I am sure today's news of a helicopter crashing into a passenger aircraft over Washington DC will put more people off flying. RIP to those who lost their lives. (Eight days ago, the President of the United States fired 400 Federal Aviation Administration senior officials, the Transportation Security Administration head and 3,000 air traffic controllers, apparently. Perhaps that needs reviewing).
The thing about aviation and greenhouse gas emissions is that the total amount of GHG emissions is what is important. So, everything that can be done to reduce that should be; while, at the same time understanding that the demand for flights will continue to increase, unabated, unless there's another once-in-a-century issue like Covid. People are going to continue to fly. It's the cheapest, quickest, easiest, most efficient way to travel long distances in most cases.
Some countries and regions have a geopolitical advantage when it comes to alternative modes. When you can travel between two cities by train in 3.5 hours, train passengers represent 50% of the combined rail and aircraft passenger numbers. Typically if you can get there in less than 3.5 hours, trains take more than 50%; more than 3.5 hours, they take less than 50%. I would react to this by mandating that a heavy tax is applied to any flight route that can be taken in less than 3.5 hours by train. That way, we can shift people off aircraft - thereby reducing carbon emissions - on key routes like London-Paris; London-Brussels; Rome-Milan; Paris-Amsterdam; Paris-Brussels; Brussels-Amsterdam; Milan-Zurich; Barcelona-Lyon; Vienna-Munich; Cologne-Amsterdam. Shifting passengers from aircraft to trains on these routes would reduce air traffic in Europe by about 200 flights a day. Between 1.5 million and 2.4 million metric tonnes of CO2 would then be taken out of the total aviation carbon emissions.
Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers are all racing each other to develop more sustainable aviation fuels. (I'm working with one company who is managing the creation of a farm in Japan that grows algae in seawater. Totally sustainable. And the algae is turned into aviation fuel. It's not using up any farming land, it's as low-carbon as you could possibly imagine and, most importantly... it works!)
And aircraft manufacturers are competing with each other (with Boeing and Airbus at the forefront) to create ever-more fuel efficient (and therefore lower emission) aircraft.
We can't cut aviation emissions by hoping people will stop wanting to fly. But we can still do an awful lot by enabling those people who do travel to do so in ever-more responsible ways.
I am sure today's news of a helicopter crashing into a passenger aircraft over Washington DC will put more people off flying. RIP to those who lost their lives. (Eight days ago, the President of the United States fired 400 Federal Aviation Administration senior officials, the Transportation Security Administration head and 3,000 air traffic controllers, apparently. Perhaps that needs reviewing).
The thing about aviation and greenhouse gas emissions is that the total amount of GHG emissions is what is important. So, everything that can be done to reduce that should be; while, at the same time understanding that the demand for flights will continue to increase, unabated, unless there's another once-in-a-century issue like Covid. People are going to continue to fly. It's the cheapest, quickest, easiest, most efficient way to travel long distances in most cases.
Some countries and regions have a geopolitical advantage when it comes to alternative modes. When you can travel between two cities by train in 3.5 hours, train passengers represent 50% of the combined rail and aircraft passenger numbers. Typically if you can get there in less than 3.5 hours, trains take more than 50%; more than 3.5 hours, they take less than 50%. I would react to this by mandating that a heavy tax is applied to any flight route that can be taken in less than 3.5 hours by train. That way, we can shift people off aircraft - thereby reducing carbon emissions - on key routes like London-Paris; London-Brussels; Rome-Milan; Paris-Amsterdam; Paris-Brussels; Brussels-Amsterdam; Milan-Zurich; Barcelona-Lyon; Vienna-Munich; Cologne-Amsterdam. Shifting passengers from aircraft to trains on these routes would reduce air traffic in Europe by about 200 flights a day. Between 1.5 million and 2.4 million metric tonnes of CO2 would then be taken out of the total aviation carbon emissions.
Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers are all racing each other to develop more sustainable aviation fuels. (I'm working with one company who is managing the creation of a farm in Japan that grows algae in seawater. Totally sustainable. And the algae is turned into aviation fuel. It's not using up any farming land, it's as low-carbon as you could possibly imagine and, most importantly... it works!)
And aircraft manufacturers are competing with each other (with Boeing and Airbus at the forefront) to create ever-more fuel efficient (and therefore lower emission) aircraft.
We can't cut aviation emissions by hoping people will stop wanting to fly. But we can still do an awful lot by enabling those people who do travel to do so in ever-more responsible ways.
I think those claims on 3000 sacked is scaremongering. I can’t see any evidence of that from a credible source and would have been all over the news if true.
But I'm the one making it "Political" supposedly 🤣🤣
He's sacking people, but giving them the option to resign and 8 months pay FFS.
A tragic accident that appears to be down to human error/negligence, and nothing whatsoever to do with "The Climate Emergency".
Let's wait for the bodies to be recovered and more information to emerge, before we start blaming someone who has only been in the job for a week shall we!
I knew someone would blame Trump for that accident. Doesn't matter that we know the helicopter ignored air traffic control warnings. It's still Trumps fault.
I am sure today's news of a helicopter crashing into a passenger aircraft over Washington DC will put more people off flying. RIP to those who lost their lives. (Eight days ago, the President of the United States fired 400 Federal Aviation Administration senior officials, the Transportation Security Administration head and 3,000 air traffic controllers, apparently. Perhaps that needs reviewing).
The thing about aviation and greenhouse gas emissions is that the total amount of GHG emissions is what is important. So, everything that can be done to reduce that should be; while, at the same time understanding that the demand for flights will continue to increase, unabated, unless there's another once-in-a-century issue like Covid. People are going to continue to fly. It's the cheapest, quickest, easiest, most efficient way to travel long distances in most cases.
Some countries and regions have a geopolitical advantage when it comes to alternative modes. When you can travel between two cities by train in 3.5 hours, train passengers represent 50% of the combined rail and aircraft passenger numbers. Typically if you can get there in less than 3.5 hours, trains take more than 50%; more than 3.5 hours, they take less than 50%. I would react to this by mandating that a heavy tax is applied to any flight route that can be taken in less than 3.5 hours by train. That way, we can shift people off aircraft - thereby reducing carbon emissions - on key routes like London-Paris; London-Brussels; Rome-Milan; Paris-Amsterdam; Paris-Brussels; Brussels-Amsterdam; Milan-Zurich; Barcelona-Lyon; Vienna-Munich; Cologne-Amsterdam. Shifting passengers from aircraft to trains on these routes would reduce air traffic in Europe by about 200 flights a day. Between 1.5 million and 2.4 million metric tonnes of CO2 would then be taken out of the total aviation carbon emissions.
Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers are all racing each other to develop more sustainable aviation fuels. (I'm working with one company who is managing the creation of a farm in Japan that grows algae in seawater. Totally sustainable. And the algae is turned into aviation fuel. It's not using up any farming land, it's as low-carbon as you could possibly imagine and, most importantly... it works!)
And aircraft manufacturers are competing with each other (with Boeing and Airbus at the forefront) to create ever-more fuel efficient (and therefore lower emission) aircraft.
We can't cut aviation emissions by hoping people will stop wanting to fly. But we can still do an awful lot by enabling those people who do travel to do so in ever-more responsible ways.
I am sure today's news of a helicopter crashing into a passenger aircraft over Washington DC will put more people off flying. RIP to those who lost their lives. (Eight days ago, the President of the United States fired 400 Federal Aviation Administration senior officials, the Transportation Security Administration head and 3,000 air traffic controllers, apparently. Perhaps that needs reviewing).
The thing about aviation and greenhouse gas emissions is that the total amount of GHG emissions is what is important. So, everything that can be done to reduce that should be; while, at the same time understanding that the demand for flights will continue to increase, unabated, unless there's another once-in-a-century issue like Covid. People are going to continue to fly. It's the cheapest, quickest, easiest, most efficient way to travel long distances in most cases.
Some countries and regions have a geopolitical advantage when it comes to alternative modes. When you can travel between two cities by train in 3.5 hours, train passengers represent 50% of the combined rail and aircraft passenger numbers. Typically if you can get there in less than 3.5 hours, trains take more than 50%; more than 3.5 hours, they take less than 50%. I would react to this by mandating that a heavy tax is applied to any flight route that can be taken in less than 3.5 hours by train. That way, we can shift people off aircraft - thereby reducing carbon emissions - on key routes like London-Paris; London-Brussels; Rome-Milan; Paris-Amsterdam; Paris-Brussels; Brussels-Amsterdam; Milan-Zurich; Barcelona-Lyon; Vienna-Munich; Cologne-Amsterdam. Shifting passengers from aircraft to trains on these routes would reduce air traffic in Europe by about 200 flights a day. Between 1.5 million and 2.4 million metric tonnes of CO2 would then be taken out of the total aviation carbon emissions.
Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers are all racing each other to develop more sustainable aviation fuels. (I'm working with one company who is managing the creation of a farm in Japan that grows algae in seawater. Totally sustainable. And the algae is turned into aviation fuel. It's not using up any farming land, it's as low-carbon as you could possibly imagine and, most importantly... it works!)
And aircraft manufacturers are competing with each other (with Boeing and Airbus at the forefront) to create ever-more fuel efficient (and therefore lower emission) aircraft.
We can't cut aviation emissions by hoping people will stop wanting to fly. But we can still do an awful lot by enabling those people who do travel to do so in ever-more responsible ways.
I think those claims on 3000 sacked is scaremongering. I can’t see any evidence of that from a credible source and would have been all over the news if true.
So, who on this thread would be happy to switch from a flight to a train, if you could get there in 3.5 hours or less? I would.
One of the downside of Heathrow expansion will probably see regional airports such as Southend close as budget airlines would prefer to fly from Heathrow. There is an airport in Kent which is in mouthballs as no owner has been able to make it pay. The government should find a way to bring it back in use, but the problem is that the infrastructure is not there. The rail system into Heathrow even with the Elizabeth it is working near to capacity, there does not seem to be any mention of this, let's just build the runway and sort out the infrastructure afterwards as we did with the channel tunnel.
I am sure today's news of a helicopter crashing into a passenger aircraft over Washington DC will put more people off flying. RIP to those who lost their lives. (Eight days ago, the President of the United States fired 400 Federal Aviation Administration senior officials, the Transportation Security Administration head and 3,000 air traffic controllers, apparently. Perhaps that needs reviewing).
The thing about aviation and greenhouse gas emissions is that the total amount of GHG emissions is what is important. So, everything that can be done to reduce that should be; while, at the same time understanding that the demand for flights will continue to increase, unabated, unless there's another once-in-a-century issue like Covid. People are going to continue to fly. It's the cheapest, quickest, easiest, most efficient way to travel long distances in most cases.
Some countries and regions have a geopolitical advantage when it comes to alternative modes. When you can travel between two cities by train in 3.5 hours, train passengers represent 50% of the combined rail and aircraft passenger numbers. Typically if you can get there in less than 3.5 hours, trains take more than 50%; more than 3.5 hours, they take less than 50%. I would react to this by mandating that a heavy tax is applied to any flight route that can be taken in less than 3.5 hours by train. That way, we can shift people off aircraft - thereby reducing carbon emissions - on key routes like London-Paris; London-Brussels; Rome-Milan; Paris-Amsterdam; Paris-Brussels; Brussels-Amsterdam; Milan-Zurich; Barcelona-Lyon; Vienna-Munich; Cologne-Amsterdam. Shifting passengers from aircraft to trains on these routes would reduce air traffic in Europe by about 200 flights a day. Between 1.5 million and 2.4 million metric tonnes of CO2 would then be taken out of the total aviation carbon emissions.
Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers are all racing each other to develop more sustainable aviation fuels. (I'm working with one company who is managing the creation of a farm in Japan that grows algae in seawater. Totally sustainable. And the algae is turned into aviation fuel. It's not using up any farming land, it's as low-carbon as you could possibly imagine and, most importantly... it works!)
And aircraft manufacturers are competing with each other (with Boeing and Airbus at the forefront) to create ever-more fuel efficient (and therefore lower emission) aircraft.
We can't cut aviation emissions by hoping people will stop wanting to fly. But we can still do an awful lot by enabling those people who do travel to do so in ever-more responsible ways.
I am sure today's news of a helicopter crashing into a passenger aircraft over Washington DC will put more people off flying. RIP to those who lost their lives. (Eight days ago, the President of the United States fired 400 Federal Aviation Administration senior officials, the Transportation Security Administration head and 3,000 air traffic controllers, apparently. Perhaps that needs reviewing).
The thing about aviation and greenhouse gas emissions is that the total amount of GHG emissions is what is important. So, everything that can be done to reduce that should be; while, at the same time understanding that the demand for flights will continue to increase, unabated, unless there's another once-in-a-century issue like Covid. People are going to continue to fly. It's the cheapest, quickest, easiest, most efficient way to travel long distances in most cases.
Some countries and regions have a geopolitical advantage when it comes to alternative modes. When you can travel between two cities by train in 3.5 hours, train passengers represent 50% of the combined rail and aircraft passenger numbers. Typically if you can get there in less than 3.5 hours, trains take more than 50%; more than 3.5 hours, they take less than 50%. I would react to this by mandating that a heavy tax is applied to any flight route that can be taken in less than 3.5 hours by train. That way, we can shift people off aircraft - thereby reducing carbon emissions - on key routes like London-Paris; London-Brussels; Rome-Milan; Paris-Amsterdam; Paris-Brussels; Brussels-Amsterdam; Milan-Zurich; Barcelona-Lyon; Vienna-Munich; Cologne-Amsterdam. Shifting passengers from aircraft to trains on these routes would reduce air traffic in Europe by about 200 flights a day. Between 1.5 million and 2.4 million metric tonnes of CO2 would then be taken out of the total aviation carbon emissions.
Airlines, airports and aircraft manufacturers are all racing each other to develop more sustainable aviation fuels. (I'm working with one company who is managing the creation of a farm in Japan that grows algae in seawater. Totally sustainable. And the algae is turned into aviation fuel. It's not using up any farming land, it's as low-carbon as you could possibly imagine and, most importantly... it works!)
And aircraft manufacturers are competing with each other (with Boeing and Airbus at the forefront) to create ever-more fuel efficient (and therefore lower emission) aircraft.
We can't cut aviation emissions by hoping people will stop wanting to fly. But we can still do an awful lot by enabling those people who do travel to do so in ever-more responsible ways.
I think those claims on 3000 sacked is scaremongering. I can’t see any evidence of that from a credible source and would have been all over the news if true.
So, who on this thread would be happy to switch from a flight to a train, if you could get there in 3.5 hours or less? I would.
The point is you have chosen to post something that is not true / relevant in a ‘political’ way.
There are cases in the press that it ois cheaper to fly to Spain and get a return flight back to the UK than go by train. One case a couple who lived in Cornwall wanted to pick up a new car they had purchased in Crewe . t was cheaper to fly to Malaga and then get a flight back to Manchester than going by train. The journey was only 2hours longer than the rail journey. An exterm case but all the same.
One of the downside of Heathrow expansion will probably see regional airports such as Southend close as budget airlines would prefer to fly from Heathrow. There is an airport in Kent which is in mouthballs as no owner has been able to make it pay. The government should find a way to bring it back in use, but the problem is that the infrastructure is not there. The rail system into Heathrow even with the Elizabeth it is working near to capacity, there does not seem to be any mention of this, let's just build the runway and sort out the infrastructure afterwards as we did with the channel tunnel.
Low cost airlines fly to airports miles from the destination and will continue to do so. London Luton and London Stansted should be investigated by advertising standards! No chance they'll start to fly from Heathrow.
It used to fly via Shannon to refuel as it was unable to take of from City with a full fuel load, the return flight was direct, as the fuel load was low enough to land safely. It never restarted after Covid.
People paying concord money prefer to travel in comfort than supersonic. Probably cheaper to fly to New York now in Business than concord in the 70s and that's not taking inflation into account.
People paying concord money prefer to travel in comfort than supersonic. Probably cheaper to fly to New York now in Business than concord in the 70s and that's not taking inflation into account.
Guess it depends what the reason for travel is. If it’s business, supersonic is preferable. Anyway, having a glass of most whilst travelling at 1300mph ain’t exactly slumming it!
Is all business travel really necessary or is it an excuse for a trip at the company's expense. With video conferencing we are all much better connected and face to face discussions may not be necessary
I knew someone would blame Trump for that accident. Doesn't matter that we know the helicopter ignored air traffic control warnings. It's still Trumps fault.
We still don't know the cause of the accident and I am typing this several hours after you stated this
Is all business travel really necessary or is it an excuse for a trip at the company's expense. With video conferencing we are all much better connected and face to face discussions may not be necessary
Lots of business travel is very necessary.
Site visits Property inspections Repairs and maintenance Teaching Air crew Marine maintenance Contact farming Sales conferences Exhibitions Political rallies Construction Movie location shoots Geographical mapping Postal services Sourcing products and materials Arranging import deals Arranging export deals Medical services and supplies Humanitarian aid PR events Fishing Surveys Mining
and many, many more
Including sport. Because football games are always much more fun when the opposition turns up.
Is all business travel really necessary or is it an excuse for a trip at the company's expense. With video conferencing we are all much better connected and face to face discussions may not be necessary
Do we really need to travel to watch a game of football, when it's on the tele?
I knew someone would blame Trump for that accident. Doesn't matter that we know the helicopter ignored air traffic control warnings. It's still Trumps fault.
We still don't know the cause of the accident and I am typing this several hours after you stated this
Diversity hiring policy apparently according to Trump
I knew someone would blame Trump for that accident. Doesn't matter that we know the helicopter ignored air traffic control warnings. It's still Trumps fault.
We still don't know the cause of the accident and I am typing this several hours after you stated this
Diversity hiring policy apparently according to Trump
Is all business travel really necessary or is it an excuse for a trip at the company's expense. With video conferencing we are all much better connected and face to face discussions may not be necessary
Lots of business travel is very necessary.
Site visits Property inspections Repairs and maintenance Teaching Air crew Marine maintenance Contact farming Sales conferences Exhibitions Political rallies Construction Movie location shoots Geographical mapping Postal services Sourcing products and materials Arranging import deals Arranging export deals Medical services and supplies Humanitarian aid PR events Fishing Surveys Mining
and many, many more
Including sport. Because football games are always much more fun when the opposition turns up.
I did question if ALL business travel was necessary, of course some will be, but if it is just talking, that can be done via a screen.
We had been discussing air travel, can't see what fishing had to do with that.
Don’t know about others that work internationally, but I certainly travel far less post covid. A lot of that is customer driven. It can’t disappear completely though, international projects need face to face contact or they go wrong.
I imagine if you asked, a fair majority of those who have to travel for work have faced the ‘work jolly/holiday’ jibe throughout their career. It’s only what it looks like from the outside (in most cases).
Is all business travel really necessary or is it an excuse for a trip at the company's expense. With video conferencing we are all much better connected and face to face discussions may not be necessary
Lots of business travel is very necessary.
Site visits Property inspections Repairs and maintenance Teaching Air crew Marine maintenance Contact farming Sales conferences Exhibitions Political rallies Construction Movie location shoots Geographical mapping Postal services Sourcing products and materials Arranging import deals Arranging export deals Medical services and supplies Humanitarian aid PR events Fishing Surveys Mining
and many, many more
Including sport. Because football games are always much more fun when the opposition turns up.
I did question if ALL business travel was necessary, of course some will be, but if it is just talking, that can be done via a screen.
We had been discussing air travel, can't see what fishing had to do with that.
We are in a crisis and every small change helps.
OK, you have picked out one from the list. I can assure you that the fishing industry requires the movement of crew, goods, cargo, vessel inspection and maintenance, fisheries management, supplier equipment procurement and training, fisheries research, crew hiring, emergency response and crisis management.
Business travel in the fishing sector is an estimated 500,000 flights a year.
Comments
He's sacking people, but giving them the option to resign and 8 months pay FFS.
A tragic accident that appears to be down to human error/negligence, and nothing whatsoever to do with "The Climate Emergency".
Let's wait for the bodies to be recovered and more information to emerge, before we start blaming someone who has only been in the job for a week shall we!
And this is coming from a guy who is terrified of flying.
City are applying for an A320 license!
I remember seeing Concorde flying over London when I was younger but didn't really appreciate it. I wish it was still flying now.
Site visits
Property inspections
Repairs and maintenance
Teaching
Air crew
Marine maintenance
Contact farming
Sales conferences
Exhibitions
Political rallies
Construction
Movie location shoots
Geographical mapping
Postal services
Sourcing products and materials
Arranging import deals
Arranging export deals
Medical services and supplies
Humanitarian aid
PR events
Fishing
Surveys
Mining
and many, many more
Including sport. Because football games are always much more fun when the opposition turns up.
We had been discussing air travel, can't see what fishing had to do with that.
We are in a crisis and every small change helps.
Business travel in the fishing sector is an estimated 500,000 flights a year.