# John Travolta - solution for Global Warming



## webbie (Mar 30, 2007)

"Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business. "

See pic enclosed for one of Johns Green examples.....


----------



## babalu87 (Mar 30, 2007)

Another ass hat with the do as I say not as I do speech.


----------



## Harley (Mar 30, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> See pic enclosed for one of Johns Green examples.....



He must have been referring to his lawn.... it looks very green.


----------



## webbie (Mar 30, 2007)

That's about as bad as you can get - flying a full size 707 around! Those older planes were not as good on gas!

I actually hear that the new min-jets which cost a little over a million are quite good on gas - well, comparatively at least.

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/

It holds 250 gallons and can go about 1300 miles - that's about 5MPG, pretty amazing considering you are doing 400+ MPH.
With 4 people inside, it's about 4.2 MPG, which is same as 1 person in a car doing 17MPG. Now we're getting there! Almost a green jet.


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 30, 2007)

If I could afford that Gulfstream at the top of the pic, I used to get to fly in one, my wood fires would be set up for me by Jeeves as part of his butler duties.

The interior in one of our G4s cost a million bucks. The other one had the really expensive interior in it. Now you know why your gasoline prices are so high.

Travolta is also 747 rated. Wonder when he is gonna buy one of them and have to have the house remodeled?


----------



## Eric Johnson (Mar 30, 2007)

IMO, any vehicle getting only 17mpg should be hauling wood.


----------



## webbie (Mar 30, 2007)

But, it's a lot more than 17MPG when you figure that it goes straight there! Then you also have to figure in that no infrastructure (roads) are needed in between point A and B. 

No, not green yet but starting to compare with road hogs. Someone will come up with the first wood burning gasification jet.....that would be funny!

BTW, large modern jets - like a 747 full of people, get up to 100MPG per person.

A newer model such as the 777 or the new Airbus Jumbo could reach the 150MPG figure if full. Of course, that number is cut by the number in your party that would be in the car. For instance, if you and your spouse were flying, that's only 50MPG in the 747 - if it if is full.


----------



## Harley (Mar 31, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Then you also have to figure in that no infrastructure (roads) are needed in between point A and B.



Yup... but they do have to take off and land somewhere... I'd prefer that be a nice, long chunk of concrete that takes up much more room than really "needed".


----------



## Eric Johnson (Mar 31, 2007)

I wanted to ask BB if they had a fireplace in that corporate 707.


----------



## BrotherBart (Mar 31, 2007)

Eric Johnson said:
			
		

> I wanted to ask BB if they had a fireplace in that corporate 707.



It was a Gulfstream 4, no fireplace. But everything else in the world you could imagine. I bet when the big boys used them the planes also had hot and cold running blondes.

I just got to use one when those guys weren't "conducting business" with them. Then we had to "make do" with one of the five Citations. Dinky little jets.

Very few things I miss about corporate America, but that is one.


----------



## jjbaer (Mar 31, 2007)

Another flaming, hypocritical, Hollywood liberal who wants us to "save the planet" while he leaves dinosaur-sized carbon droppings behind his aircraft............hypocritical SOB's...... and we thought Al Gore was the height of hypocrisy......





































l


----------



## Mo Heat (Apr 5, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space ... "



Sounds like John is thinking about buying his own space shuttle to add to his collection. Should be a small step from space-case to astronaunt.

_Travolta's five private planes – a customised £2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet – are kept at the bottom of his garden in the US next to a private runway._


----------



## slowzuki (Apr 5, 2007)

The MPG issue of planes is you often cover many more miles than a car would.  In europe they are finally thinking of stopping short domestic flights given the efficiency and speed of their rail network.  With the new security requirments the times savings by flying are nearly gone.  A train gets great mpg per person compared to planes or cars.  Makes be cringe watching them tear up all the rail beds around here knowing how much trouble there is going to be in the future trying to expropriate them back.


----------



## webbie (Apr 5, 2007)

Yeah, and it certainly easier to power trains with windmills and solar electric!
But do we see even a peep out of DC about trains? Nah. Maybe if Haliburton starts making them, but until then nothing. After all, they think government cant do anything (and given their record, they are right!).


----------



## jjbaer (Apr 12, 2007)

slowzuki said:
			
		

> The MPG issue of planes is you often cover many more miles than a car would.  In europe they are finally thinking of stopping short domestic flights given the efficiency and speed of their rail network.  With the new security requirments the times savings by flying are nearly gone.  A train gets great mpg per person compared to planes or cars.  Makes be cringe watching them tear up all the rail beds around here knowing how much trouble there is going to be in the future trying to expropriate them back.



Side benefit...when God closes one door he opens another......torn-up rail beds make for great bike paths......


----------



## sstanis (Apr 14, 2007)

How bout ole' John flies the regular airlines like everyone else.  I can see if he were so high-powered company official or a CEO of sort, where 1/2 the yr is spent traveling place to place.   TO him it is about convenience.


----------



## Kansasairbuspilot (Oct 22, 2007)

In the aviation business, the saying goes "SPEED COSTS MONEY, HOW FAST DO YOU WANNA GO?"

I flew business aircraft for the last 6 years, and I found one thing is true: The people who own them are quite possibly the most wasteful people in the world...

It is beyond my realm of comprehension how some can become that detached from reality, but they are.

Lest we forget though that airliners give us the ability to cross oceans in hours, and avoid the perils of the sea..... Domestic travel however can be done more economically in other ways...

Myself, I drive a 1982 Chevy Chevette Diesel. I get about 40+/- mpg in town and better on the highway. I care not that my brethren at the airline are driving mercedes and bmw's, I like the thought of getting better mileage than most hybrids, for 10% of the cost......

Besides, whats sexier than a chevette diesel??


----------



## velvetfoot (Oct 22, 2007)

Of course you are not being 'green' by driving around your old diesel.
(And neither am I at 208k miles on my Beetle TDI.)
You need to buy a new Jetta Sportwagen TDI when it comes out in 2008, which will meet all the EPA's standards.
Of course, how long or well the particulate filter and catalytic NOx scrubber will last, who knows?
Have you noticed how diesel is more than hi-test now-it's 3.28 here now?  It was at mid-grade prices all summer, unlike in years past. 
I'm thinking Prius now as a replacement, but the new VW diesels are supposed to get good mileage (better than the unit injector models it's replacing) - hopefully around 50 mpg, and that's for a less tinny kind of feel.


----------



## TMonter (Oct 22, 2007)

We just bought a new car (Honda CRV) and went with the most efficient small SUV we could find for a reasonable price. Did our research, test drove half a dozen vehicles and found out that a Prius wouldn't fit three car seats.

So far the Honda gets about 21.5 in town and 27 on the freeway. Not excellent, but better than anything else we test drove that fits our situation and about the same as our Subaru Impreza. (24 MPG in town)

If John Travolta was serious about combating global warming (which isn't even possible) he'd trade in his jets for something more efficient. It's just more typical hypocrisy for the super-rich crowd.


----------



## KeithO (Oct 23, 2007)

Folks: This is America, home of the free !  Travolta is a self made man.  He has achieved what many people can only dream of.  If he wanted, he could buy any number of smaller jets for around $250k upwards, but that would cramp his style (where will the luggage go ?).   Lets also not forget that anytime you put your family on a plane and fly over the cold atlantic, there are some real risks that you would want to manage.

People like Diamond fly their twin engine diesel plane from Austria to Oshkosh every year, getting pretty good fuel economy, but light twins don't have much in the way of reserves for dealing with bad weather when tackling long stretches over hostile terrain.  http://www.diamondair.com/aircraft/da42_private/index.html  They show the twin diesel getting 15.8mpg @ 172 knot airspeed.  That is almost 200mph, almost 3x faster than one is allowed to drive anywhere on the highway.  Michigan to Colorado by road is 24h straight driving but 5-6h flying in an aircraft like the Twinstar.  And remember that this is a piston engined prop plane, not a jet.

Whichever way you want to see it, Travolta is an entertainer.  If you would do the math and work out what his hourly rate on a movie set is, then the jet probably makes sense for him because he is able to be in more places quicker working on different projects without having to bend his plans around an airline schedule.  Not to mention all the diseases he will avoid by not flying coach, nor the ridiculous check in procedures. Lets face it, modern air travel is something we put up with, not something to look forward to or enjoy.

Lets all hope that the great "air taxi" scheme gets off the ground based on the mini jets like the Eclipse, so that we are offered more options for getting from A to B in a reasonable amount of time and with a certain amount of dignity, while avoiding the major hubs.  Is there really anyone out there who will miss O Hare, or Cincinati, or Dulles, or JFK or Atlanta ?



			
				Webmaster said:
			
		

> Yeah, and it certainly easier to power trains with windmills and solar electric!
> But do we see even a peep out of DC about trains? Nah. Maybe if Haliburton starts making them, but until then nothing. After all, they think government cant do anything (and given their record, they are right!).



Sorry, in my rant I forgot to comment on the train situation:  Lts see - how is a train going at 200mph significantly different to an airliner from a Republican "security" perspective ?  In europe, security measures for train operations are almost entirely absent, but we have the same "airline" security measures for boarding a ferry.  I have used the high speed trains in Germany and they are great, but the investment in infrastructure would be hard to stomach.  Maybe if that military spending were cut back a little (taboo topic) we could "easily" afford to connect all the major hubs without batting an eyelid.  

http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_04-10-2005/featured_0

The military. Including estimates for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will spend $527 billion on military expenses this year. In fact, the U.S. spends as much money on its military as all other nations combined. About $5 billion goes for military assistance to foreign governments, including $2.2 billion for Israel and $1.3 billion for Egypt. Intelligence spending—also part of the military budget—is classified, but GlobalSecurity.org, an intelligence policy think tank, estimates that the year’s expenses for spying and other intelligence-gathering will be more than $40 billion. About $34 billion goes to the Department of Defense, including $7 billion for the National Security Agency and $7 billion for the National Reconnaissance Office, which builds and maintains spy satellites. An additional $5 billion goes to the CIA. (Among other intelligence-gathering agencies, the FBI receives $5.2 billion, and the Department of Homeland Security accounts for about $33 billion.) U.S. military spending also includes $2.5 million to remove unexploded bombs dropped over Laos during the Vietnam War, $400 million to train and equip the Afghan National Army and more than $600 million on Army recruitment advertising.  end quote


----------

