Alexis von Hoensbroech says the global push to decarbonize the aviation sector by 2050 will lead to a major increase in ticket prices unless governments step in to offer support.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    341 year ago

    Fuck that, WestJet is owned by a private equity firm now. Let their billionaire owner deal with it and quit begging for government handouts. Bootstraps and all that.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      should have been building our rail

      Harper was the last one to have that question posed, I think, but it’s not in his party’s mandate to provide things for the bottom 99%.

  • Yardy Sardley
    link
    fedilink
    271 year ago

    Plane tickets should go up in price as a response to climate change. If people can’t afford to take as many flights, then that’s a good thing, because flying is one of the least efficient modes of transport from a carbon perspective, and it’s twice as bad as the raw numbers would suggest because dumping the carbon into the upper atmosphere actually makes it more effective at warming the planet. Even if the industry manages to “decarbonize” its fuel sources, it’s still going be monumentally harmful and wasteful of resources that could be better used elsewhere.

    If our government actually cares about consumers having transport options that are both affordable and carbon efficient, they should look at providing any passenger rail service in western canada.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      301 year ago

      High speed rail in the Montreal to Toronto corridor is a no brainer. Using conventional HSR technology (not 600kmh maglev shit) the time to get from Toronto to Montreal could be brought down to 2 hrs. Anything close to that would eliminate the flights on that route completely, with a much smaller carbon footprint.

      • Pxtl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        Fun fact: the most active air-route in North America is Toronto to NYC, which is about a 750km drive if you try to do a direct route, 850km if you follow the current Amtrak route through Albany, which hits all the major upstate cities for you.

        Dedicated high speed rail goes about 300-350km/h. It would be reasonable to image that trip taking 2.5 hours, maybe 3.5 or 4 hours if you do the Albany route and milk-run all the stops like Hamilton, Niagara, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Utica, and Albany.

      • @Nouveau_Burnswick
        link
        41 year ago

        The current rolling stock can hit 200kph; so proper tracks alone can bring that voyage to 2h45.

        A flight is 1h20 each way (average) but requires you to be at the terminal 1h in advance. We’re taking a 20 difference between flying and the train. Of you need to be downtown, that time is easily saved by Kot needing the UP express or (soon) the REM.

        Unfortunately operating speeds are not start to stop. That would probably still be around 3h15. The TGV can do ~270, getting us to the two hours.

        HSR plus a France style short-haul flight ban would flights everything inside Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal and drastically reduce Quebec and the horseshoe.

  • Pxtl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    211 year ago

    The continental aviation industry doesn’t need to decarbonize, it needs to be replaced by high-speed rail. Asian countries know this and are building accordingly. Travelling to the Caribbean should involve taking a train to Fort Lauderdale and then flying to your destination to minimize the carbon impact. Westjet can do the latter, not the former.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -41 year ago

      For what reason does someone have to travel to the Caribbean from Canada that would justify any carbon impact?

      • Pxtl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        71 year ago

        People are still allowed to want nice things. If I can’t dance I don’t want to be part of your revolution.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          But why can’t you take a decarbonized plane? WestJet indicates that it is not impossible, just expensive. Nobody said the dance needs to be cheap. We’re already talking about an incredible luxury that only the rich are able to partake in. The poor aren’t travelling to the Caribbean for vacation, ever.

          • Pxtl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            But why can’t you take a decarbonized plane?

            The high cost of a decarbonized plane (as you’ve rightly identified) is a good reason to focus on it filling in the shortest hop of the trip. Use high-speed rail for as much as possible, and then use the expensive flying machine full of sustainable synthetic natural gas or whatever for the last leg.

            We’re already talking about an incredible luxury that only the rich are able to partake in

            The most active traveller I know is a waitress. You can get a pretty decent all-inclusive week-long resort trip in Cayo Coco, Cuba for like $600CAD per person. I’m a very cheap guy, I didn’t even have a data plan on my phone until this year, and $600CAD is nothing for a once-every-few-years trip. That’s the difference between my yearly cellphone bill and a normal person’s cellphone bill.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Use high-speed rail for as much as possible

              No way anyone is willing to pay the cost of rail, I’m afraid.

              The most active traveller I know is a waitress.

              Who could also very well be the richest person you know. I have a restaurant’s financial records sitting on my desk right now. I know just how well those waitresses are paid after the tips are collected.

              Is there something notable about this person that wanted you to introduce her into the discussion?

              $600CAD is nothing for a once-every-few-years trip.

              Maybe if you’re rich. $600 isn’t something the poor get to just throw around for fun.

              • Pxtl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Maybe if you’re rich.

                something the poor get to just throw around

                Moving the goalposts. You started out saying only “the rich”. A single-income waitress is not “the rich” unless you’re completely bonkers. You can argue that such a person is middle-class, or working class, or petite bourgeoisie, however you want to classify her. But if you call somebody like that “the rich” you’ve taken a vacation from reality.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  A single-income waitress is not “the rich” unless you’re completely bonkers.

                  It’s a top 20% income on the low end, and higher if she works at a high end establishment. If the top 20% isn’t rich, is anyone rich? Of course you can perpetually move the goalposts.

                  You can argue that such a person is … or working class

                  No doubt she is working class, but that says nothing about being rich or poor. The classes speak to capital ownership.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                01 year ago

                those waitresses are paid after the tips are collected.

                That’s two different values you’re lumping into one.

  • Nightwatch Admin
    link
    fedilink
    181 year ago

    “Yes, let’s continue as we’ve always been doing, instead of change, and make taxpayers suffer!”

  • @Treczoks
    link
    31 year ago

    No. Just reducing the profits should be sufficient.