fbpx

Transportation

A Personal Note: All I want for Christmas is not being shamed for flying!

2019 is coming to an end and by December 31st I will have been on 81 flights and 274 hours in total this year. The 210,493 kilometers I have flown in 2019 does not include one helicopter ride I took after an avalanche looked me in a valley. I would have probably also circumnavigated the earth more than 5.25 times if the Eurostar wouldn’t be such an excellent connection with the Eurostar on my 15+ trips from London to Brussels.

And while many of my frequent flyer friends would chuckle about the fact ‘that I didn’t even hit the 100 flights a year’, many concerned environmentalists think that we should stop flying at all and the few private trips my statistic include were unnecessary. 

So should I be ashamed of flying?

Looking at the facts might be a better way to navigate one through the flight shaming debate than just parroting the claims and allegations of environmental activists.

If you care about the environment better fly!

Flying has actually overtaken car rides nearly 20 years ago as the more fuel (and hence carbon-) efficient means of transportation. Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute calculated that driving in 2010 was even about twice as energy-intensive as flying commercially. 

Comparing train rides to flights, trains will look often much better than flying. However this also depends always on where the electricity of the train is coming from (or if the train is even Diesel-fueled). Wired writes:

“It also makes a big difference whether the train is diesel-powered or electric, and – if it’s the latter – how that electricity is generated. In France, for instance, where a lot of energy comes from nuclear power and trains are mostly electric, travelling by train is greener than in the UK, which has delayed electrification plans indefinitely – although even a journey by diesel train still produces 84 per cent less carbon than flying. 

More than half of the emissions related to rail come from infrastructure activities such as building stations, laying tracks, lightning stations and powering escalators. Of course, that’s not enough to bring train emissions close to those of passenger flights, but it’s something to bear in mind when high-speed rail is touted as a greener alternative. If the routes don’t already exist, there will be a carbon cost to building them – and the rise of electric cars may change the equation further.”

If you want to feel good that you take the train you first might want to check if it’s fueled by a carbon neutral energy source such as nuclear energy. Hence the likelihood to feel environmentally conscious is higher when you take a TGV through the nuclear nation of France than an electric train or diesel train through Germany where 50% of the energy generation comes from fossil fuels and similar CO2 emitters (coal, gas, oil).

Andre Gocavles writes on youMatter.world about how flying is more economical and better for the environment than taking the car. He also spends a good amount of time criticizing the average numbers shown by the European Environment Agency (EEA) that are usually quoted to show how bad flying is for the environment. The EEA uses very high load factors for cars, does discount the change these cars get stuck in traffic or use air conditioning. At the same time they take below industry-average load factors for planes to put them in a (apparently politically motivated) worse light than cars. At the same time evidence tells you another story:

“In the end, a journey by plane is often environmentally better than one by car for long journeys. All other things being alike, choosing the plane increases the occupancy rate of the planes – which will take-off anyway whether you are in it or not. Doing it also reduces traffic congestion and, therefore, optimizes the overall transportation networks. Most times, if you’re carrying less than 4 people in your car, choosing the plane will give you a lower CO2 footprint. And the longer the distance, the more this logic is true. Why? Because a plane’s CO2 emissions are higher during the take-off and landing phases. So the longer the flight is, more kilometers or miles the plane will have to soften the impact of these 2 phases.”

A lot of the comparison numbers do not take into account the CO2 footprint of actually building train tracks and maintaining them. Poor occupancy rates of trains are also not mentioned.

And if you still feel bad about your (relatively low) carbon footprint caused by flying you might want to follow some of the policy suggestions offered by Reason Foundation’s Bob Poole

  • Massive Forest Restoration: A number of recent papers in peer-reviewed journals have found that there is room, on land areas adjacent to existing forests, for huge amounts of carbon-absorbing trees to be planted. A widely noted paper in Science by Jean-Francois Bastin and others estimates that reforesting 2.2 billion acres of such land could absorb 205 gigatonnes of carbon. There are a number of other scientific papers along these lines and an overview article in Scientific American.

Agricultural Land Restoration: Bloomberg News reported that for an estimated $300 billion, about 2 billion acres of worn-out farmland could be restored to productive use, sequestering carbon in the process. It cited research by the UN Food & Agriculture Organization and others. The Wall Street Journal discussed a start-up company, Indigo Ag Inc., that is setting up a market for carbon credits based on this idea.

Planes have become at least 4 times more carbon efficient compared to where they were in the 1970’s. The rise of low cost carriers have brought more narrow setups of seats on planes and occupancy rates of 90% and above due to better route planning. So the next time you hear an environmentalist complaining about flying being too cheap, feel free to respond that especially those who made flying cheaper also helped to bring down its per passenger carbon footprint. These developments are highly encouraging and also a faster improvement than with any other technology. Flight shaming and ban of this great way of transportation would kill innovation that could make flying even less noisy and less polluting. 

With that I wish you all very Happy Holidays and a good start into 2020.


Fred Roeder
Managing Director
Consumer Choice Center


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at 
consumerchoicecenter.org

Creative Solutions for more Consumer Choice

Tbilisi, Georgia mandates all taxis to be white – Activists respond with free-market education on wheels!

In October 2019 the Georgian capital Tbilisi introduced tighter rules defining taxi services in the city. The formerly very open and competitive system got replaced by mandating taxis to be painted in white if they want to pick up passengers on the street. The new law also obliges taxis to be left-hand drive vehicles. In a relatively poor country like Georgia, most cars are imported used cars and come from both countries with left and right traffic. Both measures are adding costs to taxi drivers and ultimately to consumers.

Political activist and leader of the Girchi Party, Zurab Japaridze came up with an innovative solution to bypass these new regulations. He and his party set up a company called Shmaxi offering unemployed taxi drivers to drive passengers while educating them about the benefits of freedom. Passengers will not pay for the distance traveled but the length of their educational session. The drivers can either conduct the session themselves or play an audiobook in the car. Part of the educational canon are books and essays by Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman. 

Japaridze told JAM News: “The company will hire driver/educators who will convey ideas about freedom to passengers and talk to them about right and wrong. If the drivers lack the necessary knowledge, we will conduct training sessions and provide video materials that the passengers can listen to.”

This educational services on wheels allow Tbilisi’s consumers to pick between the newly regulated taxi services and the usually cheaper and more fun Shmaxi. Over 500 drivers have also signed up to drive Shmaxis around town.

Campaigner Mariam Ivanidze told me that “Some Shmaxi drivers say they earn more through our company than they could through the major taxi ones”. Shmaxi is not only a political but also a commercial success.

Shmaxi started operating in the Georgian city of Kutais as welli in order to warn local regulators not to repeat the devastating taxi regulations of Tbilisi.

This is a creative and wonderful win for consumer choice and could inspire advocates for competition in the taxi markets around the world. 

Now I am wondering if I should launch Shmaxi London as a response to the recent decision by Transport for London to take away Uber’s license… Listen to Thatcher’s biography while driving from Mayfair to London Heathrow Airport would be an entertaining way of killing the time stuck in traffic.


Govt shouldn’t help Thomas Cook casualties: opinion

Don’t put ordinary consumers on the hook for flying back Thomas Cook holidayers

On Monday, the travel company Thomas Cook announced it would cease operations immediately after it was unable to raise enough money to pay off its debts. This has left hundreds of thousands of travelers without return flights from their holiday destinations.

As a response, several politicians in the U.K. called for government aid to Thomas Cook, and the government has been called to intervene and help out stranded travelers.

Fred Roeder, London-based Managing Director of the Consumer Choice Center, responded by stating that an intervention by the government would be the wrong direction to take.

“It is sad to see a legacy travel company such as Thomas Cook to go under,” said Roeder. “But many politicians want to show their support to stranded travelers by flying them home on taxpayers’ dime.

“While it is very unfortunate to be stranded at the end of a holiday, one should ask why taxpayers should pay for tourists who didn’t buy insolvency or travel insurance? 

“Why should those who stayed home because they either didn’t have the money or time for holidays bail out those who went for a holiday trip but didn’t want to spend the extra few pounds for insurance? This is effectively is the scenario that ordinary British consumers and taxpayers are faced with,” said Roeder.

Read more here


Sports fans likely to be hit by Thomas Cook’s collapse

We are now working alongside the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to assist affected customers and help them to find alternative holidays or organise cancellations and full refunds’.

TUI’s major rival Thomas Cook (TCG.L) collapsed on Monday after it failed to secure the funding it needed to continue trading, leaving more than 150,000 holidaymakers stranded overseas.

Around 6,000 passengers who flew with Thomas Cook from Belfast International Airport have been left stranded after the collapse of the travel company.

“If your Thomas Cook flights are not ATOL protected, your flights are now cancelled and you are not entitled to make a claim via the ATOL scheme, but you may be able to claim from your travel insurer or your credit card issuer or bank”.

Local travel agents have been busy trying to reorganise holiday plans for clients following today’s shock news about the collapse of Thomas Cook.

The CAA said: “If you are now overseas and your flight was with Thomas Cook we are providing new flights to return you to the UK”.

There are also people needing help who have booked through other travel companies using Thomas Cook flights.

Read more here.

Bruxelles, meilleur aéroport d’Europe

Bruxelles, Zurich, Düsseldorf, Madrid et Manchester : tel est le résultat du classement réalisé par le Consumer Choice Center, centre américain de défense des consommateurs, des meilleurs aéroports européens, selon les utilisateurs.

Read more here

Iberia: plazo para ser europea, pulso pilotos vs Ryanair, los +guay…

El Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor) analizó los 30 primeros aeropuertos europeos por volumen de pasajeros y los clasificó en términos de la satisfacción del viajero, según una combinación de factores que van desde su ubicación con respecto a la ciudad que sirven y las opciones de transporte hasta la experiencia dentro de las instalaciones y el acceso a la red de vuelos o conectividad aérea, seleccionando el Top 10 de infraestructuras más friendly o acogedoras para el pasajero, encabezado por el Aeropuerto de Bruselas-Zaventem, y el Top cinco de aeropuertos que destacan en aspectos relevantes para la comodidad del usuario. Dos aeropuertos españoles aparecen en tres de los rankings.

Read more here

El Mercurio de Chile On Line | Los 10 aeropuertos más cómodos de Europa (uno en España)

Hay muchas formas de analizar los aeropuertos, como ocurre con otras instalaciones turísticas. Puede hacerse por puntalidad, número de pasajeros y vuelos, tamaño… El Consumer Choice Center (Centro de Elección del Consumidor), un organismo internacional sin ánimo de lucro creado en 2017 por Students ForLiberty, ha examinado este año por primera vez los 30 aeropuertos más grandes de Europa (por volumen de tráfico) y los ha clasificado en términos de experiencia de los pasajeros, según una combinación de factores que van desde la ubicación y las opciones de transporte a la experiencia en el aeropuerto (los más friendly o acogedores).

[Para saber más: Los 10 mejores aeropuertos del mundo en 2019]

El Consumer Choice Center examinó los datos relevantes transmitidos por los treinta aeropuertos, pero también complementó esa información con datos en informes anuales, estadísticas on line y una investigación propia para acumular toda la información útil posible. Admiten que, al ser el primer año de este trabajo, se han encontrado -entre otras dificultades- con contradicciones en la forma de presentar los datos según los países, y por tanto, que aún queda margen para perfeccionar su metodología en el futuro. El índice general, no obstante, mide los datos mencionados anteriormente más los enlaces ferroviarios directos desde el aeropuerto , la disponibilidad de otros servicios de transporte, la competencia entre aerolíneas, los hoteles en las instalaciones, el número de destinos, el número de aerolíneas y conexiones, zona de restaurantes y compras…

Los aeropuertos mejor clasificados de este ranking se hallan en el norte de Europa. El único del sur del continente que encontramos entre los elegidos es el Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas. Tampoco salen muy bien parados los aeropuertos del Este (ninguno entre los diez mejores) ni destacan especialmente los más grandes, que ocupan posiciones de segunda fila: Londres Heathrow (número 14) y París Charles De Gaulle (12).

Originally published here

¿Cuáles son los 10 aeropuertos más amigables en Europa?

La organización Consumer Choice Center eligió a los 10 aeropuertos más amigables de Europa, poniendo en los primeros cinco lugares a las terminales de Bruselas, Zúrich, Düsseldorf, Madrid-Barajas y Manchester, respectivamente. 

Para la construcción de esta lista se evaluaron diferentes factores, desde la experiencia de los pasajeros, la ubicación de los aeropuertos y opciones de transporte, hasta el acceso a la red de vuelos y servicios.

Los puestos del 6 al 10 los ocupan Copenhague, Ámsterdam, Estocolmo, Frankfurt y Munich, respectivamente.

Después de analizar la información sobre los aeropuertos, Consumer Choice Center llegó a las siguientes conclusiones:

Iniciar un viaje en uno de los 10 principales aeropuertos promete una experiencia de pasajero buena a excelente en el aeropuerto.

Si los viajeros necesitan realizar una conexión en Europa, existen más probabilidades de que los hubs del norte proporcionen mejores conexiones que los del sur.

El tamaño del aeropuerto no necesariamente significa mejor conveniencia ni infraestructura. Como ejemplo, en el top 10 sólo se encuentran dos de los cinco aeropuertos más grandes de Europa: Ámsterdam y Frankfurt.

“El sistema que desarrollamos para esta lista da un vistazo a lo que los pasajeros deben considerar en los aeropuertos para sus siguientes viajes, ya sea en viajes de placer o negocios”, dijo Yaël Ossowski, subdirector de la organización.

Originally published here

Warum Tegel eine Zumutung für Passagiere ist

Wie passagierfreundlich sind die 30 größten Flughäfen auf dem Kontinent? Das bewertet der „European Airport Index“. Drei von vier deutschen Airports kamen in die Top Ten – und einer schmierte böse ab.

Potsdam.Die internationale Verbraucherschutzorganisation Consumer Choice Center (CCC) hat eine Rangliste der 30 größten europäischen Flughäfen veröffentlicht, und dabei bewertet, welche (Un)Annehmlichkeiten die Airports für Passagiere bereit halten. In die Rangliste flossen unter anderem ein: Die Entfernung vom Stadtzentrum, die Anbindung an den Nahverkehr, sowie die Anzahl von Restaurants, Geschäften, Lounges und Flugsteigen (nicht in absoluten Zahlen, sondern pro abgefertigtem Passagier). Weitere Faktoren waren die durchschnittliche Wartezeit an der Sicherheitskontrolle und die Wege zwischen den einzelnen Terminals.

Lästig: Mit dem Bus vom Gate zum Flieger

Wenig überraschend, hat Berlin-Tegel (wäre bei einem regulären Baufortschritt am BER schon vor Jahren geschlossen worden) die Tester nicht überzeugt. Im European Airport Index belegt der Flughafen nur Platz 28 – lediglich Istanbul-Atatürk und London-Stansted schnitten noch schlechter ab. Das liege an mehreren Faktoren, sagte CCC-Geschäftsführer Frederik Roeder der MAZ: „Kein S-Bahn-Anschluss, zu wenige Fluggaststeige (daher oft lästiger Bus-Transport vom Gate zum Flieger), kein angenehmes Umsteigen möglich, wenig Restaurants.“Der passagierfreundlichste große Flughafen in Europa ist demnach Brüssel-Zaventem, gefolgt von Zürich und Düsseldorf. Auch die beiden großen Lufthansa-Drehkreuze Frankfurt und München schaffen es knapp in die Top Ten (Platz 9 und 10).Ebenfalls oben in der Rangliste stehen auf den Plätzen 4 bis 8 in dieser Reihenfolge Madrid, Manchester, Kopenhagen, Amsterdam-Schiphol und Stockholm-Arlanda. Berlin-Schönefeld und Leipzig-Halle wurden für die Auswertung nicht berücksichtigt.

Read more here

Les 10 meilleurs aéroports d’Europe : Classement des aéroports accueillants pour les passagers

Le Consumer Choice Center (l’agence pour le choix du consommateur) a lancé son European Airport Index, qui accentue les 10 premiers aéroports d’Europe classés selon leur convivialité.

Cet indice est le premier du genre en Europe et doit être utilisé pour informer à la fois les consommateurs et les administrateurs sur qui fait le meilleur travail pour accueillir les passagers.

Les 5 premiers aéroports selon l’étude sont Bruxelles, Zurich, Düsseldorf, Madrid et Manchester.

« Comme tout voyageur le sait, pendant l’été, de nombreux aéroports sont inondés avec des passagers de haute saison. Cette expérience se répercute sur tous ceux qui prennent un vol. Des points d’orgue ont été attribués aux aéroports qui offraient d’excellentes destinations dans le monde entier, mais aussi un mélange sain de boutiques, de restaurants et de commodités que l’on trouve à l’aéroport.

« Le système de points que nous avons utilisé pour cet indice vous donne un excellent aperçu des aéroports que vous devriez envisager d’utiliser lors de votre prochain voyage, que ce soit pour vos vacances ou pour votre travail, » a déclaré M. Ossowski.

« Afin d’éviter une expérience négative pour les passagers et de choisir les plaques tournantes optimales pour les voyages futurs, nous avons examiné les 30 aéroports les plus importants d’Europe (en termes de volume de passagers). Nous les avons classés en fonction de l’expérience des passagers, et à travers d’un ensemble de facteurs allant de l’emplacement de l’aéroport, de ses options de transport, ainsi qu’à l’accès au réseau aérien, » a déclaré Fred Roeder, directeur général de l’Agence pour le choix du consommateur, coauteur de cette étude.

« D’autres facteurs ont été pris en compte dans le classement, notamment les ponts à réaction directs au lieu de l’embarquement dans les bus, la proximité du centre-ville, le nombre de salons, les temps d’attente pour le contrôle de sécurité, et le respect des horaires par les compagnies aériennes. Des points en prime ont été attribués aux aéroports ayant obtenu une autorisation préalable pour les vols américains et la capacité de diffuser les temps d’attente pour le contrôle de sécurité en avance, » a déclaré M. Roeder.

Originally published here

Scroll to top
en_USEN