Short flights by football club players

[Fundoreen]

Read the title wrong! Thought yes,its normally just a bit of pushing till the ref breakes it up.

[Evanivitch]

Diderot said:

So is water vapour. Neither are pollutants. Did you have a point to make?

Care to define pollutant?

[Earthdweller]

Fundoreen said:

Read the title wrong! Thought yes,its normally just a bit of pushing till the ref breakes it up.

That’s the handbags at dawn thread

[V8covin]

Dingu said:

You are only being told that because you have sought it out or have curated your echo chamber to be such things.

Or, he's watched the news

[nikaiyo2]

Electro1980 said:

Normal cars (I.e. not footballers cars) would be slightly less polluting.
Coaches would be vastly less polluting.

All per passenger:

Domestic flight - 133g/km co2
Car - 85-45g/km co2 (assuming 2+ people per car)
Coach - 27g/km co2

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-493...

And, no, I wouldn’t fly if I could. Once you take in to account transfer times and faffing about with security it’s unlikely to save any time. Even the most extreme case, Newcastle to Bournemouth, is 6 hours drive or 3h30 to fly plus however long it takes to get to the airport.

There is an argument to fly when your doing it instead of driving yourself or it is cheaper. That is not why football clubs are doing it.

Those figures seem off to me.

I used to look after the charters for a premier league team, we used an ATR72. In Standard 74 pax configuration that produces about 7kg CO2 per passenger per 100 NM.

https://www.atr-aircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

Taking your example Newcastle to Bournemouth, coach arrives at airport, 10 minutes later wheels up, on way, 1 hourish flight time, 10 minutes at Hurn getting off.

Or 6 hours on a coach?

Pretty obvious why they fly.

[irc]

nikaiyo2 said:

Those figures seem off to me.

I used to look after the charters for a premier league team, we used an ATR72. In Standard 74 pax configuration that produces about 7kg CO2 per passenger per 100 NM.

https://www.atr-aircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

Taking your example Newcastle to Bournemouth, coach arrives at airport, 10 minutes later wheels up, on way, 1 hourish flight time, 10 minutes at Hurn getting off.

Or 6 hours on a coach?

Pretty obvious why they fly.

Don't you go bringing knowlegde and reason to this thread. It won't catch on.

Obviously the football clubs should subject their valuable employees to a 6 hour coach trip. It will virtue signal that they care while making no difference while China etc carry on ramping up their CO2 output.

Perhap we should have a poll? Ask supporters if they wish their club to stop flying the players to save the planet if it costs them 3 or 4 points a season?

[Dingu]

Diderot said:

So is water vapour. Neither are pollutants. Did you have a point to make?

Deliberately obtuse.

[CT05 Nose Cone]

poo at Paul's said:

CT05 Nose Cone said:

L1OFF said:

I was surprised a football club would want all their very valuable assets in an aeroplane.

Surely no different to putting them on a coach?

If a wing falls off a coach, it may cause a puncture

Air travel is second only to rail in terms of safety though.

[jm8403]

Oliver Hardy said:

Investigation shows that football clubs are taking very short flights to away games

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/1749985/P...

Being millionaires they are exempt from needing to consider the environment, just like well known actors, royals and politicians?

Are you seriously concerned about this?

[Evanivitch]

nikaiyo2 said:

Those figures seem off to me.

I used to look after the charters for a premier league team, we used an ATR72. In Standard 74 pax configuration that produces about 7kg CO2 per passenger per 100 NM.

https://www.atr-aircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

Taking your example Newcastle to Bournemouth, coach arrives at airport, 10 minutes later wheels up, on way, 1 hourish flight time, 10 minutes at Hurn getting off.

Or 6 hours on a coach?

Pretty obvious why they fly.

How many hours day do footballers train?

[Evanivitch]

CT05 Nose Cone said:

Air travel is second only to rail in terms of safety though.

Yes, if you include incidents in passenger cars. But death and injury in coaches and busses are also incredibly low.

[Diderot]

Dingu said:

Diderot said:

So is water vapour. Neither are pollutants. Did you have a point to make?

Deliberately obtuse.

Don’t ever breathe out again then if you’re really that concerned about contributing to the imaginary climate emergency. You’ll ‘pollute’ the planet with both deleterious substances which have nothing at all to do with sustaining life on this planet.

[JNW1]

nikaiyo2 said:

Taking your example Newcastle to Bournemouth, coach arrives at airport, 10 minutes later wheels up, on way, 1 hourish flight time, 10 minutes at Hurn getting off.

Or 6 hours on a coach?

Pretty obvious why they fly.

Indeed - and on a road journey as long as that it's probably more than likely you'll encounter a delay of some description due to roadworks and/or an accident. And actually a quick look in Google Maps suggests a journey time of over 6 hours from Newcastle to Bournemouth in a car so I doubt a coach would do it in less than 7 hours even with a relatively clear run.

When you compare that to a little over an hour on a plane plus a short coach trip at either end it is, as you say, pretty obvious why they choose to fly.

[Wacky Racer]

[ATG]

Diderot said:

CO2 isn’t a pollutant. You do understand that plants require CO2 to photosynthesise don’t you?

Idiotic comment

[Dingu]

Diderot said:

Dingu said:

Diderot said:

So is water vapour. Neither are pollutants. Did you have a point to make?

Deliberately obtuse.

Don’t ever breathe out again then if you’re really that concerned about contributing to the imaginary climate emergency. You’ll ‘pollute’ the planet with both deleterious substances which have nothing at all to do with sustaining life on this planet.

Thanks for proving me correct

[Diderot]

ATG said:

Diderot said:

CO2 isn’t a pollutant. You do understand that plants require CO2 to photosynthesise don’t you?

Idiotic comment

Another one.

[The Mad Monk]

JNW1 said:

When you compare that to a little over an hour on a plane plus a short coach trip at either end it is, as you say, pretty obvious why they choose to fly.

Yes, but if we accept (if we don't accept then that is another debate) that travel pollutes the atmosphere and air travel pollutes more than land travel, then we should, for the sake of future generations reduce to an absolute minimum air travel. This will mean a degree of discomfort and inconvenience.

Do you think that footballers should not have to suffer this inconvenience in order to save the planet?

Should we add the rich, the famous royalty and actors to the list?

[glazbagun]

bhstewie said:

I expect their argument will be it's all part of match preparation and ensuring the players aren't "stressed" by a lengthy coach trip.

Winning is worth a fortune and losing might cost a fortune so the clubs will spend the money, ensuring they're in an inverted mexican standoff/prisoners dilemma.

It's a good mini illustration of the global strategic difficulty in unhooking ourselves from fossil fuel that requires mutual trust and cool heads which are both in short supply right now.

Without fast transport I imagine the south/midlands teams could have an advantage in the PL.

Edited by glazbagun on Saturday 25th March 10:48

[oyster]

Carl_Manchester said:

It can also make people poorly being on a train for longer than an hour due to the air-con, I would not want a multi-million pound asset on a train imho never mind 22 of them.

This paragraph is in the lead for nonsense of the week!