Which Airline Is Most Fuel Efficient?

The difference between carriers—and their routes—may surprise you.

Note: all routes shown include layovers. Source: International Council on Clean Transportation.

The airline industry uses about 4.5 million barrels of oil per day, or 10 percent of the oil that goes towards transportation. But there’s a sizeable difference between the carbon footprints of various airlines: According to recent research from the International Council on Clean Transportation, America’s most fuel-efficient major airline, Alaska Airlines, is 26 percent more fuel efficient than Allegiant, the least fuel-efficient.

It’s difficult to determine how much CO2 a plane burns on a given flight because many factors affect its overall efficiency. Old plane models tend to be less efficient than new ones, a plane that spends more time taxiing on the runway burns excess fuel, and empty seats on a flight result in the plane burning more fuel than necessary per passenger. Layovers make a big impact, too: Let’s say you’re flying from San Francisco to New York, for example, and have the option of choosing a layover in Chicago or Atlanta. Choosing Atlanta adds 300 miles to your trip overall, and the plane will consume 11 percent more fuel over the course of the flight than it would have on the more direct route, according to ICCT.

So, where to book? Depends on where you’re flying. While AirTran is generally one of the less efficient airlines, scoring 13th among the top 15 airlines, it actually makes the most efficient trips between Atlanta and New York. And Continental, one of the most efficient airlines around, is one of the least desirable airlines if you are flying from New York to Chicago. The graphic above provides information on which major airlines fly the most efficient flights on the 10 most popular routes in the US. (For a complete ranking of airline by city pair, see the report.)

Planes are generally less fuel efficient than cars, trains, or Greyhound buses. In a separate analysis run by the ICCT, planes came up short of trains and cars and leagues behind the Greyhound when it came to burning less fuel. The chart below ranks modes of transportation in “miles per gallon equivalent,” which takes into account the more carbon-dense fuels that planes, trains, and buses usually use, while cars use less dense fuels. Since the ICCT measures fuel-efficiency per passenger, the number of people traveling affects the fuel efficiency of a given mode of transportation. The ICCT assumed that 2.2 people were traveling in a car (the average for mid-distance trips). Buses, which transport many people at once and don’t consume nearly as much fuel as planes, came out ahead in the ICCT analysis:

After controlling for factors like the overall number of flights per airline, the report found a whopping 26 percent difference in the fuel consumed between Alaska Airlines, which ranked first, and Allegiant Air, which ranked last on its list.

 

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate