• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Flight shaming

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wombat

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2013
Messages
299
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".
I agree with this. I've been on some lovely holidays and met some very pleasant people on the way, but I couldn't say that I've had a transformative experience. Our various media are good enough that I think I have a reasonable idea of how other people live without needing to visit them all.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
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 ...

You're preaching to the converted with me.

Unfortunately, according to a recent thread, our Government and rail industry want to increase fares for leisure travel, and as for a national railcard, we've been waiting for that one for years.
 

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
Indeed, and so with a failing government and an industry which is struggling to reconcile the irreconcilable challenges public and politicians throw at it, we talk about building more runways and airlines aim for more and more growth.

One wonders if in the light of such prolonged political failure, the public will be as wary about voting for an alternative next time round. Personally I just hope the alternative isn’t that “man of the people” with income in the last EU parliament of £787,000.
 

nottsnurse

Member
Joined
1 May 2014
Messages
275
Whilst its a lovely bit of distraction to point fingers at one thing or another for not being 'green', ultimately the main cause of environmental damage is overpopulation. If people had fewer offspring then the environmental footprint of humans would decrease.

But, you know, rather than tackle the root cause let's quibble about aircraft vs trains, meat-eaters vs vegetarians, etc, etc.

People should start taking responsibility for the damage their multiple crotch goblins do to the planet.
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
I've just booked domestic flights for Easter 2020 and the first Bank Holiday weekend in May. Great value, and I have absolute confidence that the flights will operate without interference from engineering works.

This August, I'll be travelling to Edinburgh for the festival on flights I booked last September and this Christmas I'll be travelling on flights I booked in January. When the journey matters, I don't plan to travel by rail.

Rail has its place, but until HS2 reaches Glasgow or Edinburgh, best to park plans to slash domestic air services.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,019
For the number of passengers connecting in this way, BA could probably manage a Watford Jn-Heathrow coach.
I actually used to use this years ago, but it's useless ever since Virgin WC cancelled most of the Watford stops, which now can't be reinstated ever since whatever the secondary WCML operator is called this week then sucked up the fast line path capacity for their sub-125mph trains.
 

CanalWalker

Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
42
I burn tyres in my garden for the hell of it too. I mean, someone somewhere else in the world is burning tyres right now, so why shouldn't I?

And I will stop mugging old ladies when the chavs on the sink council estate stop doing it . :) :)
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
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?

Well, for a start, air travel is pretty much the only way to get short-demand goods to the customer over very long distances. It's also the greenest way to send anything over very long distances as well; shipping is an appalling polluter because of its slow speed (as an aside, using SailRail to Dublin is much more damaging than just using Ryanair!).

Nearly all prosperous cities in the world have a good airport with global connectivity; it is almost impossible to be a big city without one (unless you're in very close proximity to another city with an airport!). Many studies show a strong correlation between wages/economic output/post industrialism and airport passengers per year in any given city.

Of course, we could all just stop travelling and become a self-sufficient Juche economy, but that's neither likely nor actually desirable. Air travel needs to keep innovating to reduce its emissions and passenger fees and taxes need to be used appropriately to offset the damage caused. But, simply telling people not to travel isn't a good idea. I'd wager that most of the green brigade are Remainers who rightly bemoan values like insularism, so it seems odd they try to promote this when it suits them.
 

CanalWalker

Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
42
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.


You sound like an eighty a day smoker. "No amount of nanny state is going to stop me doing what I like. And if it kills me so what"
"No amount of shaming is going to stop me flying and if it destroys the planet, so what"
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I actually used to use this years ago, but it's useless ever since Virgin WC cancelled most of the Watford stops, which now can't be reinstated ever since whatever the secondary WCML operator is called this week then sucked up the fast line path capacity for their sub-125mph trains.

OT, but operation of current 110mph trains at 125mph wouldn't make one jot of difference to the number of long distance Watford Jn stops that could be timetabled on the Fast Lines, due to the way 110mph trains are nested in otherwise wasted capacity in the timetable structure.
 

joncombe

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2016
Messages
765
I think any attempt to shame people into not doing something isn't going to get very far. It is easy to point at flying and say how damaging to the environment it is and how only a small percentage of people fly regularly. However the same can be applied to almost everything. It would be far more effective to look at how we can make it less damaging, for example more efficient planes or perhaps electric planes and yes of course alternative too (for example I can see no purpose in flights such as London to Manchester, it's a 2 hour train journey, for instance and even if you are going to Heathrow to catch another flight it should still be quicker overall by train once you factor in the time needed to get to the airport, check in, security and so on). Ultimately there is going to be some activity or hobby or interest you have that only a small percentage of the population do, that causes damage to the environment. How can you justify that damage to the environment? Because probably almost every hobby results in manufacturing and transporting something that isn't strictly needed, or going somewhere you don't need to go (but want to).

The trouble is most things people do are not essential and come at a cost to the environment. Who gets to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? If we severely restrict flying what if the next target was railways? Why do you need to take that trip to the coast or a national park. Why do you have to travel 100s of miles to visit friends or relatives? Why do you need to got a day out to a visitor attraction? Why should you travel hundreds of miles just to experience a different type of train or travel on a different line? Why do we need heritage railways? Yes it's easy to say the train is more environmentally friendly, but that only applies whilst there is another mode that is worse. But what is the environmental cost of all the diesel used in trains or the environmental cost of using all the electricity that is generated? What is the cost to the environment of creating all the steel for rails, transporting it and fitting it and maintaining it? I'm not signalling out railways of course, it's just this is a railway forum so it's probably something most people here are interested in! If we say most leisure travel is not needed, we could extend it and say much commuting is also not needed then surely we'd need fewer trains, fewer staff, perhaps fewer lines, depots, sidings and so on. We could plant trees on all the land saved. What if someone decided that trains travelling at high speed use more energy and so all trains should be restricted to 50mph for environmental reasons, so it takes much longer to travel by trains? Likewise motorways?

Most people will support banning or restricting something if the restrictions don't effect them.

I'm not meaning to cause offence here or seriously suggesting any of this but consider, why do we need beer or wine? What is environmental cost of producing it, bottling it, transporting it, the bars, shops, clubs that sell it. Not to mention health implications. Or the cost to the health service. Why do we need it? Everyone could survive on water. We could use the land saved growing barely for beer or grapes for wine to plant more trees. Or provide more housing or whatever. Why do we need hot drinks. What is the cost of all those kettles? Likewise why do we need cigarettes. What is the cost of producing them, transporting them, etc. No one needs to smoke. So how can we justify allowing it? What about football or rugby, or horse racing etc. Why is it OK for people to travel hundreds of miles to watch 90 minutes of a game when they could watch it at home on the TV? What about concerts? Or going to the theatre or cinema? Or keeping pets? Or eating meat? Or living in a larger house then they need? Or having a bath not a shower? Why should we all have kitchens and cook our own food - why not have large canteens we all go to eat instead? Ultimately you can point the finger to something, say it isn't necessary, it comes at a cost to the environment and so should be banned, taxed or restricted.

I suspect if you asked most people what should be banned, taxed or restricted they would suggest something they don't personally do or wouldn't be impacted by and would probably be angry if you suggested something they are passionate about and enjoy. It is human nature. This is why I don't think shaming people into not doing something is going to get very far.

Like I said I'm not being serious and suggesting we should stop any of the things I have suggested. But actually beyond eating, drinking, sleeping most of what we spend the rest of our time doing isn't needed. And a lot of what we do comes at a cost to the environment. And of course I do many of these things too. I'm not saying we should all stop doing anything - but it is very hard to know what lines should be drawn and why and this is why I think it is mostly about people pushing their own agendas.
 

WestRiding

Member
Joined
21 Mar 2012
Messages
1,014
When i can travel BY RAIL to Slovenia for £34 each way, i may well consider using rail rather than plane. At the moment, Easyjet wins hands down.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Well, for a start, air travel is pretty much the only way to get short-demand goods to the customer over very long distances. It's also the greenest way to send anything over very long distances as well; shipping is an appalling polluter because of its slow speed (as an aside, using SailRail to Dublin is much more damaging than just using Ryanair!).

For proper long-distance goods shipping (I'm talking about containers from China, where what is important is throughput, not speed[1]) I think there's mileage in considering sail and solar. Shipping is a terrible polluter, but it needn't be, unlike air where there is presently no viable alternative to burning a lot of dead dinosaurs due to the high speeds needed to keep the thing up there.

[1] Or similar to coal barges on a canal. Once the initial barge has taken a week to work its way through, if you feed in a barge every hour you get one out every hour. For non-perishable goods this can be genuinely viable.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
You sound like an eighty a day smoker. "No amount of nanny state is going to stop me doing what I like. And if it kills me so what"
"No amount of shaming is going to stop me flying and if it destroys the planet, so what"

The two aren't quite the same. If someone wants to smoke themselves to death, their call. If they want to pollute everyone to death, that's not OK.
 

Craig2601

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2017
Messages
177
See, for many people the cheap Ryanair flight to Spain for £30 is all they can afford for a once a year holiday and as much as rail travel is enjoyable, it is simply unaffordable for many people throughout Europe. Many working class people in Britain won’t have the money to spend £100+ on tickets for trains, so the plane is the only realistic option.
 

Wombat

Member
Joined
12 Jul 2013
Messages
299
Well, for a start, air travel is pretty much the only way to get short-demand goods to the customer over very long distances. It's also the greenest way to send anything over very long distances as well; shipping is an appalling polluter because of its slow speed
Shipping is certainly a terrible polluter but it's much, much better than air per kg over the same distance. While your average gargantuan container ship will be chuffing out CO2 all over the place, it's carrying such a mind-bogglingly huge amount of stuff that the unit cost is small.
 

Clayton

On Moderation
Joined
15 Apr 2018
Messages
259
I've just booked domestic flights for Easter 2020 and the first Bank Holiday weekend in May. Great value, and I have absolute confidence that the flights will operate without interference from engineering works.

This August, I'll be travelling to Edinburgh for the festival on flights I booked last September and this Christmas I'll be travelling on flights I booked in January. When the journey matters, I don't plan to travel by rail.

Rail has its place, but until HS2 reaches Glasgow or Edinburgh, best to park plans to slash domestic air services.
Yes I agree, when planning ahead i trust air more, sadly. However when I recently went to Glasgow from Oxford at fairly short notice the train was cheaper and nearly as quick, and I enjoyed the trip
 

philabos

Member
Joined
19 May 2010
Messages
180
Location
Lancaster PA
Over here in the US, several years ago Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration came up with a plan to bypass some coastal running which would eliminate some slow curves and make the train more competitive with flying between New York and Boston.
The locals became outraged, the Connecticut governor and both Senators along with the Representative threatened support for completely defunding Amtrak.
All dedicated environmentalists.
Let's build high speed rail to eliminate flying.
Just don't build it anywhere near me.

More recently there was a proposal to increase Milwaukee to Chicago train service. A single siding for meeting freight trains was included.
We don't want any dirty freight trains in our area. No way, no how.
See the last sentence of the previous paragraph.

About 20 years ago, there was a proposal to expand Los Angeles to Las Vegas passenger train service. The host freight railroad had agreed to the plan which included the construction of a second main track in a graded area.
Wait.
You might damage the Desert Tortoise. ( The tortoise is apparently ok with the freight trains)
Now there is no service.
But you can fly
You can't build it even if it's not near me.

I could drone on, but think I will stop there.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Surely the argument here is totally unnecessary flights. Going on foreign holidays once or twice a year is hard to justify. Always makes me laugh listening to people's pseudo climate change concern yet are unwilling to consider this.

Flying due to occupation is completely different.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Well, for a start, air travel is pretty much the only way to get short-demand goods to the customer over very long distances. It's also the greenest way to send anything over very long distances as well; shipping is an appalling polluter because of its slow speed (as an aside, using SailRail to Dublin is much more damaging than just using Ryanair!).

Nearly all prosperous cities in the world have a good airport with global connectivity; it is almost impossible to be a big city without one (unless you're in very close proximity to another city with an airport!). Many studies show a strong correlation between wages/economic output/post industrialism and airport passengers per year in any given city.

Of course, we could all just stop travelling and become a self-sufficient Juche economy, but that's neither likely nor actually desirable. Air travel needs to keep innovating to reduce its emissions and passenger fees and taxes need to be used appropriately to offset the damage caused. But, simply telling people not to travel isn't a good idea. I'd wager that most of the green brigade are Remainers who rightly bemoan values like insularism, so it seems odd they try to promote this when it suits them.

Shipping is actually superior to air in fuel efficiency and pollution. Air transport is worst form for pollution and fuel efficiency. A ship can move many, thousands of tons of cargo many miles on one ton of fuel, aircraft have no hope! SECA also must be respected by ships either by using low sulphur fuel or scrubers.

Over 90% of UK trade comes by sea. If it was by air you wouldn't be able to afford to eat!
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Shipping is certainly a terrible polluter but it's much, much better than air per kg over the same distance. While your average gargantuan container ship will be chuffing out CO2 all over the place, it's carrying such a mind-bogglingly huge amount of stuff that the unit cost is small.

Try per ton or hundred ton.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Well, for a start, air travel is pretty much the only way to get short-demand goods to the customer over very long distances. It's also the greenest way to send anything over very long distances as well; shipping is an appalling polluter because of its slow speed (as an aside, using SailRail to Dublin is much more damaging than just using Ryanair!).

The broader shipping issue is dealt with by other posters. As far as global warming is concerned, marine diesel contains so many particulates and fumes I would not be surprised if it's immediate effect is to cool the planet by making the atmosphere more reflective. I disagree with your specific example since the Irish boats are not for the benefit of sail rail, they are for the lorries. They would be going whether or not there are foot passengers which are the icing on the cake (legacy burden more like).

Nearly all prosperous cities in the world have a good airport with global connectivity; it is almost impossible to be a big city without one (unless you're in very close proximity to another city with an airport!). Many studies show a strong correlation between wages/economic output/post industrialism and airport passengers per year in any given city.

Correlation is not causality. I am interested that you list 'post industrialism' as a positive (see next para).

Of course, we could all just stop travelling and become a self-sufficient Juche economy, but that's neither likely nor actually desirable. Air travel needs to keep innovating to reduce its emissions and passenger fees and taxes need to be used appropriately to offset the damage caused. But, simply telling people not to travel isn't a good idea. I'd wager that most of the green brigade are Remainers who rightly bemoan values like insularism, so it seems odd they try to promote this when it suits them.

Actually many of us resent the global economy as the reason for the loss of meaningful blue collar jobs and its replacement with bull**** service industry gig work. An autarkic post "brexit" economy and small scale local production would be a divisive concept but at least it would be a realistic aspiration unlike the imperial fantasies of most of its cheerleaders.

Regarding innovation to reduce emissions, we are reaching the point of diminishing returns. The Boeing 737Max is a good example of this. I grant you that they have at the time of writing created a zero emission plane, but not how the manufacturers intended.

I agree taxes are needed - maybe even rationing. At the moment I understand international agreements forbid fuel duty being collected on planes. This is something that needs to end now (along with similar arrangements on marine diesel).
 
Last edited:

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Surely the argument here is totally unnecessary flights. Going on foreign holidays once or twice a year is hard to justify. Always makes me laugh listening to people's pseudo climate change concern yet are unwilling to consider this.

Flying due to occupation is completely different.

But the latter generally generates far more trips per typical traveller than the former. A family might go on holiday once or twice a year - a business traveller once of twice a month (if not more)
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Surely the argument here is totally unnecessary flights. Going on foreign holidays once or twice a year is hard to justify. Always makes me laugh listening to people's pseudo climate change concern yet are unwilling to consider this.

Flying due to occupation is completely different.
Surely the argument here is totally unnecessary flights. Going on foreign holidays once or twice a year is hard to justify. Always makes me laugh listening to people's pseudo climate change concern yet are unwilling to consider this.

Flying due to occupation is completely different.

And yet those flying on business are more likely to be the people clocking up 70% of the air travel.

Is flying to yet another corporate meeting really more worthy than a family enjoying their annual holiday that they will remember forever ?(personally I never went on foreign holidays when I was growing up, but I can see how some might value it).
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
All this talk reminds me of this sketch from The Armstrong and Miller show...

 

modernrail

Member
Joined
26 Jul 2015
Messages
1,019
All this talk reminds me of this sketch from The Armstrong and Miller show...

Brilliant! I do suspect that about 50 per cent of business air travel could be cut out fairly easily. There are quite a few people out there who jump on a flight because it is so cheap or because it gets them away from home for a day or two...a higher price would cause them and their company to think twice.

One thing I don't understand is the compatatively low cost of carbon offset. I worked it out for a Malaga to London flight recently, on a few sites. £7! Surely that can't be right? If it is, lets introduce a mandatory carbon offset tomorrow and use it to fund the already announced forestry plans here in the UK.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
One thing I don't understand is the compatatively low cost of carbon offset. I worked it out for a Malaga to London flight recently, on a few sites. £7! Surely that can't be right? If it is, lets introduce a mandatory carbon offset tomorrow and use it to fund the already announced forestry plans here in the UK.
I think that's the best suggestion to come out of this thread so far. Air Passenger Duty is just seen as a tax and isn't strongly linked to environmental cost, but a properly calculated carbon offset cost could be added to each ticket instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top