Great Western Coffee Shop

From The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/26/greta-thunberg-train-journey-through-europe-flygskam-no-fly)


I would be happy - very happy indeed - to stick with rail travel even for longer journeys.    Just need to get the prices, capacities, schedules and the information systems right.   Look at Karlsson in the quote (a snippet from an article) above. He shouldn't have to be working 16 hour days to help people - it should be a natural part of the systems provided that people can help themselves!

News from the same Swedes who gave us flygskam - which Englishes well enough as flight-shame - or more likely from a quite different bunch of Swedes. It's also maybe a bit close to home on this forum, as tagskryt means "train-boasting". I take that to cover not just avoiding air travel, but going on and on about it. It doesn't suggest an English version, and the Dutch treintrots of similar meaning is no more helpful. But I guess Inventing a word (or phrase) for English ought to be left to them as will use it.

Train trots are what happens after visiting that kebab shop on Praed Street.

Being serious, this idea, if I've understood it correctly, seems to be a specific form of the humblebrag, perhaps crossed with greenwashing.

I am strongly in favour of encouraging long distance rail instead of air travel. Even a diesel train is preferable to an airliner, and an electric train better still.

Under present conditions though I find it hard to recommend UK rail travel. It is often hugely expensive, fares are complex, and capacity often inadequate for present passenger numbers, let alone for any significant increase.

If greater use of rail is to be encouraged in the UK, then I consider train length to be the most important issue. Note that I state train length and not capacity.

Comfort and facilities are also important. Rail is never going to be as quick as air, so needs to compete on comfort and facilities rather than on speed.

I'd agree with much of this, but the comparison with air fares is dependent on where you are.  As an example, for a morning journey a week today:-

Bristol to Edinburgh.  Fly £28, Rail £200.  Flying time, 1 hr 15, rail, 6hrs, so even with the getting to and from the airline palaver, still a lot quicker to fly.  Rail will be in a Voyager, which is a bit rubbish for 6 hrs.  (I've done it, and it wasn't pleasant.) At least you know on Easyjet the trolley will be down in the first 45 mins.

London to Edinburgh.  Fly £30, Rail from around £74.  Flying time 1 hr 20 (Luton), Rail 4 hrs 20 mins. Flying still probably faster, depending on where you are starting, but there are lots of airports around London to choose from. The gap is much less though, especially when you add in the cost of airport parking or transfers.   

So rail is still more expensive, but the difference on price and journey time is much closer, and maybe worth it to avoid the hassle of the airport, and to take the greener approach.

THe first thing that needs to happen is for flight prices to become more realistic - but this is not saying that rail is realically priced either. Just that flights are more unrealistic (in cheapness) than rail is unrealistic (un expensiveness).

Aircraft fuel for flights that are deemed unenvironmental in terms of distance, for example needs taxing properly - i.e. VAT added for a start. That would add circa 20% to the cost (an argument exists though to add VAT to all furl, like vehicle fuel)

*then* look for other ways to persuade folk that domestic flights (except maybe the south to north, beyond Edinburgh/Glasgow axis) are so unenviromentaly friendly that there are better, more environmentally friendly ways of getting there)

The risk with that is that airlines "reverse fuel-tanker" which would itself increase carbon emissions, and probably substantially so. It would also leave British airlines at a disadvantage with its competitors on routes to and from the UK, because foreign airlines could completely avoid VAT on short haul flights, whereas BA, for example, could only avoid some of it.  Passengers could then use the foreign carrier instead, where prices would be relatively unchanged, so the net effect would be the same amount of passengers but not on UK airlines.

APD already exists as an environmental tax, so better to make it more sophisticated.  Make the amount variable according to the fuel efficiency per seat of the plane, so as to encourage fleet replacement with more modern craft, as passengers on airlines using older planes would see the difference in their pockets. Charged to the customer on the expected aircraft at booking, but to the airline on what actually flies.

Or, how about an APD per kilo of luggage, hand and hold, to encourage lighter luggage.  Paid at the airport, based on the credit card already used to book or entered at online check in, all it would need is a set of scales at the gate for hand luggage. Could be done in seconds.  £2 per kilo would take some weight off each flight once people got used to the idea.  It might even encourage lighter suitcases. Think how much suitcase weight gets carted around the world each day.   

The reason suitcases are so heavy is that they are designed to resist, as far as possible, the aggressive handling by airport baggage handlers. They have to withstand being thrown around.

Suitcases are an awful lot lighter than they used to be. A while ago I was helping my aunt sort out some stuff at her house. She had her father's (my grandfather's) 1960s (or thereabouts) Samsonite suitcases, which were tiny compared to what people use nowadays but, empty, weighed much more. If people's luggage is heavier nowadays (and I'm sure it is) it's in part because lighter construction has enabled bigger cases, which people then fill; but it's probably mostly just because people have more stuff.

Probably another example of the way, commented on in this forum by several people, that railways in UK are mostly geared up to transporting people to and from London.

My emphasis. I was discussing this point in relation to *domestic* short-haul flights - while foreign (at least EU) airlines can currently offer UK domestic flights under EU rules, this presumably will come to an end on December 31st this year. So wuld only apply to UK airlines after that.


Do both - and really price domestic flights such that you pay for your domestic CO2 emissions!

Or, how about an APD per kilo of luggage, hand and hold, to encourage lighter luggage.  Paid at the airport, based on the credit card already used to book or entered at online check in, all it would need is a set of scales at the gate for hand luggage. Could be done in seconds.  £2 per kilo would take some weight off each flight once people got used to the idea.  It might even encourage lighter suitcases. Think how much suitcase weight gets carted around the world each day. [/quote]

I can't disagree either - so all 3 maybe?

When I was a younger - and certainly lighter - man, I thought that popping me and all my luggage on the scale would be a good basis for an airfare. Might have to stick with hand baggage only now!  ;D

For small aircraft – Tony K might be able to say how small, but certainly for about 8 seats IME – it's standard to weigh passengers and seat them accordingly for weight distribution.

As Skybus (Landsend/Newquay/Exeter to Scillies do with all their smaller craft

I am not denying the need to husband our resources as best we can, but any restrictions on domestic air travel would only have a very small effect on the total quantity of fuel used by the aviation industry.

The Office for National Statistics produces a time series of energy supply and use called DUKES - Digest of UK Energy SuppIies. For 2017/18 this showed that 90% of aviation fuel is used for international flights, 5% by the military and 5% by domestic air travel.

So restricting domestic air travel would reduce fuel consumption by some part of that 5%. Energy used for domestic heating is orders of magnitude greater.

If you like that sort of thing - DUKES is fascinating!

I thought we were discussing the inequality between air fares & rail fares - which are preventing more people from travelling by rail - not how to save on using air fuel directly? (Oviously, the fewer that fly eventually reduces the number of flights, I agree)

Air travel is virtually 100% fossil fuel reliant, and aircraft are already reasonably fuel efficient. Significant reductions in aviation fuel use will therefore only come from flying less.
Encouraging rail travel in place of air is one way to achieve this.

Whilst domestic heating also uses a lot of fuel, that is a bit of a red herring. Existing homes can be heated with renewably generated electricity or with locally produced firewood.
New homes can be designed with such good insulation that very little heating is needed.
Many people heat homes excessively and could reduce heating fuel by dressing more suitably in the winter.

There is therefore a lot of potential to reduce heating fuel used.
The only way to significantly reduce airline fuel is to fly less.

I wouldn't describe heating as a red herring. The one area does not negate the other. It's going to take an awful lot of effort to switch the whole country to electric heating and even more to get people to dress more suitably and turn down the thermostat. A particular problem will be rented housing, which I read recently is now more than 50% of all housing in the UK – we are no longer a nation of householders even if we still are one of shopkeepers – being exempt from efficiency regulations.

Stupid question .... what about Biojet fuel? - see ((here)) (https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_differences_between_bio-jet_bio-ethanol_and_bio-diesel)


Still not CO2 friendly, but not using fossil resources?

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't require the services of a 'movement' to encourage a greater use of rail in preference to flying. And that is purely because I dislike all the hanging about in airports that flying entails rather than the experience of flying itself.

For that reason I do not fly within mainland UK or continental Europe unless circumstances prevent the use of rail (e.g. the return from a recent rugby trip to La Rochelle when the direct line back to Paris was closed for maintenance and the diversionary routes would not have allowed me to reach home until the following day).

Given all the information & services available on the web I don't understand why any reasonably compos mentis individual would need to go to a 3rd party.

Because it's complicated. We idly thought of going to Vienna by rail, maybe using the new sleeper from Brussels.  Just reading Seat61's guidance of the various ways to go, how to get the cheapest fares etc, the different parties you can book through gave me a headache.
And if you wait for a Eurostar sale then the cheap fares on the next leg, (or vice versa) have sold out.

I did take the train to Germany last year, so this wasn't a theoretical exercise.  It worked quite well, except we nearly missed the 20 min booked connection at Brussels, as the train was 5 mins late, the mid platform quick link was closed (as apparently it often is), and I was in the furthest carriage from the buffer stops.  So having to fight my way through a few hundred slow moving people with cases, out of the normal Eurostar exit, and then find the platform for the next train was very stressful. Made it with 2 minutes to spare.  A lovely journey to Cologne though after that, and if through trains could be run I am sure they would be onto a winner.

If he's that busy, and if he doesn't think this is a flash in the pan, why doesn't he take on a bit of help?


Flight prices are not unrealistic, just clever. The best deals happen when the timetables are first published and to get rid of any empty seats just before the flight. The £40 I paid for a return to Naples would have been double later the same day, and over £200 the day before the flight. Then consider adding VAT to fuel - airlines would start flying to Britain with a lot more fuel than they need for the flight (unless at the limit of range) which burns more fuel. Another way would be to make a short flight to somewhere with cheaper, untaxed, fuel then fill up there. That uses more fuel too, as take-off and climb are the thirsty bits of a flight, but the fuel capacity of the longer range aircraft, such as teh A330-900, is over 100 tonnes, getting on for half the weight of the aircraft.

Jet fuel currently costs around 64p per litre in tax-free Guernsey according to Aiglle (http://aiglle.co.uk/fuel-prices/) the supplier,, and has a specific gravity of 0.8. The VAT at 20% on 80% of the tank capacity of an A330-900 would be around £13,000, which is probably worth a pit-stop in Ireland / Holland / Iceland to avoid. Worse news for the chancellor is that if the flight were actually counted as two flights, one from the UK and a new one from the refuelling stop, passengers would possibly only pay the lower rate of air passenger duty, applicable to flights of under 2,000 miles, subject to a bit of creative thinking by the airline. Split ticketing can work on planes too! At a difference of £65 per standard class passenger, the cost of taxing flying could lead to a diminishing return for the Treasury and the burning of more fuel overall.


Not a stupid question, in fact not even slightly silly. If there was some way of transforming something absolutely useless into jet fuel, or any other fuel for that matter, I would back it all the way. We have biofuels from anaerobic digesters providing methane for the national gas grid (and, if you believe the hype, MetroBust), turning, in the case of my area, farm slurry and vegetable waste into fuel, with a nutrient that can be spread on the fields without the usual pong of the muckspreader or release of huge amounts of ammonia gas into the atmosphere. Everybody wins. The problem comes when you add a financial incentive, usually in the form of subsidies. Then, you start to find crops being grown purely to feed the digester, and I have heard reports already of tractors hauling trailers of low-grade maize from the outskirts of Bristol to Devon to generate subsidies environmentally friendly energy. We risk disturbing the delicate balance of agriculture, and seeing vast areas currently used for food being turned over to fuel.

It gets worse. Jatropha oil, as reported by grahame, can be used in jet engines without any further treatment. For those unfamiliar with the plant, it grows in the tropics and sub-tropics, grows 2 metres high, and the seeds can contain 40% oil. If that sounds wonderful as the future, then consider the massive damage already done in some sensitive regions to produce palm oil alone. Seeing rain forests levelled to make jet fuel isn't going to help at all.

Aircraft are a lot more efficient than they were even a very short time ago. Engine technology took a big jump with the development of the high bypass engine from its modest beginnings. The fuel crisis of the 1970s focussed minds towards cutting fuel consumption, and that continues today. Modern aircraft are a lot lighter than their ancestors, the engines are much more efficient, design has improved markedly, and computers squeeze more performance from the engines than aircrew ever could. Billions of barrels of jet fuel are still used annually, though, so improvement has to continue.

I'm not really helping much. I suppose I could get to the Canaries within 3 or 4 days by train and the ferry from Cadiz, at a cost of over £1,000, but I'm opting for 4 hours in an Airbus A321NEO.

Tony, you're being hugely helpful in explaining the issues / answering the "stupid" questions.  How on earth does one balance climate and resource issues on one side with commercial / big business on the other?


It is, indeed, a nightmare to sort out your own arrangements ... been there, done that too. I tend at times to take on (and enjoy) the challenge of getting the best fare / combination of routes and tickets to meet my needs and at a sensible price - almost like a game (or perhaps an educated bet / gamble?).  But not everyone can do that, not everyone understands or has the time / patience to play the game with a probability of wining.

The former sounds like a holiday in itself, but I suspect most travelers (including Mrs eightonedee) would rather they followed TonyK to the airport

From the BBC Today (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51067440)


Set me thinking ... what sort of passenger numbers fy domestically in the UK each day - how many train's worth?

I took a look at today's departures from Bristol Airport (https://www.bristolairport.co.uk/arrivals-and-departures/departures?view=today).  76 flights, of which 16 were domestic to GB mainland destinations, 13 to the island of Ireland, and 11 to "near continent" - close enough for Eurostar to complete in my view.  A handful to the Channel Islands / Isle of Man and almost all of the rest to Southern Europe.

16 flights ... say 100 people on each (as not all will be full).  1600 passengers. So with 188 seats per 4 car voyager trains, that's 8.5 trains.

Now ... Exeter airport ... web site not showing a full 24 hours, but there's a few more trainloads there.  Southampton seems to have a lot of domestic flights but I think smaller planes and again no 24 hour log.

All together - educated guess around 15 to 20 trainloads ...

As an example, a typical Easyjet flight has 180 seats (between 156 - A319 and 235 - A321 Neo), and their average load is 91%.  So I'd probably say at least 150 people on each. So maybe make that 12 Voyagers, or an additional one an hour heading to the north and Scotland. Still got to reduce the journey time and cost to start to make rail attractive though.

And in many cases, the existing pattern of rail services could handle the extra passengers whom at present fly.
Not perhaps an EXTRA 8 or 12 voyagers, but 8 or 12 full length trains displacing single voyagers and other short units.

Bet there a lot of london to Manchester, leeds flights, hence why we need HS2/3...
Also the question, WHY are we moving around so much?

And for all those big numbers, South West is modest. Looking out of area - for next Tuesday, 63 flights from the South East to Scotland:
14 Gatwick to Scotland
38 Heathrow to Scotland
5 Stansted to Scotland
6 Luton to Scotland

63 flights, each 150 people suggested,  a further 50 x 4 car voyager equivalents?   I haven't looked at airports like London City either.   Nor in this case flights to Manchester, Leeds/Bradford, Newcastle, etc.

Need to deal with cost, speed, route capacity ... yes, bringing trains up to full length is a start.  From Bristol, switching from East Coast to West Coast for Scottish destinations?

This thread is drifting into the path of the HS2 thread. I think it is beginning to make the case I recently made there.

Perhaps a Ouigo type service might just be what would be needed to bridge the gap between cheap internal flights and rail travel cost wise. And do remember that for most of us you have to add the cost of getting to an airport, parking and transfers too if you drive.  Then add the check in time and time to travel to the airport and you lose a lot of the apparent advantages of air travel.

For me, getting to Manchester is a train every time, direct by Cross Country from Reading or Oxford.

You only have to look at what was achieved when Virgin introduced the Pendolino trains along with a service frequency of every 20 minutes between London and Manchester to see that is what’s needed to take the fight to the airlines. HS2 all the way between London and Scotland. Anything less wont break the demand for flights between the two IMHO.

Good (I think) ... it shows that everything joins up ...

Looking further north, there are currently 5 Flybe flights from Birmingham to Edinburgh. With a train every 2 hrs taking just on 4 hrs that would seem a good route for rail to make inroads into air maybe?  Sadly not, in March, Easyjet is introducing services from Glasgow and Edinburgh to Birmingham, 3 times a day, with lead in prices under £20. I suspect they will drive Flybe off the routes fairly quickly, but apart from that it's hardly heading in the right direction, is it?

(Flybe also fly Manchester to Edinburgh.  Another route where the speed and frequency of rail should make it an obvious choice.)

Should be easy for railways to catch up - all they need to do is compete on price, speed, reliability and comfort and they'll start to rival the airlines.

Flybe seems to in trouble according to BBC Radio 4.

Great concern to the local business community I'm hearing on the local radio.
Flybe seem to be on the brink of going under according to what I'm hearing.
Not good news, although if they do go down, in the short term GWR should do really good business (apart from a signalling problem at Totnes; weather related speed restrictions in Cornwall and possibly weather incident at Dawlish later today)!

It'll be very bad news for the Westcountry economy if they cease trading.

Sounds like there's a plan!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51100029

Looks only like a short term fix

Presumably the "climate emergency" is now forgotten about as it is proposed to make short haul air transport cheaper and therefore more popular.

Indeed.  The comments from one passenger who flies between Edinburgh and Manchester and would be "devastated" by their closure does beg the question whether he even knows there is a 3 hr train service every two hours between the cities. 

No, it's just put back into its rightful place: something we need to think about and act on but only when money can be made from it.

Fair point - Manchester to Edinburgh seems a daft flight, but I have 6 friends who are travelling from Exeter to Edinburgh for a wedding - 2 hours by air v 8 hours by train, and the flights are cheaper- no contest.

All a question of balance - environmental issues notwithstanding, regional airports are unquestionably a good thing for regional economies and journeys for which rail/road alternatives are too long to be practical - if the railways step up in terms of price, comfort and reliability they may provide more competition on shorter routes

I agree. Unfortunately even from Bristol to Scotland the balance is definitely in favour of air, but the railway doesn't help the environmental cause for those who do have the time and inclination to go the greener way by charging fares that are so much higher.

Exeter to London City by air seems a nonsense too, even more so once Crossrail opens.  And Birmingham to Edi/Gla too, when there are frequent services taking four hours.  I think the rail industry could be more aggressive at marketing these alternatives using social media targeted at those living in the relevant areas. Even London to Edinburgh now with two trains an hour, one of which takes 4hrs 20 mins, throughout the day should now be becoming the norm for travellers rather than the exception.

But I accept that for N Ireland, the Highlands and Islands, and from the South West to the North East and Scotland, air does for the moment have a role to play, so any solution needs to discourage shorter hops whilst recognising the importance to the regions of air links.

Bring back the Edinburgh-Brstol sleeper?

You would think so, wouldn't you? Except that one of my daughters here in Devon had to be at Maida Vale studios by 10.00 am one day. For the journey, the options were train (£136 single, £273 anytime return) on the first three Paddington trains of the day, going up the night before with much cheaper rail options but requiring a hotel, plus an overnight babysitter (guess who), or the 0700 Flybe to London City costing £33 and a £30 late train home. It was a nice day, and a lovely flight with lots of scenery to admire for the hour it took. I dropped her at the airport at 6.15, so check-in didn't extend the time much.

There will always be situations when air will be cheaper or otherwise preferable to rail.
With the present concerns regarding the climate, I do not feel that that air travel should be made cheaper by reduction in the duty, and thereby tilting the balance further towards air.

Indeed I would prefer to see an INCREASE in air passenger duty, so as to discourage air travel and encourage rail.

If we are serious about climate change, we need to fly less, not more.

Agree, that with that disparity in price people will choose air even when the time difference is marginal if not negative.

But.... when comparing the cheap air fares with rail, we need to remember why we're having this discussion.  Because Flybe were about to go bust, yet again, and have needed their shareholders to prop them up, again.  Maybe not surprising when they offer a fare of £20 + APD on a peak flight to London?

Personally, love the sleeper for distant work away; problem is that it doesn't always go to the right place, and the return leaves bloomin late.

Bristol to Edinburgh? Maybe but, please, can we make it a moving hotel. Checkins from 5 p.m. to 10 p.m., checkouts from 06:30 to 09:30.  Probably provide a connectional ticket for the areas.    If I have a couple of days work to do in - well - Coatbridge and can by myself a travel-with-bed  ...
* Leave my local station at Melksham 18:55
* Check in to my moving hotel at 20:30 at Temple Meads, grab a drink and bite to eat
* Up at 07:00, grab a coffee and perhaps breakfast
* 08:20 connection from downstairs out to Kirkwood.
All in one system to work out Melksham to Kirkwood.  All in one ticket.  No sitting  waiting around to board late in the evening.   Whether this is attractive and priced to attract enough people, and whether it makes enough use of the stock and staff .... I don't know.

Price?   Note you may be saving 2 nights of hotel costs.

https://youtu.be/QrrIRr9arkM

🙂

In that respect, they are not unlike some train and bus operators. I am sure that, like them, if Flybe has become a non-profit organisation, it was not by choice.

The economics of public transport never cease to amaze me. Flying 180 passengers for four hours in a new aircraft costing upwards of $150 million has made Sir Stelios a billionaire, even charging a pittance for the fares. Yet it seems very difficult to put food on the table by transporting four times that number in a 30-year old train built to hold half as many for the price of a fortnight's self catering in Benidorm, and no gain can ever be made from running buses, other than the big popular city centre routes.

Our current Prime Minister was interviewed on telly this morning, and seemed to consider domestic air routes as being essential to the economy and well-being of the country, helping to hold the union together and connecting far flung places. Whether he was thinking of minimising the time it takes to get to Cornwall and back in the event of another crisis that needs pictures of the Prime Minister looking concerned on the front page of the paper, or whether it was the use of Flybe as a feeder to larger airports, I don't know.

I have done domestic flights only twice, both from Bristol; once to Glasgow for business, saving probably two nights hotel and a day of useful work, once to Edinburgh for fun and culture. Both are further from Bristol than Paris or Brussels, neither of which I would consider by train for business, although if I had a day or two free, I wouldn't mind. I spurned domestic flights for rail getting from New York to Canada - 9 hours and fascinating, although I am glad we went first class - so I'm not all bad. Although I have flown from Bristol to Devon a couple of times, so maybe I am.

A surprise birthday weekend in London for my wife.
She works weekdays, not finishing until around 4.30pm, and starts Monday morning by 7.30am.
Train to London from Pz, so not arriving at the hotel there until midnight or so (maybe an expensive meal on the Pullman).
Sunday return from London - very iffy.
Flight from Newquay late afternoon to Southend, so hotel by early evening, and time for a relaxing meal.
Full day in London on Saturday.
Leisurely breakfast Sunday, with mid afternoon flight back to Newquay; home by early evening.

Flight it is.

Have taken the train to London & back for a family holiday to Vegas; train travel didn't involve weekends, so not a problem.

Flybe very good for us at Newquay.

I suspect it's because Easyjet tend to fly full planes on profitable routes without having a social obligation to maintain less profitable/loss making routes - If (for example) the Night Riviera wasn't heavily subsidised any normal business would close it down tomorrow.

Also worth remembering that not all Easyjet fares are a "pittance", only really so if you book well in advance, and there are very limited number of the cheapest tickets on each flight.

It's also a lean, efficient operation which minimises Opex, I reckon you'll find the majority of train drivers earn more than its pilots.

As TG says, many services would cease to operate without subsidy, across the entire transport spectrum, and it’s very important that they continue for social reasons.  Recent cuts to buses doesn’t bode well for the future.

Indeed, and I have no objection to subsidies for train services, buses, and some ferries.
However I do not believe that air travel should be subsidised unless there is some truly exceptional reason to do so.

If people wish to fly within the mainland UK to save time or for some other reason, then in my view they should pay a fare that reflects the true and non subsidised costs of providing the service. And they should pay a tax or levy to reflect the environmental cost of flying, this tax or levy should be gradually increased year on year.
I would only permit subsidies in the case of small and remote islands that are not accessible by boat or ship, and these subsidies should be gradually reduced year on year.
Within living memory, some islands were only accessible when weather and tides were favourable. Those days may yet return, but not overnight.
I would exempt electric aircraft from any such charges or levies, electric aircraft may soon become the norm for short hops to islands.

Really? How many islands (within the British Isles) aren't accessible by sea, but have airports.

It's perfectly reasonable to provide subsidies to enable those further flung parts of the UK, particularly the Highlands and Islands to enable them to have half decent access to the rest of the country at an affordable price. The amount of carbon emitted by such social lifelines will be miniscule in comparison with any other form of carbon emission. By the way, I'm not sure I regard Newquay (ie Cornwall) in that category, although  it's marginal.

AFAIK several Scottish islands are only reliably accessible by air. The "airport" is a flat bit of grass not a large or elaborate structure. One route takes about 90 seconds and is reputedly the shortest commercial route in the world.
Continued subsidy might be justified in such cases.
However within the mainland UK, rail is the future, and a largely electrified railway at that.

If climate change is to be taken seriously, we cant carry on flying to anything like the present extent.

https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-fly-on-the-shortest-commercial-flight-in-the-world-2018-3?r=US&IR=T (https://www.businessinsider.com/what-its-like-to-fly-on-the-shortest-commercial-flight-in-the-world-2018-3?r=US&IR=T)

Is the sort of flight that might justify subsidy, and that could probably use an electric plane.

The example you cite does have sea connections, so don't think it counts.

There's a difference between saying we can't carry on flying to anything like the present extent and making life so damn difficult for a very small minority of the population that would make not a jot of difference in terms of the UK's contribution to carbon emissions.

If you're that concerned about carbon emissions then ban all meat tomorrow (including your beloved steak), as the emissions generated by cows will far outweigh a few flights around the Scottish Islands.  (I expect you're going to tell me now that you've got a herd of cattle fed on specially adapted feed to minimise emissions, and carbon extraction facilities in the cowshed. )

And ban all non-essential travel from tomorrow too.  No football matches, no going to the cinema, and let's introduce clothes rationing through coupons to minimise the carbon impact of excessive clothes production too, whilst we're at it.  Absurd?  Unrealistic?  Yes, but if you're that evangelical about the subject then why not. It'll save much more than the odd flight to Papa Westray that only consumes 10 kg of fuel.

I have no cattle, low carbon or otherwise.
I have however reduced my intake of red meat, and generally eat locally produced free range meat.
I do not fly and have not done so for nearly 20 years, and flew very little before then.
I do not drive, and minimise use of taxis.
I heat my home only moderately, from locally produced firewood and off peak electricity.
I keep a reserve of anthracite, and of paraffin, and of candles, but consume very little of these fossil fuels whilst times are normal.
Clothes rationing would not worry me, I only replace clothes when worn out, never for fashion reasons. I think nothing of wearing uniform sports shirts issued by previous employers.
I never attend concerts or football matches, but would not begrudge these pleasures to others, I would hope however that more people would chose bus or train rather than air travel or driving to such events.

I think nothing of wearing shirts issued by other people's employers!

(Only one in fact; if you see me wearing a Hewlett-Packard polo shirt, it's the one my BiL gave me because he was too big for it.)

Announced today that the Newquay to London flight will change/revert back to Gatwick (from Heathrow).  Heathrow had only been available for a year before reverting. 
Last flight from Heathrow March 28th; first flight to Gatwick March 29th.
Southend unaffected.
Additional flights to Manchester & Edinburgh.
New route to Schipol.

New operator LoganAir commences April with flights to Norwich, Aberdeen, City of Derry, Glasgow, Newcastle & Inverness.

Lundy in winter for one .

From The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/sweden-london-train-sleeper-malmo-amsterdam-cologne-munich-rail-a9288206.html)


Talk of other services

Oooh - that sounds interesting - but will I live long enough to see this actually happen?

Yes  - talk is of a 2022 service - excellent data / review at https://back-on-track.eu/swedish-draft-night-train-report-will-set-night-trains-on-the-tracks-from-scandinavia-in-2022/

Having said which, projects sometimes (!) overrun - Berlin Brandenburg Airport anyone

Fascinating idea. It remains to be seen how good the end product is, and  how many  people will take an overnight sleeper  train and a couple of connections to  get from Sweden to London, against a couple of hours on a plane. It will at least let some people make a statement oof sorts, but it sounds expensive.