Operational cost of a plane is as much as running an MG Hector, viral post on aviation fuel cheaper than petrol sparks debate

A Reddit post claiming that owning and operating a small aircraft in India can cost about the same as running a mid-size SUV like the MG Hector — and that aviation fuel is cheaper than petrol — has triggered a lively discussion online. The user wrote that Light Sport Aircraft (LSA) they had researched consume around 26–30 litres of fuel per hour while flying at about 160 knots (roughly 300 km/h). With operating costs estimated at Rs 5,000–Rs 7,000 per hour, they argued that owning such a plane, factoring in fuel, maintenance, and other expenses, could be comparable to the total cost of owning an MG Hector. The post also pointed out that petrol, often adulterated, can be ₹20 more expensive per litre than aviation fuel, while delivering 20% less efficiency.

Here’s how the numbers actually stack up across four metro cities:

City	ATF Price (₹/litre)	Petrol Price (₹/litre)	Difference (₹)
Delhi	₹92.02 (per IOCL, converted from ₹92,021.93/kL)	₹94.72	₹2.70
Mumbai	₹86.08 (per IOCL, ₹86,077.14/kL)	₹103.50	₹17.42
Kolkata	₹95.16 (per IOCL, ₹95,164.90/kL)	₹103.94	₹8.78
Chennai	₹95.51 (per IOCL, ₹95,512.26/kL)	₹100.85	₹5.34

Social media reacts

The claim drew a mix of fascination and scepticism. “Purchase link please. I got 600 hours experience in MSFS,” one user quipped, referring to Microsoft Flight Simulator.

Another compared urban commuting costs: “Peak hour CNG auto is more expensive in Bangalore than an airplane per kilometre of travel in Bangalore.”

A commenter familiar with aviation operations noted that if a small aircraft operates between Airports Authority of India (AAI) airports, parking fees can be minimal — less than ₹20 per tonne per hour, with the first two hours free — and landing fees waived for planes with a maximum take-off weight under 10,000 kg. However, they cautioned that compliance with aviation regulations is complex, and pilots without an instrument rating would be restricted to flying between sunrise and sunset.

Counterpoints raised

Not everyone agreed with the fuel comparison. One user argued that aviation turbine fuel (ATF) is “just kerosene with additives” such as anti-microbial agents, anti-icing compounds, cleaning chemicals, and anti-corrosives — and that the lower price does not necessarily make aircraft operation more affordable in practice.

The discussion has highlighted both the niche economics of private flying in India and the gaps between perception and reality when comparing aviation costs with everyday road transport.

Debate amidst another row over ethanol blending

This debate comes amid India recently marking a major milestone by hitting its E20 target—petrol blended with 20% ethanol—five years ahead of schedule. While this achievement is being hailed as a significant step toward greener fuels and reduced oil imports, it has also triggered a wave of discussion about its impact on everyday motorists.

Several vehicle owners have taken to social media, claiming noticeable drops in mileage after switching to E20. A Volkswagen Vento driver from Maharashtra reported that his car’s fuel efficiency plunged from 10 km/l to 6 km/l after a refill, despite acknowledging that newer vehicles manufactured after 2020 are designed to handle the blend. He pointed out that in countries using much higher ethanol ratios, like E80, vehicles are specifically engineered for those fuels—something he feels is not yet the case for much of India’s older car fleet.

Others have shared similar experiences: a Honda owner claimed his mileage slipped from 12 km/l to 8 km/l, attributing the change directly to ethanol’s lower energy content. A Tata Tigor driver noted his highway efficiency fell from 25 km/l to 20 km/l. One particularly frustrated motorist summed up the sentiment with a sarcastic jab—driving now “feels like owning a Hyundai but getting Mercedes mileage.”

Still, some voices in the debate have defended the policy, pointing out that ethanol blending is a global practice. They cited examples from the US, EU, and China, where such fuels are commonplace, and accused critics of ignoring the long-term environmental and economic benefits.

In response to the growing chatter, the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas issued an official statement rejecting claims that E20 severely harms fuel efficiency. The ministry described the concerns as “unscientific” and “factually incorrect,” stating that the blend is safe for both older and newer vehicles. It admitted that certain parts, like rubber seals or gaskets—might need replacement after 20,000–30,000 km, but stressed these costs fall under routine maintenance schedules.