Flight shaming

158747 · 23 May 2019

I enjoy flying, I have done for more than 30 years since I first flew on a plane. Several times a year I visit various European cities on day trips, sometimes staying a little longer. No amount of shaming by environmental extremists is going to stop me carrying on doing what I enjoy.

RailUK Forums

edwin_m · 23 May 2019

farci said:
Where are the opportunities for us to take advantage of a high speed rail network in UK? Success of this mode in continental Europe depends on a network, hence the disquiet in UK about the cost of the strictly limited proposed HS lines

If Northern Powerhouse and Midlands Connect are included, the proposed high speed network will speed up most medium or longer distance journeys with significant sections north of London, east of Birmingham and south of Edinburgh/Glasgow. Many north-south journeys not using the HS network itself should benefit from increased frequencies. That's got to be a big chunk of the domestic intercity travel market.

Dougal2345 · 23 May 2019

158747 said:
I enjoy flying, I have done for more than 30 years since I first flew on a plane. Several times a year I visit various European cities on day trips, sometimes staying a little longer. No amount of shaming by environmental extremists is going to stop me carrying on doing what I enjoy.

Well no-one likes giving in to being shamed by extremists. But you're not even going to be swayed by the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed science that suggests that changing your behaviour would have a beneficial effect on our shared environment...?

RLBH · 23 May 2019

samuelmorris said:
I'd like to see air travel relegated to international journeys only but I don't really see how it can at the moment.

Residents of outlying islands will no doubt be delighted at being unable to visit the mainland except by ferry and driving to their destination.

I travel fairly regularly for work between central Scotland and southwest England. Flying, it takes about four hours door-to-door, including the taxi either end. Three and a half if I push it. The cost, including the taxis, is pretty comparable to the rail fare from my local station - and rail is much cheaper if advance fares are available! Unfortunately, the rail journey takes twice as long, so would completely wipe out any possible cost savings for the company.

squizzler · 23 May 2019

Dougal2345 said:
Well no-one likes giving in to being shamed by extremists. But you're not even going to be swayed by the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed science that suggests that changing your behaviour would have a beneficial effect on our shared environment...?

erm, I thought that refusal to be swayed by the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed science was a pretty good indicator of extremism.

AlterEgo · 23 May 2019

squizzler said:
If only half the UK population are plane users it means fully half the population suffer the noise, air pollution and climate harm of aviation and enjoy none of the benefits.

It may be that the benefits to the half of the population that fly outweighs the harm to those who don't but - from the evidence of the article linked to in the OP - the advocates of aviation are struggling to win that argument.

Flying is the engine room of international trade. Governments worldwide believe in aviation as a tool to link people, products and places.

People who don’t fly absolutely feel the economic benefit of (at least some of) the people who do. That’s why, even though rail makes up 2% of passenger journeys in this country, it’s worth subsidising, because of its effect in sewing together the country and enabling business, boosting the economy.

Dougal2345 · 23 May 2019

AlterEgo said:
That’s why, even though rail makes up 2% of passenger journeys in this country

A slightly dubious figure to bandy around... see discussion here.

CaptainHaddock · 23 May 2019

AlterEgo said:
I find the concept of flight shaming a little depressing (and yes, I do have a vested interest!).

One of the best things to happen to the world in the last half century has been the democratisation of air travel. It's now feasible and realistic for ordinary people to travel affordably to pretty much anywhere on earth, experiencing different cultures and broadening the horizons of millions of people. Travel is the most valuable education you will get outside a school.

This notwithstanding, of course, people should be made to pay for the environmental cost, which is not the case in most countries. (The UK charges APD which goes towards green schemes, but I don't know exactly how the money is spent)

I couldn't disagree more. The "democratisation of air travel" has had a hugely adverse effect on the UK economy as many of our traditional seaside resorts have been abandoned due to working class people flying to cheap tacky foreign resorts where sun, sea, sand (and probabyl sex!) are pretty much guaranteed.

I can't see why you need to travel to far flung corners of the earth, unless it's to tick a few boxes off your bucket list and impress your friends with how well-travelled you are. Here in the UK we already have the best countryside, culture and history on the planet so why do you need to go abroad? Yes the weather may be sunnier but there's only so much lying on a beach and getting tanned that you can do!

RLBH · 23 May 2019

CaptainHaddock said:
The "democratisation of air travel" has had a hugely adverse effect on the UK economy as many of our traditional seaside resorts have been abandoned due to working class people flying to cheap tacky foreign resorts where sun, sea, sand (and probabyl sex!) are pretty much guaranteed.

In fairness, the traditional seaside resorts were also cheap and tacky, just with worse weather and more expensive drinks. It's not hard to see the attraction of going elsewhere.

AlterEgo · 23 May 2019

Dougal2345 said:
A slightly dubious figure to bandy around... see discussion here.

This was a figure accepted by Network Rail internally.

mpthomson · 23 May 2019

CaptainHaddock said:
I couldn't disagree more. The "democratisation of air travel" has had a hugely adverse effect on the UK economy as many of our traditional seaside resorts have been abandoned due to working class people flying to cheap tacky foreign resorts where sun, sea, sand (and probabyl sex!) are pretty much guaranteed.

I can't see why you need to travel to far flung corners of the earth, unless it's to tick a few boxes off your bucket list and impress your friends with how well-travelled you are. Here in the UK we already have the best countryside, culture and history on the planet so why do you need to go abroad? Yes the weather may be sunnier but there's only so much lying on a beach and getting tanned that you can do!

It's also dramatically increased the number of visitors to the UK from overseas. I live in York and in summer it's full of overseas tourists, including Chinese, Americans, Japanese etc Most of these would not have been here before the increase in air travel and I suspect they put more into the economy in the city than UK visitors do as they stay for longer in the city's hotels.

It works both ways........

AlterEgo · 23 May 2019

CaptainHaddock said:
I couldn't disagree more. The "democratisation of air travel" has had a hugely adverse effect on the UK economy as many of our traditional seaside resorts have been abandoned due to working class people flying to cheap tacky foreign resorts where sun, sea, sand (and probabyl sex!) are pretty much guaranteed.

I can't see why you need to travel to far flung corners of the earth, unless it's to tick a few boxes off your bucket list and impress your friends with how well-travelled you are. Here in the UK we already have the best countryside, culture and history on the planet so why do you need to go abroad? Yes the weather may be sunnier but there's only so much lying on a beach and getting tanned that you can do!

Surely not a serious post!

Bletchleyite · 23 May 2019

AlterEgo said:
Surely not a serious post!

To an extent, there is some great UK tourism to do, so perhaps if you want a city break you should consider a UK city by train instead of a European one?

Sleepy · 23 May 2019

Starmill said:
One of the biggest problems I have with long-distance rail travel is that it is just too uncomfortable. First Class is generally a must for any 2-hour flight destination from Britian because it will take you literally all day (or more). Even First Class rail travel from London to Cornwall would, to me, be unacceptably uncomfortable compared to a sensibly priced car. I cannot see myself ever doing a London to Penzance journey on a train ever again. Yet even for such a short journey you can fly from London to Newquay.

I would have disagreed with you about using 1st Class to Cornwall before HST's were replaced. The best option now seems to be the Sleeper I find (with the added bonus of gaining a day IMO)

Bletchleyite · 23 May 2019

Sleepy said:
I would have disagreed with you about using 1st Class to Cornwall before HST's were replaced. The best option now seems to be the Sleeper I find (with the added bonus of gaining a day IMO)

I'd question if the 1st seats on the 80x are worth paying extra for, but they are certainly more comfortable than any moderately-priced family car (Astras, Focuses etc and the various MPVs derived from them).

AlterEgo · 23 May 2019

Bletchleyite said:
To an extent, there is some great UK tourism to do, so perhaps if you want a city break you should consider a UK city by train instead of a European one?

There's plenty to see in this country, no doubt, and I holiday here (going to the Scilly Isles next!) - but to say people should actively shun the opportunity to see and experience diametrically opposed cultures and peoples is nothing less than wholly regressive.

sprinterguy · 23 May 2019

yorksrob said:
I find an hour in the Great Western Hotel at Exeter helps to break up a London - Penzance journey.

One of the greatest joys of long distance rail travel is being able to stop off for a pint or three en route. :smile:

My patience for rail travel (any sort of travel, really) starts to wear thin after more than two hours, so I'll be breaking up my Birmingham to Plymouth journey with a refreshment break in Exeter next week.

Closer to the topic at hand, I'd only have a single Birmingham - Aberdeen flight under my belt, but partners past and present insist on foreign holidays.

Wombat · 23 May 2019

CaptainHaddock said:
Here in the UK we already have the best countryside, culture and history on the planet so why do you need to go abroad? Yes the weather may be sunnier but there's only so much lying on a beach and getting tanned that you can do!

There may be a limit to my tolerance for lying on a beach, but I have yet to reach it!

Dougal2345 · 23 May 2019

AlterEgo said:
There's plenty to see in this country, no doubt, and I holiday here (going to the Scilly Isles next!) - but to say people should actively shun the opportunity to see and experience diametrically opposed cultures and peoples is nothing less than wholly regressive.

I love a bit of travel myself - been all over Europe (by train, natch - always signalling my virtue) - but nonetheless I've always been a bit dubious about the 'travel broadens the mind' thing, and the benefits of ice-fishing with Inuit or camping with the Bedouin for that "truly authentic travel experience".

Call me parochial and narrow minded, but my abiding memory of Bosnia for example was the sheer amount of smoking that went on - I always think of it as the 'ashtray of Europe' now - particularly a grim woman on the train from Mostar who smoked like a chimney and (from what I gathered) didn't have a ticket to show the guard. If travel's taught me anything, it's that people are pretty much the same anywhere...

coppercapped · 23 May 2019

squizzler said:
If only half the UK population are plane users it means fully half the population suffer the noise, air pollution and climate harm of aviation and enjoy none of the benefits.

It may be that the benefits to the half of the population that fly outweighs the harm to those who don't but - from the evidence of the article linked to in the OP - the advocates of aviation are struggling to win that argument.

One of the reasons that the Thames Valley/M3/M4 corridors have so much high tech employment is because of the excellent international connections offered by Heathrow.

The entire area has benefited from international air travel and the employment it has brought with it. Clearly not everybody flies - but because some can the jobs have followed. Between the loss of its old agricultural and building supply based industries (seeds and bulbs, biscuits, beer and bricks) and the arrival of the high tech businesses Reading suffered a twenty year long economic downturn. A large part of its current prosperity is due to the presence of Heathrow.

The gains outweigh the pains - and I write that even though I live underneath the flight paths into and out of Heathrow. The Terminal Manoeuvering Area has grown with the years and the number of flights. When I was a child we saw and heard the departures - the Stratocruisers, Super Constellations and DC7Cs used to fly overhead on their way out to Shannon or New York so low I could practically read the registration numbers with my bare eyes - but we were not affected by landing aircraft. The droning from the old piston engines went on for a long time as the planes flew past at 1,500 feet at a couple of hundred miles per hour. Heathrow has not moved - yet now the A350s and B787s and similar fly past at over 8,000 feet, are quieter and are heard for a much shorter length of time. Landing aircraft are on flight idle and are quite quiet and only affect us when the wind is easterly.

I'll take the modern set up any day.

How will you explain the loss of their livelihood to people if you kill off air travel because some computer programmes suggest that we are all going to hell in a handcart if it is allowed to continue?

Essexman · 23 May 2019

Last time I flew was 14 years ago to Guernsey.
Since then I've made many trips to Scotland by day train and sleeper, some to Cornwall both day & overnight, and by train to places like Munich, Milan and Frankfurt.
I am prepared to pay more and take longer to travel by train, partly because I prefer it and partly for environmental reasons.
However, it should not be cheaper to fly than to take the train, especially on internal UK flights.

Master29 · 23 May 2019

Dougal2345 said:
Thanks for that!

May I try a little "thought experiment"? Say, for every flight you take to visit your family, instead of some invisible CO2 emissions, there is a direct tangible impact. Say, every time you fly, your neighbour's garden will be flooded with crude oil. There is nothing your neighbour can do about this - no laws to stop you flying or recompense him.

Your neighbour's a keen gardener and has a nice fishpond too, grows vegetables perhaps. He pleads with you not to fly again for the third time this year - he's only just finished decontaminating his garden after the last time and knows if it happens again all his fish will die and he'll never be able to grow anything edible again.

Would you fly?

A better analogy than your original post but you`re still talking of a huge shift in carbon emissions for that to happen and given that the largest producer of CO2 is actually the oceans that`s not something we can really change is it. I often look at flightradar24 and observe the amount of aircraft in the air at one time and sometimes wonder of the impact. However this buzz thing of travelling shorter journeys should be shamed is a little hypercritical given the size differences and engine power of longer range aircraft. Surely they cause more pollution?
I am not a frequent flyer by any margin but find this new inquisition thing a distraction from those who have agendas. Are they really doing this out of love for the planet. I doubt it.
I too have a lovely garden, don`t use a tumble dryer and recycle. I don`t fly often but I see an agenda here by governments and business. It`s not conspiracy. It`s pretty obvious when you think about it.

Another point is that you were barking up the wrong tree a bit originally. Far too many businesses use flying unnecessarily and certainly this is less important than seeing family and friends. Maybe that is what we should be given to challenging more than the accusing of the working people as the problem yet again. I always remember the meme " meetings are a practical alternative to work".

AlterEgo · 23 May 2019

Dougal2345 said:
Call me parochial and narrow minded, but my abiding memory of Bosnia for example was the sheer amount of smoking that went on - I always think of it as the 'ashtray of Europe' now - particularly a grim woman on the train from Mostar who smoked like a chimney and (from what I gathered) didn't have a ticket to show the guard. If travel's taught me anything, it's that people are pretty much the same anywhere...

There's more than an element of truth in that and I think the realisation that at heart, all humans share similar traits and can find common ground is one of the most valuable lessons I've learnt with global travel too.

nlogax · 23 May 2019

CaptainHaddock said:
Here in the UK we already have the best countryside, culture and history on the planet

That's pretty subjective, no? Personally I don't agree with any of that, and that's why I travel.

squizzler · 23 May 2019

AlterEgo said:
Flying is the engine room of international trade. Governments worldwide believe in aviation as a tool to link people, products and places.

That sounds very like a talking point from a press release: positive but somewhat fuzzy. Does anyone know what an 'engine room of international trade' is when it's at home?

Dougal2345 said:
(that rail makes up 2% of trips) A slightly dubious figure to bandy around... see discussion here.

I think it's a great figure to bandy around. Because the average person makes about 1000 trips of all kind a year and that probably includes two plane holidays - i.e. four flights.

So all this favour given to a mode that represents 0.4% of travel for the UK subject.

yorksrob · 23 May 2019

sprinterguy said:
One of the greatest joys of long distance rail travel is being able to stop off for a pint or three en route. My patience for rail travel (any sort of travel, really) starts to wear thin after more than two hours, so I'll be breaking up my Birmingham to Plymouth journey with a refreshment break in Exeter next week.

Closer to the topic at hand, I'd only have a single Birmingham - Aberdeen flight under my belt, but partners past and present insist on foreign holidays.

I can manage about four hours before I need to stretch my legs

Bantamzen · 23 May 2019

CaptainHaddock said:
I couldn't disagree more. The "democratisation of air travel" has had a hugely adverse effect on the UK economy as many of our traditional seaside resorts have been abandoned due to working class people flying to cheap tacky foreign resorts where sun, sea, sand (and probabyl sex!) are pretty much guaranteed.

I can't see why you need to travel to far flung corners of the earth, unless it's to tick a few boxes off your bucket list and impress your friends with how well-travelled you are. Here in the UK we already have the best countryside, culture and history on the planet so why do you need to go abroad? Yes the weather may be sunnier but there's only so much lying on a beach and getting tanned that you can do!

As someone who has travelled to more than a dozen countries in recent years, I am sorry to say I find that second paragraph quite ridiculous (assuming you are being serious). People travel more and more as a cultural experience, to take in the sights, sounds and flavours of different parts of the world. People travel more and more to learn about the history and the people that we share our little rock with. Yes there are lots of places in the UK that are worth seeing, but that should not stop people expanding their experience beyond our shores. Once you start with the "why travel there" line, it's pretty much scaleable right back to behind your net curtains. Why travel to Blackpool when Scarborough is closer? Then why travel to Scarborough when there is a swimming pool and fish & chip shop in your town? And so on. As for the "ours is better" comment, I really, really think, nay know you are wrong there.

Ianno87 · 23 May 2019

Bantamzen said:
As for the "ours is better" comment, I really, really think, nay know you are wrong there.

"Ours is better" is the confused Brexiteer-standard definition of what constitutes national pride.

Whilst Britain has fantastic culture, countryside, food, etc. to be rightly proud of, so do many, many other countries across the world...just in a different way!

jagardner1984 · 23 May 2019

As most environmentalists have argued. This isn’t about the family holiday to Rome once a year.

This is about the 15% of people who account for 70% of flights.

As a side note, and not diminishing the wonderful culture I’ve been lucky enough to experience across Europe before our current prolonged act of national reputational self harm began; if we were in any way serious about support for rural and coastal communities in the UK whose tourism industries have been under huge pressure in recent years, we might consider investing in electric hire vehicle hubs at the ends of some rural rail lines (in Scotland, Cornwall, Dorset, Wales, for example) and consider the pricing structure for leisure journeys so again, people have a more straight forward route to a much greener holiday than the cheaper options to more distant destinations the low cost airlines currently offer.

Perhaps some form of national railcard / loyalty card scheme with a reasonable reward for an achievable spend ?

£30 a year railcard.
Integrated into a nationally accepted ITSO smartcard
X% discount off off peak fares.
Spend £X in any calendar year on your smartcard and receive a voucher to allow return off peak travel between any 2 stations in the UK for £50 adults, £25 kids (voucher valid for 2 adults and 4 kids).

I raise this here, as this is exactly the kind of thing airlines have been doing for years, with huge success ...

silverfoxcc · 23 May 2019

150 2nd 226 1st

I live near Windsor, My Bro in Law lives West of Edinburgh

I can either fly taking 3 hrs door to door for 80 econ or 230 Bus return
Or going by train would take 7hrs+ door to door, Hacking across London in the rush hour and paying 150 2nd or 226 1st return. Both random fares taken from internet for same day

There is little difference in the taxi fares to get to starting point

It really is a no brainer considering the locations. I might consider train if he lived nearer to Edinburgh and i was further away from Heathrow

Flight shaming

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member