The future of flying - Electric planes or bans on flying?

[Krokodil]

Do I really? Maybe you should try re-reading what I've been saying.

In the quoted post that was very much the message that came across. "climate change would still happen if we stopped all flights tomorrow" is exactly the same as people going "but the UK only emits 2% so we shouldn't have to cut anything".

Conversely would you consider it fair to ask rail passengers to reduce their journeys or pay additional taxes based on the number of journeys taken and distances involved....

Charge all modes of transport a carbon tax based on their emissions? Yeah, if you could make it work I'd be in favour of doing it to everything. You might need an asprin ready for when you see how much you might be charged to drive an ICE car to ASDA though (other supermarkets are available).

 

[Bantamzen]

In the quoted post that was very much the message that came across. "climate change would still happen if we stopped all flights tomorrow" is exactly the same as people going "but the UK only emits 2% so we shouldn't have to cut anything".

No it really isn't, what it is saying is that aviation is a distracting hobby horse for many activists that see it as some kind of magic bullet.

Charge all modes of transport a carbon tax based on their emissions? Yeah, if you could make it work I'd be in favour of doing it to everything. You might need an asprin ready for when you see how much you might be charged to drive an ICE car to ASDA though (other supermarkets are available).

I certainly wouldn't need one, I don't drive....

But as you've noticed carbon taxing simply to try and reduce has some potential unwanted side effects. Congratulations!!! You've made the first step towards getting my whole point in this debate!!!

 

[eldomtom2]

Many calculations were built around older aircraft and predictions don't seem to have changed based on more efficient aircraft.

I'd rather see an actual source that just a vague claim that "predictions don't seem to have changed" - how do you know that?

 

[The Ham]

Newer gen engines are proving to be anything from 10%-35% more energy efficient, plus advancements are being made all the time in more carbon efficient fuels, some of which are already coming into play.

Given this, it must therefore be reasonable to apply a hard limit on global carbon emissions from aviation at current limits, as by having new aircraft the industry could still increase the numbers flying and still remain within those limits.

Unfortunately tweaking hold baggage limits is going to be fairly irrelevant. A little one-seater uses 1.5 tonnes of batteries https://cleantechnica.com/2020/01/2...plane-battery-has-the-highest-energy-density/
Trying to scale that up to something the size of a current airliner comes out as needing batteries multiple times the weight of the aircraft.

The point was made in relation to the landing gear needing to be heavier (because of the batteries) and so by adding that extra weight you then needed to make it heavier still and so on. The suggestion for bag limits was so that you could off set some of the weight of the landing gear only.

Yes they are, but aviation accounts for around 2% of CO2 emissions globally (based on calculations that are widely believed to be way out of date thanks to aviation technology improvements). Would stopping aviation have saved those jobs, in fact would those jobs have existed in those numbers if it were not for aviation?

2% of CO2 emissions, however it's also well documented that it's about double this in terms of greenhouse effect.

Arguably, with no limits on flights (i.e. unlimited growth) and with other industries making cuts to their emissions then theoretically there's little to stop the emissions from aviation reaching 98% of global emissions.

(The reality would likely be much lower but the point is that it's not certain that it will stay at 2%, and even with improvements in engines there's no certainty that it would offset growth in passengers numbers if the growth is significant - for example 3.8 per year would wipe out a 20% fuel efficiency in 6 years, even 2.5% growth year on year with 35% more fuel efficient aircraft would get wiped out in about 17 and a half years and that's fairly low growth and fairly high fuel efficiency).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that my question about the number of flights per year which is reasonable for a individual to take (but would have limited impact on tourism) is being overlooked again, so here's a reminder that I'd quite like an answer to that.

 

[Krokodil]

No it really isn't, what it is saying is that aviation is a distracting hobby horse for many activists that see it as some kind of magic bullet.

What makes you think that I (and other posters on this thread) only target our ire at aviation? There's an ongoing thread about road traffic management too. On the railways I'm fuming about the government's refusal to fund a rolling electrification programme, and have discussed the issue at length with my MP. On energy generation I believe that the dash for gas was a huge mistake. The Major and Blair governments should have invested in a new fleet of nuclear power stations. Instead we continue to rely upon fossil fuels, directly or indirectly funding various hostile dictatorships.

The key thing is that I am capable of thinking about all of these things, I'm not a one-trick wonder. This thread however is about aviation.

I certainly wouldn't need one, I don't drive

Neither do I, any carbon tax on the bicycle that takes my shopping home will need the Royal Mint to reintroduce the farthing as a unit of currency.

Road pricing is inevitable though.

But as you've noticed carbon taxing simply to try and reduce has some potential unwanted side effects.

There is another purpose to these taxes, they're not solely punitive. They help to raise funds towards decarbonising our infrastructure.

You asked earlier if I would mind paying a carbon tax on train journeys. I've done a few sums:

Let's say that we imposed a tax of £1/kgCO2e. It's a convenient round figure for this purpose. You're travelling from London to Scotland? A short-haul flight would be charged somewhere north of £150 each way. Jump in an ICE car and you get charged £110 though any passenger you take won't cost you any more in this mode. Rail will cost £22.50, and that's based on average emissions nationwide even though your train will almost certainly be electric on this route. A road coach is slightly better than rail at £17.40 (again remembering that the rail figure is an average, including the many aging diesel trains on the network).

If you weren't travelling to Scotland and were going to France (Tours is a similar distance), the tax on a train journey will give you change out of £3, even though it's 50km further.

So yes, I don't mind paying £3 extra to travel to France by train, just so long as those in more polluting modes are paying £110-£150 extra. That's fair.

 

[Trainbike46]

Don't think I can argue with any of that, all seems to be sensible stuff. In particular the idea of an emissions cap for the aviation industry, set no higher than current levels and reducing year-on-year (or, at most, every 5 years), is a good one. An important provisio from me however is that this cap must include emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases and biofuels etc. (remembering the stupidity of Drax...)

Fully agreed here

As noted above, I like this idea (though perhaps not as much as a ban). However, it does leave cause for concern (which I have put in bold), what do we do if airlines fail to meet the required level of cuts?

a sufficient enough penalty that breaking of the rules in any significant amount isn't common. Obvious options would be fines high enough that any benefit of exceeding the limit is lost entirely, or even removing of the licenses that are required to operate an airline for repeat offenders.

You asked earlier if I would mind paying a carbon tax on train journeys. I've done a few sums:

Let's say that we imposed a tax of £1/kgCO2e. It's a convenient round figure for this purpose. You're travelling from London to Scotland? A short-haul flight would be charged somewhere north of £150 each way. Jump in an ICE car and you get charged £110 though any passenger you take won't cost you any more in this mode. Rail will cost £22.50, and that's based on average emissions nationwide even though your train will almost certainly be electric on this route. A road coach is slightly better than rail at £17.40 (again remembering that the rail figure is an average, including the many aging diesel trains on the network).

If you weren't travelling to Scotland and were going to France (Tours is a similar distance), the tax on a train journey will give you change out of £3, even though it's 50km further.

So yes, I don't mind paying £3 extra to travel to France by train, just so long as those in more polluting modes are paying £110-£150 extra. That's fair.

Thank you for this clear overview - out of curiosity, could I ask what year your UK rail emissions are based on? If they were from before most of the HSTs were retired, there will have been a significant reduction.

For example, LNER went from using 2-2.5 million litres of diesel to using 0.5 million litres of diesel just before covid (source: graph below). While the reduction on GWR won't have been as extreme, it will have been noticeable as well

 

[Krokodil]

out of curiosity, could I ask what year your UK rail emissions are based on?

The graph says 2022, but the underlying data may or may not be older. I'm not sure how much difference HST withdrawal would have made nationwide, GWR will have seen much less benefit than LNER because the latter had considerable amounts of diesel running under the wires which were eliminated, whereas GWR still has large swathes of unwired track. I would imagine that the amount of fuel collectively guzzled by the likes of Northern, TfW and GWR (West) far outweighs the former HST fleet.

 

[Trainbike46]

The graph says 2022, but the underlying data may or may not be older. I'm not sure how much difference HST withdrawal would have made nationwide, GWR will have seen much less benefit than LNER because the latter had considerable amounts of diesel running under the wires which were eliminated, whereas GWR still has large swathes of unwired track. I would imagine that the amount of fuel collectively guzzled by the likes of Northern, TfW and GWR (West) far outweighs the former HST fleet.

Thank you - and I imagine you are right regarding Northern, TfW, GWR. Scotrail and XC also use a lot of diesel if I remember correctly - more electrification is absolutely necessary

 

[Bantamzen]

Given this, it must therefore be reasonable to apply a hard limit on global carbon emissions from aviation at current limits, as by having new aircraft the industry could still increase the numbers flying and still remain within those limits.

Well it could, but aircraft are hardly things you pick up down the local dealership and have on the road, erm in the air in no time. If the aviation industry continues apace at dramatically improving it's efficiency its going to be hard for actual numbers of flights grow enough to negate any savings.

It can take the best part of a decade from an airline company deciding it might like some new / additional craft to actually taking delivery. And these aren't the only restrictions that limit growth, airspace and airport capacity, training flight and cabin crews, and of course actually having a market all act as limiters to growth. Whilst the industry has been growing, in many areas more growth will naturally become more difficult, or at least for quite some time.

2% of CO2 emissions, however it's also well documented that it's about double this in terms of greenhouse effect.

Arguably, with no limits on flights (i.e. unlimited growth) and with other industries making cuts to their emissions then theoretically there's little to stop the emissions from aviation reaching 98% of global emissions.

I suspect this would be highly unlikely given that much of the world is still a long way behind on carbon emissions. And as I said even if aviation growth could reach that level, the reality is other energy consumption would be through the roof and aviation would still be just a small percentage of the issue.

(The reality would likely be much lower but the point is that it's not certain that it will stay at 2%, and even with improvements in engines there's no certainty that it would offset growth in passengers numbers if the growth is significant - for example 3.8 per year would wipe out a 20% fuel efficiency in 6 years, even 2.5% growth year on year with 35% more fuel efficient aircraft would get wiped out in about 17 and a half years and that's fairly low growth and fairly high fuel efficiency).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that my question about the number of flights per year which is reasonable for a individual to take (but would have limited impact on tourism) is being overlooked again, so here's a reminder that I'd quite like an answer to that.

I've kind of made myself clear on this issue way back earlier. But to clarify, I am against any kind of restriction on travel. That's it.

And let me flip it around, would you accept being limited to (for example) no more than 8 long distance (say 50+ mile) rail or car journeys a year? Because this is exactly the kind of thing forcefully limiting travel risks.

What makes you think that I (and other posters on this thread) only target our ire at aviation? There's an ongoing thread about road traffic management too. On the railways I'm fuming about the government's refusal to fund a rolling electrification programme, and have discussed the issue at length with my MP. On energy generation I believe that the dash for gas was a huge mistake. The Major and Blair governments should have invested in a new fleet of nuclear power stations. Instead we continue to rely upon fossil fuels, directly or indirectly funding various hostile dictatorships.

What makes you think I'm talking about just you guys? Hmmmm....??

Neither do I, any carbon tax on the bicycle that takes my shopping home will need the Royal Mint to reintroduce the farthing as a unit of currency.

Road pricing is inevitable though.

Is it? Because road pricing wouldn't just apply to Mr & Mrs Jones driving to Asda. It would also apply to the stuff you apply getting to Asda. You might in the future need to sell the bike and walk...

There is another purpose to these taxes, they're not solely punitive. They help to raise funds towards decarbonising our infrastructure.

I haven't laughed so hard in weeks. Sure they do, yeah you keep believing that....

You asked earlier if I would mind paying a carbon tax on train journeys. I've done a few sums:

Let's say that we imposed a tax of £1/kgCO2e. It's a convenient round figure for this purpose. You're travelling from London to Scotland? A short-haul flight would be charged somewhere north of £150 each way. Jump in an ICE car and you get charged £110 though any passenger you take won't cost you any more in this mode. Rail will cost £22.50, and that's based on average emissions nationwide even though your train will almost certainly be electric on this route. A road coach is slightly better than rail at £17.40 (again remembering that the rail figure is an average, including the many aging diesel trains on the network).

If you weren't travelling to Scotland and were going to France (Tours is a similar distance), the tax on a train journey will give you change out of £3, even though it's 50km further.

So yes, I don't mind paying £3 extra to travel to France by train, just so long as those in more polluting modes are paying £110-£150 extra. That's fair.

So here's the thing, its a reality kind of thing in fact. If somehow you manage to price aviation out with taxes, revenue from said mode reduces. Governments don't like reducing tax income so they look elsewhere to make up for it. Having lost aviation as a revenue stream and climate change still being an issue, where to go next. Oooh look, there's a bunch of people mucking about on trains paying only £3 tax to go to France....

Honestly I can't believe I have to spell all this out. Have you not noticed what's been going on in politics and economics for decades. Solve climate change through innovation, not taxation.

 

[eldomtom2]

Well it could, but aircraft are hardly things you pick up down the local dealership and have on the road, erm in the air in no time. If the aviation industry continues apace at dramatically improving it's efficiency its going to be hard for actual numbers of flights grow enough to negate any savings.

It can take the best part of a decade from an airline company deciding it might like some new / additional craft to actually taking delivery. And these aren't the only restrictions that limit growth, airspace and airport capacity, training flight and cabin crews, and of course actually having a market all act as limiters to growth. Whilst the industry has been growing, in many areas more growth will naturally become more difficult, or at least for quite some time.

You have sunk your own argument about emissions calculations being inaccurate.

Is it? Because road pricing wouldn't just apply to Mr & Mrs Jones driving to Asda. It would also apply to the stuff you apply getting to Asda. You might in the future need to sell the bike and walk...

You assume road pricing would be completely unaffected by the vehicle used.

Honestly I can't believe I have to spell all this out. Have you not noticed what's been going on in politics and economics for decades. Solve climate change through innovation, not taxation.

And if "innovation" can't solve the problem quickly enough, or at all?

 

[Bantamzen]

You have sunk your own argument about emissions calculations being inaccurate.

??

You assume road pricing would be completely unaffected by the vehicle used.

Ah! So you assume EVs will never be taxed as much as ICEVs. See my previous post about aviation & rail taxes.

And if "innovation" can't solve the problem quickly enough, or at all?

Well if we can't innovate then we go all the way back to our education system and ask why the latest generations can't. And solve it there. It may mean the end to bucket loads of consultants and middle managers, or an excess of them wandering around aimlessly. I guess some kind of 'Ark B' might be the way forward....

 

[eldomtom2]

??

Your argument was "aviation emissions must be lower than models say because of all these new, more efficient aircraft", but now you admit that in fact it takes a long time for these new aircraft to fully replace older ones.

Ah! So you assume EVs will never be taxed as much as ICEVs. See my previous post about aviation & rail taxes.

You were responding to a comment amount bicycles.

Well if we can't innovate then we go all the way back to our education system and ask why the latest generations can't. And solve it there. It may mean the end to bucket loads of consultants and middle managers, or an excess of them wandering around aimlessly. I guess some kind of 'Ark B' might be the way forward....

This is a baffling statement. Do you honestly believe that "innovation" can always solve our problems?

 

[Bantamzen]

Your argument was "aviation emissions must be lower than models say because of all these new, more efficient aircraft", but now you admit that in fact it takes a long time for these new aircraft to fully replace older ones.

Those aircraft have been rolling out for years. I can't believe you don't get the point but let me spell it out again.

The argument goes that even though aircraft are becoming more efficient, growth in aviation will outstrip any gains in efficiency. My argument is that growth is limited by the number of new craft that can be built to increase fleets.

You were responding to a comment amount bicycles.

Most people don't go shopping on their bike. So I therefore assumed the discussion was around what most people actually used.

This is a baffling statement. Do you honestly believe that "innovation" can always solve our problems?

No you are right, let's try something else. How about, oh I don't know, sitting around crying, throwing orange powder around, or maybe gluing ourselves to tube trains.....

But thank you for confirming what the real problem here is. Innovation won't solve our problems, please....

 

[Krokodil]

Thank you - and I imagine you are right regarding Northern, TfW, GWR. Scotrail and XC also use a lot of diesel if I remember correctly - more electrification is absolutely necessary

Voyagers are certainly fuel-intensive. Having eight engines (if you want everyone to have a seat) and accelerating them hard will use a lot.

Re: Scotrail, at least Scotsgov are doing something about it. I have almost nothing good to say about the administration in Holyrood but they've got one thing right.

And let me flip it around, would you accept being limited to (for example) no more than 8 long distance (say 50+ mile) rail or car journeys a year? Because this is exactly the kind of thing forcefully limiting travel risks.

Do you think that your examples are proportionate to the CO2 emitted?

What makes you think I'm talking about just you guys?

Well you are talking to us on this discussion forum, if you want to discuss a third party's views then you had better address them directly.

So here's the thing, its a reality kind of thing in fact. If somehow you manage to price aviation out with taxes, revenue from said mode reduces. Governments don't like reducing tax income so they look elsewhere to make up for it. Having lost aviation as a revenue stream and climate change still being an issue, where to go next. Oooh look, there's a bunch of people mucking about on trains paying only £3 tax to go to France....

Decarbonising our infrastructure will reduce some expenditure for our government which partially compensates. Electric trains for example are far cheaper to run and maintain than diesel. If car journeys are replaced by walking/cycling/public transport then road maintenance costs reduce. Less pollution means fewer respiratory conditions for the health service to treat, and more active travel means less obesity. Our dependance upon volatile gas markets cost us dear last winter.

We could always just implement rationing if you're terrified that a tax is the thin end of the wedge (psst - wanna buy some petrol coupons?)

Most people don't go shopping on their bike. So I therefore assumed the discussion was around what most people actually used.

You responded to a comment about bicycles by referencing EVs. Bit of a silly assumption to make that a comment about bicycles was talking about anything other than bicycles.

Incidentally I'm currently sat in the Eurostar departure lounge in Amsterdam, watching a variety of bicycles go past the window, everything from cargo bikes to shopping bags dangling from handlebars, not forgetting panniers and wicker baskets.

 

[Cdd89]

Incidentally I'm currently sat in the Eurostar departure lounge in Amsterdam, watching a variety of bicycles go past the window, everything from cargo bikes to shopping bags dangling from handlebars, not forgetting panniers and wicker baskets.

And someone else is on a flight, who would have been on your Eurostar had you not bought the seat.

I know you weren’t moralising, but this displacement effect with limited-capacity services is too easily forgotten.

 

[Krokodil]

And someone else is on a flight, who would have been on your Eurostar had you not bought the seat.

I know you weren’t moralising, but this displacement effect with limited-capacity services is too easily forgotten.

Can you introduce me to this person? Do you know his name? How do you know that the seat I will be occupying wouldn't have departed empty? Read on for how I know that it probably would have been empty...

Actually, this seat was only allocated to me 90 minutes before departure time, so I've not personally prevented anyone else from using it.

My original seat was booked further in advance, and rest assured that I did phone Eurostar when I became aware that my connecting sleeper service was now four hours late so if they were set up to do it they could have resold the seat. That they aren't set up to do that over the phone is not my fault.

As for limited capacity on Eurostar, that's a situation that is in the government's hands to resolve.

 

[eldomtom2]

Those aircraft have been rolling out for years.

So I repeat my question - where is your evidence that those who attribute a 2% share of emissions to aviation are ignoring such aircraft?

The argument goes that even though aircraft are becoming more efficient, growth in aviation will outstrip any gains in efficiency. My argument is that growth is limited by the number of new craft that can be built to increase fleets.

Where is your evidence that the acquisition of new aircraft is a major bottleneck in growth?

Most people don't go shopping on their bike. So I therefore assumed the discussion was around what most people actually used.

Again, you were specifically responding to a post that was talking about using a bike.

No you are right, let's try something else. How about, oh I don't know, sitting around crying, throwing orange powder around, or maybe gluing ourselves to tube trains.....

But thank you for confirming what the real problem here is. Innovation won't solve our problems, please....

Ad hominem. Again, are you arguing that there is no situation where reducing emissions is better done than by reducing a specific activity than by "innovating"?

 

[Krokodil]

Update, even after the last call at Brussels there are vacant seats in my carriage alone, so my presence is definitely not responsible for anyone who flew.

 

[The Ham]

I've kind of made myself clear on this issue way back earlier. But to clarify, I am against any kind of restriction on travel. That's it.

And let me flip it around, would you accept being limited to (for example) no more than 8 long distance (say 50+ mile) rail or car journeys a year? Because this is exactly the kind of thing forcefully limiting travel risks.

But in not saying to have a hard limit in the number of trips, you'd just find it would get more and more expensive the more trips you took after a given point.

However, (other than just because I've used 8 for flights before costs start rising) what's your justification for 8 trips of more than 50 miles?

Bearing in mind that I've taken the total number of flights in the UK, doubled that and then applied then equally across the population (even though a lot will be by people who aren't resident in the UK). As such the numbers taking 8 flights would be fairly low.

Looking at the data, in 2022 an average of 5 trips were made per person of over 100 miles (2 as a driver, 2 as a passenger and 1 by train), with a further 10 trips of between 50 miles and 100 miles (5 as a driver, 3 as a passenger, 1 by rail and 1 other), using the same "double the average" I've applied that would mean limiting to 30 trips.

However, even at the half the average (which would mean to be comparable flying would only allow 2 flights) for over 50 miles trips, it would be an annoyance but we'd manage.

Arguably, as a family (given those are per person values) as my children are unable to currently drive we'd have a few extra trips (but that's being pedantic and not in the nature of the debate).

However, the APD increasing by 50% proposal isn't a hard limit, so if my for fuel for each trip cost and extra 50% we'd reduce our trips but we'd still do more than 8.

For instance a round trip with a cost of £100 (so first 4 return trips would cost £400 on total) next return trip would be £150 (+£50) the following being £225 (+£125). If we normally did 8 (total cost of £800) and reduced it to 6 (total cost £775) we'd be no worse off, even at 7 trips we'd pay £338 (+£238) so compared to our normal 8 trips we'd have paid an extra £313, which would probably still be justifiable.

That would probably mean fewer trips, as it would be hard to justify the extra cost. However, that's on the total fuel costs. As a comparison APD for a family:
- of 4 would be £52,
- of 5 would be £65,
- of 6 would be £78,
- of 7 would be £91,

Therefore not only have you set the maximum number at half the rate I've used total fuel costs which would be higher than APD on a similar basis (unless I've got a family of 8!!!), even then we'd still do broadly the same as we currently do (and we do a fair amount of high mileage trips compared to the average as they would be >200 miles and not just >50 miles - although our total annual mileage isn't that high as we almost always walk for my work or getting the children to school).

Having answered your question (applying the same rules as I'm suggesting to aviation, as someone who does a lot of long distance travel by car the answer is that we'd probably manage with just 8 single legs before the costs ramped up and we'd probably still do 14 single legs before it stopped us), at what level do you think is reasonable?

I've even given suggested numbers to pick from, but shall we try again 12, 24, 50, 100, 225, 365 or 1,000?

(The numbers being every other month as well as three times the average number of fights per resident, every month, once a week, once a working day, ever day or over 3 times a day).

At what level do you think is reasonable?

 

[Bantamzen]

But in not saying to have a hard limit in the number of trips, you'd just find it would get more and more expensive the more trips you took after a given point.

However, (other than just because I've used 8 for flights before costs start rising) what's your justification for 8 trips of more than 50 miles?

Bearing in mind that I've taken the total number of flights in the UK, doubled that and then applied then equally across the population (even though a lot will be by people who aren't resident in the UK). As such the numbers taking 8 flights would be fairly low.

Looking at the data, in 2022 an average of 5 trips were made per person of over 100 miles (2 as a driver, 2 as a passenger and 1 by train), with a further 10 trips of between 50 miles and 100 miles (5 as a driver, 3 as a passenger, 1 by rail and 1 other), using the same "double the average" I've applied that would mean limiting to 30 trips.

However, even at the half the average (which would mean to be comparable flying would only allow 2 flights) for over 50 miles trips, it would be an annoyance but we'd manage.

Arguably, as a family (given those are per person values) as my children are unable to currently drive we'd have a few extra trips (but that's being pedantic and not in the nature of the debate).

However, the APD increasing by 50% proposal isn't a hard limit, so if my for fuel for each trip cost and extra 50% we'd reduce our trips but we'd still do more than 8.

For instance a round trip with a cost of £100 (so first 4 return trips would cost £400 on total) next return trip would be £150 (+£50) the following being £225 (+£125). If we normally did 8 (total cost of £800) and reduced it to 6 (total cost £775) we'd be no worse off, even at 7 trips we'd pay £338 (+£238) so compared to our normal 8 trips we'd have paid an extra £313, which would probably still be justifiable.

That would probably mean fewer trips, as it would be hard to justify the extra cost. However, that's on the total fuel costs. As a comparison APD for a family:
- of 4 would be £52,
- of 5 would be £65,
- of 6 would be £78,
- of 7 would be £91,

Therefore not only have you set the maximum number at half the rate I've used total fuel costs which would be higher than APD on a similar basis (unless I've got a family of 8!!!), even then we'd still do broadly the same as we currently do (and we do a fair amount of high mileage trips compared to the average as they would be >200 miles and not just >50 miles - although our total annual mileage isn't that high as we almost always walk for my work or getting the children to school).

Having answered your question (applying the same rules as I'm suggesting to aviation, as someone who does a lot of long distance travel by car the answer is that we'd probably manage with just 8 single legs before the costs ramped up and we'd probably still do 14 single legs before it stopped us), at what level do you think is reasonable?

I've even given suggested numbers to pick from, but shall we try again 12, 24, 50, 100, 225, 365 or 1,000?

(The numbers being every other month as well as three times the average number of fights per resident, every month, once a week, once a working day, ever day or over 3 times a day).

At what level do you think is reasonable?

I've already answered your question, I don't believe any attempt to limit travel (which is basically what your proposals would do) is the right way, or indeed fair. A lot of people are happy to see aviation reduced because they either don't use it much, if at all, or they are not dependant on it. So it seems like a low hanging fruit, an easy gimme. I used the 8 trips of 50+ miles as an extreme example to make people think a little, imagine a government one day turning around and saying to us we trying to solve climate change through reducing aviation but it didn't work. So now we have to take the principles previously applied to aviation and expand them, starting with long distance trains. I mean how many people need to travel long distances by train right?

I hope by now you understand what I'm trying to do here. This is about making people think about the wider consequences of any attempt to forcibly limit aviation travel, be that directly or indirectly. And it is also to remind people that ideas creep, so what could start off in aviation could easily end up applying much further afield. Of course this is not to say we shouldn't be doing anything, but what we do apply should be fully thought through with both the beneficial and detrimental effects fully considered and weighed up.

The solutions are out there, but they require actual thought, innovation and application. They have to be able to work in the real world, and they cannot cause massive detriment to any number of people. Because if they don't work in the real world and/or cause detriment, put simply, they will not happen. That is the bottom line, and one that we are already seeing happen right here in the UK.

 

[gabrielhj07]

I've already answered your question, I don't believe any attempt to limit travel (which is basically what your proposals would do) is the right way, or indeed fair. A lot of people are happy to see aviation reduced because they either don't use it much, if at all, or they are not dependant on it. So it seems like a low hanging fruit, an easy gimme. I used the 8 trips of 50+ miles as an extreme example to make people think a little, imagine a government one day turning around and saying to us we trying to solve climate change through reducing aviation but it didn't work. So now we have to take the principles previously applied to aviation and expand them, starting with long distance trains. I mean how many people need to travel long distances by train right?

I hope by now you understand what I'm trying to do here. This is about making people think about the wider consequences of any attempt to forcibly limit aviation travel, be that directly or indirectly. And it is also to remind people that ideas creep, so what could start off in aviation could easily end up applying much further afield. Of course this is not to say we shouldn't be doing anything, but what we do apply should be fully thought through with both the beneficial and detrimental effects fully considered and weighed up.

The solutions are out there, but they require actual thought, innovation and application. They have to be able to work in the real world, and they cannot cause massive detriment to any number of people. Because if they don't work in the real world and/or cause detriment, put simply, they will not happen. That is the bottom line, and one that we are already seeing happen right here in the UK.

This is a well thought-out and sensible response to many of the ideas in this thread.

 

[Cdd89]

Can you introduce me to this person? Do you know his name? How do you know that the seat I will be occupying wouldn't have departed empty? Read on for how I know that it probably would have been empty...

Update, even after the last call at Brussels there are vacant seats in my carriage alone, so my presence is definitely not responsible for anyone who flew.

While these arguments work on an individual level, the effect still applies on a general level as mass transit involves working with large numbers. Statistically, someone was still displaced, not because of you specifically but in respect of every passenger who travelled by Eurostar.

Unless you wish to accept the inverse, that travelling on planes that have any empty seats has no impact because they would have been flying anyway

 

[Meerkat]

I've already answered your question, I don't believe any attempt to limit travel (which is basically what your proposals would do) is the right way, or indeed fair. A lot of people are happy to see aviation reduced because they either don't use it much, if at all, or they are not dependant on it. So it seems like a low hanging fruit, an easy gimme. I used the 8 trips of 50+ miles as an extreme example to make people think a little, imagine a government one day turning around and saying to us we trying to solve climate change through reducing aviation but it didn't work. So now we have to take the principles previously applied to aviation and expand them, starting with long distance trains. I mean how many people need to travel long distances by train right?

I hope by now you understand what I'm trying to do here. This is about making people think about the wider consequences of any attempt to forcibly limit aviation travel, be that directly or indirectly. And it is also to remind people that ideas creep, so what could start off in aviation could easily end up applying much further afield. Of course this is not to say we shouldn't be doing anything, but what we do apply should be fully thought through with both the beneficial and detrimental effects fully considered and weighed up.

The solutions are out there, but they require actual thought, innovation and application. They have to be able to work in the real world, and they cannot cause massive detriment to any number of people. Because if they don't work in the real world and/or cause detriment, put simply, they will not happen. That is the bottom line, and one that we are already seeing happen right here in the UK.

That’s a rather desperate scare story.
Aviation is on another level to your comparisons - more damaging and more exclusive.

 

[DustyBin]

Unless you wish to accept the inverse, that travelling on planes that have any empty seats has no impact because they would have been flying anyway

I raised a related question previously, i.e. how many empty seats does it take to make a flight unviable?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I raised a related question previously, i.e. how many empty seats does it take to make a flight unviable?

There's no fixed answer to that - sometimes it's 0 because the plane and crew needs to be somewhere anyway and might as well be on sale as one fare is better than none.

See also the 0656 Bletchley-Euston - it's really a Tring semifast but has a driver and guard (both Bletchley) and so may as well run the extra section in service (though curiously the one five minutes earlier doesn't).

 

[Bantamzen]

That’s a rather desperate scare story.
Aviation is on another level to your comparisons - more damaging and more exclusive.

Is it though? We all saw what happened around the world during Covid restrictions, and what more many experts wanted to see. There were plenty of experts, politicians and even members of this board that wanted a China style approach to restrictions & movements, and some were notably disappointed when they didn't occur. It doesn't take much of an imagination to think that anything applied to aviation being expanded over time, primarily because restrictions on aviation aren't likely to deliver the results that their advocators desire. So I would say its actually reasonably likely to happen if forcible restrictions are applied.

 

[DustyBin]

There's no fixed answer to that - sometimes it's 0 because the plane and crew needs to be somewhere anyway and might as well be on sale as one fare is better than none.

See also the 0656 Bletchley-Euston - it's really a Tring semifast but has a driver and guard (both Bletchley) and so may as well run the extra section in service (though curiously the one five minutes earlier doesn't).

Yes, there are obviously a number of considerations (aside from the example you've provided). The point is though, if you want to reduce the number of actual flights, it will (in most cases) take more than a few empty seats resulting from punitive taxes on "regular" flyers.

 

[Trainbike46]

I raised a related question previously, i.e. how many empty seats does it take to make a flight unviable?

At the end of the day, an airline will need a certain average income per seat (including any unsold seats), so it will depend on the ticket prices of the seats that were sold, as well as the operating costs of that airline and route.

 

[eldomtom2]

imagine a government one day turning around and saying to us we trying to solve climate change through reducing aviation but it didn't work. So now we have to take the principles previously applied to aviation and expand them, starting with long distance trains. I mean how many people need to travel long distances by train right?

Why would a government attack low-carbon transport instead of more emitting sectors?

The solutions are out there, but they require actual thought, innovation and application. They have to be able to work in the real world, and they cannot cause massive detriment to any number of people. Because if they don't work in the real world and/or cause detriment, put simply, they will not happen. That is the bottom line, and one that we are already seeing happen right here in the UK.

Doing nothing does not work and will cause massive detriment to a huge number of people. Sitting on our hands hoping for "innovation" to save us is not a plan.

 

[Krokodil]

Unless you wish to accept the inverse, that travelling on planes that have any empty seats has no impact because they would have been flying anyway

Difference is that every extra fare on an off peak Eurostar that was going anyway is improving the economics of a clean method of transport such that Eurostar may provide more through trains from Amsterdam, thus generating more capacity to attract fliers.

Every extra air fare however is contributing towards a polluting method of transport. There's no way of sweetening that.

At the end of the day, an airline will need a certain average income per seat (including any unsold seats), so it will depend on the ticket prices of the seats that were sold, as well as the operating costs of that airline and route.

And due to the mainly seasonal nature of the market, many airlines run at a loss for most of the year and hike their prices in the summer to make it back. Therefore one fewer seat filled off-peak won't cause a flight to be culled, but less demand in the peak season may push things under.

In train terms, someone travelling in the NSE area off peak has only used the railway's marginal resources, whereas someone travelling in the peak may be the reason that extra units had to be ordered.