V-Flyer

Anyone know why there are different prices in connection with the class of travel ?

For example SFO in Economy is 15,50, 17.36 in PE and 26.89.

How come ?

Does more fuel get burned depending on where you sit on the plane ?

Mark

Those in UC have more money of course [:w]

It's the amount of space each seat takes.

Also takes into account the weight of the seat / suite I think - a UC suite is going to be quite heavy when compared to a normal Economy seat.

James

Basically, it costs more in fuel to haul a J a*se across the sky than it does a Y one. [y]

Originally posted by preiffer
Basically, it costs more in fuel to haul a J a*se across the sky than it does a Y one. [y]

It's the champagne bottles, they're very heavy [;)]

Originally posted by preiffer
Basically, it costs more in fuel to haul a J a*se across the sky than it does a Y one. [y]

Is that because J a*se's are bigger ?

If you really want to do more to offset your carbon, use coolearth - see:
http://www.fauna-flora.org/coolearth.php
A far more efficient and cost effective mechanism that the one offered by VS

Carbon Offset, the biggest scam in the world today.

Originally posted by stu
Carbon Offset, the biggest scam in the world today.

You're absolutely right. We pay more tax than we have ever done including an increase in APD and now our 'green' friends would like us to pay more to offset pollution which will be produced whether we fly or not.

Complete rip off.

Miopyk[8D]

And yet... the greenies have remained remarkably silent during December, with no audible protests about 2 million UK households chopping down a tree, to put in a pot in the lounge and watch it die!

Inconsistent.....

I would like to propose that non-vegetarian meal eaters be subjected to a higher carbon offset cost than vegetarian meal eaters. This may sound like a lot of gas to some, but it all makes perfect sense, especially if you eat beef.

Globally - the amount of CO2 produced by air travel accounts for 2% of the total. The amount produced by cattle 'processing' their food is around 23%. If a tiny tiny tiny amount of money was spent perfecting a bacteria in cattle feed to break down the wind from processing it, problem solved. simple! (incidently, the technique already exsitis, but our clever government dont want to upset farmers by implying that cattle are causing global warming, so have ignored it!). The thing is ..... bashing air travel makes good politics.

Originally posted by mogmog
I would like to propose that non-vegetarian meal eaters be subjected to a higher carbon offset cost than vegetarian meal eaters. This may sound like a lot of gas to some, but it all makes perfect sense, especially if you eat beef.

Originally posted by musicmanbrain
The amount produced by cattle 'processing' their food is around 23%.

It seems to me that it should be the other way around, 23% of the CO2 comes from cattle (vegetarians) so those of us that eat beef are actually helping reduce the amount of CO2 in an odd way [?]

Originally posted by musicmanbrain
The thing is ..... bashing air travel makes good politics.

And is an easier target to aim at than a cow which looks pretty harmless.

Originally posted by McCoy
And yet... the greenies have remained remarkably silent during December

Sadly not. I heard an eco-fascist on the radio the other day, telling me to wear my 'Christmas' jumper and turn down the thermostat.

This sounds like a joke, but I'm serious!