It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it time to raise the price of Air Travel?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:00 AM
link   
A recent scientific study, conducted during the Icelandic Volcano and consequential grounding of European flights, has proved that Airport and planes do cause substantial pollution to the surrounding areas.

www.independent.co.uk...




Although long suspected, the fact that mass take-offs and landings are large pollution sources could never be proved before, because aircraft pollution could not be measured as separate from the pollution caused by vehicles operating near by.


But an analysis of the first three days of the unprecedented closure of UK airspace, at Heathrow and Gatwick, shows that there is a definite air pollution caused by air traffic in the vicinity of airport hubs.



Apart from my first thought being "You don’t say... duh!" I do realise that most people do not except common sense and often need reports or experts to back things up...

What this report shows is that levels of Nitrogen Oxides (and other pollutants) dropped significantly during the "no fly" period.

These pollutants are known to cause problem in the elderly and people with current breathing conditions such as asthma!

Obviously these tests were conducted around the direct vicinity of the airports and, the further away from the airport you go, the less dramatic the drop off would be. However, there is no denying that planes are pumping this crap into our atmosphere every day. There are times when i look up in the sky and i can see hundreds of contrails... It cannot be doing us any good.

Furthermore, it is not just the chemical pollution... For the first time in a long while, i have been able to hear unbroken bird song... peace and quiet is something most people do not consider to be a major issue... but it is proven that it is beneficial to our mental well being... The constant noise of planes (or any constant artificial noise) is almost like a form of mental torture and increase stress and anxiety!

We are spoilt like we have never been spoilt before... During the 1950s air travel was something people would need to save for... it was almost exclusively the domain of the rich... Today everyone seems to be jetting off whenever they want, wherever they want...

We take it for grunted and have started to view, what used to be a privilege, as a right!!

But, should we have the right to cause health issues in old people just so we can have a week in the sun?? Should we have the right to complicate existing health issues in people??

Was it so bad in the 1950s when air travel was a luxury? Or have we become so selfish that we will never give up these pleasures?

Before anyone asks me... Myself, and my wife, have not flown for 5 years.... We have set limitations on our travel buy choice!

However, not everyone will do this... So i ask, is it time for governments to act for the greater good?

Is it time to raise the price of air travel and force it back into the domain of luxuries?




posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Yes it is!

Let's charge em all a ZILLION DOLLARS for a ticket and $25.99 per bag!

In a time when less and less people are flying, do you really think messing with the cost of a ticket seems like a good idea?



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by YourPopRock
 


You seem to be arguing from the point of the airlines! Correct?

If so... do you value the financial status of an airline over the health of people??

Personally if BA or Ryan Air goes bust... but peoples health, wellbeing, and quality of air improves... so be it






[edit on 22-4-2010 by Muckster]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Not arguing from the point of airlines, just from the point of the free market.

If people want health, they won't buy airline tickets. The economy will work itself out.

If people want to get to Vegas in under 2 days more than they want to breathe clean air, they will buy airline tickets.

The end.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by YourPopRock
 


No... not the end!!

What choice do baby’s breathing in toxins have in your wonderful free market???

What choice do old people on state pensions have in your free market???

Your Free market didnt help the people of Bhopal did it!

www.bhopal.net...

en.wikipedia.org...

Greed and selfishness is the trait of this so called freedom that actually imprisons people...




[edit on 22-4-2010 by Muckster]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   
This is HILARIOUS.

They stopped flights because of a massive ash cloud (heavy air pollution), then they turn around and say their airplanes create too much Pollution? WTH!

It's ridiculous ! LOL!

Volcanoes are 1000x worse polluters of the air than all the airplanes on earth combined.

This report is just asinine. It truly is.

What damage could jet exhaust cause compared to millions of tons of volcanic ash????

If we humans really created bad pollution, wouldn't flights be canceled due to OUR POLLUTION ruining the air corridors???



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is HILARIOUS.

They stopped flights because of a massive ash cloud (heavy air pollution), then they turn around and say their airplanes create too much Pollution? WTH!

It's ridiculous ! LOL!

Volcanoes are 1000x worse polluters of the air than all the airplanes on earth combined.

This report is just asinine. It truly is.

What damage could jet exhaust cause compared to millions of tons of volcanic ash????

If we humans really created bad pollution, wouldn't flights be canceled due to OUR POLLUTION ruining the air corridors???



gizmodo.com...

really now? what you're thinking of is the ash - its a very short term pollutant. it very quickly settles, and is actually extremely beneficial for plant life. volcanic ash is one of the best natural fertilizers. it is, however, EXTREMELY bad for aircraft engines because its basically fine dust that likes to cake onto surfaces, small pebbles, and bits of glass.

the negative environmental effects from volcanic eruptions come instead from the gases released, and in TRULY extreme cases, long term (multi-month to multi-year) ash clouds blotting out the sun and killing plant life through starvation. that requires something between krakatoa and the siberian steppes erupting again, however. aircraft don't care about gas pollution - we would render our atmosphere waaaaaaaay beyond unbreathable before the gas mixture prevented combustion or interfered with the aerodynamics of a wing.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by JScytale]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
When I first read your title I was outraged but after reading your OP I understand what you are saying. Is it time to raise prices.....I would say no. What I would say its high time the airlines pump money in to cleaner filters and ugrade their engines to something a little bit more environmentally friendly.

The problem we have is that the people sitting at the top don't give a # about you or I or the environment, its all about the power when you have enough money to rule the world.

The people in charge of the airlines will strip more and more away until the inevitable happens, and then the tax payers will be forced to foot the bill in order to 'upgrade' their planes e.t.c.

Its a vicious circle and unless the public wake up and see whats going on, we will all be stuck in the continuous cycle of taxing the poor in order to feed the rich.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by franspeakfree
 


Thanks for taking the time to read it and not just judge it on the title


I hear what you are saying with regards to the filters and engines... but that could take years... until then what do we do? Continue as we are, or make a change?

What saddens we is how many people place economy and wealth above environment and health!



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 


with regards to the original topic - while i do agree something has to be done, i don't think targeting air travel is the most viable option. they're already severely hit as it is, and are far away from being the worst polluters on a global scale. they also provide a truly necessary service.

what we REALLY need to do is start putting serious effort into developing truly efficient alternative energy sources. all we need is one big breakthrough, and everything will fall into place. if a lab somewhere churned out an efficient cold fusion reactor, not only would it suddenly be by far the most efficient (and 100% clean) way to power every nation on the planet - but it would only be a matter of decades before miniaturization and cost-effectiveness allowed it to power other current sources of pollution like automobiles, ships and aircraft.

my 2 cents.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


And a valid 2 cents


However, my fear would be that if such a device was invented it would be sold to the biggest bidder... probably an oil giant, who would lock it away until they have finished making money from the remainder of the planets resources!

What i am asking is... what do we do now?

I guess another option could be flight rations... Restrict family’s to one flight for leisure per year (or two years even)

Going abroad for a holiday is NOT a necessity... breathing clean air is!



[edit on 22-4-2010 by Muckster]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 


and what about people like me, who move to a new country every 4-5 years and have family scattered across the globe and friends on every continent but australia and antarctica?



air travel is necessary these days. while it is a major source of pollution, next to things like the paper industry or coal power, its an ant on a mountain.

in all honesty the best we could do is regulate efficiency, or ban charter jets (small jets carrying 2-4 people). the latter wouldn't be well received, but its like having an efficient public transportation system - one bus will move people with a VASTLY smaller carbon imprint than in individual cars.

EDIT: ahem. almost implied i had a friend living in antarctica. sorry bout that.


[edit on 22-4-2010 by JScytale]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by YourPopRock
 


You seem to be arguing from the point of the airlines! Correct?

If so... do you value the financial status of an airline over the health of people??

Personally if BA or Ryan Air goes bust... but peoples health, wellbeing, and quality of air improves... so be it




[edit on 22-4-2010 by Muckster]


You make a good point, this is difficult for me as my dad was BA cabin crew for 37 years, my uncle and aunt are still BA cabin crew as are my next door neighbors. So i know alot of people who make their living, employed in the airline industry.Also, Heathrow is one of the biggest airports in the world and air travel is vital if Britain wants to remain as an economic power.

These things need to be balanced. The other problem, if we have more expensive flights, travel will again be something only enjoyed by the wealthy.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
for reference, here is a (rather simple, admittedly) graphic representing approximate CO2 emissions from various sources:



there are far worse targets to tackle, which would also be easier to control. requiring automobiles by law to be 10% more efficient than they currently are would have a bigger impact than designing an aircraft that produced half the pollutants and requiring it by law to be the new standard (and somehow not completely crippling every airline on the planet). it would also be significantly easier
.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


While i sympathise with your predicament... my blunt answer would be deal with it!

Sorry to sound harsh... But even before air travel people traversed the globe. People had family’s scattered as people moved to America, Australia, Canada, Europe etc...

I myself have family in New Zealand and Australia that i rarely see.

We take it for granted that these things are a RIGHT and that they will always be here... They are not and will not!!

Our whole way of living is messed up and needs to change... we think that the world revolves around our own personal needs and even when confronted with something as critical and urgent as Environmental issues, the first thing that people think is "but what about me"

Your personal issues are so small compared to the issues of the health of millions who live near airports its almost rude to compare them!!

I really don’t mean any offense by what I’ve said... but if improving the health of millions means a few people making some lifestyle changes then so be it!



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 


This is with regards to the other pollutants that planes put out... not CO2... CO2 is (although debated regarding the whole global warming issue) not a poison that causes asthma and other breathing complaints as far as i am aware.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Muckster
 


to be honest - i agree on your points. if controls were signed into law i wouldn't be too pissed off because i recognize my situation is a rarity, and while a major sacrifice for someone like me, it would be a minor one if at all to 95% of the planet.

however, i just think that air travel plays too vital a role to severely limit it. it's not just pleasure and vacations - a lot of industries absolutely rely on the ability to move things across the world quickly, from the post office to manufacture / retail.

while severely limiting aircraft would have an impact on pollution, it would have a tremendous negative impact and relatively minor improvement on global pollution compared to, say, strict automobile regulations.

[edit on 22-4-2010 by JScytale]



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by JScytale
 


This is with regards to the other pollutants that planes put out... not CO2... CO2 is (although debated regarding the whole global warming issue) not a poison that causes asthma and other breathing complaints as far as i am aware.


that's a fair argument - i'm not familiar enough with the emissions produced, but I am fairly confident the comparison specifically between automobiles and aircraft still holds water because both are fueled by burning oil products. the only real difference is the grade of the fuel and the mechanics of the engine - both are powered by burning oil at the very base level.



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 





You make a good point, this is difficult for me as my dad was BA cabin crew for 37 years, my uncle and aunt are still BA cabin crew as are my next door neighbors. So i know alot of people who make their living, employed in the airline industry.Also, Heathrow is one of the biggest airports in the world and air travel is vital if Britain wants to remain as an economic power.

These things need to be balanced. The other problem, if we have more expensive flights, travel will again be something only enjoyed by the wealthy.



I understand that it’s not an easy choice or decision and that it will affect the lives of those involved in the industry.

I have also been expecting the argument regarding the impact on jobs and employment...

However, consider this...

How much money do we loose from people going abroad every year? Since the price of flying has dropped (1960's onwards) our seaside towns have struggled... Where is the outcry for these people?
The ice cream sellers, hotel owners, shop keepers, restaurateurs, arcades, amusement parks. All effected by cheap flights!!

All around the coast of Britain people have gone out of work and lost business... OK there are some areas that are still doing alright but it is nothing on the scale of pre 1960's!!

Why not bring this business back home to British shores and let the British learn to love their own country again?

Just a thought



posted on Apr, 22 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by JScytale
 





to be honest - i agree on your points. if controls were signed into law i wouldn't be too pissed off because i recognize my situation is a rarity, and while a major sacrifice for someone like me, it would be a minor one if at all to 95% of the planet.

however, i just think that air travel plays too vital a role to severely limit it. it's not just pleasure and vacations - a lot of industries absolutely rely on the ability to move things across the world quickly, from the post office to manufacture / retail.

while severely limiting aircraft would have an impact on pollution, it would have a tremendous negative impact and relatively minor improvement on global pollution compared to, say, strict automobile regulations.



Fair enough... However, what did you think about my idea for leisure flight rations?

Would that not be a happy compromise? I wouldn’t prevent people from travelling but it would limit it!!

Business could continue as usual... same with freight... but the bulk of air travel is leisure (i read a report on that somewhere)

Regarding cars... i have similar controversial thoughts on that issue too


I believe we should force the automobile industry’s hand by having a massive increase on tax for new cars that are not environmentally friendly.... but that’s a another issue for another thread


I must say though that i am enjoying debating this issue... it has managed to stay civil and intelligent even when dealing with opposing views... so far




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join