re: #582 LotharBot

Pretty much any modern jet (turboprop or turbofan) is more efficient than the older 727s and such that often fly to those nations. Something like a 787 or A380 has a better wing, generally better aerodynamics, better balance, and better engines. New turboprops are slower and more efficient than new turbofans. It’s more efficient still to fly a pure piston-powered aircraft, but not many people are willing to take twice as long to get there.

Keep in mind that fuel costs money, so efficiency is already at least partly factored in. But it does take a lot of fuel to make up for the extra hundred million it costs to buy a new aircraft, which is why you still see the older fuel-guzzlers out there. And passengers are willing to pay a little more to get there faster, which is why you see faster jets rather than turboprops or plain ol’ props.

As energy gets more expensive (whether due to GW laws like cap+trade or simply scarcity), the airlines — especially the little ones operating in tourist destinations — should adjust toward more fuel-efficient aircraft. I suspect that will be Turboprops with efficient wings, rather than piston-driven aircraft.

True. Although in many respects efficiency of airspace can also make a big difference. With over two connecting flight non-connecting prop flight are sometimes faster then jet powered flights. Adjustments will have to be made in the long run.

There’s talk of zero emissions. I don’t see that happening especially if you consider the smelting of metals, steel production, etc. I’m digressing here but I think we would have to find a balance between the extremes. If we expect zero emissions then air travel will grind to a halt for the most part or at least to the speed of a solar powered glider.