Page 1 of 4

Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 7:52pm
by Cyril Haearn
The UK government plans to financially help an airline that goes from London to Exeter + Newquay
British people fly far too much according to Molly Scott Cato, green MEP for sw England + Gibraltar, she has pledged not to fly at all in 2020

I think people should accept that Newquay is far from London

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 8:17pm
by francovendee
I hate airports, not the flying.
Getting from France to the UK with one of the budget airlines can cost as little as 20 euros return.
Taking the car the ferry costs around 200 euros out of season for the car and two passengers.
I usually fly, it's cheaper and cuts out the 5 hour drive to the port.
I'm never sure which form of transport leaves the worse carbon footprint but at least the airline isn't being directly subsidised..

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 8:33pm
by Bonefishblues
It's a vital service to get to one's holiday home.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 8:55pm
by landsurfer
So ... Engineering meeting with CAF in Belfast;

Flying ..... Staff drive to EMA ... catch plane, £168 return, met at airport by customer, meeting, lunch, return to airport by customer, staff collection from airport. Total time 1 day.

Drive .....Drive to Dumfries in diesel vehicle (37 miles / gallon) .. night stop at Premier Inn. Next morning .. 0430hrs .. drive to Cairnrayan ... Ferry travel to Belfast ..£340 .... Meeting. Return ... to Sheffield. .. Total cost ... > £1000.

Now folks guess, which has the lowest carbon footprint / cost.

FLY ??

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 9:07pm
by carpetcleaner
francovendee wrote:I hate airports, not the flying.
Getting from France to the UK with one of the budget airlines can cost as little as 20 euros return.
Taking the car the ferry costs around 200 euros out of season for the car and two passengers.
I usually fly, it's cheaper and cuts out the 5 hour drive to the port.
I'm never sure which form of transport leaves the worse carbon footprint but at least the airline isn't being directly subsidised..


Air travel is effectively subsidised by the low or zero taxes applied to aeroplane fuel. If it was taxed like motor fuel flying would once again be only for the rich and airports would become elegant, luxury establishments made to cater for them.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 9:49pm
by peetee
landsurfer wrote:So ... Engineering meeting with CAF in Belfast;

Flying ..... Staff drive to EMA ... catch plane, £168 return, met at airport by customer, meeting, lunch, return to airport by customer, staff collection from airport. Total time 1 day.

Drive .....Drive to Dumfries in diesel vehicle (37 miles / gallon) .. night stop at Premier Inn. Next morning .. 0430hrs .. drive to Cairnrayan ... Ferry travel to Belfast ..£340 .... Meeting. Return ... to Sheffield. .. Total cost ... > £1000.

Now folks guess, which has the lowest carbon footprint / cost.

FLY ??


What sort of diesel vehicle only does 37mpg? :shock:

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 10:10pm
by Cugel
peetee wrote:
landsurfer wrote:So ... Engineering meeting with CAF in Belfast;

Flying ..... Staff drive to EMA ... catch plane, £168 return, met at airport by customer, meeting, lunch, return to airport by customer, staff collection from airport. Total time 1 day.

Drive .....Drive to Dumfries in diesel vehicle (37 miles / gallon) .. night stop at Premier Inn. Next morning .. 0430hrs .. drive to Cairnrayan ... Ferry travel to Belfast ..£340 .... Meeting. Return ... to Sheffield. .. Total cost ... > £1000.

Now folks guess, which has the lowest carbon footprint / cost.

FLY ??


What sort of diesel vehicle only does 37mpg? :shock:


A geet guzzling SUV with a teeny yet heavy-footed dasher in it. (Generally only one dasher). The roads are full of singleton dashers on a mission of no importance whatsoever. The skies also. But soon they will all be dead of weather. Mind, so will the rest of us.

Cugel

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 10:15pm
by roubaixtuesday
landsurfer wrote:So ... Engineering meeting with CAF in Belfast;

Flying ..... Staff drive to EMA ... catch plane, £168 return, met at airport by customer, meeting, lunch, return to airport by customer, staff collection from airport. Total time 1 day.

Drive .....Drive to Dumfries in diesel vehicle (37 miles / gallon) .. night stop at Premier Inn. Next morning .. 0430hrs .. drive to Cairnrayan ... Ferry travel to Belfast ..£340 .... Meeting. Return ... to Sheffield. .. Total cost ... > £1000.

Now folks guess, which has the lowest carbon footprint / cost.

FLY ??


Now folks guess, how long the earth's resources can support this?

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 11 Feb 2020, 10:22pm
by iandriver
As ever I feel the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. One foreign holiday a year perhaps. Treating planes like busses and doing 5 weekend breaks a year, probably ott.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 12:42am
by 100%JR
peetee wrote:
landsurfer wrote:So ... Engineering meeting with CAF in Belfast;

Flying ..... Staff drive to EMA ... catch plane, £168 return, met at airport by customer, meeting, lunch, return to airport by customer, staff collection from airport. Total time 1 day.

Drive .....Drive to Dumfries in diesel vehicle (37 miles / gallon) .. night stop at Premier Inn. Next morning .. 0430hrs .. drive to Cairnrayan ... Ferry travel to Belfast ..£340 .... Meeting. Return ... to Sheffield. .. Total cost ... > £1000.

Now folks guess, which has the lowest carbon footprint / cost.

FLY ??


What sort of diesel vehicle only does 37mpg? :shock:

I would hazard a guess that in reality quite a few will struggle to achieve that!
My Insignia 2.0 Diesel does sub 30mpg just nipping to work etc.I doubt it would do much more than 35mpg on a run.It might Squeeze 40mpg on a run if I tickled it and drove at 60mph.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 6:03am
by pwa
francovendee wrote:I hate airports, not the flying.
Getting from France to the UK with one of the budget airlines can cost as little as 20 euros return.
Taking the car the ferry costs around 200 euros out of season for the car and two passengers.
I usually fly, it's cheaper and cuts out the 5 hour drive to the port.
I'm never sure which form of transport leaves the worse carbon footprint but at least the airline isn't being directly subsidised..

That will be flying. I was listening yesterday to comparisons of flying, train and car in relation to HS2 and flying came out as shockingly bad as a way of getting from one UK city to another. It is easily possible to be a non-car-user and still have a higher carbon footprint from travelling than a regular car user who doesn't fly. I can see why folk fly between UK cities to save on cost, but it does make me wonder why I bother trying to reduce my own carbon footprint when others care so little.

Just for a flavour of the problem of flying:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -in-a-year

Comparison figures for modes of transport are complex and influenced by seat occupancy, but planes come out poorly. Trains and buses do well, with cars somewhere in between. And best of all is not travelling, or travelling by human power.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 6:59am
by landsurfer
peetee wrote:What sort of diesel vehicle only does 37mpg? :shock:

I would hazard a guess that in reality quite a few will struggle to achieve that!
My Insignia 2.0 Diesel does sub 30mpg just nipping to work etc.I doubt it would do much more than 35mpg on a run.It might Squeeze 40mpg on a run if I tickled it and drove at 60mph.[/quote]

+1 ... I prefer to use reality milage rather than fantasy milage quoted by vehicle manufactures and those seeking to justify their "green" vehicles.
Which don't actually exist of course.
On my last driven business trip to Belfast i took all 4 children and my wife, 4 Class 3200 hydrostatic hose kits and 4 sets of pumps and motors. Annual family visit and business all in one.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 8:51am
by reohn2
landsurfer wrote: ... I prefer to use reality milage rather than fantasy milage quoted by vehicle manufactures and those seeking to justify their "green" vehicles. ....

My 10 year old Ford C max 2.0ltr diesel has returned between 50 and 55 mpg regularly over the 5 years I've owned it,mainly motorway miles @ 70/75mph.
I'm expecting the new(to me)S max maybe slightly less but it's a bigger and heavier car.

EDIT,before the current C max I had another 1.8ltre petrol C max which returned a regular 37 to 40 mpg over the 4 years owned.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 9:13am
by hamster
100%JR wrote:My Insignia 2.0 Diesel does sub 30mpg just nipping to work etc.I doubt it would do much more than 35mpg on a run.It might Squeeze 40mpg on a run if I tickled it and drove at 60mph.


That's incredibly poor.

My 2013 C220 CDi Mercedes estate does 58mpg on a motorway (real figures, not paper), long term average over everything 47mpg.

It gets Tunap injector cleaner into it every year, it always kicks the mpg up by 2mpg or so. It's around £15 a bottle.

Re: Flying.. why? why not?

Posted: 12 Feb 2020, 9:25am
by Oldjohnw
My VW Golf gets 55-65 and 75+ on long journeys. I don't speed but on motorways I don't dawdle either.