12 ms·
Air travel’s sudden collapse will reshape a trillion-dollar industry
- abraae 6y agoThere's a lot to hate about Covid-19 but the planet must be breathing a sigh of relief at the reduction in planes and cruise ships pumping carbon into the air.
- bluedevil2k 6y agoAirlines = 2% of global carbon emissions Cruise ships = 0.2% of global emissions. Stopping both will have a negligible effect on global carbon, probably near 0 since more people will drive as a result. * https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html * https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-ship/ https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-shi...
- JadeNB 6y ago> Stopping both will have a negligible effect on global carbon, probably near 0 since more people will drive as a result. That seems to assume that people are still doing the same amount of travel, just not by air; but I don't think that's true.
- lm28469 6y agoI feel like most people travel because it's cheap. In Europe, and with a bit of preparation, you can get round trips between any 2 major cities for less than 100 euros, sometimes much less. Berlin<>Mallorca is often under 25 euros (round trip)
- renewiltord 6y agoWow! 2% of emissions? That's a lot. If you shut off airlines it's the same as a single year's growth in emissions.
- rumanator 6y ago> If you shut off airlines Well the thing is that you don't. Even if the airline industry is decimated, you would only see a fraction of that potential value go down. In essence you're talking a fraction of 2% of all emissions. That doesn't even register as noise in the overall trend.
- glial 6y agoIt won’t totally fix the problem. Might as well not do it then.
- rumanator 6y agoIf you want to address a problem, you don't waste your time focusing on inconsequent approaches. And more importantly, you are doing absolutely nothing to fix the problem. You're passively watching while a temporary crisis affected an industry that has a potential contribution to the problem that is at best around 2%.
- glial 6y agoSure, but I've heard that argument so often about so many different industries. The effect of changing any individual industry will be small -- so the solution is to change many of them rather than none of them.
- usrusr 6y agoAir travel is the most direct wallet-to-well way to spend one's money. Money spent on other things will spin up a lot of economic activity and will ultimately reach a fossil fuel extraction beneficiary anyways. Could it be that all the spinning-up on the less direct route would ultimately lead to faster fuel extraction/burning in total? It would surely allow more people to participate in the benefits stemming the economic activity caused by the more indirect wallet-to-well route (a social benefit of not flying), but I have repeatedly failed to wrap my head around the relative speed of fuel extraction/disposal of more direct burning vs more indirect burning.
- vegannet 6y agoThat’s an airline interest groups website so the figures are the rosiest you can find — not to say they’re egregiously wrong but they’re framed very positively. Air travel doesn’t exist in isolation, less air travel _because_ less people are travelling means you would expect to see a reduction in car use too.
- wahern 6y agoThe figure agrees with the EESI, which claims 2.4% globally and 3% domestically: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-commercial-aviation https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-the-growth-in-gr... I can't find any evidence that EESI has an industry bias.
- jiofih 6y agoParent was probably thinking of the whole shipping industry which is responsible for ~3% of global emissions.
- fiblye 6y agoYou can make it seem like there's no effect if people simply ride airplanes then disappear. There's a whole economy before, during, and after. People taking trips on airplanes are often riding taxis and pumping CO2 into the air, buying up loads of goods during their trip that needs to be processed and manufactured (clothes, knick knacks, excess food), and so on. Countries and regions with economies dependent on tourism are taking huge hits to their GDP. That'll likely be reflected in lower emissions.
- xvilka 6y ago> riding taxis and pumping CO2 into the air, buying up loads of goods during their trip that needs to be processed and manufactured (clothes, knick knacks, excess food), and so on. People would do exactly this locally as a substitute for travel. It might be a boon for a local economy, but doesn't help with carbon and other types of emissions.
- fiblye 6y agoTravel is a time of excess. There’s a lot of cost beyond just the airplane tickets. Those costs come from somewhere.
- jdavis703 6y agoI don’t think many people will be driving from say NYC to London.
- criddell 6y agoThe LA Times had this story: https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-co2-sea-ice-20161103-story.html https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-co2-sea... In it they say: > For every metric ton of carbon dioxide released into the air, three square meters of Arctic sea ice disappear. [...] > To put that in further perspective, Notz said, it means that driving about 2,500 miles in the average American car results in another three square meters of melted ice. A round-trip plane ride from New York to London costs another three square meters or so of Arctic sea ice. If a single trip between the US and UK can melt that much ice per passenger, the airlines must be spewing a tremendous amount of CO2 into the air. I would think short flights would be even worse. I have a really hard time believing the airlines trade group's 2% figure.
- bluedevil2k 6y ago> must be spewing a tremendous amount of CO2. So you’d rather go with your gut and an incredibly vague (square feet of ice / passenger) metric than a straightforward %? And what does square feet of ice even mean? Last I checked that’s meaningless and a volume of ice should be measured.
- criddell 6y agoThat article had a link to the study. > Because climate-model simulations of the sea-ice loss differ substantially, we used a robust linear relationship between monthly-mean September sea-ice area and cumulative carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to infer the future evolution of Arctic summer sea ice directly from the observational record.
- missedthecue 6y agoCruise ships are one of the most climate friendly ways to vacation, given how many people fit on them. (Vacations aren't climate friendly in general, but when you spread the emissions equally per passenger, it's remarkably efficient)
- oska 6y agoCruise ships are massive emitters of sulphur dioxide. > The results [of the study] show that the luxury cruise brands owned by Carnival Corporation & PLC emitted in 2017 in European seas alone 10 times more disease-causing sulphur dioxide than all of Europe’s 260+ million passenger vehicles. Spain, Italy, Greece, France and Norway are the most exposed countries to cruise ship air pollution in Europe. https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/one-corporation-pollute-them-all https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/one-corpor...
- refurb 6y agoDoesn’t sulfur dioxide having a cooling effect on the climate?
- lm28469 6y agoI'm not versed on the subject but a quick google search seems to indicate it's a very obvious net negative for the environment. It's not just about temperature...
- mxfihdsgyxegaas 6y agoThis doesn't make a lot of sense since passenger vehicles use low sulfur diesel while cruise ships don't > Ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULSD) is a standard for defining diesel fuel with substantially lowered sulfur contents. As of 2016, almost all of the petroleum-based diesel fuel available in the UK, mainland Europe, and North America is of a ULSD type.
- lm28469 6y agoI see that type of message all the time and it's infuriating... It' not only about carbon, planes and ships are releasing way more nasty shit and frankly I doubt this is news to you. "where" the pollution happens is also a major issue. A 50cc scooter doesn't pollute much but if you have it running in your bedroom it quickly becomes an issue, same thing for higher atmosphere and oceans. It's time to stop hiding behind meaningless numbers and face what's really happening. > probably near 0 since more people will drive as a result. Good luck driving from NY to Paris, or from Berlin to Barcelona for the weekend. People lived just fine when they didn't go to the other side of the world every few months. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviati... https://www.newscientist.com/article/2207886-it-turns-out-planes-are-even-worse-for-the-climate-than-we-thought/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2207886-it-turns-out-pl... https://www.smartgreenpost.com/2019/06/06/smog-in-europe-cruise-ships-pollute-more-than-all-cars/ https://www.smartgreenpost.com/2019/06/06/smog-in-europe-cru... https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/luxury-cruise-giant-emits-10-times-more-air-pollution-sox-all-europe’s-cars-–-study https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/luxury-cruise-gia...
- ithinkinstereo 6y agoI wonder how much of this is offset by the increase in shipping volume due to the increase in ecommerce volume.
- contingencies 6y agoShipping by sea per item mile relative to alternative transportation methods is actually extremely efficient in emissions terms. Secondly, ecommerce might be up but overall consumption is down.
- Alupis 6y agoFor ecommerce, "shipping" is certainly referring to shipping the item to the customer, ie. USPS/UPS/FedEx/Amazon trucks driving around. Definitely been an increase in that.
- Nasrudith 6y agoIt would still be a net loss in emissions compared to reality but less than a naive "there goes all of that fungible shipping demand forever" model as huge container ships are more efficient in emissions even though bunker oil tends to be dirtier than jet fuel. Plus overall goods consumption is certainly down with COVID.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- viburnum 6y agoHere come the "only 2%" brigade.
- aaron695 6y agoHow do we stop any article that can somehow be linked to C02 from turning into the exact same off topic repetitive conversation about global warming again, and again and again and again. This article is a big deal, but I doubt we'll see anyone talking about the spider web of the world having been removed and the massive ramifications it will mean.
- mac01021 6y agoIt's not like we can't do both. If I have anything interesting to say about the socioeconomic repercussions of shutting down air travel I will. But, in general, I think the more people talk about global warming the better.
- Kednicma 6y agoSuddenly this big-brain thread from two months ago looks like less of a joke: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23165866 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23165866 > More assertively, Airbus’s boss, Guillaume Faury, does not rule out suing customers who renege on their orders. Okay, so it's still kind of a joke, but the tone of the humor has changed quite a bit.
- deeblering4 6y agoIt would be fascinating if this resulted in the removal of rows of seats to make the passengers that they do have more distanced (and comfortable), maybe even seeing competition in the area of pandemic friendly amenities.
- nickff 6y agoThere are some all-first-class airliners, generally used for very long-distance routes. I would expect the result of what you're describing would be a proliferation of similar models.
- jimmaswell 6y agoWhy would we make such costly changes for a blip in the history of the planes? Almost nobody is going to want to keep up this horrid lifestyle after the virus is over.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y agoExactly. I'm completely baffled that some folks seem to think that our short term responses to Covid, which as you say are pretty horrid, will stick around after the pandemic ends. I agree there are some instances where Covid has accelerated changes that were already in motion, but I've seen too much "introvert fantasy fiction" ignoring that the majority of people are itching to end these restrictions ASAP.
- jdhn 6y agoI used to think the same, but then I realized that it's simply a minority of very loud voices who are actively supporting their position. Most people want lockdowns to be lifted, but they're not as vocal so it seems like they aren't saying anything.
- ceejayoz 6y ago> Most people want lockdowns to be lifted, but they're not as vocal so it seems like they aren't saying anything. Do you have a citation for this? That "want" is doing a lot of work... everyone wants the lockdowns lifted, sure. But do they support lifting the lockdowns and related restrictions, right now? No. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/22/coronavirus-survey-another-season-lockdown-mask-wearing-ahead/5479999002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/07/22/coronavirus-... > Support for wearing masks in public is up to 68% from 54% since late March, Gerzema said, and "this shift is attributed to those who were indifferent to masks before." Previously in March, one-third (33%) responded as "neither positive or negative" on mask-wearing, but that fell to 19% last month. > Most Americans (86%) said they were also willing to follow guidelines including masks and social distancing if it meant ending a lockdown within a month. The older the respondent, the more likely to agree, with seniors more likely to practice social distancing (96%) than boomers (89%), Gen Xers (87%) and Gen Z (77%). Seniors were more willing to wear a mask, too: 94%, compared with Boomers (88%), Gen Xers (85%) and Gen Z (78%). > And most respondents want state officials to take measures to help stem transmission of the virus. More than three-fourths (77%) support enacting mandatory 14-day quarantines for travelers coming from states with a high resurgence of COVID-19.
- tlow 6y agoLet's invest in a high speed national passenger rail system!
- nickff 6y agoRail has much higher initial and fixed costs than air travel, and high-speed trains consume more energy than aircraft on long-distance routes (as airliners travel at high altitude with low air resistance). The literal footprint of a rail system is also very large; clearing and grading rail lines across the country would have a significant environmental impact.
- turnsnake55 6y agoThey can be electric and carry far more people than airplanes. There is no comparison. Planes are worse.
- iso947 6y agoThat’s a bold Claim. What proof do you offer?
- nickff 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail for the costs side. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/drageq.html for the drag side. There are also a huge number of fuel consumption, economic analysis, and environmental impact studies, but I am sure you can find those easily if you're interested.
- Binichgross0 6y ago> X's collapse will Y industry Thanks HN very insightful
- neonate 6y agohttps://archive.is/XdtCp https://archive.is/XdtCp
- Animats 6y agoEven before this, the airline industry was downsizing. Boeing 747 and A-380 aircraft were no longer being ordered, and many were already parked. The 737-MAX debacle didn't result in a capacity shortage. Business air travel, overall, will probably never come back. More meetings will be online; only for really important ones will people actually take an airplane. With more people working at home, there may not be an office to meet at. You'd have to book a conference center.
- ThrowMeAwayOkay 6y agoI hope it’s never that disposable to fly for business ever again. At my last employer, they flew me across the USA one evening, drinks and dinner and hotel room. Morning breakfast, then we had the 1 hour meeting we had scheduled (a meeting that easily could have been done remotely). Then a big fancy lunch, my Uber arrived, and a plane ride back across the country to my home. At least during the 1 hour meeting my boss brought in his baby goats to show us, so there’s that.
- newyankee 6y agoHonestly if you really analyze the world and how it works, this is because the folks at the top have to maintain the illusion that they do important work and need a certain level of spending to create the environment to execute it. I do agree that stuff like conferences etc. are absolutely necessary. However, any job or work above a certain level is more about projecting power, persona after following regular practices in strategy. Probably your employer did it because they were allocated that amount in the annual budget and had to tick the box, but won't you as an employee prefer at least the stay to be extended by 3+ days for more meaningful interaction. Conversely won't it be better to cancel it altogether and pass 30% of the savings to you, the employee ?
- kmlx 6y agothe baby goats were worth the trip!
- jagannathtech 6y agowow
- stevespang 6y agoBullcrap. The vaccine will be out this fall and all those vaccinated will begin to fly again.
- AtlasBarfed 6y agoHighway self-driving will immolate short and medium flights. Would you rather have YOUR car drive you overnight on a highway while you sleep and get to take far more luggage and have a car when you get there and spend about 20$ in electricity at a lower carbon footprint and you can leave and return and change your schedule at will? Or go to the effing airport? 400 miles is about the same amount of time at a far lower cost and flexibility. 500-600 miles is an extra hour or two, and you can stop and see friends and eat food, or just sleep overnight. 700-1000? Sure a bit more annoying, but still you can take more, is cheaper, and you get your car when you get there. So in my opinion, any trip under 1000 miles will probably be driven once self-driving takes off. And highway self-driving is the easiest to automate, and highways are the infrastructure that will be "converged" or adapted with self driving first.
- CydeWeys 6y agoI don't sleep well in cars and I certainly won't make it that far without a bathroom stop. A quick flight sounds more appealing still.
- AtlasBarfed 6y agoYou can ask your car to stop to go to the bathroom. Self-driving cars will probably have better reclining that the current ones. It will be a feature. Even if you don't sleep, going to an airport with sufficient buffer, checking baggage and checking in, security lines, waiting to board, boarding, actual flight, taxi time, getting baggage, getting ground transport is about 4-6 hours even for a 1 hour commuter flight. And when highway self-driving really improves with mesh networking cars might be able to cruise at 100mph.
- CydeWeys 6y agoAre cars gonna have bathrooms in them now? Because if not, you're now talking about rest areas, many of which are closed at night. And if I wake up having to pee, and the nearest rest stop isn't for an hour, what then? I can't go back to sleep. The nice thing about a plane/train/coach is that the bathroom is right there -- no need to interrupt your travel. It's all kind of academic anyway because I don't own a car, nor does owning one here make sense anyway as I'd never use it except on road trips, so the plane/train/coach is the only option.
- mac01021 6y agoOther countries probably won't want to let many people in until a vaccine comes out. But, for domestic travel, it seems to me that the airlines shouldn't need too much technological sophistication to make airliners safe, at least for people mature enough to wear some kind of airline-provided apparatus on their face for the duration of the flight.