The recent collapse of flybe has made headlines, but many in the industry have seen this coming for some time. The short-haul airline was operating on a flawed business plan and had been in financial trouble for some time before the sudden drop-off in passenger numbers caused by the COVID-19 outbreak tipped it over the edge.
But with the climate crisis and the rise of the flygskam movement, can short-haul flights continue to be justified? To avert the climate crisis, there will need to be fewer planes in the sky. However, this will inevitably hit the profit margins of the airlines. Can short-haul airlines remain viable businesses?
Within mainland Britain and Europe, rail (and high-speed rail in particular) is the main competitor for short-haul air travel. However in the UK, rail is very highly priced compared to budget airlines. If you can get where you're going faster for less, why bother taking the train? For the sake of the environment, higher air passenger duty could be used to subsidise rail fares, encouraging more people to take the train.
Air travel starts to look much more appealing when you get out into the islands. The Hebrides and the Orkney and Shetland islands are a long ferry ride away from the mainland. Air travel is much, much faster for foot passengers and mail. But out here, passenger numbers are far less, meaning airlines need to use much smaller aircraft to make routes economical. But with the speed advantage, airlines should be able to charge a premium over the ferry operators for foot passengers.
Can the airline industry be saved? Should it be allowed to fail?
Long-haul airlines will probably be alright, as air travel has such an advantage over sea travel. Short-haul airlines are inevitably going to lose out as people turn from air to rail travel to save the planet. I suspect the era of the budget airline may soon come to an end and we may return to the days when air travel was a premium service for the well-to-do.
For four years, my wife lived and worked in London. Time wise, my journey times between Glasgow and London was very similar by train or plane. Train was far more comfortable and if advance tickets were bought, and quieter trains selected, worked out cheaper.
ReplyDeletePeople look at 1 hour to fly against 4 1/2 hours on the train, but do not factor in the time and hassle of getting into an airport, through security, etc. I could door to door in 6 hours by train, and the only time I beat that was using London City once, when I nearly missed the flight by being late leaving the London flat. Never beat it using Heathrow, Gatwick or Luton.
The introduction of a 20 minute service by Pendolino between Manchester and London, meant that BA have considerably reduced their frequency (it is now mainly for connecting to international flights), bmi are no more and VLM to London City no longer exists.