American Airlines has received permission to fly without a larger reserve of fuel on bad weather days as a safety precaution. AA says weather radar is done so well it's not necessary. The extra fuel increase costs in it's purchase and the additional weight. Not sure, but I assume this is domestic overland flights only.

Article

61.5mpg lifetime - 82mpg in recent months

Best Run >
www.cleanmpg.com

"fanatic" is what the lazy call the dedicated

If airliners only pushed off when they could roll directly to the runway and take off without a delay, I would agree. But empirical data shows they push off and spend 10+ minutes waiting in lines to take off. Worse, I've seen 20 minute holding patterns when bad weather occurs on a flight that has a 35 minute, fair-weather duration. These are NOT confidence inspiring. Yes, bad weather flying and navigation has improved but the obvious scheduling problems of the current system do not inspire confidence. But this raises an optimization question about hybrid-electrics and flying. When does it make more sense for us to drive instead of fly?

I need to go to Kansas City, a 10 hour drive with no chance of getting a discount flight. If I fly from Huntsville, it will be a 40 minute drive to the airport, ~$800 and take at least 3-4 hours with a stop in the middle. If I drive to Nashville, it will be a 2 hour drive, ~$250 and take about 1.5 hours. So the options are:

10 hrs, $30 gas, no rental car
3.5 hrs, $250 airfare, rental car
3-4 hrs, $800 airfare, rental car

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

All part 135 commercial aircraft have alternate airport fuel reserves that must be met. Most of the time the alternate airport requirement is higher than a bad weather reserve that only adds about 20 mins of holding pattern time. Have no fear. Flying is far safer than driving your hybrid to the grocery store.

Prius 06 Black Pack#2

Gas is only one part of the cost of operating a vehicle. Any fleet operator will tell you that. Saying that you can drive 10 hours for $30 in gas leaves out all the other expenses of operating a motor vehicle.

I went from Phoenix, Arizona to Estes Park, (outside of Denver) Colorado twice this fall. I went out and back by car the first time and by plane the second time. Let me tell you, I don't plan to do it by car again any time soon, at least not if I'm going alone again. Vehicle is only really cost effective if you have at least two people in it, and of course is more effective the more people are in it.

When you factor in maintenance and theoretical depreciation (more of an issue for you guys with new cars than for me and my '97) I figure it was about $180 to drive. My flight was $211 and got me there in less than half the time, door to door.

There is one obvious expense, not quantified, a rental vehicle at the destination. Some destinations provide family or public transportation. Others pretty well require an addition $30+ per day.

Like you, I too drive a used car, an 03 Prius. Depreciation is not a big part of my costs. But I suspect only new car owners who trade-in while the 3 yr/36,000 mile warrante still has value, factor in another trip.

There are other less easily quantified aspects:
- driver/rider fatigue (can you do anything when you get there)
- unscheduled/scheduled flexibility (the ability to leave at anytime)
- stop overs (a favorite casino/restaurant/friend is on the route)
- the Zen of cross-country driving (if you have to ask, it is nothingness)

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.