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

[Peter Mugridge]

Given how rough the Irish Sea can get, I doubt a hovercraft would be viable. The catamaran from IoM to Liverpool is the roughest sea journey I've ever been on, and I say that having just come back from the Scillies which has a reputation for it as it's a flat bottomed boat due to the shallow harbour at Hugh Town.

The SeaCats out of Dover were known to be rougher to ride on than the SRN4 hovercraft.

With the hovercraft, the issue tended to be that the wind speeds would exceed limits before the sea conditions would. I had certainly been on them a few times on their limits in force 8 conditions...

As for a battery powered hovercraft that some people have suggested in this thread - unless batteries could be made considerable lighter, that's a non-starter because the weight would quickly eat into the payload. Hovercraft, like aircraft, are weight-sensitive in that respect.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Given how rough the Irish Sea can get, I doubt a hovercraft would be viable. The catamaran from IoM to Liverpool is the roughest sea journey I've ever been on

There’s the other issue, although hovercraft can apparently go out in rougher seas than the catermarans can, because of the skirts.

The Manannan SeaCat is odd in rough seas, it rolls from side to side not up and down, so it stays in port if rough weather is expected. It also doesn’t operate in winter.

everyone to be copying France and banning some domestic routes

For that to work you will need a reliable intercity network and you will need through ticketing.

Domestic flights to Heathrow are normally largely filled with people connecting to long haul. If your connecting flight on a through ticket is cancelled/delayed then it’s the airline’s problem. Unless you extend that to the trains- and don’t add a huge premium to the ticket price- then people won’t switch.

I wouldn’t trust any of the intercity operators to get me to the airport on time without a *lot* of contingency built in. Much easier to get a connecting plane.

As for other domestic routes, the growth is in markets such as Birmingham to Scotland and Bristol to Newcastle. 50 minutes on an Airbus or five hours on a Voyager- tough choice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do agree that some shorter flights could and possibly should be replaced by modes such as rail. But until we stop pratting around trying to make things like current battery tech work in aging trains, and actually start throwing up wires and improving the track infrastructure then flights will continue to be more attractive than the joke that is many inter city routes in this country.

Absolutely. The dross that is CrossCountry would replace a lot of domestic flights if it was any good. But it needs to provide high quality accommodation, and not just in 1st - business travellers may be able to do a long distance train instead of air if they can work for the journey, for instance, which means a decent table. Or families might do it if they can share, er, a table to keep the kids entertained. The Class 397 gets pretty close to what is needed.

What doesn't do it is an overcrowded Voyager with poor catering, almost all airline seats and inadequate capacity.

It's not that hard - you'd be able to work on the 80x used on the Kings Cross-Inverness services, for instance, and it has lots of space and decent catering. So it's not like the railway doesn't already have what is needed on other routes.

 

[PGAT]

For that to work you will need a reliable intercity network and you will need through ticketing.

Domestic flights to Heathrow are normally largely filled with people connecting to long haul.

That should be much easier when HS2 opens, as all that is needed is a change at Old Oak Common

 

[HSTEd]

As for a battery powered hovercraft that some people have suggested in this thread - unless batteries could be made considerable lighter, that's a non-starter because the weight would quickly eat into the payload. Hovercraft, like aircraft, are weight-sensitive in that respect.

They are an order of magnitude less sensitive to battery mass than aircraft, which are apparently being pursued by people who really should know better!

Replacing the SR.N4 Mark III's ~30 tonnes of fuel tankage with available batteries would get you pretty close to the performance required for Douglas to Heysham/Liverpool.
The payload of the hovercraft is over a hundred tonnes in excess of the fuel supply.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are an order of magnitude less sensitive to battery mass than aircraft, which are apparently being pursued by people who really should know better!

I'd not rule out battery technology developments that might enable it for short haul (at least for stuff like the Scottish regional puddle jumpers or the Scilly Skybus). After all, 30 years ago it was lead acid or bust, which as they're heavy meant "bust" for anything beyond milk floats.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That should be much easier when HS2 opens, as all that is needed is a change at Old Oak Common

I remain sceptical of the value of HS2. But even then it will struggle to be attractive without guaranteed through ticketing- and without that guaranteed through ticketing being charged at a premium.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2023 ==

I'd not rule out battery technology developments that might enable it for short haul (at least for stuff like the Scottish regional puddle jumpers

I wouldn’t rule battery technology out for flights of less than about 100-150 miles. Belfast, Derry, and Dublin to NW England or the Central Belt would be perfect for electric aircraft, as well as the island services.

Basically most of what Loganair and Aer Lingus/Emerald currently fly with the ATR42 and ATR72 would be fine with electric.

 

[Lucan]

many countries economies now rely on people arriving on planes in their numbers every year with wallets stuffed with the local currencies.

Yes, I had refrained from mentioning sex tourism.

 

[Chester1]

I wouldn’t rule battery technology out for flights of less than about 100-150 miles. Belfast, Derry, and Dublin to NW England or the Central Belt would be perfect for electric aircraft, as well as the island services.

Basically most of what Loganair and Aer Lingus/Emerald currently fly with the ATR42 and ATR72 would be fine with electric.

This what I argued in the original thread (about North Wales electrification). In addition to GB-Ireland there are a lot of passenger flows across relatively narrow seas. Some Carribean flights, Vancouver to Vancouver Island, Indonesia, the Philippines, the Canaries and Azores. If the technology stretches to about 200 mile range in real world conditions then feeder routes like BA Manchester to London could go electric. If you look at the 9 passenger Aviation Alice with a 290 mile range, its easy to see that very short journeys could go electric in next 20 years. Routes like Dublin - Manchester / Liverpool have significant economic importance so I would guess the Irish government would be keen on them going electric, especially if EU starts getting serious about reducing flying.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I’m not sure whether the first part of this post is serious or not?

I'm deadly serious - I consider that (internationally) banning all civilian aviation unless/until it becomes possible to do that with zero in-flight emissions is likely to be necessary to save 'our' climate.

Several countries have declared a climate emergency, but where's the international emergency response? We did it for COVID but climate change?

Ultimately it is extraordinarily unlikely that a practical electric aircraft will be available in time to matter for decarbonisation.

I agree, which is why I believe civilian aviation needs to be banned internationally. Unfortunately, I doubt we are going to be able to acheive world peace to a sufficient degree in that timescale either, otherwise I would be including military aircraft too.

Forgive me if I am skeptical electric aircraft will ever approach the performance necessary to make them attractive to the bulk of today's aviation passengers. They certainly won't arrive in time to matter from a decarbonisation perspective.

I'm no expert, far from it, but for what it's worth I agree. If I thought suitable aircraft with zero in-flight emissions were acheivable in time to matter then that is what I'd be calling for rather than a ban on flying.

I think people are confusing a desire among ordinary people concerned about the climate crisis to strongly REDUCE the number of flights (say 70-90% reductions in flight emissions over the next few years, with the remainder then going over to synthetic fuels etc.) with a desire to fully ban all flights.

I doubt the figures are obtainable, but I wonder what percentage of aviation emissions are from military aircraft. Depending on how high the military's impact is, you could remove all civilian aviation and still not achieve a 70-90% reduction in total aviation emissions.

I‘ve never met anyone who has suggested completely banning flights.

I have met quite a few who suggest that ‘we’* should reduce the number of flights to/from/in this country.

*’we’ being all the other people, and not themselves.

My last air journey was in 2006 - and I am suggesting a complete ban of civilian aviation that cannot be done with zero in-flight emissions.

A saw a think tank proposal a couple of years ago for a frequent flyer levy that I thought was quite reasonable. The gist of of was the first flight each year was at current levels of taxation, phasing up progressively so that the fourth flight of the year (and any additional flights) had a several hundred pounds levy + normal taxes. I would assume that employers would need a system to pay for any additional levy on their employees. If someone flew three times with work and then flew the fourth time for a family holiday they would be angry with paying several hundred pounds out of their own pocket.

Something like that would be a start, and is something like it is what I would have suggested a few years ago (I'd phase it in, maybe even starting with one tax-free flight per person on their 18th birthday or something but eventually building up to 5 (or more) year stints before the tax on an individual's next flight reduces) but I'm starting to think it might not be enough. A frequent-flyer levy ignores freight for example - it can't be sensible to be importing fruit from the southern hemisphere (I assume with such long distances involved it comes by air).

If curbs are placed on commercial aviation, synthetic fuels seem the most likely route through as they are nominally carbon neutral. The added cost would be passed on which would naturally limit how many people took flights.

'Carbon neutral' fuels ignores the fact that climate change is not just about carbon. Theoretically at least there would be NO carbon involved if hydrogen was used to power aircraft - however emissions at altitude have a higher global warming potential than emissions at ground level, and this includes emissions of water vapour. This is why I am trying to emphasize the goal of zero in-flight emissions.

So many people having relations spread around the world is a result of air travel having become cheap (for political and accounting reasons too complex to explore here), and of emigration/immigration for reasons which I will not explore further. I have a foreign GF myself (met in UK, her having visited by air) and living here FTTB she is back-and-forth to her native country by air every month or so to see her family, something I am not very happy with. Air travel itself results in the "need" for even more air travel. But with reduced air travel fewer situations requiring air travel would arise.

Not very long ago air travel was confined to a minority and life was not terrible because of that at the time. Now air fares have become cheaper per mile than driving a family car. I work with a guy who once a month flies with his wife to some city abroard for the weekend (New York, Rome, Dubai, Vienna etc), apparently just to do some shopping; this is ridiculous. There needs to be tapering in of a policy of financial discouragement if not outright manipulation of air travel by government - it is being done now in the UK with cars after all.

Well said Lucan. Take away the ability to travel huge distances relatively quickly, cheaply and easily and demand should fall significantly. For those with relatives overseas, I think some (much slower) means of travel will probably remain (such as hitching a lift on a container ship transporting food, or taking a long overland journey - possibily with short hops across smaller water bodies using electric aircraft) - which would enable to part of the family to permanently relocate closer to the others if they so desire.

Beyond that, air travel isn’t the first place we need to look at for carbon emissions reduction. 25% of emissions are from the transport sector in the UK, but a good 80% of that is the private car. Leaving the car at home and walking/using public transport is the real way to make a difference.

That overlooks at least three issues:

• the private car may well be 80% of UK transport emissions, but what is the global aviation greenhouse gas impact
• the higher global warming potential of emissions at altitude
• a fairly large proportion of car trips could perhaps be considered 'essential' (eg. to the shops buy food) - they could perhaps be switched to other modes but not eliminated entirely - however I have eliminated air travel from my life with near-zero impact on my quality of life

Its not just people flying around to see family, many countries economies now rely on people arriving on planes in their numbers every year with wallets stuffed with the local currencies. People who suggest that we could significantly cut air travel just don't get, or just ignore the reality that air travel is now a key part not only of so many world economies, but of the well being of many people. Being able to fly off from our crappy summers helps a lot of people, and at the other end of those flights many people's livelihoods rely on those people arriving.

I think HSTEd put it better than I could:

Thatcherism might pretend that the market will achieve miracles, but even the market must give way to physics.

Banning flights is just not going to happen, and despite all the noise around aviation isn't going to be anywhere near the big hitters in having a positive effect on the environment and climate.

I fear you are correct that banning flights isn't going to happen. As for being a big hitter, apparently "if aviation was a country, it would be among the 10 biggest emitters, ahead of nations like Brazil, Mexico, and the UK". If you could ban all flights, that would make one hell of a difference.

I remain sceptical of the value of HS2.

As do I, in its current form. With a bit of foresight a few conceptually and geographically minor (but rather expensive) changes could have been made to future-proof it as part of a next generation rail network which could have made a big difference.

 

[Bald Rick]

My last air journey was in 2006 - and I am suggesting a complete ban of civilian aviation that cannot be done with zero in-flight emissions.

Would you ban all shipping that cannot be done with zero in voyage emissions?

A cruise ship carrying a couple of thousand people across the Atlantic causes far more emissions than a few A350s carrying the same number of passengers….

 

[Royston Vasey]

Synthetic liquid fuels (aka SAF, sustainable aviation fuels) are the only real solution due to their energy density, but these can be made via carbon neutral routes (and already are) - they've been tested in jet engines for years without any technical drawbacks by multiple commercial airlines, including Virgin, Emirates and recently United; BA are also sponsoring a plant to make them, as are Wizz. They look like, smell like, taste like and perform like jet fuel, because they are chemically identical. The Fischer Tropsch process to do it was invented in 1930s Germany and used in wartime Germany and later Apartheid South Africa to produce kerosene and diesel from coal. It's used now to make it from natural gas, and commercial plants are already making it from gasified biomass and municipal solid waste, at a price close enough to kerosene that it's worth pursuing once economies of scale kick in.

I spoke to a senior technical director at Rolls Royce recently through a society membership event, and he confirmed that the magnets would be so heavy for anything larger than private jets or small commuter flights, that the plane would never get off the ground, literally. You couldn't fly something the size of a 777 or 737, or even a E170, with electric motors.

In fact flights are probably the most worthy recipient of both fossil and synthetic fuels - everything on the ground can be run with clean electricity. Convert road vehicles to clean electricity and you've solved 80% of the problem (in terms of direct emissions).

Aviation is a relatively small consumer of liquid fuels compared to road fuel, and a small component of carbon emissions (about 2%). There are no alternatives to liquid hydrocarbons here. Hydrogen has been trailled by RR, and will soon be trialled on an A380 testbed; it will be part of the solution at the smaller end, but storage, handling and energy density are still problems for longer distances.

Aviation is something of a bogieman but the statistics show that it is a small contributor to GHGs, and an easy one to fix with drop-in carbon neutral alternatives that are either available or plants are being built to make them.

Flights won't be banned, and they needn't be, you just can't do everything on Teams nor should we be told we can't go to Orlando for a week in summer. More philosophically, what a backward step for humanity it would be to wind back such massive steps forward in personal mobility and horizons.

 

[Howardh]

How much fuel is needed to get the aircraft from the stand to the start of the runway, especially at large airports like Heathrow/Schiphol where they taxi for ages? It won't be much in the great scheme of things, but if we could get them to the runway by electric means (maybe even a tow?) it's a start. Then maybe some kind of fast tow/slingshot to get them airborne where the engines can take over (OK, I'm being very futuristic there, but hey...)??

 

[Bald Rick]

How much fuel is needed to get the aircraft from the stand to the start of the runway, especially at large airports like Heathrow/Schiphol where they taxi for ages? It won't be much in the great scheme of things, but if we could get them to the runway by electric means (maybe even a tow?) it's a start. Then maybe some kind of fast tow/slingshot to get them airborne where the engines can take over (OK, I'm being very futuristic there, but hey...)??

Electric tugs are being considered in some places.

But first, electric shore supplies that are powered from renewable electricity rather than a portable diesel generator are an easy win. Schiphol is doing this.

I‘m not sure that, as a passenger, I would want to be onboard a flight where it’s engines are not at full power at the start of any takeoff roll, which makes a runway catapult largely pointless.

 

[Ted633]

How much fuel is needed to get the aircraft from the stand to the start of the runway, especially at large airports like Heathrow/Schiphol where they taxi for ages? It won't be much in the great scheme of things, but if we could get them to the runway by electric means (maybe even a tow?) it's a start. Then maybe some kind of fast tow/slingshot to get them airborne where the engines can take over (OK, I'm being very futuristic there, but hey...)??

Some airlines (easyJet certainly) will taxi on one engine, only starting the other shortly before take off.
There was a trial, I think in Germany, where a A320 was fitted with electric motors on the main undercarriage wheels for taxiing. However, I think it wasn't cost effective due to the additional weight in flight.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That overlooks at least three issues:

• the private car may well be 80% of UK transport emissions, but what is the global aviation greenhouse gas impact
• the higher global warming potential of emissions at altitude
• a fairly large proportion of car trips could perhaps be considered 'essential' (eg. to the shops buy food) - they could perhaps be switched to other modes but not eliminated entirely - however I have eliminated air travel from my life with near-zero impact on my quality of life

The global aviation impact is about 2%.

21% of car trips are under 1 mile. All but the most infirm should easily be able to do those on foot. And short journeys on cold engines are the most environmentally inefficient.

 

[Chester1]

Electric tugs are being considered in some places.

But first, electric shore supplies that are powered from renewable electricity rather than a portable diesel generator are an easy win. Schiphol is doing this.

I‘m not sure that, as a passenger, I would want to be onboard a flight where it’s engines are not at full power at the start of any takeoff roll, which makes a runway catapult largely pointless.

Some airlines (easyJet certainly) will taxi on one engine, only starting the other shortly before take off.
There was a trial, I think in Germany, where a A320 was fitted with electric motors on the main undercarriage wheels for taxiing. However, I think it wasn't cost effective due to the additional weight in flight.

Clearly the solution is just to entirely ban flights using fossil fuels.... Apparently my brother and his Mrs need to chose which of their families they see again, and then take a container ship to UK if myself and my parents are picked....

The increasing focus on tyre particulates is an example of what leads me to believe that many want to use climate change (sorry, the climate catastrophe) to change society for its own sake. Getting rid of ICEs won't be good enough, the goal was always to drastically reduce car usage. I am all in favour of transitioning to EVs but I don’t think for a second that will satisify the hardcore of environmentalists.

A highly globalised world reliant on sustainable air travel would probably not satisfy many. No more than a UK with 30 million EVs would.

 

[The Ham]

To answer the thread question first, yes, but probably in limited situations (for example bans of domestic flights where rail is a suitable alternative).

Aviation is a relatively small consumer of liquid fuels compared to road fuel, and a small component of carbon emissions (about 2%). There are no alternatives to liquid hydrocarbons here. Hydrogen has been trailled by RR, and will soon be trialled on an A380 testbed; it will be part of the solution at the smaller end, but storage, handling and energy density are still problems for longer distances.

It's only 2% or other such comments misses the point, the target is not net 20%, rather net zero.

As such whilst banning all aviation is unlikely to be possible it still comes down to the easiest way to reduce carbon emissions is to do it, whatever activity is causing those emissions, less.

There's likely to be other options to allow flying to continue, however they will have an additional cost. Be that extra journey time (slower aircraft), less direct flights, higher taxes, higher fuel costs, etc.

Ultimately the question is, will people be willing to accept those extra cost.

Yes it will be hard on those who have a lifestyle or relationships which were created by being able to fly fast, direct and cheap. However it's unlikely that increasing the barriers would stop them entirely, it'll just be that it'll take longer/cost more and so they'll change what they do.

For example, rather than flying for two weekends over the course of two months it may be that the individual stays overseas for a week by working remotely. In doing so they have the two weekends, however they also have a series of evenings as well - thus increasing their ability to spend quality time with loved ones.

They would reduce the number of flights that take, bit could still have reasonable relationships with others.

Those doing lots of city breaks could either do something similar (giving them much more time in one location), or could fly to one city, work remotely during the week but using one of the evenings to move to another city by train to then have another city break the following weekend.

Obviously they wouldn't work for everyone, as not everyone can work remotely. However often with these things it's often a case of changing his you think about it.

Sleeper trains change the "rules"; rather than stressing to get to a London airport in a Friday evening, use the time to get to (say) Paris catch a sleeper, wake up in the city you wish to visit. Stay overnight. Catch the sleeper Sunday night, take a half day to get back to London (and back to your work) and work in the afternoon. Again not viable for those too far from London or for cities more than about 10 hours from Paris by train - but again could be something some do to allow them to carry on exploring cities.

As I've said before, with regards to EV's, it may well be better to drive for a few hours, stop at an activity for a few hours and then drive again for a few hours than drive for 6 hours straight and not really do anything other than travel for that day. The only reason people do the drive straight through is because it's possible, it's not necessarily the only way to get where you want to go.

The global aviation impact is about 2%.

21% of car trips are under 1 mile. All but the most infirm should easily be able to do those on foot. And short journeys on cold engines are the most environmentally inefficient.

Indeed, however it's a case of we need to do both (reduce flying's emissions AND walk/cycle more).

 

[Royston Vasey]

It's only 2% or other such comments misses the point, the target is not net 20%, rather net zero.

I also explained in detail that there's an easy, technologically mature drop in replacement that can make it net zero.

That said, to get to net 20% of global GHG emissions would be a monumental achievement and almost certainly "good enough"

 

[Skymonster]

I’d start with private aviation. Given the quality of commercial aviation there is absolutely no reason why anyone needs to go by private jet, except ego.

Using the same logic, the private car needs to be banned as public transport (buses and trains) can do the job and the only reason people use cars is ego.

Honestly, I almost despair that there are climate fanatics around who think that banning flying, or taxing it to the point of extinction, is either a good idea or necessary. Domestic rail and other public transport may be able to take some of the burden, but the railway industry shot itself in the foot when it insisted HS2 should not go via Heathrow (and what use is a high-speed line to Birmingham anyway when it comes to travel to Scotland?). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for continuing to improve the efficiency of aviation, but to make it cheaper rather than cut its emissions.

Seriously, the vast majority of those aggressively advocating for restrictions in air travel will only be happy when we all live in caves - or are at least confined to fifteen minute cities. In my experience, they usually come from the socialist end of the political spectrum and what they really want is everyone to be equal in terms of how they live and what they can do - their mentality is that if they don’t want to / can’t afford to fly then no one should. If they got air travel banned, they wouldn’t be happy and then would move on to focus their doctrines, resentment and ill-will on cars and other forms of individual transport. Taxation isn’t the answer either (punitive use of taxation never is) because all it does is inhibit and restrict the less well off while enabling the well-to-do to continue.

As a progressive race, humans need to be exploring how to do more, not on restricting what has been achieved. And there is no justification to ban or restrict aviation - it is getting more efficiency (and has been doing for decades), while the planet has been warming up since the ice age and will continue to do so. We need to focus attention on funding on physical mitigation measures (sea defences etc) rather than mess around with air transport which will have minimal effect - King Kanute will never stop the tide coming in.

 

[Howardh]

Not so keen on the name, but the answer to short-haul trips??

Inside the 40 million pound “air bum” airship heading for Mallorca

New dawn for British tourists. Airlander 10 has a top speed of 130kph and can stay airborne for up to five days.

www.majorcadailybulletin.com

Spanish airline Air Nostrum has doubled its order for a new fleet of British airships it intends to use on short haul flights to and from the Balearics and other parts of Spain in the not too distant future and it may not be long before British tourists are travelling to Mallorca on board the Airlander 10 - nicknamed the “Flying Bum” due to its distinctive shape.

And inside, the airships, built in Doncaster, offer total luxury with spectacular views.
The Airlander is a hybrid aircraft which derives its lift from a combination of aerodynamic lift (like an aeroplane), lifting gases (like an airship) and vectored thrust (similar to a helicopter). Airlander generates up to 40% of its lift from aerodynamics by the passage of air over the hull and the remainder from buoyant lift from the helium.

At lower speed and closer to the ground, vectoring engine power is used to provide additional lift and manoeuvrability for take-off, landing and ground handling.
Airlander 10 has a top speed of 130kph and can stay airborne for up to five days. Although this is not as fast as the fixed-wing airplanes we are used to, speed is not the most important feature for potential customers.

Hybrid Air Vehicle, the British company building the airships states on its website: “the idea is to have the best of all worlds. The lifting gas offsets the weight of the aircraft meaning that less energy is required to keep it aloft. Like an airship, this means that it can carry a lot of payload, burn very little fuel and fly for a long time.


The use of aerodynamic lift means that Airlander can generate more or less lift as required. This means that, unlike an airship, it is heavier-than-air. It can therefore stay in place on the ground while it is loaded, unloaded, fuelled and maintained, meaning that it requires little or no expensive, fixed infrastructure.


In this way, Airlander combines the efficiency, capability and environmental friendliness of an airship with the practicality of a normal aircraft. Airlander minimises the need for expensive ground infrastructure to operate the aircraft in remote places, while enabling safe, quiet, efficient and capable flight. Its low cost, low environmental impact and unique flight capabilities enable us to Rethink the Skies.”

 

[Bald Rick]

Not so keen on the name, but the answer to short-haul trips??

High speed rail is the answer for most short haul trips (sub 800-1000km or so); more efficient, cheaper, and twice as fast.

This may be an answer for short haul trips across water where there’s no fixed infrastructure (eg, mainland Spain to the Balearics or GB to NI / Ireland.) But I don’t see Ryanair / Easjet being troubled.

 

[Howardh]

High speed rail is the answer for most short haul trips (sub 800-1000km or so); more efficient, cheaper, and twice as fast.

This may be an answer for short haul trips across water where there’s no fixed infrastructure (eg, mainland Spain to the Balearics or GB to NI / Ireland.) But I don’t see Ryanair / Easjet being troubled.

High speed rail is costing billions? And it won't get you to all four corners of the country either. These new aircraft could get you from, say, Manchester to Southampton/Bournemouth or even London City a lot faster than trains, even after HS2 is eventually built. And a lot more comfortable than Cross-Country!! Key is, how close to the city centres can they get to if take-off/landing is much shorter than conventional aircraft? Could be a huge boost for those struggling regional airports like Blackpool (now devoid of passengers) and might even be able to use the likes of Eccles if the infrastructure could be built - although need to know take-off/landing lengths as alluded to.

I suppose someone once looked at the very first aircraft ever built and said "that'll never take off, now where's me horse and cart??"!!!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Using the same logic, the private car needs to be banned as public transport (buses and trains) can do the job and the only reason people use cars is ego.

In a lot of cases yes. 21% of car journeys are under one mile. Except for the most infirm, driving instead of walking is just lazy. ULEZ is a good idea.

Private aviation is the single biggest growth area in terms of emissions, with a flight on a private jet being anywhere between 10 and 20 times more damaging than a flight on a commercial airline. Big commercial jets are very efficient. Small private jets are not.

I’d make the tax punitive for private aviation- the APD for private jet departures should have several zeroes on the end of it, to reflect the damage it does. In a world with Singapore Airlines’ suites and Emirates’ first class showers, private aviation needs to be stamped down on- hard.

No doubt all of this makes me a “socialist” who wants to live in a cave. It seems you don’t agree that climate change is happening and that we are responsible. Ah well.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2023 ==

Not so keen on the name, but the answer to short-haul trips??

Over water, yes, and as a replacement/enhancement to ferry traffic. Otherwise, no.

High speed rail is the answer for most short haul trips (sub 800-1000km or so); more efficient, cheaper, and twice as fast.

It’s not necessarily that good either, not when you consider the environmental damage caused by building high speed rail in the first place. HS2’s construction has been horrifically damaging; in fairness, better than if they were building a motorway, but not by much.

 

[Chester1]

Seriously, the vast majority of those aggressively advocating for restrictions in air travel will only be happy when we all live in caves - or are at least confined to fifteen minute cities. In my experience, they usually come from the socialist end of the political spectrum and what they really want is everyone to be equal in terms of how they live and what they can do - their mentality is that if they don’t want to / can’t afford to fly then no one should. If they got air travel banned, they wouldn’t be happy and then would move on to focus their doctrines, resentment and ill-will on cars and other forms of individual transport. Taxation isn’t the answer either (punitive use of taxation never is) because all it does is inhibit and restrict the less well off while enabling the well-to-do to continue.

That is more or less my opinion. The shift we are starting to see from emissions to tyre particulates is very telling. Yes, something might be able to be done about it but if not are people who have switched to EVs then seriously expected to not drive because of tyre particulates? The fifteen minute city makes sense, some people object because they feel that its a step towards them being unable to leave their locality. Its not an unreasonable fear if you listen to the fanatical wing of environmentalists. What is reassuring for me is the reaction to ULEZ. If the London Authority can't implement that without a backlash and throwing a by election, a total ban on flights is a fantasy.

 

[johncrossley]

• a fairly large proportion of car trips could perhaps be considered 'essential' (eg. to the shops buy food) - they could perhaps be switched to other modes but not eliminated entirely - however I have eliminated air travel from my life with near-zero impact on my quality of life

People used to eat food before mass car ownership. And a large proportion of the population don't own a car, even now.

If everything possible is done to remove carbon emissions that is possible with current technology then air travel wouldn't be such an issue. Air travel is being stigmatised now because of the many years of coal, oil and gas burning.

 

[eldomtom2]

Would you ban all shipping that cannot be done with zero in voyage emissions?

A cruise ship carrying a couple of thousand people across the Atlantic causes far more emissions than a few A350s carrying the same number of passengers….

I have no idea why you think this is a gotcha - someone who wants to ban private jets is almost certainly all in favour of banning cruise ships as well.

More philosophically, what a backward step for humanity it would be to wind back such massive steps forward in personal mobility and horizons.

More of a backward step is condemning others to death so a privileged few can take faster journeys.

We need to focus attention on funding on physical mitigation measures (sea defences etc) rather than mess around with air transport which will have minimal effect - King Kanute will never stop the tide coming in.

I'd like to see your "physical mitigation measures" for crop failure.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If the London Authority can't implement that without a backlash and throwing a by election

Labour lost Uxbridge by 300 votes. 900 people voted for the Green Party. It’s not quite the anti-ULEZ protest vote that the Telegraph would have you believe.

It’s also funny how TfL were forced to implement it as part of the terms of the government funding they received after Covid.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2023 ==

The shift we are starting to see from emissions to tyre particulates is very telling.

Not really, it’s indicative that pollution is far more pervasive than just what comes out of the exhaust.

 

[Skymonster]

I'd like to see your "physical mitigation measures" for crop failure.

Crop failures have occurred since biblical times, and before. It’s about time for the climate change evangelists to find something that hasn’t happened before and hasn’t been happening for eons, rather than trying to hang their hats on events that are part of the natural evolution of the planet. And yes, instead of wasting money on white elephants like HS2, spend money on flood mitigation, combatting coastal erosion and on better water supply to arable land.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2023 ==

Not really, it’s indicative that pollution is far more pervasive than just what comes out of the exhaust.

Not really, it’s just the next bandwagon those who want to level everyone up and confine people to leading their entire life within a few minutes of home are going to jump on.

 

[eldomtom2]

Crop failures have occurred since biblical times, and before. It’s about time for the climate change evangelists to find something that hasn’t happened before and hasn’t been happening for eons, rather than trying to hang their hats on events that are part of the natural evolution of the planet.

I'm sure people dying of starvation will be happy to learn that their deaths are part of "the natural evolution of the planet"! Also "find something that hasn’t happened before and hasn’t been happening for eons" - what do you expect climate change to do? Turn the sky green?