Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Gold

A bit of a non-event in my view. Politicians playing for votes but doing anything really significant.

 

There is an exemption for flights that allow connections. Would anyone fly from Nantes to Roissy CdG for any other purpose?

 

Toulouse is probably the most significant one. It would not have retained its Paris flights if the "greens" had their way (banning flights where the train could do the journey in 4 hours whereas the Govt has opted for 2.5 hours).

 

I am getting to know the Toulouse line better having only once done it by day and many times by night. Current quickest time is the "great way round", i.e. via Bordeaux on a TGV to Paris-Montparnasse. Even with a tilting trainset, I doubt if the time could ever be brought below 4 hrs on the conventional route via Limoges. I must check but I don't think the current trains (loco + 7) are doing more than 80kph when they pass my house.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

With the need for negative covid tests going out and coming back at £175 each, I can't see many people wanting to go abroad at an extra £700 per couple, and another £350 per child over 11 every time.

 

And what's the game with under 11's?  Can they not spread it???

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this were to be applied in the UK and connecting flights were not affected it would be effectively meaningless. The only city pair that definitely falls into this category is London-Manchester and I know that (pre-Covid) the vast majority of passengers on this route are connecting to/from longer flights at the London end. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kris said:

Unless you are flying between 2 regional airports with short check in times, I would question why you would fly on these routes unless you were connecting to another flight. 

 

 

If it were to happen here some people would be sure to try and use the law to stop this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_to_Papa_Westray_flight

 

 

Having flown Paris CDG to Lyon and Marseille (as connecting flights) I can say that the frequent flights were packed with business travellers who were not connecting.

 

One issue can be that the TGVs were equally busy and often the first class was booked out.  

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

When this proposal was being discussed a couple of months ago, it was exposed as greenwash and political window dressing, as it'll only affect a few routes in practice.

Virtually no non-Paris flights are affected (they weren't at 4 hours by train, never mind 2.5 hours).

 

EasyJet and Ryanair, who both operated quite a number of French domestic services, in pre-Covid times, both said that the 4 hour rule wouldn't affect one single route.

 

Meanwhile, the IPCC and the green lobby are still working on aviation data largely based on aircraft types that in some cases, were retired from service 10, 20 and even 30 years ago.

 

.

 

 

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the idea is good but like many political plans it has not been thought through fully.

 

In the UK Manchester to London is a no go for connecting flights as there are (or were before Covid) flights to most countries.  Fair number of long haul include changes in the middle east where an airline has no direct flights.

 

A potential flaw to the idea might be to use connecting flights to say Schipol as a fair number of companies are part of larger groupings.

 

Personally I prefer to travel by train from Leeds as even on Azuma it's more relaxing than the noisy flights.

 

It is better to travel than to arrive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
7 hours ago, Joseph_Pestell said:

I am getting to know the Toulouse line better having only once done it by day and many times by night. Current quickest time is the "great way round", i.e. via Bordeaux on a TGV to Paris-Montparnasse. Even with a tilting trainset, I doubt if the time could ever be brought below 4 hrs on the conventional route via Limoges. I must check but I don't think the current trains (loco + 7) are doing more than 80kph when they pass my house.

 

Perhaps if they didn't divert them via Hereford they would be a tad quicker, or am I mis-reading something?!!

 

Mike.

  • Like 1
  • Funny 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Kris said:

If it were to happen here some people would be sure to try and use the law to stop this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_to_Papa_Westray_flight

 

 

They would also be grossly ignorant of how that service operates, as it is most certainly not in the same scope. It operates more frequently than the ferry service, BUT is part of a bus route to take passengers to and from the North Isles and mainland Orkney.  It's geared around the convenience of the North Isles, getting in than mainlanders getting out.

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/04/2021 at 14:40, AMJ said:

I think that the idea is good but like many political plans it has not been thought through fully.

 

Alternatively, it has been very well thought out - it gives the appearance of doing something to deal with climate changing without actually having to do anything that would potentially upset anyone.

 

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Civil aviation is 1% of emissions but the greens won’t let the facts get in the way of their fanaticism. An easy target .

 

I see it mainly as some protectionism for their railway revenues .

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Civil aviation is 1% of emissions but the greens won’t let the facts get in the way of their fanaticism. 

 

53 minutes ago, Gordon Connell said:

According to the International Energy Agency aviation is responsible for 2.8% of CO2 emissions. The Our world in data website says it's 2.5%.


So which of these figures are the “alternative facts”? :laugh_mini2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gordon Connell said:

According to the International Energy Agency aviation is responsible for 2.8% of CO2 emissions. The Our world in data website says it's 2.5%.

 

There is an interesting comparison from the Our World in data site between forms of transport, which goes on to argue that transport as a whole is heading for being the largest emitter by 2070.

Still low, whichever is correct. My point is merely it’s an easy target. 
bit like plastic straws , when I saw , if it’s correct , plastic straws are 0.03 % of plastic in the oceans . Easy target .

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
On 12/04/2021 at 20:28, Enterprisingwestern said:

 

Perhaps if they didn't divert them via Hereford they would be a tad quicker, or am I mis-reading something?!!

 

Mike.

 

I thought that I had updated my profile.

  • Funny 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, rob D2 said:

Still low, whichever is correct. My point is merely it’s an easy target. 

 

Though if you look at the graph linked it's pretty obviously the single biggest culprit for CO2 emissions amongst public passenger transport by a significant margin (please ignore the huge contribution of private cars and road freight...).  It's very much a correctly placed target that shouldn't be ignored because of the better potential gains that could be made from the targets that would be considerably more resistant to increased regulation.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, frobisher said:

 

Though if you look at the graph linked it's pretty obviously the single biggest culprit for CO2 emissions amongst public passenger transport by a significant margin (please ignore the huge contribution of private cars and road freight...).  It's very much a correctly placed target that shouldn't be ignored because of the better potential gains that could be made from the targets that would be considerably more resistant to increased regulation.

So your last paragraph = it’s an easy target .

 
if you do live in the orkneys you’d be well aware of the necessity of air transport. You can’t get many trains from there .

 

There are  those that’d take us back to the industrial revolution .

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)

Why do we never see these kind of political initiatives in Asia, Africa or South America ?

 

They seem happy to pollute their way upto developing a western standard of living, and beyond. indeed many parts of Asia has a standard of living way in excess of ours for some years now, and I dont see many tree huggers and greta’s out there.

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

I dont see many tree huggers and greta’s out there.

There are more than you think. Many are risking their lives and liberty to prevent environmental destruction.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
On 15/04/2021 at 11:22, dave750t said:

There are more than you think. Many are risking their lives and liberty to prevent environmental destruction.

 

Influence is better than control.

 

If they are risking their lives, its because they are threatening someone elses.

Humans only change by time, quality or cost, they need to focus efforts on making more attractive routes rather than forcing others.

 

A good example is moving from victorian safaris being defined by killing animals, into photographing them today... 

 

I dont support non-governmental militias forcing their will on others, without regard to the impact of those they are trying to coerce to their agenda.. centuries ago it would be considered part of the routes that created the slave trade.

 

For each innocent naive tree hugger, theres a puppet hand with their own agenda.

 

 

Edited by adb968008
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Why do we never see these kind of political initiatives in Asia, Africa or South America ?

 

They seem happy to pollute their way upto developing a western standard of living, and beyond. indeed many parts of Asia has a standard of living way in excess of ours for some years now, and I dont see many tree huggers and greta’s out there.

I think because they are bordering on dictatorships. Not forgetting China which is one .

  • Like 2
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, adb968008 said:

 

Influence is better than control.

 

If they are risking their lives, its because they are threatening someone elses.

Humans only change by time, quality or cost, they need to focus efforts on making more attractive routes rather than forcing others.

 

A good example is moving from victorian safaris being defined by killing animals, into photographing them today... 

 

I dont support non-governmental militias forcing their will on others, without disregard to the impact of those they are trying to coerce to their agenda.. centuries ago it would be considered part of the routes that created the slave trade.

 

For each innocent naive tree hugger, theres a puppet hand with their own agenda.

 

 

You are right on the last bit  especially . Bullying from the cancel culture if you don’t agree with their group think .

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, adb968008 said:


 

If they are risking their lives, its because they are threatening someone elses.

So they should leave the illegal loggers alone? Not resist criminal gangs acting with state connivance. In a lot of places in the world even just writing a letter to a newspaper can mean risking a bullet.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Western Aviator said:

So which of these figures are the “alternative facts”? :laugh_mini2:


The IPCC's  (the UN’s climate advisory panel) own data on commercial aviation’s contribution to CO2 and other climate effects, is more than slightly  suspect, in so far as it includes large numbers of older, dirtier aircraft types that have largely been retired or are still around in much smaller numbers than when their data points were taken.

Until only a couple of years ago, they still included significant numbers of 2nd generation jets, such as B737-200’s, B727’s, DC9’s and bizarrely even a small number of Caravelles, even though the latter were mostly retired over 40 years ago !

Their most recent data, still includes hundreds of MD80’s, B737 -300/400/500, B757’s, A340’s and early models of B767 & A330, even though most of these are lying in desert aircraft graveyards or have already been scrapped.

 

Whether it’s 2.5 , 2.8 or 3.0% there needs to be some recognition that the same panel reckon that worldwide use of the internet and use of the gadgets that access it, is now responsible for around 3.7 to 4.0%.

Use of social media is said to be a growing proportion of that figure,.

Somewhat ironic that campaigners spend most of their time arguing their case and chattering in general and living their lives through these technologies, completely blind to their own hypocrisy.

 

So yes, aviation needs to be cleaned up, but so does so many aspects of our modern way of life.

The IPCC and other climate bodies, do recognise that aircraft have become a lot “cleaner” than they once were (up to 30% less CO2 and other emissions compared compared with the 1970’s and early 80’s)..

The concern is that these improvements have been outweighed by a massive growth in the volume of commercial aviation activity over the last 40 years, plus the expectation that this volume is likely to double again within the next 20 years.

 

Something to bear in mind is that the greatest impetus for reducing CO2 from commercial aviation, has been coming from the aerospace and airline industries themselves.

The amount of emissions is directly related to the amount of fuel burnt.

Fuel is a very expensive and significant component of operating costs and all costs have increased greatly over the years, making airline operations a very expensive and financially risky business.

Hence the efforts to drive down costs go hand in hand with the efforts to reduce all emissions.


A more rapid transition to the latest, more efficient aircraft types and the early retirement of what are fairly young aircraft, may be a side benefit from the pandemic. 

In the meantime, very large amounts of money are being deployed in R&D of advanced technologies and alternative fuels. If these produce successful results, we could see some very welcome developments in global aviation.

 

 

.

Edited by Ron Ron Ron
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...