4 ms·

We keep trying to make airlines work with a ton of taxpayer bailout money. I wonder if its time to just face the obvious problem that airlines may not be a prof

by pm90 6y ago

We keep trying to make airlines work with a ton of taxpayer bailout money. I wonder if its time to just face the obvious problem that airlines may not be a profitable way to transport people over long distances, and perhaps consider alternatives? Would high speed rail be more profitable once the initial investments are made? Are there alternatives?

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
The tourist industry in general struggles in many countries now, similar to flight industry, due to COVID19 measures. Do you then also draw a hasty conclusion that the tourist industry is in fact "not a profitable business" in general?
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  Growing tourism is impractical. For example, look at how hard Venice is trying to keep day visitors out.
newforms 6y ago
The article mentions how profitable the airline industry has been - "in the black for 11 straight years" https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2019-12-11-01/ https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2019-12-11-01/ I suspect any mass transport is going to take a hit with the current situation, trains included.
choeger 6y ago
Short answer, no. In the current political climate (pun intended), air travel is seen as an obscene luxury. But putting these moralities aside, it is easy to see, how efficient it is. 1. Air travel is point-to-point (for reasonably large points) practically for free. Open three airports, you have six connections. Open a fourth, you now have up to 12 connections. This kind of combinatorial growth cannot be done with road or rail (but partially with ports). 2. Air travel is quick. Flying between the US and Europe is the matter of a day. No need for intermediate accomodations, etc. On short distances, trains can compete here. 3. Air travel is relatively cheap. Not so much because of the energy used or the construction, but because of the utilization of aircraft. A modern aircraft can make multiple connections a day. This can be replicated by some fast trains, but not to that degree. It cannot be replicated by ship, except for the shortest of routes. Conclusively, I would say that carbon-neutral or even just carbon-efficient air travel is here to stay, or traveling will become much more expensive.
- Zigurd 6y ago
  That is a very abstracted view of it. In practice, everything from aluminum production that was ramped-up in WWII, to regional pork barrel, to national technology policy, to sovereign wealth fund politics, to issues of national prestige, all hide subsidization of air travel. It may be you are right about the efficiency of air travel, but there is potentially a gap between that and reality. Carbon neutral air travel is far in the future, and may not arrive in time to make a difference.

by pm90 6y ago

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

The tourist industry in general struggles in many countries now, similar to flight industry, due to COVID19 measures. Do you then also draw a hasty conclusion that the tourist industry is in fact "not a profitable business" in general?

fxtentacle 6y ago
Growing tourism is impractical. For example, look at how hard Venice is trying to keep day visitors out.

newforms 6y ago

The article mentions how profitable the airline industry has been - "in the black for 11 straight years" https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2019-12-11-01/ https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2019-12-11-01/ I suspect any mass transport is going to take a hit with the current situation, trains included.

choeger 6y ago

Short answer, no. In the current political climate (pun intended), air travel is seen as an obscene luxury. But putting these moralities aside, it is easy to see, how efficient it is. 1. Air travel is point-to-point (for reasonably large points) practically for free. Open three airports, you have six connections. Open a fourth, you now have up to 12 connections. This kind of combinatorial growth cannot be done with road or rail (but partially with ports). 2. Air travel is quick. Flying between the US and Europe is the matter of a day. No need for intermediate accomodations, etc. On short distances, trains can compete here. 3. Air travel is relatively cheap. Not so much because of the energy used or the construction, but because of the utilization of aircraft. A modern aircraft can make multiple connections a day. This can be replicated by some fast trains, but not to that degree. It cannot be replicated by ship, except for the shortest of routes. Conclusively, I would say that carbon-neutral or even just carbon-efficient air travel is here to stay, or traveling will become much more expensive.

Zigurd 6y ago
That is a very abstracted view of it. In practice, everything from aluminum production that was ramped-up in WWII, to regional pork barrel, to national technology policy, to sovereign wealth fund politics, to issues of national prestige, all hide subsidization of air travel. It may be you are right about the efficiency of air travel, but there is potentially a gap between that and reality. Carbon neutral air travel is far in the future, and may not arrive in time to make a difference.