Flight shame | Sunday Observer

Flight shame

30 June, 2019
Train or plane?
Train or plane?

Living in an island, there is one reality you cannot avoid – you have to fly if you want to travel to another country. There used to be a ferry to India, which is no longer operational. Occasionally, a cruise ship comes along that can take you to Mumbai, Singapore or Male. But these are leisure voyages, not every day journeys. The only real alternative is flying.

But in some countries and continents, there is an alternative (or two) to air travel. This is especially so in Europe, which has a good rail and road network that connects every country, apart from car-carrying ferries, and it is possible to avoid the plane if you are determined. But why not travel by air? The argument is that air travel is the biggest polluter on Earth and the train or even the car (especially the electric car) is a much better alternative for the environment.

The Swedes, who started this movement, even have a word for it – Flygskam or “Flight Shame”. On Twitter, they use the hashtag #stayontheground. In other words, it is the sense of being embarrassed or ashamed of flying because you are environmentally conscious. Air travel is already down eight percent in Sweden this year as a result of this campaign.

For the first time, climate impact has topped travellers’ reasons for choosing the train. “Rail travel is soaring thanks to climate fears,” said a Swedish Railway spokesman, Tobbe Lundell, adding that the operator was boosting capacity, particularly, on longer routes such as, between Stockholm, Malmö and Gothenburg. According to him, a single flight between Sweden’s two biggest cities, Stockholm and Gothenburg, generates as much CO2 as 40,000 train journeys – a fact that has plainly struck a chord with Swedes and others who now refuse to fly. But in the overall scheme of things, air travel worldwide is responsible for just 3 percent of CO2 and other harmful emissions.

But ditching the plane is not always possible. For islands which do not have a land connection, like Sri Lanka, flying is literally the only way out. For islands that do have a land connection, like the UK, the train is a feasible option for some if not all, journeys. In very big countries such as Russia, Canada and the US, distances are so vast that rail or road travel will take days. It takes only around four hours to fly from Los Angeles to New York, whereas by road it would take several days (and also stays at hotels). While some very long distance train journeys, such as London to Beijing, are indeed possible, who wants to spend more than 15 days in a train when the plane does that in 10 hours ?

Another factor that hinders long distance rail travel is that most countries have not upgraded their rail systems. In Japan, it is possible to avoid plane travel because the Shinkansen trains are so fast – a new train service that runs from Tokyo to Osaka from July can theoretically reach a maximum speed of 360 Km/h. The new Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) trains running in China will be able to run at 600 Km/h, actually rivaling regional jets in terms of speed. On the other hand, railways in other developed countries such as Australia and USA run at a snail’s pace.

The train from Sydney to Melbourne, a distance of 960 Km, takes a staggering 11 hours. The plane takes barely over one hour – no wonder the airline companies cannot keep up with the demand. But the train, slow or fast, has one advantage – the stations are right in the city centre and there are no security checks or baggage restrictions. There is one more solution still in the works – Elon Musk’s revolutionary idea of the Hyperloop – metal tube capsules which will propel people between cities at aircraft speeds. Expect the first commercial hyperloops to become operational within the next two decades. These could theoretically be built between continents as well.

But at present, it is clear that we simply cannot give up the plane for long distance, inter-continental travel. The aviation industry, both plane manufacturers and airlines, are very much aware of the environmental impact and the effects of flight shaming. A much talked-about solution is electric aircraft. An all-electric business jet called Alice is already on display at the Paris Air Show, with flight tests scheduled for next year and certification for 2021. Its batteries can power it for around 1,000 Km, a distance encompassing half the world’s annual total of 4.5 billion flights. A major problem is that its batteries weigh half of its Maximum Take Off Weight (MTOW) of 6,500 Kilos.

Transport companies such as Uber are also readying electric taxis for short hops. One can safely assume that all-electric big jetliners that can carry at least 100 people are 20-30 years away, but battery technology is moving fast. Gasoline-electric hybrid planes have been touted as an intermediate answer. In fact, Airbus is considering bringing the world’s first hybrid-electric airliner to the market as it considers its strategy for replacing the bread-and-butter A320neo narrow-body jet in the next 15 years.

Airlines are also experimenting with other solutions that are immediately available as the aviation industry has set a goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions in half from 2005 levels by 2050. One such solution (literally) is bio fuel. United Airlines of USA recently operated a normal commercial flight using a fuel mixture that contained 30 percent biofuel. United says this blend reduces emissions by 60 percent. But biofuel is currently expensive to produce and the supply is rather limited. The roughly one million gallons of biofuel that United used last year accounted for less than one percent of its total jet fuel needs in Los Angeles alone.

Plane and engine manufacturers are also upping the ante with newer designs that use less fuel and hence have less emissions. Today’s wide-body twin engine jets such as the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787 Dreamliner can carry almost the same number of passengers as a four-engine Airbus A340 (or even the Airbus A380), burning much less fuel. The newer planes are primarily made of lightweight composite materials that also help reduce fuel burn. Manufacturers are also debuting Ultra Long Range versions of their existing airframes – a recent example is the Airbus A321XLR (for EXtra Long Range) that can fly 8,700 Km non-stop.

According to Airbus, the new plane will burn 30 percent less fuel per seat than previous-generation competitors such as the Boeing 757. This is good news indeed in terms of fuel consumption.

What can we do at individual level ? For example, if you are going to a meeting, consider whether you can participate by teleconference. It is not only good for the environment but will save you (or the company) a bundle of cash. But it is a totally different picture if you want to travel for leisure.

We humans, curious by nature, want to explore our world. We broaden our horizons every time we travel. My firm belief is that flight shame should not come in the way of those new discoveries and new horizons.

Comments