Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12739 posts, RR: 34 Posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3527 times:
At least two of today's UK national newspapers, the Independent (no surprise!) and The Times - carry TWO full page ads from the anti-flying brigade. On one side, there is an archtypal business type, listing excuses for flying and on the other side, there's a penguin (with less than happy feet), who begs ("from one flightless species to another") to reconsider flying.
These ads really get me steamed; the culture of picking on aviation (which, at the very maximum, contributes only 4% of global warming) is spreading and it really needs to be challenged. In other words, flying is "the new smoking", to the extent that anything which defends flying and aviation is seen in much the same light as, say, BAT or other large cigarette manufacturers, downplaying the effects of their product.
We really need to get a handle on this; the UK govt, of course, just puts a tax on it - which achieves very little (except to fatten their bank balance), as a sop to what the ad describes as the "meusli munching brigade".
This is not the first time these ads have run and I can see them becoming more virulent in future.
Pe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19300 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3513 times:
I'd rather be reading those articles than awaking here in Thailand and seeing yet more front-page articles in both the Bangkok Post and The Nation regarding the problems at the new BKK airport. What was more humourous, I decided, was that The Nation, just a couple of days ago, posted yet another front-page article - but this time it had a photo of one of the observation areas and that too was being criticised. Can you believe it? What made it worse, depressingly so, was that on page 33, hidden deep within the classifieds, was an article entitled: THE ISLE OF BRITAIN SUBMERGED AFTER TIDAL WAVE - 68 MILLION DEAD. I just don't know what has got into these Thai reporters. Perhaps it's the fact that they speak English.
"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
CV580Freak From Bahrain, joined Jul 2005, 1033 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3362 times:
Our local council in Hounslow are the largest and most vocal 'anti-Heathrow expansion' lobby, strange when LHR are far the largest employer not only in the borough but more than likely the Thames Valley.
How much more pax and cargo traffic must we lose to AMS,CDG and FRA ?
One day you are the pigeon, the next the statue ...
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3231 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3246 times:
Okay, since i don't have the specific fuel consumption figures for the A319 I'm going to attempt a rather crude estimation here. It's crude for two reasons. Firstly, not all engines burn 'as cleanly'...ie, the burn the same amount of fuel but some burn more completely so they produce less Nox and Sox. (however CO2 should be similar?)
Secondly, the MTOW for aircraft varies and its fuel capacity might not be the restricting factor to an aircraft's range (ie - same fuel capacity on A320 and A319 different ranges may be more restricted by weight carried rather then by fuel...once again not sure, any pilots type rated here wish to comment?)
The A320 series has a basic fuel capacity of about 23860 L. At A 64 ton Max takeoff weight, the A319 as a range of around 3350 kms. (basic A320 range of 4800 kms for same fuel capacity!!!!! take note!) Lets do the VERY crude thing and divide 23860/ 4000km (to try and estimate actual fuel consumption, as at MTOW(full load of passengers cargo in high density arrangement) the a319 is going to be fuel restricted and its fuel consumption will look higher then what it actually is - that is, it isn't going to use full tanks to achieve its max range of 3350 kms...needs the option of more powerful engines selected in order to use full tanks)
Now lets assume a typical LCC configuration of 144 seats. (typical of UK flights these days, and less efficient then easyjet's 156)
So we take of Fuel and divide by 4000 kms and we get a 5.956 L per km usage . (which obviously is an average of the much higher consumption for takeoff and then cruise)
According to Mappoint, the distance from London to Edinburgh is 639.2 kms (CBD to CBD). And, LHR to EDI on the great circle mapper is 533kms (remember planes can fly a more direct path, Car's must stick to the highway)
So, our Airbus A319 carrying 144 passengers burns 3179.3 L of fuel. Or, just 22.08 L of fuel per passenger!!!!!!! quite stunning really. In reality it would be a bit higher due to holding patterns etc. Lets Assume 4500 litres to be on the safe side, allowing for holding patterns, full takeoff power settings to be used
Now lets take our 100 cars going to Edinburgh. lets assume an average of 10L of fuel per 100 kms travelled. (allowing for both old and new cars, big and small to be used, plus one can't travel at the ideal rate because the road has places where one is forced to stop or slow down, going thru small towns etc) 100 cars is a safe estimate because many people travel alone in their own car or with just 1 other person, unlike airplanes who generally are forced to fill or near fill their planes in order to be commercially viable. So each car then uses 63.92 L of fuel for the same trip, wich by 100 becomes 6392 L of fuel used.
So here we have it. We have an estimated fuel consumption for the A319 at 3179 L, but allowing for 4500L to be on the safe side, and 6392 L of fuel to be used by the 100 cars. The Airbus is clearly more environmentally friendly if the cars are used in this manner (and they typically are)
Curmudgeon From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 695 posts, RR: 22
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3121 times:
I wonder how many of the travellers really have to go? Cheaper airfares have led to an increase in discretionary travel (as have affordable cars and safe motorways). An entire generation has grown up to be thoughtlessly mobile-maybe it will soon become time for us all to think twice about how much energy we piss away.
I have spent my entire adult life (and some years prior to that also) in aviation. I'd hate to see it become vilified, but I think we are all on the threshold of a new set of realities, carbon-wise.
FLYtoEGCC From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 947 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3006 times:
I've got to a point now where I just try and ignore the eco-nazis. It's best to take no notice of them and watch them get even more wound up. They get a lot of publicity but when you consider the general public as a whole they're still just a pretty vocal minority. The bottom line is that people aren't going to stop flying and, like we're seeing with the ridiculous new "green" tax that was just introduced, the vast majority will absorb it rather than refuse to fly. No matter how much crap is emitted from the vocal rear-ends of the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth.
When we have an affordable, efficient public transport system we can rely on then they might have a point. But until we do, for journeys over a few hundred miles flying is still quicker, more efficient and more convenient than taking other forms of transport. The cost of taking the train these days is laughable; also, maybe it should be pointed out to the lentil-loving tree-hugging cavemen that many of the trains in this country run are powered by old diesel engines (I'd love to see the MPG and emissions figures for an Intercity 125); also, those that are electrically powered require the electricity to be generated from somewhere!
Delta777Jet From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 1335 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2902 times:
I read an article that a british low fare airline has an average fuel burn of 2,7 liters per pax/100 km (Load Factor of 78%)! The german rail equl. burns 3,7 liters of fuel per pax/100km which only has a load factor of 46%!
If the railway companies would offer a decent product with decent prices, well then I would even take a train to travel, but here's my story:
I usually fly with dba from Berlin to Frankfurt (once per one!) and last year I paid an average of €42,58 incl Tax per way (cheapest was € 28,82 and most expensive some €78,52).
If I tavel on the DB (Deutsche Bahn / german railway) a single ticket cost € 104 ! A roundtrip ticket € 208 ! If you book in advance you and stay over a weekend the cheapest is € 98 for a roundtrip! The fastet way from Berlin to Frankfurt by train is 4:10h ! A plane takes 45 minutes and even with 30 minutes check in time and public transport to the city center is never takes more than 2:15h !
Why should I take a train which takes 4x the amount of travel time
is twice expensive than air travel and burnes 25% more fuel than an airplane?
Lite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2887 times:
I have read the adverts with interest, and every British newspaper with the exception of The Daily Mail, had these adverts in them on Monday. They are funded by a British banker who received a massive pay off when he challenged the environmental policy of the bank he worked for, and is using the money to fuel various environmental campaigns. I am, of couse, concerned about the environment and the effect that climate change could have on the places and people I love to visit, but it's important to remember that flying is not the major cause, nor is it the solution, to climate change, and it's about time through letters to your MP, newspapers, environmental groups and anyone who will listen, to say that aviation is vital to our modern society.
As I mentioned in the "Future of Aviation" thread, aviation plays too important a role in today's society for it to be suddenly wiped out by environmentalists, and governments know this. Commercial aviation contributes 1.6% of the emissions of greenhouse gases which are, according to scientists, linked to climate change, but at the same time creates just over 8% of the world's GDP. The industry is vital to the economies of many countries, particularly for creating new industries in developing countries. The problem is, aviation is accounting for that 1.6%, and is continuing to grow every year, indeed in Europe we're being told aviation is the fastest growing contributor to climate change, even though it is small now. So what can be done? Well, I think a certain amount comes from technology. The industry has developed unimaginably in just 100 years of flight, and certainly in the last 25 years we've seen efficiency improve dramatically of airliners. Manufacturers, like car manufacturers, must year-on-year try to create more environmentally friendly aircraft. Richard Branson has begun his company Virgin Fuels, which is looking at alternative energies for aircraft, some of which could be in service, albeit on a small scale, within 10 years. There are operational things we can do now as well. The starting grid system proposed by Virgin for reducing engine running time at airports, move all airfield vehicles to alternative fuels, have all airport terminal buildings powered by renewable energy sources, make airlines show how much CO2 will be pumped out from your flight when you book with the option to carbon offset ... all targets the industry should be striving for.
It's difficult to predict the future of our (or any other) industry, but aviation is too important to disappear, and it's vital that we defend this industry for the huge benefits it brings, but that we also ensure that we minimise the negatives.
Lite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2790 times:
The problem is, a lot can be done to reduce the environmental impact that we as human beings have on the environment. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not an eco-warrior who is saying we need to return to growing our own food and living in caves, but I do think we can do a lot to reduce our environmental footprint. Aviation, is not the cause nor the solution to climate change as I have said, but the attitude shown by EXAAUADL will do nothing for the airline industry, they have to wake up to the fact they emit greenhouse gases which effect climate change and as a result need to look at how they run their operations. Most airlines have, in Europe all seem to have an environmental policy which is available to view on their websites, on how they reduce their environmental impact. I've put a compilation of ideas, some easier than others, which would do a lot to reduce aviation's minimal impact on this problem, but would go a long way as a gesture.
JoeCattoli From Italy, joined Aug 2005, 572 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2777 times:
Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 17): Global warming, while a potential problem, has taken on the characteristics of a pagan religion.
Well I agree with you that some of those ads are laughable because they are funded by people that tries somehow to gain a profit from it, but i'm really impressed from such a low consideration that the biggest problem humanity has by now..
I don't know what information you receive in the US but I'm quite concerned about it.
The 95% of the scientist agree on saying we better hurry if we wanna save this fucked-up planet and the 90% of the causes of global warming are humans and here all laugh at it and laugh at people that know a little more than you and are concerned about the problem, that's very sad.
And a lot of the remaining 5% of scientist have been found to be funded by petrol companies.
What do you need to be convinced something isn't working? A hurricane on your home? In the last 20 years we've seen the worse hurricanes, the worse draughts and so on but for some people this isn't enough.
We've to remember all of us have to live on this planet and possibly our sons as well so it's not that wise just to pretend nothing is happening.
I really love flying and I think it is one of the most beautiful things I've ever done, but I try to fly only when it's really necessary.
I would like that governments would help us more in improving the train services and investing in a more environmentally-friendly airplanes instead of focusing on some silly wars.
And I don't think 4% is the real data about airplanes, I heard it was 10% already some years ago and with the growth of air travel it's just gonna grow.
I'm also more than convinced that I probably won't change the way of thinking of none of you because the hardest thing for a human being is to accept to be proven wrong but that was my try.
You'll see that it's not bashing concerned people and hiding behind a wall of insolence that you're gonna solve any problem.
Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 17): Just clone the penguin...there problem solved....Given there are penguins in Australia, I doubt a bit of warming will threaten them, they can just move further south
I think you are an example of the most short-sightep people on earth.. No offence but it's incredible that someone is laughing about real problems and animals that risks extinction thanks to us. I bet you've never appreciated nature and that's sad.
PanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2735 times:
In California a few years ago, they calculated how much pollution would be reduced if we all switched to electric cars. The amount? Almost zero.
The main culprit lies not with modern jet engines or clean burning automobiles or the new generation of diesels - the problem lies with the smaller things such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, weed-eaters, boats, snowmobiles, and anything else that uses outdated two-stroke engine technology.
I wonder if the enviro-fundamentalists are willing to push mow and manually sweep their yards? Or row their boats?
Quote: Unfortunately the eco activists never let facts get in the way
I think I've got my answer!!
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
Jmc757 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2000, 1306 posts, RR: 7
Reply 25, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2693 times:
I'm sure I read somewhere that of all the carbon emissions for the UK, only 2% is from aircraft flying in and out of our airports.
Aviation is in the spotlight at the moment because of the government putting the new tax on it and continually banging on about planes ruining the planet. Therefore the eco geeks latch on to it, its in the public spotlight anyway, so go for it.
Give it a year and the government focus will be elswhere, and the tree-huggers will have followed to whinge about someone elses party...