The alternative to long-haul aeroplane green tax

[Nick W]

The government now wishes to implement a tax on long-haul flights. This can hardly be considered a "green tax", as these journeys cannot be done practically by any other means (ships are too slow).

Rather than charge a fixed tax, why not force passengers to pay for an all public-transport rover valid from the whole of uk to the airport. This will encourage people to at least leave their cars at home before boarding highly efficient long-haul public-transport. Sounds a lot more green doesn't it?

Regarding medium-haul flights which could be replaced by railway journeys, well there's always a £15 all Europe day rover.

Of course they're not going to price the railway at £15 a day, and we'll continue to use aeroplanes while it's cheaper than "environmentally friendly" transport, despite the bullying taxes.

 

[ChrisCooper]

"Green" tax on long haul is totally stupid. Like you say, there is no alternative, its not just that ships are slower, there arn't any long haul schedualed passenger ships anyway other than the QM2, but thats slow, expensive, infrequent, low capacity (compared to the numbers travelling trans-atlantic) and on just one route. Long haul is very efficient anyway. An average loaded long haul plane cruising at high altitude AFAIK emits less CO2 per passenger per mile than the average car, where planes are inefficient is on the ground, at low altitude and whilst climbing. Ovioiusly a long haul flight spends most of the time cruising and very little on the ground and climbing.
Short haul is inefficient since especially at busy airports planes can often spend more time taxying than they do in the air, and are barely reaching cruising height, which is usually well below optimum for the plane, especially these days when jets (which work best at higher altitudes) are very common on short haul, before they begin to decend.

 

[5872]

Putting tax for long hauls is silly , cant they just ban short domestic ones , then that way everyone keeps there nice long haul planes8)



Fred

 

[Bighat]

Putting tax for long hauls is silly , cant they just ban short domestic ones , then that way everyone keeps there nice long haul planes8)



Fred

I totally agree. Domestic flights (within the UK) SHOULD not be necessary, and in fact there are very few of them anyway. To Ireland, Scotland and the West Country is another matter. Airlines are in business to MAKE money.

If the rail services offered a comparable (in both price and time) service, no one would bother with the hassle of flying internally. With recent security upgrading, traffic to and from airports and the general hassle of UK airport operation (flight delays, lost baggage, security alerts), the railways have it for the taking.

Quite apart from minimising point to point journey times (infrastructure upgrades need to be done-yesterday), how about easy access for taxis and cars to a point NEAR the statoin, with an ADEQUATE supply of baggage trolleys, HELPFUL staff, COMFORTABLE lounges, CLEAR information and the rest.

Nothing can beat competition, and unless our long distance railways (TOC's, Network Rail and all other concerned parties, including HM Government) get their act together, it's not going to happen.

Same applies to flights to the Contrinent. Not everyone needs or wants to go to London, so why are we not taking SERIOUS steps to provide Eurostar services to the Midlands, the North East, North West and Scotland? Forget running trains over existing lines. It didn't work to Waterloo, and it isn't going to work elsewhere.

The French can and do do it, so why won't we?

 

[me123]

Agreed Bighat. I think internal flights should only be used for any service which crosses water, ie to Northern Ireland, IoM or the channel isles. (Although there'll be some disagreement on the domseticity of CI).

I would never dream of flying to London unless I had to for some reason get there in the next 2 hours, and I really can't see that situation arising.

With Virgin's plan for hourly services GLC-EUS, trains could knock airline travel off the rails. (I'll get me coat). I do hope that sleepers come back into popularity as well.

 

[5872]

Agreed Bighat. I think internal flights should only be used for any service which crosses water, ie to Northern Ireland, IoM or the channel isles. (Although there'll be some disagreement on the domseticity of CI).

I would never dream of flying to London unless I had to for some reason get there in the next 2 hours, and I really can't see that situation arising.

With Virgin's plan for hourly services GLC-EUS, trains could knock airline travel off the rails. (I'll get me coat). I do hope that sleepers come back into popularity as well.

Be good money for the railways , for spotters , and for the environmenthock: , everyones happy


Fred

 

[ChrisCooper]

Agreed Bighat. I think internal flights should only be used for any service which crosses water, ie to Northern Ireland, IoM or the channel isles. (Although there'll be some disagreement on the domseticity of CI).

I would never dream of flying to London unless I had to for some reason get there in the next 2 hours, and I really can't see that situation arising.

With Virgin's plan for hourly services GLC-EUS, trains could knock airline travel off the rails. (I'll get me coat). I do hope that sleepers come back into popularity as well.

Domestic overland flights also are useful off the trunk routes aswell, in many cases it's possible to get a quick single flight between two points yet the same journey by train would require a number of changes and take many hours. I know someone who recently flew from Nowich to Aberdeen for example, which is IMHO perfectly reasonable since this is one flight taking about 1:30, wheras by train it's 3 changes (2 if you get the KX-ABD through train) and takes almost 9 hours, and the Norwich to Peterborough leg is not exactly reliable. I can't remember how much they paid, but even AP on the train would be around £100.

 

[me123]

Good point ChrisCooper. But a more frequent plane service than a train service is unacceptable.

(Based on current GLA+PIK-LONDON ALL AIRPORTS without GNER at the moment fue to engineering works in Edinburgh).

 

[NSEFAN]

This is where a real high speed line would be very useful...

The TGV in France has largely replaced domestic flights. If we had a PROPER high speed line network in between cities, we could scrap all domestic flights.

The problem with the current network is that too much of it has been built on the cheap; we'll build around hills instead of tunneling through them. We'll also worry too much what the environmentalists will say if we build a massive bridge along a valley.

The only other way to get around this problem of journey times would be to run DIRECT trains between places at 140mph, pushing what we have to the absolute limit. If the over-crowding problems are as bad as they say they are, and we also need quicker journey times, then why not just run direct trains from Euston-Manchester, King's Cross-Edinburgh and Paddington-Exeter?

 

[Ascot]

Oh UK domestics are great, anyone ever heard of Loganair? Look at their services and you tell me alternatives. Or Air Southwest might even be better.

 

[me123]

Again, since Loganair actually provide a lifeline service to the islands, and are much better than Calmac, definately a sensible option.

 

[Guinness]

Domestic Flights are only useful for journeys that would take excessive hours by Train. Plymouth/Exeter - Newcastle or Scotland are good examples that cut hours off Car/Rail Times. However, flights such as Manchester - London is pointless because that journey could be easily made by Rail and is quicker for City to City Transport. Flights like these should be taxed.

London - Paris/Brussels should be taxed too given that Eurostar has similar journey times.

 

[Beaker]

in the railway magazine London - Paris was stated as quicker and cheaper on eurostar

 

[devon_metro]

London-Exeter isn't that slow although chances are you will arrive late!

 

[Nick W]

in the railway magazine London - Paris was stated as quicker and cheaper on eurostar

Shame London - the rest of France isn't ;(

 

[Bighat]

Domestic overland flights also are useful off the trunk routes aswell, in many cases it's possible to get a quick single flight between two points yet the same journey by train would require a number of changes and take many hours. I know someone who recently flew from Nowich to Aberdeen for example, which is IMHO perfectly reasonable since this is one flight taking about 1:30, wheras by train it's 3 changes (2 if you get the KX-ABD through train) and takes almost 9 hours, and the Norwich to Peterborough leg is not exactly reliable. I can't remember how much they paid, but even AP on the train would be around £100.

Yes, i agree with your example. If you read my original post I DID specifically make exclusions for certain parts of the UK distant from London!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Be good money for the railways , for spotters , and for the environmenthock: , everyones happy


Fred

Err.....think you have rather got carried away here. I don't think the 'advantage to spotters' will really be a consideration in the corridors of power!

 

[Nick W]

To be honest those people who are against high speed rail in Britain because population centres are too close are quite true. If we're gonna build a high speed rail, it should probably link the extremities of the cross country routes.

 

[Mojo]

I recently went away by easyJet to Berlin, a journey we hoped to make by train. The journey time wasn't really an issue, as it was part of the trip, better environmentally if we all did it and avoided the early morning rush to get to the airport, being crammed on a plane, stress, etc.

The Eurostar website wasn't offering any journeys, and the Raileurope website wouldn't give us any info, so we called up and they wanted £450, which was way too much. easyJet was £200.

About what Nick said, if I could drive to the Airport, I would've done so, train took ages, although Airport parking at late notice would have meant it cost more. Luggage wasn't really a problem.

 

[Death]

Hail All!
I recently took a Ryanair flight to get to Northern Germany for the Wacken Open Air festival. The flight itself cost about £35.00 all-in (STN > LBC) and the train to Stansted cost about £21.00 YP saver return.

Now I have looked into doing the journey by rail in the past travelling via Waterloo, Bruxelles Midi, Köln Hbf, Hamburg Hbf/Altona to Itzehoe...But RailEurope wanted about £250 for it...And I'd still have to buy my own ticket from Farnborough to Waterloo on top of that! :roll:

What we really could do with is all of the rail companies in Europe being corralled into one large rail operator, a bit like a Europe-wide version of BR or Deutsche Bahn. Then we could all travel from one place to another on an efficient, integrated system! 8)
(As for who would operate it: South West Trains would get my vote, given what they did with their franchise in the first three years on a surprisingly low budget! )

As for removing the problems caused by air travel: I would say that the following things could help:

• Every known Sprinter and Desiro being put them to work where needed on local services (15-30 car rakes on busy inter-urban routes),
• A large fleet of HSTs and 390s for the semi fast services (I.E: Most current VWC workings),
• A new fleet of 370s with 12° tilt for use on super-fast intercity services (I.E: Edinburgh > Warsaw, calling London, Bruxelles and Berlin only) with crazy b***ards like me at the controls leading to much shorter journey times! :toothy10:

In the meantime though, the scourge of air travel can be delt with almost as effectively by the simple application of a ground-to-air missile...

Farewell...
>> Death <<