Flightshaming to London from Dublin

easypazz

Can we not have nuclear powered ferries?

Same as nuclear subs and aircraft carriers?

ednwireland

ive been ferry and drive (donegal to yorkshire and back) 4 times in the last year

flying uncluding getting to airport 2hours before is usually about 1 hour quicker, i have to drive at teh bothe ends anyway.

including hire car costs its about 100 euro cheaper to fly than to get a return ferry (i never seem to get those really cheap flights)

the ferry is a lot less stressful (when you have your car with you !)

whisky_galore

quokula wrote: »

If enough people change their habits then Ryanair aren't going to keep flying half empty planes back and forth at a loss.

There is an argument that ferry foot passengers are effectively free though, as the ferry schedule will always be dictated by the demand from trucks and cars.

People won't change, not while the sailing option is pretty shyte.

quokula

whisky_galore wrote: »

People won't change, not while the sailing option is pretty shyte.

Not many will switch to ferry, but some may consider it worthwhile (hence this thread) and many more will simply try to travel to London less often. My job involves flying to London regularly and I've specifically made it a goal this year to cut down the number of flights (by batching things together and staying there for longer periods at a time) which they've done.

My company also puts a lot of effort into finding carbon offsetting schemes to offset all of the emissions from these flights (because the ones the airlines offer up are pretty worthless) so we're officially carbon neutral, but that's still no replacement for simply cutting down.

easypazz

whisky_galore wrote: »

People won't change, not while the sailing option is pretty shyte.

People wont change lots of things, plastic bottles, burning coal, driving diesel cars etc., unless policies are put in place to encourage change.

Unless there is some sort of global agreement to significantly increase tax on air travel then it going to remain No. 1.

Del.Monte

cnocbui wrote: »

Flightshaming. Nice try, but I have no shame and will fly whenever it pleases me and not feel a scintilla of shame or remorse.

As had been said about a similar poster - edgy, you're my hero.

whisky_galore

easypazz wrote: »

Unless there is some sort of global agreement to significantly increase tax on air travel then it going to remain No. 1.

Lol.
Good luck with that.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

not only do people here think that, other people do too:

I already questioned the accuracy of that statistic a number of pages back. I came to a figure of .1311 not .16 for Ryanair. Aer Lingus wouldn't be far off that either. If you are flying to London from Dublin it is very likely you are flying on one of those two carriers.
Those figures will go down further as 737Maxes and A32xes enter their fleets.

quokula

quokula wrote: »

If enough people change their habits then Ryanair aren't going to keep flying half empty planes back and forth at a loss.

Ryanair are bidding at the moment for new 737Max10 planes. With over 40 more seats than their current fleet of 737-800s they will be easily over 20% more efficient on a per passenger basis.

devnull

Del.Monte wrote: »

As had been said about a similar poster - edgy, you're my hero.

Remember to keep it civil and attack the post and not the poster.

- Moderator

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Ryanair are bidding at the moment for new 737Max10 planes. With over 40 more seats than their current fleet of 737-800s they will be easily over 20% more efficient on a per passenger basis.

Well, they will if the larger planes are full. But that implies either (a) attracting more customers, which will be a challenge if flying is disfavoured either by public policy or by market sentiment, or (b) operating fewer flights.

Mind you, the market would have to shift hugely before land/sea routes became competitive against air routes for the Dublin/London journey. That's not impossible - the land/sea routes were very competitive until the mid-80s, and carried far more passengers - but it would require very signficant changes. I don't think public sentiment is going to do it. A bigger impact might be made by public sentiment shifting against making the journey at all - "is your journey really necessary?" - but I think that's going to impact business travel much more than leisure/recreation travel.

Competition from terrestrial alternatives is probably more of an issue for Ryanair on its mainland routes. They don't serve London-Paris any more, for example. Indeed, from Paris they no longer serve anywhere else in France or Germany.

trellheim

Mind you, the market would have to shift hugely before land/sea routes became competitive against air routes for the Dublin/London journey

Is competitive the right word here ? . Sail/Rail any Irish railway station to any UK railway station is probably the cheapest cost out there

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

Is competitive the right word here ? . Sail/Rail any Irish railway station to any UK railway station is probably the cheapest cost out there

I can get Dublin Connolly to London Euston, one way, for €62.63, and it will take between 9 and 13 hours, depending on which service I take. Ryanair is going to be both cheaper and quicker.

magicbastarder

am i correct in thinking that ryanair enjoy a tax break on aviation fuel that the sail/rail companies do not benefit from in relation to their fuel?

Peregrinus

Aviation fuel is generally tax-exempt, not least because of the nature of aviation; if one country were to try to tax it, airlines would simply fill up while their planes were in other countries. Plus, exemption for aviation fuel was seen as a positive when aviation services were being developed, and countries were keen to see them expanded.

Obviously different considerations apply now, and there is a study currently under way on a proposal to tax aviation fuel for intra-EU flights - the tax would be collected by, and kept by, member states, but as they would all implement the tax the airlines could not avoid it simply by buying their fuel at the other end of the journey, as they could if just one state charged the tax. And in the next round of aviation service agreements - e.g. between the EU and the US - the question of taxing aviation fuel will be addressed.

But, yeah, as of now airlines get tax-free fuel, while rail, road and sea transport operators do not.

cnocbui

What level of unemployment do people think governments and their electors will tolerate before no one could care less about CO2?

The idea of taxing CO2 heavily is that it will reduce demand. If you succeed with that aim then you get a significant rise in unemployment. 10.4% of global GDP comes from tourism. 325,000 people in Ireland have tourism related employment.

If you want less travel related CO2 then it's like saying you want to double or triple the level of unemployment - and that's in a diverse economy - in countries that rely on tourism - well - you can kiss those countries goodbye.

Sam Russell

cnocbui wrote: »

What level of unemployment do people think governments and their electors will tolerate before no one could care less about CO2?

The idea of taxing CO2 heavily is that it will reduce demand. If you succeed with that aim then you get a significant rise in unemployment. 10.4% of global GDP comes from tourism. 325,000 people in Ireland have tourism related employment.

If you want less travel related CO2 then it's like saying you want to double or triple the level of unemployment - and that's in a diverse economy - in countries that rely on tourism - well - you can kiss those countries goodbye.

Well, there is a backlash against mass tourism. For example, Venice is looking to restrict access to the city, as is Barcelona. Even the cliffs of Moher are suffering from excess tourism, as is Killarney.

I think the nature of tourism will change, with activity based tourism beginning to be preferred by enough to make a difference. After all, hunting tigers is an activity that is no longer acceptable - since the Victorians wiped out so many of them.

Lord Glentoran

cnocbui wrote: »

Flightshaming. Nice try, but I have no shame and will fly whenever it pleases me and not feel a scintilla of shame or remorse.

Whooo. Give the rebel a round of applause for doing the same as nearly everyone else.

cnocbui

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

Whooo. Give the rebel a round of applause for doing the same as nearly everyone else.

Hey, I can do even better, i anticipate my next flight might be to New Zealand. Can't wait.

quokula

cnocbui wrote: »

What level of unemployment do people think governments and their electors will tolerate before no one could care less about CO2?

The idea of taxing CO2 heavily is that it will reduce demand. If you succeed with that aim then you get a significant rise in unemployment. 10.4% of global GDP comes from tourism. 325,000 people in Ireland have tourism related employment.

If you want less travel related CO2 then it's like saying you want to double or triple the level of unemployment - and that's in a diverse economy - in countries that rely on tourism - well - you can kiss those countries goodbye.

The Maldives depends pretty heavily on tourism. They also depend pretty heavily on not sinking into the sea. Guess which priority won out for them?

It's an extremely blinkered view to only look at the costs of curtailing CO2 emissions, and ignoring the much greater costs of not curtailing CO2 emissions.

Thisonedone

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, there is a backlash against mass tourism. For example, Venice is looking to restrict access to the city, as is Barcelona. Even the cliffs of Moher are suffering from excess tourism, as is Killarney.

I think the nature of tourism will change, with activity based tourism beginning to be preferred by enough to make a difference. After all, hunting tigers is an activity that is no longer acceptable - since the Victorians wiped out so many of them.

Yeah places like Venice, Barcelona, saint tropez, Rome are simply awful these days. The beauty of these places has caused their own destruction through over tourism.You can’t move in these places anymore. Tourism is no longer seen as a positive thing anymore by a lot of people.

Lumen

The capitalist solution is to tax flights and let the market sort it out.

That's not really "fair" though, in the sense that many people will be deprived of the experience of seeing the world, whilst corporate saps will still be flown around the world for 30 minute meetings.

I quite like the idea of a non-tradeable flight allowance. The way it would work is that you get an exemption from a hefty passenger tax for the first (say) 5 flights a year, and this exemption is linked to your passport.

It would affect most people not at all, and companies would find employees jealously guarding their credits for personal use.

Of course some wear not-giving-a-**** as a badge of honour and those people will fight this sort of thing to the death.

quokula

Lumen wrote: »

The capitalist solution is to tax flights and let the market sort it out.

That's not really "fair" though, in the sense that many people will be deprived of the experience of seeing the world, whilst corporate saps will still be flown around the world for 30 minute meetings.

I quite like the idea of a non-tradeable flight allowance. The way it would work is that you get an exemption from a hefty passenger tax for the first (say) 5 flights a year, and this exemption is linked to your passport.

It would affect most people not at all, and companies would find employees jealously guarding their credits for personal use.

Of course some wear not-giving-a-**** as a badge of honour and those people will fight this sort of thing to the death.

I've seen a similar proposal except make it tradable. Governments can still define a cap on the total number of flights, but those who can't afford to fly can get some extra income by selling their credit to those who really need it, it would reduce aviation and reduce inequality at the same time.

I think it's a great idea but very hard to imagine how it could be implemented with the cross border nature of flying. If I'm in, say, Dubai trying to buy a ticket do they have a database of Irish passports available to them? What if I've used up all my credits already but clearly I have a right to get home? What if Dubai hasn't signed up to the system, can I just book my next 20 flights while I'm there? Or apply for a Dubai passport? Or even if everything is agreed internationally, will Northern Irish people get to fly double with their Irish and UK passports?

cnocbui

I'm an anthropogenic global warming sceptic, so will act accordingly. I'd be a real hypocrite if I thought anthropogenic CO2 really was causing global warming and did nothing to reduce my CO2 footprint. The irony is that I plan to significantly reduce my CO2 footprint by emigrating to a warmer climate where I won't have to heat my house with multiple 1000L deliveries of kerosene each year.

seamus

easypazz wrote: »

Can we not have nuclear powered ferries?

Same as nuclear subs and aircraft carriers?

If this is a serious question, then the answer is that this is technically possible, but practically not.

Nuclear engines are insanely expensive. Their primary benefit is that they can operate continuously with ever needing to refuel. The fuel reserve on the boat usually outlasts the engine and the ship itself. The benefit to never needing to refuel is obvious for a military ship, and nuclear subs can travel around the planet without ever needing to surface.

While their carbon footprint over the lifetime of the ship is tiny, their financial cost is not. A nuclear powered ship the size of a ferry would cost the guts of €1bn. A standard ferry to cross the Irish sea costs €150m. Running costs for the nuclear engine are also significantly higher, given the much more arduous safety processes and qualified staff you need.

This cost is not a problem for the US military which measures its budget in the trillions of dollars, but for Irish Ferries who have to make a return on their investment, it's just not an option.

magicbastarder

cnocbui wrote: »

where I won't have to heat my house with multiple 1000L deliveries of kerosene each year.

something is wrong with your house if you need multiple fills a year.

cnocbui

magicbastarder wrote: »

something is wrong with your house if you need multiple fills a year.

It's big and in an exposed and windy location. The cavity walls do have polystyrene in them, but I wasn't involved in the building, so can't vouch for whether it's up to spec. The loft has insulation, but probably not enough, but frost and snow persists on it for as long as many other houses about.

Lumen

quokula wrote: »

I've seen a similar proposal except make it tradable. Governments can still define a cap on the total number of flights, but those who can't afford to fly can get some extra income by selling their credit to those who really need it, it would reduce aviation and reduce inequality at the same time.

The problem with trading it is that the likely outcome is that those traded credits end up being substituted for welfare payments and income supports, and we end up with the status quo again, "rich" people flying a lot.

quokula wrote: »

I think it's a great idea but very hard to imagine how it could be implemented with the cross border nature of flying. If I'm in, say, Dubai trying to buy a ticket do they have a database of Irish passports available to them? What if I've used up all my credits already but clearly I have a right to get home? What if Dubai hasn't signed up to the system, can I just book my next 20 flights while I'm there? Or apply for a Dubai passport? Or even if everything is agreed internationally, will Northern Irish people get to fly double with their Irish and UK passports?

These are all reasonable points, but since 9/11 there's enough tracking infrastructure in place to do it, and the fact that those systems were put into place with international agreement shows that where there's a will there's a way. If the UAE or whoever don't like it they can face no fly sanctions.

Lumen

seamus wrote: »

If this is a serious question, then the answer is that this is technically possible, but practically not.

Nuclear engines are insanely expensive. Their primary benefit is that they can operate continuously with ever needing to refuel. The fuel reserve on the boat usually outlasts the engine and the ship itself. The benefit to never needing to refuel is obvious for a military ship, and nuclear subs can travel around the planet without ever needing to surface.

While their carbon footprint over the lifetime of the ship is tiny, their financial cost is not. A nuclear powered ship the size of a ferry would cost the guts of €1bn. A standard ferry to cross the Irish sea costs €150m. Running costs for the nuclear engine are also significantly higher, given the much more arduous safety processes and qualified staff you need.

This cost is not a problem for the US military which measures its budget in the trillions of dollars, but for Irish Ferries who have to make a return on their investment, it's just not an option.

Nuclear ships have the additional advantage of being a fair bit faster without breaking the bank on fuel costs.

You could probably build a nuclear catamaran that did over 100kph, which would substantially reduce journey times and make translatlantic crossings in 2 days possible.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

Nuclear ships have the additional advantage of being a fair bit faster without breaking the bank on fuel costs.

You could probably build a nuclear catamaran that did over 100kph, which would substantially reduce journey times and make translatlantic crossings in 2 days possible.

Which could in theory potentially make it an economic success.

It would really be a massive experiment though. And I expect there'd be a lot of questions about whether it would be permitted to dock at ferry ports with its engine*. Docking permits, again not really something that US Navy ships have to be too concerned about.

Security an issue too. The actual chances of an attack yielding useful nuclear materials or a meltdown would be infinitesimal, nevertheless our paranoid culture would make a big deal of it.

*Despite the engine producing no radiation and less pollution than a typical diesel engine, we know how crazy people get around nuclear power.

L1011

Lumen wrote: »

Nuclear ships have the additional advantage of being a fair bit faster without breaking the bank on fuel costs.

You could probably build a nuclear catamaran that did over 100kph, which would substantially reduce journey times and make translatlantic crossings in 2 days possible.

In ideal weather conditions that rarely occur

Mebuntu

Flightshaming?

The biggest flight shame was Aer Lingus/BA fares before Ryanair came along. I had enough of the boat/train or bus in those days to last me a lifetime and won't be going back to that anytime soon.

It's true that the hassle at airports today is a factor but I can stomach that for the quick flight for little or nothing.

loyatemu

L1011 wrote: »

In ideal weather conditions that rarely occur

anything to be said for Ekranoplans?

Alun

loyatemu wrote: »

anything to be said for Ekranoplans?

I've also often wondered about these types of aircraft.

Depending on how economical they actually are in practice, I wonder if they might be better than conventional aircraft flights over short-ish distances over water. My wife recently flew Dublin to Blackpool and from all accounts the plane took more time, and maybe more fuel, climbing to altitude and then descending again for landing than it did normal flying.

loyatemu

Alun wrote: »

I've also often wondered about these types of aircraft.

Depending on how economical they actually are in practice, I wonder if they might be better than conventional aircraft flights over short-ish distances over water. My wife recently flew Dublin to Blackpool and from all accounts the plane took more time, and maybe more fuel, climbing to altitude and then descending again for landing than it did normal flying.

I did Dublin-Blackpool some years back and yeah, it's a straight up and down flight, ridiculously short.

Johnny Sausage

Alun wrote: »

I've also often wondered about these types of aircraft.

Depending on how economical they actually are in practice, I wonder if they might be better than conventional aircraft flights over short-ish distances over water. My wife recently flew Dublin to Blackpool and from all accounts the plane took more time, and maybe more fuel, climbing to altitude and then descending again for landing than it did normal flying.

was it a private plane,

fairly sure the blackpool route closed about 6 years ago

john boye

Mebuntu wrote: »

Flightshaming?

The biggest flight shame was Aer Lingus/BA fares before Ryanair came along. I had enough of the boat/train or bus in those days to last me a lifetime and won't be going back to that anytime soon.

Yes that's the real issue here.

Alun

Johnny Sausage wrote: »

was it a private plane,

fairly sure the blackpool route closed about 6 years ago

Maybe it wasn't that recent then Anyway Dublin to Liverpool or Manchester would be pretty much the same.

magicbastarder

loyatemu wrote: »

I did Dublin-Blackpool some years back and yeah, it's a straight up and down flight, ridiculously short.

i did dublin-bristol a few times several years ago. aer lingus/stobart were operating with turboprops at the time (not sure if they still are), ryanair with their usual 737s. from a passenger point of view, i suspect it's so short that the difference in flight time is relatively meaningless.

Sam Russell

Sheffield and Oxford are two places that are difficult to get to by air from Dublin,so rail or coach might be better.

Johnny Sausage

Sam Russell wrote: »

Sheffield and Oxford are two places that are difficult to get to by air from Dublin,so rail or coach might be better.

Sheffield - fly to manchester, train is about an hour and a quarter if its ot one where you have to change

Oxford - fly to birmingham, train takes about an hour

the sail rail would take a lot longer on both tbh

Thelonious Monk

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can get Dublin Connolly to London Euston, one way, for €62.63, and it will take between 9 and 13 hours, depending on which service I take. Ryanair is going to be both cheaper and quicker.

You need to take into account the price you pay to get from the London airports to a central location like Euston though. From Euston you can walk to King's Cross or even the West End or the City of London or Camden etc. if you like.
I've spent 30 pounds getting in and out of Stansted and Heathrow Express is crazy money too.

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Sheffield and Oxford are two places that are difficult to get to by air from Dublin,so rail or coach might be better.

Oxford's a piece of cake; numerous flights every day from Dublin to Heathrow and a non-stop coach at least every 30 mins from Heathrow to Oxford; it takes about 1 hr 30 mins, depending on the time of day. Oxford is more accessible than most of suburban London.

At one time The Lady Who Is Now My Wife was living in Oxford and I was living in Dublin; I did this route a lot.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

Oxford's a piece of cake; numerous flights every day from Dublin to Heathrow and a non-stop coach at least every 30 mins from Heathrow to Oxford; it takes about 1 hr 30 mins, depending on the time of day. Oxford is more accessible than most of suburban London.

At one time The Lady Who Is Now My Wife was living in Oxford and I was living in Dublin; I did this route a lot.

Heathrow is one of the most expensive airports to fly into.

El Tarangu

cnocbui wrote: »

The irony is that I plan to significantly reduce my CO2 footprint by emigrating to a warmer climate where I won't have to heat my house with multiple 1000L deliveries of kerosene each year.

Unless you plan on only visiting home once every several years, you won't be reducing your carbon footprint.

cnocbui

El Tarangu wrote: »

Unless you plan on only visiting home once every several years, you won't be reducing your carbon footprint.

I'm an Australian, I don't anticipate returning.

L1011

loyatemu wrote: »

anything to be said for Ekranoplans?

I think a large wave can take them out entirely, so no.

trellheim

Gatwick is 16 quid extra at peak with an Oyster tap-in to KIngs X /Euston

n97 mini

L1011 wrote: »

I think a large wave can take them out entirely, so no.

It's not the weather, it's the amount of power required to get them out of the water. Look at the one in the link, 8 jet engines.

newcavanman

Anyone old enough to have had to travel to the UK by boat because air travel was so expensive will view this thread with a weary eye. I remember going to London for a week in 1981 with pal. we were going plane spoting for a week and would happily have flown. In those days, the costs were as follows
Advance booking flight 175
day ferry and train 55
night ferry and train 45
Guess which option we had to choose? I have to say, ill be dragged kicking and screaming to travel by boat , i spent way too much time sitting on trains or waiting on boats. My use of air travel now ,is just rebalancing the books