Flight shaming

[Meerkat]

A problem is that it is so much easier to blag a teleconference
You can’t really walk into a meeting room late then ignore everyone while you look for relevant documents and ask your colleague what the hell is going on....whilst also continuing a conversation with someone outside the room, answering emails, and having a succession of people walking in and out with stuff you need to check and sign.
And read BBC news of course.
Also a physical room stops a ridiculous number of forwarded invites and peripherally involved people joining then taking the meeting down irrelevant alleys or reopening closed decisions.

 

[coppercapped]

As I wrote earlier - horses for courses.

For some types of meeting tele(video)/skype/whatever is satisfactory. For many other types of meeting personal involvement is critical.

The fundamental limitation of electronically conducted meetings is that they are a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional world. Practical all of the non-verbal cues are missing. This is why concentrations of businesses are so effective - almost all of Silicon Valley is within an hours drive, the financial activities of London and of Frankfurt are concentrated in a very small area. They rely on and flourish because of personal contact.

Video conferencing can work low down the food chain - higher level decisions are almost always made face-to-face.

So, if you want to wear a hair shirt, stay at the bottom of the pile then you won't need to fly and as a result you can then live with your conscience.

 

[Ianno87]

Yes but then people get a call on their phone or get accosted by someone else and then are late back and you end up sat around twiddling your thumbs and by which time you will finish it late and it could go into something else planned. We never plan one in for more than an hour simply because of that issue

Sounds more of a corporate cultural issue - not being respectful of others' time - rather than an inherent problem with teleconferencing per sé.

 

[Meerkat]

Sounds more of a corporate cultural issue - not being respectful of others' time - rather than an inherent problem with teleconferencing per sé.

Definitely weak management.....but when it is the client offending it’s hard to do much about it.....

Though the interruption might well be more important than the current meeting

 

[Clip]

Sounds more of a corporate cultural issue - not being respectful of others' time - rather than an inherent problem with teleconferencing per sé.

I wasnt meaning it was a problem with it just highlighting things that can happen for whatever reason.

 

[reddragon]

OK, the climate emergency IS happening, we ARE causing it and we MUST stop doing many things that we are doing today.

Most of us can choose not to travel on weekend breaks by plane all over the world, some of us have to fly to visit family or for work.

Flying is too cheap, under-taxed and heavily subsidised. That needs to stop. Trains should be cheaper on most shorter journeys and more importantly easier to book.

Lots of stupid excuses on here about 'my rights', 'because we can' etc. Venice is already under water for weeks each year, many islands only have a few years left to remain habitable. What next, bucket trips to do diving in submerged cities?

Personally, I have done what was easiest first, then what extras I can afford. I have gone further than 99% of the population and at no cost to me. I have chosen holiday destinations based on those easiest to get to by train, that has not stopped me flying totally, but I limit myself to an annual return as a maximum.

Electric short haul planes are coming, but a 'nightstar' service to southern Spain or Portugal would be an excellent idea, subsidised down to flight costs!

 

[BJames]

OK, the climate emergency IS happening, we ARE causing it and we MUST stop doing many things that we are doing today.

Most of us can choose not to travel on weekend breaks by plane all over the world, some of us have to fly to visit family or for work.

Flying is too cheap, under-taxed and heavily subsidised. That needs to stop. Trains should be cheaper on most shorter journeys and more importantly easier to book.

Lots of stupid excuses on here about 'my rights', 'because we can' etc. Venice is already under water for weeks each year, many islands only have a few years left to remain habitable. What next, bucket trips to do diving in submerged cities?

Personally, I have done what was easiest first, then what extras I can afford. I have gone further than 99% of the population and at no cost to me. I have chosen holiday destinations based on those easiest to get to by train, that has not stopped me flying totally, but I limit myself to an annual return as a maximum.

Electric short haul planes are coming, but a 'nightstar' service to southern Spain or Portugal would be an excellent idea, subsidised down to flight costs!

Ultimately it does come down to this. An imbalance between the cost of railway and the cost of flight has to be addressed, or nobody will change. No point telling people they need to change, an incentive needs to be provided in order to convince people to change. And no point saying that that isn't how it should be, because it is. I opt for the train wherever possible. But at increasing prices and the availability of cheap, short-haul flights, my own finances have to be considered.

Spain is a hugely popular tourist destination from the UK, and a cheap, efficient and direct service to Spain could entice more people to consider choosing it over flying.

I also try to consider the environment whenever possible, but it is ultimately true that a shift needs to happen in financing and planning in order to consider a greater percentage of the population to do the same - otherwise nothing will change, and somewhat understandably so.

 

[Starmill]

Spain is a hugely popular tourist destination from the UK, and a cheap, efficient and direct service to Spain could entice more people to consider choosing it over flying.

I completely agree with your point, but... It's difficult to see how a train from London would be able to reach Spain (the closest place is Figueres, but one would imagine a through train to at least Barcelona is what you had in mind?) in less than around 9 hours? At the moment the trip can be done in a little over 10 hours by connecting onto the 1407 from Paris Lyon to Barceolna Sants. OK, there is a lot of inconvenience in crossing Paris but that's probably as close to a competitive time the railway can achieve? On days when the 0719 from London to Maresille runs there is often an AVE connection for Barcelona at Lyon Part Dieu. It is a bit of a wait though. Passengers for destinations like Malaga will need two days travelling, and the associated accommodation costs. (Unless your suggestion is for a London to Malaga sleeper??)

 

[Bald Rick]

I completely agree with your point, but... It's difficult to see how a train from London would be able to reach Spain (the closest place is Figueres, but one would imagine a through train to at least Barcelona is what you had in mind?) in less than around 9 hours? At the moment the trip can be done in a little over 10 hours by connecting onto the 1407 from Paris Lyon to Barceolna Sants. OK, there is a lot of inconvenience in crossing Paris but that's probably as close to a competitive time the railway can achieve? On days when the 0719 from London to Maresille runs there is often an AVE connection for Barcelona at Lyon Part Dieu. It is a bit of a wait though. Passengers for destinations like Malaga will need two days travelling, and the associated accommodation costs. (Unless your suggestion is for a London to Malaga sleeper??)

I think a long run with one stop for a crew change (say at Lyon St Exupery) could do Barcelona in 7h30. But even then it’s not going to be efficient or cheap. 2 crews, and the train would get used once a day. It’s in sleeper economics territory (albeit with potentially more passengers).

 

[Starmill]

I think a long run with one stop for a crew change (say at Lyon St Exupery) could do Barcelona in 7h30. But even then it’s not going to be efficient or cheap. 2 crews, and the train would get used once a day. It’s in sleeper economics territory (albeit with potentially more passengers).

I would also wonder if London to just Barcelona would be a large enough market to fill a daily train pair. I am sure there would be political pressure for the train to set down at the other two Spanish stations, having gone to all of the trouble to build them on the high speed line, and commercial pressure to set down at least once in France somewhere more useful than St Exupery.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would also wonder if London to just Barcelona would be a large enough market to fill a daily train pair. I am sure there would be political pressure for the train to set down at the other two Spanish stations, having gone to all of the trouble to build them on the high speed line, and commercial pressure to set down at least once in France somewhere more useful than St Exupery.

I agree. Even at 7h30, there won’t be that many people willing to take the train. The entire London - Barcelona air market departing London before 0900 could fit on one Eurostar, but on the plane they can all be on Las Ramblas having a morning coffee before a Eurostar departing at 0600 is past Provence.

 

[BJames]

I completely agree with your point, but... It's difficult to see how a train from London would be able to reach Spain (the closest place is Figueres, but one would imagine a through train to at least Barcelona is what you had in mind?) in less than around 9 hours? At the moment the trip can be done in a little over 10 hours by connecting onto the 1407 from Paris Lyon to Barceolna Sants. OK, there is a lot of inconvenience in crossing Paris but that's probably as close to a competitive time the railway can achieve? On days when the 0719 from London to Maresille runs there is often an AVE connection for Barcelona at Lyon Part Dieu. It is a bit of a wait though. Passengers for destinations like Malaga will need two days travelling, and the associated accommodation costs. (Unless your suggestion is for a London to Malaga sleeper??)

It was Barcelona I had in mind, but I do agree with what you are saying... it's still nowhere near as efficient as just taking the plane. The logistics of it somewhat outweigh the benefits.

I agree. Even at 7h30, there won’t be that many people willing to take the train. The entire London - Barcelona air market departing London before 0900 could fit on one Eurostar, but on the plane they can all be on Las Ramblas having a morning coffee before a Eurostar departing at 0600 is past Provence.

Indeed. That's almost longer than a flight to New York, so it might somewhat limit the market... unless everyone is truly willing to change their attitudes.

 

[BigCj34]

I think a long run with one stop for a crew change (say at Lyon St Exupery) could do Barcelona in 7h30. But even then it’s not going to be efficient or cheap. 2 crews, and the train would get used once a day. It’s in sleeper economics territory (albeit with potentially more passengers).

7h30 might be possible once the Montpellier-Perpignan LGV is built but as it stands Paris to Barcelona is around 6h30, add on over 2 hours to get to London. Doubt even a non stop train would get under 8 hours.

It is approaching the limits of what high speed rail can do when competing against flying. Night trains are a possibility though, which could extend to Madrid.

 

[johnnychips]

^ I thought they’d cancelled the night trainhotels to Barcelona and Madrid.

 

[Starmill]

Indeed. That's almost longer than a flight to New York, so it might somewhat limit the market... unless everyone is truly willing to change their attitudes.

8 hours by daytime train is just about within my limit, assuming comfortable first class seating and quality onboard meals, even if its expensive. I think I am a rather exceptional case in that though. A comfortable sleeper train could go to much longer, but the economics of that would be quite something.

 

[Mikey C]

In reality if people really want to be environmentally "pure" they won't travel. High speed travel is clearly much more environmentally friendly than air travel, but it still takes considerable about of energy to propel a massive train at 180mph.

 

[Bald Rick]

7h30 might be possible once the Montpellier-Perpignan LGV is built but as it stands Paris to Barcelona is around 6h30, add on over 2 hours to get to London. Doubt even a non stop train would get under 8 hours.

It is approaching the limits of what high speed rail can do when competing against flying. Night trains are a possibility though, which could extend to Madrid.

The Paris - Barca TGV is 6h27, and has 8 stops with a combined dwell time of at least 25 minutes. Each stop will also add another 3-4 minutes acceleration / deceleration time. Take all that out, and run the train via the Contourement Nîmes - Montpellier, and 5h30 from Paris is a cinch. Add 2hrs to London (as it’s on the LGV all the way, and not on the slow conventional lines approaching the termini), and 7h30 would be doable, I suspect.

Nevertheless, it’s still too long for most people when there is a (much) quicker and (much) cheaper alternative.

 

[BJames]

8 hours by daytime train is just about within my limit, assuming comfortable first class seating and quality onboard meals, even if its expensive. I think I am a rather exceptional case in that though. A comfortable sleeper train could go to much longer, but the economics of that would be quite something.

Indeed. I found the Newquay - Paddington service to be quite long, and I think that was only 5 and a half hours, in standard class. A sleeper train is totally different though.

 

[RLBH]

In reality if people really want to be environmentally "pure" they won't travel. High speed travel is clearly much more environmentally friendly than air travel, but it still takes considerable about of energy to propel a massive train at 180mph.

Demanding that people are 'pure' can turn people off to the whole message. For instance, if you push the idea that rail travel is bad, as well as that air travel is bad, what they'll hear is that you don't want them to be allowed to go anywhere or buy things that weren't grown in their back garden. So they'll ignore you and get on the next flight, because that's cheaper and more convenient.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Demanding that people are 'pure' can turn people off to the whole message. For instance, if you push the idea that rail travel is bad, as well as that air travel is bad, what they'll hear is that you don't want them to be allowed to go anywhere or buy things that weren't grown in their back garden. So they'll ignore you and get on the next flight, because that's cheaper and more convenient.

An interesting point. I do agree with the argument though, we should be reducing travel, particularly international travel, not just air travel.

Of course travel broadens the mind, so to retain that benefit it's in all our interests to be more selective about the remaining travel - fewer trips but longer and more thought through. A week cooking yourself on the beach eating egg and chips and drinking Boddington's in some Godforesaken resort in southern Spain doesn't count; you might find Blackpool to your taste with an extra jumper or two...

 

[Bantamzen]

An interesting point. I do agree with the argument though, we should be reducing travel, particularly international travel, not just air travel.

Of course travel broadens the mind, so to retain that benefit it's in all our interests to be more selective about the remaining travel - fewer trips but longer and more thought through. A week cooking yourself on the beach eating egg and chips and drinking Boddington's in some Godforesaken resort in southern Spain doesn't count; you might find Blackpool to your taste with an extra jumper or two...

Thankfully those kind of people are finding themselves less & less welcome in the resorts of their choice, particularly those who spend most of their time abroad in an alcoholic stupor & causing no end of trouble to the local authorities. However travel does broaden the mind, & can bring a better understanding between people, build bridges, prevent misunderstandings, conflicts, wars and so on.

We have done way more damage to our planet fighting like two fleas on a dog over who owns it or bits of it, than we have flying off on our jollies. So if all our countries spend a little less building and throwing around weapons of war, and used that money to forward more sustainable energy creation, storage and use we could make way more difference than guilting Mr & Mrs Jones into going to Blackpool <shudders> instead of the Costa del Brit.

(BTW some of my family do have a villa out in Spain, but I can promise you we soak up the Spanish food & culture when there. And why not, go to the local supermarket & the choice is amazing & the cost makes the UK look like Harrods!!!)

 

[AlterEgo]

An interesting point. I do agree with the argument though, we should be reducing travel, particularly international travel, not just air travel.

Of course travel broadens the mind, so to retain that benefit it's in all our interests to be more selective about the remaining travel - fewer trips but longer and more thought through. A week cooking yourself on the beach eating egg and chips and drinking Boddington's in some Godforesaken resort in southern Spain doesn't count; you might find Blackpool to your taste with an extra jumper or two...

If people like to go to Spain and drink beer on the beach then let them do it.

Massively jacking up the cost of flying will simply turn it into the prerogative of the wealthy again.

I find it so hard to believe that in these times where Britain is risking becoming less internationalist, more inward-looking and where more people than ever before live in their own bubble, we’re suggesting they should travel outside the country less.

 

[BigCj34]

The Paris - Barca TGV is 6h27, and has 8 stops with a combined dwell time of at least 25 minutes. Each stop will also add another 3-4 minutes acceleration / deceleration time. Take all that out, and run the train via the Contourement Nîmes - Montpellier, and 5h30 from Paris is a cinch. Add 2hrs to London (as it’s on the LGV all the way, and not on the slow conventional lines approaching the termini), and 7h30 would be doable, I suspect.

Nevertheless, it’s still too long for most people when there is a (much) quicker and (much) cheaper alternative.

So once the line is fully high speed and the service runs stop the time would be around 7 hours. Would attract some passengers but wouldn't be a complete shift of course.

 

[RLBH]

An interesting point. I do agree with the argument though, we should be reducing travel, particularly international travel, not just air travel.

Of course travel broadens the mind, so to retain that benefit it's in all our interests to be more selective about the remaining travel - fewer trips but longer and more thought through. A week cooking yourself on the beach eating egg and chips and drinking Boddington's in some Godforesaken resort in southern Spain doesn't count; you might find Blackpool to your taste with an extra jumper or two...

Certainly, but pushing too hard will make people push back. Much as excessive vegan proselytising is liable to make people stop listening to the message - one person who gives up meat entirely has less effect than ten people convinced to have one meat-free day per week.

Whilst it would be nice if people didn't fly to Greece or the Canaries for their summer holiday, that's not most flights. Looking at my local airport, and applying a little judgement, there are 127 flights today, broken down as:

• 51 to British mainland destinations (of which 32 are to London)
• 27 to holiday destinations
• 17 to outlying islands of the United Kingdom
• 14 to the island of Ireland (7 to Belfast, the remainder split Cork/Dublin - no Londonderry flight today)
• 12 to European short-haul destinations
• 6 long-haul flights, four transatlantic and two to Dubai

Obviously some of the short-haul and long-haul flights will also be leisure travel. But by comparison, there are 51 flights to UK mainland destinations, and 32 of those go to London airports. This from a city that has two trains an hour to London, and in fact a direct service to every UK destination except Newquay. Probably all of those passengers could go by rail, if the cost/time/quality tradeoff shifted in its' favour.

 

[Mikey C]

Demanding that people are 'pure' can turn people off to the whole message. For instance, if you push the idea that rail travel is bad, as well as that air travel is bad, what they'll hear is that you don't want them to be allowed to go anywhere or buy things that weren't grown in their back garden. So they'll ignore you and get on the next flight, because that's cheaper and more convenient.

But there is an inconsistency here. I can't wait for HS2, but a high speed train running at 180 mph uses a lot for energy that one running at 100 mph.

IF in 20 years time there is a climate change crisis and governments really want to reduce energy consumption and have already massively taxed aviation, and cracked down on private motoring, people whizzing around on high speed trains so that they can get to meetings or meet friends quicker may look unacceptable

 

[Howardh]

I completely agree with your point, but... It's difficult to see how a train from London would be able to reach Spain (the closest place is Figueres, but one would imagine a through train to at least Barcelona is what you had in mind?) in less than around 9 hours? At the moment the trip can be done in a little over 10 hours by connecting onto the 1407 from Paris Lyon to Barceolna Sants. OK, there is a lot of inconvenience in crossing Paris but that's probably as close to a competitive time the railway can achieve? On days when the 0719 from London to Maresille runs there is often an AVE connection for Barcelona at Lyon Part Dieu. It is a bit of a wait though. Passengers for destinations like Malaga will need two days travelling, and the associated accommodation costs. (Unless your suggestion is for a London to Malaga sleeper??)

I would definitely consider a sleeper London - Malaga if one were ever available, even London - Barcelona and ferry to Ibiza providing I had the time to do it. These days my breaks are 3 - 4 days so long-distance trains are inappropriate. In fact I'm worried after Brexit about how much time I will lose going through Spanish immigration as we will become a third country, a couple of hours is a chink out of three days.
Anyhow, at some point in the future longer breaks will return to me, and I'm considering the latter (London/Barcelona) maybe MAN-London-Paris with a night stopover in Paris; but it would be so much better if trains from Manchester could get to the Eurotunnel direct.

 

[coppercapped]

But there is an inconsistency here. I can't wait for HS2, but a high speed train running at 180 mph uses a lot for energy that one running at 100 mph.

IF in 20 years time there is a climate change crisis and governments really want to reduce energy consumption and have already massively taxed aviation, and cracked down on private motoring, people whizzing around on high speed trains so that they can get to meetings or meet friends quicker may look unacceptable

Hmm! Energy used is the product of power times time. So although the power demand of a 180mph train at full speed will be much higher than the 100mph one - all other things being equal power demand increases with the cube of the speed - because the journey time will be shorter the total energy consumption will not be as high as you probably anticipate. The actual numbers depend on speed profile, gradients etc.

 

[RLBH]

Hmm! Energy used is the product of power times time. So although the power demand of a 180mph train at full speed will be much higher than the 100mph one - all other things being equal power demand increases with the cube of the speed - because the journey time will be shorter the total energy consumption will not be as high as you probably anticipate. The actual numbers depend on speed profile, gradients etc.

To a first approximation, since power goes as the cube of speed but time goes as the inverse of speed, the energy required varies as the square of speed. Not very accurate, but it'll do to make a wild guess look scientific.

Any politician trying to advocate a policy of making travel difficult and unpleasant is not going to last very long, and will be replaced with one who doesn't. Whilst it might very well be ideal, from an environmental point of view, for everyone to live their entire lives within a few miles of the house they were born in, a practical policy has to deliver broadly equivalent, if not better, quality of life to what we have now. Just do so in a sustainable, scalable, manner.

If it was easy, I'd be Prime Minister. Actually no - if it was easy I'd be out of a job.

 

[HSTEd]

Electricity can be quite easily made to have negligible impact.

Unfortunately airliners can't practically use electricity.

And high speed rail as it currently is tops out about 1200km or so.

For longer distances we need higher speed..... which unfortunately means the much derided Maglev.

 

[RLBH]

Unfortunately airliners can't practically use electricity.

There is work towards electric short-haul aircraft - probably not going to be taking you to New York or Singapore any time soon, but could be just the trick for outlying islands. I could see Loganair going over to fully electric operation in due course, for instance.

When that happens, there might well not be much in it between non-electrified railways and battery-electric air travel in terms of CO2 emissions.