Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
onetrack

My, how things have changed in aviation in such a short time

Recommended Posts

Who would've ever thought, at the end of 2019 - that by mid-2020, 16,000 passenger aircraft (out of appprox 24,000 worldwide)  would be permanently grounded, airlines worldwide would become shadows of their former selves, and companies like Boeing would record billions in losses - which losses are quite likely to continue, for many years yet! Those great expansion plans for aircraft production, are just chaff in the wind, today!

 

2017 - https://www.traveller.com.au/plane-facts-and-truths-how-many-aircraft-are-there-in-the-world-right-now-and-how-many-have-disappeared-gxy2xs

 

2020 - https://time.com/5823395/grounded-planes-coronavirus-storage/

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Mousie, thou art no thy-lane,

In proving foresight may be vain:

The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men

          Gang aft agley,

An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,

          For promis’d joy!

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, that's pretty good, OME... you should publish... :idea:

 

(Of course, you could get Burned if you do... some people may think you Robbed someone)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read it as "thou art no(t) thy(self) alone". In other words, in our modern English, "You aren't alone" (with that problem).

 

If you really want to do your head in, read "Da Tree Peerie Grice" in Highland Scottish. (Hint - a Grice is a now-extinct Scottish Highland native pig, "tree" is three, and "peerie" means "little". It's not known how "peerie" originated, some suspect a Scandinavian origin).

 

https://www.shetlanddialect.org.uk/assets/files/gear-box/da tree peerie grice/Da Tree Peerie Grice.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to topic... What are your thoughts on the drop in global airline traffic?

 

I am in two minds. Obviosuly I feel for those whose jobs are under threat or who have lost them; I feel for those that have shares in airline and travel companies who could not have foresaw what was coming.. many pensions/super funds will be hit. I feel for the airline manufacturing workers, the air traffic controllers, engineers, caterers, cleaners, baage handlers, airport workers, car hire companies, etc, tour operators, hoteliers, apartment and villa owners, restaurants, etc. It is, from an economic perspective, devastating...

 

Or is it?

 

Tourism Australia are promoting travelling within Aus - of which there is little choice - although subject to state border lockdowns. However, how many Aussies go O/S for their holdays versus holiday in Aus and would those that normally would holiday O/S make up the numbers of those that come from lands afar? I know in the UK, despite the ability to have a sumemr holiday in Europe, the net effect of the reduced airline capacity was a net increase in tourism in the UK.. Result.. Not so sure that would apply in Aus...

 

Be that as it may.. From an ecological perspective, the reduction in airline capacity will have a posuitive impact (or reduced negative impact) on the environment and climate change... Or will it? More cars on the roads.. and are they more efficient and have less impact on the environment than an airliner? Some time ago, I rang a radio station in London. They claimed that a 777 travelling from London to Miami had the emissions of 8 cars running for a year. My view was this.. it is 4,500 miles from London to Miami (give or take). Assuming an average of 4 people in a car for 10,000 miles per year = 40,000 people miles per car per year. Multiply this by 8 and you get 320,000 people miles per year for the 8 cars.

 

It is around 4,500 miles from London to Miami. The seating capacity was nominally about 400 people (can be more can be less).. but a load factor of about 70% (which they were getting at the time). That is 1,800,000 people miles for a 777 trip.. Which is the more efficient - 8 cars (and let's face it, the average passengers per car per trip is probably closer to 2 than 4) or a B777?

 

So, if all those people who would have flown have taken to their cars, would it be better for the environment? I am not sure - although, given that those people who took their holiday for 2 weeks to Miami probably would drive a lot smaller distance and would use their car as normal for the rest of the year (or take public transport), then, of course it has a much less effect on the environment.

 

So, I am conflicted - economically, I think its a disaster and don't want people out of work.. And it is stunting my ability to get some business out of Aus that could see me flying amongst yourselves... (Sydney and Melbourne - courtesy of the Royal Commission into Banking & Financial Services).

 

But, my interpretation of the facts is that the reduction of airline traffic and the pollution it causes will reduce the impact humans have on posioning and warming up the planet (this is not the thread to argue this.. it is simply my perception).

 

On balance, given pilots at least can get well paid jobs in agriculture (if only temporarily), and the others can get lesser paid jobs (thanks to a lack of backpackers), I am happy of the reduction..

 

*flame proof suite donned*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that you missed commenting upon with out-of-work commercial pilots is lack of currency. If the airlines stand down pilots because of lack of demand for flights from the travelling public, will the airlines recall the pilots fro their regular flight currency requirements, even if those currency requirements can be met through the use of simulators? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the greatest pointer to any climate effect by 2/3rds of the worlds aircraft being grounded, is the total amount of fossil fuels being sold/used.

 

As I understand it, oil production has taken a hammering, thus the reason for the current low fuel prices.

 

OPEC reduced production by 9.7M barrels per day in June to try and cope with the massive reduction in oil demand - but there's still a major oversupply situation, that is predicted to last well into next year.

 

I do feel for all those people in the international tourism and travel industries - it has had a massive cascading effect, from luggage retailers folding, and cruise liners being scrapped, right through to group tour organisers going out of business.

 

But little in life is certain - apart from death and taxes - and major changes to lifestyle and income, and social and financial standing, happen to many people during their lives. It has happened to me multiple times over my life.

 

I think it's probably a good thing that the airline and tourism industries are going through a major reset. In many parts of the world, tourism was out of control (Venice comes to mind, but Venice is not alone).

 

I think we need to ensure that tourism to fragile locations is properly regulated and that there's a balance restored to those places that were formerly overrun by millions of tourists, to their detriment.

Edited by onetrack
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 1929, there was a sudden bursting of the economic bubble that lead to the 1930's Depression. We are in an economic depression now, but we have sort of eased into it, which makes hitting rock bottom a bit softer. 

 

Maybe we are suffering from the effects of too much wealth for out own good. Look at which things were hit first and hardest by the lock-downs. Service industries from coffee shops to cruise liners. After that it was the apparel sellers and the "labour-saving" devices retailers. Those who have not lost out are the primary producers - people gotta eat.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too much wealth.... My Karcher pressure washer died yesterday, I think it blew an internal seal. For the first time in my life i did not take it apart and try to fix it. I took it to the bin. That is now my policy, life is too short to engage in an intellectual competition with designers and manufacturers who don't want you to fix things. It will cost me money but it will save me a lot of grief and distraction.

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

Back to topic... What are your thoughts on the drop in global airline traffic?

 

I am in two minds. Obviosuly I feel for those whose jobs are under threat or who have lost them; I feel for those that have shares in airline and travel companies who could not have foresaw what was coming.. many pensions/super funds will be hit. I feel for the airline manufacturing workers, the air traffic controllers, engineers, caterers, cleaners, baage handlers, airport workers, car hire companies, etc, tour operators, hoteliers, apartment and villa owners, restaurants, etc. It is, from an economic perspective, devastating...

 

Or is it?

 

Tourism Australia are promoting travelling within Aus - of which there is little choice - although subject to state border lockdowns. However, how many Aussies go O/S for their holdays versus holiday in Aus and would those that normally would holiday O/S make up the numbers of those that come from lands afar? I know in the UK, despite the ability to have a sumemr holiday in Europe, the net effect of the reduced airline capacity was a net increase in tourism in the UK.. Result.. Not so sure that would apply in Aus...

 

Be that as it may.. From an ecological perspective, the reduction in airline capacity will have a posuitive impact (or reduced negative impact) on the environment and climate change... Or will it? More cars on the roads.. and are they more efficient and have less impact on the environment than an airliner? Some time ago, I rang a radio station in London. They claimed that a 777 travelling from London to Miami had the emissions of 8 cars running for a year. My view was this.. it is 4,500 miles from London to Miami (give or take). Assuming an average of 4 people in a car for 10,000 miles per year = 40,000 people miles per car per year. Multiply this by 8 and you get 320,000 people miles per year for the 8 cars.

 

It is around 4,500 miles from London to Miami. The seating capacity was nominally about 400 people (can be more can be less).. but a load factor of about 70% (which they were getting at the time). That is 1,800,000 people miles for a 777 trip.. Which is the more efficient - 8 cars (and let's face it, the average passengers per car per trip is probably closer to 2 than 4) or a B777?

 

So, if all those people who would have flown have taken to their cars, would it be better for the environment? I am not sure - although, given that those people who took their holiday for 2 weeks to Miami probably would drive a lot smaller distance and would use their car as normal for the rest of the year (or take public transport), then, of course it has a much less effect on the environment.

 

So, I am conflicted - economically, I think its a disaster and don't want people out of work.. And it is stunting my ability to get some business out of Aus that could see me flying amongst yourselves... (Sydney and Melbourne - courtesy of the Royal Commission into Banking & Financial Services).

 

But, my interpretation of the facts is that the reduction of airline traffic and the pollution it causes will reduce the impact humans have on posioning and warming up the planet (this is not the thread to argue this.. it is simply my perception).

 

On balance, given pilots at least can get well paid jobs in agriculture (if only temporarily), and the others can get lesser paid jobs (thanks to a lack of backpackers), I am happy of the reduction..

 

*flame proof suite donned*

 

One slight problem with the comparison - it's bloody hard to drive from London to Miami.

 

Yes the equivalent distance by plane uses less fuel per person than if those people traveled by car, but the fact is they don't travel those routes by car.  So you'll get a massive reduction in fuel use anyway if the plane isn't available.

 

There was a show on SBS a year or two ago, "City in the Sky" I think it was - all about the airline industry.  Basically there were an average of 1 million people in the air at any given time, or the equivalent of a medium sized city.

Pretty much none of those people will be driving to destinations they previously flew to.  If the flights were internal in a country and the country doesn't have movement restrictions, then they'll still be flying.  If it does have movement restrictions, like the state borders here, then you won't be driving there either.

Yes it's a massive impact to everyone involved in the industry, from baggage handlers to retail staff to flight crew and controllers and the people who make meals for airlines and the dudes with the high-viz vests on the tarmac.  I feel for them too.

But I can't help thinking that it may not be a bad thing for the environment.  If countries have a high dependence on foreign tourism, like some of the Pacific islands for example, then they're absolutely stuffed.  But countries like Australia and the UK should be able to rely on internal customers.  People still get their annual leave and they still want to take the family somewhere - why not holiday close to home for a few years?

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marty_d said:

But I can't help thinking that it may not be a bad thing for the environment.  If countries have a high dependence on foreign tourism, like some of the Pacific islands for example, then they're absolutely stuffed.  But countries like Australia and the UK should be able to rely on internal customers.  People still get their annual leave and they still want to take the family somewhere - why not holiday close to home for a few years?

That is sort of my point.... I would like ti to remain quiet for as many years as it takes for reliable emission-free airliners to take to the skies... Unfortunately, those enterprising souls at QANTAS have already worked out a way to take to the skies: https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/flights-to-nowhere-qantas/index.html

 

(I wonder how many cars average annual emissions that flight equated to ;-))

 

 

 

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the day, you used to be able to go to Mascot Domestic on the weekends and buy a "Mystery Flight" ticket for a few dollars which would give you seat on a plane going somewhere in the State. You got an out-and-back trip and put a bum in an otherwise unused  seat. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...