I came across this site a few years ago. Free to all with no login, they allow you to search for any call sign and show it on a map, complete with path from originating airport.
They have a free account allowing you to do even more (single plane) and 25 planes will cost you US$40/year. Android and iOS apps available.
They also have information on how to get or build the necessary equipment.
The most recent information I can get with a simple Google search shows that the call sign of one of her planes is N621MM, although other links suggested that she has more than one plane and has sold planes to escape this tracking.
It’s astonishing to see the blatant anti-climate change comments here. Sure it’s stupid to sue, but she’s just been vilified by the GOP conspiracy theorists, is probably getting thousands of death threads by the crazies, so a little security worry isn’t completely unsurprising.
So hey, lets pick up this disgusting FOX news propaganda about her jet and project all the climate woes onto this women! I can’t believe how well this shit worked!
How about you put the carbon costs for her jet onto the consumer: Every single climate monster going to Taylor Swifts concert is ultimately the consumer for the CO2 released by her jet. I mean there are thousands of them!
Do people even know the impact her private jet has? Presumably she’s also not flying alone but with her entourage. There are also new jet designs that are much less polluting, but our economy isn’t working towards that, it’s just maximizing profit and greenwashing. But hey, lets shit on Taylor Swift!
If you want to argue that all music concerts are evil, then do that. Stop listening to music made by the music-industrial complex.
The last despicable thing here is that it spreads the propaganda that climate change is a problem of individual behavior. It’s not. Only a plan on a global level to transform our economy could have stopped it. But guess what, we’ve already not done it. And we’re not gonna because of propaganda like this. So congratulations.
Swift has been getting crap for the overuse of her jet for a couple of years now, this isn’t new. She’s been found to be one of the most prolific flyers nearing if not topping the list. It’s also been found that she is flying extremely frequently when she’s not on tour. Last number I saw estimated near 3 times a week at the most to fly back and forth to see a boyfriend that she could have driven to.
It’s fine to say that it’s all for security, but she’s been flaunting it for a long while and any idea that she’s including members of her tour or entourage on her jet is complete speculation. At a certain point we have to accept that she doesn’t actually care about the environment. Which is fine, she’s a billionaire and very few of them if any really do.
Thanks for the info, didn’t know that. But I’d still say this is a drop in the bucket and irrelevant to the solutions we’d have to target. Meanwhile this is politically motivated to get Trump elected and divert from climate change.
Taylor Swift threatens legal action against person posting the same public information the jet itself posts (ADSB). nothing illegal about this. come at me swifties.
She is a selfish cunt. Only a selfish cunt would fly a private jet every where they go.
I can’t imagine how large this ugly cunts CO2 footprint is.
Looks like this cunt is upset someone is calling her out on her selfish shitty behavior. I hope more people step up to track her so she gets even more upset.
In this thread: People so upset about using the word cunt they are willing to ignore the actions of some celebrity contributing to the culture of excess that is harmful to our world, while at the same time making herself look like an uneducated child by tossing threats that have no bite. She’s now Mini-Elon to me.
That’s the thing for me about this kind of ad hominem bollocks: the discussion invariably goes: “she’s an ugly cunt” “no need for that” “why are you so offended” “you should focus on the point at hand rather than calling names” “people are so upset by a word that they lose focus of the point at hand”, then the conversation just becomes about why we’re not talking about the thing we were talking about.
Plus like, if someone’s reading this who’s worried about being ugly, they might feel a bit worse about themselves, and I don’t think that’s the kind of environment we want to cultivate. So, selfish cunt: certainly. Ugly cunt: bit far.
She is selfish by using a private jet. It’s wilfully rude and harmful to other people. Just like calling her a cunt, a demeaning use of a dreogatory term for female genitalia is. At least she can justify her cuntness under privacy. Can you justify yours?
Just curious, do you expect her to fly on commercial airliners? Would you imagine the chaos this would cause for the flight. I dont agree with use of private jets, but I kind of dont have a alternative solution for transportation of famous people either.
My guy, if she wants to keep earning money on her concerts she kind of does need to fly around. Does she fly frequently unnecessarily, definitely. I get that you’re angry, but it should not blind you to reality of why people fly private jets. It’s the first step to fixing the problem.
Jesus dude. You have agreeable points of view and then just destroy and legitimacy and sway you may have had with the playground insults. Maybe try and class up your language and people will listen to you more often. I know it’s the Internet but damn.
In the US, if you don’t want to agree with someone, you don’t attack their points, you attack them personally. That way you don’t have to argue against the points and can distract the focus of the conversation altogether.
And I did both. If you’re offended by it then go cry about it just like the cunt swifty. I couldn’t care less if you have an issue with it. Neither do i care about the other complainers.
If all you can focus on is my usage of the word cunt then as far I care that is a YOU problem.
Cunt is not perfectly acceptable in Australia or the UK. It’s used more commonly and is acceptable in certain situations. Here it is being used in a derogatory, sexist way. That’s not acceptable in either. You need to spend time off the Internet, in the real world.
The United States doesn’t even have tracks across all of the land-connected states. South Dakota and Wyoming don’t have Amtrak - if I’m not mistaken they have no public train services and you’d need a Greyhound bus.
Alaska and Hawaii too, although those are least understandable why given their location.
Flight information is public. Sorry you don’t like that, but suing this student won’t change the availability of that information, and anyone could take their place in running a bot.
true, but for a layperson it requires a lot more effort and knowledge to find that information manually over visiting a single twitter profile. and if one bot creator is successfully sued it could discourage future attempts
It’s not feasible for possibly the worlds biggest artist right now to ride coach… She would take up the entire flight regardless with entourage and gear.
It is not necessary that someone be “the worlds biggest [commercial] artist”. That’s literally Swift selling everyone else out to cash in and personally benefit from the destruction of our communal resources. For her personal benefit. That is exactly the fucking problem, you can’t hold that up to defend her choices.
They won’t be, because Elon failed at this already. Use of public information isn’t illegal. Aggregating and sharing that public information elsewhere or in a different format isn’t illegal (and is likely protected speech).
If she’s experienced some kind of harm, it’s not because the bot exists, it’s because the public information exists.
(Also, it’s absurdly easy to track a plane. Search for “live flight tracker” on your favorite search engine, and take your pick.)
Additionally, if the person in question used pooled leased planes it would be much harder to track them. Swift and Musk always use the same planes so they are easy to track.
FYI - the Elon Musk flight tracker is alive and well on Mastodon.
I came across this site a few years ago. So, well within the capabilities of basically anyone. Just for free to all with no login, they allow you to search for any call sign and show it on a map, complete with path from originating airport.
They have a free account allowing you to do more with a single plane and 25 planes for US$40/year. Android and iOS apps available.
The most recent information I can get with a simple Google search shows that the call sign of one of her planes is N621MM, although other links suggested that she has more than one plane and has sold planes to escape this tracking.
I’m really confused why you got downvoted so heavily. If I’m reading your comment correctly you were just trying to point out the utility (to a wealthy asshole) of suing a bot creator. Rich people use lawsuits to silence their critics there’s even a specific protection in California against that type of lawsuit.
She’s rich enough to be able to easily afford ANY travel type possible, without having to even ask the cost, and she chooses the dirtiest and most expensive one.
If she cared about climate change, she would just intrinsically understand that paying someone else to be a good person doesn’t morally justify her being a bad person (aka, how carbon credits are marketed and sold).
Instead of taking a trans-oceanic flight, she could go on a container ship or sailboat. She’s a musician and I bet these experiences would be vastly more inspiring than harassing college kids through lawyers.
For domestic travel she could use a vehicle powered by restaurant waste vegetable oil (WVO) instead of fossil fuel. Or she could take an EV charged by renewable sources. Ewan McGregor and Charley Boorman did a 13000 mile (21000km) electric motorcycle trip in 2019 from the southern tip of Argentina to Los Angeles called The Long Way Up, their 3rd such superlong trip, and their first on electric vehicles. They loved it and called it the future, and they had support from a prototype Rivian truck, which therefore advanced the space of electric cars as well. MANY people are doing this, some rich, some poor. For our climate emissions, there’s no time left for excuses either for Taylor Swift or for ourselves.
You realize that the vast majority of her travel is for work right? And that large corporations, even the ones that employ famous musicians, tend to expect their staff to not spend a month crossing the ocean in between gigs. It’s also kind of difficult to provide consistent security for road trips to keep from getting shot like John Lennon. pool
Ya, I know we did sixty shows last year and grossed over a billion dollars from it, but how about we quadruple the number of staff we have to pay to only do ten shows this year. It would be really nice if we paid hundreds of employees to live on a sailboat for three months out of the year. Not like the largest music company in the world is going to expect an increase in profits.
The problem isn’t her using a plane, it’s her using a private jet. Lots of those other employees are also from the area where the concerts are being held at. Very few in the grander scheme of things are also touring with the artist and the ones that are fly normal plane.
While a lot of the thousand or so staff come with the venue, a decent number tend to be part of the tour. If your going to put one part of the tour on a sailboat to minimize emissions, it seems odd to say that only the famous employees count.
Also, the problem with her flying commercial is again, in a world where a wording number of famous musicians have been shot purely by nutcases out for fame, see the likes of John Lennon, it is very difficult for celebrities to fly commercial if people can guess their itinerary, and you do need to publish that for a tour.
Yeah… add to this that she is literally being touted as a democratic psyop agent, and the numerous death threats she likely gets a day… I don’t understand how anyone could think commercial flights would ever be an option for her.
Ya, I know we did sixty shows last year and grossed over a billion dollars from it, but how about we quadruple the number of staff we have to pay to only do ten shows this year. It would be really nice if we paid hundreds of employees to live on a sailboat for three months out of the year. Not like the largest music company in the world is going to expect an increase in profits.
Who is “we” - are you employed by Taylor Swift or an affiliated company?
No, I have nothing to do with the entertainment industry beyond a passing curiosity. I was sarcastically phrasing what any contract negotiation with the largest record label in the world to highlight just how unlikely said company is going to be ok with vastly increasing costs and number of employees in order to simultaneously massively reduce income, even if one of the employees really wants to.
There is eccentric, and then there is the point where the corporation would make more money paying an artist to not work for them becuse they cost far more to deal with then their shows could bring in.
Ya, this is Taylor fuckin swift. Probably the most famous and influential person in the world, at the moment. She can do whatever the fuck she wants, essentially.
Now, I’m not saying sailing transatlantic would be feasible, but there are public planes for overseas trips, and she could travel by bus for interstate/continental shows. I don’t know anything nor do I care about Taylor swift, but I would bet that her tour gear travels by bus/truck when they’re not crossing an ocean.
We all know carbon credits are this decade’s promise to stop using child and slave labor. They shell out responsibility to a sub-sub contractor and basically absolve themselves of blame. When they got caught having clothes made by children in sweatshops in developing nations again, GAP would say, “we’ve severed ties with the company that hired that company.” But they just kept on doing the same shit. Removing yourself from the blame of your actions for comfort, in Taylor swifts case, or profit, in those retailers’ case, does not change the facts. She’s exploiting a loophole and calling a solution. Carbon credits are horseshit. They’re sub-contractors for offsetting emissions. Are those private companies that are selling these credits doing it out of the goodness of their hearts? No. It’s a business like any other. And no business cares more about the environment than they do about profits.
Of course carbon credits are bullshit, and there’s am definitely a lot more someone with a billion dollars to burn can do to actually cut their emissions, but let’s not pretend that the media paid all that much attention to her flying a lot until she started to acutely use her influence to push for things like voting for candidates that support stricter emissions laws and systematic change. Then it was suddenly very important to broadcast that she’s a big hypocrite so you shouldn’t care when she says people should do something like get out and vote.
I can also think of a lot of people with more infuance on world events than a musician, even a very famous one. Plenty of world leaders come to mind, as do the leaders of dozens of major corporations and religions.
See, as a logical person, I can get on board with bashing “the media” for being corporatist, for having profit in mind when they hype up stories and sensationalize news, for pounding the drums of war for profit, for being biased towards fairness, for being unable to give stories in context that show a crackpot for a crackpot, upholding the poisonous status quo, a lack of critical thinking, and a pretty good host of other shortcomings. But anytime someone starts talking about a unified “plot” or cohesive “media agenda,” you’re crossing way over the Liffey into crackpot world.
Why wouldn’t “the media” want people to vote? If she were making radical politics popular, if she were talking about dismantling media conglomerates or upending capitalism, then, yes, I could see a lot of outlets desperate to turn the public against her, but…”vote for Biden”—or, honestly, even just “vote” is not threatening the status quo. It’s upholding it.
“The media” would not give her endless hype and airtime and they wouldn’t lionize her for being a pop star if they were trying to “take her down.”
And by the way, “the media” still isn’t covering climate change properly, with nearly enough urgency—if they cover it at all. All these records being broken and they barely mention climate change. You think now they’re talking about climate change to distract from Taylor swift telling people to vote? Gtfoh
Really? It’s a crazy conspiracy that Rupert Murdoch, a right wing political activist, owns a critical mass of media outlets from the Wall Street Journal and New York Post to Fox News and and associated outlets? That once a few of the more ‘respectable’ of his outlets run a story it’s far more likely to be picked up by other unrelated outlets doing their own take on said story because it’s now part of the conversation and represents a low effort high engagement story? There’s a reason that aggregators like Ground News can show you the same story in nearly every major outlet, and it’s not just that a lot of them come from the AP and Routers.
Or is it that someone like Murdoch would possibly think beyond one of his enterprise’s short term profits, when he personally sits on the charman’s advisory board of the Hudson Institute, a neoconservative think tank he helps fund with the explicit goal of shaping political policy and discussion among both the US left and right?
Note, 44% of eligible US adults did not vote in the 2020 elections, and that election saw the highest voter turnout since 1900. When polled, about 44% of US adults identified as ’Swifties’, and of those 78% identified as Democratic or Independent. If we assume that Swifies are on average about as likely to stay home in november as any other, and that only the third of thouse who identified as her ‘rabid’ fans, and of those only the ones who identify as Democratic or Independent, were more likely to vote than before, that is still nearly thirty million new Democratic voters.
Do I think the actual effect is likely to be that dermatic? No. Do I think that a think tank which is funded by donations on the promise that they study such demographics and propose campaigns to aid the neoconservative cause would suggest the gobal community of networks they work with amplify an otherwise minor personal impact study on carbon emissions by giving it more airtime in the hopes that it has an effect on the fan base of someone who was otherwise getting more involved in politics, yes.
And the media does talk about Climate Change a lot. They don’t cover it well and tend to downplay its effects as well as the records we keep speeding through, but I would be hard pressed to find a single major daily newspaper that dodnt mention something to do with Climate Change or related policy at least once a day. And so and so is a hypocrite because they fly a lot is fundamentally the same exact argument as BP’s famous and highly successful 2003 advertising campaign to create the term Carbon Footprint.
Pissed off Maga and is helping young people to register and be politically active by voting. I liked that she was getting her fanbase involved so they would actually vote instead of just bitching. But now she’s gonna and done this, reminding us she’s nothing but an out of touch millionaire
I believe her projected net worth is in the billion mark, as a brand, but she herself can’t have that much I would think. At least half her money must go to staff
Maybe don’t use a private jet then?
It would be a lot harder to track someone on a random flight in business class. And I can’t imagine business class is more expensive than flying private.
It would be enormously easier to track Taylor Swift on a random flight in business class, because the moment people saw her on their random flight in business class it would turn into a social media frenzy.
So…a bunch of idiots end up on the no-fly list? I don’t see a down side. I mean, I could see it being stressful for poor tay-tay, but nothing her money can’t pay for in therapy.
As an American, I can honestly say the only three times I’ve met a celebrity, once I didn’t even recognize her (still don’t remember her name, she had appearances on crime shows) , once I didn’t care to acknowledge their presence (Kevin sorbo) , and once I literally just said “Hey do you and Alan Tudyk ever hang out since firefly? I love that show” to Nathan Fillion. Yes, they do things together sometimes.
Om not even American and have only spent a few months there, it even I’ve met more than 3 celebrities in America. That’s an oddlyow number. I mean, just the other day in Sydney, Rachel Griffiths was in myocal café here in Sydney. I believe sheives locally, so it’s not odd but celebrities are everywhere. She wants bothered by anyone. Taylor would be. I’m not a fan, but I can understand why she’d fly privately. I hope she offsets the emissions, but even the small effort she has done to improve youth voting would offset those emissions.
Do you forget what community you’re in?
It’s insane to me that people in the CLIMATE community will bend over backwards to defend a celebrity with a fucking private jet.
Seriously though, will you also defend Elon musk and Jeff Bezos for their use of private jets too?
Or is it only ok when it’s a “cool” celebrity?
I’m just practical. If you go on a world tour where you have a day or so between gigs and you need to bring a lot of gear and people then it makes sense to use a private plane.
If she would fill the plane regardless then why not her own plane.
If I want to invade a country, people will die. But that can’t be helped, that’s just the cost of things. What, you expect me not to invade a country? But I WANT to. That’s how I make my money!! Surely that is the most important consideration.
Sweeney’s coverage, which uses publicly available data from Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and broadcast signals from aircrafts…
Morrone added that there was “no legitimate interest in or public need for this information, other than to stalk, harass, and exert dominion and control”.
There’s no need for public information from the FAA and broadcast signals from aircraft except domination and control?
Problem is that the more fraudulent offsets you buy, the more that get created to fill the demand for them. You can’t buy your way out of this problem.
With enough money and oversight, you could probably could just make your own carbon offset program. How to do the accounting is inherently tricky though. If you bought up a bunch of land and planted trees there where there is none, but it was land that was going to be used for that same purpose or for a solar farm or wind turbines anyways, you didn’t really do anything except maybe start a month earlier.
I feel like we need a Martin Luther for climate issues. You can’t buy your way into heaven and you can’t buy imaginary climate credits. Plant a fucking tree or fly commercial.
I hate how carbon credits are a thing. It’s just throwing money at a problem so people turn a blind eye to what you’re doing and not actually helping solve the problem.
Bullshit. Offsets are a serious market solution to climate change.
I’m actually starting a retail business for them. You can use Venmo, or Cash App, to purchase offsets for your day to day climate killing activities.
I’m even running a special. Normally it’s $1 per mile driven, but today it’s only $0.85/mile AND I’ll throw in an offset for 5 pieces of petroleum based articles of clothing.
Once I’ve received payment, I’ll send you a photo of the trees you just saved.
See? Totally legit. You don’t have to thank me, just send me money. I’m happy to be doing my part!
Add comment