Subscribe« Emissions from China, India and developing nations | Home | Berlin for Breakfast »
Flybe’s responsible flying?
By admin | June 11, 2007
Flybe have launched a series of broadsheet advertisements in the UK claiming to be leading the way in ‘responsible low cost flying’. But can ‘responsible low cost flying’ really exist?
Flybe don’t offer a definition of what ‘responsible low cost flying’ might be, but we can infer from their advertisements that this entails five things:
Applying a labelling scheme to flying
- Investing in an ‘environmentally sensitive fleet’
- Working to reduce noise
- Flying from a large number of airports
- Making it easier to offset
We’ve examined these claims one by one.
1. An ecolabelling scheme
Flybe’s ecolabelling schemes “are designed to allow passengers to see exactly what impact their trip is having on the environment during the full journeyâ€.
Accurate and relevant consumer information has to be a good thing. But look at what Flybe are telling us.
On a domestic flight (of 500km), their new Bombadier Q400 aircraft produces 42kg of CO2 per seat. If the plane is 70% full, that will be a great deal more CO2 per passenger. But to give them the benefit of the doubt, let’s assume their planes always fly fully booked.
If Flybe really wanted to inform their passengers about the environmental impact of their flying, they would also tell us about the alternatives. Based on UK government figures, taking the train on an equivalent trip of 500km would produce 7.2kg of CO2.
So, even assuming that Flybe’s new Q400 aircraft was flying with every seat occupied, it would still produce nearly 6 times more CO2, based on Flybe’s own claims about their aircraft’s performance. The story gets worse, though. The global warming effect of CO2 pumped into our upper atmosphere by aircraft is much greater than the impact of the same amount of CO2 produced at ground level. The UN suggests that it is 2.7 times more damaging. Some estimates suggest that this figure is actually far higher.
On this basis, taking the plane on a domestic flight would have a 16 times greater impact on global warming than taking the train.
If Flybe were really concerned about informed consumer choice, they would include fuel emissions statistics from trains, alongside those from their planes.
2. Investing in an ‘environmentally sensitive fleet’
The Bombardier Q400, which worsens global warming at least sixteen times more on a domestic flight than travelling by train, is in Flybe’s own words, “one of the world’s most environmental sensitive models†(sic). They have invested heavily in them.
3. Working to reduce noise
Flybe advertises itself as being “Europe’s largest regional airlineâ€. It is in the vanguard of increasing numbers of flights in and out of small regional airports. It runs 152 routes across 34 European destinations. This can hardly be consistent with a concern to reduce the noise-effects of air-travel.
4. Flying from a large number of airports
Flybe claims that because they “fly from 22 UK airportsâ€, this means “less travel by car before you fly (thereby lowering your carbon footprint for every trip you take)â€.
But if Flybe was really concerned about helping us to reduce our carbon emissions, then rather than fuelling the expansion of regional airports, and encouraging us to rush headlong into assuming that we should be able to fly, they would rather be encouraging us to take the train. What Flybe doesn’t examine, is how many people living near Southampton or Norwich (for example) who would once have happily taken the train to Manchester, now fly there.
It is true that car travel, when there is only one person in the car, can produce more CO2, per person, per kilometre, as flying. So strictly speaking, you may produce more carbon by driving yourself from Southampton to Heathrow, to take a flight to Manchester, rather than flying direct from Southampton to Manchester. This doesn’t include that all important factor of the greater impact of carbon dioxide at altitude, though. So in terms of the overall impact on global warming, flying is still much worse.
5. Making it easier to offset
Flybe suggest donations to Pure, which is one of the better offsetting companies. But offsetting is very problematic at the best of times. The CO2 emitted on a return flight to New York, about 1.2 tonnes per passenger, can be offset for £8.18p. This is about the same amount of CO2 as the average Indian produces in a year (based on UN figures for 2003 – the most recent available). At a time when we need to cut carbon so urgently, we have to ask whether we should be offered the opportunity to cut our carbon guilt so cheaply. By all means, donate to off-setting companies that you trust. But cut your flying too! If yuou can pledge not to fly except in an emergency. Read more about LowFlyZone’s policy on offsetting here.
Topics: Topical | No Comments »