• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 2:54 pm

Pyrex wrote:
Ohh, she just went full retard. Everybody knows you never go full retard.


Except when you are a US liberal/Democrat. Then the sky is the limit (sky soon to be replaced by high speed rail).

The new nickname going around the internet for AOC is" She Guevara".
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:09 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
mfe777 wrote:
Your quoting an "assets document cloud" article, not anything released by a US legislator. Anybody could have written and released that article. Please look at the actual documents released which contain none of this outrageous material, and do not refer to air travel whatsoever.


And it would be Bogus too. Yeah, you can make air travel superfluous in certain sectors, generally where a train can do it in ~4 hours or less and the volume is high, but JFK-LAX ....... LAN-MSP .... ? Nada.

blockski wrote:
Outside of the US, there's a lot of efficiency to be gained from integrating surface transport (via HSR) and air travel - it's a place where we've only just begun to tap the potential, and even then only at a handful of airports.


via efficiency in general. Most people, not all, in the US pay less for a KWh than i do. I still just pay less than 30 EUR/Month ..... more money left for me to buy stuff instead of handing my money to the Russian Government to get something that is just burned.....
Going Green has generally generated a lot more Jobs that the classical energy business too.

best regards
Thomas


In most places where "green energy" has been pushed, rates either skyrocketed or were heavily subsidized which means the money came from some form of taxation.

Also, if it is takes more jobs to produce the same amount of energy, that energy will have to cost more. Does anyone understand economics??
 
Kno
Posts: 275
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 10:08 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:29 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Then again, we haven’t built a sizable new airport in decades—DEN and RSW might be the last ones for airline ops, neither was especially hard to find open land for.

GF


RSW simply has a new terminal I wouldn't say its a new airport
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:30 pm

TheFlyingDisk wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
It's just not profitable when you include infrastructure costs.


And that's the problem.

I'm honestly amazed that America is able to land people on the Moon, given that the venture is obviously not a profitable one. I mean, how can you profit from a bunch of moon rocks?


Forty years after Apollo 11 moon landing, consumers reap benefits of giant (technological) leaps

https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/new ... /index.htm
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 2605
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:34 pm

jetero wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
jetero wrote:

There’s no other option, except driving.

That said don’t take that as jetero’s ringing endorsement for high speed rail!


I am not against HSR per se but in this country it's just practical as it is in a China etc.


C’mon Nikky, have you even looked at the Chinese HSR network?! It’s as practical as dropping a line from Houston to Chicago.

Anyway I’m sure it’ll all work out very well in the end for China, just not sure why we can’t have a conversation about infrastructure without people crying “eminent domain” and “it costs too much money.”

That attitude is a friggin cancer on the country and will ensure the US drops way way way behind.


It only “costs too much money” when the costs exceed the benefits, which is pretty much the definition of profits. Yes, many public goods like roads and airports and rail produce benefits far exceeding their costs. OTOH, .a light rail system without riders costs too much.

GF
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:46 pm

Dutchy wrote:
DrEsteban wrote:
jetero wrote:

I don’t know why you associate “eminent domain” with socialism.

If you’re such a (presumably) supporter of the aviation industry, how in the hell do you think airports got built? Through the magic of private enterprise?


I associate socialism with eminent domain because socialists generally have very little respect for individual freedoms and private ownership. Not to say that eminent domain hasn’t been used by right leaning governments. It is just not as prominent.

And why couldn’t I be a aviation supporter without agreeing with the principle of eminent domain? Please do tell me.


You have to be careful using the term socialist. Socialism isn't communism and you describe communism more than socialism. I consider myself to be a social liberal, but I think individual freedom / privicy is very important and I am an entrepreneur, so I run my own business.


The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/vlad ... nin_136421
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:49 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
DrEsteban wrote:

I associate socialism with eminent domain because socialists generally have very little respect for individual freedoms and private ownership. Not to say that eminent domain hasn’t been used by right leaning governments. It is just not as prominent.

And why couldn’t I be a aviation supporter without agreeing with the principle of eminent domain? Please do tell me.


You have to be careful using the term socialist. Socialism isn't communism and you describe communism more than socialism. I consider myself to be a social liberal, but I think individual freedom / privicy is very important and I am an entrepreneur, so I run my own business.


The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/vlad ... nin_136421


AirFiero:

“If you’re curious about the ultimate goal of socialism, read more at brainyquote.com!”
Last edited by jetero on Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 2605
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 3:53 pm

WRT, my comment on light rail, compare the San Diego LRT with Calgary’s. Calgary has three times the paying ridership at one-§third the capital cost. One makes sense, the other not so much. Path dependence isn’t just an idea. The US is too built out, yoocar orirnted for most LRT systems.

GF
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:08 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
There is no need to wait for the federal government to implement something like a "Green-New-Deal". Towns and cities can act regardless. The people and city council of NYC Queens Borough - who are undoubtedly 100% behind AOCs plans (they voted her into office after all) - can implement a "Green Tax" right now to pay for improved public transport, neighbor hood electrical car charging stations, energy efficient home insulation, bike share program, etc. On top of that they could ban gasoline cars from neighborhood roads and set a local minimum wage much higher than the federal limit.
And since this is NYC, money is not an issue. Pretty much every home owner is a millionaire. The wealth in New York is just sitting there, waiting to be taken and be used for the greater good. Slap on a 10, 20, 30% property tax and Green Bliss is within reach.


California is already pushing this...

Proposed bill would ban new gas, diesel-powered cars in California by 2040
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercur ... -2040/amp/
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:17 pm

af773atmsp wrote:
Sometimes you need to ask for overkill to get good enough or not quite good enough.

I like the high speed rail idea. Obviously it won't replace every domestic flight, but there are routes where upgraded rail infrastructure could mean less or no flights are needed.


I am curious why you and others are here on any aviation forum and are willing to eliminate some portion of aviation activity?
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:34 pm

jetero wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
jetero wrote:
Southwest is pretty useless for short-haul travel in its historical markets in Texas--the best advance fares in the original Wright Amendment markets seem to be $200 R/T, or a cool $1.00/mile.


I was thinking LAS-LAX or LGA-CHS actually. Also where is the money going to come from to build this HSR in Texas? Hasn't the mess in CA been enough?


Supposedly a private corporation. (Well, not supposedly. It is.)

Let's see if it even starts construction. Maybe a 10% chance of that?

If it does, I'd give it a 10% chance of finishing.

And another 10% for operating for a full year before going into receivership.

Hell, a private operator couldn't even make a highway work.

http://projects.expressnews.com/the-end ... -toll-road


One example of private rail ventures being problematic

Las Vegas Monorail wants multimillion-dollar guarantee to move forward with expansion
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.review ... nsion/amp/
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:34 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
DrEsteban wrote:

I associate socialism with eminent domain because socialists generally have very little respect for individual freedoms and private ownership. Not to say that eminent domain hasn’t been used by right leaning governments. It is just not as prominent.

And why couldn’t I be a aviation supporter without agreeing with the principle of eminent domain? Please do tell me.


You have to be careful using the term socialist. Socialism isn't communism and you describe communism more than socialism. I consider myself to be a social liberal, but I think individual freedom / privicy is very important and I am an entrepreneur, so I run my own business.


The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/vlad ... nin_136421


Whatever put your mind at ease. I believe in a more balanced approach, instead of believing in 100% individualism and markets.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:36 pm

AirFiero wrote:
jetero wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

I was thinking LAS-LAX or LGA-CHS actually. Also where is the money going to come from to build this HSR in Texas? Hasn't the mess in CA been enough?


Supposedly a private corporation. (Well, not supposedly. It is.)

Let's see if it even starts construction. Maybe a 10% chance of that?

If it does, I'd give it a 10% chance of finishing.

And another 10% for operating for a full year before going into receivership.

Hell, a private operator couldn't even make a highway work.

http://projects.expressnews.com/the-end ... -toll-road


One example of private rail ventures being problematic

Las Vegas Monorail wants multimillion-dollar guarantee to move forward with expansion
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.review ... nsion/amp/


All private rail ventures are “problematic” because they don’t make money.

Is that really up for debate?!
 
mham001
Posts: 5283
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:52 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:36 pm

mfe777 wrote:
That source is not linked to anything but Breitbart and other far right news media, it's likely very fake. The NPR documents are real from the legislators, and contain nothing regarding air travel, therefore moderators should delete this thread. The farting cows, getting rid of planes, and supporting people who are unwilling to work is all fake crap.... please raise your standard of truth versus lies. Our nation depends on you realizing Breitbart and the like are out to deceive you.


Just for the record since I saw you post several times about this, the document you suggest as "Breitbart fake news" is easily found on npr.org.

I thought it amazing how she managed to instill racism into climate change policy.
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:38 pm

mham001 wrote:
mfe777 wrote:
That source is not linked to anything but Breitbart and other far right news media, it's likely very fake. The NPR documents are real from the legislators, and contain nothing regarding air travel, therefore moderators should delete this thread. The farting cows, getting rid of planes, and supporting people who are unwilling to work is all fake crap.... please raise your standard of truth versus lies. Our nation depends on you realizing Breitbart and the like are out to deceive you.


Just for the record since I saw you post several times about this, the document you suggest as "Breitbart fake news" is easily found on npr.org.

I thought it amazing how she managed to instill racism into climate change policy.


HOW SO, mham, proven protector of minority rights?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:38 pm

AirFiero wrote:
jetero wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

In most places where "green energy" has been pushed, rates either skyrocketed or were heavily subsidized which means the money came from some form of taxation.

Also, if it is takes more jobs to produce the same amount of energy, that energy will have to cost more. Does anyone understand economics??


RATES FOR WHAT, EXACTLY, AF?!

You seem to be talking out your posterior, yet somehow you seem to fancy yourself an expert.

What exactly do you mean by “understanding economics”? “Economics” can explain communism. Shudder the thought!


Electricity, for one. Here's one example....

Yes, Solar And Wind Really Do Increase Electricity Prices -- And For Inherently Physical Reasons
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... asons/amp/


Yes, green energy is more expensive, if you do not count the external cost of burning fossil fuels. If you do, green energy is the less expensive one. External cost are born by society at large: consequences of global warming, pollution, health etc. So you pay for it either way.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 4:54 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
There is no need to wait for the federal government to implement something like a "Green-New-Deal". Towns and cities can act regardless. The people and city council of NYC Queens Borough - who are undoubtedly 100% behind AOCs plans (they voted her into office after all) - can implement a "Green Tax" right now to pay for improved public transport, neighbor hood electrical car charging stations, energy efficient home insulation, bike share program, etc. On top of that they could ban gasoline cars from neighborhood roads and set a local minimum wage much higher than the federal limit.
And since this is NYC, money is not an issue. Pretty much every home owner is a millionaire. The wealth in New York is just sitting there, waiting to be taken and be used for the greater good. Slap on a 10, 20, 30% property tax and Green Bliss is within reach.


California is already pushing this...

Proposed bill would ban new gas, diesel-powered cars in California by 2040
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercur ... -2040/amp/


2040? Should be 2030 preferable, this is about putting new cars on the road, the average lifespan of a car is 15-20 years, so that means the era of fossil fuel is over by 2045 - 2050. 11 years is enough time for car companies to make the right investment in technology.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Jouhou
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 4:16 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:03 pm

Considering how this thread started off I don't know why anyone sane is even dignifying this with a response.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:08 pm

jetero wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
jetero wrote:

There’s no other option, except driving.

That said don’t take that as jetero’s ringing endorsement for high speed rail!


I am not against HSR per se but in this country it's just practical as it is in a China etc.


C’mon Nikky, have you even looked at the Chinese HSR network?! It’s as practical as dropping a line from Houston to Chicago.

Anyway I’m sure it’ll all work out very well in the end for China, just not sure why we can’t have a conversation about infrastructure without people crying “eminent domain” and “it costs too much money.”

That attitude is a friggin cancer on the country and will ensure the US drops way way way behind.


It may be that HSR is a more viable in China because it has four times the population in the same land area as the US?
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:10 pm

AirFiero wrote:
jetero wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:

I am not against HSR per se but in this country it's just practical as it is in a China etc.


C’mon Nikky, have you even looked at the Chinese HSR network?! It’s as practical as dropping a line from Houston to Chicago.

Anyway I’m sure it’ll all work out very well in the end for China, just not sure why we can’t have a conversation about infrastructure without people crying “eminent domain” and “it costs too much money.”

That attitude is a friggin cancer on the country and will ensure the US drops way way way behind.


It may be that HSR is a more viable in China because it has four times the population in the same land area as the US?


AF why do you keep on implying that rail does not require subsidy? What’s your agenda?
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:10 pm

Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

You have to be careful using the term socialist. Socialism isn't communism and you describe communism more than socialism. I consider myself to be a social liberal, but I think individual freedom / privicy is very important and I am an entrepreneur, so I run my own business.


The goal of socialism is communism. Vladimir Lenin
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/vlad ... nin_136421


Whatever put your mind at ease. I believe in a more balanced approach, instead of believing in 100% individualism and markets.


You are assuming that I believe in 100% individualism and markets. You would be incorrect.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:11 pm

jetero wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
jetero wrote:

Supposedly a private corporation. (Well, not supposedly. It is.)

Let's see if it even starts construction. Maybe a 10% chance of that?

If it does, I'd give it a 10% chance of finishing.

And another 10% for operating for a full year before going into receivership.

Hell, a private operator couldn't even make a highway work.

http://projects.expressnews.com/the-end ... -toll-road


One example of private rail ventures being problematic

Las Vegas Monorail wants multimillion-dollar guarantee to move forward with expansion
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.review ... nsion/amp/


All private rail ventures are “problematic” because they don’t make money.

Is that really up for debate?!


I didn't say "all". I said "one example".
 
af773atmsp
Posts: 2342
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 1:37 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:37 pm

AirFiero wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
Sometimes you need to ask for overkill to get good enough or not quite good enough.

I like the high speed rail idea. Obviously it won't replace every domestic flight, but there are routes where upgraded rail infrastructure could mean less or no flights are needed.


I am curious why you and others are here on any aviation forum and are willing to eliminate some portion of aviation activity?


Because it makes sense. Imagine how much space there would be at ORD and MDW if Chicago had a passenger rail network comparable to those in Europe.

Imagine all the emissions cut replacing unnecessary flights or routes with passenger rail.
DC10-40,MD88,A319,A320,A332,717,722,733,737,738,752,ATR-72,736,788
SY,DL,FI,FL,BA,EI,NW,MG,DY,EZY,F9,WN,SN,ET,SK
Too many airports to fit in signature.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:41 pm

Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
jetero wrote:

RATES FOR WHAT, EXACTLY, AF?!

You seem to be talking out your posterior, yet somehow you seem to fancy yourself an expert.

What exactly do you mean by “understanding economics”? “Economics” can explain communism. Shudder the thought!


Electricity, for one. Here's one example....

Yes, Solar And Wind Really Do Increase Electricity Prices -- And For Inherently Physical Reasons
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... asons/amp/


Yes, green energy is more expensive, if you do not count the external cost of burning fossil fuels. If you do, green energy is the less expensive one. External cost are born by society at large: consequences of global warming, pollution, health etc. So you pay for it either way.



There IS NO external cost of global warming. There has been no warming for 20 years, proven by the more reliable and more extensive data from satellite measuring. Data fiddling is also a major problem with the assumptions about current and future warming

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/06/end- ... ata-pause/

This is also showing up in the HadCRUT4 surface dataset

The planet is no longer warming
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/ ... r-warming/

Direct link to the dataset
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:45 pm

Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
There is no need to wait for the federal government to implement something like a "Green-New-Deal". Towns and cities can act regardless. The people and city council of NYC Queens Borough - who are undoubtedly 100% behind AOCs plans (they voted her into office after all) - can implement a "Green Tax" right now to pay for improved public transport, neighbor hood electrical car charging stations, energy efficient home insulation, bike share program, etc. On top of that they could ban gasoline cars from neighborhood roads and set a local minimum wage much higher than the federal limit.
And since this is NYC, money is not an issue. Pretty much every home owner is a millionaire. The wealth in New York is just sitting there, waiting to be taken and be used for the greater good. Slap on a 10, 20, 30% property tax and Green Bliss is within reach.


California is already pushing this...

Proposed bill would ban new gas, diesel-powered cars in California by 2040
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercur ... -2040/amp/


2040? Should be 2030 preferable, this is about putting new cars on the road, the average lifespan of a car is 15-20 years, so that means the era of fossil fuel is over by 2045 - 2050. 11 years is enough time for car companies to make the right investment in technology.



And you are ok with this? Government mandate to eliminate all ICE powered cars? Were you the one not wanting 100% individualism? What about 100% government control, people use that somehow ok?
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:46 pm

jetero wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
jetero wrote:

C’mon Nikky, have you even looked at the Chinese HSR network?! It’s as practical as dropping a line from Houston to Chicago.

Anyway I’m sure it’ll all work out very well in the end for China, just not sure why we can’t have a conversation about infrastructure without people crying “eminent domain” and “it costs too much money.”

That attitude is a friggin cancer on the country and will ensure the US drops way way way behind.


It may be that HSR is a more viable in China because it has four times the population in the same land area as the US?


AF why do you keep on implying that rail does not require subsidy? What’s your agenda?


At no time did I say or imply any such thing.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:48 pm

af773atmsp wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
Sometimes you need to ask for overkill to get good enough or not quite good enough.

I like the high speed rail idea. Obviously it won't replace every domestic flight, but there are routes where upgraded rail infrastructure could mean less or no flights are needed.


I am curious why you and others are here on any aviation forum and are willing to eliminate some portion of aviation activity?


Because it makes sense. Imagine how much space there would be at ORD and MDW if Chicago had a passenger rail network comparable to those in Europe.

Imagine all the emissions cut replacing unnecessary flights or routes with passenger rail.


Or makes no sense for a supposed aviation enthusiast to want less aviation activity and/or choices and freedom.
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:49 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

Electricity, for one. Here's one example....

Yes, Solar And Wind Really Do Increase Electricity Prices -- And For Inherently Physical Reasons
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes ... asons/amp/


Yes, green energy is more expensive, if you do not count the external cost of burning fossil fuels. If you do, green energy is the less expensive one. External cost are born by society at large: consequences of global warming, pollution, health etc. So you pay for it either way.



There IS NO external cost of global warming. There has been no warming for 20 years, proven by the more reliable and more extensive data from satellite measuring. Data fiddling is also a major problem with the assumptions about current and future warming

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/06/end- ... ata-pause/

This is also showing up in the HadCRUT4 surface dataset

The planet is no longer warming
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/ ... r-warming/

Direct link to the dataset
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/


GREAT SOURCES!

By any chance do you have a summary from the National Enquirer?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:58 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

California is already pushing this...

Proposed bill would ban new gas, diesel-powered cars in California by 2040
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mercur ... -2040/amp/


2040? Should be 2030 preferable, this is about putting new cars on the road, the average lifespan of a car is 15-20 years, so that means the era of fossil fuel is over by 2045 - 2050. 11 years is enough time for car companies to make the right investment in technology.



And you are ok with this? Government mandate to eliminate all ICE powered cars? Were you the one not wanting 100% individualism? What about 100% government control, people use that somehow ok?


Pfff government regulates all kinds of things, but somehow ICE powered cars are in the constitutional right or something and cannot be changed? Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 5:59 pm

jetero wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Yes, green energy is more expensive, if you do not count the external cost of burning fossil fuels. If you do, green energy is the less expensive one. External cost are born by society at large: consequences of global warming, pollution, health etc. So you pay for it either way.



There IS NO external cost of global warming. There has been no warming for 20 years, proven by the more reliable and more extensive data from satellite measuring. Data fiddling is also a major problem with the assumptions about current and future warming

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/06/end- ... ata-pause/

This is also showing up in the HadCRUT4 surface dataset

The planet is no longer warming
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/ ... r-warming/

Direct link to the dataset
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/


GREAT SOURCES!

By any chance do you have a summary from the National Enquirer?



Never mind, if AirFiero wants to be the resident climate denial, fine by me. Not going to put any effort into that.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:04 pm

AirFiero wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

I am curious why you and others are here on any aviation forum and are willing to eliminate some portion of aviation activity?


Because it makes sense. Imagine how much space there would be at ORD and MDW if Chicago had a passenger rail network comparable to those in Europe.

Imagine all the emissions cut replacing unnecessary flights or routes with passenger rail.


Or makes no sense for a supposed aviation enthusiast to want less aviation activity and/or choices and freedom.


Less pollution, a better planet for every human? Or do you believe that your freedom to pollute succeeds the freedom for others to live? Think island nations in the Pacific Ocean whom are set to be submerged in a few decades.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
seb146
Posts: 19407
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:53 pm

aviationaware wrote:
seb146 wrote:

It is written into the Green New Deal: union jobs (which would include non-government health care and a non-government retirement) paying a wage that people can live on.


I know that market mechanics are a bit difficult for you lefties, but just as a little hint, when prices for labor go up, demand goes down. Liveable wages for everyone are possible, but certainly not by government edict. Anyone who believes that is a total moron.


Which is why the iPhone X is 2 for $1........

You righties keep saying "just create jobs here and everyone will win". Well, this is that solution. And you all still hate it. Your own solution you hate.

Speaks volumes...
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 6:55 pm

jetero wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Yes, green energy is more expensive, if you do not count the external cost of burning fossil fuels. If you do, green energy is the less expensive one. External cost are born by society at large: consequences of global warming, pollution, health etc. So you pay for it either way.



There IS NO external cost of global warming. There has been no warming for 20 years, proven by the more reliable and more extensive data from satellite measuring. Data fiddling is also a major problem with the assumptions about current and future warming

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/06/end- ... ata-pause/

This is also showing up in the HadCRUT4 surface dataset

The planet is no longer warming
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/ ... r-warming/

Direct link to the dataset
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/


GREAT SOURCES!

By any chance do you have a summary from the National Enquirer?


Your source argument is not a legitimate argument. If you would have bothered to read them, you'd know that second one includes a discussion of the HADCRUT4 surface temperature dataset. I also included a DIRECT link to the dataset. If you don't know the significance of HADCRUT4, then you are not knowledgeable enough to be having this problem discussion.

The first link is two climate scientists discussing a recent paper, with the flaws in that paper pointed out along with direct links to the paper.

Your posts are any or all combinations of snarky, lazy or dismissive with no substance. I will no longer respond to you.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:01 pm

Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

2040? Should be 2030 preferable, this is about putting new cars on the road, the average lifespan of a car is 15-20 years, so that means the era of fossil fuel is over by 2045 - 2050. 11 years is enough time for car companies to make the right investment in technology.



And you are ok with this? Government mandate to eliminate all ICE powered cars? Were you the one not wanting 100% individualism? What about 100% government control, people use that somehow ok?


Pfff government regulates all kinds of things, but somehow ICE powered cars are in the constitutional right or something and cannot be changed? Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?



Yet another typical flawed argument, this one being the logical fallicy know as Reductio ad Absurdum


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... d-Absurdum
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.

At no point did I suggest anarchy or complete lack of government regulations. As you previously said, balance is important. Your argument to the 100% extreme is nonsense and fellacious.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:04 pm

Dutchy wrote:
jetero wrote:
AirFiero wrote:


There IS NO external cost of global warming. There has been no warming for 20 years, proven by the more reliable and more extensive data from satellite measuring. Data fiddling is also a major problem with the assumptions about current and future warming

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/06/end- ... ata-pause/

This is also showing up in the HadCRUT4 surface dataset

The planet is no longer warming
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/06/ ... r-warming/

Direct link to the dataset
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/


GREAT SOURCES!

By any chance do you have a summary from the National Enquirer?



Never mind, if AirFiero wants to be the resident climate denial, fine by me. Not going to put any effort into that.


"Climate denier' is an intentional pejorative (insult) meant to argue to the person and not the facts. Yet another lazy dismissal technique meant to relieve someone from of the actually making a factual argument.
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:06 pm

Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:

Because it makes sense. Imagine how much space there would be at ORD and MDW if Chicago had a passenger rail network comparable to those in Europe.

Imagine all the emissions cut replacing unnecessary flights or routes with passenger rail.


Or makes no sense for a supposed aviation enthusiast to want less aviation activity and/or choices and freedom.


Less pollution, a better planet for every human? Or do you believe that your freedom to pollute succeeds the freedom for others to live? Think island nations in the Pacific Ocean whom are set to be submerged in a few decades.



More "straw man" arguments. I never said anything nor implied that I didn't care about pollution. You will NOT put words in my mouth.

And FYI, CO2 isn't pollution.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:06 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:


And you are ok with this? Government mandate to eliminate all ICE powered cars? Were you the one not wanting 100% individualism? What about 100% government control, people use that somehow ok?


Pfff government regulates all kinds of things, but somehow ICE powered cars are in the constitutional right or something and cannot be changed? Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?



Yet another typical flawed argument, this one being the logical fallicy know as Reductio ad Absurdum


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... d-Absurdum
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.

At no point did I suggest anarchy or complete lack of government regulations. As you previously said, balance is important. Your argument to the 100% extreme is nonsense and fellacious.


You took it to the extreme, not me, my American friend.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:09 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

Or makes no sense for a supposed aviation enthusiast to want less aviation activity and/or choices and freedom.


Less pollution, a better planet for every human? Or do you believe that your freedom to pollute succeeds the freedom for others to live? Think island nations in the Pacific Ocean whom are set to be submerged in a few decades.



More "straw man" arguments. I never said anything nor implied that I didn't care about pollution. You will NOT put words in my mouth.

And FYI, CO2 isn't pollution.


Too much CO2 is and all the other gasses which lead to climate disruption. And not to say all the other nasty things that come from burning fossil fuels at altitude. But let me ask you this, what did you mean by: Or makes no sense for a supposed aviation enthusiast to want less aviation activity and/or choices and freedom.

Put it in your own words....
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:11 pm

Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Pfff government regulates all kinds of things, but somehow ICE powered cars are in the constitutional right or something and cannot be changed? Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?



Yet another typical flawed argument, this one being the logical fallicy know as Reductio ad Absurdum


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... d-Absurdum
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion. Arguments that use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions. The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.

At no point did I suggest anarchy or complete lack of government regulations. As you previously said, balance is important. Your argument to the 100% extreme is nonsense and fellacious.


You took it to the extreme, not me, my American friend.


YOU SAID the following "Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?"

Those are arm waving absolutes.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:19 pm

AirFiero wrote:
YOU SAID the following "Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?"

Those are arm waving absolutes.


That was a reaction to your statement: "Government mandate to eliminate all ICE powered cars? Were you the one not wanting 100% individualism? What about 100% government control, people use that somehow ok?"
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
bluestreak
Posts: 55
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:17 am

New Green Deal - Air travel obsolete

Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:24 pm

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to make air travel obsolete:

Link : https://www.foxnews.com/politics/green- ... ng-to-work

In my opinion, it won't happen, definitely not in 10 years. Do you actually think air travel will become obsolete in the next 20-30 years?
"Well, we barely made the airport, for the last plane out, as we taxied down the runway, I could hear the people shout"
 
AirFiero
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 11:43 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:10 pm

Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
YOU SAID the following "Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?"

Those are arm waving absolutes.


That was a reaction to your statement: "Government mandate to eliminate all ICE powered cars? Were you the one not wanting 100% individualism? What about 100% government control, people use that somehow ok?"


Yours was an OVER reaction. We seem to agree on the the basic idea of of the balance. Governments limiting the choice of vehicle to one or two (electric and possibly hydrogen fuel cell) is too far. The efficiency of ICE engine's can amazing, pollutants have been cut by something like 90%.

And they are getting even more efficient

The Internal Combustion Engine Is Not Dead Yet
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... e.amp.html
 
ConnectAir
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 2:20 pm

Re: New Green Deal - Air travel obsolete

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:14 pm

I'm going to try to keep this tightly focused on the aviation aspects of this deal, and avoid any discussion of other components.

Looking at the NYT article on it: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/climate/green-new-deal.html?module=inline It looks like they would replace a lot of domestic air travel with high speed rail. I doubt they could make all air travel (especially international flights, transcontinental flights and flights to isolated areas in places like Alaska) obsolete, and something tells me it would be very difficult to build a top tier high speed rail system that could replace domestic air travel in 10 years time. Looking at Europe where they have a rail network like this, I could definitely see it replace short flights (like BOS-DC or BTV-NYC) but for longer distances air travel would still work.
WN, LX, AZ, BA, LH, KL, DL, OK, S5, US, UA, VY, IB, AF, LY, F9, CO, YX x2, PD

A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, B712, B733, B737, B738, B753, B744, B764, B772, B789, DH8D, E145, E190,
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:17 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
YOU SAID the following "Or are you against government regulation in general? And believe we should live in anarchy?"

Those are arm waving absolutes.


That was a reaction to your statement: "Government mandate to eliminate all ICE powered cars? Were you the one not wanting 100% individualism? What about 100% government control, people use that somehow ok?"


Yours was an OVER reaction. We seem to agree on the the basic idea of of the balance. Governments limiting the choice of vehicle to one or two (electric and possibly hydrogen fuel cell) is too far. The efficiency of ICE engine's can amazing, pollutants have been cut by something like 90%.

And they are getting even more efficient

The Internal Combustion Engine Is Not Dead Yet
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... e.amp.html


You do not seem to understand, we need to cut our CO2 emissions (and other emissions) by 95% of the 1990 levels in 2050. There is no room for any fossil fuel powered cars (period), no matter how efficient they are, it is not good enough.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
seb146
Posts: 19407
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:25 pm

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, we had factory jobs in the United States where those with just a high school diploma could work and support a family in a nice home. Partly because of unions and party because demand for what they were making was there. Now, we are being told that is impossible because workers are expecting a living wage.

We did it before, why can't we do it now AND save the environment?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
seb146
Posts: 19407
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:29 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

Or makes no sense for a supposed aviation enthusiast to want less aviation activity and/or choices and freedom.


Less pollution, a better planet for every human? Or do you believe that your freedom to pollute succeeds the freedom for others to live? Think island nations in the Pacific Ocean whom are set to be submerged in a few decades.



More "straw man" arguments. I never said anything nor implied that I didn't care about pollution. You will NOT put words in my mouth.

And FYI, CO2 isn't pollution.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... pollution/
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overvi ... ouse-gases
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... n-dioxide/

The science people agree that CO2 is a pollutant, FYI.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 2529
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:47 pm

AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
jetero wrote:

GREAT SOURCES!

By any chance do you have a summary from the National Enquirer?



Never mind, if AirFiero wants to be the resident climate denial, fine by me. Not going to put any effort into that.


"Climate denier' is an intentional pejorative (insult) meant to argue to the person and not the facts. Yet another lazy dismissal technique meant to relieve someone from of the actually making a factual argument.


Worse, it's a terminology that is deliberately close to "holocaust denier". It's mainly used by "people" like jetero and Dutchy who don't really understand data but want to have an opinion.
 
jetero
Posts: 4457
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:45 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:50 pm

aviationaware wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:


Never mind, if AirFiero wants to be the resident climate denial, fine by me. Not going to put any effort into that.


"Climate denier' is an intentional pejorative (insult) meant to argue to the person and not the facts. Yet another lazy dismissal technique meant to relieve someone from of the actually making a factual argument.


Worse, it's a terminology that is deliberately close to "holocaust denier". It's mainly used by "people" like jetero and Dutchy who don't really understand data but want to have an opinion.


Are you saying we’re not allowed to have an opinion AA?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:53 pm

aviationaware wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Dutchy wrote:


Never mind, if AirFiero wants to be the resident climate denial, fine by me. Not going to put any effort into that.


"Climate denier' is an intentional pejorative (insult) meant to argue to the person and not the facts. Yet another lazy dismissal technique meant to relieve someone from of the actually making a factual argument.


Worse, it's a terminology that is deliberately close to "holocaust denier". It's mainly used by "people" like jetero and Dutchy who don't really understand data but want to have an opinion.


So you can interpret data all by yourself? Better than the scientist of the IPCC? Those are the best scientific hypotheses we have. Climate denier is thus someone whom denies mainstream science. And I leave the personal attack with you, aviationaware 8-)
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 8087
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: U.S. Politicians propose Green-New-Deal. Air Travel to Become Unnecessary

Sat Feb 09, 2019 8:54 pm

jetero wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

"Climate denier' is an intentional pejorative (insult) meant to argue to the person and not the facts. Yet another lazy dismissal technique meant to relieve someone from of the actually making a factual argument.


Worse, it's a terminology that is deliberately close to "holocaust denier". It's mainly used by "people" like jetero and Dutchy who don't really understand data but want to have an opinion.


Are you saying we’re not allowed to have an opinion AA?


It isn't an opinion, it is science.....
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Blerg, Dutchy, JJJ, Magog, masi1157, Mortyman and 36 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos