Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Tue May 14, 2013 3:31 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I'm with you on this entirely.

I don't particularly mind the actual flying bit, but I absolutely hate, hate, hate take-off. I become an überfatalistic, jangling wreck.

My wife turns into the guardian of a toddler on take offs

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Tue May 14, 2013 4:12 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: So in those instances why don't folk do it? They just like spending a lot of time and loads of money unnecessarily? Because in those instances it might be better in business terms to have a face to face meeting, whilst not being absolutely essential. I always prefer speaking to someone in person than on the phone/over the internet, as I believe any right-minded person would. My point is that something has to give and if we don't all start making some sacrifices sooner rather than later, it'll be too late. If the cost of air travel suddenly increased, maybe businesses would consider a little more carefully whether the trip was absolutely essential. There's also the issue of the massive increase in domestic flights in this country - there's certainly no way they can be said to be essential in the vast, vast majority of cases. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: But all that is because you're posting without having bothered to look into it. Eg: http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=894 Not really. From your link: IATA’s Steele pointed to the recent study carried by consultants E4tech on behalf of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change that showed a best case scenario for a full replacement of jet kerosene by biofuels by 2035 and a worse case of 40% replacement by 2050. “In reality, I think it will be somewhere between the two, and we in the industry will be trying to move things forward as quickly as we can.” So the best case scenario highlighted above means another 20+ years of rising carbon emissions, and even the industry accept that this scenario is unlikely to be achieved. The worst case scenario will put barely a dent in current CO2 emissions levels if air travel continues to rise as expected. It's worth noting, too, that your link comes from the industry itself. Others may take a slightly different view on how committed the aviation industry is to tackling climate change.Greenpeace, for example. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Nonsense, production alternative fuel cars are already in global service. Just one site for a flavour: http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/01/31/7-alternative-fuels-and-alternative-fuel-powered-vehicles/ My apologies. What I meant was that we can't yet produce an alternative fuel car that is universally accepted, without serious compromises in performance, and where fuel is readily available in the same way as petrol is. There are loads of different ideas about what the best alternative fuel for cars will be, but until the industry and its consumers agree on what that fuel is, and a range of cars are produced that will run on this fuel and perform as well as current petrol/diesel cars, we're really no nearer to significantly reducing emissions from motoring. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: .... but achieving the goals in my first link would clearly not. I'd dispute that, certainly the 'clearly' part. Environmental scientists agree that climate change will eventually reach a 'tipping point', a point of no return from which warming will continue (and accelerate) no matter what measures we subsequently take. I don't think there is universal agreement on what point this will be - I don't think anyone really knows - but the worst case scenario described in your first link (or even the 'likely' middle scenario) wouldn't necessarily mean we had acted soon enough.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: So in those instances why don't folk do it? They just like spending a lot of time and loads of money unnecessarily? Because in those instances it might be better in business terms to have a face to face meeting, whilst not being absolutely essential. I always prefer speaking to someone in person than on the phone/over the internet, as I believe any right-minded person would. My point is that something has to give and if we don't all start making some sacrifices sooner rather than later, it'll be too late. If the cost of air travel suddenly increased, maybe businesses would consider a little more carefully whether the trip was absolutely essential. There's also the issue of the massive increase in domestic flights in this country - there's certainly no way they can be said to be essential in the vast, vast majority of cases. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: But all that is because you're posting without having bothered to look into it. Eg: http://www.greenaironline.com/news.php?viewStory=894 Not really. From your link: IATA’s Steele pointed to the recent study carried by consultants E4tech on behalf of the UK’s Committee on Climate Change that showed a best case scenario for a full replacement of jet kerosene by biofuels by 2035 and a worse case of 40% replacement by 2050. “In reality, I think it will be somewhere between the two, and we in the industry will be trying to move things forward as quickly as we can.” So the best case scenario highlighted above means another 20+ years of rising carbon emissions, and even the industry accept that this scenario is unlikely to be achieved. The worst case scenario will put barely a dent in current CO2 emissions levels if air travel continues to rise as expected. It's worth noting, too, that your link comes from the industry itself. Others may take a slightly different view on how committed the aviation industry is to tackling climate change.Greenpeace, for example. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: Nonsense, production alternative fuel cars are already in global service. Just one site for a flavour: http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/01/31/7-alternative-fuels-and-alternative-fuel-powered-vehicles/ My apologies. What I meant was that we can't yet produce an alternative fuel car that is universally accepted, without serious compromises in performance, and where fuel is readily available in the same way as petrol is. There are loads of different ideas about what the best alternative fuel for cars will be, but until the industry and its consumers agree on what that fuel is, and a range of cars are produced that will run on this fuel and perform as well as current petrol/diesel cars, we're really no nearer to significantly reducing emissions from motoring. Ferocious Aardvark wrote: .... but achieving the goals in my first link would clearly not. I'd dispute that, certainly the 'clearly' part. Environmental scientists agree that climate change will eventually reach a 'tipping point', a point of no return from which warming will continue (and accelerate) no matter what measures we subsequently take. I don't think there is universal agreement on what point this will be - I don't think anyone really knows - but the worst case scenario described in your first link (or even the 'likely' middle scenario) wouldn't necessarily mean we had acted soon enough.

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Tue May 14, 2013 4:24 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

My apologies. What I meant was that we can't yet produce an alternative fuel car that is universally accepted, without serious compromises in performance, and where fuel is readily available in the same way as petrol is. There are loads of different ideas about what the best alternative fuel for cars will be, but until the industry and its consumers agree on what that fuel is, and a range of cars are produced that will run on this fuel and perform as well as current petrol/diesel cars, we're really no nearer to significantly reducing emissions from motoring.

The only saving grace is that as soon as a viable replacement is found then the fuel supply industry tends to react quickly AS LONG as there is a demand for it, two extreme examples would be unleaded petrol and LPG, I recall having a Nissan Bluebird in the mid-80s that could be re-tuned to run on unleaded and as Conoco had a forecourt close to our office with one solitary unleaded pump I had it done, 12 months later you didn't really have to look too hard for unleaded pumps.

On the other hand in the late 1970s I had a Mk3 Ford Escort converted to LPG, there was one supplier in Leeds (the Calor Gas depot) and one in both of Newcastle & Birmingham which was fine for me as I was doing a weekly round trip between those three offices, it also helped that the car would run on gas or petrol. Fast forward to now and although LPG is supposed to be a viable fuel alternative its still not on every forecourt and the take-up has been very slow, I have never looked into it since that Ford Escort but is it a cheap fuel for cars or is it taxed just as heavily ?

Thats the main issue, find the alternative and then don't lump forecourt taxes on it to encourage its uptake - on the other hand I'm sure there is a big percentage of car users like me who could cope quite happily with the ranges that electric cars have now (even though its always touted as an obstacle).

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Tue May 14, 2013 5:43 pm  

Rock God X wrote: ...My point is that something has to give and if we don't all start making some sacrifices sooner rather than later, it'll be too late. I shouldn't think that the percentage of businesses that would just voluntarily make sacrifices would be statistically significant. Only stuff that's imposed could ever work. And that's irrelevant anyway unless you can find a way to halt the vast rise in greenhouse gases from China and the east anyway. Rock God X wrote: .If the cost of air travel suddenly increased, maybe businesses would consider a little more carefully whether the trip was absolutely essential. Doubt that. Business class costs about a squillion times what I would pay, and it's seemingly always pretty full. Rock God X wrote: .There's also the issue of the massive increase in domestic flights in this country - there's certainly no way they can be said to be essential in the vast, vast majority of cases. Not essential, no, but not pleasure flights in the vast majority of cases. Of course if there were better alternatives then folk would use them. Would that we hadn't wrecked our railway system. Rock God X wrote: .... So the best case scenario highlighted above means another 20+ years of rising carbon emissions, and even the industry accept that this scenario is unlikely to be achieved. The worst case scenario will put barely a dent in current CO2 emissions levels if air travel continues to rise as expected. I'd say a 40% dent is some big dent. But I'm curious as to why air travel is expected to continue to rise, is that necessarily true? Are there so many wanton, unthinking extra potential customers, who don't fly now and really have no need to, but will proliferate into air travel in their millions regardless? I'm not convinced. Rock God X wrote: ...It's worth noting, too, that your link comes from the industry itself. Others may take a slightly different view on how committed the aviation industry is to tackling climate change.Greenpeace, for example. Indeed, but I didn't argue the aviation industry is committed to tackling climate change, I would accept entirely that anything they do is going to be more for reasons of public image and/or compulsion, indeed making the biggest profit they can is of course what they are in business to do. It's just that in the coming decades the two do seem to increasingly converge - if not co-incide. Rock God X wrote: ..My apologies. What I meant was that we can't yet produce an alternative fuel car that is universally accepted, without serious compromises in performance, and where fuel is readily available in the same way as petrol is. There are loads of different ideas about what the best alternative fuel for cars will be, but until the industry and its consumers agree on what that fuel is, and a range of cars are produced that will run on this fuel and perform as well as current petrol/diesel cars, we're really no nearer to significantly reducing emissions from motoring. I would largely agree, but here again, compulsion is the only alternative. For a radical example, what if you could only ever enter London's congestion charge zone if you were an electric car? I also don't think people will be keen to give up "performance" voluntarily and I think the only way forward (and that's speaking as a petrolhead) is not MAKE cars that can shoot along at 100 all day guzzling fuel from huge engines. I would hate to see the day but certainly if all there was in terms of cars on the motorways was models limited to (say) 50 mph then it would also very greatly ease congestion too (less space between cars, no point in lane hogging as everyone is going similar speeds). Rock God X wrote: ..I'd dispute that, certainly the 'clearly' part. Environmental scientists agree that climate change will eventually reach a 'tipping point', a point of no return from which warming will continue (and accelerate) no matter what measures we subsequently take. Really? Oh., well. If we're all doomed, we may as well just crack on then. Where's me Scooby keys?

Rock God X wrote: ...My point is that something has to give and if we don't all start making some sacrifices sooner rather than later, it'll be too late. I shouldn't think that the percentage of businesses that would just voluntarily make sacrifices would be statistically significant. Only stuff that's imposed could ever work. And that's irrelevant anyway unless you can find a way to halt the vast rise in greenhouse gases from China and the east anyway. Rock God X wrote: .If the cost of air travel suddenly increased, maybe businesses would consider a little more carefully whether the trip was absolutely essential. Doubt that. Business class costs about a squillion times what I would pay, and it's seemingly always pretty full. Rock God X wrote: .There's also the issue of the massive increase in domestic flights in this country - there's certainly no way they can be said to be essential in the vast, vast majority of cases. Not essential, no, but not pleasure flights in the vast majority of cases. Of course if there were better alternatives then folk would use them. Would that we hadn't wrecked our railway system. Rock God X wrote: .... So the best case scenario highlighted above means another 20+ years of rising carbon emissions, and even the industry accept that this scenario is unlikely to be achieved. The worst case scenario will put barely a dent in current CO2 emissions levels if air travel continues to rise as expected. I'd say a 40% dent is some big dent. But I'm curious as to why air travel is expected to continue to rise, is that necessarily true? Are there so many wanton, unthinking extra potential customers, who don't fly now and really have no need to, but will proliferate into air travel in their millions regardless? I'm not convinced. Rock God X wrote: ...It's worth noting, too, that your link comes from the industry itself. Others may take a slightly different view on how committed the aviation industry is to tackling climate change.Greenpeace, for example. Indeed, but I didn't argue the aviation industry is committed to tackling climate change, I would accept entirely that anything they do is going to be more for reasons of public image and/or compulsion, indeed making the biggest profit they can is of course what they are in business to do. It's just that in the coming decades the two do seem to increasingly converge - if not co-incide. Rock God X wrote: ..My apologies. What I meant was that we can't yet produce an alternative fuel car that is universally accepted, without serious compromises in performance, and where fuel is readily available in the same way as petrol is. There are loads of different ideas about what the best alternative fuel for cars will be, but until the industry and its consumers agree on what that fuel is, and a range of cars are produced that will run on this fuel and perform as well as current petrol/diesel cars, we're really no nearer to significantly reducing emissions from motoring. I would largely agree, but here again, compulsion is the only alternative. For a radical example, what if you could only ever enter London's congestion charge zone if you were an electric car? I also don't think people will be keen to give up "performance" voluntarily and I think the only way forward (and that's speaking as a petrolhead) is not MAKE cars that can shoot along at 100 all day guzzling fuel from huge engines. I would hate to see the day but certainly if all there was in terms of cars on the motorways was models limited to (say) 50 mph then it would also very greatly ease congestion too (less space between cars, no point in lane hogging as everyone is going similar speeds). Rock God X wrote: ..I'd dispute that, certainly the 'clearly' part. Environmental scientists agree that climate change will eventually reach a 'tipping point', a point of no return from which warming will continue (and accelerate) no matter what measures we subsequently take. Really? Oh., well. If we're all doomed, we may as well just crack on then. Where's me Scooby keys?

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Wed May 15, 2013 7:19 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I shouldn't think that the percentage of businesses that would just voluntarily make sacrifices would be statistically significant. Only stuff that's imposed could ever work.

Agreed. That's why I was suggesting a huge tax hike, though a cap on certain types of flight would also be beneficial.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

And that's irrelevant anyway unless you can find a way to halt the vast rise in greenhouse gases from China and the east anyway.

Again, I fully agree, but it makes it rather difficult for us to put pressure on other countries if we don't have our own house in order. Someone has to lead the way, but at the moment it seems like everyone is standing around waiting for someone else to act.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Doubt that. Business class costs about a squillion times what I would pay, and it's seemingly always pretty full.

But then, doesn't this weaken your argument that businesses won't spend money they don't have to? I mean, if it was the case that they had to get an employee from A to B to carry out some essential piece of business, couldn't they just send them in standard class with the rest of the plebs? Why spend all the extra on business class?

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Not essential, no, but not pleasure flights in the vast majority of cases. Of course if there were better alternatives then folk would use them. Would that we hadn't wrecked our railway system.

But we could have better alternatives if we cut government subsidies to airline travel and ploughed it into our railways. According to Greenpeace, air travel causes 10 times the amount of pollution that rail travel causes. I'm not saying that the alternatives are necessarily in place right now, more that we should be making sure they're put into place before we're up to our tits in glacial meltwater.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I'd say a 40% dent is some big dent.

It'd be quite a big dent in the current levels (though still not sufficient). Unfortunately, air travel is predicted to rise, and this would probably wipe out any gains achieved. And that's before we consider any deforestation that might have to occur to grow some of these biofuels.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

But I'm curious as to why air travel is expected to continue to rise, is that necessarily true? Are there so many wanton, unthinking extra potential customers, who don't fly now and really have no need to, but will proliferate into air travel in their millions regardless? I'm not convinced.

Air travel has more than doubled (I think) since 1990. I'll dig out the stats later, if I can be arsed. They're predicted to keep on rising and could double again by 2050 (think this is worldwide rather than in the UK). Bit sketchy, but I'll check later if I have time.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Indeed, but I didn't argue the aviation industry is committed to tackling climate change, I would accept entirely that anything they do is going to be more for reasons of public image and/or compulsion, indeed making the biggest profit they can is of course what they are in business to do. It's just that in the coming decades the two do seem to increasingly converge - if not co-incide.

Probably, but political change is slow. We're on a timescale here, and at the current rate, that convergence will occur rather too late. More radical change is needed (across the board, not just in aviation) if the 'tipping point' is to be avoided.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I would largely agree, but here again, compulsion is the only alternative. For a radical example, what if you could only ever enter London's congestion charge zone if you were an electric car? I also don't think people will be keen to give up "performance" voluntarily and I think the only way forward (and that's speaking as a petrolhead) is not MAKE cars that can shoot along at 100 all day guzzling fuel from huge engines. I would hate to see the day but certainly if all there was in terms of cars on the motorways was models limited to (say) 50 mph then it would also very greatly ease congestion too (less space between cars, no point in lane hogging as everyone is going similar speeds).

Agree with all of this, but I can't see the production of such vehicles being prohibited in my lifetime.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Really? Oh., well. If we're all doomed, we may as well just crack on then. Where's me Scooby keys?

We're not doomed yet, but we soon will be if our governments don't get their heads out of their arses and start doing something about climate change other than paying lip service to reducing emissions.

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Wed May 15, 2013 10:38 am  

I think, though, a plane without pilots is eco-friendly as it saves on transporting the mass of what would otherwise be the flight crew, and their baggage, around the planet.

Another thing I find weird is that I have the same baggage allowance as the wife, yet if I weighed 100kg more than she does I would bizarrely still pay the same price for the ticket to lug my lardy booty to the same destination. I'm not complaining, of course, but given all the other extras they charge for I'm not sure why the main cost component - your personal weight - isn't factored in. In fairness, it should be.

Secondly, given the sheer weight of numbers of people who do fly, bringing in such a measure would probably do more to combat obesity, at least for people who use planes, than any government nag and preach campaign.

Lardarse tax, anyone?

[Bullseye]

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Wed May 15, 2013 12:15 pm  

Mintball wrote:

We've been travelling to the Continent by train for a few years now. There are a lot of sleeper services that make longer journeys even easier (I did Paris to Hamburg last month overnight and we did Paris to Collioure last year – and will be doing so again – that way).

It's a lot easier than, I suspect, people realise.

It is really easy to organise. By total fluke I did Bradford to Istanbul purely by rail in 2010 and avoided all the chaos with the volcanic ash. All it took to organise the trains and sleepers was a single phone call to Deutschebahn. I would say though that the standard of sleeper and care went downhill from Hungary to Turkey. The guards were mainly pi55ed and I nearly got turfed off in rural Turkey at 3am as the guard had lost my ticket. On the other side of the coin I went from Krakow to Berlin and Berlin to Paris last year by train and the service was superb. Breakfast in bed etc.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Another thing I find weird is that I have the same baggage allowance as the wife, yet if I weighed 100kg more than she does I would bizarrely still pay the same price for the ticket to lug my lardy booty to the same destination. I'm not complaining, of course, but given all the other extras they charge for I'm not sure why the main cost component - your personal weight - isn't factored in. In fairness, it should be.

Secondly, given the sheer weight of numbers of people who do fly, bringing in such a measure would probably do more to combat obesity, at least for people who use planes, than any government nag and preach campaign.

Lardarse tax, anyone?

I think that baggage allowances are way to high. Myself and the wife have a combined baggage weight of about 25kgs for a 2 week holiday. So why do people feel the need to take what looks like their entire wardrobe? Ours used to go in the overhead lockers until they brought the rules in about sharps and liquids which is a pain. Some stuff I see in overhead lockers is bigger and heavier than anything I've put in the hold.

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Wed May 15, 2013 1:22 pm  

I bet Ryan Air will be rushing to buy them, their pilots cannot land in the dark.

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Wed May 15, 2013 1:26 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

I think that baggage allowances are way to high. Myself and the wife have a combined baggage weight of about 25kgs for a 2 week holiday. So why do people feel the need to take what looks like their entire wardrobe? Ours used to go in the overhead lockers until they brought the rules in about sharps and liquids which is a pain. Some stuff I see in overhead lockers is bigger and heavier than anything I've put in the hold.

Likewise, my five day "Business Trip" (no really Tax Office, really) to Portugal will be done on a 5kg small day-hiking backpack, more than enough room in one of those for everything you could possibly need on a five day trip.

If you're a male.

Re: Would you board a plane without a pilot? : Wed May 15, 2013 1:52 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Likewise, my five day "Business Trip" (no really Tax Office, really) to Portugal will be done on a 5kg small day-hiking backpack, more than enough room in one of those for everything you could possibly need on a five day trip.

If you're a male.

When we go to Mexico in August we will use both lots of 22kg, plus I will buy 10kg extra for my dive kit. The two main cases with consist of approximately 10kg of clothes for me and 32kg of clothes, hair products, dryers, shoes etc for the wife.