
Air travel’s sudden collapse will reshape a trillion-dollar industry - prostoalex
https://www.economist.com/business/2020/08/01/air-travels-sudden-collapse-will-reshape-a-trillion-dollar-industry
======
tlow
Let's invest in a high speed national passenger rail system!

~~~
nickff
Rail has much higher initial and fixed costs than air travel, and high-speed
trains consume more energy than aircraft on long-distance routes (as airliners
travel at high altitude with low air resistance).

The literal footprint of a rail system is also very large; clearing and
grading rail lines across the country would have a significant environmental
impact.

~~~
titzer
> high-speed trains consume more energy than aircraft

citation needed. It helps a lot that (electric) trains do not need to carry
their own fuel. Also, trains can run on low-carbon energy, whereas there is no
viable alternative to jet fuel at the moment, and producing that from net-
zero-carbon processes (akin to biodiesel) is not economical.

~~~
saddlerustle
Biodiesel is not economical and a dumb idea, but it's pretty cheap to make
flying offset factory emissions like within the EU emissions trading scheme
(works out to ~€3 per passenger-hour), or even direct air capture schemes
(~$20 per passenger-hour). Zero marginal carbon flights still works out to be
cheaper than most countries' high speed rail networks if you compare
unsubsidised costs.

~~~
titzer
Four things I would like to mention that don't come up generally in
discussions like these:

* Transportation infrastructure is a societal investment that produces benefits, it's not just about its cost. Investing in terrestrial transportation like trains, _even if it is more expensive_ can give rise to proportionally greater societal benefits than air travel--think, a long-haul train has multiple stops, providing connection points for economic activity (smaller towns and cities connected through train stations) that planes clearly cannot. I actually think it's totally _OK_ that trains require more investment because they may create larger network effects in the big picture.

* In some sense, all societal spending is make-work. If we're going to have make-work programs, we might as well spend it on the best long-term strategy, which in my honest opinion, having lived in Europe for a number of years, is cities being well-connected with cheap and fast rail, subways, and trams.

* Climate change is a real thing, and it's due mostly to CO2 emissions. It's _gonna cost money_ to fix. We need to stop deploying the "but itz mah dollarzzzes" as an excuse not to act. We need to start thinking about paying back the absolutely massive debt we racked up from cheap and easy energy.

* Carbon offsets are a shell game that we can play in the short run, but ultimate we need to get to zero carbon footprint, which cannot be accomplished with offsets alone.

In summary, we better start paying up.

~~~
deepnotderp
High speed rail requires speeding up and slowing down too. And at 15m/mile
it's significantly cheaper and better to build airports

~~~
mac01021
What does "15m/mile" mean?

~~~
smiley1437
I suspect that means 15 million dollars per mile of rail. It should depend on
where the rail is being installed though, because for paved asphalt roads, the
price per mile can vary from 500k per mile per lane in a rural area, to north
of 10m per mile per lane if you’re in a densely populated urban area

------
Animats
Even before this, the airline industry was downsizing. Boeing 747 and A-380
aircraft were no longer being ordered, and many were already parked. The
737-MAX debacle didn't result in a capacity shortage.

Business air travel, overall, will probably never come back. More meetings
will be online; only for really important ones will people actually take an
airplane. With more people working at home, there may not be an office to meet
at. You'd have to book a conference center.

~~~
ThrowMeAwayOkay
I hope it’s never that disposable to fly for business ever again. At my last
employer, they flew me across the USA one evening, drinks and dinner and hotel
room. Morning breakfast, then we had the 1 hour meeting we had scheduled (a
meeting that easily could have been done remotely). Then a big fancy lunch, my
Uber arrived, and a plane ride back across the country to my home. At least
during the 1 hour meeting my boss brought in his baby goats to show us, so
there’s that.

~~~
newyankee
Honestly if you really analyze the world and how it works, this is because the
folks at the top have to maintain the illusion that they do important work and
need a certain level of spending to create the environment to execute it. I do
agree that stuff like conferences etc. are absolutely necessary. However, any
job or work above a certain level is more about projecting power, persona
after following regular practices in strategy.

Probably your employer did it because they were allocated that amount in the
annual budget and had to tick the box, but won't you as an employee prefer at
least the stay to be extended by 3+ days for more meaningful interaction.
Conversely won't it be better to cancel it altogether and pass 30% of the
savings to you, the employee ?

------
aaron695
How do we stop any article that can somehow be linked to C02 from turning into
the exact same off topic repetitive conversation about global warming again,
and again and again and again.

This article is a big deal, but I doubt we'll see anyone talking about the
spider web of the world having been removed and the massive ramifications it
will mean.

~~~
mac01021
It's not like we can't do both.

If I have anything interesting to say about the socioeconomic repercussions of
shutting down air travel I will.

But, in general, I think the more people talk about global warming the better.

------
AtlasBarfed
Highway self-driving will immolate short and medium flights.

Would you rather have YOUR car drive you overnight on a highway while you
sleep and get to take far more luggage and have a car when you get there and
spend about 20$ in electricity at a lower carbon footprint and you can leave
and return and change your schedule at will?

Or go to the effing airport?

400 miles is about the same amount of time at a far lower cost and
flexibility.

500-600 miles is an extra hour or two, and you can stop and see friends and
eat food, or just sleep overnight.

700-1000? Sure a bit more annoying, but still you can take more, is cheaper,
and you get your car when you get there.

So in my opinion, any trip under 1000 miles will probably be driven once self-
driving takes off.

And highway self-driving is the easiest to automate, and highways are the
infrastructure that will be "converged" or adapted with self driving first.

~~~
CydeWeys
I don't sleep well in cars and I certainly won't make it that far without a
bathroom stop. A quick flight sounds more appealing still.

~~~
AtlasBarfed
You can ask your car to stop to go to the bathroom.

Self-driving cars will probably have better reclining that the current ones.
It will be a feature.

Even if you don't sleep, going to an airport with sufficient buffer, checking
baggage and checking in, security lines, waiting to board, boarding, actual
flight, taxi time, getting baggage, getting ground transport is about 4-6
hours even for a 1 hour commuter flight.

And when highway self-driving really improves with mesh networking cars might
be able to cruise at 100mph.

~~~
CydeWeys
Are cars gonna have bathrooms in them now? Because if not, you're now talking
about rest areas, many of which are closed at night. And if I wake up having
to pee, and the nearest rest stop isn't for an hour, what then? I can't go
back to sleep. The nice thing about a plane/train/coach is that the bathroom
is right _there_ \-- no need to interrupt your travel.

It's all kind of academic anyway because I don't own a car, nor does owning
one here make sense anyway as I'd never use it except on road trips, so the
plane/train/coach is the only option.

------
abraae
There's a lot to hate about Covid-19 but the planet must be breathing a sigh
of relief at the reduction in planes and cruise ships pumping carbon into the
air.

~~~
bluedevil2k
Airlines = 2% of global carbon emissions

Cruise ships = 0.2% of global emissions.

Stopping both will have a negligible effect on global carbon, probably near 0
since more people will drive as a result.

* [https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html](https://www.atag.org/facts-figures.html)

* [https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-shi...](https://www.tourismdashboard.org/explore-the-data/cruise-ship/)

~~~
oska
Cruise ships are _massive_ emitters of sulphur dioxide.

> The results [of the study] show that the luxury cruise brands owned by
> Carnival Corporation & PLC emitted in 2017 in European seas alone 10 times
> more disease-causing sulphur dioxide than all of Europe’s 260+ million
> passenger vehicles. Spain, Italy, Greece, France and Norway are the most
> exposed countries to cruise ship air pollution in Europe.

[https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/one-
corpor...](https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/one-corporation-
pollute-them-all)

~~~
refurb
Doesn’t sulfur dioxide having a cooling effect on the climate?

~~~
lm28469
I'm not versed on the subject but a quick google search seems to indicate it's
a very obvious net negative for the environment. It's not just about
temperature...

------
deeblering4
It would be fascinating if this resulted in the removal of rows of seats to
make the passengers that they do have more distanced (and comfortable), maybe
even seeing competition in the area of pandemic friendly amenities.

~~~
jimmaswell
Why would we make such costly changes for a blip in the history of the planes?
Almost nobody is going to want to keep up this horrid lifestyle after the
virus is over.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Exactly. I'm completely baffled that some folks seem to think that our short
term responses to Covid, which as you say are pretty horrid, will stick around
after the pandemic ends. I agree there are _some_ instances where Covid has
accelerated changes that were already in motion, but I've seen too much
"introvert fantasy fiction" ignoring that the majority of people are itching
to end these restrictions ASAP.

~~~
acdha
Most responses will be rolled back when it’s safe again but there’s a good
argument that air travel might not. The entire world is getting experience
with remote meetings & alternatives and they’re not going to forget that in a
year, and even most Republicans are starting to accept that climate change is
real. It would not surprise me to see that a lot of business travel won’t come
back as people ask whether they dislike a video chat enough to spend thousands
of dollars. That disproportionately affects airline revenue, not to mention
hotels, restaurants, etc. and I wouldn’t be surprised if that caused
businesses to make permanent changes to emphasize parts of the experience
which a remote chat can’t match.

~~~
Animats
Yes. Some remote work will move back to offices, and some won't.

Brick and mortar retail will probably take a huge hit. The big problem with
online grocery shopping was getting people used to using it. That's now done.

~~~
bbarnett
If by "getting used to it", you mean "experiencing the horror", than sure.

I tried it, twice. In both cases, produce was picked by either someone that
didn't care, or didn't know how to tell if some food (mellons) were ripe.

Even if only poor produce was available, well, I'd have seen, and just not
bought it.

I received substitutions too, and without permission.

Meat was sent with very soon expiry dates. I'd never snag that in person. Same
for bread.

Online grocery is a no go for me. My local grocer is 10 minutes away, in store
time is maybe 20 minutes, including checkout.

I get what I want, how I want it, and save money by not having unusable stuff
delivered to me.

Food isn't like a TV. One orange is not the same as a other.

Even bananas... I prefer them almost green, a friend I know, almost rotten.

~~~
acdha
Your experiences aren’t universal. None of my neighbors have reported things
being anywhere near that bad - and having multiple competing options suggests
it wouldn’t stay that way if it was - and services like CSAs, Hungry Harvest,
etc. around here have seen enormous increases. I don’t think that’ll go back
to pre-pandemic levels in a hurry even if a vaccine shows up tomorrow.

~~~
bbarnett
I think my point was, _your_ experiences aren't universal. Yet you're still
basing your determination upon yours.

Take what you will from mine, but even aside from my two bad experiences, I
can't imagine how one gets precisely what they want, via online. I like to tap
my melons, touch my tomatoes, and why does this sound like a porno now? :P

Anyhow. I think you get my point, my view. I've got yours, eg, you don't care
about a personal pick.

So the real question is, how many really, really prefer to pick precisely what
they want?

Obviously for a box of corn flakes, it probably matters little.

~~~
acdha
If you read my comment, note that I didn’t present anything as universal. I’m
sure both are real accounts of what happens.

The point is that you don’t need perfection to have a big change. Video chat
doesn’t need to hit 100% of meetings, classes, and conferences to have a big
impact on those industries. Delivery services don’t need to completely replace
brick and mortar to have a big impact in low margin industries. Maybe you
personally want to check every tomato but ask how many people care that much
every time, even when they’re busy, etc. Do you think that’ll be enough to
shift an industry?

~~~
bbarnett
Sorry for the late reply. Been Saturday busy...

I think what you're missing here, is a bit of tongue in cheek. I, too, did not
present my case as universal, yet you took effort to point out it wasn't.

Tit for tat, and all that...

That said! I think you have it a bit reversed here. At least, what I read as
you (paraphrased) said is "Do you think people wanting to check product, will
shift an industry?"

Yet, that question is a bit flawed, as I see it. This is because the industry
isn't shifting because a person might want to check a tomato. It's _failing_
to shift.

The inertia, the default "People who want to check produce, have always bought
in the store." and "Further back, people could only buy in the store."

Now, you seem to be under the belief that everyone is buying online. Using
home delivery. Not going to the grocery store. Yet when I go to the grocery
store? When I visit?

You know what I see?

People! Lots of people!

Take me, for example.

I received poor service, and as a result, have not used online grocery
shopping. I've gone to the grocery store weekly, as I did prior to COVID.

So from where I sit, the industry isn't shifting in my case, _it never
changed_. And from the numbers I see at my grocery store, this seems to be
common.

And this is because I've always cared. I cared before COVID. I care now. I'll
care after.

I think you're literally dismissing my experiences as if yours are the
universal! Or, if not, as if yours are "clearly what is happening in most
cases".

Yet I disagree here.

Let me put this forward.

How many grandparents shop online? I'm not talking about in Palo Alto, but all
over the US and Canada?

And to answer that, let me mention something. Grocery stores have _always_
offered home delivery, for a small fee.

Why did most people not avail themselves of that? Why do you believe online
shopping, is so different from phone shopping? Or fax shopping?

Both of which always existed.

Anyhow.

I have a feeling we're not going to agree at all here.

------
neonate
[https://archive.is/XdtCp](https://archive.is/XdtCp)

------
Kednicma
Suddenly this big-brain thread from two months ago looks like less of a joke:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23165866](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23165866)

> More assertively, Airbus’s boss, Guillaume Faury, does not rule out suing
> customers who renege on their orders.

Okay, so it's still kind of a joke, but the tone of the humor has changed
quite a bit.

------
mac01021
Other countries probably won't want to let many people in until a vaccine
comes out.

But, for domestic travel, it seems to me that the airlines shouldn't need too
much technological sophistication to make airliners safe, at least for people
mature enough to wear some kind of airline-provided apparatus on their face
for the duration of the flight.

