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.

  • undercrust
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 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.

  • Yardy Sardley
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 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.

    • nova_ad_vitum
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 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
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 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.

    • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Quick rail transit to smaller towns outside the big cities would also help with the housing crisis by giving people more options.

        • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I mean, I want to be able to buy a house without having to quit my job or lose my doctors, and until the government does something about short term rentals, speculators, and zoning buying something in the city is impossible.

          But sure. Call me lazy.

        • corsicanguppy
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          just to avoid having to walk.

          Also something about higher housing costs.

    • corsicanguppy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 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%.

  • Pxtl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 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.

      • Pxtl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 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.

          • Pxtl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 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.

              • Pxtl
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                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.

              • corsicanguppy
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                those waitresses are paid after the tips are collected.

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

  • the w@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    If they do get a subsidy you know they’ll turn around and launch an ad campaign about how they are investing in a green revolution. Then they’ll raise fares.

    Then a while later they’ll revert, say it’s infeasible, keep the money then pay a dividend.

      • sik0fewl@kbin.socialOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Since they were bought by private equity I would say they are probably worse than Air Canada - although I haven’t flown with AC in ages, so it’s hard to compare.

    • Yardy Sardley
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And if they don’t get one, they’ll use it as an excuse to raise ticket prices with impunity.