UKH

Just listening to the radio where Jeremy Vine (sorry) was discussing the troubles BA is in and the possibility that flights will be vastly reduced for the foreseeable. 

Not only will we be restricted until our 'lock down' officially ends but customers will be charged higher prices as airlines (possibly) seek to recoup losses recently endured but there are possibilities of reduced seating availability as we seek to minimise more flare ups.  There will be reduced foreign holidays as people cant or wont want to be in isolation when they return.  

Business/first class seating will be in shorter demand due to companies realising travel could be reduced now that video comms are proving viable.

The upshot will be in some way costs will increase and JV posed the question whether flights will become available only for the rich.

When did holidays, in particular flights, become so expected?  I didnt have a foreign holiday until I was in my 20s as my parents couldnt afford it, with my childhood holidays being spent in local camp sites or in Norfolk in our old caravan.  His question somehow suggested that this would be unfair and that cheap flights are a right.  I'd like to eat in a 2 star restaurant every day, but guess what.........

One big concern for us all if this extends in to next year our coastal places or beauty spots will be overcome by those who like their cheap Spanish/Greek hols, sunning all day and getting ratted and obnoxious.  I think my 20/21 hols will be at home.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

every time someone calls me of the generation that ruined the environment by HAVING EVERYTHING I tell them that i didn't fly in a fixed wing aircraft * till I was over 30 and didn't start to drive with a full licence until I was in my 30s.  To my mind it is later generations who wanted everything NOW whether they could afford it or not.

(And I didn't avoid flying fixed wing or driving because I had access to a private helicopter either just in case someone thought of weasel words!!!)

When I was a student I had to wear lots of sets of clothes in Langdale in February as I couldn't afford a sleeping bag and I didn't get my first pair of proper walking boots till I was 26 - old army boots till then.

if flying is less accessible then so be it - we needed a reality check (The Human Race, Western Style)

And lets trade with our close neighbours

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

 

The boom in “short hop fly abroad” holidays began in the mid 1960s when charter flights started operating widely.

Having said that, my recollection (possibly inaccurate) of schooldays in the 1980s, growing up in a relatively poor part of the country (Teesside) was that if a summer holiday had involved a flight to Spain or Portugal, it gave the kid some minor bragging rights. 
My mother is from South East Asia so we were outliers in many ways; I flew there as a 2 year old and as a 7 year old on extended family holidays but we had no hotel costs out there as we stayed with various family members. In fact none of my childhood holidays involved a hotel; the first time I stayed in a hotel was when I was about 17 and even that was via a deal with vouchers from Echo margarine which my baking-addicted grandmother had hundreds of. All our holidays involved visiting family friends.

Thinking about it now as I write, I think I used aeroplanes in 1977, 1983, 1989, 1992 and then not again until 1999! 

In reply to wercat:

Yep, flying has got WAY out of control but there is zero political will to tackle it.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Well, I for one am bitterly missing having 2 weeks to look forward to, relaxing somewhere scenic with sun, sea and decent food. You can keep your Michelin starred restaurants, but for me contemplating an impending family holiday with guaranteed fun in the sun, has always represented a considerable boost when real life starts feeling a little bit too much like a Ken Loach film.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

One thing I wonder about business class (and First Class on trains) is that the classic airlines and the railways shout that they need it because it contributes far more than economy/Standard.

Yet low-cost airlines are highly profitable (or were, at least) without bothering with it at all nor showing any sign that they'd want to.

What gives I wonder?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

The airline industry will die unless they descarbonise in the near future regardless of covid19, better to bail out rail on condition they eliminate diesels. 

In reply to Stichtplate:

Maybe so, and I dare say that after these next few months you will certainly have earned it.  I wonder though, do you feel it a right that you should be able to buy it for £50 each way.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You're right, anything that I value so highly and also has an impact on everyone else should come with a commensurate price tag.

In reply to wercat:

OK so you started flying and driving when you were 30...how old are you now?

I'm 32 now and have had 14 years of adult life with flying and driving. 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Flights won't get more expensive. Even if all the airlines go bust the planes will still be there. Someone will buy them up and start running the business again. As will may others and competition will keep prices low. 

In reply to Siward:

Correct. Let's hope there's some political will and ability to address the consequences of pandemic-economics tackling our airline addiction for us.

jk

In reply to Neil Williams:

Shorter routes. Commuter and low cost Euro-holiday airlines don't need comfy bed-seats for the well off, they either travel to different destinations, with different providers or are willing to slum it sat with the great unwashed for a couple of hours. They're not willing to sit for 10+ hours if they can pay to sip fizz then sleep it off. That they're willing to pay quite so much for so little extra is always astonishing to me but it says more about our (my) ignorance of others' lives than anything else.

jk

In reply to summo:

How do aircraft realistically decarbonise ? far better IMO would be to try to broker international agreement to tax aviation fuel properly.

In reply to jkarran:

I'm not addicted to airlines. I just absolutely love going on climbing trips. I'd happily pay more; I think I should. I'm thinking of the money I am saving in lockdown as a fund for future pricier trips. 

In reply to summo:

The airline industry is dead, we just haven't accepted it yet. If they can preserve the assets and skills in usable condition and straight-forward enough ownership it may re-animate quite quickly in time.

jk

In reply to Stichtplate:

Apart from the temptation to fly more often because of the cheap price of the tickets I don't understand why your £50 each way ticket is worse on the environment(if that's what you meant by impact) than a ticket costing 5 times as much .

In reply to jkarran:

I imagine it is either that somebody else is paying or else that they are wealthy enough that it doesn't seem expensive.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I know my very working class grandparents were flying in the 60s, they were in there 50s by this time and it was probably the first time in their lives that they had a few quid spare for that kind of luxury. Very cheap compared to a decade earlier, but still expensive compared to comparable holidays now.

When I was in junior school, I remember feeling like I was in a minority, not going on a foreign holiday every year, we went to Portugal in 1981 and 1984 (some friends of my parents owned a villa), France in 1985 (by car), Majorca in 1987, USA and Canada in 1989 (visiting friends and family) and Costa Brava in 1991 (by coach). I was 16 in 1991 and that was the last family holiday that I went on. I don't think I boarded another plane (with the exception of with a parachute on) until I was 26.

Got to admit that the last decade I have been taking short European trips more often and had two planned for this year, but I have used transport other than planes a fair amount. 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I’m all for building some artifical coastlines in old quarries with big acrylic domes over them and artificial beaches designed to be hosed down each night.  Sort of like Centre Parks goes to Ibiza.  I’d put a big red button outside labelled “Quench” or “in case of emergency” as well.  

In reply to Tom Valentine:

You may as well say petrol at 20p per litre would have zero impact on number of car journeys. It’s obvious isn’t it?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

As a single journey, the cost to the environment is the same.  Its the encouragement of multiple journeys for the lower fare which is the damaging element plus the encouragement of people who wouldnt normally be able to fly at the higher cost to do so therefore adding more planes, routes and runways to the system.

In reply to GrahamD:

Bio-fuel or effective offsetting are the only credible existing industrial scale options. Neither is without issues.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

I've flown business class once (on the company).  The ticket, which was booked relatively last minute, cost about £10K return from Heathrow to KL.  Economy would probably at that stage have been about £2K.  I'd have far rather had an Economy flight and a day off at each end to recover, much cheaper!

It was good, but it wasn't 8 grand good!

I suppose I've just answered my question - the markup is much steeper than Standard->First on the train which is typically no more than twice as much, and at leisure times the step is often far less than that.  In mainland Europe it's usually 1.5x as a standard but typically without the freebies you get here.

In reply to jkarran:

Hybrid airships and luxury cabin Atlantic cruises.  It’s been on the cusp of reality for decades... 

Hypersonic hydrogen aircraft - the newly americanicised Reaction Engines is scaring up.  

Both are niche/speculative and still need a green source of energy.  Less flying just has to be such a large part of the solution.

Battery/electric for takeoff with an emergency reserve and microwave beamed power from floating reactors every few hundred miles across the Atlantic.  Totally sensible.

SpaceX are aiming for earth to earth services with their methane lox rockets, seating capacity 100, anywhere on the planet in under an hour.  Plenty of green ways to make methane!  Just imagine the possibility for day trippers to the lakes, with a floating rocket pad in Windermere.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I'm not sure the cost to the environment is the same. I've seen figures which claim that on long haul flights, emissions per passenger are three times higher than economy in business class and four times higher in first class, something to do with space used in the cabin.

Edit: those are fairly conservative: some rate the carbon footprint of first class over economy class as being 9:1

In reply to GrahamD:

They could invest in carbon capture? Hydrogen research... ?

An international fuel agreement won't happen because of the USA. 

In reply to Tom Valentine:

Hello Tom, I had somewhat misunderstood your comment, I think.  I was thinking more about the class and journey being the same with a difference ticket cost rather than different class of ticket, or indeed different journey.

In reply to jkarran:

Asking is no doubt a fool's errand but I don't suppose the disliker could explain what I've missed or misunderstood?

jk

In reply to 

I am imagining. Of course, there is the view that human hypermobility (generally by the rich) is a canker eating away at society. Tourism has become the problem, not a solution.

Do I share that view? I don't know, but I certainly have some sympathy with it..

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Yes I get that,  my comparison wasn't like for like.  I suppose I'm just looking for reasons for budget flights to continue; up until the advent of Ryanair I think I'd only ever flown twice and over the past twenty years I've benefited from  their service greatly. 

In reply to La benya:

I flew probably on average once a year from 1989- 1999 and probably  an average once every 3 or 4 years after that.  Haven't flown since 2015.  No long haul - one flight to Cyprus and one to Morocco all else shortish to W Europe and some was propeller

No one says you won't fly again.  I suspect I might not even if I want to as it will be too expensive.

Hopefully electric planes dirigible airships or airship hybrids will allow lower energy travel in future but those will be built on the work of preceding generations too - these technologies and their inspiration don't just jump out of thin air

In reply to wintertree:

Variable buoyancy airship (or submarine fro that matter) gliders do look pretty cool. Slow though.

I'm sceptical of the commercial aviation value but the technology is cool.

I can see battery electric getting viable in niches even with near-future tech. I'd love a Silent 2 Electro if I won the lottery!

Again colour me sceptical on: noise, cost, comfort and safety grounds but we'll see! It's a ride I'd not pass up if I were offered a seat assuming a tolerable safety record.

jk

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

When de-regulation and low-cost carriers introduced market forces that allowed for cheap travel?

One could similarly ask the question, when did everyone expect a flat of their own, a microwave oven, a car, readily accessible pharmaceuticals, water on tap?  Environmental destruction is not the fault of holiday-makers.  It's the fault of anyone living a modern, developed, way of life. 

The average person's environmental footprint, even without holidays, is several times higher than is sustainable.  So you can't give yourself a pat on the back for not having a flight.

In reply to Pan Ron:

Im not sure I agree with this.

Flat (home) is pretty much essential

Microwave isnt essential

Car essential-ish for some

Pharma essential-ish for some

Water ontap pretty essential

I guess I was musing on the essential nature of holiday travel by flight as a completely luxurious, totally non essential activity, now available at such a low cost whereby one could holiday in southern Spain for less money than in (citation needed) most places in the UK, with guaranteed sunshine.  Moreover the argument that one should have a right to holiday air travel and that a reduction in such air capacity will push up costs whereby it would become wholly unaffordable by the average Joe.   

In reply to jkarran:

Anywhere on the planet in under an hour means travelling considerably faster than Alan Shepard did in Friendship 7. Make sure you have a wee before you go.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

When both parents in families started working full-time and holidays became more precious.  Same as drinking wine at home after a 'hard day'.  People are so stressed out they feel they 'have' to 'unwind'.  They don't spend much time with their kids in termtime so feel they 'have' to treat them to a 'quality time' holiday.  Same goes for 2nd and 3rd holidays each year.  When I was a kid we had our 2 weeks in a gite in France, or the same with our grandparents in the UK, and that was more than many of my classmates. Now for many families it's 2 weeks in the USA at Disney or somewhere hot, plus a week skiing or 'winter sun' or Centreparcs, all in hotels.  Families with one migrant parent are more common too, so there's the trips away to see that side of the family.

In reply to GrahamD:

For short-haul, there is a lot of serious work on all-electric aircraft, to be available in a fairly short time scale. 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/27/easyjet-electric-planes-wr...

https://www.thenational.ae/business/aviation/engine-maker-rolls-royce-joins...

https://weflywright.com

Higher fuel prices would certainly help this along (and reduce demand for fossil fuel powered flight) but I think the change is coming even under the current price regime. High speed rail and avoiding some business travel by more use of video conferencing could reduce demand too, which would be a good thing in my view.

Long haul is a lot harder but that is only a minority of flights. Hybrid power systems, more efficient engines and either sustainable (made using atmospheric carbon) or non-carbon fuels.

In reply to wercat:

My point was that your generation *has* had it all, especially when it comes to cheap energy and all it comes with. To say that my generation has had it all right now is true too, but we've had it now, for alot shorter time than you've had it, even having to wait 30 years before it kicked in! 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

2 star Michelin, or hygiene rating  

In reply to Dave B:

The tyre-based one...

In reply to wintertree:

Are you on some kind of retainer?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

I guess you didn’t spot that I was being more than a bit flippant - landing pad in Windermere for crying out loud!

For what it’s worth, I can’t see earth to earth rocketry demonstrating enough of a safety record to attract sane customers or insurance for a long long time.  That’s where Reaction Engines are a much safer bet.  

In reply to Siward:

Watching (on flight radar) a few long range private jets headed from all over into New Zealand before their lockdown, there’s certainly some very mobile people out there.  I can’t find a view on the social effects of the gigarich but I think the current level of aviation is so far from sustainable - partly because it’s not just for the rich any more.  I haven’t flown since 2013 and on the whole I don’t feel poorer for it, although I do find my mind drifting to woodland hikes in California and Oregon surprisingly often.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

A c'mon. Butlins/Pontins/Blackpool still just about exist. Might bring them back from the brink ;p;p;p

In reply to La benya:

undoubtedly some people have "had it all" - meeting people after a long drive up to the Highlands who've taken the "Fly Drive" route up from London always worried me about the environment and there are some people from my generation who I know have done that but that sort of level of consumption is never one that I ever aspired to or could even think of affording.  I didn't even put a ski on till I was 30 but for a few decades it seems that expensive school ski trips are a rite (or perhaps right) of passage for teenagers.  I did have a chance to go on one to Aviemore with the cadets but knowing nothing of skiing or the outdoors except for mapreading etc  at that age I didn't go.

You did without until you could afford to buy things.  Trying to get started during Thatcher's early years left a long gap before anything like a safe job allowed me to afford a car, and it was necessary to "get on the bike" up to the Highlands", down to London or Wallsend, up to Sheffield and all over the damn place as firms went bust.  Being insecure was habitual

some had it safe and good but a lot didn't and it isn't safe to generalise about generations without doing a great deal of injustice which was my original point

In reply to Pan Ron:

Plenty of us get by without a microwave.  As for water on tap, I live not so far from the remains of the oldest known gravity arch dam in the world, used to supply the local Roman garrison over 2,000 years ago.  Modern on-tap water potable water is a tiny part of a household’s energy budget. 

Holidaymakers and greed have trashed some places through exhaustion of water resources mind.  It’s basically trashed Tenerife for example.

In reply to La benya:

They'll get more expensive if social distancing rules mean they need to reconfigure cabins with fewer seats.

Otherwise, I agree that in a competitive market with over capacity and customers with less money to spend prices will come down.  

Plane manufacturers are going to be screwed unless the state keeps them going to preserve the skills base.

If intercontinental flights become dramatically less convenient or more expensive as a result of Covid it is another reason to rethink Brexit.   The whole concept of replacing trade with Europe with trade with distant developing and Commonwealth concept depends on cheap and convenient transport for both people and goods.

In reply to wintertree:

This has to happen!!  The world needs to slow down, and these HAV's offer the ideal solution to travel in comfort and at a slower pace. Imagine slowly gliding over the Dolomites on your way to south Italy in your comfortable and quiet cabin without the guilt of excessive carbon emissions and the fear of crashing. 

In reply to peppermill:

Best make sure you book early then

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

less passengers means an incentive to make air freight more accessible.  cost incentives for customers meaning trans Atlantic trade could end up being cheaper.... its possible.

In reply to La benya:

You don't air-freight stuff do you? I export all over the world and the lack of passenger transport at the moment means air rates have tripled at least if it can go at all, the number of countries that it's unavailable is staggering. A huge amount that goes by air is in passenger aircraft, on a transatlantic flight there's probably 30 tons under your seat.

In reply to wercat:

would the effing dislikers for my 20:33 of yesterday stand up and actually say what you mean!  If you think I'm winging about my lot I am not but I am complaining about having had it "all".  The one time I had a long term job with security and a pension it ended by having the final salary option taken away after I'd worked 8 out of 10 qualifying years and then Austerity ended that job and my career.

If that is having it all, come on, stand by your effing dislikes and explain your cowardly selves

I've lived frugally by modern standards for a lot of my adult life apart from mountaineering trips.  this is a 13 year old laptop and I do not have nor can I afford to run a smartphone - no point in living beyond your means which is certainly part of my late 50s generation's indoctrination

In reply to jimtitt:

Interesting.  My point was more regarding structural changes that might be forced in the future.  The planes will still exist, so will the airports and the debt that bought them.  If passenger travel is uneconomical because of enforced person limits, then it may make sense that that 30 tons under my seat becomes 100 tons throughout the plane and the cost per kg decreases. 

I guess it comes down to what is subsidising what- cargo or passengers.

In reply to La benya:

Passengers, send something by pure air freight costs the double. Send a parcel from Germany by standard DHL and it used to go in a passenger aircraft, sent by DHL Express it goes in one of their freighters from Leipzig and costs twice as much.