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

[RT4038]

Well for a start its going to be very difficult to to have a debate on that without dealing with both who you are going to restrict from flying, and how you deal with the economic consequences of fewer people travelling to countries that rely on the tourism industry, which is pretty much the same debate as how to deal with a full ban.

Secondly you have been dancing around the latter subject like a politician in front of a Parliamentary committee, which makes me wonder exactly why. Because from experience when challenged on such matters, I've generally found those in favour of total bans or severely curtailing flights tend not to want to deal with the awkward issue such policies would leave behind. Furthermore I'm pretty sure that most people realise that curtailing flying will end up involving some kind of taxes, increase in fares or a "credit" system, none of which will not regular flyers as they can afford those or will be able to circumnavigate them, leaving the lowest paid once again paying the price in not being able to travel as easily. So unless there's another way that both has minimal impact on economies around the world, and doesn't lead to what will be travel restrictions for those on lower incomes, then frankly there's little to debate that hasn't been already.

The market will adapt, and yes the fares will go up and those who can't afford to go will stop going, go less often or go less often but stay for longer. (which is no different to many other things in life which I can't afford to do ,or have, at all or as often as I would like). Those with money will continue to do pretty much as they please, like now, and continue to do things that I can't afford. So?

Yes, some places will become economic backwaters again (at least as far as tourism is concerned), and we'll go to the beaches of Belgium or Normandy (again). The Maldives will be glad that their islands stop disappearing, but they won't get many tourists either.

Won't happen overnight, just a gradual change as flights get more expensive....

 

[Chester1]

The market will adapt, and yes the fares will go up and those who can't afford to go will stop going, go less often or go less often but stay for longer. (which is no different to many other things in life which I can't afford to do ,or have, at all or as often as I would like). Those with money will continue to do pretty much as they please, like now, and continue to do things that I can't afford. So?

Yes, some places will become economic backwaters again (at least as far as tourism is concerned), and we'll go to the beaches of Belgium or Normandy (again). The Maldives will be glad that their islands stop disappearing, but they won't get many tourists either.

Won't happen overnight, just a gradual change as flights get more expensive....

Declining living standards are a hot topic, good luck to governments who try to slowly price people out flying by stealth. Many people are habbitual on their choice of destination, they will notice if they are increasingly finding it difficult to afford going to their favourite destination. Making flying unaffordable for the masses is a political non starter, that is why there have been no serious moves in this direction by any democracy.

 

[eldomtom2]

Well for a start its going to be very difficult to to have a debate on that without dealing with both who you are going to restrict from flying, and how you deal with the economic consequences of fewer people travelling to countries that rely on the tourism industry, which is pretty much the same debate as how to deal with a full ban.

Again, how have you worked out that a reduction in flying will have worse economic impacts than the climate change caused by not reducing flying?

Furthermore I'm pretty sure that most people realise that curtailing flying will end up involving some kind of taxes, increase in fares or a "credit" system, none of which will not regular flyers as they can afford those or will be able to circumnavigate them

Why, exactly, do you believe that frequent flyers do not make decisions about how often to fly based on price?

In addition, concerns about the ability of the poor to travel can be alleviated by improving alternate modes of transportation.

From the same article:

It’s reasonable to assume that there are widely differing numbers!

Yes, cruise ships are heavy polluters. They're also not ferries and therefore irrelevant to a ferries vs. planes argument.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It’s reasonable to assume that there are widely differing numbers!

Definitely! Cruise ships’ emissions will be significantly higher- all those shops and bars and infinity swimming pools don’t power themselves. Though I’d be really interested in how those figures compare with the carbon emissions from the use of a higher-end hotel room.

But cruise ships are not ferries.

Even the plushest of the modern “cruise ferries” won’t be anywhere near the emissions of the massive cruise ships.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2023 ==

Making flying unaffordable for the masses is a political non starter, that is why there have been no serious moves in this direction by any democracy.

Flying is still unaffordable for “the masses”, who don’t fly very often.

It’s not “the masses” who jet off to a different city every few weeks.

 

[Chester1]

Flying is still unaffordable for “the masses”, who don’t fly very often.

It’s not “the masses” who jet off to a different city every few weeks.

Very frequent flying is unaffordable for the average person. Flying once a year is affordable for most households. Many that don't choose to go aboard go on more expensive UK hotels due to personal preference. There is a section of society that can only afford camping in the UK or no holidays but most can.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Very frequent flying is unaffordable for the average person. Flying once a year is affordable for most households.

It isn’t the ones who fly once a year who will be upset by taxation changes though. It’ll be the wealthy who jet off to a different city every month, or who jet off to their holiday homes in Spain or France.

 

[RT4038]

It isn’t the ones who fly once a year who will be upset by taxation changes though. It’ll be the wealthy who jet off to a different city every month, or who jet off to their holiday homes in Spain or France.

As long as there is not 'cliff edge' changes, they'll all get used to it and adjust their lifestyles accordingly.

 

[Chester1]

It isn’t the ones who fly once a year who will be upset by taxation changes though. It’ll be the wealthy who jet off to a different city every month, or who jet off to their holiday homes in Spain or France.

If taxes make it unaffordable for an average family to fly short haul for their annual family holiday then they will be upset. Its an important reason for a frequent flyer levy compared with blanket inceases to Airport Passenger Duty. Perhaps I misunderstood @RT4038 but I read his post as advocating pricing ordinary families out of flying, so they are forced to stay in UK or take ferry to France and Belgium.

 

[The Ham]

Well for a start its going to be very difficult to to have a debate on that without dealing with both who you are going to restrict from flying, and how you deal with the economic consequences of fewer people travelling to countries that rely on the tourism industry, which is pretty much the same debate as how to deal with a full ban.

There's the possibility of debate if those at each end (ban so flights Vs allow unlimited growth in flights) accept that their view is very much in the minority. Where the debate can happen is around things like how do we try and limit aviation emissions to no more than current emissions or better still to see some year on year falls.

Technology isn't likely to result in falls if there's no limit to extra flights.

How hot?! There were a couple of units at the weekend which were taken out of service because the saloon temperature had climbed to 28°C and this was considered dangerous without space to move passengers to, or hopper windows to open. I can't believe that people heat their houses to that.

I picked a very high figure to prove a point, few (if any) actually live with their thermostat set at those temperatures.

Declining living standards are a hot topic, good luck to governments who try to slowly price people out flying by stealth. Many people are habbitual on their choice of destination, they will notice if they are increasingly finding it difficult to afford going to their favourite destination. Making flying unaffordable for the masses is a political non starter, that is why there have been no serious moves in this direction by any democracy.

Can you please explain how the suggestion I've made where 8 flights (so 4 return trips) would hinder the masses from flying - remembering that the total number of flights in each quarter allows one flight per person in the UK.

As long as there is not 'cliff edge' changes, they'll all get used to it and adjust their lifestyles accordingly.

Which is why increasing APD by 50% for every second flight after a given point (I've suggested 8 as a starting point to get the discussion going, it's unlikely to need to be higher than that - however some could argue that our could start lower).

The argument for starting lower is that for short haul you could have £13 for the first two, £19.50 for the next two and £29,25 for the next two. Given the numbers using UK airports very few would reach that level.

Given it would cost a total of an extra £45.50 it's hardly going to stop the masses from flying, although it may put a few off.

Where it would start to make a significant difference is after the sixth return flight where the next increase would mean the extra tax would be an extra ~£85 per flight.

Which might mean people limit their flying to every 2 months (or every 9 weeks) rather than every month or 6 weeks.

That sort of limit would have some impact on tourism, but it wouldn't kill it off.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, cruise ships are heavy polluters. They're also not ferries and therefore irrelevant to a ferries vs. planes argument.

But cruise ships are not ferries.

Even the plushest of the modern “cruise ferries” won’t be anywhere near the emissions of the massive cruise ships.

accepting that cruise ships are not ferries, and that cruise ships are typically 2-3 times larger than cross channel ferries…

… but two close relatives of mine who have made careers out of driving the things advise that the fuel burned is largely dictated by the displacement of the ship itself, and not by what it is carrying (ie loaded or empty), nor what it is powering on board.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that 50,000 tonnes of ferry being pushed through the Western Atlantic with 2000 passengers on board would use roughly half the fuel of 100,000 tonnes of cruise liner being pushed through the Western Atlantic with 2000 ’cruisers’ on board.

Still not very good.

 

[philosopher]

accepting that cruise ships are not ferries, and that cruise ships are typically 2-3 times larger than cross channel ferries…

… but two close relatives of mine who have made careers out of driving the things advise that the fuel burned is largely dictated by the displacement of the ship itself, and not by what it is carrying (ie loaded or empty), nor what it is powering on board.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that 50,000 tonnes of ferry being pushed through the Western Atlantic with 2000 passengers on board would use roughly half the fuel of 100,000 tonnes of cruise liner being pushed through the Western Atlantic with 2000 ’cruisers’ on board.

Still not very good.

A few weeks I tried to find out the carbon footprint of ferry travel and the answers I got varied massively, ranging from as good as trains to worse than flying! I suspect lower carbon footprint figures were for passenger only ferries on short journeys such as from the south coast to the Isle of Wight. The higher estimates I assume would have been for passengers on cruiseferries with their own cabin on routes such as from Plymouth to Bilbao.

Unlike aircraft, ferries tend to vary hugely in size and the number of passengers that can accommodated for a given size, making estimates of the carbon footprint of ferry travel very tricky.

 

[Bald Rick]

It isn’t the ones who fly once a year who will be upset by taxation changes though. It’ll be the wealthy who jet off to a different city every month, or who jet off to their holiday homes in Spain or France.

But are there many people like that?

of course there’s the super rich, plus pop stars, sports stars etc who are jetting all over the world, but other than that are there really that many people flying for leisure every month ? The very few people I know who fly for leisure more frequently than 2-3 times a year aren’t wealthy in any conventional sense. They also work on a well known rail forum…

 

[Ediswan]

Unlike aircraft, ferries tend to vary hugely in size and the number of passengers that can accommodated for a given size, making estimates of the carbon footprint of ferry travel very tricky.

Public transport aircraft do vary greatly in size. Anything from (say) a Cessna 172 (1111 kg), to an Airbus A380 (560 000 kg). Both maximum takeoff weight.
I agree that attempting to assign anything resembling a standard/average carbon footprint to ferry travel would be difficult.

 

[RT4038]

There's the possibility of debate if those at each end (ban so flights Vs allow unlimited growth in flights) accept that their view is very much in the minority. Where the debate can happen is around things like how do we try and limit aviation emissions to no more than current emissions or better still to see some year on year falls.

Technology isn't likely to result in falls if there's no limit to extra flights.



I picked a very high figure to prove a point, few (if any) actually live with their thermostat set at those temperatures.



Can you please explain how the suggestion I've made where 8 flights (so 4 return trips) would hinder the masses from flying - remembering that the total number of flights in each quarter allows one flight per person in the UK.



Which is why increasing APD by 50% for every second flight after a given point (I've suggested 8 as a starting point to get the discussion going, it's unlikely to need to be higher than that - however some could argue that our could start lower).

The argument for starting lower is that for short haul you could have £13 for the first two, £19.50 for the next two and £29,25 for the next two. Given the numbers using UK airports very few would reach that level.

Given it would cost a total of an extra £45.50 it's hardly going to stop the masses from flying, although it may put a few off.

Where it would start to make a significant difference is after the sixth return flight where the next increase would mean the extra tax would be an extra ~£85 per flight.

Which might mean people limit their flying to every 2 months (or every 9 weeks) rather than every month or 6 weeks.

That sort of limit would have some impact on tourism, but it wouldn't kill it off.

I understand the sentiment behind this complicated scheme, but how exactly is it going to be administered/controlled? All airline booking systems connected to a central database of passport numbers? Do foreign passport holders pay on departure, will there be database of their numbers for subsequent journeys? Dual nationals? Sounds like a nightmare IT scenario.

 

[eldomtom2]

accepting that cruise ships are not ferries, and that cruise ships are typically 2-3 times larger than cross channel ferries…

… but two close relatives of mine who have made careers out of driving the things advise that the fuel burned is largely dictated by the displacement of the ship itself, and not by what it is carrying (ie loaded or empty), nor what it is powering on board.

I think it’s reasonable to assume that 50,000 tonnes of ferry being pushed through the Western Atlantic with 2000 passengers on board would use roughly half the fuel of 100,000 tonnes of cruise liner being pushed through the Western Atlantic with 2000 ’cruisers’ on board.

Still not very good.

That's some extremely vague speculation. I'd much rather see actual numbers.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's some extremely vague speculation. I'd much rather see actual numbers.

So would I.

Couldn’t find much doign some quick Googling. Perhaos you have more time than I do?

 

[Krokodil]

Foot passengers make up a pretty negligible tonnage on cross-channel and Irish Sea ferries. Their carbon footprint is next to nothing, the freight accounts for almost all of it.

 

[Bantamzen]

The market will adapt, and yes the fares will go up and those who can't afford to go will stop going, go less often or go less often but stay for longer. (which is no different to many other things in life which I can't afford to do ,or have, at all or as often as I would like). Those with money will continue to do pretty much as they please, like now, and continue to do things that I can't afford. So?

Yes, some places will become economic backwaters again (at least as far as tourism is concerned), and we'll go to the beaches of Belgium or Normandy (again). The Maldives will be glad that their islands stop disappearing, but they won't get many tourists either.

Won't happen overnight, just a gradual change as flights get more expensive....

Or in other words the better well off will continue to be able to travel, whilst those not so won't. And for those places that will see tourism fall away, and along with it their incomes tough luck? Can you see the flaw in all of this?

Again, how have you worked out that a reduction in flying will have worse economic impacts than the climate change caused by not reducing flying?

Currently aviation is worth around half a billion dollars globally, with tourism 630 billion. So any reduction in aviation would cost the equivalent percentage drop, although of course this does not include the third party supply chain to both aviation and tourism so actually the economic cost would be considerably higher if aviation is curtailed or banned. This would be pretty much an immediate and guaranteed effect.

However the cost of climate change because of climate change is much harder to calculate. For a start we don't actually know the exact effects of man made climate change going forward. The range of possible effects is so wide that it makes actually costing it in economic terms nearly impossible. Add to that the fact that aviation is not even a top cause of climate change so any effects that aviation will only be a fraction of any final cost. And then the aviation industry is evolving quickly, developing more efficient aircraft and practices to reduce their impact. So actually calculating the cost of not reducing aviation is really quite difficult, made more so because from what I can see current models on their effect are horribly out of date, using estimates based on aircraft that are rapidly being withdrawn for more efficient ones.

Why, exactly, do you believe that frequent flyers do not make decisions about how often to fly based on price?

Because for many cost is not an issue. I would have thought that would have been obvious?

In addition, concerns about the ability of the poor to travel can be alleviated by improving alternate modes of transportation.

Such as?

There's the possibility of debate if those at each end (ban so flights Vs allow unlimited growth in flights) accept that their view is very much in the minority. Where the debate can happen is around things like how do we try and limit aviation emissions to no more than current emissions or better still to see some year on year falls.

Technology isn't likely to result in falls if there's no limit to extra flights.



I picked a very high figure to prove a point, few (if any) actually live with their thermostat set at those temperatures.



Can you please explain how the suggestion I've made where 8 flights (so 4 return trips) would hinder the masses from flying - remembering that the total number of flights in each quarter allows one flight per person in the UK.



Which is why increasing APD by 50% for every second flight after a given point (I've suggested 8 as a starting point to get the discussion going, it's unlikely to need to be higher than that - however some could argue that our could start lower).

The argument for starting lower is that for short haul you could have £13 for the first two, £19.50 for the next two and £29,25 for the next two. Given the numbers using UK airports very few would reach that level.

Given it would cost a total of an extra £45.50 it's hardly going to stop the masses from flying, although it may put a few off.

Where it would start to make a significant difference is after the sixth return flight where the next increase would mean the extra tax would be an extra ~£85 per flight.

Which might mean people limit their flying to every 2 months (or every 9 weeks) rather than every month or 6 weeks.

That sort of limit would have some impact on tourism, but it wouldn't kill it off.

You say there's room for debate, but then fall back to the debated to death position of charging more. Putting aside the difficulties in actually implementing such a system (I've highlighted some of the issues earlier), what you are proposing is practically the only solution ever offered. Charge more, move travel further away from ordinary people, and reduce income flows at the destination ends.

 

[Noddy]

There is at least one electric plane in production due to be delivered to first customer in 2027. Its a nine seater.

What aircraft ? Which customer ?

In development (not production) by a start up (and strictly speaking it’s a hybrid with a shorter range on all electric) so there are still many question marks but a number of serious companies have placed orders (United Airlines, SAS), and Saab and Air Canada (who have also placed an order) have minority stakes in the company. They aim to have it in service by 2028. A little surprised no one else has mentioned it.

Air Canada & SAS Sign Launch Orders For New Electric Regional Aircraft

Heart Aerospace has unveiled its brand new electric plane - the ES-30 - and has already logged letters of intent for 96 units.

simpleflying.com

 

[Chester1]

Can you please explain how the suggestion I've made where 8 flights (so 4 return trips) would hinder the masses from flying - remembering that the total number of flights in each quarter allows one flight per person in the UK.

I wasn't quoting your post, rather one advocating for pricing people into having to take their main holidays in UK or northern France or Belgium!

 

[RT4038]

Or in other words the better well off will continue to be able to travel, whilst those not so won't. And for those places that will see tourism fall away, and along with it their incomes tough luck? Can you see the flaw in all of this?

As is the way of the world. I don't eat as much steak as I would like because of my income (and my priorities). I can't afford a Landrover Defender. I don't travel as much to South America as I would like because of the fares. The better/well off people can. So?

Currently aviation is worth around half a billion dollars globally, with tourism 630 billion. So any reduction in aviation would cost the equivalent percentage drop, although of course this does not include the third party supply chain to both aviation and tourism so actually the economic cost would be considerably higher if aviation is curtailed or banned. This would be pretty much an immediate and guaranteed effect.

There are no doubt many places around the world (the coasts of Argentina and Chile for instance) that would boom if only air fares were so much cheaper. Those places that have boomed due to cheap air fares will either adapt or decline. This is no new thing - English Channel rim resorts have boomed and declined, so can Spanish or Turkish.... The money will be spent somewhere, it won't just disappear out of the world economy. I think it unlikely that air travel will be priced out of everyone's reach in the short to medium term, but maybe the adapting will be fewer but longer holidays etc. (so fewer journeys being made - every other year but for four weeks? etc).

 

[Bantamzen]

As is the way of the world. I don't eat as much steak as I would like because of my income (and my priorities). I can't afford a Landrover Defender. I don't travel as much to South America as I would like because of the fares. The better/well off people can. So?

What if the things you can afford and do enjoy suddenly went out of reach because someone decided they should cost more so you used them less? My point here is that it is asking the less well off to pay the climate tax / price increase whilst the better off carry on as normal. You may be comfortable with that, I'm not.

There are no doubt many places around the world (the coasts of Argentina and Chile for instance) that would boom if only air fares were so much cheaper. Those places that have boomed due to cheap air fares will either adapt or decline. This is no new thing - English Channel rim resorts have boomed and declined, so can Spanish or Turkish.... The money will be spent somewhere, it won't just disappear out of the world economy. I think it unlikely that air travel will be priced out of everyone's reach in the short to medium term, but maybe the adapting will be fewer but longer holidays etc. (so fewer journeys being made - every other year but for four weeks? etc).

I doubt most companies / organisations would agree to staff having longer single holidays.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt most companies / organisations would agree to staff having longer single holidays.

Two weeks is plenty for a holiday to southern France, Spain or Italy by ferry and car/train. That's what people used to do in the 1980s and before.

 

[Bantamzen]

Two weeks is plenty for a holiday to southern France, Spain or Italy by ferry and car/train. That's what people used to do in the 1980s and before.

Very few people did that, crikey most people in the 80s and earlier didn't have cars that would even survive that journey, if they had a car at all.

Edit: For reference me and two mates went to Fano Italy in an Austin Maestro in 1989. It died in Italy and we had to find a mechanic that had enough gaffer tape to get it going long enough to get it back.

 

[RT4038]

What if the things you can afford and do enjoy suddenly went out of reach because someone decided they should cost more so you used them less? My point here is that it is asking the less well off to pay the climate tax / price increase whilst the better off carry on as normal. You may be comfortable with that, I'm not.


I doubt most companies / organisations would agree to staff having longer single holidays.

The better off are paying the climate tax / price increase too. Things do go financially out of reach - suddenly to those who are only just affording it now (probably only a small percentage) and gradually to others. But they'll adapt as I have said.

I expect companies / organisations will adapt to that in the future, yes. (and why not? Just requires some thinking out of the box...)

 

[Bantamzen]

The better off are paying the climate tax / price increase too. Things do go financially out of reach - suddenly to those who are only just affording it now (probably only a small percentage) and gradually to others. But they'll adapt as I have said.

I expect companies / organisations will adapt to that in the future, yes. (and why not? Just requires some thinking out of the box...)

Maybe some companies might adapt, but not where the industry slowly dies and no alternative exists. Then people are left without jobs, and potentially regions left with a growing loss of GDP. But that's a SEP (Someone else's problem)...

 

[Bald Rick]

Two weeks is plenty for a holiday to southern France, Spain or Italy by ferry and car/train. That's what people used to do in the 1980s and before.

Few people did to Spain or Italy. Most flew.

 

[Chester1]

The better off are paying the climate tax / price increase too. Things do go financially out of reach - suddenly to those who are only just affording it now (probably only a small percentage) and gradually to others. But they'll adapt as I have said.

I expect companies / organisations will adapt to that in the future, yes. (and why not? Just requires some thinking out of the box...)

Or instead of adapting they vote for parties that are not trying to tax them out of doing the things they like.

 

[RT4038]

Or instead of adapting they vote for parties that are not trying to tax them out of doing the things they like.

Like alcohol do you mean? At some point all the main parties will be in agreement that the action is necessary, I expect.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

Maybe some companies might adapt, but not where the industry slowly dies and no alternative exists. Then people are left without jobs, and potentially regions left with a growing loss of GDP. But that's a SEP (Someone else's problem)...

Where in the UK is that going to happen, where the industry will not adapt and change? Which regions would that be?

 

[Chester1]

Like alcohol do you mean? At some point all the main parties will be in agreement that the action is necessary, I expect.

How are people priced out of drinking? What your suggesting is the equivalent of saying people should be allowed to drink but tax should be increased incrementally until a pint costs £50 but people will adapt...