it's still burning the fuel to lug its heavy big self around.
Given that landing and takeoff is particularly bad for emissions if you're avoiding a change of planes I guess that might be a win ? Not as big a win as not flying but better ...
Given that the first example they give is NYC-LON it's a question that interests me.