How will Budget Airlines Compete As Oil Price Rises?

With the soaring oil prices over the passed 12 months, and higher fuel bills for the majority, how are budget airlines going to compete, let alone survive in the uncertainty of the future?

Europe's biggest budget airline Ryanair, carrying 49m passengers annually, announced today that it could make an annual loss of 60m euros. Ryanair's fuel bill now represents almost 50% of its operating costs, compared with 36% last year. Shares fell by 22% on the news, and competitors BA and EasyJet were down 5% and 8% respectively. EasyJet, have also announced that their profits for the year could be half of expectations.

Whilst Ryanair are shouting that they wont be increasing fares or adding a fuel surcharge, industry experts have suggested that average fares will rise this and next year by over 10%, the number of flights and seats will be reduced and even some airlines will end up in the aeroplane graveyard that was once a distant memory. We have already seen two airlines meet this demise this year, in the shape of low-cost airline Oasis Air, flying from London to Hong Kong, and low-cost business only airline Silverjet.

Airlines have anounced that they will be reducing the capacity available over the next year, so will this have a positive environmental impact?

According to DEFRA research the average short-haul flight is 500km, with CO2 emissions for that flight of approximately 65kg. If the airlines reduce the number of flights and seats, etc in a uniform and efficient way, the three mentioned above would reduce the total number of seats by approximately 7.5m, and CO2 emissions by 500 000 tonnes.

In the airline industry the price demand ratio is, for every 10% increase in prices, a typical 6.5% fall in passenger numbers is experienced.

US Embassy Criticises UK Plane Tax

The US embassy in London has criticised a government plan to tax airlines on each plane rather than each passenger, from November next year. In a letter leaked to the Daily Telegraph the embassy disputes the Treasury case that the change is aimed at lowering CO2 emissions.

It says the new tax appears to be just a way of generating extra revenue, and could breach international laws. The Treasury denies it is proposing any tax which could be considered illegal. The embassy letter expresses the "deep concern" of the US government with the Treasury's plans. It lists a number of international agreements that it says would be breached by the new tax. The Americans also say there's no evidence of any environmental benefit, as the extra millions raised would simply go into the government's coffers.

The Treasury's new tax will vary, depending on the size of the aircraft and how far it is travelling. Airlines estimate that under the proposed tax change, the tax payable on a flight from the UK to the US could more than double to £100 per person. The Government says the new tax will help cut emissions, by discouraging airlines to fly planes that are half empty.

But critics say that the tax will not affect budget airlines - as they normally fill their planes to capacity. There are also fears that airlines will avoid British airports - choosing instead to operate from other European airports where they will not be subject to the tax.

Showers at 30,000ft - Just Plane Stupid

I recently found myself reading an article from the Times about how Emirates are to include showers in their new luxurious first class cabins on board the the Airbus A380. Whilst the height of luxury at 37 000ft, this will rack up a huge carbon footprint, just a mere 881kg of CO2 per shower assuming the extra tonne of water is completely used at 40 litres per shower and 25 showers per journey. Each shower on board is the equivalent to heating water in a domestic water heater for 544 hours.

The showers, part of cabins in first class designed by BE Aerospace will first make an appearance on the Dubai to New York route on October 01.

“It’s symptomatic of who really benefits, the richest 18% in this country take 54% of all flights. The government is telling us to take fewer flights, but the huge increase in air traffic is not due to ordinary people going on family holidays, but because of excessive flying by the moneyed classes. Is this the type of development the aviation industry really needs?”
Robbie Gillett, Plane Stupid

I don't often agree with the antics of Plane Stupid, such as their protest last month atop the House of Commons, and hence the carefully worded post that followed. However, I don't think there is an environmental group or person who could justify such extreme gluttonous expenditure for such a minor pleasure.

What Ever Happened to the Great British Holiday?

Walkers Crisps recently started a promotion on their crisp packets called Walkers Brit Trips, you simply collect "e-points" from packets by entering the individual code online. The range of trips is extensive with entry to theme parks, 2 for 1 on many adventure pursuits and discounts on short breaks.

The main reason I was encouraged by this promotion was that, more often than not we holiday in foreign countries, and failing to even consider UK locations as an acceptable getaway spot. I too am guilty of this, failing to have even seen some of the local tourist hubs in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In actual fact I have been to London airports many more times than being in London.

So what happened to the great British holiday?

From the most recent UK Tourism Survey figures, we did take 79.2 million domestic holidays in the UK in 2006, spending £13.6 billion. In addition to these overnight trips, there were almost 270 million day visits made to the British coast, generating a further £3.1 billion spend. On average each trip was of 3.9 hours with an average party size of 3.5 people.

UK Top Ten Cities for Domestic Trips;

1. London
2. Manchester
3. Birmingham
4. Bristol
5. Blackpool
6. Leeds
7. Scarborough
8. Newcastle
9. Liverpool
10. York

In 2005, the UKTS found that we took 86.6m domestic holidays. These figures have been continually decreasing year-on-year. Changes in UKTS methodology make direct comparisons with the figures for previous years difficult.

UK Top Ten Cities for Business Trips;

1. London
2. Birmingham
3. Manchester
4. Leeds
5. Bristol
6. Nottingham
7. Liverpool
8. Newcastle
9. York
10. Hull

The growth of low-cost airlines have somewhat contributed to the demise of the domestic holiday, as more often than not, an airline ticket to Paris is cheaper than a rail ticket to London from Birmingham. Cost is an imminent factor and overall you can travel to pretty much anywhere in Europe for the same price (or even sometimes less) as travelling within the UK. Obviously this price differeniation does little to promote UK interests.

This means that we are travelling further by air, year on year, we don't need to even see the figures, just the constant news that UK airports are planning expansions, with additional terminals and runways to meet current existing and future demand.

Holidaying is a bit of an exact science, as to which is more environmentally sound way to travel. For example, London to Paris with EasyJet emits 56kg of CO2, not including additional travel to and from the airports. Eurostar emits only 5.5kg of CO2 per person. The driving distance, is about 289 miles, including using the train to cross the channel, depending on your car and the number of passengers, you could be looking at anything from 51kg of CO2 for the smallest car with one passenger, to 210kg for the most inefficient car. With more passengers this will obviously decrease. But if you were to drive to Brighton alone, you would emit more emissions than travelling to Paris by eurostar.

Green journeys not only matter to and from the local supermarket, but when we travel to the other side of the globe, but not only is travelling green difficult to calculate its nightmare over huge distances, with connections and stop overs, and in today's society time is a highly important factor in transport costs, especially for business, and individuals with limited holiday time.

Green travel is tough but if you can do it I applaude you, I am thinking of my next planned trip, Belfast > Bristol > London > Paris, in less than five days, and of course back again. With such little time I may have to hypocritically fly part of the journey.

If you want information on how to travel anywhere by train, check out the Man in Seat Sixty One, the link is in our blogroll.

How Big is Santa's Carbon Footprint?

Santa may have one of the biggest carbon footprints of an individual, anywhere in the world, even greater than of Al Gore, that most critics continue to ramble on about, but just how big is Santa's carbon footprint?

Santa in recent years has seen his workload increase as Christmas is seen as holiday by not just Christians but by people of all faiths around the world. Whilst no exact figures are available, and Santa has not published any to date, according to UNICEF there are 2.2 billion children in the world. For this we will assume Santa will deliver to all children, since none have made it on to the naughty list this year.

Using UK National Statistics, the average household in the UK has 1.8 children, unfortunately we do not have an international average. So Santa would need to visit roughly 1.22 billion homes. Assuming Santa travels east to west, which would be the most logical route thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the Earth, he has 48 hours to work with. Anders Larsson of the engineering consultancy Sweco, estimated that the average people per sq km on Earth is 48, and 20m between each home. Using these figures, Santa would need to travel a total distance of 24.4m km, or 141.46km per second, not including the fact he has stop the sleigh, get out, go down the chimney and deliver the presents, avoiding fires and chimney balloons, that may obstruct his path, then return to the sleigh and continue delivering presents. And visit 7073 homes a second, or 1.4 millisecond per visit.

In terms of Co2 emissions these will be greatly increased by the continued starting and stopping of the sleigh in addition to that with the extraordinary speeds at which the sleigh will be travelling. If we were to consider that the sleigh was being powered by a jet engine as touted in the film "Elf", namely a cringle 3000, whilst no vehicle can travel at that speed we will try to calculate the equivalent jet engine requirements. Before we do this we need to calculate the weight of Santa's sleigh load, all those toys in the sleigh. If each child was given only a Sony PS3 for Christmas, since not even Santa can get hold of Nintendo Wii's, at 7kg each, Santa would be pulling an average load during the journey of 4.3m tonnes. This is of course assuming that people all live evenly around the world with 20m between homes, and of course Santa hasn't died from exertion, or even slowed down, even a little.

Assuming Santa's sleigh fuel consumption was similar to that of a 747-400, taking the payload into consideration (9772 times more than a 747), the fuel consumption per km would be 116 000 litres per km. Note we have not taken into account that Santa is carrying the fuel in these assumptions, adding further weight to the sleigh, unless of course he stops off at some mega huge filling station, which he would need to do, or else he would need to carry over 2.8 billion litres of fuel, just for the presents alone, adding to his payload. So Santa now stops off at a filling station each km. To ensure he makes each km, he would need at least 60% extra fuel due to the starting and stopping which would increase his fuel consumption, or 185 600 litres per km.

Since Santa's sleigh is using a 747-400 engine technology, he is using kerosene, which emits 2.58kg of CO2 per litre. Meaning Santa's sleigh emits at least 478t of CO2 per km, or over the entire journey 11.683 billion tonnes of CO2 (42.88% of global CO2 emissions).

Naughty Santa.

My Most Polluting Purchase

I have just made one of the most polluting purchases I will make this year, something that emits 25g of CO2 per second, the equivalent to eating a packet of Walkers crisps every three seconds. 1.5kg of CO2 per minute, similar to boiling a kettle for one hour. 90kg CO2 per hour, one percent of the annual carbon footprint of the average person in the UK. And 2.18 tonnes of CO2 a day, the same as a 11975.2 miles flight from London Heathrow to Hong Kong.

Well actually, if you had not guessed from the picture that is what I have purchased, a flight from London Heathrow to Hong Kong with British Airways, of course in cattle class, not that I could afford Club World or First (not that I would reject a free upgrade), my excuse is cattle class of course is somewhat more "environmentally friendly", but that is a very empty excuse at that and to hide my overwhelming guilt. Whilst the trip will be a mixture of business and pleasure, I can't help but feel guilty for the cardinal eco-sin I have committed upon the planet after considerably galant efforts from the initiation of this blog. Offsetting seems the only way to free my conscience. Whilst I am not a fan of offsetting, in this case it seems the only fast track route to eco-heaven, and possibly to dissipate the guilt from my mind.

So how exactly can I offset 2.18 tonnes of CO2, well British Airways have partnered with Climate Care to allow passengers to offset their emissions for a nominal fee, in my case a mere £16.84. That is a fast track way to a guilt free flight. Like similar offsetting schemes the money is invested into projects around the world; Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, or Forest Restoration.

Technically my £16.84 will purchase about 22 energy efficient bulbs to reduce carbon emissions in one project. I think this is my gripe with carbon offsets, they seem so trivial and uninspiring, but if it reduces emissions surely it is a good thing.

To calculate your carbon emissions from British Airways flights visit the British Airways Carbon Calculator.

If you can inspire me to use £16.84 more wisely to offset 2.18 tonnes of CO2 emissions (or more), tell me how, and I may just consider your proposal. Add your ideas to the blog responses section.