Flightblogging.com

The debate over aviation’s contribution to climate change and other environmental problems was well under way when I started Flightmapping.com almost 5 years ago. I’ve never been one to pretend that this isn’t a serious issue, but it does appear that most industry bigwigs are finally waking up to this.

Earlier this month, Leo Van Wijk, who is vice-chairman of Air France-KLM, the world’s biggest airline by turnover, lashed out at the annual IATA conference, claiming that the industry was doing too little, too late.

I have always felt that the cost of flights should cover the so-called “externalities” of pollution, and that this can still be done whilst making sure that aviation also make a reasonable contribution to the exchequer. Prior to December’s doubling in Air Passenger Duty, I would have argued that there was still room for these costs to be accounted for, and that they should be done in a manner which was proportional to the pollution caused, or at least to the cost of the ticket.

Then Gordon Brown decides to not only double APD overnight, but to apply the increase to tickets which had already been purchased. So where was the public outcry over this extremely vindictive move? There wasn’t any - all we got was the green lobby telling us that this increase wasn’t enough. Judging by the carbon offset costs produced by DEFRA, and endorsed by websites like Climate Care, which puts the climate cost of a domestic flight at less than £1, this increase was more than enough, even if the government itself has already admitted that APD is a very “blunt instrument”.

My biggest gripe with the £10 APD is that it is levied in both directions on domestic sectors. Try telling a family of four living in Belfast that they should take a weekend break in (already expensive) London (£80 goes to Gordon), when they could drive down to tax-free Dublin, and fly three times further to Malaga, paying a mere €5.78 each for the return journey.

Unlike many within the aviation industry, I don’t think that global warming is a hoax, but I do like to try and understand as many angles to the argument as possible. One thing I am sure of is that there are more effective ways of reducing CO2 output than going after aviation.

We might be an easy target, but how many politicians realise that they can only ever exercise limited control over an industry that is inherently international. Perhaps that’s why we’ve suffered here in Coventry, but that’s for another debate.

If even a fraction of the extra billions raised from APD was diverted towards investing in better facilities for walking and cycling - including safe routes to school, then we’d all be better off. For all the unproven talk about radiative forcing at higher altitudes, vehicle emmissions at ground level are indisputable, and one way to limit these is to make the walking environment as safe and attractive as possible.

That’s what the Dutch and Swiss do, and it is no wonder that their levels of obesity are a fraction of ours. Unfortunately, both countries tend to operate under a much gentler form of democracy, whereas we have to sex everything up to keep the tabloids busy.

Sex up self powered transport anyone? Somehow the walk-a-mile-a-day club is never going to be as salacious as bashing the mile high club.

I have just been pointed towards a long overdue website, which aims to provide information to counteract many of the false claims put forward by the environmental lobby, with regards to the pollution caused by flying.

The site is called enviro.aero.

As with any such websites, there are the usual caveats, but there is no longer any excuse for burying heads in the sand. Of course, this website is going to be biased towards protecting the aviation industry, but as the following article shows, the BBC isn’t exactly that neutral either!

Now if anyone doubts this assertion, lets take a look at the BBC’s coverage, or lack of it, of Easyjet’s recent announcement about their Ecojet initiative:

“Sorry

There are no results for “ecojet” on the BBC website.”

http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=all&q=ecojet&scope=all

This is hardly surprising really - I was at the press conference, and they do not appear to have even bothered to send a reporter - even if the venue was just a short walk (sorry, all expenses paid taxi ride) from BBC HQ.

Please use this thread to give us any feedback regarding our route information, or any of the text on the Flightmapping.com site:

Known issues:

• The routes database is usually updated at least once each week, although it has not been amended this week (ending 17th June). This should be refreshed on Monday 18th June.

Easyjet are set to launch a massive environmental campaign later this morning, with the airline claiming that carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by 50% as early as 2015. 

The implication is that Easyjet’s proposals will apply to the industry as a whole, rather than to its own emissions, which are already substantially below the European average. 

Although we are assuming that they are talking about emissions per passenger carried, rather than total emissions of the industry, this is still a very significant ambition.

Flighmapping will be in attendance to find out how Easyjet plan to achieve this, but we expect that some of the following will be high on the agenda:

1. Phasing out older, less efficient aircraft — this is a very easy call for Easyjet to make, especially as many of these are run by their behemoth old school European state carrier counterparts.
2. Improvements in air traffic control paths, and more efficient runway management — again, and easy demand to make, but one which could have significant impacts, even though very few of these will be visible to the consumer.
3. Continuing investment in modern fleets, and new engine technology — again, an easy call for cash rich and fast growing budget airlines to make.
4. Maintaining high occupancy levels, and sticking to point to point route networks — again, this has always been the staple business of the low-cost carriers.

Most of the above strategies are well known within the industry, even if they might go right over the heads of your typical whingeing environmental protester. 

Last week, Flybe gave us further details of their environmental labelling scheme, a strategy that they have been working on for at least three years now.  Will Easyjet be announcing something similar, and to what extent will they embrace the concept of carbon offsetting? 

Again, this is still a minefield for the typical consumer, with Flybe having opted to contribute towards energy saving projects in schools.  I wonder if Easyjet will go for something more visible, possibly involving forestry projects, along the lines are the ones which have already been backed by the Peel airport group, who operate Liverpool, Doncaster Sheffield and Durham Tees Valley airports.

Either way, I hope that the initiative they undertake is substantial, and properly thought through.  However serious concerns over the environmental impact of aviation might be, the hysteria-fuelled media have given the green lobby total carte blanche to criticise the industry, with numerous so-called facts being doled out with scant scientific justification. 

The only substantial challenges to the status quo so far to have gained any major press attention have emanated in typical foulmouthed style from Ryanair’s CEO Michael O’Leary.  These might well have grabbed the headlines, but they have done little to move the debate forward.

No one should pretend that the airline industry can plant its green credentials overnight, and come up smelling of roses the next morning, but the big Orange can still make a substantial contribution to the debate, without having to turn the air into Ryanair’s shade of blue.

Please use this thread to give us any technical feedback, especially with regards to page loading, search facilities, etc.

Sometimes, these issues are beyond our control, but if we can fix them, we will.

Current known technical issues:

1. Thomsonfly search facility for flights from Coventry, Bournemouth & Doncaster does not always carry the search query through. We are working with Thomsonfly to resolve this.
2. The flight search facility will sometimes take you to a blank page, if the route is only operated by one airline. We will be working with our developers on this next week.

If there’s three things that I hate, then Multimap has just scored a hat-trick:

1. Pointless website revisions, for no good reason.
2. Pop-up surveys asking what I think.
3. Pop-unders (but I might just forgive that if that is really needed for commercial survival).

Well, I’m not going to waste my time being another statistic. Far easier to say it here, where it might just get one or two people reading it. So, I used to love Multimap - no surprise here, it was simple, easy to use, and I loved the ability to zoom in to the 1:25,000 Ordnance Survey maps.

Move on to June 2007, and what have they done? If the new version wasn’t fiddly enough, they then want to test my patience with a survey asking me what I think. Let me tell you - Multimap to me was an excellent supplement to Ordnance Survey printed maps, and saved me having a vast library of sheets I wouldn’t use very often.

All I wanted to do on this particular visit was check a village name for a caption I wanted to put on a photo. Sure, that won’t earn Multimap any money, but nor would most of my visits. I would assume their revenue model works by having enough visitors that they can earn revenue from banner adverts. Capturing data about their users can help boost revenue, but all they needed to do was ask me to log in, and they could have add all the info about me that they wanted. Instead, I’ll be off to find another website. I could just go back to the old version, but I’m sufficiently annoyed by the (constant) popping up of surveys and other junk that I think I’ll do some hunting around first.

In the meantime, I simply want to acquire some ordnance, and explode it in their survey maker’s office.

I really hope we never make the same mistake here at Flightmapping!

JA, Coventry

Ex Multimap user.

If you have a question to ask about your flight, we’ll do our best to answer it.

Anything along the lines of - what can I take on board, can I use this device, what is this airport like for connections, etc.

If we can’t answer it, I’m sure we’ll find someone who can.

Here at Flightmapping.com, we’ve never tried to pretend that environmental issues are easy to solve, or that we should just bury our heads in the sand.

But with all the hype which we are bombarded with every day, is there a chance for some more level headed discussion?

We certainly hope so, and if you think so true, please come and join the Envirorealists group on Facebook:

• Envirorealists

Antithesis of: Enviro-fundamentalism, eco-puritains, ecoterrorism, eco nazis, doom and gloom, environmental doomsday.

A few things we believe in (especially when it comes to travelling):

• We love this planet, but we’ve got to get around it somehow.
• We love buying nice things, but try and get as much use out of them as possible.
• We’re happy to do without some bits of useless technology - like GPS systems!
• We don’t think the world is going to implode tomorrow.
• We’ll do what we’re best at, respect our neighbours, and leave the complex science to the real experts.
• We don’t believe everything we see on Panorama.
• We know that Global Warming is a challenge - so is extreme poverty, sorting out the Middle East, controlling communicable diseases, and keeping the economy ticking over.
• We are aware that stress and depressive illnesses are two of the biggest challenges for western health systems. Sometimes it is nice to take a holiday to get away from our busy lifestyles, without feeling the guilt from the incessant bleatings of the green lobby.
• We just wish that organisations like Greenpeace would get their facts right for a change.
• We’d love to get hold of Tony Blair’s BA Executive Club card, and just wish he’d done something useful with all those trips he’s made.
• We don’t mind paying green taxes - if they go towards environmental projects.
• We’re fed up with all the hype against the aviation industry - especially when the recent doubling of APD has just has environmental groups salivating for more. How come domestic energy use, which is responsible for far greater emmissions, continues to get off Scott free?
• We’ll take the train, because it is a better use of our time.