FlyBMI - gone into administration

[whole diary]

[broadgage]

Whilst I respect the views of others, I do find the vehement support for air travel on a railway forum to be rather surprising.
Air travel uses a great deal of fossil fuel with consequent climate change impact. A high speed electric railway uses no oil fuel at the point of use, and an increasing proportion of the electricity is from renewable sources.

Air travel is indeed often cheaper than rail, regrettably in my view in view of the noise pollution, air pollution and space taken up by airports.
I do not believe that public money should be used to subsidise air transport, apart from very rare and exceptional cases such as air services to very remote islands.

[ellendune]

I used to attend meetings on continental Europe quite regularly and would always prefer to travel by train.  However there were limits.  So I when I went to meetings in Paris, Brussels, Delft (change at Rotterdam), Cologne and Bonn. I found trains on these routes quite competitive on time given the amount of time you had to leave to get through check in and security at the airport. 

On one occasion I timed the journey to Bonn (change at Brussels and Cologne) against a colleague who was travelling from Reading.  He beat me to the hotel by 15 minutes. Now if I had not had to change at Brussels I would have beat him by 15 minutes!

On longer journeys such as Lisbon, Berlin and Vienna I flew.

I have to say I find it frustrating that rail is not competitive on time or cost on the journeys to Glasgow or Edinburgh!

[TaplowGreen]

Whilst I respect the views of others, I do find the vehement support for air travel on a railway forum to be rather surprising.
Air travel uses a great deal of fossil fuel with consequent climate change impact. A high speed electric railway uses no oil fuel at the point of use, and an increasing proportion of the electricity is from renewable sources.

Air travel is indeed often cheaper than rail, regrettably in my view in view of the noise pollution, air pollution and space taken up by airports.
I do not believe that public money should be used to subsidise air transport, apart from very rare and exceptional cases such as air services to very remote islands.

You'd love it in Business class, the food is excellent, far better than the Pullman, and available on more than 3 or 4 trips per day! 

[broadgage]

Yes, I would enjoy the food in business class, however for environmental reasons I prefer not to fly in any class, and have not flown for many years.

[Bmblbzzz]

In the late '90s I started working working in Poland and spent several years there. I'd come back to UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to visit family and friends a couple of times a year and had three options for this: long-distance coaches were cheap but not massively comfortable and took about 28 hours, flying was expensive but quick (usually cheapest via Schiphol – this was before RyanAir etc discovered Eastern Europe), and rail – well, the train not only cost more than flying but took longer than the bus. I dare say it would have been more comfortable, but even so... Why? I think* it was because instead of being one fare it was several, albeit all appearing on one ticket; first a train from Warsaw or Krakow to Berlin, then another to Brussels, maybe changing at Cologne as well, before the Eurostar (or a ferry).

Nowadays you can fly direct from Bristol to somewhere far more convenient than Warsaw for not much more than the coach fare. The coach retains its fans due to the effectively unlimited luggage allowance. 

*This is just my uninformed impression. It might be some completely different reason.

[Thatcham Crossing]

I do find the vehement support for air travel on a railway forum to be rather surprising.

Broadgage, I'm on a rail forum because I love trains and they are the form of public transport I use most, by far.

I love aeroplanes as well (I've held a Pilots Licence in the past, and been an RAF^▸ (Royal Air Force) Reserve) and my point is that for some journeys, and timings, only air travel works.

Today's modern passenger aircraft are very fuel efficient (the accountants wouldn't have it otherwise) and eco-friendly even compared to those of only a few decades ago.

[IndustryInsider]

As Thatcham Crossing says, some air routes clearly beat the competition from railways, just like some journeys are clearly better by rail than air.  An improved rail network, both quicker and cheaper than now, is likely to tip the balance in favour of rail over time, but there will always be some routes where rail will struggle.

[grahame]

I do find the vehement support for air travel on a railway forum to be rather surprising.

Broadgage, I'm on a rail forum because I love trains and they are the form of public transport I use most, by far.

We're a public transport forum ... all be it one with a strong rail background, rather than a rail (specifically) enthusiast's club / society.  And as such, we expect and are pleased to see support for effective public transport for the journeys people need of want to make, whatever the best means of making that journey is.


Personally, I use the bus, and the train, and I drive.  I will take a boat / ferry and occasionally I will fly medium and long haul. I walk somewhat, but I no longer use a bicycle - I would be a danger to myself and others on the road due to a lack of balance, and walking tires me quickly. Public Transport gives my the ability to relax, read, work, sleep, eat as I travel rather that it being wasted (and tiring) time behind the wheel of a car.  For some destinations, it's a relief and a cost saving to use public transport rather than having to find somewhere to park / store the car, but for others the lack of local transport at final destination is a pain. Sometimes with heavy or awkward things to take, or a journey that has to be at a time there is no convenient public transport, I'll drive even along a supposedly well served public transport corridor.  On occasions, my decision in (any) direction is influenced by cost, and bythe need for flexibility for an unknown return journey time. I would expect that many members might identify with most of this philosophy

[Noggin]

Whether you like it or not, the demise of FlyBMI is a big deal for those of us in the west country (myself included) who use their flights for work, particularly if the Bristol routes aren't picked up by another airline.

It means that I can live in the west of England whilst working for a company with an HQ^▸ (Headquarters) and other offices in Belgium. It also means that my colleagues can manage patches that includes the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) but also a chunk of the continent.

Sure, we can use GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) and the Eurostar, but it takes much longer, means that we have to be away from our families much longer etc. Now you might think that's a bunch of over-privileged people moaning (and you'd have a point). But it's the sort of thing that sooner or later leads manager to say "sod-it" and focus investment and jobs away from more awkward to get to places.     

[4064ReadingAbbey]

I do find the vehement support for air travel on a railway forum to be rather surprising.

Broadgage, I'm on a rail forum because I love trains and they are the form of public transport I use most, by far.

I love aeroplanes as well (I've held a Pilots Licence in the past, and been an RAF^▸ (Royal Air Force) Reserve) and my point is that for some journeys, and timings, only air travel works.

Today's modern passenger aircraft are very fuel efficient (the accountants wouldn't have it otherwise) and eco-friendly even compared to those of only a few decades ago.

I also use trains wherever and whenever they are suitable with my travel plans. But for some journeys taking the plane is more convenient.
Recently I had a discussion about the choice of car, plane or train to get from Reading to Lübeck in northern Germany as I have in-laws living there. The choice depends on how long we are planning to stay there - long trips we take the car, for a few days we fly. The number of train changes on this journey make it unattractive - carting luggage around in Brussels, Cologne and Hamburg is hard work and the times needed for the changes is about as long as the flight time!

In this context I looked up data concerning the relative fuel efficiency of the car and an aeroplane.

Figures for aircraft and airline fuel consumption are publicly available. Ryanair is a low-cost airline serving mainly European destinations; it seats 189 people in its Boeing 737-800s. Using typical values for sector lengths, fuel consumption and seat occupancy it can be seen that the fuel consumption is marginally greater than 3 litres/100 km/seat - based on typical sector consumption of something over 5 tonnes and a typical sector being something over an hour. This figure will obviously vary depending on sector lengths, cruising altitude, load, winds and air temperature but will remain close to 3 litres/100 km/seat - it will be neither 1.5 litres/100 km/seat nor 6 litres/100 km/seat.

These are 'ball-park' figures but are not a million miles from the consumption of my car; 50 mpg on the run to Lübeck (without racing...!) is equivalent to 5.6 litres/100 km, say 6 litres/100 km - and with two people in the car the specific consumptions of a Boeing 737-800 and my diesel Golf are about the same.

Unless you walk or swim - all travel is polluting.

[welshman]

How much would your flight cost if there was fuel duty at the same rate as ground-used fuels, I wonder? 

It used to be said that one jumbo jet crossing the Atlantic used as much fuel as all the competitors and spectators in the, then 5 day, RAC Rally.

[TonyK]

How much would your flight cost if there was fuel duty at the same rate as ground-used fuels, I wonder? 

It used to be said that one jumbo jet crossing the Atlantic used as much fuel as all the competitors and spectators in the, then 5 day, RAC Rally.

As may be. Jumbos are on the way out, with Airbus announcing the end of production of the A380. Although Boeing 747s are still being made, albeit in much smaller numbers, airlines are beginning to replace them with twin engined wide-bodies aircraft with much better fuel consumption, such as the 787 Dreamliner and A350 XWB. The last Delta Airlines 747, then 47 years old, retired in 2017. BA^» (British Airways - about) still has 30 or so, but won't be buying new ones.

Aircraft engine technology has come in in leaps and bounds, often through what look like simple changes to a fairly simple design. High bypass engines cut fuel consumption, which was much less of an issue in the 1970s, dramatically, and the search goes on. The A320 NEO (my chariot twice recently) uses 20% less fuel than its immediate predecessor, and a third less than early models. It follows that less fuel means less pollution.

A rule of thumb seems to be double pollution for plane vs train. What isn't easy to find is whether this is comparing a brand new IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) against a 30 year old 737, or a 787 against a HST^▸ (High Speed Train), or what. It makes the comparisons less meaningful. As for upping duty on aviation fuel, airlines spend a great deal of effort on fuel strategies. Were the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) to up the ante, and if the numbers added up, aircraft would simply uplift more wherever its cheaper, or start routing long-haul from elsewhere. To a degree, they do this already.

[martyjon]

How much would your flight cost if there was fuel duty at the same rate as ground-used fuels, I wonder? 

It used to be said that one jumbo jet crossing the Atlantic used as much fuel as all the competitors and spectators in the, then 5 day, RAC Rally.

Don't ground based transport use sero duty fuel (red diesel) although I did see a First Group single decker filling up with fuel at a Morrisons Supermarket Filling Station recently and when I asked was told its a regular event as their local depot has no re-fuelling facility.

[Bmblbzzz]

I think red diesel is only for non-road vehicles: construction equipment, agricultural machinery and similar. Legally at least. And boats of course. Buses are not supposed to use it but to can reclaim VAT^▸ (Value Added Tax) (red diesel being duty free in addition to VAT-free). I think.

[TonyK]

I think red diesel is only for non-road vehicles: construction equipment, agricultural machinery and similar. Legally at least. And boats of course. Buses are not supposed to use it but to can reclaim VAT^▸ (Value Added Tax) (red diesel being duty free in addition to VAT-free). I think.

Correct. With very few exceptions, road vehicles cannot use it. Tractors cannot use it on a road unless travelling between different parts of a farm not otherwise accessible, cutting hedges or verges by a public road, or gritting. On pleasure boats, it can only be used for heating or generating electricity, not propulsion. Recovery of duty is a full-time job for big bus companies.