Aviation industry to counter flight shaming movement: IATA chief

[snoop1130]

Aviation industry to counter flight shaming movement: IATA chief

By Ahmed Hagagy

 

FILE PHOTO: A plane is seen during take off in New Jersey behind the Statue of Liberty in New York's Harbor as seen from the Brooklyn borough of New York February 20, 2016. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo

 

KUWAIT (Reuters) - The aviation industry is to launch a campaign it hopes will counter a 'flight shaming' movement that has weakened demand for air travel in Europe where some travelers are increasingly concerned about their environmental impact.

 

The industry's image has been damaged this year by a growing Swedish-born movement led by activists such as teenager Greta Thunberg calling for greater action against climate change, including ditching air travel.

 

Global lobby International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents nearly 300 airlines, is coordinating the campaign which will involve industry stakeholders.

 

"We will launch a very, very big campaign ... to explain what we have done, what we are doing, and what we intend to do in the future," IATA's head Alexandre de Juniac told Reuters in an interview in Kuwait on Tuesday.

 

The campaign will try to explain to the public how the industry is reducing its environmental impact, countering what de Juniac said had been "misleading information."

 

IATA is coordinating the plan through the Air Transport Action Group, a coalition of industry organizations and companies.

 

De Juniac did not say when the campaign would launch but said it would be available to stakeholders across the industry including airports and airlines.

 

Flight shaming has dented demand in Europe, particularly in northern parts but also in the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

 

"It's difficult to measure and beyond European borders we have seen nothing but it will come," de Juniac said.

 

Commercial flying accounts for about 2.5% of global carbon emissions today but without concrete steps to alleviate the problem, that number could rise as global air travel increases.

 

The aviation industry has already cut carbon emissions from each plane traveler in half since 1990, largely thanks to more fuel-efficient aircraft, and has a plan to cut net emissions by 2050 and achieve carbon-neutral growth from 2020.

 

Airlines have warned of the negative impact of the flight shaming movement and some have criticized the industry for so far failing to explain itself.

 

Emirates President Tim Clark said in October the industry had to do a better job addressing the issue, highlighting improvements in technology that have reduced the carbon footprint of aircraft.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-11-05

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[Tug]

What’s wrong at looking at alternative transportation?

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

"We will launch a very, very big campaign ... to explain what we have done, what we are doing, and what we intend to do in the future," IATA's head Alexandre de Juniac told Reuters in an interview in Kuwait on Tuesday.

Spend a lot of money to try and convince the travelling public that an extremely polluting industry is actually worth polluting for, and in fact increasing pollution significantly as the hoped for thousands of extra planes come into service.

 

I hope they fail, and fail miserably. I hope domestic air travel is banned, and mass air travel for leisure is banned.

 

I used to love flying, but it's become horrible, what with the crowds and the security checks etc. I far prefer train travel now.

All the money that is going to be spent on new airports should be diverted to build modern high speed passenger trains.

All upside, no downside.

[impulse]

I'm kind of wondering how she (Ms Greta) gets around from one speaking engagement to another...

 

The funny thing is that a Greenpeace activist and an Exxon executive on the same plane both create the same amount of pollution.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by impulse

[DoctorG]

Greta is still trying to work out how she is going to get to Spain in under 4 weeks.

[Chomper Higgot]

46 minutes ago, impulse said:

I'm kind of wondering how she (Ms Greta) gets around from one speaking engagement to another...

 

The funny thing is that a Greenpeace activist and an Exxon executive on the same plane both create the same amount of pollution.

 

The real funny thing is the Greenpeace/environmental activist is changing public and business attitudes, if that means flying to different places to help achieve the changes then the benefit of the flight can be measured against the success of the campaign for which the flight is taken. 


This response from the aviation industry is clear evidence that they are feeling the affect. 

 

[blazes]

Yes, train is best, no question.  (Or shanks ponies for those happy HowDareYous who want to reduce our civilization to a nice little walk from Stockholm to Madrid.)

 

But I can't think of anything better, as I fly from A to B, than an airport devoid of the millions of bodies shuffling through all the obstacles to peace and quiet.

Long live the almost-empty airports that will bring comfort and harmony to those of us who fly.....

[mercman24]

just leaving the west country in the uk by train, across europe , then a slow boat , reckon i will be there to celebrate Songkran, what a load of tosh

[from the home of CC]

waitin' on the morons who start swimming here lol..

[Fancyzancy]

So when I come to Thailand in January from San Francisco. Which train should I catch, how long is the ride? 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Fancyzancy said:

So when I come to Thailand in January from San Francisco. Which train should I catch, how long is the ride? 

No one is saying INTERNATIONAL air travel should be banned. No need for domestic flights though.

Proper hi speed trains can go as fast or nearly as fast as planes, and carry a lot more passengers in greater comfort.

Edited November 6, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[impulse]

31 minutes ago, Fancyzancy said:

So when I come to Thailand in January from San Francisco. Which train should I catch, how long is the ride? 

 

In the big picture, I think they'd like you to reconsider whether the pleasure derived from that trip is sufficient to justify the environmental damage you're doing.  Or could you get the same amount of pleasure spending your time and money closer to home and doing less environmental damage.

 

 

[4evermaat]

You are forgetting that air travel encompasses more than just passenger travel.  Air freight is also lifted with these venues.   Without air freight, packages would take weeks or even months to arrive at their destination, including domestic.

 

edit:  the expediency of air travel cannot be underestimated when people need to get from point A to B quickly.  I think the quality of life difference would be significant if all domestic air travel was suddenly banned.

 

Remember what happened on 9-11 in USA.   What happened to the hotel and related industries immediately following that and for the next several months.

Edited November 6, 2019 by 4evermaat

[billd766]

16 hours ago, Tug said:

What’s wrong at looking at alternative transportation?

What alternative transportation is available as a return trip for someone living in Thailand who has 2 weeks holiday and needs to go to the UK, EU or the USA?

 

I am not sure if there any shipping lines that offer accommodation nor how long the journey would take.

 

If you wanted to take a train you may have to get to perhaps Vladivostok and catch the Trans Siberian Express.

 

If you want to go overland you will need visas for a lot of countries.

 

https://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/forums/experimental-travel/topics/from-uk-to-thailand-without-flying

 

To get to the USA without flying you would have to travel by sea. I didn't find any threads about Thailand to the USA by sea.

 

 

[impulse]

53 minutes ago, billd766 said:

What alternative transportation is available as a return trip for someone living in Thailand who has 2 weeks holiday and needs to go to the UK, EU or the USA?

 

I am not sure if there any shipping lines that offer accommodation nor how long the journey would take.

 

If you wanted to take a train you may have to get to perhaps Vladivostok and catch the Trans Siberian Express.

 

If you want to go overland you will need visas for a lot of countries.

 

https://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/forums/experimental-travel/topics/from-uk-to-thailand-without-flying

 

To get to the USA without flying you would have to travel by sea. I didn't find any threads about Thailand to the USA by sea.

 

Again, the big picture is whether that's a lifestyle that should be encouraged.  40+ years ago before deregulation and cheap airlines, that lifestyle would have been limited to big spenders and folks that had time to take the slow boat.  In the meantime, policy and tax decisions have been made that inundate the world with mass tourism, cheap flights and people who take them.  All at a cost to the environment. 

 

I'm of a mixed feeling whether mass tourism and cheap flights are a good thing, or an overall detriment to quality of life- not just for the people who take the flights, but also for the poor folks who have to suck the fumes (in a figurative sense).  It would be pretty easy to change policies and tax structures to make it a rich man's game again.  Not that I'm advocating it, but it seems the airline shamers are.

 

Edit:  BTW, a lot of the folks that came to love Thailand back in the 60's and 70's would love to see it go back to that era before mass tourism.

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by impulse

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

What alternative transportation is available as a return trip for someone living in Thailand who has 2 weeks holiday and needs to go to the UK, EU or the USA?

 

I am not sure if there any shipping lines that offer accommodation nor how long the journey would take.

 

If you wanted to take a train you may have to get to perhaps Vladivostok and catch the Trans Siberian Express.

 

If you want to go overland you will need visas for a lot of countries.

 

https://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/forums/experimental-travel/topics/from-uk-to-thailand-without-flying

 

To get to the USA without flying you would have to travel by sea. I didn't find any threads about Thailand to the USA by sea.

 

 

Again, no one is threatening to ban international travel or air freight or even domestic for those that HAVE to get somewhere in a hurry.

It's more air travel that can easily be replaced by hi speed trains, and frivolous international air travel. No one HAS to travel half way round the planet just to lie in the sun.

 

Air travel can be reduced significantly with little effect if replaced by hi speed trains domestically.

[Sir Swagman]

What a load of <deleted>. As usual it is about the money and has SFA to do with any significant ‘improvements’ airlines can achieve regarding carbon emissions. Oddly, 9/11 gave the world a chance to see the effect of air travel in a rather unanticipated way. Average temps went up in the US by (I think) 2 degrees as a result of the lack of contrails reflecting sunlight back into space (chemtrails for all those mad conspiracy theorists). ‘Global dimming’ I believe it was referred to. Perhaps on that basis more, rather than less flights might trade off well? That is unless you are as mad as Qantas and intend to fly non-stop from Sydney to London where the fuel required means you have to carry fuel (and per 1000kgs it is a <deleted>load) to complete the flight.

[Sir Swagman]

Well... the word bullocks with a vowel changed upsets some people...lol

A more positive action from airlines would be to limit sector length to maximum payload distances. Carrying as much as can possibly be lifted per flight would be more efficient as far as carbon emissions per Kg go. The rather odd passenger inspired (so is claimed) attitude of some airlines to fill the aircraft with fuel and then determine how far one can fly goes against rational equipment usage.

 

[RideJocky]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No one is saying INTERNATIONAL air travel should be banned. No need for domestic flights though.

Proper hi speed trains can go as fast or nearly as fast as planes, and carry a lot more passengers in greater comfort.

So Los Angeles to New York is about 4,500km, how long by high-speed train? 
 

how many stops?

 

sleeper cars? 
 

do high speed trains go over mountains? 
 

is it going to be solar powered? 

over 500 airports that service commercial flights in the US. Any idea what the infrastructure would cost, what the environmental impact would be, and how many decades it would take to get through the permitting process it would take just to serve the top 20 airports? 
 

So in the end, the rich elites still get to fly and own cars, and old humps like me are stuck at home with push-bikes. Outstanding.

 

 

 

[RideJocky]

8 minutes ago, Sir Swagman said:

Well... the word bullocks with a vowel changed upsets some people...lol

A more positive action from airlines would be to limit sector length to maximum payload distances. Carrying as much as can possibly be lifted per flight would be more efficient as far as carbon emissions per Kg go. The rather odd passenger inspired (so is claimed) attitude of some airlines to fill the aircraft with fuel and then determine how far one can fly goes against rational equipment usage.

 

Seriously? Carrying “as much as can possibly be lifted”?

 

hilarious. 
 

the more weight you put on, the more fuel you burn. Optimum flight weight is determined prior to departure and if a flight is too light they generally make it up with freight. 
 

So anyways, who’s ready to give up air-mail, courier service and airfreight? 

[evadgib]

The somewhat deceiving headline lead me to expect an(other) article on tellytubbies in seats made for dwarfs.

Edited November 6, 2019 by evadgib

[billd766]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Again, no one is threatening to ban international travel or air freight or even domestic for those that HAVE to get somewhere in a hurry.

It's more air travel that can easily be replaced by hi speed trains, and frivolous international air travel. No one HAS to travel half way round the planet just to lie in the sun.

 

Air travel can be reduced significantly with little effect if replaced by hi speed trains domestically.

I live in rural Khampaeng Phet. My nearest railway station is 130 km away in Nakhon Sawan and the next nearest is at Phitsanulok 180 km away. The nearest domestic airports are in the same places and distances. It cannot easily be fixed by hi speed trains as there are none in Thailand.

 

As for the HS2 system in the UK follow this link.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2187154/what-hs2-how-much-cost-whats-route/

 

The cost of any new rail system is horrendous, what with compulsory land purchases as well as relocation costs, as is upgrading the present system.

 

Sure in the UK you can get the Eurostar to Paris, change to another rail system and need more visas wherever you go plus the time frames you have to work within.

[Sir Swagman]

3 hours ago, RideJocky said:

Seriously? Carrying “as much as can possibly be lifted”?

 

hilarious. 
 

the more weight you put on, the more fuel you burn. Optimum flight weight is determined prior to departure and if a flight is too light they generally make it up with freight. 
 

So anyways, who’s ready to give up air-mail, courier service and airfreight? 

 You seem to have misunderstood my post. Your assertion that the more weight you put on the more fuel you burn is of course correct. When that weight  is fuel, rather than payload, to allow for longer sector lengths, the ‘return’ on such carriage is below zero. Self loading cargo or rubber dogdoo (I now know <deleted> is unacceptable) out of Hong Kong pays and therefore is arguably more sensible ‘weight’. Limiting  sector length to around 8 hours, for most high capacity aircraft, would allow maximum payload - you don’t actually have to wait until you fill the aluminum tube up, it is a guide. Now, my 30 odd years of airline operation hardly qualifies me to voice an opinion, but I do so anyway.

[Crazy Alex]

Anyone who lets a few climate change cultists shame them into doing or not doing anything is worthy only of further ridicule.

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll post and replies removed.  

 

[Traubert]

I was always of the belief that shipping was far more harmful  with the filthy stuff maritime engines burn.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/6/2019 at 11:16 PM, RideJocky said:

So Los Angeles to New York is about 4,500km, how long by high-speed train? 
 

how many stops?

 

sleeper cars? 
 

do high speed trains go over mountains? 
 

is it going to be solar powered? 

over 500 airports that service commercial flights in the US. Any idea what the infrastructure would cost, what the environmental impact would be, and how many decades it would take to get through the permitting process it would take just to serve the top 20 airports? 
 

So in the end, the rich elites still get to fly and own cars, and old humps like me are stuck at home with push-bikes. Outstanding.

 

 

 

So, how did people get from LA to NYC before domestic airlines started, or got cheap enough for the middle class to use?

That's your answer.

 

Stops as often as the company wants them to

Of course sleeper cars

They go through mountains

They'll be solar powered if the electricity that powers them is made with solar. Hi speed trains are often powered by overhead electrical wire.

 

IF the story is true, and IF humanity is doomed because of flying too much, someone has to sacrifice, and it's never the rich.

Of course I don't believe it so keep flying. I take the train because I like travelling by train, and hate flying now ( used to love it ).

[thaibeachlovers]

On 11/7/2019 at 1:11 AM, billd766 said:

I live in rural Khampaeng Phet. My nearest railway station is 130 km away in Nakhon Sawan and the next nearest is at Phitsanulok 180 km away. The nearest domestic airports are in the same places and distances. It cannot easily be fixed by hi speed trains as there are none in Thailand.

 

As for the HS2 system in the UK follow this link.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2187154/what-hs2-how-much-cost-whats-route/

 

The cost of any new rail system is horrendous, what with compulsory land purchases as well as relocation costs, as is upgrading the present system.

 

Sure in the UK you can get the Eurostar to Paris, change to another rail system and need more visas wherever you go plus the time frames you have to work within.

While you were growing up, did someone tell you every day that life was fair?

If one believes in man made climate change, one should be prepared to make sacrifices. I don't, but I still hate flying now, so I don't fly unless I have to. If there were passenger ships that cost no more to use than planes, I'd use them as well.

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Traubert said:

I was always of the belief that shipping was far more harmful  with the filthy stuff maritime engines burn.

Isn't it funny how the climate warriors never mention the millions of ships on the world's oceans. Perhaps ships don't contribute CO2.

555555555555555

[billd766]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While you were growing up, did someone tell you every day that life was fair?

If one believes in man made climate change, one should be prepared to make sacrifices. I don't, but I still hate flying now, so I don't fly unless I have to. If there were passenger ships that cost no more to use than planes, I'd use them as well.

I don't use the SRT any more as it would add significantly to the cost of my journey plus it will take a lot longer. Just to get to Nakhon Sawan railway station involves somebody taking me to the big village where I can get a bus to Lat Yao 80 km away, another bus for the 50 or so km to NS Bus station and another (probably) a baht bus to the station, and a train to Hua Lamphong station. from there. Then a taxi or a bus up to either the BTS or Metro station where I board yet another train to take me as close as I can to my destination.

By air it is the same journey to Nakhon Sawan except that the airport is about 1 km closer to NS. Most interior flights are North or south and route through BKK in a straight line with no east west links.

 

I either take the bus to BKK or my pickup truck.

 

It doesn't bother me that much as at 75 I don't travel that far any more.

 

It is not so easy for Thais living on the west side of Thailand as to get to BKK they have to use the bus which is clean and air conditioned and costs a little over 280 baht to get to BKK and a snack plus lunch are provided in the cost of the ticket.