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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We should have been building our rail networks.
Fuck these corporate scavengers.
Quick rail transit to smaller towns outside the big cities would also help with the housing crisis by giving people more options.
We tried that a couple of centuries ago. It was okay, but eventually people grew tried of having to take transportation and moved into dense cities so they could walk everywhere.
It is interesting that our high rate of obesity has us wanting to take transportation again just to avoid having to walk.
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.
So buy one. If it is not within walking distance of your life, rent it out, and use the rental income from the house you own to pay your rent.
That you haven’t already done so, perhaps buying a home isn’t actually what you are looking for?
I want to buy a home to live in, not to become a landlord and leech off of someone else’s labour.
just to avoid having to walk.
Also something about higher housing costs.
Not unrelated. Cities have become tremendously less dense as people have moved away from walking. Crank up the density back to more normal levels and prices will come down.
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%.
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.
For what reason does someone have to travel to the Caribbean from Canada that would justify any carbon impact?
People are still allowed to want nice things. If I can’t dance I don’t want to be part of your revolution.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
those waitresses are paid after the tips are collected.
That’s two different values you’re lumping into one.
Income is income.
To visit our new province when they finally accept the application. Gov.tc.ca .
Why fly when you can boat?
Capitalism has spoken! Let the airlines fail!
“Yes, let’s continue as we’ve always been doing, instead of change, and make taxpayers suffer!”
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.
And if they don’t get one, they’ll use it as an excuse to raise ticket prices with impunity.
2 years ago, I’d only expect this of the other carrier.
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.
Let the ticket prices run higher. Who cares?