| Yes, I think "ban private jets" means turboprops are okay. Just because someone wants to ban the private ownership of machine guns doesn't mean they want to ban all gun ownership. Someone wanting to have a minimum drinking age might not want to ban all drinking. > only it's much more inefficient and noisy (it also flies lower and slower). https://www.evojets.com/aircraft-sales/turboprops/piaggio-av... says the Piaggio Avanti burns 130 gal/hr. The linked-to Vice article says "A common model of a private plane burns 226 gallons of jet fuel an hour on average." Doesn't "lower and slower" (and with less range) mean that more people are likely to fly first class rather than biz jet? > This is like trying to move an ocean with a bucket. Addressed in the article. "Huber says the impracticality of it happening misses the point. To him, arguing for the banishment of private jets is a powerful symbolic issue, something the political Right has already figured out." > Regulators have given up Personally, global wealth tax and extremely high tax on high yearly earnings would solve much of those issues. It would decrease the opportunity and pay for regulatory oversight. But your question was "What's your limit?", and I think that's well answered in the linked-to article. |
I see one mistake in my calculation. That Piaggio Avanti has a cruising speed of 360kts vs. 0.85 mach = 547kts for the cruising speed of Gates' G650ER.
And I thought my old car was a gas guzzler at 20 statute mi/gal.