Aerospace

0.00000000000007314%

16yo activist Greta Thunberg is off to the next UN summit in the US and Chile by sailing boat. The only issue is if she flew on a commercially scheduled flight (which goes anyway) her weight – at presumably 35-40kg – would mean she would add 0.016% to the fuel calculations a Boeing 777 pilot would have to account for . Her impact would be so minuscule as to beggar belief.

280 million trips were made by commercial aircraft last year according to the IATA. Her transatlantic return flight would only be 2 of those meaning she would represent 0.000000714% of all annual flights taken.

Given that airlines, by the IATA’s own stats, annually produce the equivalent to 2% of all man-made emissions or 0.000016% in total, her two flights would make up around 0.0000000000114%. That is slightly unfair as the journey would be longer. So let’s bump it 4-fold. Her weight would penalize the planet 0.0000000000007314%.

Apart from the fact the yacht she will travel on is a byproduct of the fossil fuel industry if she really wants to reduce the footprint she’d be better off swimming. Unfortunately most of the virtue signalers heading to the UN summit will fly. Last year 22,000 went. Including 7300 odd observers to tell us we must do our bit. Why not Skype or teleconference it?

Skipping school for a year might not be the best idea. The chances of dying by sailing are 54 in 1,000,000. By commercial aviation there is a 0.06 chance per 1,000,000 flights. Strictly by the math she has a far better chance of avoiding extinction by flying.

The dilemma of the XR movement – the free market

How funny that the Extinction Rebellion (XR) Deutscheland should publish this question which only proves that the majority of people are driven by the free market and not wistful dreaming.

The author of the article in Tagesschau is demanding that the plane be made more expensive so it can’t compete with rail. How about making rail cheaper?

If only XRD realized that air travel in total produces 2% of global man made emissions meaning the CO2 output of commercial flight is 0.000024% of the total.

Perhaps you shouldn’t be a pilot

A Canadian pilot is trying to claim the Boeing 737MAX has caused career damage, emotional and mental stress. He claims Boeing demonstrated “reckless indifference and conscious disregard for the flying public” in the development of the plane.

Presumably he migrated from the 737 Next Gen to the 737MAX meaning gaining type certification of the outgoing model would not be a stretch meaning career damage would be limited, especially given that Boeing forecasts the need for 790,000 new pilots out to 2037.

The lawsuit also contends the FAA and Boeing colluded in “an unprecedented cover-up of the known design flaws of the MAX

It should be quite disconcerting for a pilot to claim mental stress in this way given the role requires nerves of steel at important times. This is not to criticize those with legitimate mental health issues but this class action seems more like The Simpsons episode where everybody ends up suing everybody.

The stress from flying domestic routes in Canada is not the same as the stress of flying a cargo plane out of Bagram Air Force base where insurgents fire surface to air missiles.

Is it realistic to think the 400 pilots who supposedly intend to join the class action have all suffered from the same trauma?

British Airways places order for 200 Boeing 737 MAX

Nothing like a confidence boosting 200 plane order for the highly criticized Boeing 737 MAX jet at the Paris Airshow. British Airways CEO Willie Walsh said,

We have every confidence in Boeing and expect that the aircraft will make a successful return to service in the coming months.

There is no doubt Boeing offered a competitive price to generate some positive news spin since the crisis erupted. As CM always contended,

Ultimately the market will decide on the 737MAX. The plane has a 4,000+ unit backlog. Even if airlines wanted to change to A320neos, the switching costs would be prohibitively expensive in terms of pilot certification, maintenance and joining the end of an equally long queue. The order book is unlikely to suffer widespread cancellations.”

The mainstream media proves again its proclivity for sensationalist journalism without understanding the industry dynamics or the facts.

Boeing raises 20yr forecast

Boeing reports airlines will need around 44,000 new commercial aircraft worth $6.8 trillion by 2038, vs. 43,000 planes worth $6.49 trillion estimated in 2018. The biggest demand will remain for single-aisle jets. 32,420 narrow-body planes are likely to be built.

So much for the fear of global warming induced by air travel. In total, planes are 2% of human induced CO2. Or 0.00024% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the International Air Transport Association (IATA) wilted to the gun held to its head by the UN. The IATA has got behind the movement to do its bit for climate change. In a two page flyer, it covered the idea that we reckless passengers must consider our carbon footprint but at the same time help the U.N. raise $40bn in taxes, sorry ‘climate finance,’ between 2021 and 2035.

The reality is if Greta Thunberg receives an invite by the Queensland government to lecture on climate change she can rest easy that the footprint in the air will be so tiny because there isn’t a diesel electric train to get here.

Sustainable air travel will require extra sick bags

Air France-KLM is looking to fund the Dutch Delft University of Technology to explore a flying wing design known as the Flying V, where passengers will sit.

Boeing dabbled with the idea in 2007 but scrapped it as it likely worked out passengers sitting out toward the wingtips would be thrown around like rag dolls in turbulent weather. Anyone who has tried to drink hot coffee during rough weather will know how even sitting toward the centre of the plane causes it to swish about, mostly in the saucer. A wing aisle seat would mean one would wear it.

Better to save shareholders’ funds Air France/KLM. Prototyping this “sustainable aircraft” might do wonders for its CSR signaling but has it considered that it must include the environmental footprint of extra sick bags and all those nasty chemicals required to clean up the mess of those who suffer motion sickness but didn’t make it in time?

Perhaps Mother Nature has given us all tips on air travel. There are many passenger jets shaped like birds. Yet no birds shaped like the Delft University of Technology design…

If Air France/KLM is so worried about the environment the best thing to do would be to close down operations.

The Virgin Group CEO Josh Bayliss said,

“It’s definitely true that right now every one of us should think hard about whether or not we need to take a flight.”

Close the airline if it means so much to save the planet.

IATA caves to the climate change cabal to fill the UN coffers

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) has got behind the movement to do its bit for climate change. In a two page flyer, it covered the idea that we reckless passengers must consider our carbon footprint but at the same time help the U.N. raise $40bn in taxes, sorry ‘climate finance,’ between 2021 and 2035.

The Carbon Offsetting & Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) is the vehicle which the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) intends to liberate us from our sins and help fund the waste so endemic in the NY based cabal. Wherever the UN is involved expect a sinister agenda behind the virtue.

All airlines have been required to monitor, report and verify their emissions on international flights since Jan 1, 2019. Operators will be required to buy “emissions units” from the UN. If one asked the UN would it prefer emissions to be cut or taxes to be raised, it would select the latter every time.

But why? Passengers don’t seem to demand airlines flight shame them before they board. On the contrary, many carbon offset schemes exist among airlines but hardly any passengers elect to pay them. Note the world’s largest offset program below.

In its 2017 Annual Report, Qantas boasted,

We have the world’s largest airline offset program and have now been carbon offsetting for over 10 years. In 2016/17, we reached three million tonnes offset.”

Carbon calculators tend to work on the assumption of 0.158kg CO2/passenger kilometre.

In the last 10 years, Qantas has flown around 1 trillion revenue passenger kilometres. While the literature in the annual report denotes one passenger offsets every 53 seconds, the mathematical reality is simple – 2% of miles are carbon offset. So that means that 98% of people couldn’t care less.

Perhaps more embarrassing is that The Guardian noted in Jan 2018 that,

Qantas [was the] worst airline operating across Pacific for CO2 emissions

Kind of a massive load of hot air when you do the maths!

Which begs the question, why does the IATA feel compelled to intervene in ramping up the costs of travel when passengers aren’t calling for it? IATA’s job is to keep airlines flying and support the growth where it forecasts a doubling of air travel by 2030. Airlines have been ordering Boeing 737 MAX & Airbus A320neo short-haul jets as well as long-range B787 & A350 in huge numbers to take advantage of fuel efficiency that helps lower operating costs.

By IATA’s own admission, global air travel in totality is only 2% of man-made CO2 emissions. That is to say that all air travel is responsible for 0.00003% of CO2 in the atmosphere. Big deal! What is the point of taxing an industry where the footprint is so minuscule?

Take Josh Bayliss, CEO of Virgin Group. He said,

“It’s definitely true that right now every one of us should think hard about whether or not we need to take a flight.”

Why doesn’t he close down the airlines in the portfolio? Instead of waiting for his customers to grow a conscience via flight shaming and do the right thing why not force their choice? The obvious answer is that it’s hypocritical in the extreme.

Airlines operate on about 70% capacity load factor break even so if Virgin flights end up being half full thanks to flight shaming he’ll only end up having his fleet of jets spewing more or less the same CO2 per flight which will ultimately put the airline out of business.

It is all too stupid. IATA joins the growing list of bodies petrified to talk in hard numbers about true impacts. When the 22,000 pilgrims that fly each year to UN COP summits around the world to kneel at the altar of the IPCC practice what they preach, CM may start to feel concerned Until then, CM will keep calling the climate hoax out. Deeds, not words, IATA!