If aviation doesn’t recover then it’s back to the old days when a ticket costs a minimum of $1000 and only a privileged few can travel very far. Hopefully no one who is retiring now had plans to travel the world because whatever they saved up won’t be enough.
Think when I get to retirement age, plan is to travel the world, by bike. The Americas will take a while; once done with that, I'll maybe hop on a boat.
Bicycle touring is so much fun! I did a four-day trip a couple years back, and there’s something about slowly pedaling your way from point A to point B that’s incredibly satisfying.
We did 200 miles over four days (across the state of Maryland on the C&O trail). We brought a tent and a hammock for sleeping, then we spent the last night on a hotel.
Aviation has always been implicitly or explicitly state supported. Worrying about the market is just a farce.
Think about how research is done, the aircraft makers get fat on their defense grants, airport land and infrastructure are built with subsidies, the transportation to and from the airport are usually public buses, metro, or public roads, the regulation of airspace by the FAA is taxpayer funded, the security theater is provided by DHS, it goes on and on. Only the most visible part of the system is really "deregulated" and run by people trying to make money. Even then they get bailed out whenever they whimper.
But that's kinda the GP's point, that the state WANTS you to be able to travel. Travel encourages trade, which generates more tax revenue. Of course the govt will support any sufficiently large mode of travel.
Would you get on a train right now, during a pandemic?
I wouldn't, and I like trains more than most people do. I'n sticking with my own car for transportation for the foreseeable future, and everyone else who owns a car is doing the same. I'm not going to put myself in a large metal box full of other people who might be sick.
Trains can feasibly put in ventilation systems that shoves inside air out, and pulls in fresh air. Recirculating air systems are the nasty part with covid. Trains aren't (much) concerned with weight, so can easily pack on the ventilation. I travel periodically for my remote job, and getting on a train on a Monday, working all day, then being at my HQ for several days before working all the way on a Friday sounds much better to me at this point.
Building more rail lines ... well that's another matter.
FYI airplanes do pull in fresh air too, they're not a completely sealed tube like people seem to think. The air itself in a plane isn't what concerns me, it's being so close to so many people and all the high contact surfaces that are rarely cleaned).
Yes, and regularly, and so do millions of other Tokyo residents. Cases here are up to ~200 daily new cases with (AFAIK) zero linked to public transit (and this is weeks after our quasi-lockdown ended).
If public transit/trains were by definition a significant risk factor Tokyo's situation would look a _lot_ different.
Now maybe a train stuffed with non-mask wearing people talking constantly would be a different issue.
Do you have any insight as to how that's possible? Not disputing the fact, but those trains are packed super tight. It seems like ideal situation for spreading. Are the only safeguards mask usage?
The biggest safeguard in Japan is civic compliance. Pretty much 100% of people with symptoms or who suspect they had contact, self-isolate. At low daily case rates, that's enough. If the rates spike, then they'll have to set restrictions again.
In some podcast someone mentioned that in (some) asian countries it feels like air conditioning in public transport is build to ensure quick and regular air exchange. And it would absolutely make sense, as they are way more used to these sort of problems than "the west". And also have generally higher population density. Might this also be true for Tokyo?
> Would you get on a train right now, during a pandemic?
Why, yes. I remember taking the high-speed train from Madrid to Barcelona some years ago in the preferente+ class, which cost me about 90€, and there was so much room that, with the exception of my side chair, I couldn't touch anyone else if I reached out in any direction.
And IIRC each carriage had about a 50-seat capacity.
That's a far cry from your typical sardine can experience in any airline, including in high-end seats.
Perhaps the OP included the cost to indicate it compared favourably with the cost of air travel and private car travel over the same route? I understand this wouldn't have been true for similarly distanced cites in USA, and I know from experience it wasn't true for London - HSR to Paris or Amsterdam was always several times more expensive than flying, and even domestic intercity rail was notoriously more expensive than flying internationally.
it would be very sad and a huge net negative for the world.
Being able to cheaply and quickly travel practically anywhere makes us see others as much less different from us and helps us see global issues as our issues
Or maybe we want to keep the peace induced through learning about different cultures via cheap travel. Maybe building dams is cheaper than recovering from a world war three.
I mean, it's a part of globalization, but I would argue that being able to skip most of the parts of the globe you don't want to deal with by traveling many miles above it isn't really helping with having an understanding of the world. It's another topic altogether what you do once you get there, but if it's just to vacation, then: :shrug:.
I'm banking on a political wind-shifting event where suddenly the vogue thing to do will be to allow all commerce to proceed like normal and social distancing will suddenly be relaxed. Not sure what political events would cause that to happen but it is within the realm of possibility.
Even if everything got relaxed, with the virus still around, the paranoid will still avoid gatherings, etc, and the economy will not return to normal. Maybe a draconian takeover of the world by a government that then suppresses information and says "We solved the virus!" convincingly enough would be such an event.
Meanwhile at least 1 "leader" is saying the above sentence, but he's only convincing a dwindling number of die-hard supporters.
As Orwell said:
> We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.
I'm considering investing into the top few airlines knowing that eventually they'll be back to normal. They'll get bailed out and the stock will go right back up to where it was.
I hope it doesn't and I'm disgusted with the romanticization of something so utterly destructive and unnecessary. The right thing is to never travel with plane again. I'm glad I live in a country where flying became taboo long before corona.
In Germany if you live in a bubble of progressive mid-20s. Probably the same for other European nations. I am mid/late twenty myself, commute a lot to other countries via plane and laugh about it. It's not that is an actual industry hurting phenomena, without corona aviation is doing fine everywhere and growing.
per passenger-mile, flying is much less polluting than driving a car, even after you account for the fact that pollution in the stratosphere is more damaging. If getting rid of air travel results in more people driving across the country, that makes the greenhouse worse.
In terms of absolute consumption, yes it would be great if people stopped spending so much on things that are damaging the environment... but it would be FAR better to instead spend money on renewable energy and electric cars, which are by far the most effective ways to reduce CO2.
> per passenger-mile, flying is much less polluting than driving a car, even after you account for the fact that pollution in the stratosphere is more damaging. If getting rid of air travel results in more people driving across the country, that makes the greenhouse worse.
Flying enables burning more fuel to go farther in the same amount of time.
Your comparison is simply bogus and structured to favor flying.
In a world without flying, those travel miles don't get replaced by automobile miles. They simply don't occur for the most part.
For such comparisons you should really hold the travel time constant, not the distance.
You may be technically right in a couple aspects but in the context of the real world this notion is ridiculous. Tell me of another method of transport that moves you around in a timely manner, particularly over oceans.
That's actually a major part of the problem. Efficiency (or more accurately: low opportunity costs) lead to higher induced demand via the Jevons paradox. Fast flights => more passenger miles, at roughly 40 gallons per passenger.
World Bank, passenger growth 1970--2018: 0.3 to 4.2 billion.
(Not paxmiles, but closely related, and available data.)
Totally agree on environmental factors but the philosophy of a take a train instead of fly domestic, and not fly at all international - is great for countries where you can travel by alternative means to another country, and great for countries where domestic travel doesn't mean a 16hr drive because there is no train infrastructure. For example, this won't work in Australia.
Agreed, unfortunately try getting anyone with that goal elected though, they immediately get eaten alive by the other side with "but they want to spend all your money!". I may just be speaking for Australian politics though.
I won't argue with your overall point, just to say that I don't think most people consider commercial air travel to be the least bit "romantic". It's a way to get somewhere, sometimes for work, sometimes to see family, sometimes for a vacation (I suspect in that order).
I was curious so I looked it up, the term "jet set" originates from the 1950s when it probably was romanticized as only the very wealthy could afford to fly.
"That covid-19 has exposed the fragility of globalisation is particularly apparent in the case of aviation. [...] historians will write that it was not radical environmental movements such as Extinction Rebellion that killed the trend. Instead it was the combination of a microscopic virus and free-market capitalism."
This reminded me of accelerationism [1], which seems more relevant now than ever. To quote Wikipedia: " [Accelerationism may refer] to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse"
So what? While the convenience of air travel is nice, I think the environmental cost right now is too great -- don't get me wrong, I love being able to hop on a plane and travel to say France (not that I can do that anymore with C19). It's somewhat selfish though, there's a pretty decent CO2 cost associated with it.
Maybe I get to go overseas if I make a commitment to offsetting the CO2 that I use (e.g. carbon credits) ... but that's hardly very progressive (why should only the wealthy only get to travel).
I suppose we could try to clean up shipping [bunker fuel] so we could go via some sort of gas turbine / wind powered cruise ship.
Or maybe this change in economic fortunes makes solar powered airships viable! Slow(-ish), but clean (& maybe fun!), I'm thinking the Mark Twain airship in "The Long Earth".
... I think I like the Mark Twain airship idea ... it sounds fun.
This would only work in a culture that fully embraces remote working, and the ships would need high availability bandwidth that doesn't cost insane amounts for terrible speeds.
This is because there's I'd either have to waste a week or two of my leave time just traveling, or would have to convince my employer to let me work remotely.
Not sure how this is different from a cruise-ship but I don't see why between satellites and high-altitude stationary relays (or something like Tesla Starlink) couldn't work.
62 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 59.9 ms ] threadThink about how research is done, the aircraft makers get fat on their defense grants, airport land and infrastructure are built with subsidies, the transportation to and from the airport are usually public buses, metro, or public roads, the regulation of airspace by the FAA is taxpayer funded, the security theater is provided by DHS, it goes on and on. Only the most visible part of the system is really "deregulated" and run by people trying to make money. Even then they get bailed out whenever they whimper.
But that's kinda the GP's point, that the state WANTS you to be able to travel. Travel encourages trade, which generates more tax revenue. Of course the govt will support any sufficiently large mode of travel.
I wouldn't, and I like trains more than most people do. I'n sticking with my own car for transportation for the foreseeable future, and everyone else who owns a car is doing the same. I'm not going to put myself in a large metal box full of other people who might be sick.
Building more rail lines ... well that's another matter.
Now maybe a train stuffed with non-mask wearing people talking constantly would be a different issue.
Why, yes. I remember taking the high-speed train from Madrid to Barcelona some years ago in the preferente+ class, which cost me about 90€, and there was so much room that, with the exception of my side chair, I couldn't touch anyone else if I reached out in any direction.
And IIRC each carriage had about a 50-seat capacity.
That's a far cry from your typical sardine can experience in any airline, including in high-end seats.
Tell me if I read it wrong, but you meant to say that €90 is a small amount right?
Trains (the long-distance sort, at least) tend to be a lot less crammed than airplanes, and you can open the windows.
The engineering considerations of air exchange with the outside environment are admittedly far simpler than jetliners.
Being able to cheaply and quickly travel practically anywhere makes us see others as much less different from us and helps us see global issues as our issues
Even if everything got relaxed, with the virus still around, the paranoid will still avoid gatherings, etc, and the economy will not return to normal. Maybe a draconian takeover of the world by a government that then suppresses information and says "We solved the virus!" convincingly enough would be such an event.
Meanwhile at least 1 "leader" is saying the above sentence, but he's only convincing a dwindling number of die-hard supporters.
As Orwell said:
> We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.
In terms of absolute consumption, yes it would be great if people stopped spending so much on things that are damaging the environment... but it would be FAR better to instead spend money on renewable energy and electric cars, which are by far the most effective ways to reduce CO2.
Yes, I think everyone should stop driving as well.
I agree about the renewable energy but we need to take action on both fronts.
Flying enables burning more fuel to go farther in the same amount of time.
Your comparison is simply bogus and structured to favor flying.
In a world without flying, those travel miles don't get replaced by automobile miles. They simply don't occur for the most part.
For such comparisons you should really hold the travel time constant, not the distance.
It's from this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/best-lifestyle-choice-s...
TLDR: One transatlantic flight is just under giving up driving altogether.
http://www.kimnicholas.com/uploads/2/5/7/6/25766487/fig1full...
World Bank, passenger growth 1970--2018: 0.3 to 4.2 billion.
(Not paxmiles, but closely related, and available data.)
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IS.AIR.PSGR
Right of way is (mostly) cheap.
I was curious so I looked it up, the term "jet set" originates from the 1950s when it probably was romanticized as only the very wealthy could afford to fly.
"That covid-19 has exposed the fragility of globalisation is particularly apparent in the case of aviation. [...] historians will write that it was not radical environmental movements such as Extinction Rebellion that killed the trend. Instead it was the combination of a microscopic virus and free-market capitalism."
This reminded me of accelerationism [1], which seems more relevant now than ever. To quote Wikipedia: " [Accelerationism may refer] to support for the intensification of capitalism in the belief that this will hasten its self-destructive tendencies and ultimately lead to its collapse"
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
Maybe I get to go overseas if I make a commitment to offsetting the CO2 that I use (e.g. carbon credits) ... but that's hardly very progressive (why should only the wealthy only get to travel).
I suppose we could try to clean up shipping [bunker fuel] so we could go via some sort of gas turbine / wind powered cruise ship.
Or maybe this change in economic fortunes makes solar powered airships viable! Slow(-ish), but clean (& maybe fun!), I'm thinking the Mark Twain airship in "The Long Earth".
... I think I like the Mark Twain airship idea ... it sounds fun.
This is because there's I'd either have to waste a week or two of my leave time just traveling, or would have to convince my employer to let me work remotely.
For sure though, it's a different life-pace.
(Then again: 140 characters not flying cars.)