Is international travel actually necessary?

[Bletchleyite]

Are we just putting off the inevitable ? lock everyone away, social distance, so the virus, is reduced, then go back to normal in 6 months, even a year, then it would only take a few people to kick it all off again, and as we have been all locked away, no immunity, so back to sqaure 1 !

Or you don't reopen the borders.

Do we need international travel? You need to move goods, but do you need to move people?

Travel broadens the mind and is enjoyable, but it would strike me that until a vaccine is available it would be best simply to stop it entirely, and close the airlines down cleanly for now. Lorries could be moved like they always used to be - shunted onto a ship and off, and taken onwards by a domestic contractor. Air crew need not leave the aircraft while it is being unloaded.

Once a vaccine is available, assuming it is, it could become compulsory to travel in the manner of Yellow Fever.

New Zealand must need it even less than us - they're miles from any other country.

Perhaps the airlines could be closed down cleanly, with Governments providing some money to enable them to refund all passengers and pay the staff the due redundancy money, then restart it all in a few years when it's workable?

 

[yorksrob]

Yes.

And I say that as someone who only travels abroad once every ten years or so.

I'm sure I read somewhere that the vast majority of carbon emissions from air travel are generated by a small minirity of high frequency fliers, rather than Dereck and Doris on theit two week trip to Benidorm. There is probably some scope for reducing high frequency international travel.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is probably some scope for reducing high frequency international travel.

Some of that already has - my job used to involve frequent flying, and now (even pre COVID) it doesn't any more because remote working is appropriate.

But I'm thinking specifically for COVID, for a period of what might be 1 to 5 years or so.

 

[nedchester]

Some countries rely on International tourism for the bulk of their economy.

So say a Vaccine isn't found; do we all stay put forever? What about all the industries that rely on tourism...….hotels, attractions, tours, car hire etc

We were going to go on a big break touring the USA this summer but obviously that has now been binned. I want to do this trip next year; I like my freedom of movement.

 

[Bantamzen]

Or you don't reopen the borders.

Do we need international travel? You need to move goods, but do you need to move people?

Travel broadens the mind and is enjoyable, but it would strike me that until a vaccine is available it would be best simply to stop it entirely, and close the airlines down cleanly for now. Lorries could be moved like they always used to be - shunted onto a ship and off, and taken onwards by a domestic contractor. Air crew need not leave the aircraft while it is being unloaded.

Once a vaccine is available, assuming it is, it could become compulsory to travel in the manner of Yellow Fever.

New Zealand must need it even less than us - they're miles from any other country.

Perhaps the airlines could be closed down cleanly, with Governments providing some money to enable them to refund all passengers and pay the staff the due redundancy money, then restart it all in a few years when it's workable?

Do you need the internet? Do you need television? If no, then while we are at it why not shut these down too? After all it would mean a lot less consumerism, a lot less technology to be made, needing a lot less resources thus being good for the environment.....

Well actually yes we do need all these things. The global economy is built around all these things, hundreds of millions of jobs around the globe rely on them, indeed some entire countries rely on them. So no you couldn't just switch them off, the ramifications would be immense, and world-wide.

Some of that already has - my job used to involve frequent flying, and now (even pre COVID) it doesn't any more because remote working is appropriate.

But I'm thinking specifically for COVID, for a period of what might be 1 to 5 years or so.

There probably isn't a single capital investment group that would be prepared to sit on entire fleets for that period of time, even three months has them sweating. You'd kill it off completely, and you still wouldn't solve the problem. You see, and don't tell anyone else, viruses don't just cross international borders by airplane.....

 

[underbank]

I agree - when our R number is low enough, close the borders and have VERY tight restrictions as to who can come and go with enforced quarantine in hotels etc upon return for EVERYONE. None of this exemptions for key workers like doctors who are then able to go and spread it around hospitals!

We should have had the confidence to do that back in January as it was all kicking off. Instead, we just concentrated on a plane load from China who were put up at Arrowe Park in Liverpool - all the attention was on them and everyone missed the hoards of other travellers coming from other countries, particularly Italy. But saying that, can you imagine the howls of protest if the UK really had stopped flights coming in from Italy, Spain, etc - the media would have been all over it blaming Boris and Brexit and hating Europe!

 

[yorksrob]

Some of that already has - my job used to involve frequent flying, and now (even pre COVID) it doesn't any more because remote working is appropriate.

But I'm thinking specifically for COVID, for a period of what might be 1 to 5 years or so.

On the most basic, human level, people have a need to visit relatives now and again. Some of that will involve flying.

 

[Jayden99]

To answer the title of the thread, there's always going to need to be some international travel, but as much as it's nice to travel, no one *needs* to take a long weekend in Barcelona just because they can get a £20 flight. The race to the bottom in fares is part of the reason emissions in the sector have exploded in the past decade or so

 

[BJames]

Do you need the internet? Do you need television? If no, then while we are at it why not shut these down too? After all it would mean a lot less consumerism, a lot less technology to be made, needing a lot less resources thus being good for the environment.....

Well actually yes we do need all these things. The global economy is built around all these things, hundreds of millions of jobs around the globe rely on them, indeed some entire countries rely on them. So no you couldn't just switch them off, the ramifications would be immense, and world-wide.

This is spot on. Possibly for the next year or so it's a good idea to reduce international travel significantly. But I fail to see why this should become permanent, I have relatives in other countries who I very much intend to see again in person in the future and not just on Zoom. It's not the same experience.

To answer the title of the thread, there's always going to need to be some international travel, but as much as it's nice to travel, no one *needs* to take a long weekend in Barcelona just because they can get a £20 flight. The race to the bottom in fares is part of the reason emissions in the sector have exploded in the past decade or so

Yes but we need to be careful not to adapt a global policy of this isn't necessary, that's not necessary - at what point do we accept that a lot of things we do in life are not essential? It's choice, and it's part of what makes life enjoyable and worth living for so many.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the most basic, human level, people have a need to visit relatives now and again. Some of that will involve flying.

100 years ago it was once in a lifetime by ship. And they couldn't use Zoom.

 

[nedchester]

I agree - when our R number is low enough, close the borders and have VERY tight restrictions as to who can come and go with enforced quarantine in hotels etc upon return for EVERYONE. None of this exemptions for key workers like doctors who are then able to go and spread it around hospitals!

We should have had the confidence to do that back in January as it was all kicking off. Instead, we just concentrated on a plane load from China who were put up at Arrowe Park in Liverpool - all the attention was on them and everyone missed the hoards of other travellers coming from other countries, particularly Italy. But saying that, can you imagine the howls of protest if the UK really had stopped flights coming in from Italy, Spain, etc - the media would have been all over it blaming Boris and Brexit and hating Europe!

Arrowe Park in NOT in Liverpool it's on the Wirral.

 

[BJames]

New Zealand must need it even less than us - they're miles from any other country.

Sorry but I can't agree - tourism is actually the largest economic sector in New Zealand (https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/a...f short-term,21% of foreign exchange earnings.):

Before Covid-19, Tourism was New Zealand's largest export industry in terms of foreign exchange earnings. It directly employed 8.4 per cent of the New Zealand workforce.

Data and statistics
For the year ended March 2019:

• Total tourism expenditure was $40.9 billion, an increase of 4 percent ($1.6 billion) from the previous year.
• International tourism expenditure increased 5.2 percent ($843 million) to $17.2 billion, and contributed 20.4 percent to New Zealand’s total exports of goods and services.
• The number of short-term arrivals to New Zealand increased 1.3 percent over the same period.
• Tourism generated a direct contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) of $16.2 billion, or 5.8 percent of GDP.
• Tourism is our biggest export industry, contributing 21% of foreign exchange earnings.
• The indirect value added of industries supporting tourism generated an additional $11.2 billion, or 4.0 percent of GDP.
• 229,566 people were directly employed in tourism (8.4 percent of the total number of people employed in New Zealand), an increase of 3.9 percent from the previous year.
• Tourists generated $3.8 billion in goods and services tax (GST) revenue, with $1.8 billion coming from international tourists

Furthermore, this is why the NZ Government wants to enable a travel "bubble" between Australia and New Zealand - a bounceback of their economy requires more people to come in and see what New Zealand has to offer. (Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ys-plan-will-be-presented-in-june-coronavirus)

 

[yorksrob]

100 years ago it was once in a lifetime by ship. And they couldn't use Zoom.

I'm sick of "zoom" and "on line" personally. It's no substitute for seeing someone in person.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

The trouble with this question - and it's by no means the only one here, let alone across all of social media - is that it's phrased absolutely when the real question is relative.

We're now at a stage where we have a choice between trying to start the economy up again quickly, but at the risk of further outbreaks of disease which would be catastrophic for the economy, or pressing the level of disease down in the hope of minimising the chances of any future outbreak, but at the risk of doing further damage to the economy.

So the question is not 'is international travel really necessary?' but 'do the economic benefits of international travel outweigh its health risks?' This is a lot less snappy, but surely is capable of generating a useful answer.

As I say, not just a problem here. But the matter has moved beyond absolutes where the answer might be unpalatable but is obvious to difficult choices where there will be losers as well as winners.

 

[BJames]

100 years ago it was once in a lifetime by ship. And they couldn't use Zoom.

Connections are different in our lifetime than it was 100 years ago. Just because they couldn't travel doesn't mean we shouldn't travel. You could argue that going to the pub isn't necessary - doesn't mean we should close down all pubs permanently because they spread covid more than staying at home!

 

[mmh]

100 years ago it was once in a lifetime by ship. And they couldn't use Zoom.

The unsaid thing here is that services like Zoom wouldn't exist without international travel.

 

[HSTEd]

Do we need to eat any foods other than a nutritionally balanced gruel, rationed to keep your weight constant?
Or drink anything other than water?

I do not relish a future where people are functionally serfs and are unable to travel widely and affordably.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sick of "zoom" and "on line" personally. It's no substitute for seeing someone in person.

But what would you rather once we get it right down? Zoom people who live abroad, or risk another lockdown?

 

[BJames]

But what would you rather once we get it right down? Zoom people who live abroad, or risk another lockdown?

If this is 1-4 years with considerably reduced international travel but freedom of movement in the UK I'll accept it. If it's longer than that then the benefits start to slip away for me.

 

[cactustwirly]

Or you don't reopen the borders.

Do we need international travel? You need to move goods, but do you need to move people?

Travel broadens the mind and is enjoyable, but it would strike me that until a vaccine is available it would be best simply to stop it entirely, and close the airlines down cleanly for now. Lorries could be moved like they always used to be - shunted onto a ship and off, and taken onwards by a domestic contractor. Air crew need not leave the aircraft while it is being unloaded.

Once a vaccine is available, assuming it is, it could become compulsory to travel in the manner of Yellow Fever.

New Zealand must need it even less than us - they're miles from any other country.

Perhaps the airlines could be closed down cleanly, with Governments providing some money to enable them to refund all passengers and pay the staff the due redundancy money, then restart it all in a few years when it's workable?

Yes, a lot of businesses in this country are international and wouldn't be able to function without international travel.
No Zoom etc doesn't negate this, there is still a need for face to face interaction. For example my brother's company have just sent employees out to Mexico to do a site survey.

Also that would be suicidal to our economy, it's mainly services, and hospitality and tourism employs many many people. Lots of whom wouldn't have a job without international tourism.

 

[yorksrob]

But what would you rather once we get it right down? Zoom people who live abroad, or risk another lockdown?

If it came to the choice, the option of quarantining would be better than an outright ban.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If this is 1-4 years with considerably reduced international travel but freedom of movement in the UK I'll accept it. If it's longer than that then the benefits start to slip away for me.

That's what I'm suggesting. Longer term I think we need to moderate it (I've suggested before, and still do believe, that 1990s levels are probably sensible - far less air travel for one), but I am primarily suggesting that to get COVID down and keep it down a pretty much total ban (or the 14 day quarantine without exception) would be a good way to go in the short term.

The tourist trade would be fine, as there are as many British people who go on holiday abroad as others who come here, so they can holiday here instead - again like people used to!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it came to the choice, the option of quarantining would be better than an outright ban.

I would be happy with a 14 day quarantine, in a Government facility and with tests carried out, and with no exceptions whatsoever, not even Cummings or the Queen, and definitely not lorry drivers. Companies should switch to shunting on and off ferries and using domestic tractor units like they used to. It would solve other problems too, like avoidance of fuel tax, and Eastern European lorry companies undercutting the wages of British ones.

Anything else will be too porous. It only takes one "patient zero".

 

[NorthOxonian]

I do think (as has been mentioned elsewhere) there's been too much focus on international travel in this crisis. It seems like a lot of people care more about whether they'll be going on summer holiday to Spain than whether they'll be able to travel freely on a train to the next town over! I think we have to consider sacrificing our level of international travel if it helps save domestic travel within this country and our economy.

 

[yorksrob]

I would be happy with a 14 day quarantine, in a Government facility and with tests carried out, and with no exceptions whatsoever, not even Cummings or the Queen, and definitely not lorry drivers. Companies should switch to shunting on and off ferries and using domestic tractor units like they used to. It would solve other problems too, like avoidance of fuel tax, and Eastern European lorry companies undercutting the wages of British ones.

Anything else will be too porous. It only takes one "patient zero".

I agree that a blanket reopening of borders whilst the pandemic is still raging would be undesireable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do think (as has been mentioned elsewhere) there's been too much focus on international travel in this crisis. It seems like a lot of people care more about whether they'll be going on summer holiday to Spain than whether they'll be able to travel freely on a train to the next town over! I think we have to consider sacrificing our level of international travel if it helps save domestic travel within this country and our economy.

Precisely my point. 1-5 years of holidaying like we did in the 1930s is not going to kill anybody. They might discover a love for somewhere new in the UK! Just like thousands if not millions of people have been discovering the enjoyment of outdoor exercise.

People do need a break, but how about Edinburgh instead of Paris, or the Lake District instead of the Pyrenees if you're outdoors minded? Or Cornwall if you like the beach?

 

[BJames]

I would be happy with a 14 day quarantine, in a Government facility and with tests carried out, and with no exceptions whatsoever, not even Cummings or the Queen, and definitely not lorry drivers. Companies should switch to shunting on and off ferries and using domestic tractor units like they used to. It would solve other problems too, like avoidance of fuel tax, and Eastern European lorry companies undercutting the wages of British ones.

Anything else will be too porous. It only takes one "patient zero".

This is a good point. Any exceptions at the moment are really undermining the quarantine, which as you say is already incredibly porous.

That's what I'm suggesting. Longer term I think we need to moderate it (I've suggested before, and still do believe, that 1990s levels are probably sensible - far less air travel for one), but I am primarily suggesting that to get COVID down and keep it down a pretty much total ban (or the 14 day quarantine without exception) would be a good way to go in the short term.

The tourist trade would be fine, as there are as many British people who go on holiday abroad as others who come here, so they can holiday here instead - again like people used to!

To be perfectly honest, despite what I have said I would be more than happy to spend the next few years in this country if it meant we could reach a state of normality again. There are some truly brilliant places in this country that many of my friends have never been to as they always just go to their second homes in Italy and the like.

Ultimately, if it wasn't for the incredibly vocal O'Leary, I would have been under the assumption that nobody was planning to go on holiday abroad this summer. The two week quarantine both ways is just a little bit too offputting for me and I imagine many others.

 

[yorksrob]

I do think (as has been mentioned elsewhere) there's been too much focus on international travel in this crisis. It seems like a lot of people care more about whether they'll be going on summer holiday to Spain than whether they'll be able to travel freely on a train to the next town over! I think we have to consider sacrificing our level of international travel if it helps save domestic travel within this country and our economy.

I agree that freedom to travel within the country should be considered the priority. If we do get the virus under control, we should be extremely cautious about letting it back in. Quite how you go about doing that, I don't know. Travel bubbles with other countries at a similar stage seems the best way.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is spot on. Possibly for the next year or so it's a good idea to reduce international travel significantly. But I fail to see why this should become permanent, I have relatives in other countries who I very much intend to see again in person in the future and not just on Zoom. It's not the same experience.

Even just a year without international travel would be devastating globally, there is already a very deep recession about to happen, this would just make it deeper. For example on many Greek isles, a favoured destination of mine, upwards of 70% of their income comes directly from people falling off airplanes. And let's not forget that killing tourism would also deeply impact this country too.

There is no reason to kill of international travel, many countries have a handle on covid now & so as countries prepare air-bridges to allow some tourism this summer, these can & will be expanded as covid gets back under control. There are likely to be some countries that will be off the cards for longer, but all this "shut t'borders" is reactionary nonsense.

Furthermore, the only way humanity is going to get away from the destructive cycle of prejudice, suspicion and hatred is to interact more across borders, not less. Hell even secretive countries like Saudi Arabia & even North Korea are eyeing up possible future tourism. Mixing with other cultures helps to broaden minds, helps understanding & gives pleasure to many.

Still, at least I know what to buy some members for Christmas.... I wonder how much net curtains are in bulk....

Precisely my point. 1-5 years of holidaying like we did in the 1930s is not going to kill anybody. They might discover a love for somewhere new in the UK! Just like thousands if not millions of people have been discovering the enjoyment of outdoor exercise.

The 1930's, that glorious period in humanity. Remind me, how did that decade end??

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It's fashionable to deny our colonial and global mercantile past just now, especially its excesses like slavery, the opium trade, and destruction of indigenous cultures.
But our present economy depends on international trade, and we still seem to be quite good at it (shipping, insurance, tourism, logistics etc).
Which is why London (especially the City and Heathrow) are at the top of the capital-generation tree and vital to the economy.
We also have millions of descendants and ex-pats around the world, as we took advantage of the opportunities to work and settle abroad.
I happen to have family in Canada and Australia, and interests both cultural and economic in several other countries - no doubt that's not untypical.
Not travelling would be a denial of our family links, our heritage and long-term economic interests.
Yes, we can reflect on having better reasons for travelling than just "fancying a trip" (which is actually how most of my rail travel starts!), and expect to pay the true cost of travel.
"Splendid isolation" isn't a policy I would endorse, especially as we are not "top nation" any more.