We've been travelling to the Continent by train for a few years now. There are a lot of sleeper services that make longer journeys even easier (I did Paris to Hamburg last month overnight and we did Paris to Collioure last year – and will be doing so again – that way).

It's a lot easier than, I suspect, people realise.

Quote ="Rock God X"A large part of me thinks that flying here and there at (relatively) minimal cost will soon be a thing of the past. ...'" Only if people stop needing or wanting to go anywhere. In fact, the number of planes in the air at any given time is truly astonishing, and it would be impossible to replace those journeys with anything else. One of my absolute favourite sites is www.flightradar24.com/ where you can see, live, pretty much every commercial plane in the air, click on one, get full ID, and even click "cockpit" to get a software view from the pilots' cabin. You can scroll out and in, and drag to anywhere in the world. One fun thing (well, for saddos like me) is on a clearish day, have a look at what plane is heading to fly over Bradford, and then point it out to people like "Oh, that's a Boeing 747 from London to San Francisco". If you are reading this live, watch it now come in from the south and disappear north. Try it, and tell me whether there's any chance all that commerce is going to end any time soon. It couldn't. Screenshot of planes over N. America

Quote ="Rock God X"A large part of me thinks that flying here and there at (relatively) minimal cost will soon be a thing of the past. ...'" Only if people stop needing or wanting to go anywhere. In fact, the number of planes in the air at any given time is truly astonishing, and it would be impossible to replace those journeys with anything else. One of my absolute favourite sites is www.flightradar24.com/ where you can see, live, pretty much every commercial plane in the air, click on one, get full ID, and even click "cockpit" to get a software view from the pilots' cabin. You can scroll out and in, and drag to anywhere in the world. One fun thing (well, for saddos like me) is on a clearish day, have a look at what plane is heading to fly over Bradford, and then point it out to people like "Oh, that's a Boeing 747 from London to San Francisco". If you are reading this live, watch it now come in from the south and disappear north. Try it, and tell me whether there's any chance all that commerce is going to end any time soon. It couldn't. Screenshot of planes over N. America

I definitely would. With planes there is far less going on to worry about. If they can perfect driverless cars, with pedestrians, cars, bikes, motorbikes, different road conditions, different temperatures etc, I can see flight being an absolute doddle. In terms of the programming involved, it seems relatively simple, flying between waypoints and lining up for landing is probably something a computer could do better than a human anyway.

The only problem I guess would be the computer crashing. I can imagine the blue screen of death coming up on the inflight TVs would send the cargo into panic.

Flights for me would be better if they were fully automated. You get into a bed, get put to sleep with soothing gas, get sardined into the cargo hold (more capacity, no need for in flight expenses and cabin crew), plane flies you to the destination, and you wake up once it's hit terrafirma.

I would certainly trust auto-piloted planes over computer controlled cars and most definitely over teleportation, which is surely man's last remaining big invention.

Famous last words "WTF was that bang?"

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Only if people stop needing or wanting to go anywhere. In fact, the number of planes in the air at any given time is truly astonishing, and it would be impossible to replace those journeys with anything else. One of my absolute favourite sites is www.flightradar24.com/ where you can see, live, pretty much every commercial plane in the air, click on one, get full ID, and even click "cockpit" to get a software view from the pilots' cabin. You can scroll out and in, and drag to anywhere in the world. One fun thing (well, for saddos like me) is on a clearish day, have a look at what plane is heading to fly over Bradford, and then point it out to people like "Oh, that's a Boeing 747 from London to San Francisco". If you are reading this live, watch it now come in from the south and disappear north. Try it, and tell me whether there's any chance all that commerce is going to end any time soon. It couldn't.'" Yep, love that site too, whenever the daughters are flying anywhere this saddo dad is tracking their every minute, the only problem is that occasionally the details disappear for a few minutes - when your flight has literally dropped off the radar or you right click it and it says "no data" then it does bring a gasp. Last year I was following the eldest's flight home from Ibiza when one of our customers Egpyt Air rang on a support issue and as it was a long call I left the flight tracker open on the laptop, while we were waiting for one of their PC's to reboot the daughters flight was crossing over the channel and I got to clicking a few of the ones approaching Heathrow and found an Egypt Air flight so I told this dispatcher guy on the phone that his flight number "xxxx" was about ten minutes out - he asked me how the hell I had that sort of information to hand and so I told him - he had no idea that all of their flight information was available live on the internet to plebs like me

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"Only if people stop needing or wanting to go anywhere. In fact, the number of planes in the air at any given time is truly astonishing, and it would be impossible to replace those journeys with anything else. One of my absolute favourite sites is www.flightradar24.com/ where you can see, live, pretty much every commercial plane in the air, click on one, get full ID, and even click "cockpit" to get a software view from the pilots' cabin. You can scroll out and in, and drag to anywhere in the world. One fun thing (well, for saddos like me) is on a clearish day, have a look at what plane is heading to fly over Bradford, and then point it out to people like "Oh, that's a Boeing 747 from London to San Francisco". If you are reading this live, watch it now come in from the south and disappear north. Try it, and tell me whether there's any chance all that commerce is going to end any time soon. It couldn't.'" Yep, love that site too, whenever the daughters are flying anywhere this saddo dad is tracking their every minute, the only problem is that occasionally the details disappear for a few minutes - when your flight has literally dropped off the radar or you right click it and it says "no data" then it does bring a gasp. Last year I was following the eldest's flight home from Ibiza when one of our customers Egpyt Air rang on a support issue and as it was a long call I left the flight tracker open on the laptop, while we were waiting for one of their PC's to reboot the daughters flight was crossing over the channel and I got to clicking a few of the ones approaching Heathrow and found an Egypt Air flight so I told this dispatcher guy on the phone that his flight number "xxxx" was about ten minutes out - he asked me how the hell I had that sort of information to hand and so I told him - he had no idea that all of their flight information was available live on the internet to plebs like me

Perhaps my use of the subjective term 'soon' could have been clearer. I was meaning within 50 years or so. It ought to happen much sooner, but I really can't see it given our governments' record of inaction on the matter thus far.

I accept that a certain amount of flying has become essential in our evermore globalised world, but there's a huge amount of it that isn't. For example, how many of the international flights that take place for people to conduct business meetings could be saved if those meetings were conducted remotely via Skype and such? What percentage of aviation is recreational? Do people really [ineed[/i to fly away on holiday once or twice a year?

It's all very well to say, "we've come too far and there's nowt we can do", but eventually, we're going to [ihave[/i to look for ways to seriously reduce harmful emissions. If it's not too late already.

I'm hardly an international jetsetter but I refuse to believe that if Skype etc. meetings were any substitute for the real thing then so many corporations around the globe would spend so much money jetting executives around. I think you know this too. It's just not the same (yet) as being there. Even the climate change conferences - surely THE prime candidate for a televisual link, if ever there was one - realise that to do business at all, they actually need to meet face to face.


It isn't, and anyway who has said any such thing? What I do confidently predict is that well within your 50 years the aviation industry will have developed alternative fuel technology that will be both sustainable and also environmentally better, they know they must, and they are throwing a lot of effort at the problem, as are independent research labs who of course are keen to invent and breed a golden goose.

So I don't know what it will be (although I think research into algae and bacteria based fuels is promising, as well as growing oil-producing crops that will grow on land where nothing else does. But I know somebody will crack it. And of course in a century or so cold fusion or something will have solved all such problems anyway.

I'm not saying it's the same as being there, I'm saying it's a viable alternative in many instances. And not actually Skype, obviously, but something better than that.



I was paraphrasing.







Hmm. Not sure they're throwing [ithat[/i much effort at the problem, and neither will they until it becomes unprofitable for them to use oil-based fuels. I'm not sure 50 years is a realistic timescale, either. I'm not aware of an alternative fuel source that's even powered a single flight yet, so to have that fuel developed, tested and into worldwide use in 50 years seems to be pushing it. Hell, they can't even manage it for cars yet.

And even if they could achieve this remarkable goal, if aviation emissions continue rising as they have over the past 20 years or so, 50 years will be too late.



If we carry on increasing our carbon emissions (or fail to reduce them significantly) for another 100 years, cold fusion will be useless anyway. We'll all have killed each other fighting over the few viable resources we had left. Probably.

The answer to sustainable power for aviation was provided some years ago in a Hanna-Barbera film called "The Man Called Flintstone" in which Fred Flintstone flew to europe in a canvas and wood Boeing 707 powered by eight Pterodactyl's tied to the wings.

All we need is some Pterodactyl DNA from some of that Amber jewellery you can buy in Whitby.

It could work.

So in those instances why don't folk do it? They just like spending a lot of time and loads of money unnecessarily?


But all that is because you're posting without having bothered to look into it. Eg:
[urlhttp://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=894[/url


Nonsense, production alternative fuel cars are already in global service. Just one site for a flavour:
[urlhttp://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/01/31/7-alternative-fuels-and-alternative-fuel-powered-vehicles/[/url

.... but achieving the goals in my first link would clearly not.


Fair comment, but killing all the cows won't be popular either.

My wife turns into the guardian of a toddler on take offs

Because in those instances it might be [ibetter[/i in business terms to have a face to face meeting, whilst not being absolutely [iessential[/i. I always prefer speaking to someone in person than on the phone/over the internet, as I believe any right-minded person would. My point is that something has to give and if we don't all start making some sacrifices sooner rather than later, it'll be too late. If the cost of air travel suddenly increased, maybe businesses would consider a little more carefully whether the trip was absolutely essential. There's also the issue of the massive increase in domestic flights in this country - there's certainly no way they can be said to be essential in the vast, vast majority of cases.



Not really. From your link:

[iIATA’s Steele pointed to the recent study carried by consultants E4tech on behalf of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change that showed a best case scenario for a full replacement of jet kerosene by biofuels by 2035 and a worse case of 40% replacement by 2050. “In reality, I think it will be somewhere between the two, and we in the industry will be trying to move things forward as quickly as we can.”[/i

So the best case scenario highlighted above means another 20+ years of rising carbon emissions, and even the industry accept that this scenario is unlikely to be achieved. The worst case scenario will put barely a dent in current CO2 emissions levels if air travel continues to rise as expected.

It's worth noting, too, that your link comes from the industry itself. Others may take a slightly different view on how committed the aviation industry is to tackling climate change.[url=http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/aviationGreenpeace, for example.[/url



My apologies. What I meant was that we can't yet produce an alternative fuel car that is universally accepted, without serious compromises in performance, and where fuel is readily available in the same way as petrol is. There are loads of different ideas about what the best alternative fuel for cars will be, but until the industry and its consumers agree on what that fuel is, and a range of cars are produced that will run on this fuel and perform as well as current petrol/diesel cars, we're really no nearer to significantly reducing emissions from motoring.



I'd dispute that, certainly the 'clearly' part. Environmental scientists agree that climate change will eventually reach a 'tipping point', a point of no return from which warming will continue (and accelerate) no matter what measures we subsequently take. I don't think there is universal agreement on what point this will be - I don't think anyone really knows - but the worst case scenario described in your first link (or even the 'likely' middle scenario) wouldn't necessarily mean we had acted soon enough.

The only saving grace is that as soon as a viable replacement is found then the fuel supply industry tends to react quickly AS LONG as there is a demand for it, two extreme examples would be unleaded petrol and LPG, I recall having a Nissan Bluebird in the mid-80s that could be re-tuned to run on unleaded and as Conoco had a forecourt close to our office with one solitary unleaded pump I had it done, 12 months later you didn't really have to look too hard for unleaded pumps.

On the other hand in the late 1970s I had a Mk3 Ford Escort converted to LPG, there was one supplier in Leeds (the Calor Gas depot) and one in both of Newcastle & Birmingham which was fine for me as I was doing a weekly round trip between those three offices, it also helped that the car would run on gas or petrol. Fast forward to now and although LPG is supposed to be a viable fuel alternative its still not on every forecourt and the take-up has been very slow, I have never looked into it since that Ford Escort but is it a cheap fuel for cars or is it taxed just as heavily ?

Thats the main issue, find the alternative and then don't lump forecourt taxes on it to encourage its uptake - on the other hand I'm sure there is a big percentage of car users like me who could cope quite happily with the ranges that electric cars have now (even though its always touted as an obstacle).

I shouldn't think that the percentage of businesses that would just voluntarily make sacrifices would be statistically significant. Only stuff that's imposed could ever work. And that's irrelevant anyway unless you can find a way to halt the vast rise in greenhouse gases from China and the east anyway.


Doubt that. Business class costs about a squillion times what I would pay, and it's seemingly always pretty full.


Not essential, no, but not pleasure flights in the vast majority of cases. Of course if there were better alternatives then folk would use them. Would that we hadn't wrecked our railway system.


I'd say a 40% dent is some big dent. But I'm curious as to why air travel is expected to continue to rise, is that necessarily true? Are there so many wanton, unthinking extra potential customers, who don't fly now and really have no need to, but will proliferate into air travel in their millions regardless? I'm not convinced.


Indeed, but I didn't argue the aviation industry is committed to tackling climate change, I would accept entirely that anything they do is going to be more for reasons of public image and/or compulsion, indeed making the biggest profit they can is of course what they are in business to do. It's just that in the coming decades the two do seem to increasingly converge - if not co-incide.


I would largely agree, but here again, compulsion is the only alternative. For a radical example, what if you could only ever enter London's congestion charge zone if you were an electric car? I also don't think people will be keen to give up "performance" voluntarily and I think the only way forward (and that's speaking as a petrolhead) is not MAKE cars that can shoot along at 100 all day guzzling fuel from huge engines. I would hate to see the day but certainly if all there was in terms of cars on the motorways was models limited to (say) 50 mph then it would also very greatly ease congestion too (less space between cars, no point in lane hogging as everyone is going similar speeds).

Really? Oh., well. If we're all doomed, we may as well just crack on then. Where's me Scooby keys?

Agreed. That's why I was suggesting a huge tax hike, though a cap on certain types of flight would also be beneficial.



Again, I fully agree, but it makes it rather difficult for us to put pressure on other countries if we don't have our own house in order. Someone has to lead the way, but at the moment it seems like everyone is standing around waiting for someone else to act.



But then, doesn't this weaken your argument that businesses won't spend money they don't have to? I mean, if it was the case that they had to get an employee from A to B to carry out some essential piece of business, couldn't they just send them in standard class with the rest of the plebs? Why spend all the extra on business class?



But we could have better alternatives if we cut government subsidies to airline travel and ploughed it into our railways. According to Greenpeace, air travel causes 10 times the amount of pollution that rail travel causes. I'm not saying that the alternatives are necessarily in place right now, more that we should be making sure they're put into place before we're up to our tits in glacial meler.



It'd be quite a big dent in the current levels (though still not sufficient). Unfortunately, air travel is predicted to rise, and this would probably wipe out any gains achieved. And that's before we consider any deforestation that might have to occur to grow some of these biofuels.



Air travel has more than doubled (I think) since 1990. I'll dig out the stats later, if I can be d. They're predicted to keep on rising and could double again by 2050 (think this is worldwide rather than in the UK). Bit sketchy, but I'll check later if I have time.



Probably, but political change is slow. We're on a timescale here, and at the current rate, that convergence will occur rather too late. More radical change is needed (across the board, not just in aviation) if the 'tipping point' is to be avoided.



Agree with all of this, but I can't see the production of such vehicles being prohibited in my lifetime.



We're not doomed yet, but we soon will be if our governments don't get their heads out of their s and start doing something about climate change other than paying lip service to reducing emissions.

I think, though, a plane without pilots is eco-friendly as it saves on transporting the mass of what would otherwise be the flight crew, and their baggage, around the planet.

Another thing I find weird is that I have the same baggage allowance as the wife, yet if I weighed 100kg more than she does I would bizarrely still pay the same price for the ticket to lug my lardy to the same destination. I'm not complaining, of course, but given all the other extras they charge for I'm not sure why the main cost component - your personal weight - isn't factored in. In fairness, it should be.

Secondly, given the sheer weight of numbers of people who do fly, bringing in such a measure would probably do more to combat obesity, at least for people who use planes, than any government nag and preach campaign.

Lard tax, anyone?

It is really easy to organise. By total fluke I did Bradford to Istanbul purely by rail in 2010 and avoided all the chaos with the volcanic ash. All it took to organise the trains and sleepers was a single phone call to Deutschebahn. I would say though that the standard of sleeper and care went downhill from Hungary to Turkey. The guards were mainly pi55ed and I nearly got turfed off in rural Turkey at 3am as the guard had lost my ticket. On the other side of the coin I went from Krakow to Berlin and Berlin to Paris last year by train and the service was superb. Breakfast in bed etc.



I think that baggage allowances are way to high. Myself and the wife have a combined baggage weight of about 25kgs for a 2 week holiday. So why do people feel the need to take what looks like their entire wardrobe? Ours used to go in the overhead lockers until they brought the rules in about sharps and liquids which is a pain. Some stuff I see in overhead lockers is bigger and heavier than anything I've put in the hold.

I bet Ryan Air will be rushing to buy them, their pilots cannot land in the dark.

Likewise, my five day "Business Trip" (no really Tax Office, really) to Portugal will be done on a 5kg small day-hiking backpack, more than enough room in one of those for everything you could possibly need on a five day trip.

If you're a male.

When we go to Mexico in August we will use both lots of 22kg, plus I will buy 10kg extra for my dive kit. The two main cases with consist of approximately 10kg of clothes for me and 32kg of clothes, hair products, dryers, shoes etc for the wife.

There should be an aggregated personal weight + baggage rate per person. This would then allow skinny buggers to trade off their spare capacity to the "San & Tray"s of this world and thereby reduce their personal travel costs

You fattist tw@

As long as it isn't during takeoff a modern jet can happily fly -1 engine.

I'd love to be behind Eric Pickles at check-in. He'd need a planeload of Biafrans to compensate for his allowance

It might cost him more if the weigh-in was as you got off, rather than on.