• 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.

RLBH

Member
Joined
17 May 2018
Messages
962
One key difference these days is that the time on a train can be more useful, either for work or for whatever you'd do (within reason :D) on the sofa.
From my perspective, I can read my book equally well whilst sitting on an aircraft or on a train. I can't work while doing either (other people may differ, but my work isn't amenable to being done whilst travelling) so cost is king. For work travel, time is money so air will always win. For personal travel, I much prefer rail because it's more comfortable and I get more time undisturbed to read!
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.
Indeed, try transporting a few hundred thousand tons of iron ore from Brazil to Rotterdam by air and see how that works out environmentally. Shipping is one of the most fuel-efficient ways to transport cargo over long distances (I'd like to see a comparison between shipping and rail, I doubt if anything else even comes close) and to a first approximation, carbon dioxide emissions are proportionate to energy consumption.
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?
One of the glaring issues, at least within the EU, is that VAT is payable on international rail journeys but not on international air travel.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
I'm surprised that the cost of carbon offset isn't simply included as an additional tax on all sales of fuel - electricity, gas, petrol or diesel, flights, coal, etc. Would make some people change their choices (e.g. WRT coal!), and even if it doesn't fix the local issues caused by pollution, it should in theory at least mean that there's no carbon impact on the planet.
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Unfortunately, for countries like the UK were railway electrification is lacking, railways have much less of an environmental advantage over aviation.

Aviation CO2 are benchmarked at around 1-200g/passenger km. Diesel trains are around 20-30g/passenger km for a reasonably well loaded train. While this is substantially better, it's still around 2-3x the "rail transport" number that is often quoted which seems to come from EU sources so is based on countries with much more mature levels of electrification.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
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.

Not necessarily. The way companies do "travel bans" at the end of the financial year demonstrates that most of it is not necessary and should not be being conducted at any time.
 

Craig2601

Member
Joined
8 Jun 2017
Messages
177
I'm surprised that the cost of carbon offset isn't simply included as an additional tax on all sales of fuel - electricity, gas, petrol or diesel, flights, coal, etc. Would make some people change their choices (e.g. WRT coal!), and even if it doesn't fix the local issues caused by pollution, it should in theory at least mean that there's no carbon impact on the planet.
What a brilliant idea, although sadly will probably never come to fruition :frown:
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
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)

Not necessarily. The way companies do "travel bans" at the end of the financial year demonstrates that most of it is not necessary and should not be being conducted at any time.

I should have been a bit more transparent with my statement. I was referring to people that are actually physically required to travel to work such as joining ships, rigs, engineers, etc. This does not include office types on a joly or those going for "meetings" when we've had perfectly good conference calling/presentation hardware/software for many years bow
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I should have been a bit more transparent with my statement. I was referring to people that are actually physically required to travel to work such as joining ships, rigs, engineers, etc. This does not include office types on a joly.

A little bit generalist don’t you think? ‘Office types’ have to travel to meet suppliers, clients, perhaps even some of their team who might work the other side the world. Or travel to remote production facilities, or deliver foreign aid, etc etc. None of this makes it a “Jolly”.
 

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,894
Location
Bedford
I should have been a bit more transparent with my statement. I was referring to people that are actually physically required to travel to work such as joining ships, rigs, engineers, etc. This does not include office types on a joly or those going for "meetings" when we've had perfectly good conference calling/presentation hardware/software for many years bow

Distributed teams are common now, particularly in the technology sector, and in some companies (such as the one I work for) the only time we ever see colleagues and suppliers face-to-face is at conferences and staff gatherings. As well as being a good social occasion, these events increase bonds between team members and improve staff morale. As such, I don't think it's realistic in the 21st century to say 'Business Air Travel = Bad'. What we should be looking to do is offset the environmental effects and work to make the air travel sector greener, not penalise small businesses who, at times, need their staff to travel by air.
 

Clip

Established Member
Joined
28 Jun 2010
Messages
10,822
This does not include office types on a joly or those going for "meetings" when we've had perfectly good conference calling/presentation hardware/software for many years bow

But not good enough spellcheck software.. However my clients demand I visit them and believe me its very far from a jolly as i work going up and work going back on the train.
 

AndrewP

Member
Joined
5 Sep 2011
Messages
368
This is an interesting thread.

I live near Harrogate so the only domestic flights that make sense for me are LBA - LHR and even then only if I need to be at or near Heathrow or connect there as the location of the airport is not convenient for London's business areas and the times don't really work.

When travelling for business or pleasure and I can travel many thousands of miles in a year (my expenses can be eye watering) and take the line of least resistance. London, Manchester or Birmingham by train, Bristol and Lancashire by car and anything off shore by plane ideally in business class over 5 hours but often use a hub eg Schiphol and the train or rental car from there.

This probably means my personal carbon emission footprint is one of the largest here however the work I do in property and procurement means that I can and do put mechanisms in place that facilitate huge energy and carbon savings and other sustainability benefits such as recycling meaning that my net environmental impact is very positive.

I am a great supporter of video conferencing and Skype meetings not that connectivity means they actually work but what they don't do is have the coffee or lunch after the meeting where an informal chat with the right people achieves more than a million conference calls. I believe this so much I have paid for flights personally as I take pride in my work.

I guess what I am saying is that everything is not black and white and flying can also be environmentally positive if its for the right reasons.
 

Single-track

New Member
Joined
10 Dec 2018
Messages
3
What a brilliant idea, although sadly will probably never come to fruition :frown:

A global carbon offsetting scheme for aviation is in development and that is the primarily reason why the EU currently allows an exemption from EU emission trading scheme for all flights that originate or terminate in airports outside the EEA. However, under current plans it appears that the offsetting scheme will remain voluntary until 2027... On top of that offsetting has its own set of issue, such as land-use change, impact on soils and biodiversity. Reinvestment of offsetting revenue into green technologies in other sectors appears worthwhile on the face of it but setting up a robust system with a fair accounting method that avoids issues like double-counting is challenging.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
A little bit generalist don’t you think? ‘Office types’ have to travel to meet suppliers, clients, perhaps even some of their team who might work the other side the world. Or travel to remote production facilities, or deliver foreign aid, etc etc. None of this makes it a “Jolly”.

Most of which you have just mentioned does not require physicaly being there. Including meeting suppliers, clients or other team members.
 

tony_mac

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2009
Messages
3,626
Location
Liverpool
Aviation CO2 are benchmarked at around 1-200g/passenger km. Diesel trains are around 20-30g/passenger km for a reasonably well loaded train.
Defra's figures from 2016 are 48.5g for National Rail.
Ryanair, for example, claim 67g.
(Obviously budget airlines are lower than most due to the higher average loadings)
If you take the train from London to Edinburgh, instead of the flying, that's about 12kg of Co2 saved.
You could save a similar amount, for example, by removing one pound of beef from your diet.
(based on figures I quickly googled for - not meant to be taken too seriously!)

For most people, having a vegan diet would make more difference than avoiding air travel.
Although, in the long term, the only thing that is really significant is how many children you have!
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
But not good enough spellcheck software.. However my clients demand I visit them and believe me its very far from a jolly as i work going up and work going back on the train.

Bad screen hit detection in my case, time for a new phone.

Your clients attitude has to change.

This is an interesting thread.

I live near Harrogate so the only domestic flights that make sense for me are LBA - LHR and even then only if I need to be at or near Heathrow or connect there as the location of the airport is not convenient for London's business areas and the times don't really work.

When travelling for business or pleasure and I can travel many thousands of miles in a year (my expenses can be eye watering) and take the line of least resistance. London, Manchester or Birmingham by train, Bristol and Lancashire by car and anything off shore by plane ideally in business class over 5 hours but often use a hub eg Schiphol and the train or rental car from there.

This probably means my personal carbon emission footprint is one of the largest here however the work I do in property and procurement means that I can and do put mechanisms in place that facilitate huge energy and carbon savings and other sustainability benefits such as recycling meaning that my net environmental impact is very positive.

I am a great supporter of video conferencing and Skype meetings not that connectivity means they actually work but what they don't do is have the coffee or lunch after the meeting where an informal chat with the right people achieves more than a million conference calls. I believe this so much I have paid for flights personally as I take pride in my work.

I guess what I am saying is that everything is not black and white and flying can also be environmentally positive if its for the right reasons.

Agreed.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Most of which you have just mentioned does not require physicaly being there. Including meeting suppliers, clients or other team members.

Well I’m afraid you’re wrong there, and I suggest you go out and find some people who regularly travel on business to find out what they are doing. One example: My sister has suppliers all in Europe and Asia. Part of her ‘office job’ is to go and see them, twice a year, to audit their production facilities and systems*, plus to check that the products they produce for her meet the correct specifications before commencing a large product run. Impossible to do remotely. Absolutely not a jolly; she hates the travelling, particularly as it is strictly cattle class.

* for example, she has to verify that the factories are not employing child labour. You can’t do that by Skype.
 

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
Personally I don’t think you are ever going to be able to, at governmental level, decide what is or isn’t worthwhile travel.

What governments can do better at is taxing it appropriately.
  1. Scrap blanket APD
  2. Introduce mandatory carbon offsetting. Different rates for different aircraft and passenger loads. (Eg New Build Fully Loaded Ryanair 737 Max12 taxed far lower than old Virgin Atlantic 747, thereby encouraging airline green choices).
  3. Introduce mandatory environmental levy per passenger. Strictly ring fence this fund to pay for schemes to fund active travel and greener transport improvements.
  4. Charge this to airlines based on flights they run and passengers they carry, thereby incentivising greener, newer aircraft choices, and higher load factors.
  5. In planning, prevent further airport growth. Use market forces to increase the cost of flying.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
Well I’m afraid you’re wrong there, and I suggest you go out and find some people who regularly travel on business to find out what they are doing. One example: My sister has suppliers all in Europe and Asia. Part of her ‘office job’ is to go and see them, twice a year, to audit their production facilities and systems*, plus to check that the products they produce for her meet the correct specifications before commencing a large product run. Impossible to do remotely. Absolutely not a jolly; she hates the travelling, particularly as it is strictly cattle class.

* for example, she has to verify that the factories are not employing child labour. You can’t do that by Skype.

No need. I used to be involved unnecessary travel myself.
 

Mike395

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
23 May 2009
Messages
2,894
Location
Bedford
No need. I used to be involved unnecessary travel myself.

It's very short-sighted of you to say that no business travel is ever needed. Video conferencing can only replace so much, and international conferences the world over on all manner of subjects (the outcomes of which can help everyone) aren't going to stop running due to environmental concerns about delegates flying to them - the focus should be on the air travel industry becoming as green as they can feasibly get, not discouraging air travel at all. We live and work in an internationalised world, promoting less world travel is a backwards step in all sorts of ways.
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
It's very short-sighted of you to say that no business travel is ever needed. Video conferencing can only replace so much, and international conferences the world over on all manner of subjects (the outcomes of which can help everyone) aren't going to stop running due to environmental concerns about delegates flying to them - the focus should be on the air travel industry becoming as green as they can feasibly get, not discouraging air travel at all. We live and work in an internationalised world, promoting less world travel is a backwards step in all sorts of ways.

I didn't say that Mike, there are obviously times when it is required however the entire globe isn't making proper use of available technology. The attitude has to change globally.
 

OneOffDave

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2015
Messages
453
All of the flights I have done this year have been to deliver training. I've yet to find videoconferencing systems that let people from 27 locations work together in groups of 6 or so but also enable the facilitators to roam the tables as well as everyone being able to hear what everyone else is saying. Add in a time difference and it gets really difficult by video conference especially doing three full days.

VC can reduce travel but can't replace it unless you can afford full telepresence set ups
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
All of the flights I have done this year have been to deliver training. I've yet to find videoconferencing systems that let people from 27 locations work together in groups of 6 or so but also enable the facilitators to roam the tables as well as everyone being able to hear what everyone else is saying. Add in a time difference and it gets really difficult by video conference especially doing three full days.

VC can reduce travel but can't replace it unless you can afford full telepresence set ups

Just out of interest, have you tried out Microsoft Teams?

It may be worth a look.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
An audio conference with people with strong accents and where some of them are at the far end of the room from a cheap speakerphone can be a frustrating experience - I'm not sure video would add much and we need the screens to display relevant information instead. I was on a teleconference a few weeks ago and found out a week or so later that one of the people I'd been talking to and had minuted as being present wasn't actually there - someone else was answering on their behalf and I didn't know them well enough to distinguish the voices.

They have their place but as far as I'm concerned they don't replace personal contact for certain types of meeting.
 

Dougal2345

Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
547
I don't know the exact circumstances of course, but if the big group training experience via video conferencing is poor, why not do one-to-one or very small group training by Skype? It might be a bit repetitive for you, but it would surely deliver high quality training without the air miles, and with no travelling involved it might not actually take any longer overall...
 

GrimShady

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
An audio conference with people with strong accents and where some of them are at the far end of the room from a cheap speakerphone can be a frustrating experience - I'm not sure video would add much and we need the screens to display relevant information instead. I was on a teleconference a few weeks ago and found out a week or so later that one of the people I'd been talking to and had minuted as being present wasn't actually there - someone else was answering on their behalf and I didn't know them well enough to distinguish the voices.

They have their place but as far as I'm concerned they don't replace personal contact for certain types of meeting.

Definitely check out MS Teams. It does everything.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
An audio conference with people with strong accents and where some of them are at the far end of the room from a cheap speakerphone can be a frustrating experience - I'm not sure video would add much and we need the screens to display relevant information instead. I was on a teleconference a few weeks ago and found out a week or so later that one of the people I'd been talking to and had minuted as being present wasn't actually there - someone else was answering on their behalf and I didn't know them well enough to distinguish the voices.

They have their place but as far as I'm concerned they don't replace personal contact for certain types of meeting.

I find Skype is fine for meetings up to about 2 hours. Beyond that, in person is definitely best - getting concentration and proper engagement I find extremely difficult via Skype for long periods of time.
 

Mogster

Member
Joined
25 Sep 2018
Messages
902
An audio conference with people with strong accents and where some of them are at the far end of the room from a cheap speakerphone can be a frustrating experience - I'm not sure video would add much and we need the screens to display relevant information instead. I was on a teleconference a few weeks ago and found out a week or so later that one of the people I'd been talking to and had minuted as being present wasn't actually there - someone else was answering on their behalf and I didn't know them well enough to distinguish the voices.

They have their place but as far as I'm concerned they don't replace personal contact for certain types of meeting.

Agree.

Tele/video conferencing definitely has its place but for larger groups and meetings longer than a couple of hours face to face is still so much better. I agree about accents and how frustrating the teleconference process can be sometimes.
 

ForTheLoveOf

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2017
Messages
6,416
An audio conference with people with strong accents and where some of them are at the far end of the room from a cheap speakerphone can be a frustrating experience - I'm not sure video would add much and we need the screens to display relevant information instead. I was on a teleconference a few weeks ago and found out a week or so later that one of the people I'd been talking to and had minuted as being present wasn't actually there - someone else was answering on their behalf and I didn't know them well enough to distinguish the voices.

They have their place but as far as I'm concerned they don't replace personal contact for certain types of meeting.
I agree that there is a limit to what audio/video conferences can achieve, however if cheap speakerphones and poor connections are getting in the way of a reasonable conversation or meeting, then surely the thing to do is to upgrade that equipment (which has a life of several years at least) rather than to spend a similar sort of sum on a one-off flight.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Until technology gets around to usable 3d holographic projections, or Jedi force ghosts become an actual thing, people will travel in order to spend quality face-to-face time with colleagues and contacts to get their jobs done. Teams, Zoom and Skype all fulfil a specific purpose and they have their part to play in reducing the need to travel but they can only go so far.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
I’ve been video conferencing for nearly 2 decades, and it is perfectly ok for some meetings. But by no means all. I agree with @Ianno87 that longer meetings are difficult. As are meetings that, through necessity, need to be on site, or different locations. I also find that some subjects simply can’t be easily conveyed over the screen, and that video conferencing invariably takes longer (for the meeting a,one, not including travel obviously).

Given that video conferencing has been around this long, Skype is over 15 years old, and it is unquestionably cheaper than travelling - yet long distance travel demand continues to rise, I think we can safely say that whilst it might be an alternative, it’s not that great.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top