The economics of flying

 Arun Kumar

34,000 feet (about 10 km) up above in the air I am on my way to Geneva. To put the height of the aircraft in perspective, the peak of Mount Everest measures 29,029 feet. 

Dinner has been served, everyone has been given their plastic bottle of water, and in a few hours, we will land in Geneva where I will be in transit and board another flight on the way to Lisbon. 

If you are wondering whether I am on my way from Stockholm to Lisbon with a stopover in Geneva, you would be wrong in your guess. 

I am flying from Washington DC to Lisbon and my route to the destination flies me close to Lisbon while on the way to Geneva. I would then go backtrack from there and fly to Lisbon. The route taken is a quirk of the economics of the pricing of airline tickets and the premium that is put on the perceived value of our time.

When I was checking the flights to have a week of vacation in Lisbon, the fares for direct flights from Washington DC to Lisbon were the most expensive. The flight time was around seven hours. 

Then there were other flight options that first took me to different cities in Europe, had a layover, and then continued to Lisbon. These options were priced cheaper, but their flight time to Lisbon ranged from 14-24 hours. 

You can see the logic of the pricing model here. If you are willing to sacrifice your time, then you could fly cheaper. This is one down to earth example of the saying that time is money. 

Being conscious of my wallet, I picked up the cheaper option; I opted not to pay a premium on the value of my time. After all, what else have I got to do? It is not that I am CEO of some start up and must fly to Lisbon to talk to some venture capitalist in the afternoon and then have another meeting lined up in the morning the day after in some other part of the world.

In picking up the economically cheaper option there was collateral damage. The cheaper option had a larger (personal) carbon footprint. 

Physics is simple. The carbon released in the atmosphere, and attributed to me, is proportional to the flight time I have in the air. But even though being a proponent of reducing carbon emissions I still took the option of a longer route.

I wonder if we can live in a world where the economics of flight would be different. A world where instead of putting a premium on time, airlines will have a pricing model that will put a premium on the carbon footprint – the price of ticket would be proportional to the carbon footprint. 

It would be a world where longer route options to get to a destination will be more expensive than shorter routes. Flying from Washington DC directly to Lisbon would be cheaper than flying there via Geneva.

You could argue that some pricing model genius would turn the logic upside down – the lower the carbon footprint is, the higher will be the price of the ticket. This model, however, would only work in an ideal world where its citizens cared about their carbon footprint over their wallets. And if we did, we would not be in the current mess of the climate crisis anyway.

An irony is that in an indirect way, by owning the stock through some index fund I have invested in the airline, and it is in my interest to make profit and pay a dividend back to me. By doing that, I am also encouraging the current pricing model that puts a premium on our time.

We are getting close to Geneva and are about to land. The flight attendant is walking down the aisle one last time asking us if we would like to return the plastic bottle of water because they are passionate about recycling and saving the world. I dutifully deposit my plastic bottle in the trash bag and my conscience is that much lighter of guilt.

Ciao

A cacophonous self

 

Would an equanimous life 

will perceive dawn as a _beginning_ and 

dusk as an _end_

one among 30,000 days

we get to spend;

or it will see them 

as a single continuum; 

appearing and disappearing

part of an infinite sequence

of births and deaths

all happening as part of

a cosmic breath.

It is not a question

in my wheelhouse to answer

I, who inside my head

lives with cacophonous

mindless dancer.

Why so difficult…

 

Arun Kumar

“Aarg, why so difficult?” 

That was a frustrated cry from an alien in the Episode 19/Season 3 of the Farscape, a Sci-Fi TV  serial. 

Oftentimes, I have heard myself mumble the same when faced with contrasting alternatives. In those moments, I just wish to be told what path to follow rather than go through the task of thinking and choosing.

Contrast is not always a bad thing though. It helps give our perception clarity.

Day and Night. Black and White. Yin and Yang. Without one I would be able to perceive the other.

It is only in the context of contrasting opposites that it is easier to understand the world around, and also to survive as a biological entity.

Take the cells in our bodies. They do not have a brain of their own. They do not know left from right or top from bottom. For them, our body is like floating in the vastness of some empty dark space.

Lacking brains of their own, biology has evolved clever mechanisms to develop a sense of direction and go where cells are needed the most.

Immune cells find the precise location of inflammation by sensing from which direction the molecules that are markers of inflammation are coming from. They do this by gauging the density of inflammation markers in different directions. The direction those molecules have a higher concentration is the direction of inflammation and is the place they need to be. Clever and beautiful, isn’t it?

Occasionally. I wish for the same sense of clarity when deciding among contrasting choices. A clear demarcation between the outcomes of choosing to go left or right. If one alternative is going to have negative consequences, while the other, to growth and well-being, making the choice would be so much easier.

The reality, however, is not so, particularly as one gets older.

The unfortunate fact is that, as you get older, some of life’s important decisions, instead of getting simpler, become harder. I can’t speak for people living in other countries, but it is definitely so when getting older in the US. 

Citizens of the US confront a mind-boggling array of convoluted choices about Social Security, Medicare, when and how to withdraw funds from the Individual Retirement Account. The one-two punch is that these decisions have to be made when cognitive faculties are on decline. Our elected officials have left us at the mercy of hawkish lawyers and financial planners.

That is when I feel like saying, why so difficult, particularly now when all I want to do is to enjoy the time remaining on this Earth and spent some time meditating!

Ciao.

Mortality

 

In the end, both sides of the coin are the same

heads or tails, the difference is lame

it doesn't really matter

an empty plate or a full platter when Reign of Mortality is the name of the game.