PAO's and Esters are both wonderful lubricants, each with their individual strengths and weaknesses as they relate to applications. Both exhibit broad range temperature viscosity stability, extremely high film strength, high heat transfer rates etc. The negative aspects for Esters as they relate for use as an automotive engine lubricant are:
1. Esters have viscosity limitations: there is a production/cost limitation for making an oil in the 30 and 40 weight range.
2. Esters are hygroscopic. i.e. esters have great natural detergency/reactivity and likewise, love water. This affinity for water is why ester based lubricants are shipped in steel drums. If shipped in plastic they would absorb water like a sponge and will be unusable as a lubricant. In many ester lubricants, after they have been removed from their container and go through two pours, they are rendered useless as they contain too much water to be used in certain applications.
3. Esters are generally much more expensive than PAO's.
So, given deficiency #2 combined withi #3 and it is easy to see why esters are not used as engine lubricants. Some early synthetic engine oils were ester based and in short order turned engine internals into rusting hulks. Plus due to deficiency #1, were thinner viscosities and did in fact leak horribly, providing the basis for the myth that "synthetic oils are thin like water'. The first ester engine oils were indeed water level viscosities!
That said, Esters work just great as turbine engine lubricants. With a 38,000 rpm engine, light viscosity is perfect, working in a closed, hot environment keeping the water out and all the good ester properties of film strength, etc. are right on target.. And yes, all jet oils are packaged in old fashioned metal quart cans.. Most jet oils go 20,000 to 30,000 hours between changes!