Will chemtrails or covert geoengineering show up in varves, ice cores, or tree rings?

[Danny55]

" Ya know it's because they got NOTHING and they know it... so its all they can do to stay in the game! "

Correct, no one posting on here has got ANY proof that persisting contrails are anything other than .... persisting contrails.
No evidence of covert actions, no evidence of any unknown additions to fuel, no evidence of any apparatus to spray any covert chemtrails. Nothing. Zilch.Zero.
End of debate. Period.

 

[Mick West]

I never once said a persistent trail in the sky was a chemtrail on this Thread . . . my point being the persistent contrails observed are the reason some one might've been interested in doing research on them instead of robotic cats . . .

But I've also seem some robotic looking cats around the neighborhood. So why should I research contrails and not cats?

It all boils down to the actually evidence. Both theories are based on pure speculation, and in the case of contrails/chemtrails a lot of very bad "evidence" that has been debunked, and yet still sticks around the theory, because many people are immune to debunking.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

This isn't a contest. This is not high school debating. Please (and this goes for everyone) don't characterize it as such or treat it as such. Treat people politely as if they are simply trying to figure out what the evidence means, and what is bunk, using science and reason.

I think SD, you perhaps need to state a clear hypothesis, other than "you can't prove it isn't so".

And please don't resort to "find it yourself". Again, it's not a contest. If you are helpful in presenting your evidence and reasoning, it can only help advance truth.

I usually do Mick (treat people politely), but I get less patient when people do not appear to even be trying. Why would I bother going out of my way of informing and explaining something to someone who does not appear to care? Then I get comments about sticking my information where the sun does not shine.... which makes it even worse. If your opinion is that my source is too hard to find then I will repeat it, for you Mick. Will this be necessary then?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

But I've also seem some robotic looking cats around the neighborhood. So why should I research contrails and not cats?

Research them both by all means... but robot cats require little research because there is not much documentation. As for contrails/chemtrails there are MOUNTAINS of documentation to research.

 

[Mick West]

Everyone always giving bad analogies and comparing apples to oranges.
HAS ANYONE SEEN A PERSISTENT CONTRAIL? Yes! Ok. Can every one of them be explained? No! Urge to swear rising...

Yes they can. Persistent contrails are the normal and expected results of planes flying through ice supersaturated air. So that's the explanation for all of them.

Can you PROVE each one is a normal contrail? No, no more than you can prove all cats are not robots. But there's no compelling reason to suspect they are not.

 

[Mick West]

Research them both by all means... but robot cats require little research because there is not much documentation. As for contrails/chemtrails there are MOUNTAINS of documentation to research.

There's mountains of documentation about ghosts and angels too. The quantity of documentation about a subject is not necessarily an indication of the veracity of the subject.

Take a step back. State your hypothesis.

 

[Mick West]

I usually do Mick, but I get less patient when people do not appear to even be trying. Why would I bother going out of my way of informing and explaining something to someone who does not appear to care? If your opinion is that my source is too hard to find then I will repeat it, for you Mick. Will this be necessary then?

Why are you bothering at all? What exactly is your motivation here?

Think about it. What is your actual goal in posting here? How would you best achieve your goal?

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

After stepping back and thinking about it Mick... I really have no idea. I have always been a debater and the internet is full of controversial topics and people who debate them. I guess I am a debunker just like you.

 

[Mick West]

After stepping back and thinking about it Mick... I really have no idea. I have always been a debater and the internet is full of controversial topics and people who debate them. I guess I am a debunker just like you.

Not like me. I'm not interesting in debating simply to debate. I'm not interested in simply sowing "what-ifs". I'm not interested in continually pointing out that you can't prove something isn't happening.

I'm interested in weeding out bunk. Identifying what is clearly and demonstrably bunk, and removing it.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

There's mountains of documentation about ghosts and angels too. The quantity of documentation about a subject is not necessarily an indication of the veracity of the subject.

Right, but you gave robot cats as an example, not ghosts or angels. We could go on all day about contrails, ghosts and angels was my point... but robot cats is not worthy of much debate is all I meant.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Not like me. I'm not interesting in debating simply to debate. I'm not interested in simply sowing "what-ifs". I'm not interested in continually pointing out that you can't prove something isn't happening.

I'm interested in weeding out bunk. Identifying what is clearly and demonstrably bunk, and removing it.

I am interested in bringing new facts to the table that have not been tested by debunkers yet.

Debating things you agree on is not worthwhile. I also do not debate simply to debate. So far you have shown me many things that I did not consider bunk before, but I now consider bunk. Thank you for that. Now can you show me how any of my sulfur hypothesis is bunk? Experts have said that it does affect climate. Am I wrong here? So its not just the volcanoes then right? Or are the experts I quoted wrong?

 

[Mick West]

Well yeah. Debating things you agree on is not worthwhile. I also do not debate simply to debate. So far you have shown me many things that I did not consider bunk before, but I now consider bunk. Thank you for that. Now can you show me how any of my sulfur hypothesis is bunk? Experts have said that it does affect climate. Am I wrong here? So its not just the volcano's then right? Or are the experts I quoted wrong?

What EXACTLY is your hypothesis? That the sulphur in jet fuel contributes very slightly to the net loading of stratospheric sulfate aerosols, and hence has a small effect on climate?

I think pretty much everyone would agree with that.

 

[solrey]

FALSE! Kerosene refining process does not remove sulfur

Wrong again.

Jet fuel sulfur content averages 600 ppm, which is .0006%. Look at the sulfur content of different crude oils. The lowest sulfur content crude oil on the planet is .001% by weight, and most are much higher than that.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products

Obviously some sulfur is being removed. In fact, sulfur is removed from ALL petroleum fuels early in the refining process.

Petroleum naphtha is an intermediate hydrocarbon liquid stream derived from the refining of crude oil. It is most usually desulfurized and then catalytically reformed, which re-arranges or re-structures the hydrocarbon molecules in the naphtha as well as breaking some of the molecules into smaller molecules to produce a high-octane component of gasoline (or petrol).
[..]
Most uses of petroleum refinery naphtha require the removal of sulfur compounds down to very low levels (a few parts per million or less).

Why do they remove sulfur so early in the refining process?

Hydrodesulfurization (HDS) is a catalytic chemical process widely used to remove sulfur (S) from natural gas and from refined petroleum products such as gasoline or petrol, jet fuel, kerosene, diesel fuel, and fuel oils. The purpose of removing the sulfur is to reduce the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions that result from using those fuels in automotive vehicles, aircraft, railroad locomotives, ships, gas or oil burning power plants, residential and industrial furnaces, and other forms of fuel combustion.
Another important reason for removing sulfur from the naphtha streams within a petroleum refinery is that sulfur, even in extremely low concentrations, poisons the noble metal catalysts (platinum and rhenium) in the catalytic reforming units that are subsequently used to upgrade the octane rating of the naphtha streams.

I hear ya Mick. However, my belief is if one wants respect from me they better show a little in return.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

What EXACTLY is your hypothesis? That the sulphur in jet fuel contributes very slightly to the net loading of stratospheric sulfate aerosols, and hence has a small effect on climate?

I think pretty much everyone would agree with that.

Yes, except 10-14 percent could be considered more than slight. The question remains. Why don't they remove the sulfur? Why do they add sulfur? I have no hypothesis except that it is much cheaper to leave it in there and/or add it to the fuel.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

Wrong again.

Obviously some sulfur is being removed. In fact, sulfur is removed from ALL petroleum fuels early in the refining process.

I know that some of it is removed.

This article is TITLED... "time-to-take-sulfur-out-of-jet-fuel" and the point I was making is that they take MORE sulfur out of OTHER types of fuel than JET FUEL. Am I wrong?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/time-to-take-sulfur-out-of-jet-fuel-111216.html

Since 2006, when the U.S. introduced an ultralow sulfur standard for emissions from diesel trucks on the nation's highways, the Federal Aviation Administration has been interested in setting similar sulfur-reduction standards for jets. So, if doing the right thing is so easy, why isn't it already being done?

 

[Mick West]

I'm really failing to see anything suspicious here. The reasons for the current sulphur levels in jet fuel seem perfectly clear.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

I'm really failing to see anything suspicious here. The reasons for the current sulphur levels in jet fuel seem perfectly clear.

What reasons Mick? Also you better get your fellow debunkers in line.. they do not seem to accept that jet fuel has higher levels of sulfur than other types of fuel.

 

[Mick West]

Why then Mick?

It's a balance between pollution and economics.

 

[SeriouslyDebatable]

It's a balance between pollution and economics.

According to this guy, it will not tip the balance scale one way or the other. It will remain even. Is he wrong? Care to explain why he is wrong?

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/05/ultra-low-sulfur-jet-fuel-radar

Steven Barrett of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US. 'If you compare the costs and the benefits they come out as being broadly even in our analysis.'

 

[solrey]

What reasons Mick? Also you better get your fellow debunkers in line.. they do not seem to accept that jet fuel has higher levels of sulfur than other types of fuel.

Stop putting words into peoples mouths and/or otherwise mis-representing what they say. Nobody said nor implied they don't accept that jet fuel has higher sulfur content than Ultra Low Sulfur gasoline and diesel. Heck, I even quoted figures on sulfur content in jet fuel which at an average of 600 ppm is obviously much higher than the 15 ppm standard for ULS fuel. Some types of fuel have even higher sulfur content than jet fuel.

 

[George B]

But I've also seem some robotic looking cats around the neighborhood. So why should I research contrails and not cats?

It all boils down to the actually evidence. Both theories are based on pure speculation, and in the case of contrails/chemtrails a lot of very bad "evidence" that has been debunked, and yet still sticks around the theory, because many people are immune to debunking.

You make debunking sound like a disease . . . do they have immunizations to protect you from it???

 

[Mick West]

According to this guy, it will not tip the balance scale one way or the other. It will remain even. Is he wrong? Care to explain why he is wrong?

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2012/05/ultra-low-sulfur-jet-fuel-radar

I said it's a balance, he's saying it's balanced, so what's the issue here?

The net costs might come out even. But for individual players they do not. Airlines will have to pay more.

And the costs he's talking about are not simple monetary costs, they are complex systemic effects that are hard to quantify on a "cost" basis.

 

[Mick West]

You make debunking sound like a disease . . . do they have immunizations to protect you from it???

Debunking is more like medicine. But analogies should never be carried too far.

Some people are unaffected by a debunking of their basis of their beliefs. I'm sure you are aware of some such people. There's a variety of reasons for this.

 

[George B]

It's a balance between pollution and economics.

Mick,

Surly and Surely, your are not suggesting the poor average passenger car driver and trucker (passing along the increase cost to the entire population through increased transportation costs and thus increased costs for consumer goods) who is just trying to make ends meet should bear the brunt of the cost of low sulfur fuels while the fat cat aircraft industry and their rich customers are somehow unable to pay a few cents per gallon increase needed to decrease sulfur content . . . or are you??? Where is the justice in that???

Cost-benefit analysis of ultra-low sulfur jet fuel

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/59683

The growth of aviation has spurred increased study of its environmental impacts and the possible mitigation thereof. One emissions reduction option is the introduction of an Ultra Low Sulfur (ULS) jet fuel standard for global commercial aviation. A full cost-benefit analysis, including impacts on air quality, climate, operations, and lifecycle costs is necessary to justify such a policy. The cost of a ULS jet fuel policy is well-characterized by the adoption of ULS diesel fuel, similar to jet fuel, for ground transportation in the US and elsewhere. The cost of hydrodesulfurization (HDS), the process used to remove sulfur from fuel, is projected to be between 4 and 7 cents per gallon of jet fuel. With 2006 levels of domestic fuel consumption, this translates to a yearly cost of HDS of $540-$940 million within the US. The climate and air quality benefits are characterized by several earth-atmosphere models, which isolate the perturbation of aviation emissions. Comparisons among models, which employ different modeling methods and assumptions as well as different spatial resolution, provide some cross-validation, as well as characterizing the degree of uncertainty in the state of the science. This thesis focuses in detail on the CMAQ (Community Multi-scale Air Quality) model, used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support regulatory impact assessment. Other models, their results, and efforts at inter-model comparison are also discussed. Benefits are monetized through valuing the reduction in premature mortality from reduced concentrations of ground-level particulate matter (PM). The central finding from CMAQ is that with nominal health impact parameters, a global ULS jet fuel policy is predicted to save 110 lives per year in the US when considering full flight emissions, a 14% reduction in aviation-attributable mortality resulting in an estimated monetary benefit of $800 million.

 

[George B]

It's a balance between pollution and economics.

Seems your economic concerns may well be debunked . . . unless there is a argument regarding Tier I, II or III sulfur reduction costs . . . Below is Tier III costs . . . So if cost is not a factor in reducing the sulfur content of jet fuel . . . What is.....???????

Does this mean we want the "POLLUTION"!!!!!!!

Study: Low-Sulfur Gas Would Mean NO Increase at the Pump, but Major Health and Economic Benefits


The Navigant Economics study also evaluates two recent economic studies that try to project the refiner cost of low-sulfur gas: one by MathPro (sponsored by the International Council on Clean Transportation) and another by Baker & O'Brien (sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute). Based on a survey of companies engaged in sulfur-reduction projects at U.S. refineries, Drs. Schink and Singer conclude that the Baker & O'Brien study exaggerated the refiners' costs compared to the range provided by survey respondents. When its capital costs were adjusted to conform to industry norms, the Baker & O'Brien model produced refinery cost increases that were not materially different from those of MathPro or the EPA, both of which have projected an increase in refining costs of about a penny a gallon.
. http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2012/06/study-low-sulfur-gas-would-mean-no.html

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I have some experience in fuels, tribology, and refining, having worked as an engineer at a major refiner of jet fuel which handled sour crudes. Thelion's share of sulfur is removed from the crude feedstock early on. While the sulfur is a saleable by-product, the sour crudes are used by refineries because of economics. They are cheaper, and allow the refinery a chance to offer their refined products at a competitive price.

As stated before, the sulfur must be removed to avoid catalyst fouling, because when the catalyst is spent it must be replaced and that means a lengthy shutdown costing many millions. Again, economics.

EPA sets sulfur content regulations for fuels. They saw that it was quite easy to regulate US national fuel sulfur content, as they had jurisdiction. If you want to change those, just lobby for that, no need to start some conspiracy theory over it. Jet fuel, however, is put into aircraft worldwide which are not at all within the EPA's jurisdiction. Good luck getting the rest of the world to cooperate with US.

As far as sulfur in fuel goes, lots of it is bad. When it burns the result is acidic pollution and engine corrosion. However, sulfur in fuel does pereform an essenial function. It acts as a lubricant for the moving parts of a fuel system. This has been a big problem first as gasoline engines went to fuel injection, and then as diesel engines went to ultra low sulfur fuels. To some extent, it will affect jet fuel systems, but I believe to a lesser extent than surface engine systems.
The lubricity problems are currently somewhat alleviated by lubricity additives.

This whole sulfur in jet fuel farrago was gone through many years ago by a now-defunct chemtrails promoter names "Chem11". He spent years claiming about the same thing as these goons are doing here. He gave up when it became clear people were seeing ordinary jets making contrails in the troposphere not the stratosphere, and that his claims about aerosols increasing turned out to be a clear sign that geoengineering wasn't taking place. His "Megasprayer News" board is now maintained by one sole acolyte who posts a few doomsday news articles a week, that is all.

But, the sulfur in chemtrails have now morphed 180 degrees! Now "organic" sulfur is available for you to eat like candy.
And it "Protects" you from chemtrails!
http://www.sulfurforhealth.com/ORGANIC-SULFUR.html

Yes, John Hammell, one of the originators of the chemtrails hoax, fifteen years later is still selling quack cures for chemtrails, and this time its SULFUR!
I couldn't make this stuff up if I was Ian Fleming.

 

[George B]

I have some experience in fuels, tribology, and refining, having worked as an engineer at a major refiner of jet fuel which handled sour crudes. Thelion's share of sulfur is removed from the crude feedstock early on. While the sulfur is a saleable by-product, the sour crudes are used by refineries because of economics. They are cheaper, and allow the refinery a chance to offer their refined products at a competitive price.


As stated before, the sulfur must be removed to avoid catalyst fouling, because when the catalyst is spent it must be replaced and that means a lengthy shutdown costing many millions. Again, economics.



EPA sets sulfur content regulations for fuels. They saw that it was quite easy to regulate US national fuel sulfur content, as they had jurisdiction. If you want to change those, just lobby for that, no need to start some conspiracy theory over it. Jet fuel, however, is put into aircraft worldwide which are not at all within the EPA's jurisdiction. Good luck getting the rest of the world to cooperate with US.

As far as sulfur in fuel goes, lots of it is bad. When it burns the result is acidic pollution and engine corrosion. However, sulfur in fuel does pereform an essenial function. It acts as a lubricant for the moving parts of a fuel system. This has been a big problem first as gasoline engines went to fuel injection, and then as diesel engines went to ultra low sulfur fuels. To some extent, it will affect jet fuel systems, but I believe to a lesser extent than surface engine systems.


The lubricity problems are currently somewhat alleviated by lubricity additives.

This whole sulfur in jet fuel farrago was gone through many years ago by a now-defunct chemtrails promoter names "Chem11". He spent years claiming about the same thing as these goons are doing here. He gave up when it became clear people were seeing ordinary jets making contrails in the troposphere not the stratosphere, and that his claims

about aerosols increasing turned out to be a clear sign that geoengineering wasn't taking place. His "Megasprayer News" board is now maintained by one sole acolyte who posts a few doomsday news articles a week, that is all.

But, the sulfur in chemtrails have now morphed 180 degrees! Now "organic" sulfur is available for you to eat like candy.
And it "Protects" you from chemtrails!
http://www.sulfurforhealth.com/ORGANIC-SULFUR.html

Yes, John Hammell, one of the originators of the chemtrails hoax, fifteen years later is still selling quack cures for chemtrails, and this time its SULFUR!
I couldn't make this stuff up if I was Ian Fleming.

Jay,

I am trying to follow your comments . . . Correct me if I am wrong . . .

1) Since ground transportation have converters they need low sulfur fuels. . . .and since the US cannot require the rest of the world to use converters there is no sense to reduce the pollution jets exhausts produce even though they could. . . . The US has been the largest supplier of Jet Fuel in the entire world . . .
2) Are you saying there is a lubrication benefit to jet engines so pollution is OK because it extends the the life of jet engines???

 

[Mick West]

Seems your economic concerns may well be debunked . . . unless there is a argument regarding Tier I, II or III sulfur reduction costs . . . Below is Tier III costs . . . So if cost is not a factor in reducing the sulfur content of jet fuel . . . What is.....???????

Does this mean we want the "POLLUTION"!!!!!!!

Study: Low-Sulfur Gas Would Mean NO Increase at the Pump, but Major Health and Economic Benefits


The Navigant Economics study also evaluates two recent economic studies that try to project the refiner cost of low-sulfur gas: one by MathPro (sponsored by the International Council on Clean Transportation) and another by Baker & O'Brien (sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute). Based on a survey of companies engaged in sulfur-reduction projects at U.S. refineries, Drs. Schink and Singer conclude that the Baker & O'Brien study exaggerated the refiners' costs compared to the range provided by survey respondents. When its capital costs were adjusted to conform to industry norms, the Baker & O'Brien model produced refinery cost increases that were not materially different from those of MathPro or the EPA, both of which have projected an increase in refining costs of about a penny a gallon.
. http://blogforcleanair.blogspot.com/2012/06/study-low-sulfur-gas-would-mean-no.html

So you think we can just switch to low sulfur jet fuel, and it won't cost anyone anything?

And since when is a penny a gallon "not a factor"? What's that as a percentage of the profit margin?

 

[Mick West]

Mick,

Surly and Surely, your are not suggesting the poor average passenger car driver and trucker (passing along the increase cost to the entire population through increased transportation costs and thus increased costs for consumer goods) who is just trying to make ends meet should bear the brunt of the cost of low sulfur fuels while the fat cat aircraft industry and their rich customers are somehow unable to pay a few cents per gallon increase needed to decrease sulfur content . . . or are you??? Where is the justice in that???

I'm not suggesting anything like that. I'm just saying that things are the way they are because of economics.

What's justice got to do with economics?

 

[George B]

So you think we can just switch to low sulfur jet fuel, and it won't cost anyone anything?

And since when is a penny a gallon "not a factor"? What's that as a percentage of the profit margin?

Your economic argument is weak . . . If it was determined the entire population should buy converters and pay the cost of Tier I,II and now III reductions in sulfur content for surface transportation. . . .why not the aircraft industry ?????

 

[George B]

"Although catalytic converters are effective at removing hydrocarbons and other harmful emissions, they do not
reduce the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) produced when fossil fuels are burnt.[25] Carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuels is one of the greenhouse gases indicated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be a "most likely" cause of global warming.[26] Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated catalytic converters are a significant and growing cause of global warming, because of their release of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas over three hundred times more potent than carbon dioxide. The EPA states that motor vehicles contribute approximately 50% of nitrous oxide emissions, nitrous oxide makes up 7.2% of greenhouse gases.[27]"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter

How ironic the people are asked to pay for low sulfur fuel so the converters won't become ineffective. . . while the converters are a cause of global warming . . . Trading less smog and acid rain for global warming . . .

 

[Mick West]

Your economic argument is weak . . . If it was determined the entire population should buy converters and pay the cost of Tier I,II and now III reductions in sulfur content for surface transportation. . . .why not the aircraft industry ?????

Multidimensional cost/benefit. I'm not arguing they should not, just that the reasons why things are as they are do not require any conspiracy. Just economics.

 

[George B]

Multidimensional cost/benefit. I'm not arguing they should not, just that the reasons why things are as they are do not require any conspiracy. Just economics.

Hmmmmm . . . multidimenisonal cost/benefit analysis . . . could that lead to a decision to choose one benefit over another by a decision body . . . or group of bodies ???? Like price fixing by industries or Co-Ops in farming . . . you know mutual benefit societies . . . a rose by any other name . . .

 

[MikeC]

4-7 cents per gallon is not an insignificant amount in the aviation industry, where multi-million dollar aircraft are sold on the basis of improvements to fuel efficiency in the order of of 1-2%.

This article postulates an even lower figure - 1-2 cents/gallon - or about 1% of fuel costs - for a total cost to the industry of 1-4 BILLION dollars per year.

The figures may seem low to you on a per-gallon basis, but they are anything except trivial in an industry that is pared to the bone - fuel accounts for about 1/3rd of the cost of an aircraft over its life (the other major costs are about 1/3rd each for maintenance and capital cost) - so 1% extra costs is big, big money.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

Jay,

I am trying to follow your comments . . . Correct me if I am wrong . . .

1) Since ground transportation have converters they need low sulfur fuels. . . .and since the US cannot require the rest of the world to use converters there is no sense to reduce the pollution jets exhausts produce even though they could. . . . The US has been the largest supplier of Jet Fuel in the entire world . . .
2) Are you saying there is a lubrication benefit to jet engines so pollution is OK because it extends the the life of jet engines???

No

 

[George B]

4-7 cents per gallon is not an insignificant amount in the aviation industry, where multi-million dollar aircraft are sold on the basis of improvements to fuel efficiency in the order of of 1-2%.

This article postulates an even lower figure - 1-2 cents/gallon - or about 1% of fuel costs - for a total cost to the industry of 1-4 BILLION dollars per year.

The figures may seem low to you on a per-gallon basis, but they are anything except trivial in an industry that is pared to the bone - fuel accounts for about 1/3rd of the cost of an aircraft over its life (the other major costs are about 1/3rd each for maintenance and capital cost) - so 1% extra costs is big, big money.

Your argument doesn't fly (pun intended) . . . sorry . . . when all members of a competitive industry are affected equally the cost is just passed on to the customer . . . you act as though when the cost of gasoline goes up 7 cents a gallon everyone stops driving or a better analogy Checker Taxi company can no longer compete with Black and White Taxi company . . . I don't think so . . .

 

[George B]

No

Please clarify . . . what is the point you are making ??

 

[Rico]

Edit: Nevermind, silly question

 

[MikeC]

Your argument doesn't fly (pun intended) . . . sorry . . . when all members of a competitive industry are affected equally the cost is just passed on to the customer . . . you act as though when the cost of gasoline goes up 7 cents a gallon everyone stops driving or a better analogy Checker Taxi company can no longer compete with Black and White Taxi company . . . I don't think so . . .

It affects how big the "whole pie" is - air travel is now relatively considerably cheaper than it was 30 years ago - as a young man in 1981 the economy fare from Auckland to London return was about NZ$2300 - now it is about the same - after 30 years inflation!

What used to be a premium product is now a mass market.

If the price goes up across the board then the size of the entire market will shrink - fewer people will travel, aircraft will get laid up - but still have to be paid for - staff laid off, competition for the remaining market will intensify, etc.

 

[George B]

It affects how big the "whole pie" is - air travel is now relatively considerably cheaper than it was 30 years ago - as a young man in 1981 the economy fare from Auckland to London return was about NZ$2300 - now it is about the same - after 30 years inflation!

What used to be a premium product is now a mass market.

If the price goes up across the board then the size of the entire market will shrink - fewer people will travel, aircraft will get laid up - but still have to be paid for - staff laid off, competition for the remaining market will intensify, etc.

I think you have overstated the consequences of a small one time increase in fuel costs . . . the change in engine efficiencies alone have cancelled out any increase in the fuel cost represented by lowering sulfur . . . I doubt anyone lost their job because of a cost all Airlines will have to pass to their customers . . .like air marshals or reenforced cabin doors or a million other safety improvements . . .