[Zardoz]

This is hilarious. Apparently a lot of people in the airline industry think passenger traffic in 2025 will be 78% greater than it is now!

Yeah, right! We'll be lucky if there's any commercial airline industry at all by then.

Aviation experts say a $40-billion GPS system is needed to handle the huge volume of traffic in the skies by 2025.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he 1950s-era network is in dire need of a technological overhaul as passenger traffic is expected to jump 78% to nearly 1.3 billion annually by 2025. But modernizing highways in the sky with a precise satellite-based system carries a staggering $40-billion price tag, and the Federal Aviation Administration has yet to persuade Congress and the airlines to help pay for it.

[Twilight]

Agreed. The UK is presently committing billions of pounds to expanding several airports to handle more traffic. Meanwhile, the North Sea tanks. It's dumb. I can't believe the Department of Trade & Industry and the Department of Transport don't share their thoughts. Although at some levels there must be awareness and an acceptance that these projects are necessary to maintain levels of employment and economic growth as long as possible. Construction is the UK's single largest industry, and an informed reaction to our energy future would make much of it redundant.

[pup55]

Well, I got on Orbitz.com this morning, and found out it costs $337 for one passenger to fly round trip between Chicago and Walley World. It will take about 7 hours, what with the flight time, plus a one hour stopover in Phoenix.

To do the same 2200 miles by car (assuming you are driving the average Family Truckster at 20 mpg) will take about 100 gallons of gas each way, at $3.25 you are looking at maybe $700 or $800 to make the same trip. We all know that the price of gas is closer to 4 clams out in LA, so you are probably looking at $1000.

Obviously if you have a flock of kids, want to stop by Cousin Eddie's place, and want to drop off Aunt Edna and her dog in Phoenix, it is going to be cheaper to drive this than to fly. It will take you at least three days to get out there, maybe more depending on how much trouble you have. Plus, presumably you will have to pay for hotels, food, etc.

But if you are traveling with Christie Brinkley and want to get out there to do the rides and come home without too many adventures, it is still just as cheap or cheaper to fly.

So the question is: how has this situation come about? The answer is: the airlines will give you and Christie a cheap flight in order to get your butt in a seat. Your flight is being subsidized by the guy sitting next to you that is going out there for a business trip, and is paying $1100 for the same trip.

Secondly, it is well known that a lot of these airlines are losing copious amounts of money every month, so in effect, the airline system is subsidizing you to do this trip by borrowing money from the banks so as to keep flying. The banks and the stockholders may end up holding the bag, the jury is still out. United, the specific airline that is running this flight, has a .2% profit margin, which is really pretty pathetic given an growing economy.

So, for the time being, people are making an economically rational choice, namely to take the cheap, easy way out to where they want to go, and the system is subsidizing them in various ways. Conceptually, people will catch on to this, and eventually, the planes will fly full, and they will be gradually able to increase prices, and the situation will come to a new balance. Theoretically. That's why they keep the game going. The airlines think that they will eventually be able to fly full, plus charge enough to make money.

The three weak links in this theory: if the price of jet fuel and everything else get so high that the flight is too expensive to operate, they will lose money anyway. Secondly, at some point, there may be a problem finding enough people with $700 to spend for a trip to Walley World because there are too many people unemployed and out of work. Thirdly, the businesses that pay for a lot of air travel will quit putting up with being overcharged and make their employees fly cheaper tickets, albeit with more restrictions.

An idiot airline analyst will look at the growth numbers, and say "we are going to have to double the size of the system", not taking into consideration that the system as it is happens to be really sick, marginally profitable, and basically paying people to fly rather than drive just to keep going. Go figure.

[Boris555]

Sorry kids.

The planes will continue to fly in 2025. And there will be more of them.

The airline industry is one industry where radical new fuels can be rolled out fairly quickly. All of your fuel distribution points are only at airports. You can swap out jet engines much easier than car engines, and there are only a few major manufacturers, so changes can be quickly agreed upon and rolled out.

And fuel cost is THE major cost of running an airline, possibly even greater now than both depreciation and maintenance. So the airlines have BIG incentives to modernize whenever possible.

It ain't like the auto industry.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Boris555', 'S')orry kids.

The planes will continue to fly in 2025. And there will be more of them.
...
It ain't like the auto industry.

[Sys1]

Boris555: More planes? For what? A dead globalization? Tourism for jobless people? As an alternative to car? Please tell us!
I bet that if you're still alive in 2025 (look how i'm optimistic), you will more likely worry about how hungry and thirsty you are than thinking about a mp3 compilation suited for this 12 hours flight leading to some paradise island.

[malcomatic_51]

Zardoz, I don't think you should be very surprised. All industries talk up their futures to keep shareholders' money coming in. Besides, they don't really know when or how Peak Oil will strike. They'll go on saying how their industry is going to grow even after it has gone into decline. The mood of the US oil industry, even well into the 1980s, was that it was defeatist to talk of it being a shrinking asset. Hope springs eternal and all that.

Boris555, what is this miracle fuel that is going to spare the airline industry? Hydrogen? Ethanol? Rubber bands? Yup, rubber bands it is - and you can do the winding, laddy.

I am increasingly convinced that TPTB will never admit Peak Oil has happened even years after it is clear from the data that it has happened. The savvier people will gradually get to know what the problem is by word of mouth or the Internet. The rest will just get pissed and have the occasional riot. The reason why PO is so especially deadly to open democracies is because the bribery of "panem et circenses" that keeps people from rebelling at their monotonous, degrading underpaid and stressful jobs is totally dependent on cheap oil: cheap motor cars, cheap flights, cheap consumer goodies etc etc. When they come to an end - so does the current social contract and a new contract then begins.

And it will not be open democracy, of that you may be sure.

[Gerben]

I've also seen these kind of predictions made by our national planning agency. It's a simple extrapolation. I'm one of those people who's not easily convinced of all those doom scenario's. I also expect that air traffic will continue to grow even after peak oil (which according to some people is now).

There is a correlation between GDP and airline traffic. The pessimists who believe that GDP will decrease expect airline traffic to decrease, those that expect no more than a slowdown of the economy will expect airline traffic to adapt and continue to grow.

There are plenty of alternatives. The first publications about using alternative airline fuels such as FT-fuels are already published. Hydrogen is also an alternative. Or LNG.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Boris555', 'S')orry kids.

The planes will continue to fly in 2025. And there will be more of them.

The airline industry is one industry where radical new fuels can be rolled out fairly quickly. All of your fuel distribution points are only at airports. You can swap out jet engines much easier than car engines, and there are only a few major manufacturers, so changes can be quickly agreed upon and rolled out.

And fuel cost is THE major cost of running an airline, possibly even greater now than both depreciation and maintenance. So the airlines have BIG incentives to modernize whenever possible.

It ain't like the auto industry.

[Madpaddy]

Forget about Peak Oil for a second.

I still believe that airline travel will HAVE to be drastically curtailed very soon in order for countries to meet greenhouse gas emission targets. A country like Ireland or the UK could slap a supposed carbon tax on flying making it prohibitively expensive to fly with the added bonus of holiday cash being spent at home instead of Turkey or Greece. If airline travel was to double in the coming years, we could throw our hat at even attempting to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Anyway I look at it I can't see more than 6 or 7 major players in the airline industry in a decade. Airbus with the giant new aircraft sees the writing on the wall and is gambling with the theory that in 10 years time we will have a few dozen major aaviation hubs in the world. If you want to get from A to B, you fly to the nearest hub and take the train, bus, bicycle or whatever. This is what I believe would happen even if PO was not a problem.

[patrick_b]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'W')ell, I got on Orbitz.com this morning, and found out it costs $337 for one passenger to fly round trip between Chicago and Walley World. It will take about 7 hours, what with the flight time, plus a one hour stopover in Phoenix.

To do the same 2200 miles by car (assuming you are driving the average Family Truckster at 20 mpg) will take about 100 gallons of gas each way, at $3.25 you are looking at maybe $700 or $800 to make the same trip. We all know that the price of gas is closer to 4 clams out in LA, so you are probably looking at $1000.
....
An idiot airline analyst will look at the growth numbers, and say "we are going to have to double the size of the system", not taking into consideration that the system as it is happens to be really sick, marginally profitable, and basically paying people to fly rather than drive just to keep going. Go figure.

[MC2]

Really interesting topic! From a personal convenience standpoint, I'd like to see things go back to the "old days," when only the rich and those with real business to do somewhere would fly. It's extremely annoying to have to deal with the horrors of today's airlines. After realizing that my seat, paid for out of a business account (although, usually not IN business class), usually costs two to three times as much as the dude trying to stuff his oversized travel bag in the overhead, prior to squeezing into the child-sized seat between my aisle seat and the window seat, I can only grimace as he squeezes in. Smiling an apology, he steps on my foot again, and finally settles into his purchased seat, giving off wafts of that old familiar continental odor of "we don't need no stinkin' deoderant." Glancing over his shoulder at his schedule, I see he paid 247.00 for his ticket; mine was 900.
What we need is for the prices to go up so that people like that find it more agreeable to their wallet to take steerage on a slow boat. Just too many people are flying, and the profit models for the airlines are the reason why. Raise the prices enough to make a profit, cut back on the flights, reduce carrying capacity of the planes and give people adult-sized seats, provide food, (dammit!), and pay your crew enough that maybe they'll not be so rude.

There, I feel better. Maybe PO will improve things in that department.

[Twilight]

Another thing, most European countries are content to have one national flag carrier, those that have been privatised often being nudged along with hidden subsidies or favourable treatment almost as much as the state-owned days of old. The US on the other hand, is effectively attempting to maintain several, and it is notable that even with massive bail-outs in 2001-2002, they are still in and out of Chapter 11 like a celebrity visiting rehab. Oil depletion aside, one or two major US airlines should be bankrupt anyway. We don't need to make any assumptions about future physical availability of oil to see that the industry should be contracting worldwide to reflect the real economic situation. Unless you think you should be able to jump on a commuter jet for under €100 and hop between cities with the plane less than 1/4 full and 1-3 rows to yourself. Been there, done that, on more than one occasion. And I can't help but wonder how the hell that model has a future.

[mommy22]

MY husband is actually in the parts business for aircraft (tires) and he says too, that the industry has huge plans for even huger aircraft (Boeing's jumbo bird is being worked on now, and Airbus has a model already flying) carrying 7-800 passengers. As it is, there is a huge aircraft show next week in Paris, which if you all are interested, look for the latest in the news next week.

[untothislast]

The global economy depends on expectations of continued growth. PO signals the beginning of contraction and, in Heinberg's term, relative 'collapse'.

Planes will no doubt still be operational in 2025, but the era of cheap travel (care of fuel subsidies and advantageous pricing to the airline companies) will be long gone. Nor will customers enjoy the same levels of disposable income to back up their discretionary spending habits.

Finally, why would you want to board a plane to travel somewhere possibly even worse off and unstable than the place you're leaving behind?

[Kyn]

Well, the ariline industry wants to cut fuel consumption per km by half to 2020. The Airbus gets 79 mpg (per passenger).

And there are 2.4 billion potential Indian and Chinese tourists.
The Peakoilers claim that higher oil prices would have to mean that economic growth disappears.
Oil prices increased from less than 20 to more than 60 $ in the last few years, and global economic growth is now stronger than before.

I think, as long as there's economic growth, there will be growing numbers of passengers to be transported. The question is, if PO will mean a global economic recession. I don't think so, as there will be enough substitutes - and at higher prices, energy effiency will be increased while the energy intensity of our economies falls sharply.

Airlines and governments seem to think the same. I doubt the government just wants to keep the construction industry grwoing by building a few airports. They could do that better ih they'd subsidies building new efficient homes for millions of Britons...

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('untothislast', '.')..Planes will no doubt still be operational in 2025...

[Twilight]

Growth is in the eyes of whoever is doing the book-keeping. I doubt we are going to have real economic growth much longer. There are no substitutes for oil as a transportation fuel, certainly not for aviation. Once supplies start dropping, so will the companies that bet their future on the boom. And until infrastructure tanks, I will be quite happy to milk any government subsidies that come my way. The test is not too distant.

[Kyn]

No substitutes? BTL, CTL, tar sands....?
They're insignificant today, because we don't yet need them. But if PO makes it necessary,we can use them.

[PeakingAroundtheCorner]

Er...I'm sorry, what?

You lost me when I boarded the plane with Christie Brinkley.

RAWRRRR!