Future of air travel

[ExRes]

I hope not!

Quite so, but what does really get my back up is that if I booked a cruise I would be an environmental lunatic destroying the sea bed and all living aquatic creatures, if I buy and run a petrol, or God help us, a diesel car, I'm a lunatic poisoner intent on murdering countless humans but, and it's as prevalent on this forum as anywhere else, it seems perfectly acceptable that I fly the skies to my hearts content in polluting aircraft for no particular reason than "I fancy a holiday", that's all OK, where the logic is in all that I have no idea

 

[miami]

Many of us just want a charge for the emissions. Generate 100 unit of polution, be it on a cruise or on a private jet, on driving a diesel to the shop or on a 747, and you pay for it. Generate 200 units and you pay twice as much as 100 units, generate 50 and you pay half as much.

These have to have regional backing if nothing else, otherwise I simply drive to paris and fly from there without the charges. They have to apply to imports, otherwise I import a dohicky from somewhere with 300 units of polution rather than the local one with 100 units because the imported one is cheaper as it doesn't have the cost of the polution.

Once you get into "purpose" of trips, or (as others suggest) charging "frequent" flyers disproportionately more, you end up in a world of loopholes where Stanley Johnson goes to Greece in lockdown to "get his property ready".

A typical 2 passenger 2 week cruise will generate about 8 tons of CO2 per person in a standard cabin (myclimate.org). Flying from London to Edinburgh with 100 people on the plane generates about 0.3 tons per person, drive in a Ford Mondeo 1.8 TDCi and it's about 0.1kg (sciencefocus.com). London-NY is about 500kg each way in economy (theguardian.com)

APD for a shorthaul flight to edinburgh is £13 - £40/ton
Fuel tax on the 28 litres the car uses is £16 (VAT on top of that APD makes it £19) - £160/190 per ton
APD on a London-NY flight is £82 - £160/ton (£80/ton if you count the return leg too)

So somewhere in the £100 per ton range seems about right, its what we currently charge on different forms of transport. Therefore a carbon tax on a 2 week cruise would add about £800 per person.

That would be a good start.

(In reality you wouldn't charge per person, you'd charge for the carbon usage. Currently a plane flying London to Edinburgh and burning 30 tons of CO2 gets charged £13 with just one passenger, but £1300 with 100. A more efficient plane doesn't have a lower charge. That's crazy - charge it based on the emissions the plane generates and the distance it goes and let the airlines eat the cost, or increase prices, and have those with more efficent fleets/loads charging less, incentivising the airline operator to be better.

UK elecricity is about 255kg per thousand units, or 4000 units per ton. At £100 per ton, that would be about 2-3p/kWh carbon tax, I'd welcome that too.

 

[Darren Jones]

This my first thread, hopefully i have put it in the right place.

What do you think the future looks like for air travel taking into account covid-19 and the climate change?

For me i think the 2030's are going to be tough on the industry. Covid-19's fallout has/will cause major cash flow/capacity contraints going forward. We could be looking at new fleets being delayed/cancelled, smaller airlines will likely go bankrupt or be merged into the bigger carriers. In terms of demand im sure there will be a boost after restricitons are lifted but what are we looking at 60%-80% by 2022/23.

After the announcement that the french government had scrapped paris cdg expansion on environmental grounds,i am starting to wonder what this is going to do to future demand. I am concerned about climate change but i do think aviation gets a bad rap from environmentalists. Also i think aviations benefits are largely ignored. Tourism is extremelly importent to many countries, many of them very poor and tourism brings development and economic growth.

I think demand should be contained in the short/medium term and long term fast growth should be allowed once technology has sorted the greenhouse gas problem. Policies i would use would be -

Frequent flyer levy - 2 free return flights a year then increasing rapidly with a cap on number of flights at 12 return flights per year. Some business should be exempt e.g. news media, governement officals, medic teams etc.

Set co2 standards - to push development of alternative fuels/more efficient aircraft.

Ban flights - on direct routes which you could travel by train in 3 hours or less.

Tax - on distance travelled to discourage trips on long haul 4500km+ (perhaps linked to frequent fly levy some how)

Airport capacity - ban new construction unless it can comply with climate standards. So unlikely until the mid 2030's.

I want to see growth in aviation and available to all people but it needs to change first so that growth can be sustainable. What do you think?

my brother works i this industry and hes thinking about the same things as you!

 

[Bald Rick]

Many of us just want a charge for the emissions. Generate 100 unit of polution, be it on a cruise or on a private jet, on driving a diesel to the shop or on a 747, and you pay for it. Generate 200 units and you pay twice as much as 100 units, generate 50 and you pay half as much.

These have to have regional backing if nothing else, otherwise I simply drive to paris and fly from there without the charges. They have to apply to imports, otherwise I import a dohicky from somewhere with 300 units of polution rather than the local one with 100 units because the imported one is cheaper as it doesn't have the cost of the polution.

Once you get into "purpose" of trips, or (as others suggest) charging "frequent" flyers disproportionately more, you end up in a world of loopholes where Stanley Johnson goes to Greece in lockdown to "get his property ready".

A typical 2 passenger 2 week cruise will generate about 8 tons of CO2 per person in a standard cabin (myclimate.org). Flying from London to Edinburgh with 100 people on the plane generates about 0.3 tons per person, drive in a Ford Mondeo 1.8 TDCi and it's about 0.1kg (sciencefocus.com). London-NY is about 500kg each way in economy (theguardian.com)

APD for a shorthaul flight to edinburgh is £13 - £40/ton
Fuel tax on the 28 litres the car uses is £16 (VAT on top of that APD makes it £19) - £160/190 per ton
APD on a London-NY flight is £82 - £160/ton (£80/ton if you count the return leg too)

So somewhere in the £100 per ton range seems about right, its what we currently charge on different forms of transport. Therefore a carbon tax on a 2 week cruise would add about £800 per person.

That would be a good start.

(In reality you wouldn't charge per person, you'd charge for the carbon usage. Currently a plane flying London to Edinburgh and burning 30 tons of CO2 gets charged £13 with just one passenger, but £1300 with 100. A more efficient plane doesn't have a lower charge. That's crazy - charge it based on the emissions the plane generates and the distance it goes and let the airlines eat the cost, or increase prices, and have those with more efficent fleets/loads charging less, incentivising the airline operator to be better.

UK elecricity is about 255kg per thousand units, or 4000 units per ton. At £100 per ton, that would be about 2-3p/kWh carbon tax, I'd welcome that too.

Excellent post.

One minor correction - UK electricity is (was) 169kg/ MWh in 2020. It may be a fraction higher this year as our electricity consumption will be higher and so far it has been less windy. But, in the region of 6MWh / ton.

 

[miami]

One minor correction - UK electricity is (was) 169kg/ MWh in 2020.

Wow that's coming down fast

I didn't heavily research the figures I used, it's the principle I wanted to convey. There's arguments that CO2 is worse when emitted at Jet altitude and should be charged more, and of course there are other pollutants, all quite debatable in setting levels. Of course the carbon impact of trains should be acocunted for too, easiest to charge at the source. An empty train causes the same environmental damage as a full train (pretty much), so should cost the same. Would give a further financial incentive to electrify track.

I don’t, I made it up, to make the point that what you propose is completely impractical.

(Having said that I do know people who have been to business conferences in Las Vegas, requiring a 4 day stay, but with a one hour conference).

I know someone that went from the UK to Auckland to view the mockup of a TV gallery the firm had been engaged to build, in the country for 12 hours. His signoff was required to progress with the build, and you can't sign off a physical product remotely.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know someone that went from the UK to Auckland to view the mockup of a TV gallery the firm had been engaged to build, in the country for 12 hours. His signoff was required to progress with the build, and you can't sign off a physical product remotely.

Yes I know someone who did something similar to Auckland, basically travelled with his passport and toothbrush. He had an interesting conversation with customs back at Heathrow, involving a rubber glove.

 

[Cdd89]

Frequent flyer levy - 2 free return flights a year then increasing rapidly with a cap on number of flights at 12 return flights per year. Some business should be exempt e.g. news media, governement officals, medic teams etc.

This is the preferred suggestion of many, but there are a lot of implementation problems:

• How is it enforced? What about people with multiple passports? Would you demand ID for domestic aviation, how is that justifiable?
• Would connecting flights count for two “credits” or one?
• How do airlines charge it? Airlines work on the basis of flat fees/surcharges, not variable costs.
• How do you avoid someone using up their “allowance” from another country which they don’t travel from as often?
• What about the increased emissions of people arbitraging the scheme?
• Currently the principle is that “worse” flights - business class, long haul - are charged more than “better” flights. I’ve never heard a frequent flyer levy that address this, they always seem to assume a flat charge.
• So if someone takes 3 short haul flights and then a long haul, how is the long haul charged? What if someone takes 3 long haul flights then a short haul, how is the short haul charged?
• What if flight booking #2 is cancelled before booking #3 is taken? This changes the cost of flight #3! How is that addressed?
• If the above is agreed as an issue, this suggests an end of year collection as the only feasible method. Good luck getting that out of visitors.
• What about people who do 10 flights a year for work reasons? The emissions for those flights belong to the employer, not the individual. Should they be penalised by a higher band when they go on a family holiday?
• What about the fact it’s often good business to send the same person to the same destination, but this policy would incentivise businesses to send employees who haven’t travelled much already?
• What about self employed businesses?

These are just a few of the reasons why this would be a nightmare to implement. So on the other hand, what are the benefits?

It wouldn’t significantly reduce aviation emissions. This is because while frequent flyers may indeed take 10x as many flights as non-frequent flyers, each individual flight is mostly full of not-very frequent flyers. Also a “first flight free” policy would actually increase demand. Fundamentally, it’s a greenwash.

When you dig deeper, you always find the motivations behind frequent flyer taxes are something to do with social justice. Which is a nice idea and one I agree with, but it doesn’t solve the problem. The concept is so impractical as to be laughable, though that didn’t stop two political parties putting it into their manifesto (with no detail, obviously) in 2019.

I would agree with a flat emissions charge as the solution - with balancing subsidies to people if we want to help people afford a limited amount of travel. Also for short haul, whether by increasing aviation costs or by subsidising the railway, flying should never be cheaper than rail.

 

[edwin_m]

This is the preferred suggestion of many, but there are a lot of implementation problems:

• How is it enforced? What about people with multiple passports? Would you demand ID for domestic aviation, how is that justifiable?
• Would connecting flights count for two “credits” or one?
• How do airlines charge it? Airlines work on the basis of flat fees/surcharges, not variable costs.
• How do you avoid someone using up their “allowance” from another country which they don’t travel from as often?
• What about the increased emissions of people arbitraging the scheme?
• Currently the principle is that “worse” flights - business class, long haul - are charged more than “better” flights. I’ve never heard a frequent flyer levy that address this, they always seem to assume a flat charge.
• So if someone takes 3 short haul flights and then a long haul, how is the long haul charged? What if someone takes 3 long haul flights then a short haul, how is the short haul charged?
• What if flight booking #2 is cancelled before booking #3 is taken? This changes the cost of flight #3! How is that addressed?
• If the above is agreed as an issue, this suggests an end of year collection as the only feasible method. Good luck getting that out of visitors.
• What about people who do 10 flights a year for work reasons? The emissions for those flights belong to the employer, not the individual. Should they be penalised by a higher band when they go on a family holiday?
• What about the fact it’s often good business to send the same person to the same destination, but this policy would incentivise businesses to send employees who haven’t travelled much already?
• What about self employed businesses?

These are just a few of the reasons why this would be a nightmare to implement. So on the other hand, what are the benefits?

It wouldn’t significantly reduce aviation emissions. This is because while frequent flyers may indeed take 10x as many flights as non-frequent flyers, each individual flight is mostly full of not-very frequent flyers. Also a “first flight free” policy would actually increase demand. Fundamentally, it’s a greenwash.

When you dig deeper, you always find the motivations behind frequent flyer taxes are something to do with social justice. Which is a nice idea and one I agree with, but it doesn’t solve the problem. The concept is so impractical as to be laughable, though that didn’t stop two political parties putting it into their manifesto (with no detail, obviously) in 2019.

I would agree with a flat emissions charge as the solution - with balancing subsidies to people if we want to help people afford a limited amount of travel. Also for short haul, whether by increasing aviation costs or by subsidising the railway, flying should never be cheaper than rail.

Carbon tax on aviation fuel seems like the way to go, probably at a higher rate than other CO2 emission to reflect the greater damage at high altitudes. This would naturally impose a higher rate on higher classes of travel, less full or less efficient flights. APD could be withdrawn for flights where there is no sensible rail alternative (say rail journey between nearest major cities less than 3.5hr). Ideally the total of the two would be net extra cost for those taking the short flights (possible rebate for connecting to longer-haul flights, though this might be tricky to do), neutral for "medium haul" of around 2hr flight time, and net extra cost for long haul.

 

[miami]

Tax on fuel, even setting aside international agreements, runs into issues with planes filling up outside of the UK. BA would simply fill up in Madrid and fly Madrid-London-Madrid on the same tank.

A proxy of landing fees based on
1) Distance flown
2) Pollution from plane

would be better.

APD under this system would vanish. Currently a 747 from London to wherever with 4 people on attracts £50 in APD, where a 787 with 200 people on attracks £2500. That's not right when the 747 is so much more damaging on that exact flight. APD is a poor proxy for environmental damage.

There would of course be an issue where it will be cheaper to fly to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt etc and then get a long haul after that. Pan EU agreement would be solve much of that, but that's not in vogue any more, and it's already cheaper to fly convoluted itineraries (not just because of APD) - e.g. fly from London-Oslo-London-New York can be far cheaper (£2k+) than flying London-New York when buying the same ticket at the same time, but people don't because of the hassle.

 

[edwin_m]

Tax on fuel, even setting aside international agreements, runs into issues with planes filling up outside of the UK. BA would simply fill up in Madrid and fly Madrid-London-Madrid on the same tank.

A proxy of landing fees based on
1) Distance flown
2) Pollution from plane

would be better.

APD under this system would vanish. Currently a 747 from London to wherever with 4 people on attracts £50 in APD, where a 787 with 200 people on attracks £2500. That's not right when the 747 is so much more damaging on that exact flight. APD is a poor proxy for environmental damage.

There would of course be an issue where it will be cheaper to fly to Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt etc and then get a long haul after that. Pan EU agreement would be solve much of that, but that's not in vogue any more, and it's already cheaper to fly convoluted itineraries (not just because of APD) - e.g. fly from London-Oslo-London-New York can be far cheaper (£2k+) than flying London-New York when buying the same ticket at the same time, but people don't because of the hassle.

International agreement on a carbon tax is really the way out of this, as it would prevent filling up wherever cheapest. Beyond a certain distance it doesn't work anyway, as even if the plane has the tank capacity the extra weight means more fuel is needed. In the absence of that, it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility for the UK government to require all airlines to declare the fuel on board an arriving flight (beyond a minimum for contingency/emergencies) and tax the airline 10% more than the difference between the UK price and the price in the country of origin.

 

[miami]

I don't recall from memory but isn't it Chicago or Montreal agreement that prevent tax on international fuel?

Landing fees as a proxy would get round that.

 

[Ediswan]

I don't recall from memory but isn't it Chicago or Montreal agreement that prevent tax on international fuel?

Landing fees as a proxy would get round that.

Chicago. It specifically prohibits taxing fuel already on board an aircraft when it lands.

 

[StuBob]

Following recent government announcement over the ownership changes with NR I'm interested to see how that thinking may be applied to the aviation industry. With airspace modernisation an imperative development that has so far been slow to progress in wider UK airspace. A big part is likely due to it having been subject to voluntary engagement by the parties involved, airports and NATS etc.

However with recent government bill passing through parliament that participation can now be compelled the issue however is the knock-on effect of Covid given that many of the actors have suffered significant financial losses to the point that their very existence may be in danger, and far from their pressing objective is airspace modernisation if they are struggling to keep the lights on. Therefore it is likley that the money will not be there for the foreseeable to progress this project as everyone seeks to find their feet and recover from the significant losses and effect of the pandemic.

The solution then would likely require political support and public funding to get this off the ground never mind accelerate the green objectives and benefits that it potentially delivers as we fast approach near 100 years of what is fundamentally the same 1950s airspace design over the UK.

 

[Andy9gc]

,How about banning all non essential airline flights until non polluting aircraft are introduced?

I'm sure all environmentally aware people would stop flitting here, there and everywhere on unnecessary foreign holidays

I'm sorry but this is just not going to happen and it shouldn't as its a massive overreach of people's liberties. It is impossible to define what is Non essential or unnecessary for different people, unless of course you have an agenda.

It is well know that travel is an important factor to people's happiness and quality of life. This is not to mention people those who go to see there family abroad. Even experts agree that international travel should continue including tourism as it is important to many countries (many poor) economies. The question is how much and can you reduce demand and still get the benefits.

Air travel will continue to reduce its environmental impact per passenger due to efficiency improvements and biofuels. Yet nearly all experts (CCC, IPCC,IEA) agree that unconstrained growth can't continue up to 2050 to meet emissions targets as its unlikely tech will get us to Jet Zero. Long term it is possible just not by 2050.

Lots of ideas have been floated around :

1. Frequent fly tax
2. Flight quotas with a market to buy and sell
3. Tax dependent on distance traveled
4. Modal shift to high speed rail where practical
5. Incentives for business to reduce travel. (Barclays Bank have determined 50% of business travel can be done via zoom or teams.

Aviation demand will still grow just slower in the richer countries. This will alow those that don't fly to do so as they get rich enough and reduce flights for those that fly every month to their second homes.

Flying is now a part of our lives that the majority will not it give up. However that doesn't mean we shouldnt keep demand growth down in the short term to hit net zero targets. The above can help to do this as equitably as possible.

 

[The Ham]

A few thoughts.

Hydrogen fuel may become useful, however given that there's a need to catch-up the existing hydrogen production by developing enough renewals to power the whole of the EU's electricity usage, then I suspect that anything that uses hydrogen isn't going to necessarily be all that green by 2030.

There's likely to be a change in taxes for the airline industry, what that looks like it's up for debate, however chances are it'll be higher. It's also likely that domestic flights would see noticeable increases where there's a viable rail option (probably on a sliding scale so very high if rail is 2 hours or less through to not much more than existing of rail is over 4.5 hours).

Whilst there's going to be continued demand for holiday travel, I suspect that long haul travel to some places will fall, as will the demand for quite so many weekend trips. This will be down to a number of reasons (people being more environmentally conscious being just one reason amongst many).

In the short term, Covid restrictions will play a part (for instance going to parts of the world will likely require, even with a vaccine, some form of restrictions or testing for at least the rest of this year and possibly longer). That's going to change expectations, and so would likely change travel patterns.

As will the fact that flying is generally not all that enjoyable, and having not done it for a year some will find that they'll decide that it's not worth the extra effort when they next do it (and the sooner they do it the more extra restrictions that they'll encounter, whilst the longer they wait the more of a shock just how much effort it was it will likely be).

That's all assuming that there's not some form of economic shock which means that people don't have the money to travel, which again could harm the airline industry.

The other factor is that quite a lot of people not from the UK have returned to their home countries due to the combination of Covid and Brexit, that's likely to reduce demand between here and there from those workers not wishing to pop home.

Yes there'll be those who will go back to their 2019 ways of travel, however they are likely to see some higher costs. Yes there'll be larger populations which will increase usage. Yes there's still going to be people working here with their home being another country. However that's all going to be slightly reduced (again at least in the short term) and so the airlines are likely to find it harder to run quite so many flights as they once did.

It certainly has the potential for it to take some time to reach 2019 passenger numbers and potentially never getting to the levels which could have been expected if Covid hadn't happened (for instance the early withdrawal of aircraft and the going out of business of Flybe isn't likely to be quick to fully reverse - again bits will happen quickly, but not all of it).

 

[miami]

1. Frequent fly tax
2. Flight quotas with a market to buy and sell
3. Tax dependent on distance traveled
4. Modal shift to high speed rail where practical
5. Incentives for business to reduce travel. (Barclays Bank have determined 50% of business travel can be done via zoom or teams.

1) Terrible - so many holes in it. It's OK for a rich person to jet off to the caribean 4 times a year, but a field engineer fixing specialised medial equipment in warzones they get punished?

2) So a flight is a flight? Private jet to the Maldives? 1 flight. High-density flight from Belfast to London? 1 flight.

3) So a half empty 747 flying to New York pays less than than a full 787 or A380 flying to New York?

4) That happens anyway, do you propose to subsidise the cost of the train? Or increase the cost of the flight? How do you define practical? What if your train is an old diesel chugger with hardly anyone on board causing more co2 per passenger mile than a new efficent plane?

5) They already have incentives, travel isn't cheap - both the cost of the flight/hotel/food, but also the cost of the time taken doing the travel.

All this skirts around the fact that the problem is the CO2 emissions (yes there are other emissions and altitude matters), which vary depending on the plane, and the person paying for the travel does not pay (There's also externalities like sound - a plane taking off east from Heathrow at 4AM is worse than one taking off east from Stansted at 4PM, the cost per hectare of land of Heathrow airport is more valuable than Newquay airport)

APD isn't a great proxy for this at all, although it's better than a "frequent flyer tax"

If you're serious about tackling the externalities, propose that - carbon tax, noise tax, land value tax.

 

[nlogax]

How do we feel about using blimps for short haul flights?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ty-hops-could-cut-flyings-co2-emissions-by-90

For those fancying a trip from Liverpool to Belfast or Barcelona to the Balearic Islands but concerned about the carbon footprint of aeroplane travel, a small Bedford-based company is promising a surprising solution: commercial airships.

Hybrid Air Vehicles (HAV), which has developed a new environmentally friendly airship 84 years after the Hindenburg disaster, on Wednesday named a string of routes it hoped to serve from 2025.

This idea could have wings - unlike the blimps themselves - and personally I think it has some appeal as long as I'm in absolutely no hurry to reach my destination. For instance;

Liverpool to Belfast. Traditional flight time 50 minutes, blimp flight time five hours 20 minutes
Oslo to Stockholm. Traditional flight time one hour, blimp flight time six hours 30 minutes
Barcelona to Palma. Traditional flight time 55 minutes, blimp flight time four hours 30 minutes

If you can organise your schedule accordingly I think this could be a winner. Cruising at an altitude of 15 - 20,000ft at a speed of 90mph and lacking the roar of any jet engines. May well be an extremely relaxing way of travelling.

 

[miami]

Depends how much nonsense they put in around security. If it's like walking onto a ferry, great.

 

[OVS Flatbottom]

Depends how much nonsense they put in around security. If it's like walking onto a ferry, great.

There's more information at https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/n...ill-provide-a-new-option-for-regional-travel/. They do talk about the assumptions they make in terms of terminal processing times (scroll about two-thirds of the way down), but they don't seem to elaborate on how close the airship terminals would be to the city centres.

 

[edwin_m]

How do we feel about using blimps for short haul flights?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ty-hops-could-cut-flyings-co2-emissions-by-90



This idea could have wings - unlike the blimps themselves - and personally I think it has some appeal as long as I'm in absolutely no hurry to reach my destination. For instance;

Liverpool to Belfast. Traditional flight time 50 minutes, blimp flight time five hours 20 minutes
Oslo to Stockholm. Traditional flight time one hour, blimp flight time six hours 30 minutes
Barcelona to Palma. Traditional flight time 55 minutes, blimp flight time four hours 30 minutes

If you can organise your schedule accordingly I think this could be a winner. Cruising at an altitude of 15 - 20,000ft at a speed of 90mph and lacking the roar of any jet engines. May well be an extremely relaxing way of travelling.

Judging by those times, the blimp would be no faster than the train on journeys where a reasonable rail alternative was available.

 

[iahmindia]

Well, there is no proof of an immediate association between environmental change and the rise or transmission of COVID-19 disease. So the aircraft and air terminal administrators ought to compose and carry out a cleaning plan and update it when new data opens up. Mainly, follow the general wellbeing cleaning direction.

 

[johncrossley]

Judging by those times, the blimp would be no faster than the train on journeys where a reasonable rail alternative was available.

Presumably the blimp would only be used on routes crossing water, or more generally where there is no rail line.

 

[edwin_m]

Presumably the blimp would only be used on routes crossing water, or more generally where there is no rail line.

I thought that too, but the previous post mentions Oslo to Stockholm, which is clearly overland and the train journey is faster than the blimp (but not much).