“flygskam”, or “flight-shame”, movement

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From The Guardian

“flygskam”, or “flight-shame”, movement

The success of Sweden’s “flygskam”, or “flight-shame”, movement means that Karlsson struggles to respond to calls or emails from less high-profile customers than Greta. He said he had been working 16-hour days, nearly seven days a week, trying to meet the surge in demand, with bookings at his Centralens Resebutik agency increasing eightfold this January compared with two years ago.

“We were already stretched to a limit last year and now we’ve doubled that,” said Karlsson, who is based in the city of Kalmar. “If we had greater resources, then we could have done much more. The demand and interest is much, much bigger than we can cope with.”

I would be happy - very happy indeed - to stick with rail travel even for longer journeys.    Just need to get the prices, capacities, schedules and the information systems right.   Look at Karlsson in the quote (a snippet from an article) above. He shouldn't have to be working 16 hour days to help people - it should be a natural part of the systems provided that people can help themselves!

[stuving]

News from the same Swedes who gave us flygskam - which Englishes well enough as flight-shame - or more likely from a quite different bunch of Swedes. It's also maybe a bit close to home on this forum, as tagskryt means "train-boasting". I take that to cover not just avoiding air travel, but going on and on about it. It doesn't suggest an English version, and the Dutch treintrots of similar meaning is no more helpful. But I guess Inventing a word (or phrase) for English ought to be left to them as will use it.

[Bmblbzzz]

Train trots are what happens after visiting that kebab shop on Praed Street.

Being serious, this idea, if I've understood it correctly, seems to be a specific form of the humblebrag, perhaps crossed with greenwashing.

[broadgage]

I am strongly in favour of encouraging long distance rail instead of air travel. Even a diesel train is preferable to an airliner, and an electric train better still.

Under present conditions though I find it hard to recommend UK^▸ (United Kingdom) rail travel. It is often hugely expensive, fares are complex, and capacity often inadequate for present passenger numbers, let alone for any significant increase.

If greater use of rail is to be encouraged in the UK, then I consider train length to be the most important issue. Note that I state train length and not capacity.

Comfort and facilities are also important. Rail is never going to be as quick as air, so needs to compete on comfort and facilities rather than on speed.

[Celestial]

I am strongly in favour of encouraging long distance rail instead of air travel. Even a diesel train is preferable to an airliner, and an electric train better still.

Under present conditions though I find it hard to recommend UK^▸ (United Kingdom) rail travel. It is often hugely expensive, fares are complex, and capacity often inadequate for present passenger numbers, let alone for any significant increase.

If greater use of rail is to be encouraged in the UK, then I consider train length to be the most important issue. Note that I state train length and not capacity.

Comfort and facilities are also important. Rail is never going to be as quick as air, so needs to compete on comfort and facilities rather than on speed.

I'd agree with much of this, but the comparison with air fares is dependent on where you are.  As an example, for a morning journey a week today:-

Bristol to Edinburgh.  Fly £28, Rail £200.  Flying time, 1 hr 15, rail, 6hrs, so even with the getting to and from the airline palaver, still a lot quicker to fly.  Rail will be in a Voyager, which is a bit rubbish for 6 hrs.  (I've done it, and it wasn't pleasant.) At least you know on Easyjet the trolley will be down in the first 45 mins.

London to Edinburgh.  Fly £30, Rail from around £74.  Flying time 1 hr 20 (Luton), Rail 4 hrs 20 mins. Flying still probably faster, depending on where you are starting, but there are lots of airports around London to choose from. The gap is much less though, especially when you add in the cost of airport parking or transfers.   

So rail is still more expensive, but the difference on price and journey time is much closer, and maybe worth it to avoid the hassle of the airport, and to take the greener approach.

[ChrisB]

THe first thing that needs to happen is for flight prices to become more realistic - but this is not saying that rail is realically priced either. Just that flights are more unrealistic (in cheapness) than rail is unrealistic (un expensiveness).

Aircraft fuel for flights that are deemed unenvironmental in terms of distance, for example needs taxing properly - i.e. VAT^▸ (Value Added Tax) added for a start. That would add circa 20% to the cost (an argument exists though to add VAT to all furl, like vehicle fuel)

*then* look for other ways to persuade folk that domestic flights (except maybe the south to north, beyond Edinburgh/Glasgow axis) are so unenviromentaly friendly that there are better, more environmentally friendly ways of getting there)

[Celestial]

Aircraft fuel for flights that are deemed unenvironmental in terms of distance, for example needs taxing properly - i.e. VAT^▸ (Value Added Tax) added for a start. That would add circa 20% to the cost (an argument exists though to add VAT to all furl, like vehicle fuel)

The risk with that is that airlines "reverse fuel-tanker" which would itself increase carbon emissions, and probably substantially so. It would also leave British airlines at a disadvantage with its competitors on routes to and from the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), because foreign airlines could completely avoid VAT on short haul flights, whereas BA^» (British Airways - about), for example, could only avoid some of it.  Passengers could then use the foreign carrier instead, where prices would be relatively unchanged, so the net effect would be the same amount of passengers but not on UK airlines.

APD^▸ (Air Passenger Duty) already exists as an environmental tax, so better to make it more sophisticated.  Make the amount variable according to the fuel efficiency per seat of the plane, so as to encourage fleet replacement with more modern craft, as passengers on airlines using older planes would see the difference in their pockets. Charged to the customer on the expected aircraft at booking, but to the airline on what actually flies.

Or, how about an APD per kilo of luggage, hand and hold, to encourage lighter luggage.  Paid at the airport, based on the credit card already used to book or entered at online check in, all it would need is a set of scales at the gate for hand luggage. Could be done in seconds.  £2 per kilo would take some weight off each flight once people got used to the idea.  It might even encourage lighter suitcases. Think how much suitcase weight gets carted around the world each day.   

[rogerw]

The reason suitcases are so heavy is that they are designed to resist, as far as possible, the aggressive handling by airport baggage handlers. They have to withstand being thrown around.

[Bmblbzzz]

Suitcases are an awful lot lighter than they used to be. A while ago I was helping my aunt sort out some stuff at her house. She had her father's (my grandfather's) 1960s (or thereabouts) Samsonite suitcases, which were tiny compared to what people use nowadays but, empty, weighed much more. If people's luggage is heavier nowadays (and I'm sure it is) it's in part because lighter construction has enabled bigger cases, which people then fill; but it's probably mostly just because people have more stuff.

[Bmblbzzz]

I am strongly in favour of encouraging long distance rail instead of air travel. Even a diesel train is preferable to an airliner, and an electric train better still.

Under present conditions though I find it hard to recommend UK^▸ (United Kingdom) rail travel. It is often hugely expensive, fares are complex, and capacity often inadequate for present passenger numbers, let alone for any significant increase.

If greater use of rail is to be encouraged in the UK, then I consider train length to be the most important issue. Note that I state train length and not capacity.

Comfort and facilities are also important. Rail is never going to be as quick as air, so needs to compete on comfort and facilities rather than on speed.

I'd agree with much of this, but the comparison with air fares is dependent on where you are.  As an example, for a morning journey a week today:-

Bristol to Edinburgh.  Fly £28, Rail £200.  Flying time, 1 hr 15, rail, 6hrs, so even with the getting to and from the airline palaver, still a lot quicker to fly.  Rail will be in a Voyager, which is a bit rubbish for 6 hrs.  (I've done it, and it wasn't pleasant.) At least you know on Easyjet the trolley will be down in the first 45 mins.

London to Edinburgh.  Fly £30, Rail from around £74.  Flying time 1 hr 20 (Luton), Rail 4 hrs 20 mins. Flying still probably faster, depending on where you are starting, but there are lots of airports around London to choose from. The gap is much less though, especially when you add in the cost of airport parking or transfers.   

So rail is still more expensive, but the difference on price and journey time is much closer, and maybe worth it to avoid the hassle of the airport, and to take the greener approach.

Probably another example of the way, commented on in this forum by several people, that railways in UK are mostly geared up to transporting people to and from London.

[ChrisB]

Aircraft fuel for flights that are deemed unenvironmental in terms of distance, for example needs taxing properly - i.e. VAT^▸ (Value Added Tax) added for a start. That would add circa 20% to the cost (an argument exists though to add VAT to all furl, like vehicle fuel)

The risk with that is that airlines "reverse fuel-tanker" which would itself increase carbon emissions, and probably substantially so. [b[It would also leave British airlines at a disadvantage with its competitors on routes to and from the UK^▸ (United Kingdom), because foreign airlines could completely avoid VAT on short haul flights[/b], whereas BA^» (British Airways - about), for example, could only avoid some of it.  Passengers could then use the foreign carrier instead, where prices would be relatively unchanged, so the net effect would be the same amount of passengers but not on UK airlines.

My emphasis. I was discussing this point in relation to *domestic* short-haul flights - while foreign (at least EU^» (European Union - about)) airlines can currently offer UK domestic flights under EU rules, this presumably will come to an end on December 31st this year. So wuld only apply to UK airlines after that.

APD^▸ (Air Passenger Duty) already exists as an environmental tax, so better to make it more sophisticated.  Make the amount variable according to the fuel efficiency per seat of the plane, so as to encourage fleet replacement with more modern craft, as passengers on airlines using older planes would see the difference in their pockets. Charged to the customer on the expected aircraft at booking, but to the airline on what actually flies.

Do both - and really price domestic flights such that you pay for your domestic CO2 emissions!

Or, how about an APD per kilo of luggage, hand and hold, to encourage lighter luggage.  Paid at the airport, based on the credit card already used to book or entered at online check in, all it would need is a set of scales at the gate for hand luggage. Could be done in seconds.  £2 per kilo would take some weight off each flight once people got used to the idea.  It might even encourage lighter suitcases. Think how much suitcase weight gets carted around the world each day. [/quote]

I can't disagree either - so all 3 maybe?

[Oxonhutch]

When I was a younger - and certainly lighter - man, I thought that popping me and all my luggage on the scale would be a good basis for an airfare. Might have to stick with hand baggage only now! 

[Bmblbzzz]

For small aircraft – Tony K might be able to say how small, but certainly for about 8 seats IME^▸ (in my experience) – it's standard to weigh passengers and seat them accordingly for weight distribution.

[GBM]

For small aircraft – Tony K might be able to say how small, but certainly for about 8 seats IME^▸ (in my experience) – it's standard to weigh passengers and seat them accordingly for weight distribution.

As Skybus (Landsend/Newquay/Exeter to Scillies do with all their smaller craft

[4064ReadingAbbey]

I am not denying the need to husband our resources as best we can, but any restrictions on domestic air travel would only have a very small effect on the total quantity of fuel used by the aviation industry.

The Office for National Statistics produces a time series of energy supply and use called DUKES - Digest of UK^▸ (United Kingdom) Energy SuppIies. For 2017/18 this showed that 90% of aviation fuel is used for international flights, 5% by the military and 5% by domestic air travel.

So restricting domestic air travel would reduce fuel consumption by some part of that 5%. Energy used for domestic heating is orders of magnitude greater.

If you like that sort of thing - DUKES is fascinating!