Does anybody not fly?

[takno]

Well then perhaps you are right. I have never felt like it, mostly because I don't fit the usual profile of a frequent flier.

As a matter of interest, what do you think the usual profile of a frequent flier is? I'm not really sure there is one

 

[The exile]

Couldn't imagine not flying.
The convenience of being in a brand new country in 45 minutes or getting a morning flight from LHR and being in New York just after lunch.
Being on a plane is fully relaxed, a few drinks, watching a movie, not being able to be disturbed

While I tend to agree with you, I’d love to know where you fly to and from and with which airline that means you can be on foreign soil within 45 minutes. For practical reasons I’d take that as the “point of no return” (entering security for departure) to the literal point of no return at the destination airport!

 

[AlbertBeale]

Since it's pretty straightforward to travel anywhere within Europe without flying, then I don't fly within Europe and haven't for many many years. It seems to me an ethical necessity to take that stance. I know plenty of others who take the same view. Personally, I find surface travel better in most ways anyway. But even where there might be personal (selfish) advantages in choosing to fly (ie saving money and hence being able to travel more often), I wouldn't dream of doing that given the desperate environmental necessity of stopping most flying (amongst other things, of course).

A handful of times in my life I've needed to go to a conference on another continent; on those occasions I've ended up flying because I could find no alternative. But I wouldn't make such a trip for a holiday.

Perhaps the question ought to be not "Does anyone not fly?", but "Why - given what we know - does anyone ever still choose to fly?"

 

[Merseysider]

For the last few years I’ve always done at least one trip a year without flying. Last time, Helsinki via train and ferry, in previous years Rome, Athens, Amsterdam, Monaco by train only. It cost a lot more but was so much more enjoyable and discovered some amazing places along the way. I don’t mind flying itself but I can’t stand the airport ‘experience’.

 

[12LDA28C]

Since it's pretty straightforward to travel anywhere within Europe without flying, then I don't fly within Europe and haven't for many many years. It seems to me an ethical necessity to take that stance. I know plenty of others who take the same view. Personally, I find surface travel better in most ways anyway. But even where there might be personal (selfish) advantages in choosing to fly (ie saving money and hence being able to travel more often), I wouldn't dream of doing that given the desperate environmental necessity of stopping most flying (amongst other things, of course).

A handful of times in my life I've needed to go to a conference on another continent; on those occasions I've ended up flying because I could find no alternative. But I wouldn't make such a trip for a holiday.

Perhaps the question ought to be not "Does anyone not fly?", but "Why - given what we know - does anyone ever still choose to fly?"

Because it's quicker, cheaper and much more convenient.

 

[Gloster]

As far as I am concerned, most of the replies in this thread make me think, ‘God help future generations, because the current one won’t as they aren’t going to give up their little pleasures and conveniences to prevent the planet becoming a wasteland‘. Some are fairly honest, but others seem to regard their trips as vital, whatever they are, or really not significant. And of course we have those who are sure that in the future we will have environmentally friendly battery or bionic duckweed powered planes, so we might as well keep on anyway. (This attitude does seem to be widespread elsewhere.) I won’t add the comment I would really like to make.

 

[atillathehunn]

As far as I am concerned, most of the replies in this thread make me think, ‘God help future generations, because the current one won’t as they aren’t going to give up their little pleasures and conveniences to prevent the planet becoming a wasteland‘. Some are fairly honest, but others seem to regard their trips as vital, whatever they are, or really not significant. And of course we have those who are sure that in the future we will have environmentally friendly battery or bionic duckweed powered planes, so we might as well keep on anyway. (This attitude does seem to be widespread elsewhere.) I won’t add the comment I would really like to make.

The problem with your argument is that it is based on the nonsense idea that flying is a 'little pleasure and convenience' that we can simply give up with a minor cost to our overall utility. It seems like quite a sad worldview.

Even leaving aside business travel for a minute, which is still very important and the pandemic has shown both the opportunities and the limits of remote work, the rest of travel cannot be mischaracterised like this.

For many, many people round the world (widen your worldview a touch), flying represents an opportunity to see or rejoin families during and after labour migration. Those that do jobs we value enormously (look at those from the far east, SSA and the sub-continent that work in the UK's NHS, for example), may have to travel thousands of miles and have the right to see their families. A similar story is true for education.

Even pure leisure travel cannot and should not be entirely foregone. A sustainable world is not one in which people do not have the opportunity and ability to explore the vast cultural richness available to those who seek it, nor the value of education overseas. That would be a sad world indeed, and I would not want the next generation to forego the experiences that have contributed to the richness of my life that were achieved through travel far and wide.

Sustainability is not based on pure self-flagellation, this will not solve the crisis.

 

[Bantamzen]

As far as I am concerned, most of the replies in this thread make me think, ‘God help future generations, because the current one won’t as they aren’t going to give up their little pleasures and conveniences to prevent the planet becoming a wasteland‘. Some are fairly honest, but others seem to regard their trips as vital, whatever they are, or really not significant. And of course we have those who are sure that in the future we will have environmentally friendly battery or bionic duckweed powered planes, so we might as well keep on anyway. (This attitude does seem to be widespread elsewhere.) I won’t add the comment I would really like to make.

Why? After all aviation currently accounts for somewhere around 2% of the CO2 impact. Now I know the argument goes that as other sources move away from carbon based energy, aviation will account for a higher percentage of the overall footprint. But it would be a higher percentage of a decreasing volume. And that's before we consider that the aviation industry is making huge strides in making far more efficient engines, meaning that even with an increase in flight numbers, volumes will in time reduce. So stopping aviation, or at least trying to shame people into stopping may not be the world saver some people try to make out, although it will remain a convenient scapegoat.

But here's another thing that I've yet to see anyone wanting a massive reduction actually address. Aviation accounts for an awful lot of jobs globally, both directly and indirectly. Many country's economies rely heavily on aviation, losing it would be massively damaging. So how would you propose those losses be countered, so far the only responses in previous threads on the subject have glibly suggested they "find something else". Moreover aviation also has a positive effect on humanity, bringing different cultures into contact. Once upon a time many cultures fought wars to keep "others" away because they rarely mixed, which would you prefer, travel or war? I definitely know what I'd prefer, and what would be far more more environmentally damaging. Humans when kept apart quickly start to become aggressive with each other, social media and the echo chambers it creates demonstrates this beautifully.

Maybe you don't agree, and that's fair enough. But there's a lot to consider when talking about shutting down people's movements, economies and cultural separation. The results may end up being much worse than the perceived problem.

 

[takno]

I think it makes sense to replace aviation in areas where it can sensibly be replaced (by building things like HS2 for example), and it probably makes sense to increase taxes on it somewhat so that it's competing on a more level playing field with other modes and to prevent exponential increases in aviation uses.

It makes absolutely no sense to utterly demonise it and people who use it, and it tends to be a quite alienating approach which is likely to be counter-productive. People make their own decisions, and they could easily have offset their carbon from air travel by, for example, eliminating car usage, using radically less domestic heat, only accepting jobs with a walkable commute, or reducing consumption of damaging food.

If you're looking at things people probably shouldn't take up, then I'd put casual use of AI far higher up than air travel.

 

[HOOVER29]

Last & only time I flew was in 1985 when we went to Malta

Last time I went abroad too

Didn’t much care for it back then or now.

If it’s bad weather in this country I just suck it up

The holiday is what you make of it

35 yrs in Devon & Cornwall have served me well so far

Only COVID broke that

 

[12LDA28C]

Last & only time I flew was in 1985 when we went to Malta

Last time I went abroad too

Didn’t much care for it back then or now.

If it’s bad weather in this country I just suck it up

The holiday is what you make of it

35 yrs in Devon & Cornwall have served me well so far

Only COVID broke that

If that's what you like then fair enough. Personally I like to experience new places, different cultures and alternative ways of life which has nothing to do with seeking sunshine due to bad weather at home. The world is a big place with plenty to explore. As they say, travel broadens the mind.

 

[Tetchytyke]

As far as I am concerned, most of the replies in this thread make me think, ‘God help future generations, because the current one won’t as they aren’t going to give up their little pleasures and conveniences to prevent the planet becoming a wasteland‘.

Aviation is about 2% of CO2 emissions, and because those emissions are at altitude it is estimated that it accounts for 3-4% of global warming. By comparison, agriculture and forestry accounts for nearly 20% of global emissions.

Private cars account for 16% of emissions and, of that, about 70% of all private car journeys in the UK are under five miles.

Me taking the train to Berlin instead of British Airways isn't going to do anything for emissions, so why would I flagellate myself for it? I took 16 flights in 2023 and emitted 1.3 tons of CO2. Taylor Swift, on the other hand, emitted nearly 9,000 tons of CO2 in 2023 through flying.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Aviation is about 2% of CO2 emissions, and because those emissions are at altitude it is estimated that it accounts for 3-4% of global warming. By comparison, agriculture and forestry accounts for nearly 20% of global emissions.

Private cars account for 16% of emissions and, of that, about 70% of all private car journeys in the UK are under five miles.

Me taking the train to Berlin instead of British Airways isn't going to do anything for emissions, so why would I flagellate myself for it? I took 16 flights in 2023 and emitted 1.3 tons of CO2. Taylor Swift, on the other hand, emitted nearly 9,000 tons of CO2 in 2023 through flying.

Maybe that's why we need to urgently phase out both planes and private cars.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Maybe that's why we need to urgently phase out both planes and private cars.

Impossible.

I'd be in favour of options that encourage people to use other solutions for short journeys, but beyond that there's no way that any form of public transport can ever replace the private motor car.

Same with flying. I'd be in favour of options that encourage people away from private aviation and on to commercial aviation, but even then not all private aviation can be replaced by commercial aviation. And for those of us who fly down the back of the bus on commercial flights, there's no way that going back to the days of a 36-hour coach ride to Spain is achievable or realistic.

 

[Krokodil]

Because it's quicker, cheaper and much more convenient.

It's certainly a convenient way of getting to Greece. I can't say that the idea of sleeping in a football stadium due to wildfires really appeal to me though. The effects of global warming are already here.

As they say, travel broadens the mind.

And yet, despite being apparently well-travelled, your mind is apparently not broad enough to believe that "anyone" can live their lives car-free without becoming hermits.

I haven't flown in years. Nor owned a car. That hasn’t stopped me taking multiple foreign trips in the last five years, encompassing around fifteen countries. After exploring the castles of Transylvania earlier this year, I'm considering heading back to the continent in the autumn, and maybe to North Africa in the Winter. Yes it can take two or three nights to reach somewhere by surface transport, but as I sleep during nighttime it isn't time wasted. Spending the days in between sleeper trains visiting places en route is very much part of the holiday.

That's not to say that I'll never fly again. A US trip is on the cards, and I would like to head down to Sub-Saharan Africa. No short-haul flights though.

 

[12LDA28C]

And yet, despite being apparently well-travelled, your mind is apparently not broad enough to believe that "anyone" can live their lives car-free without becoming hermits.

Despite only covering around 4,000 miles per annum in my car, I simply couldn't live without it, without causing myself a huge amount of inconvenience and additional unnecessary cost. If you can live without one, fair enough. I couldn't.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jul 2024 ==

That's not to say that I'll never fly again. A US trip is on the cards, and I would like to head down to Sub-Saharan Africa. No short-haul flights though.

The US is well worth a visit, plenty of excellent places to see over there. You might be best hiring a car though....

 

[miklcct]

Maybe that's why we need to urgently phase out both planes and private cars.

Sorry but it isn't possible.

Flying is a necessity for travelling long distances, while private car is a necessity for travelling in rural areas.

Those 70% private car journeys under 5 miles are a scum and ought to be replaced, but the freedom to use a car for longer distances into rural area still needs to remain.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Despite only covering around 4,000 miles per annum in my car, I simply couldn't live without it, without causing myself a huge amount of inconvenience and additional unnecessary cost. If you can live without one, fair enough. I couldn't.

I think it depends where you live. ETA: And, in fairness, how mobile you are.

When I lived in the outer suburbs of Newcastle I lived very happily without a car. There was a bus every 10 minutes from the top of the street into the city centre and I did a lot of my grocery shopping in the big covered market (Grainger Market). For the other stuff, there was a bus every 30 minutes to the nearby Aldi and Morrisons. The amount I saved more than covered the odd occasion when I couldn't be bothered with the bus and took a taxi back from the supermarket.

Same when I lived in Muswell Hill.

But when I lived in Hemel Hempstead it was a different story. There wasn't any sort of public transport to the retail park which included the big Tesco and the big multiplex cinema. My wife physically couldn't have got to her workplace by public transport. Although even then I was near the railway station and would walk to catch my train to London every morning.

 

[Krokodil]

Despite only covering around 4,000 miles per annum in my car, I simply couldn't live without it, without causing myself a huge amount of inconvenience and additional unnecessary cost. If you can live without one, fair enough. I couldn't.

But it wasn't about your lifestyle. You couldn't see how anyone could live their life without owning a car:

As for not owning a car, I often wonder how anyone without a car even lives their life?

The US is well worth a visit, plenty of excellent places to see over there. You might be best hiring a car though...

As it happens, I considered doing so. Plan is to get the California Zephyr to Grand Junction. From there I need to get to Durango. There's one bus per day. But that bus leaves before the train arrives (how familiar). So I thought that I'd have to pop to Enterprise (just because I don't own a car, doesn't mean that I can't hire one for the odd occasion when I actually need one). Then I happened to see Grand Junction mentioned somewhere and looked into the place a bit closely. Decided that rather than just using it as an interchange, it would actually be a nice place to spend a night or two (nice Main Street, some cycle trails, opportunities for photographing some Union Pacific freight etc.) before getting the bus the next morning. In Durango the main attraction is the trains of course, and if I fancy any whitewater rafting or whatever there are usually minibuses provided. From Durango it might be nice to go to Chama if the Cumbres and Toltec is running. But for that one journey it would be simpler to just book an Uber or whatever.

Believe it or not, I'm mad enough to try this. I don't really relish the idea of driving a car larger than I'm used to, on the wrong side of the road, with traffic signs and rules that I'm not familiar with (what maniac thought up the "four-way stop"?). Safer for everyone involved if any driving gets done by a local with some experience, whether they're a bus or an Uber driver.

I managed to get to and from Bosnia (and not a touristy part) without flying, in spite of there being no rail services across the internal or external borders. Had I just flown in I'd have missed a trip on a Fiat DMMU dating back to the 1970s.

 

[johncrossley]

Obviously it is possible to live without a car despite car travel being continually facilitated by a century long public and private investment in roads, vehicles and everything else to make driving feasible for the masses. A large proportion of the population don't own a car, and even if the household owns one it isn't always available to everybody. A lot of people are unable to drive even if they wanted to, because of their age or disability.

Mass air travel is a more recent phenomenon than mass car usage and a much smaller percentage of the population fly compared to those who drive. Most of the world's population never fly.

 

[RT4038]

Obviously it is possible to live without a car despite car travel being continually facilitated by a century long public and private investment in roads, vehicles and everything else to make driving feasible for the masses. A large proportion of the population don't own a car, and even if the household owns one it isn't always available to everybody. A lot of people are unable to drive even if they wanted to, because of their age or disability.

Mass air travel is a more recent phenomenon than mass car usage and a much smaller percentage of the population fly compared to those who drive. Most of the world's population never fly.

Most of the world's population never ride in trains either!

 

[12LDA28C]

Believe it or not, I'm mad enough to try this. I don't really relish the idea of driving a car larger than I'm used to, on the wrong side of the road, with traffic signs and rules that I'm not familiar with (what maniac thought up the "four-way stop"?). Safer for everyone involved if any driving gets done by a local with some experience, whether they're a bus or an Uber driver

I actually find driving in the US easier, more pleasant and far more relaxing than in the UK. As long as you stay off the Interstates and stick to the smaller highways, you can frequently drive for many miles without seeing another vehicle. And you get to see the small towns and the 'real America' which you would bypass completely if you used the Interstate.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Most of the world's population never fly.

Most of the world's population never ride in trains either!

So, there we have it. The OP's question has been answered.

We have also discovered that quite a few members are alert to the environmental downsides and seek to avoid flying nowadays in order to protect the planet.

How many 'mind-broadening' trips by plane are necessary before it finally sinks in that many of the places you are visiting are being harmed by scorching heatwaves, crop failures, unprecedented flooding, record hurricanes/storms/tornadoes, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, cultural destruction, local populations being priced out of their own towns/villages, corrupt and despotic regimes kept afloat by tourism, etc., etc.?

 

[12LDA28C]

How many 'mind-broadening' trips by plane are necessary before it finally sinks in that many of the places you are visiting are being harmed by scorching heatwaves, crop failures, unprecedented flooding, record hurricanes/storms/tornadoes, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, cultural destruction, local populations being priced out of their own towns/villages, corrupt and despotic regimes kept afloat by tourism, etc., etc.?

And all of those things are being caused by people taking commercial flights? Wow.

 

[takno]

How many 'mind-broadening' trips by plane are necessary before it finally sinks in that many of the places you are visiting are being harmed by scorching heatwaves, crop failures, unprecedented flooding, record hurricanes/storms/tornadoes, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, cultural destruction, local populations being priced out of their own towns/villages, corrupt and despotic regimes kept afloat by tourism, etc., etc.?

Given that most of my trips are to Scandinavia and Bristol I think I'm relatively safe thanks.

 

[Krokodil]

I actually find driving in the US easier, more pleasant and far more relaxing than in the UK.

Small wonder, their roads are wide and straight compared to the narrow country lanes near me. Even so, at some point you still end up trying to navigate in a strange city which is something I find stressful.

And you get to see the small towns and the 'real America' which you would bypass completely if you used the Interstate.

Believe it or not, Mesa County actually has a reasonable local bus network. Grand Valley Transit has 11 routes, each with an hourly service for around 16 hours a day. Nothing on Sundays though. Good enough to sample the local vineyards in Palisade, doing some activities, and for getting some Union Pacific shots. I know plenty of small towns in the UK with larger populations than Palisade with worse bus frequencies.

 

[Bantamzen]

So, there we have it. The OP's question has been answered.

We have also discovered that quite a few members are alert to the environmental downsides and seek to avoid flying nowadays in order to protect the planet.

How many 'mind-broadening' trips by plane are necessary before it finally sinks in that many of the places you are visiting are being harmed by scorching heatwaves, crop failures, unprecedented flooding, record hurricanes/storms/tornadoes, species extinction, loss of biodiversity, cultural destruction, local populations being priced out of their own towns/villages, corrupt and despotic regimes kept afloat by tourism, etc., etc.?

And all of those things are being caused by people taking commercial flights? Wow.

Yep people who fly are truly evil, planet hating maniacs, & people whose incomes rely on people flying are equally evil. And don't get me started on people who mix with other cultures on their travels. Don't they know that by sitting in a local restaurant eating local food and talking to local people is literally killing the planet, causing earthquakes, tsunamis & asteroid strikes. In fact I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs were wiped out because a family flew to Malaga for a two week holiday...

 

[RT4038]

Yep people who fly are truly evil, planet hating maniacs, & people whose incomes rely on people flying are equally evil. And don't get me started on people who mix with other cultures on their travels. Don't they know that by sitting in a local restaurant eating local food and talking to local people is literally killing the planet, causing earthquakes, tsunamis & asteroid strikes. In fact I'm pretty sure the dinosaurs were wiped out because a family flew to Malaga for a two week holiday...

A family of dinosaurs presumably? With that weight, the landing was so hard it moved the Earth off its axis and into an ice age....

 

[Bantamzen]

A family of dinosaurs presumably? With that weight, the landing was so hard it moved the Earth off its axis and into an ice age....

Nah just a standard Ryanair landing...

 

[DustyBin]

I only started flying regularly post-Covid. Prior to that point I didn't enjoy it, and as we only holidayed abroad every (say) three years it simply wasn't necessary. We now travel a lot and flying is the only feasible option, and I've also started taking domestic flights for business as I'm fed up with the state of the railways.