Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum [home] and [about]
from GWR - Travel with confidence
Forum in and beyond Coronavirus
DfT Covid Travel Advice
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 01/11/20 - Ashley Down Survey Closes
16/11/20 - TransWilts Stakeholders
18/11/20 - Melksham Rail User Group
21/11/20 - RailFuture Severnside Saltford
Random Image
Train Running Polls Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
October 28, 2020, 10:50:58 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[116] Aurora, Paragon, Azuma, IET, Nova 1, Javelin
[90] West Somerset Railway - heritage line, Bishops Lydeard to Mine...
[46] Should we be encouraging mask use where possible even for the ...
[41] Public transport, Climate change, Coronavirus and Brexit. Crys...
[30] Devon Metro
[13] Paddington 24/7, channel 5, 21:00 tonight
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
Author Topic: “flygskam”, or “flight-shame”, movement  (Read 3899 times)
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 30950



View Profile WWW Email
« on: April 26, 2019, 03:28:43 pm »

From The Guardian

Quote
“flygskam”, or “flight-shame”, movement

The success of Sweden’s “flygskam”, or “flight-shame”, movement means that Karlsson struggles to respond to calls or emails from less high-profile customers than Greta. He said he had been working 16-hour days, nearly seven days a week, trying to meet the surge in demand, with bookings at his Centralens Resebutik agency increasing eightfold this January compared with two years ago.

“We were already stretched to a limit last year and now we’ve doubled that,” said Karlsson, who is based in the city of Kalmar. “If we had greater resources, then we could have done much more. The demand and interest is much, much bigger than we can cope with.”

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!
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, and on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest.
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 5025


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2020, 09:00:21 am »

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.
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3067


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2020, 09:55:20 am »

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.
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
broadgage
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3410



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2020, 01:09:05 pm »

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.
Logged

A proper intercity train has a minimum of 8 coaches, gangwayed throughout, with first at one end, and a full sized buffet car between first and standard.
It has space for cycles, surfboards,luggage etc.
A 5 car DMU is not a proper inter-city train. The 5+5 and 9 car DMUs are almost as bad.
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 620


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2020, 01:56:43 pm »

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.
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10232


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2020, 02:13:09 pm »

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)
Logged
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 620


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2020, 04:39:50 pm »


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)


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.   
Logged
rogerw
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 999



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2020, 04:54:27 pm »

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.
Logged

I like to travel.  It lets me feel I'm getting somewhere.
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3067


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2020, 06:55:02 pm »

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.
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3067


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2020, 06:56:01 pm »

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.
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.
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 10232


View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2020, 10:18:26 am »


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)

The risk with that is that airlines "reverse fuel-tanker" which would itself increase carbon emissions, and probably substantially so. [b[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[/b], 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.

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.

Quote
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.

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?
Logged
Oxonhutch
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 856



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2020, 11:18:13 am »

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!  Grin
Logged
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3067


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2020, 11:38:48 am »

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.
Logged

Tuesday had come down through Dundrum and Foster Avenue, brine-fresh from sea-travel, a corn-yellow sun-drench that called forth the bees at an incustomary hour to their bumbling.
GBM
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 634


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2020, 11:49:24 am »

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
Logged

Personal opinion only.  Writings not representative of any union, collective, management or employer. (Think that absolves me...........)
4064ReadingAbbey
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 393


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2020, 11:51:56 am »

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!
Logged
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page