London City Airport - climate protester on Aer Lingus Flight

Mebuntu

I've just heard from a friend that an Aer Lingus flight to Dublin was boarded this morning by a climate change protester and he stood up in the aisle as the aircraft taxyed. Hope they throw the book at him.

Edit: I just found this link.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7556855/Extinction-Rebellion-eco-mob-threaten-chaos-travellers-London-City-airport.html

HorrorScope

Mebuntu wrote: »

I've just heard from a friend that an Aer Lingus flight to Dublin was boarded this morning by a climate change protester and he stood up in the aisle as the aircraft taxyed. Hope they throw the book at him.

Edit: I just found this link.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7556855/Extinction-Rebellion-eco-mob-threaten-chaos-travellers-London-City-airport.html

Hope they threw him out the door during take off, what an imbecile.

Tasfasdf

Real bunch of weirdos the looney left

L1011

Removed by police. Plenty of legislation there to punish under. Eventual achievement - more Jet A burned taxiing around the airport and likely on inbound aircraft holding

easypazz

L1011 wrote: »

Removed by police. Plenty of legislation there to punish under. Eventual achievement - more Jet A burned taxiing around the airport and likely on inbound aircraft holding

Short term yes but long term "flight shaming" is becoming a bigger "thing" and perhaps rightly so.

For example, the concept of loads of people going off on a daytrip charter flight from Dublin to London or Liverpool to Rome or wherever at the drop of a hat to follow a sports match needs to be reconsidered.

Dravokivich

easypazz wrote: »

Short term yes but long term "flight shaming" is becoming a bigger "thing" and perhaps rightly so.

For example, the concept of loads of people going off on a daytrip charter flight from Dublin to London or Liverpool to Rome or wherever at the drop of a hat to follow a sports match needs to be reconsidered.

Yeah, should be well able to swim it.

roundymac

easypazz wrote: »

Short term yes but long term "flight shaming" is becoming a bigger "thing" and perhaps rightly so.

For example, the concept of loads of people going off on a daytrip charter flight from Dublin to London or Liverpool to Rome or wherever at the drop of a hat to follow a sports match needs to be reconsidered.

Why? Your and your "lot" are not going to tell me what to do or where to go.

easypazz

roundymac wrote: »

Why? Your and your "lot" are not going to tell me what to do or where to go.

Whats this "your" and "your lot" nonsense. I am not part of any "lot"

I am just society may need to rethink how things are done.

marvin80

easypazz wrote: »

Whats this "your" and "your lot" nonsense. I am not part of any "lot"

I am just society may need to rethink how things are done.

You're in the Aviation and Aircraft forum - any negative comments against flying won't be liked!

I agree with you but nothing is being done - the opposite in fact.
There's plans to expand Dublin Airport when, if anything we should try and cut the number of flights/emissions around the world. But it's big business and that will always trump the environment until it's too late.

easypazz

marvin80 wrote: »

You're in the Aviation and Aircraft forum - any negative comments against flying won't be liked!

I agree with you but nothing is being done - the opposite in fact.
There's plans to expand Dublin Airport when, if anything we should try and cut the number of flights/emissions around the world. But it's big business and that will always trump the environment until it's too late.

We are either serious about climate change or we are not. It is going to be all electric cars in 10 years, whether we like it not, plastic bottles are being done away with, new houses must come super insulated, with solar panels etc., tax on carbon fuels coal etc., is increasing.


So whether the poster "roundymac" likes it or not "this lot" are telling him what to drive and what fuel to burn and he has no choice but to suck it up.

If we are serious about climate change it makes no sense at all for airports to building bigger terminal buildings or new runways.

Noxegon

marvin80 wrote: »

There's plans to expand Dublin Airport when, if anything we should try and cut the number of flights/emissions around the world. But it's big business and that will always trump the environment until it's too late.

The problem is that there is no alternative to flying for many of us.

I work for an international company and video conference regularly with our offices in America and Asia. However some things require a physical presence, and when that is needed I have no way to get to either location in a time-efficient manner without flying.

I'd love to see international trains from Ireland. Dublin to London would seem an obvious candidate; it's less than 500km if you follow the most direct route, and a quick web search has turned up almost fifteen thousand annual flights.

The maglev train at Shanghai Airport does 433km/h. It follows that a similar system could do Dublin to London in about 70 minutes, which would actually be quicker than flying when you take out all the faffing around at airports. Perhaps stretch that to 75 mins if you have a single intermediate stop somewhere along the way.

If all UK flights were replaced with international train service there'd be no need for a second runway.

It'll never happen, but it's fun to think about.

Cookiemunster

easypazz wrote: »

We are either serious about climate change or we are not. It is going to be all electric cars in 10 years, whether we like it not, plastic bottles are being done away with, new houses must come super insulated, with solar panels etc., tax on carbon fuels coal etc., is increasing.


So whether the poster "roundymac" likes it or not "this lot" are telling him what to drive and what fuel to burn and he has no choice but to suck it up.

If we are serious about climate change it makes no sense at all for airports to building bigger terminal buildings or new runways.

The idea is to get CO2 output down to 1990 levels, not to stop using fossil fuels. If we all start using electic cars/buses/trains all powered by renewable sources, then there would be no issue with aircraft continuing to use Jet A1 as we would be well below those levels.

As it is manufacturers are investigating alternative fuels and electrically powered aircraft in a bid to reduce emissions.

kevinandrew

The cabin crew appear to have handled the situation very well, could have easily escalated otherwise.

As for the protester, not the sharpest tool in the box. It’s likely he paid £100+ of his own money for this little escapade only for it to cause minimal disruption and be forgotten about by the end of the day. Meanwhile, he can expect a nasty bill and some criminal charges coming his way for the pleasure.

I’m in full support of peaceful protests but involving airports and aircraft is a dangerous move and one where the authorities should come down hardest.

Mebuntu

kevinandrew wrote: »

The cabin crew appear to have handled the situation very well, could have easily escalated otherwise.

I’m in full support of peaceful protests but involving airports and aircraft is a dangerous move and one where the authorities should come down hardest.

Yes, I thought CC did a great job in a calm fashion.

The Law needs to come down really hard on this man because, if not, there could be countless copycats bringing chaos to flights which is their aim. Think of a few hundred of them buying cheap flights with LO-COs every day and doing the same.

marvin80

Noxegon wrote: »

The problem is that there is no alternative to flying for many of us.

There will always be some bit of necessity for flights but I think the big issue is the huge amount of 'unnecessary' flights.

Like for example say 20 years ago if you were having a stag it would usually be somewhere in Ireland. Nowadays it's England and further afield - great craic and all that but is it really necessary when the environment is deteriorating at an extraordinary rate.

EICVD

easypazz wrote: »

Short term yes but long term "flight shaming" is becoming a bigger "thing" and perhaps rightly so.

For example, the concept of loads of people going off on a daytrip charter flight from Dublin to London or Liverpool to Rome or wherever at the drop of a hat to follow a sports match needs to be reconsidered.

No it doesn’t, people can go wherever they like for how long as they want

EICVD

Bizjets positioning between LTN-STN, BHX-SEN & so on are flights that need to be cut out. There’s literally no need for that carry on just because it’s easier for the ‘VIP’.

L1011

marvin80 wrote: »

Like for example say 20 years ago if you were having a stag it would usually be somewhere in Ireland. Nowadays it's England and further afield - great craic and all that but is it really necessary when the environment is deteriorating at an extraordinary rate.

20 years ago was the era of stags to Prague for cheap beer and cheaper strippers

Last one I went on was in Cork. 20 years ago we'd have flown down but with that option gone it was the train instead

Hotblack Desiato

That could be a function of the age of the attendees, L

L1011

All within the normal range for a stag these days, albeit my parents were married with 4 kids by my age

More and more stags are staycationing though and it's why Irish Rail have had to ban drink sales on more trains. Airbnb has made the accomodation issue mostly go away

Nijmegen

I would say we’ll see more of these protests. LCY is particularly vulnerable it seems. Remember when the Black Lives Matter protestors got onto the runway (because climate change apparently disproportionately affects people of colour, though I wasn’t sure the connection to US police shootings.)

As for air travel in general, clear that it’s an exponentially growing industry that will need to change its ways and consumer ways via government action as part of a balanced climate strategy.

HTCOne

Every industry has to do its part for sure, but aviation is an incredibly soft target. 2% of global greenhouse gas emmissions (including manufacture, ground vehicles, maintenance, running airports, offices, ATC facilities etc). Anything we as an industry can do to improve efficiency has always been pursued because fuel has always been an airline's biggest expense. Shipping and particularly agriculture are far bigger offenders.

IBAC are heavily pursuing biofuels. They aim to have all growth carbon neutral next year and all business aviation in total carbon neutral by 2030. Electric powered large transport aircraft are nowhere near a reality simply because of the weight of the batteries. You would neef a battery the size of a jumbo jet to get a handful of people across the Atlantic.

I remember a study after hybrid electric cars hit the road (Prius and the Honda equivalent, Insight?). It said buying one in Europe did more environmental damage than buying a Range Rover because of all the mining of the heavy metals and resultant acid rain and transportation of said metals and other materials to Europe to manufacture the battery, then to Japan to manufacture the car, plus the amount of energy needed to manufacture said car, then transport that car back to Europe. It said the cleanest car you could drive is the one you currently own, regardless of what it is, as the environmental impact of manufacturing a new car will never be offset by the fuel saving, so all those I've read bashing Aer Lingus and others for flying CEO Airbus aircraft instead of NEOs might be barking up the wrong tree entirely.

Nijmegen

HTCOne wrote: »

Every industry has to do its part for sure, but aviation is an incredibly soft target. 2% of global greenhouse gas emmissions (including manufacture, ground vehicles, maintenance, running airports, offices, ATC facilities etc). Anything we as an industry can do to improve efficiency has always been pursued because fuel has always been an airline's biggest expense. Shipping and particularly agriculture are far bigger offenders.

I think almost every industry / sector can wheel out some variation of “we’re only 2%....” Or “this is unfair on our country.” Etc etc etc. You either make wide cuts across the board or you don’t solve the issue. Also worth noting that much air travel is discretionary in nature vs the necessity of keeping food production going (even if it has to be made more efficient)

HTCOne

Nijmegen wrote: »

the necessity of keeping food production going (even if it has to be made more efficient)

And every acre of land given over to biofuel is one taken away from food production, and there’s no sign of electric being viable anytime soon. Biofuel is however the only remotely viable alternative to kerosene right now.

Aircraft do carry a lot of cargo, and when the aircraft is fairly full, they create less greenhouse gas per passenger per km than cars. Because of the industry’s import to so many countries, including tourism, I think biofuel and carbon offsetting is the only realistic alternative right now.

Strumms

What these wànkbags need to do instead of endangering the traveling public, causing distress and causing more pollution by their actions is evaluate how they can contribute to a solution instead of causing another problem...

Tenzor07

HTCOne wrote: »

Aircraft do carry a lot of cargo, and when the aircraft is fairly full, they create less greenhouse gas per passenger per km than cars. Because of the industry’s import to so many countries, including tourism, I think biofuel and carbon offsetting is the only realistic alternative right now.

I didn't hear of any protestors going down to the docks and super gluing themselves to the bow of of a supertanker or cargo ship...!

single large container ship can emit cancer and asthma-causing pollutants equivalent to that of 50 million cars. The low grade bunker fuel used by the worlds 90,000 cargo ships contains up to 2,000 times the amount of sulfur compared to diesel fuel used in automobiles.

Portsalon

Strumms wrote: »

What these wànkbags need to do instead of endangering the traveling public, causing distress and causing more pollution by their actions is evaluate how they can contribute to a solution instead of causing another problem...

Sterilisation being the obvious starting point.

rivegauche

Interesting that this Virtue Signaling fool chose a route on which there isn't a viable alternative rather than delaying an internal flight from LCY to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
The alternative to this flight for passengers was a train trip to Holyhead and a 4 hour boat trip.

Hotblack Desiato

Bunker fuel used by large ships really is filthy stuff - to the extent that most ports ban its use close to shore.