Well. The steep traffic growth predicted is very much depending on fuel prices. Should the trend stay as it is now (prices going up like a rocket) I somehow don´t see 100% more traffic by the end of this decade. Who´ll pay that?
But I don´t expect that the pace of fuel price climbing will stay like it is now. It´s economically impossible even for OPEC.
So lets expect ca. 100% more pax by 2010. What does it mean?
Of course not the scenario Gundu wants.
As I wrote yesterday on a different topic more frequenies are only possible in lesser crowded areas of the world.
Otherwise more and smaller planes will mean a nightmare for this planet: More flights, seriously more delays even than today (and even todays delays are hardly bearable!), overcrowded skies, more risk of collisions over big cities like London, a generally higher risk of a crash only because of the high number of aircraft around, more pilots to pay for, higher fares, slot problems, pollution, noise problems around big cities and so on.
Horrible if airlines would change to smaller airplanes. Thank god by 2010 the world will have at least a little recipe to heal that "desease": The A3XX and the B747X.
Commuter traffic to the hubs or mega-airports will be done rather by fast trains than by small planes.
Hardly anyone of the 10 million people living in the Rhine/Ruhr area (Cologne/Düsseldorf) will have to fly to Frankfurt to catch the A3XX going to Singapore. Just to give an example. And fares on a A3XX flying FRA-SIN will be considerably cheaper than on the A340 going MUC-SIN.
By 2010 there will be far more protest against airport enlargements than now because there´s virtually no space around the word´s major airports left. And nobody wants an airport 100 km out of his major town.
On the other hand we will also see an increase of direct international traffic between mid-size towns. But in Europe and East Asia that´ll be somehow limited. Skies are already full over here.