fbpx

Aviation

Accelerate the implementation of the MACPC amendments to enhance the rights of aviation consumers

The Consumer Choice Center (CCC) urges the Malaysian Aviation Commission (Mavcom) to immediately implement the amendments to the Malaysian Consumer Protection Code (MACPC) which should be implemented in the first quarter of 2023 to improve the rights of aviation users.

Malaysian Consumer Choice Center representative, Tarmizi Anuwar said: “Issues involving
consumers such as flight delays and cancellations, reimbursement methods and overdue
periods, passenger rights and voucher redemption have become more serious since the
outbreak of Covid-19. Although the pandemic has ended, this problem is still recurring and
requires immediate action by Mavcom to improve the rights of aviation consumers.”

In 2022 alone, Mavcom has received a total of 8,789 cases of complaints from customers of
which the three highest complaints involve refunds, lost, damaged and delayed baggage and
flight cancellations. This is the highest complaint case since it was first introduced in 2016.

Tarmizi also said that the delay in the implementation of the MACPC amendment may cause
the number of customer complaints and problems for this year to increase due to the
development of international and domestic passengers as well as the increase in aircraft
operations including the resumption of various flight routes after the pandemic.

“Airline consumers in Malaysia have been going through this problem for years and changes
can’t be waited for any longer. It is important to ensure that the amendment is able to regulate
airlines to comply with service quality and safety standards to protect consumers. With the increase in international and domestic flight operations in Malaysia, this amendment to the MACPC cannot be missed because there could be more technical problems.”

“When a flight is canceled, consumers should have the option of receiving either a full refund or
a travel voucher for rebooking a new flight in the future. While the travel voucher should not be
limited to a certain trip or destination but should be based on the value of the trip or destination.
This will give consumers a better choice to make a decision compared to airlines that make
choices on behalf of consumers,” said Tarmizi.

Regarding the refund period for tickets that have a refund value due to the consumer not being
able to board the flight due to the delay or cancellation of the flight by the airline company, it
should be shortened from 30 days to 10 days.

There are many complaints about delays by airlines and the difficulties for consumers to get
refunds, even if the mistake was not on their part. In order to ensure that users are not burdened
by unwanted situations, the repayment period should be shortened to 10 days. This is a
reasonable amount of time to ensure that airlines are responsible for settling user refund claims
when a flight is canceled,” he concluded.

Corporate Canada has been protected from competition for too long. It’s time to put consumers first

Maybe you saw that report by the CBC’s Marketplace the other day on the cost of wireless telephone service in Canada. If so, maybe your fists have not yet unclenched from the little balls of rage that formed as you watched.

Quoting a recent study by the Finnish research firm Rewheel, the report found the cost per gigabyte of wireless data transmission in Canada is “seven times more expensive than Australia, 25 times more than Ireland and France, and 1,000 times more than Finland.”

For example, “scrolling Instagram for five minutes would cost about half a cent in France, while it would cost 20 cents in Canada. Downloading a half-hour show from YouTube would cost eight cents in Ireland and $1.03 in Canada. Downloading an entire season of Wednesday from Netflix would cost about $1.62 in Australia, and $10.22 in Canada.”

File this under shocking, but not surprising: Rewheel’s is only the latest in a string of reports to find the cost of wireless service in Canada is, if not the highest in the world, then certainly among the highest. Neither is wireless the only industry in which Canada enjoys that distinction.

Canadians also pay among the highest air fares, domestic or international, in the world. Using data from travel site Kiwi.com, the Consumer Choice Center found the cost of air travel per 100 kilometres was “2.1 times higher than in the United States, 2.8 times higher than in New Zealand and 3.6 times higher than in Portugal.”

Read the full article here

Why is Ottawa still rationing foreign landings at our airports?

Opening Canada’s skies would help cross-border trade, tourism, investment and knowledge flows

Canada’s national men’s soccer team qualifying for the upcoming World Cup in Qatar was a huge achievement, given that we haven’t qualified for a World Cup since 1986. Although this is a great time in Canada’s sporting history, it won’t actually be easy for fans to go to Qatar to support their team in person, primarily because of outdated regulations that close our skies to international airline competition.

Isn’t it strange in the 21st century that the number of flights arriving in Canada from most foreign countries is still entirely determined by the federal government. That number, which appears to be picked arbitrarily depending on the country in question, isn’t based on consumer demand. In fact, airlines and airports play a role in allocating how many flights can arrive from a particular country only if Canada has an “open skies” agreement with the country. At the moment, Qatar is only permitted to land four flights in Canada per week. That’s obviously not ideal given the (albeit temporary) increase in demand for flights to and from Qatar.

This same arbitrary flight allocation applies to many other countries, among them many popular destinations for tourism and commerce. For example, Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is also hard to get to and from. The UAE is only allowed seven arrivals per week in Canada for both Emirates and Etihad Airlines.

If Canada were to open our skies and accept all the incoming flights the Canadian market could support, Air Canada wouldn’t be Canadian travelers’ only flight option and the resulting increase in competition very likely would bring ticket prices down.

Opening Canada’s skies would also help diversify where foreign flights land. The UAE has its national carriers primarily fly into Toronto, because with only seven Canadian landings permitted per week, it makes sense to prioritize Pearson over the alternatives. But if that arbitrary limit were removed, flights could both arrive and depart from other Canadian cities where market demand is strong enough, though not as strong as in Toronto.

These limitations are in large part why Canada does not rank very well on economy-adjusted air-connectivity. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), we ranked 32nd globally, based on pre-pandemic 2019 figures. In fact, despite having world class cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, we have no cities in the air-connectivity top 20.

Changing how we approach international carriers should be a no-brainer given the immense consumer benefit it would bring. And open-skies isn’t even that radical a proposal: it would mean treating all countries and their national carriers the same way we already treat 23 countries (soon to be 24 with the addition of India) and the member-states of the European Union. For those countries, which include 10 in the Caribbean, the open-skies agreement allows any number of carriers to operate both direct and indirect services between Canada and another country, with airlines choosing the routes they serve, the frequency of their service and the prices of flights, without any restrictions. Simply put, for those countries we let the market and consumer demand decide the frequency of flights, not the federal government. But if a market-based approach is good enough for 24 countries plus Europe, why isn’t it good enough for all countries? We should let the market decide where Canadians want to travel to, how often and with what carrier.

But opening our skies wouldn’t just be a win for Canadian consumers. Growing air connectivity with the world has economic benefits, too. According to IATA, the historic correlation is that a 10 per cent rise in connectivity relative to a country’s GDP is associated with a boost in labour productivity of 0.07 per cent. Not great thrust but certainly worth having.

Opening our skies would help cross-border trade, tourism, investment and knowledge flows. As we all get back to traveling in a post-pandemic world, now would be a good time for Canada to modernize its rules and open our skies for good.

Originally published here

Memperkasa hak pengguna syarikat penerbangan

Setiap hari lebih daripada 100,000 penerbangan berlaku di seluruh dunia.

Dalam kesibukan itu, sudah tentu akan ada risiko gangguan seperti penerbangan ditunda atau dibatalkan, kehilangan atau kerosakan bagasi, dinafikan menaiki pesawat kerana lebihan tempahan, kehilangan tempahan atau masalah yang lain.

Semakin kerap penerbangan, semakin tinggi kebarangkalian masalah seperti itu timbul.

Oleh sebab itu, Kod Perlindungan Pengguna Penerbangan Malaysia (MACPC) diwujudkan pada 2016. Ia bertujuan untuk melindungi hak dan kepentingan pengguna dalam usaha untuk mewujudkan industri penerbangan yang berorientasikan pengguna.

Setelah enam tahun dilaksanakan Suruhanjaya Penerbangan Malaysia (Mavcom) menerima lebih daripada 22,000 aduan, dengan separuh pertama 2022 sahaja sebanyak 1,251 aduan direkodkan.

Sebanyak 99.1 peratus daripadanya melibatkan syarikat penerbangan.

Daripada jumlah itu 577 (46.1 peratus) aduan adalah mengenai pembatalan penerbangan, penjadualan semula dan tempahan dalam talian secara kolektif.

Read the full text here

RYANAIR CONTESTE LES AIDES ÉTATIQUES, ET AVEC RAISON

Si les aides étatiques sans limites ont bénéficié à certaines entreprises, d’autres ont totalement été mises de côté… ce qui pose la question d’une concurrence déloyale, par exemple dans le secteur du transport aérien. 

La compagnie aérienne low-cost Ryanair a passé la majeure partie des deux dernières années à s’attaquer à des cas d’aides d’Etat dans toute l’Europe. La compagnie aérienne estime que les aides gouvernementales accordées aux transporteurs nationaux pendant la pandémie de Covid-19 étaient injustifiées et créaient des avantages concurrentiels injustes.

Avant de commencer, il convient de noter deux choses : tout d’abord, je conçois que de nombreux lecteurs aient pu avoir des expériences négatives avec les compagnies aériennes mentionnées. En tant que grand voyageur moi-même, il m’est arrivé à plusieurs reprises d’être retardé, de rester bloqué dans des aéroports éloignés et d’être totalement ignoré par le service clientèle.

C’est une réalité malheureuse des voyages aériens – parfois pour des raisons météorologiques, parfois à cause de la négligence totale de la compagnie aérienne – mais je ne laisse pas cela influencer mon jugement lorsque j’écris sur les relations louches du gouvernement avec le secteur aérien.

Deuxièmement, pour ceux qui ont lu mon précédent article sur la question de l’aviation : si je pense que le secteur est souvent injustement réglementé et taxé par le gouvernement (comme nous le sommes tous), cela n’exonère pas les grandes entreprises.

En fait, de nombreuses grandes entreprises recherchent spécifiquement des subventions gouvernementales et font pression pour obtenir des politiques désavantageuses pour leurs concurrents. Ryanair elle-même a bénéficié pendant très longtemps de subventions gouvernementales pour les aéroports régionaux en Europe, ce qui lui a permis de proposer des tarifs inférieurs au prix du marché conventionnel.

Des dizaines de milliards pour quelques entreprises

Toutefois (je me rends compte que c’est un grand « toutefois »), la compagnie aérienne irlandaise a tout à fait raison dans son analyse des cas d’aides d’État.

Les contribuables européens ont ainsi payé plus de 30 Mds€ pour soutenir des compagnies aériennes durant la pandémie… Cliquez ici pour lire la suite.

Lufthansa : 9 Mds€. Air France : 4 Mds€. British Airways : 2,5 Mds€. Alitalia : faillite complète (après les sauvetages gouvernementaux des années précédentes) et reprise par l’Etat. Les contribuables européens ont payé pour ces aides, soit directement, soit par le biais de l’inflation provoquée par l’utilisation délibérée de la planche à billets par la banque centrale.

Ryanair conteste 30 Mds€ de ces fonds, en s’appuyant sur le principe juridique de l’Union européenne qui interdit les subventions publiques si elles faussent la concurrence loyale dans l’union. Dans certains cas, notamment ceux de la compagnie aérienne publique portugaise TAP et de la compagnie néerlandaise KLM, la Cour européenne de justice de Luxembourg a estimé que les gouvernements néerlandais et portugais n’avaient pas suffisamment justifié les mesures d’aide.

Toutefois, la Cour n’a pas exigé des compagnies aériennes qu’elles remboursent les prêts « pour l’instant ». Comparez cela à la façon dont les particuliers sont traités lorsqu’ils doivent de l’argent à l’Etat… Malheureusement, dans de nombreux cas, le tribunal de l’UE rejette les affaires engagées par Ryanair en se basant sur le fait que Covid-19 représentait une urgence extraordinaire pour ces compagnies aériennes.

La compagnie irlandaise à bas prix poursuit également des compagnies aériennes, telles que la TAP, pour conserver leurs créneaux horaires dans les aéroports. Les créneaux aéroportuaires en Europe sont organisés selon les règles du « use it or lose it ».

En pratique, si une compagnie aérienne ne dessert pas une certaine route, elle peut ainsi perdre le droit à la connexion, et l’aéroport peut donner le créneau à un concurrent. Cela explique pourquoi, tout au long de cette pandémie, certaines compagnies ont fait voler des avions vides entre certaines destinations… simplement pour conserver leurs créneaux.

Pour contrer cet effet, l’UE a décidé d’exempter temporairement les règles relatives aux créneaux horaires, ce qui a permis aux grandes compagnies aériennes de conserver leurs créneaux et de ne pas les donner à leurs concurrents. De façon perverse, ces compagnies aériennes ont utilisé l’argent des contribuables pour faire pression en faveur de leur avantage concurrentiel, dans les aéroports de tout le continent.

Des difficultés avant le Covid

Voici pourquoi Ryanair a raison : même si les Etats européens n’avaient pas introduit les confinements, le Covid-19 aurait tout de même eu un effet sur le secteur de l’aviation. En effet, dès avril 2020, les compagnies aériennes étaient en difficulté financière. Si des compagnies établies qui opèrent depuis des décennies sont incapables de faire face à une réduction temporaire des tarifs passagers, se pourrait-il qu’elles ne devraient pas opérer sur le marché en premier lieu, et que de nouvelles compagnies améliorent les erreurs commises par leurs prédécesseurs ?

Ryanair est la plus grande compagnie aérienne d’Europe, et bien qu’elle ait reçu du gouvernement irlandais des fonds reliés au Covid, ses aides sont dérisoires par rapport à l’argent empoché par une compagnie comme Lufthansa, qui exploite un réseau de compagnies qui ont toutes reçu des sommes importantes des contribuables autrichiens, suisses ou belges.

Les compagnies aériennes devraient se faire concurrence sur un marché véritablement libre. Oui, elles devraient être exemptes de taxes et de réglementations punitives, mais elles ne devraient pas non plus attendre des contribuables qu’ils paient la facture de leur mauvaise gestion. Lorsque les Européens ont payé pour l’aide Covid, ils ont souvent aussi financé la mauvaise gestion de ces compagnies, comme des acquisitions mal calculées et des projets secondaires.

L’exemple de la compagnie allemande Condor vient à l’esprit (qui a également été attaquée en justice par RyanAir, sans succès) : en septembre 2019, la société mère de Condor, Thomas Cook, s’est effondrée, et pourtant Condor a reçu un prêt du gouvernement allemand pour la sauver de la ruine financière. Maintenant que Condor a reçu une aide d’Etat pendant la crise du Covid-19, juste un an plus tard, l’Etat allemand peut-il démontrer de manière fiable que les dommages subis par la compagnie ne sont dus qu’à la pandémie, ou se pourrait-il que la compagnie aérienne ait déjà fait faillite auparavant ?

Et dans quelle mesure l’aide liée au Covid est-elle justifiée, alors que l’entreprise venait juste de bénéficier d’un prêt pour surmonter la tourmente de l’année précédente ?

Il semble que de nombreux Etats européens financent des compagnies aériennes pour des raisons nationalistes. Le gouvernement allemand, comme tout autre, veut garder les compagnies à l’intérieur de ses frontières, afin qu’elles continuent à payer des impôts dans les caisses du Trésor public. Mais les seuls qui paient réellement les factures sont les consommateurs, et pas seulement par le biais du prix des billets.

Nous devrions plutôt laisser les mauvais acteurs échouer et permettre plus d’innovation et de flexibilité sur le marché européen de l’aviation.

Originally published here

Flying in Canada is silly expensive — time to open Air Canada and WestJet to competition

Increasing competition wouldn’t just save consumers money on flights, it could lessen the need for taxpayer-funded support of the hard-hit tourism and hospitality sectors

Have you looked at domestic flight prices recently? If you haven’t, you may experience a jolt of sticker shock. According to recent  reports , the average Canadian domestic flight has increased by almost $100 — or 21 per cent — compared to 2019. It was already ridiculously expensive to fly within Canada. Now, it’s practically sky-high robbery.

While it’s common to find domestic U.S. flights and even flights between major European cities for $100 or less, Canadian domestic flight prices often start in the mid-$300s and only go up from there. Worse yet, flying internationally is routinely cheaper than it is within our own borders. I travel annually from Toronto to New Brunswick to visit family, and the bill almost always comes in higher than it would if I booked a flight to Morocco, France, Rome, or basically anywhere with palm trees and warm oceans.

Read the full article here

Stop the bailouts

The rulings on KLM, TAP, and Condor should be just the beginning

The airline RyanAir has successfully challenged the bailouts of the Dutch airline KLM, the Portuguese company TAP, and the German carrier Condor. The crusade of RyanAir CEO Michael O’Leary seems to show effects, as the €550 million bailout for Condor has been put on hold – despite the court not asking the money back immediately from the airline – while others are hanging in the balance.

TAP and KLM have seen the same things happen to them. In all three cases thus far, the justification of the European Court of Justice has been that the bailout funds hadn’t been sufficiently justified by the member states in question. Ryanair welcomed the two rulings as an “important victory for consumers and competition”. The state aid had violated the principle of the internal market in the EU and reversed the liberalisation of air transport. They led to unfair competition by inefficient companies. Europe’s largest low-cost airline has filed a total of 16 lawsuits against state aid to competitors with the Luxembourg court, including the billions in aid to Lufthansa. However, the EU court had rejected lawsuits against state funds for the Scandinavian SAS, Finnair and Air France. The Irish company had taken legal action in May 2020 to denounce on the one hand guaranteed loans granted by Sweden, in particular to the Scandinavian company SAS for an amount of 3.3 billion crowns (308 million euros).

In the case of France, as in the case of Sweden, it considers that the aid measures are indeed aimed at remedying the damage caused by this extraordinary event to airlines in both countries. The State aid is also considered to be “proportionate”.

One point where the ECJ judges in the Condor case see a need for clarification is the question of the costs for the insolvency proceedings. This had to be extended after the cancellation of the PGL (Polish Aviation Group). The EU Commission had not sufficiently explained why it had included the extended insolvency period when calculating the damage to Condor from the Corona crisis, the judges explained. In principle, the Commission itself has stipulated that only damages directly caused by the pandemic – such as cancelled flights – may be compensated with taxpayers’ money. Moreover, it had not been explained why the planned sale to PGL had failed because of the pandemic. On this point, improvements could solve the headaches of Condor, but it’s not a given.

The problem with only attacking the precise justifications is that while the ECJ temporarily suspends the bailouts, the court does not strike down the principle of airline bailouts at all. Most of these airlines demanded funds in just a few weeks after the lockdown measures began, showing that they were all short-stripped for cash to begin with. Why should taxpayers fund companies that do not secure themselves sufficiently for times of crisis? After all, individual citizens or small companies would also be asked to pay their bills – and if caught spending money they do not have, would be called fiscally irresponsible. How airlines balance (or rather not balance) their books is their business alone, and not that of the taxpayer.

Originally published here.

No-fly lists fly in the face of civil rights

Imitating the United States’ surveillance state methods will not make Europeans safer…

The European Union has been going through the process of creating a counter-terorrism database (CTR) that will compile information from EU countries regarding ongoing investigations, prosecutions and convictions of militants, including returning foreign fighters who joined terrorist groups abroad. 

Eurojust President Mr Ladislav Hamran said in the inaugurating press conference: 

‘The Counter-Terrorism Register is a major step forward in the fight against terrorism. Now that terrorists operate more and more in cross-border networks, the EU must do the same. By providing swift feedback on cross-border links between judicial proceedings, we can better coordinate and speed up actions against suspects of terrorist activities. Having the right information is of essential importance to combat terrorism and will reinforce the EU as an area of justice and security.’

The purported aim of the measure is to track suspicious individuals as they appear on the radar of national law enforcement agencies to more effectively address  anti-terrorism prevention within the union. This is a laudable goal, particularly given the spate of terrorist attacks since the assault on the Charlie Hebdo newsroom in 2015. However, the implementation of such a database also requires addressing fundamental questions of civil and human rights and the functioning of our rule of law.

In the United States, 9/11 caused a radical shift in the way the state perceived its role in terrorism prevention. A previous attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 proved unsuccessful and was shrugged off as an outlier. Following the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration saw an opportunity to reinforce the law and order state. Most notably, this involved the mass surveillance of citizens through agencies such as the NSA, a practice that peaked under Presidents Bush and Obama. The revelations of NSA operator Edward Snowdon shed light on the practices of the U.S government and a wave of outrage made it possible for the U.S. legislature to repeal the so-called Patriot Act. 

The perception remained in Europe that a lack of coordination, as well as a different legal and moral philosophy, made the surveillance state less likely or would not be as invasive. However, the United Kingdom had already championed CCTV surveillance and recording air travel passenger information was on the rise. Today, hardly any European city is free of CCTV surveillance and the Passenger Name Record (PNR) directive of the European Union makes the collection of this data mandatory for national governments. States also monitor social media, with some believing anonymity should be scrapped online, and prevent citizens from visiting certain websites, particularly if they’re believed to be associated with terorrism. The negative ramifications for free speech are evident, but a greater concern arises with regard to personal privacy. 

The United States has created counter-terrorism databases, including the infamous no-fly list. The list registers potential terrorists who are barred from air travel. There is no established legal procedure to get on or off the list and officials do not need to justify their decisions or notify the citizens in question. Even senior politicians have been trapped by this system.

The EU’s counter-terrorism database is at risk of becoming a European no-fly list where due process is ignored under the pretence of added security. EU citizens should stand up against the EUROJUST database.

Originally published here.

The 5 Transatlantic Routes Which Will Have The Lowest Fares In The Future

Originally published here.

Lasst Europa schneller fliegen

Der Luftverkehr sollte schneller werden. Überschallflugzeuge, innovativ weiterentwickelt, würden uns voranbringen.

Als Frankreich und Deutschland ihre Schnellzugnetze gebaut haben, revolutionierten sie so den Schienenpersonenverkehr in Europa. Was mit dem Fernbus von Brüssel nach Paris vier bis fünf Stunden dauert, kann mit dem Thalys-Zug in etwas mehr als einer Stunde erreicht werden. Das Gleiche gilt für das ICE-Netzwerk. Der Wechsel von langsamen Regionalzügen zu schnellen und futuristischen neuen Modellen hat Verbrauchern mehr Komfort und Zeiteffizienz gebracht.

In der Luftfahrt ist jedoch das Gegenteil der Fall. Seit den 1960er-Jahren sind Flugzeuge nicht schneller geworden. Die Reisegeschwindigkeiten für Verkehrsflugzeuge liegen heute zwischen 889 und 945 Kilometer pro Stunde, verglichen mit 525 Knoten für die Boeing 707, dem Rückgrat des kommerziellen Düsenverkehrs der 1960er-Jahre, schreibt Kate Repantis vom MIT. Der Grund dafür ist Kraftstoffeffizienz, was sich in realer Kosteneffizienz ausdrückt. Während Flugplaner versucht haben, die effizientesten Flugrouten zu finden, war es vor allem die Verlangsamung der Flüge, die den Treibstoffverbrauch effektiv reduzierte. Laut einer Meldung von NBC News aus dem Jahr 2008 hat die Fluglinie JetBlue durch die Verlangsamung seiner Flüge um knapp zwei Minuten rund 13,6 Millionen Dollar pro Jahr an Kerosin eingespart.

Aber Verlangsamung muss nicht die einzige Option sein, und es nützt sicherlich nicht den Verbrauchern, dass die Flugzeiten länger sind als vor 50 Jahren. Alte Regionalzüge verbrauchen weniger Strom als aktuelle Hochgeschwindigkeitszüge mit über 300 Kilometer pro Stunde. Und trotzdem versucht niemand, die ICE-Reisezeiten zu verlängern, ganz im Gegenteil.1Da wir Hochgeschwindigkeitszüge mehr und mehr nutzen, verbessert sich die Technologie und das reduziert wiederum den Energieverbrauch. Die gleiche Analogie sollte auch in der Luftfahrt gelten.

„Wenn man die Entwicklung der regulären Düsenflugzeuge betrachtet, die um 80 Prozent effizienter geworden sind, kann man sehr optimistisch sein, was Überschallflugzeuge betrifft.“

Mit dem Ende der Concorde sind Überschallflugzeuge in Europa kein Thema mehr. Bei Langstrecken-Interkontinentalflüge verkürzen Überschallflugzeuge die Flugzeit um deutlich mehr als die Hälfte. Zum Beispiel würde die Reisezeit von London nach New York von 7 Stunden auf lediglich 3 Stunden und 15 Minuten sinken. Die Kraftstoffeffizienz aktueller Überschallmodelle ist noch nicht auf dem gleichen Level wie bei Unterschallflugzeugen, aber für eine (wieder)entstehende Industrie ginge der Weg bergauf. Wenn man die Entwicklung der regulären Düsenflugzeuge betrachtet, die um 80 Prozent effizienter geworden sind als die ersten Modelle, kann man sehr optimistisch sein, was Überschallflugzeuge betrifft. Darüber hinaus unterstützen die Hersteller von Überschallflugzeugen auch die Verwendung alternativer Kraftstoffe, was gut in den 2020-Plan der Vereinten Nationen für klimaneutrales Wachstum passt. Kürzere Flugzeiten für Verbraucher, die innovative Lösungen für Umweltprobleme mögen. Was will man mehr?

Der eigentliche Haken ist der Lärmpegel. Als jemand, der in einer Stadt in der Nähe eines Flughafens aufgewachsen ist und dort fast 20 Jahre gelebt hat, kenne ich die unterschiedlichen Ansichten über Fluglärm. Viele in meinem Heimatdorf verteidigen den Flughafen aus wirtschaftlichen Gründen, während andere sich in Initiativen zusammenschließen und den Flughafen bekämpfen. Im Laufe der Jahre haben ihre Forderungen immer weniger Unterstützung gefunden, denn je effizienter die Flugzeuge geworden sind, desto weniger Lärm machen sie auch.

„Die derzeitigen Vorschriften tragen der Tatsache keine Rechnung, dass sich Überschallflugzeuge grundlegend von regulären Flugzeugen unterscheiden.“

Hier starten auch Überschallflugzeuge nicht von Grund auf neu. Während diese Flugzeuge bei der Landung und beim Start lauter sind, sind neue Modelle, wie die futuristisch anmutende Overture des Herstellers Boom, 100 Mal leiser als die Concorde. Darüber hinaus ist es wichtig, mit gleichem Maße zu messen: Überschallflugzeuge haben die Größe eines Regionaljets, sollten jedoch in der Regulierung der Lärmlimits (seitens der Internationalen Zivilluftfahrtorganisation, ICAO) in die gleiche Kategorie fallen wie große Flugzeuge, die heute interkontinental fliegen.

Ja, Überschallflugzeuge wären, zumindest vorerst, lauter. Gleichzeitig würden sie aber schnellere Reisezeiten und vielversprechende Erwartungen an eine geringere Umweltbelastung mit sich bringen. Im Beispiel des Overture-Projekts hat das amerikanische Unternehmen Boom das umweltfreundlichste Überschallflugzeug der Geschichte am Start: Der „CO2-Fußabdruck“ ist hier vergleichbar mit einem internationalen Business-Class Flug.

Das Mindeste, was wir tun können, um Wahlmöglichkeiten von Passagieren in der Luftfahrt zu verbessern, ist, Überschall eine Chance zu geben. Die derzeitigen Vorschriften tragen der Tatsache keine Rechnung, dass sich Überschallflugzeuge grundlegend von regulären Flugzeugen unterscheiden. Es gibt ein Gleichgewicht zwischen realistischer Lärmminderung und besserem Service, das sowohl die Verbraucher als auch die besorgten Bürger finden können. Dafür sollte jeder an den Diskussionstisch zurückkehren. In der Welt gibt es spannende Innovationen und Europa sollte ein Teil davon sein.

Read more here

Scroll to top
en_USEN