> Not sure where else in the world people would even pay more

This doesn't match what the company is saying - they are looking at it as a way to reduce running costs, not increase ticket prices. As far as the benefits on emissions side, I suspect it has little to do with marketing "green" to ticket buyers, and more to do with mollifying groups pressuring the harbor authorities to reduce allowed # of flights.

> mollifying groups pressuring the harbor authorities to reduce allowed # of flights.

I doubt they’ll be any happier if the flights were “green”, but they may have shot themselves in the foot if pollution was their core complaint.

But I’ve seen how these things go. Toronto Island airport wanted to expand to operate turbojets. Somehow complaints about noise helped kill the project, even though turboprops are basically turbojets with a wharbling propellor.

The noise studies showed that the loudest things were loud cars and motorcycles at the waterfront...

True, the thing about advocacy groups like this is that their stated goals are not always their actual goals. Might just be driven by NIMBY.

At any rate, I was thinking of the pollution angle which has some currency in the area.