Aviation Discussion

[berneyarms]

All of this I totally agree with. I can't imagine anyone not agreeing with it.

The truth is though, long-distance rail transport is often too slow outside of a few core corridors and too expensive. Heavily subsidised trains are often more expensive than heavily taxed (did I mention the highest aviation taxes in the world?) airlines.

Edinburgh is just one example we've discussed. The fastest train is around 4 hours 20 minutes. Flights are between 1 hour 15 to 1 hour 25. Flight schedules are also heavily padded at Flightradar tells me most almost all do gate to gate in less than 60 minutes.
London to Aberdeen takes seven to seven and a half hours. Flights take 90-100 minutes. You get the point.

Some people on this thread don't seem to realise that you have to learn to walk before you can run (i.e. you have to get rail infrastructure and fares right before you stop flights).

It is important to understand the times on Flightradar24 or similar apps/websites.

The actual times are not actual gate to gate times. They are the times that aircraft actually take off and land. They ignore taxiing time at the departure and arrival airports.

On the other hand, the scheduled times are the times aircraft are scheduled to depart from and arrive at the gate.

It therefore compares apples with oranges.

Always useful to remember that they do not compare “like with like” timings.

 

[najaB]

The truth is though, long-distance rail transport is often too slow outside of a few core corridors and too expensive. Heavily subsidised trains are often more expensive than heavily taxed (did I mention the highest aviation taxes in the world?) airlines.

That's the failure of transport policy that I alluded to. Airlines aren't taxed as much as they should be if we factor in *all* the associated environmental costs. The fact that our taxes are among the highest just means that other countries don't tax enough. I don't have the data that I'd need to do the analysis, but I'm pretty confident in saying that the majority of the subsidy provided to the rail industry goes into running the extremities of the network and that those core corridors more than pay for themselves. (I never thought I'd find myself channelling Dr Beeching!)

Edinburgh is just one example we've discussed. The fastest train is around 4 hours 20 minutes. Flights are between 1 hour 15 to 1 hour 25. Flight schedules are also heavily padded at Flightradar tells me most almost all do gate to gate in less than 60 minutes.

And flight times are airport to airport. In most cases the places people want to be are closer and better connected to the train station than they are to the airport.

 

[Aictos]

In most cases the places people want to be are closer and better connected to the train station than they are to the airport.

As there's a airport near me served 24/7 by local buses, it's easier to just fly from there to Scotland then go via London or make numerous rail connections plus it's always quite cheap too at the times I fly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And flight times are airport to airport. In most cases the places people want to be are closer and better connected to the train station than they are to the airport.

Though part of that is also that most journeys are suburb to city centre, not city centre to city centre. From Manchester, Stockport provides an excellent Parkway for that purpose, as will the new Manchester Airport HS2 station. But that point is slightly missed on a lot of long distance fast services, and it results in longer journeys overall. For instance, Avanti fast Euston-Glasgow services run non stop to Crewe, but that leaves whole swathes of the Home Counties who will be quicker driving to Heathrow or Luton, as driving to Euston is off the agenda entirely, and at the crack of dawn local public transport isn't workable. You could thus argue that for best effect these fast services should call at Watford, MK then be fast to Preston, say (and similar southbound) because that will improve their catchment for a quick journey.

Back to air, if we move away from it we will need to accept slightly slower journeys, but that can be offset by a train (one with a decent layout like the Class 397) being well-suited to working for 4 hours, rather than the bitty nature of air travel when you barely get chance to open your laptop.

 

[najaB]

Also the APD should changed to be higher the further you fly so a flight from London to Helsinki would have less APD taxed on the flight then a flight from London to USA or Australia.

It already does, but that's backwards. If you need to travel to Australia there aren't many options other than flying, but there are realistic alternatives to flights if you're going to Paris.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It already does, but that's backwards. If you need to travel to Australia there aren't many options other than flying, but there are realistic alternatives to flights if you're going to Paris.

Yes, true, though we also want to minimise long haul travel entirely.

 

[Butts]

Yes, true, though we also want to minimise long haul travel entirely.

You keep saying this - who are the "we" obviously not the thousands utilising UK Domestic Flights every year and the millions going further afield.

Have you elevated yourself to Royal Status ?

 

[najaB]

Yes, true, though we also want to minimise long haul travel entirely.

I'm not convinced of the need to minimise long-haul travel. While I can see the case for a reduction (do people really need to have a weekend break in New York?), the economic advantages of international connectivity greatly (IMO) outweigh the environmental costs.

 

[TheAlbanach_]

I'm not convinced of the need to minimise long-haul travel. While I can see the case for a reduction (do people really need to have a weekend break in New York?), the economic advantages of international connectivity greatly (IMO) outweigh the environmental costs.

Not everyone wants to stay on this island. There is a whole world out there.

 

[najaB]

Not everyone wants to stay on this island. There is a whole world out there.

I completely agree - hence why I said that the advantages outweigh the costs.

 

[Butts]

Not everyone wants to stay on this island. There is a whole world out there.

And if you live in Scotland it normally involves an aeroplane.

It's all very well to pontificate about Environmental Damage but until there are viable alternatives and the 1st Division Polluters like Russia, India and China are kerbed in, a couple of Embraer Outings are negligible in the overall scheme of things.

 

[TheAlbanach_]

And if you live in Scotland it normally involves an aeroplane.

It's all very well to pontificate about Environmental Damage but until there are viable alternatives and the 1st Division Polluters like Russia, India and China are kerbed in, a couple of Embraer Outings are negligible in the overall scheme of things.

Exactly. Emissions need to go down, but even if the Uk done everything it doesn’t compare to those countries. Shipping should be targeted. Cargo ships are massive polluters due to using the worst fuel, but not a lot is said about them. Anyway, bit off topic.

 

[najaB]

It's all very well to pontificate about Environmental Damage but until there are viable alternatives and the 1st Division Polluters like Russia, India and China are kerbed in, a couple of Embraer Outings are negligible in the overall scheme of things.

I agree that everyone has a part to play but India, on a per-capita basis, generates significantly less CO2 per-person (1.9t in 2018) as compared to the UK (5.9t).

Shipping should be targeted. Cargo ships are massive polluters due to using the worst fuel, but not a lot is said about them.

Again, individual chips put out a lot of CO2, but do so while transporting tens of thousands of tons at a time. A super-container ship emits typically less than 5g/tonne-km as compared with over 400g/tonne-km for air freight.
(https://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/environment/air-emissions/carbon-emissions)

 

[Scotrail314209]

Slight mishap at London Heathrow this morning.

A British Airways Boeing 787 (G-ZBJB) has had it's front gear collapse while on stand.

I've got a picture of it, but not sure if it should be shared here. Picture was found on a public Facebook page.

 

[najaB]

I've got a picture of it, but not sure if it should be shared here. Picture was found on a public Facebook page.

If it's in the public domain it's fine share a link to it.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Caption: Picture of a British Airways Boeing 787 with it's nose on the tarmac at Heathrow, following it's front gear collapsing.

 

[najaB]

View attachment 98371
Caption: Picture of a British Airways Boeing 787 with it's nose on the tarmac at Heathrow, following it's front gear collapsing.

Ah, that'll brush out...

 

[Jamesrob637]

View attachment 98371
Caption: Picture of a British Airways Boeing 787 with it's nose on the tarmac at Heathrow, following it's front gear collapsing.

Good. Scrap it and bring back a proper plane.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Good. Scrap it and bring back a proper plane.

What constitutes a proper plane?

 

[Mills444]

What constitutes a proper plane?

A quad jet obviously.

 

[Grumpy Git]

Not the first time this has happened to a 787 apparently according the BBC!

Also said it was a "freight" aircraft, but there are a lot of windows in it!

 

[najaB]

Also said it was a "freight" aircraft, but there are a lot of windows in it!

I don't know about that particular airframe (G-ZBJB) but a lot of BA's fleet was operating as pfreighters during the pandemic - passenger aircraft with some/most of the seats removed to transport lightweight freight.

To quote from another forum:

Does B788 need a landing gear downlock pin? Could this (or rather lack of the pins) is the reason for the collapse?

I understand the pin was put into the wrong hole, which caused the collapse.

Stop giggling!

 

[Ted633]

I don't know about that particular airframe (G-ZBJB) but a lot of BA's fleet was operating as pfreighters during the pandemic - passenger aircraft with some/most of the seats removed to transport lightweight freight.

Just fyi, only 2 777's have been stripped to operate as freighters (MMG & MMK I think). Some were operating with nets over the pax seats (mostly 777-300's), but I think the nets have been done away with now and all freight is carried in the hold.

As to the pin in the wrong hole, unfortunately someone at Boeing who designed the landing gear put another hole right next to the hole for the pin. It's not a great fit, but if you are rushing or unfamiliar, it's an easy mistake to make.

 

[Grumpy Git]

............. someone at Boeing who designed the landing gear put another hole right next to the hole for the pin. It's not a great fit, but if you are rushing or unfamiliar, it's an easy mistake to make.

My godfathers, if this is true what a monumental cock-up.

 

[TheEdge]

At least its not spontaneously caught fire like they used to enjoy doing...

 

[najaB]

My godfathers, if this is true what a monumental cock-up.

Given Boeing's form of late, I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest.