Cardiff Airport - General Thread

[CM.]

We will have to fly less in the future for sure, hopefully we’ll see further increases in air passenger duty to encourage this. Our home economy also benefits more when we staycation and it puts more money into the pocket of local and small businesses.

I’m sorry but I don’t agree with this. I see it as damaging to the airline more than it is to encourage people not to fly.

With regards to staycations there is many reasons to why people get put off by that. The main one is prices of a staycation can be ridiculous. Also you have to remember it’s not just people in this Country that buissnesses rely on. It’s also the foreign tourists that help the economy and buissness and with covid we’ve not been getting as many foreign tourists as we would normally get

With transport methods. Trains are the greener way of traveling across the country but that’s not being encouraged in my opinion by continuing price rises and also in my area they are planning on scrapping HS2 so I don’t see how we are being encouraged to fly less. In fact we are being encouraged to fly more the way things are going.

I do agree though with the bottom paragraph. The governments have declared a climate emergency and they need to be doing more to get people to become greener such as lowering train ticket prices along with making more lines electric

 

[Jerry]

If we carried on with this attitude we certainly will be heading for disaster.

It's most likely too late things will change, yes we can help slow things down but it's inevitable that the planet will become at least more difficult for human beings to live on. Yes we've got to look at electric cars, changing to renewable energy like tidal energy, electric aircraft and environmentally friendly fuel for aircraft.
As for flying less well that would have a big effect on our economy and putting up APD won't discourage people from flying, it doesn't now, it would more likely mean they would look to travel further to find cheaper flights. Airports like Cardiff support a supply chain that provides jobs, the less busy they are the less jobs they support not too mention that they also provide access for international tourism that is more valuable per head than domestic tourism hence the focus with Flybe on routes to Germany and Italy and the airport trying to develop international tourism via Doha with Qatar Airways. And of course whatever we do would get eclipsed by the growth of China, India and Africa.

Over a decade ago a suggestion was made by a group of serious aviation researchers that Britain needed only eight airports, and CWL wasn't one of them. A greatly reduced aviation industry might well see something like that come about.

I've seen that suggested by quite a few people over the years, but less airports doesn't necessarily mean less people flying and it would probably mean those airports would have to undertake some major expansion like Heathrow wants to, to cope with the passenger numbers. Many people will think that an airport like Cardiff is pointless but it was 1.6 million less passengers heading into or from England and supporting the Welsh economy.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

I've seen that suggested by quite a few people over the years, but less airports doesn't necessarily mean less people flying and it would probably mean those airports would have to undertake some major expansion like Heathrow wants to, to cope with the passenger numbers. Many people will think that an airport like Cardiff is pointless but it was 1.6 million less passengers heading into or from England and supporting the Welsh economy.

The point I was making was in response to aviatorconcorde who, with the comment about the need to fly less in the future, appeared to be suggesting that the aviation industry would have to contract.

If that scenario came about and especially if fares were increased to deter flying, perhaps partly through increased taxation - something else suggested by aviatorconcorde - there would not be as many flights and only the better off could afford to fly regularly. That would lead to fewer passengers overall which might well result in a smaller number of airports being required.

If aviation climate change restrictions really bit I could even see a situation where the only operational passenger airports on the mainland were Heathrow and possibly Gatwick, together with Manchester, Birmingham and Edinburgh, which would then lead to people from outside those areas having to make lengthy overland trips to reach them if they wanted to fly.

I cited CWL as being one that might become redundant because it was not in that list of eight I mentioned, but as I suggested in my previous post there might be no airports at all in the south-west of the British mainland.

I recognise that aviation, despite its faults and critics, plays an extremely important and valuable part in the UK's economy, and my scenarios would be at the extreme end of possibilities, which is why I made the comment about being careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater when looking at aviation and its relationship with climate change.

 

[geoff]

Aviation is an easy target to criticise in relation to pollution, but nobody puts forward a really easy alternative to travel. Here in the wilderness of air travel in South Wales, there is no real alternative to air travel, if travelling on a long journey. The extortionate prices of rail travel within the UK, prevent a lot of people travelling overland, that is when there is an available train service which meets their needs. From South Wales I don't think there is a through to anywhere north of Manchester at present, although I am prepared to be proved wrong. If you live to the West of Cardiff you have to be prepared to change at least twice on occasions. Things could be different if more lines were to be electrified. I see the Government is now contemplating not going ahead with the North West section of HS2 to Leeds.

 

[KARFA]

unfortunately the extremist environmentalist argument is utterly regressive and reductionist. the answers are there is no need for an alternative as you shouldn't travel, no new roads should ever be built, no new developments for offices or even housing often, and opposition to even rail as the greens oppose HS2. Their message is we should all start going backwards to the dark ages - and it is no wonder the majority want nothing to do with it.

 

[CM.]

Things could be different if more lines were to be electrified. I see the Government is now contemplating not going ahead with the North West section of HS2 to Leeds.

I agree more lines need to be electrified. With regards to HS2 in Leeds people are just going to keep flying at this rate and the numpty extremists who demand we live in the Stone Age will all just look stupid as the ways we can go greener are just being scrapped.

But the benefits of it not going ahead is that buildings won’t have to be knocked down as I believe that would be the case if it goes ahead. It would include the ASDA Headquarters.

 

[fly4gigs]

Frequent flyers are the problem, not the average family.

Tier point runs are unnecessary, for example.

 

[Seasider]

Frequent flyers are the problem, not the average family.

Tier point runs are unnecessary, for example.

What's a "Tier point run"?

 

[Jerry]

What's a "Tier point run"?

Where someone takes a flight to get points to sustain or increase their Tier status within an airline's frequent flyer programme.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

Frequent flyers are the problem, not the average family.

Tier point runs are unnecessary, for example.

yes. This.

the unfortunate reality is we’ll all need to fly less in the future, eliminating things like tier point runs will be a good start.

 

[Jerry]

yes. This.

the unfortunate reality is we’ll all need to fly less in the future, eliminating things like tier point runs will be a good start.

Would be better off giving up meat. Make a bigger impact than not flying a few times a year. Also as long as airline frequent flyer programme's exist people will still potentially do tier point runs.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

yes. This.

the unfortunate reality is we’ll all need to fly less in the future, eliminating things like tier point runs will be a good start.

Which inevitably would lead to a contraction of the aviation industry: more airlines and airports would eventually close and almost certainly CWL would only survive if more tax payers' money was used to keep it open. Smaller private sector airports, and perhaps some not so small, might not be as lucky because their owners' raison d'etre would be profitability with no second function as a driver of the nation's economy which a Welsh Government could, and in fact already does, point to as a reason for supporting CWL.

As I've asked before, if British citizens and residents decide to fly less because they believe such action would be beneficial to climate change what happens if other nations carry on providing an increasing level of air services and their people use them? Can Britain and a handful of other nations who 'play the game', as many environmentalists would see it, really afford to do so if major countries around the world don't?

 

[Jerry]

Can Britain and a handful of other nations who 'play the game', as many environmentalists would see it, really afford to do so if major countries around the world don't?

And even if countries like China and India and continents like Africa were persuaded to be more environmentally friendly the growing wealth of their citizens will inevitably mean those people wanting to travel more and fly more hopefully to countries like Wales. It'll be interesting to see if the WG will be willing to do another marketing deal with Qatar Airways to help that route restart and attract that sort of tourism into Wales. Can WG try and promote and attract inbound international tourism into Wales, especially via long haul routes, after declaring a climate emergency?

 

[aviatorconcorde]

Would be better off giving up meat. Make a bigger impact than not flying a few times a year. Also as long as airline frequent flyer programme's exist people will still potentially do tier point runs.

Aviation is far more polluting than eating meat.

A single A320 return trip to Spain gives out more emissions than one UK farm gives out in 10 years.

In the UK grass takes in more greenhouse emissions than are given out by the cattle.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

Which inevitably would lead to a contraction of the aviation industry: more airlines and airports would eventually close and almost certainly CWL would only survive if more tax payers' money was used to keep it open. Smaller private sector airports, and perhaps some not so small, might not be as lucky because their owners' raison d'etre would be profitability with no second function as a driver of the nation's economy which a Welsh Government could, and in fact already does, point to as a reason for supporting CWL.

As I've asked before, if British citizens and residents decide to fly less because they believe such action would be beneficial to climate change what happens if other nations carry on providing an increasing level of air services and their people use them? Can Britain and a handful of other nations who 'play the game', as many environmentalists would see it, really afford to do so if major countries around the world don't?

Then so be it.

pre pandemic I was very much lets fly as much as possible, lets have bigger planes, bigger airports, more runways and more flights.

however covid has changed my outlook on things - we only have one planet we need to protect. We have been far too greedy in the past, taking imported avocados and cheap £25 return flights to spain for granted.

britain must be seen to be leaders, developing countries look to us to do the right thing.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

And even if countries like China and India and continents like Africa were persuaded to be more environmentally friendly the growing wealth of their citizens will inevitably mean those people wanting to travel more and fly more hopefully to countries like Wales. It'll be interesting to see if the WG will be willing to do another marketing deal with Qatar Airways to help that route restart and attract that sort of tourism into Wales. Can WG try and promote and attract inbound international tourism into Wales, especially via long haul routes, after declaring a climate emergency?

Politicians usually find a way of doing something, or not doing something, as the case may be if it suits their agenda. I've raised the situation before about APD devolution to Wales and climate change. The WG and its airport company want the tax to be devolved because of the potential boost to routes, airlines and passenger numbers at CWL. However, how would that play out with a climate emergency?

The WG has said in the past that it would institute an environmental assessment before taking action over APD rates that would be likely to increase passenger numbers, ie before lowering or axing the tax.

The old cynic in me believes that might just be a cosmetic action as the WG and its airport company are both desperate to increase passenger numbers, even before the pandemic.

I'm not well up on UK environmental agreements. I presume that any international climate change agreement that is ratified is done by the state (the UK) not the devolved governments. That begs the question as to how much power the UK government has to force the devolved governments to fall into line with any international climate change protocol it has put its name to.

britain must be seen to be leaders, developing countries look to us to do the right thing.

That might have been the case in the past but not any more. Britain is no longer seen around the world as a great power and its influence on other countries has decreased significantly these days.

If anyone wants to discuss in detail climate change and how it should be addressed there is a long-running thread Global Warming or Global Cooling? in the Current Affairs section of the website in the area marked General Topical Discussions - about two-thirds from the top in the Home page.

One of our members is a scientist who contributes regularly to that thread.

 

[Jerry]

Aviation is far more polluting than eating meat.

A single A320 return trip to Spain gives out more emissions than one UK farm gives out in 10 years.

In the UK grass takes in more greenhouse emissions than are given out by the cattle.

Actually it's not, aviation only accounts for around 3 to 4% of global emissions, agriculture accounts for around 14% with 65% of that coming from methane and other gases from cows. Transport especially marine shipping is an even bigger polluter than aviation and then we haven't mentioned energy production. Aviation is as an industry an easy target because many people will see it as a non necessary despite the millions of jobs linked to it. In the end you can cut out say 2 weekly flights from Cardiff to Barcelona and say that helps the environment but the flights will be replaced somewhere else in the world probably 5 fold. In the end we need to be encouraging the industry to use environmentally friendly fuels and low omission aircraft rather than just shutting it down.

The WG and its airport company want the tax to be devolved because of the potential boost to routes, airlines and passenger numbers at CWL. However, how would that play out with a climate emergency?

It is a conundrum for the WG. A tax that maybe encourages more environmentally friendly fuel may be the way forward?

 

[aviatorconcorde]

Politicians usually find a way of doing something, or not doing something, as the case may be if it suits their agenda. I've raised the situation before about APD devolution to Wales and climate change. The WG and its airport company want the tax to be devolved because of the potential boost to routes, airlines and passenger numbers at CWL. However, how would that play out with a climate emergency?

The WG has said in the past that it would institute an environmental assessment before taking action over APD rates that would be likely to increase passenger numbers, ie before lowering or axing the tax.

The old cynic in me believes that might just be a cosmetic action as the WG and its airport company are both desperate to increase passenger numbers, even before the pandemic.

I'm not well up on UK environmental agreements. I presume that any international climate change agreement that is ratified is done by the state (the UK) not the devolved governments. That begs the question as to how much power the UK government has to force the devolved governments to fall into line with any international climate change protocol it has put its name to.


That might have been the case in the past but not any more. Britain is no longer seen around the world as a great power and its influence on other countries has decreased significantly these days.

If anyone wants to discuss in detail climate change and how it should be addressed there is a long-running thread Global Warming or Global Cooling? in the Current Affairs section of the website in the area marked General Topical Discussions - about two-thirds from the top in the Home page.

One of our members is a scientist who contributes regularly to that thread.

Britain is ranked second in the world in the soft power index - it’s easy to say our influence is waining because of a mishap in Afghanistan or whatever but anyway, that’s not that relevant to this discussion. Even if our power is declining in the world, that’s not an excuse for doing nothing.

One positive development in recent years is the use of Zoom - eliminating the need for face to face meetings so will hopefully help to reduce air travel. APD needs to go up especially on long haul and first/business tickets with remaining flights being switched to renewable fuels with more economy class seats.

The planet is at breaking point and we have to act immediately, before it’s almost too late.

We’ll still be able to travel by air but we’ll need to make changes, we can’t have it the way we always did. It will have to be an occasional one off treat rather than an essential need.

 

[aviatorconcorde]

Actually it's not, aviation only accounts for around 3 to 4% of global emissions, agriculture accounts for around 14% with 65% of that coming from methane and other gases from cows. Transport especially marine shipping is an even bigger polluter than aviation and then we haven't mentioned energy production. Aviation is as an industry an easy target because many people will see it as a non necessary despite the millions of jobs linked to it. In the end you can cut out say 2 weekly flights from Cardiff to Barcelona and say that helps the environment but the flights will be replaced somewhere else in the world probably 5 fold. In the end we need to be encouraging the industry to use environmentally friendly fuels and low omission aircraft rather than just shutting it down.

It is a conundrum for the WG. A tax that maybe encourages more environmentally friendly fuel may be the way forward?

Most likely true in the United States, where massive feed lots with thousands and thousands of cows being pumped with food in deserts.

Not so true in the UK, where grass and plants cover the landscape. Stocking densities are far, far lower with more greenhouse gases being taken in by plants than given out by the livestock.

I’m all for more environmentally fuels but will we actually get them any time soon? The best course of action in the short term is to cut how much we fly, immediately.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Britain is ranked second in the world in the soft power index - it’s easy to say our influence is waining because of a mishap in Afghanistan or whatever but anyway, that’s not that relevant to this discussion. Even if our power is declining in the world, that’s not an excuse for doing nothing.

One positive development in recent years is the use of Zoom - eliminating the need for face to face meetings so will hopefully help to reduce air travel. APD needs to go up especially on long haul and first/business tickets with remaining flights being switched to renewable fuels with more economy class seats.

The planet is at breaking point and we have to act immediately, before it’s almost too late.

We’ll still be able to travel by air but we’ll need to make changes, we can’t have it the way we always did. It will have to be an occasional one off treat rather than an essential need.

I partly agree with you but if other countries, such as China, India, Brazil and even the USA go their own way what effective difference would it make to climate change if the UK cut back on aviation, or anything else climate change-related for that matter? It might salve some consciences but it might also be disastrous for the UK economy if other countries continued in the same old way.

As our discussion is now veering away from anything directly related to CWL any continuation of the general climate change theme ought to be in the below thread. Another member has already commented there on your CWL post.

Global Warming or Global Cooling?

What are your thoughts on climate change? For the last two decades at lest we have been spoon fed a global warming agenda, "the Earth is burning up", our "use of fossil fuels is causing Co2 to spiral out of control". More recently the IPCC lead by the United Nations released a report saying we...

forums4airports.com