Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

Has the UK passed peak aviation ?

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Has the UK passed peak aviation ?

Old 19th Apr 2021, 22:20
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 4,440
Has the UK passed peak aviation ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56807520

Reading this, it sounds like seriously bad news for the aviation industry. It seems highly unlikely that air travel will recover completely from Covid to 2019 levels of traffic in the next 18 months - by which time Govt policies will start to take effect against aviation in the UK

I'm beginning to think that the UK has now passed the peak level of air travel, and will now be entering a long decline - a bit like the tobacco industry from the 1950s after Governments around the world finally realised that smoking caused disease. You can of course argue that the environmental stuff is completely rubbish - but if laws get passed which increase CO2-related taxes, individuals and companies will end up changing how they spend money on travel/transport. Many argued that smoking was a liberty that harmed nobody and was thus the right of the smoker to choose... but Govt still made life steadily more difficult for cigarette manufacturers

I'm not saying by any means that it'll disappear overnight - just that it's going to be a case of steadily decreasing numbers of RPKs over the next 15+ years
davidjohnson6 is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2021, 22:23
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 719
I’m surprised you felt you even needed to ask the question.

I’ve been saying this for nearly a year now. It’s absolutely 100% obviously yes. 2019 will be seen as the peak of mass air travel.
4468 is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 00:08
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,098
Yes, because cutting aviation will reduce CO2 emissions by.... er, not very much at all.
Glad to see shipping is finally getting looked at.
TURIN is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 00:12
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dorset UK
Age: 67
Posts: 1,315
I would think Heathrow's third runway is not needed now, but I'll bet they keep pushing for it. The construction industry wants it.
dixi188 is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 00:53
  #5 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 22
Nonsense!

As long as we've got Avro and Handley Page and DeHaviland and Short and Percival and Bristol and Miles and Sopwith and the R100 and R101 and Vickers and Supermarine and Hawker and English Electric and Scottish Aviation and Gloster and Concorde etc we'll be ok


and you forgot the customary aviation warning
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 00:59
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Middlesesx
Posts: 2,071
Its reflected in the lack of posts on here. New start ups and speculation on new routes involves merely promotes lower costing, trying to operate on saturated routes there seems to be few if any new ideas?
HZ123 is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 07:26
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,186
Originally Posted by TURIN View Post
Yes, because cutting aviation will reduce CO2 emissions by.... er, not very much at all.
Glad to see shipping is finally getting looked at.
Indeed, but as a well know behemoth retailer keeps telling us, "Every little helps"!

Of course your right, shipping is the real villain of the piece here, not just cargo, but actually the floating tower blocks masquerading as luxury cruise ships should be at the top of the "villainy" list. First they are frivolous, they aren't carrying raw materials or finished goods, or food stuffs, they are carry people who are on board purely for leisure, and to service the thousands on board the ships continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere at a phenomenal rate even when in port to keep the kitchen running, and the public areas and guest rooms airconditioned.

The aviation industry could usefully employ a strategy of fingering the burgeoning cruise industry as a way of protecting itself, and keeping people in work in the industry.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 07:29
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 3,371
Hey. leave the cruise industry alone! Well, at least until we have had our 2 cruises next year...
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 07:35
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,186
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie View Post
Hey. leave the cruise industry alone! Well, at least until we have had our 2 cruises next year...
That, in a nutshell, is the problem that all governments have with curbing emissions and climate change.. Everyone agrees with the objectives until they impinge on something they particularly want to do!! That is very much the same as has happened latterly with Covid lockdowns, people say they support them, but if they want to do something that bends the rules they believe it's OK for them.

Ascend Charlie; please be sure I'm not "having a go" at you, we've all taken exactly the same line over a myriad things we know we ought to support, but inconvenience us.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 09:46
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: uk
Age: 64
Posts: 67
Well, the pump attendant at Beccles airfield yesterday morning was pretty busy!!!... A real hive. Hangars being restaured, dinners busy, ATC swearing (not on airwaves) about gyrocopters parking too close to pump!... 172 speeding down 09 like a rocket towards the fence... Gorgeous gleaming red Tiger Moth bouncing on the new tarmac showing off... parachutists having a ball and kerosene filling the pretty still air... Spring was definitely in the air... Not a gloomy face in sight...
alicopter is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 09:52
  #11 (permalink)  
Gnome de PPRuNe
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Age: 57
Posts: 8,348
So many people seem to have gone from having one two week holiday on the Costa Notalota a year, to having two or even three foreign breaks, plus skiing and even the odd weekend in Paris/Rome/Tbilisi as the fancy takes them... My old boss would go to Spain for a week over Easter and again in August with his wife and son, have a few days out there with his mum in May, and another week in September with a few golfing mates around his birthday. It's become an expectation... I never really understand how the average person can afford so much, particularly with kids, mortgages, cars, et al to fund... Some of the youngsters at my company were flying somewhere abroad nearly every month - moaning that they couldn't afford to save a deposit though.
treadigraph is online now  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 10:35
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: moraira,spain-Norfolk, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 372
If true, there are 314 cruise liners and 5222 container ships. Maybe fewer cruise liners
due to covid. Which source of pollution to deal with first ?
esa-aardvark is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 10:58
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No longer in Jurassic Park eating Toblerone....
Posts: 2,662
In 2019 global aviation produced approximately 2.8% of global CO2 emissions and maritime transport (not cruise ships) produced "between 2-3%".

In 2017 the top three producers of CO2 were China with 29.3%, the USA 13.8% and India produced 6.6%' ie a total of 49.7% of the global CO2 production.

My point in this is that for either aviation or shipping to reduce their emissions by 1% of the global total means reducing either industry by 1/3 given current technology. No disproportionate global impact on the average punter who wants to go on holiday, order goods from overseas there then.
LowNSlow is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 11:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,098
I'm not saying ban cruises, nor am I saying we should stop cargo ships. That would be madness, we need to trade and transport goods. However, they are notoriously filthy. They need a 'Green checkup', Solar and wind power is being looked at again, more efficient engines running on lighter grade fuels would help. Shipping only needs to cut it's emissions by a quarter to off set the entire aviation industries CO2 emissions (due to flying).

This gives you an idea of the state of play in Europe last year (pre-covid). Ryanair were the only airline in the top ten.
https://www.offshore-energy.biz/msc-...nments-report/
TURIN is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 12:22
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under a gooseberry bush
Posts: 61
It’s all very well the Greenies shouting about aviation but as with all their policies, they alway expect someone else to pay. Tax, tax and tax - but where is the evidence that the additional revenue raised is being redirected into genuine ecological needs? Most of us are all for change until they realise it will directly affect their own lifestyle and the cost implications.

They also never give any thought to the desperately poor countries whose major, and sometimes only, source of income is tourism. Deter travel to these places and you create a whole new problem with the hit their economies will take.
BWSBoy6 is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 12:53
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,186
Originally Posted by BWSBoy6 View Post
Itís all very well the Greenies shouting about aviation but as with all their policies, they alway expect someone else to pay. Tax, tax and tax - but where is the evidence that the additional revenue raised is being redirected into genuine ecological needs? Most of us are all for change until they realise it will directly affect their own lifestyle and the cost implications.

They also never give any thought to the desperately poor countries whose major, and sometimes only, source of income is tourism. Deter travel to these places and you create a whole new problem with the hit their economies will take.
Our generation (those of us alive now that is) have two choices. First selfishly carry on as we have been doing for the last 50 years, conspicuous consumption, ever increasing prosperity and the increased emissions that comes from increased mobility, mostly for leisure, and driving increasingly environmentally unfriendly large personal vehicles that are totally unnecessary for most of us living in western towns and cities. We can carry on like this on the basis that 3 or 4 generations down the line the planet may well have become very much less habitable be we'll be alright because we're long gone.

Option 2 is to recognise, as most people have, that we are ourselves in our actions and out lifestyles damaging the planet both in terms of the climate and our seemingly insatiable appetite for minerals and metals that once they are gone, are gone. Having realised that everything we have done since the industrial revolution has contributed to the problem, we take the bull by the horns and attempt to arrest the damage that is being done to what is the only planet we are every likely to be able to live on so that, perhaps, future generations may not be left with quite such a dire situation, notwithstanding the damage that has already been done, and may be irreversible.

Which do we choose, are we selfishly going to screw up the planet, or make changes to the ways in which we live our lives which, combined with using our ingenuity through science and technology that might just result in things being somewhat less dire for future generations? Personally I'd prefer the latter, but sure as heck I'm not going to make the changes that I have to make to my lifestyle without being nudged, shoved and oft times compelled to do so. It's far too easy to carry on as I am and to hell with the future.
ATNotts is online now  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 13:31
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 3,098
Originally Posted by BWSBoy6 View Post
Itís all very well the Greenies shouting about aviation but as with all their policies, they alway expect someone else to pay. Tax, tax and tax - but where is the evidence that the additional revenue raised is being redirected into genuine ecological needs? Most of us are all for change until they realise it will directly affect their own lifestyle and the cost implications.

They also never give any thought to the desperately poor countries whose major, and sometimes only, source of income is tourism. Deter travel to these places and you create a whole new problem with the hit their economies will take.
Actually us greenies are forever harping on about invest, invest, invest in sustainable green energy and lifestyles. It is government that are using tax as a deterrent because that's the easy answer.
TURIN is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 13:56
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Under a gooseberry bush
Posts: 61
Iím afraid I think thereís a whole industry built on Ďgreení issues.

I quite agree. We should not be screwing up the planet we live on and we definitely have a duty of care to future generations, but itís all lip service.
Mining for lithium for batteries for so called cleaner vehicles is even more detrimental to the environment that were supposed to be saving. Weíve crippled our high streets, where we should be shopping locally, in favour of online shopping. We all want cheap products from China - produced on the back of unethical labour - but itís so much easier to fine the consumer.

Our younger generation are supposed to be much more aware, but theyíre the first to whack up the heating rather than put on another jumper, leave doors open in the coldest weather and expect to be driven everywhere rather than walk or cycle. Iíve seen how much food waste there is in schools too. Itís heartbreaking see perfectly good nutrition going down the sluices. It canít even go to feed the pigs, as it was in my day, because of health and safety.
BWSBoy6 is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 14:15
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 738
Not matter how much we curb things, ultimately the planet (as we know it) is doomed, simply because there will be too many people.

Mother Nature will address the Imbalance at some stage, just as it has in the past. Perhaps COVID is one of the first steps being taken.

Im sure that the Earth will be quite happy in a million years from now.
Saintsman is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2021, 14:18
  #20 (permalink)  
JetBlast member 2005.
JetBlast member 2006.
Banned 2007
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 22
we need to trade and transport goods
but do we?

do we really?
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.