Last month, Flightmapping caught up with Easyjet CEO Andrew Harrison, who was talking about the benefits of Easyjet’s new Ecojet proposals.
A lot of commentators have suggested that India or China might be able to offer this kind of emerging technology, even though they don’t really have any manufacturers capable of doing this just yet. Have you considered talking to the Brazilian company Embraer, who have already made major efficiency gains through aircraft like the E195 used by Flybe?
Andy Harrison: No, they are still only building smaller planes. We are looking for a replacement in the 150+ seat market, so that we can offer a replacement for our current fleet of Airbus A319s and Boeing 737-700s.
In terms of cabin noise, is there any advantage in having rear mounted engines?
AH: Yes, they should be quieter.
Do the kind of outbursts we have heard from Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary, who refers to environmental campaigners as “nutbags”, help or hinder your cause?
AH: We never take what our Irish rivals say too seriously.
How much do you think that carbon offsetting is likely to cost the consumer?
AH: We are talking about a typical £1 to £2 on an average Easyjet flight. This compares reasonably against our current average fare of around £40. This is also a fraction of the recent increase in air passenger duty.
If you continue to encourage emissions trading, and keep talking about the aviation industry’s need to meet its environmental obligations, do you risk shooting yourself in the foot, and putting people off from flying?
AH: No, we are just keen to see an informed debate, in which the externalities of flying are properly addressed. We expect consumers to use this information to make intelligent discretionary decisions about their flying habits.
Do you think it is reasonable for airlines like yourselves to complain about increases in air passenger duty on the one hand, and then to take handouts from regional governments with the other?
AH: I think there are two separate arguments here - one is that aviation should cover its environmental externalities, and the other is that new flight routes do bring in tremendous economic benefits to the regions they serve. I think that both of these arguments are equally valid - so it is not really a sense of giving and taking. However, air passenger duty is currently significantly higher than the carbon cost of flights.
Will the Easyjet eco-jet proposals result in shorter flying distances?
AH: This design is aimed at flights with a sector length of up to 2000 nautical miles – 98% of all flights operated by aircraft with 120-240 seats are below this. We would expect an extended range version for the longer routes, but this would need additional fuel tanks and fewer seats.
Airlines such as Easyjet very well funded, so this kind of new technology will be affordable to them. Isn’t this all a bit irrelevant though, if your older aircraft are just passed on to other airlines?
AH: We made it very clear that we believe that there are 700 older aircraft in Europe which need to be taken out of the skies and dismantled. There is no point in shipping them out to Africa, as that just relocates the problem. What we are calling for is a win-win situation - airlines get to invest in new, cleaner aircraft with a minimum of noise and CO2 emissions, consumers get to fly much more modern equipment, and the environmental benefits are clear to see.
Doesn’t this create a huge problem, because there are already shortages of new aircraft, and now you are effectively saying to African countries that their airlines cannot expand, because these older aircraft must be phased out?
AH: We are only saying that the very oldest aircraft need to be taken out of service.
What will happen to Easyjet’s current fleet that is due for replacement from 2015 onwards?
AH: The reason why we are asking aircraft manufacturers to take the Easyjet eco-jet proposals seriously is that we are looking ahead now to our first major fleet replacement, which is due to start in 2015. We depreciate our aircraft over 23 years, so it would not be a problem for us to scrap than after this time.
Considering that Easyjet is so desperate to display its green credentials, why did you kick up so much fuss about Virgin Trains’ recent adverts, which were trying to encourage people to swap domestic flights for the train instead?
AH: At Easyjet, we’re not against trains at all, we are just looking for a balanced and sensible debate. Many proponents of rail travel seem to assume that trains are 100% full all the time, and they’re not taking real accounts of actual occupancy levels, or of the infrastructure costs of the track and maintenance.
Easyjet has always recognised that train travel offers significant convenience on journeys of up to three hours, and that this range is extending - perhaps now to four hours. If the train journey takes less than this time, we simply don’t fly.
Further links: