[TreebeardsUncle]

Actually, agree that while my price estimates for gasoline over the coming decades were plausible, the predicted effects were overly mild and delayed. Yes, the current commerical airline industry will greatly decline when oil gets up around $200/barrel. Flying will become prohibitively expensive to most travelers, particularly vactioners, and many business travelers. This should occur before 2020.
What proportion of current gasoline demand do folks truly expect bio-fuels to replace. Have seen reports that if all the US cropland was devoted to bio-fuels even then they would only supply 20 to 25% of current gasoline demand.

[MrBill]

It was interesting to note that three 'all business' airlines collapsed along with some charter airlines. This may disprove the belief that higher nominal fares can completely make up for an overall drop in demand as cost cutting and efficiency gains proved to be inadequate.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ore than a dozen carriers have collapsed in the past six months, with U.K.-based business-class operator Silverjet Plc the latest casualty, grounding planes last week after running out of cash. Long-haul budget carrier Oasis Hong Kong Airlines Ltd., Columbus, Ohio-based Skybus Airlines Inc. and Frontier Airlines Holdings Inc. of Denver also failed in recent weeks.
'Perfect Storm'
Bisignani said the surge in fuel expenses has combined with slowing demand after the tightening of global credit to create a ``perfect storm.'' The group forecast a $4.5 billion profit as recently as April 1.
Bisignani said the situation facing the airline industry is "grim,'' with oil prices obliterating the benefits of a 19 percent increase in fuel efficiency and an 18 percent fall in non-fuel unit costs since 2001. Traffic growth is likely to slow to 3.9 percent this year, compared with 7.4 percent growth in passenger traffic in 2007, he said.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMarcHart', ' ')I think the showbiz industry is being hurt more by the peaceful and sophisticated home entretainment centers.

[dorlomin]

One thing is certain the future will suprise us all. However in terms of what will "survive" and what will not it will be very heavily dependent over what time lines you are talking about and the actions of goverments and peoples to address the issue of resource depletion.

The trucking industry will not dissapear in a flash, there will be a period of extreme pain for it until it adjusts its rates to reflect input costs, then the pain will be spread as inflation throughout society. It will steadily reduce but never really disapear.

The biggest short term loosers will be the tourist destinations reliant on large numbers traveling long distances such as the mediteranian islands, Turkey, Thailand and so on. Some such as Thailand may be able to rapidly change to accomodate Chinese and Middle Eastern tourists though. Flexibility and understanding the problem are the key to this. Of the Medeteranian Islands those that can adjust to return to being playgrounds for the wealthy have a chance, those that cant will die back horribly. No one wants to be a tourist in a bust town.

Conversly the older tourist destinations in the US and Europe will like surge amazingly even if there is a depression. Places like the Alps, the English south coast and the French Normandy region, areas that are accessable to the European and US population centers by rail will flourish. Off the top of my head, towns like Scarbourgh and Blackpool will become proverbial boomtowns. Im sure the US people can come up with similar examples for the states.

A big winner people seem not to be thinking of is coastal shipping. A return to tramp steamers coasting with containers would be a fearsome competative advantage in shipping costs. Substituting time for energy (and cost) getting goods to London from Manchester might be cheaper by boat as long as people dump JIT deliveries. Especialy if the coasters take on some of the more innovative wind assistant technologies. Moving goods by sea is supposidly a very energy efficient means of doing so. The government that graspss that will have a head up in the comming changes.

The airliner manufacturers are liable to be very hard hit. The big two have fuel efficient models out there that they are keen to sell. In theory these are great products for a time when fuel efficiency become such an important theme in bussiness, however they have scaled there products that they need huge volumes of sales to break even, there manufacturing is very widely distributed and the there customers are liable to be in long term distress, the only significant sales are likely to come from the Gulf and maybe China but probibly not.

They will not dissapear for a while but there shareholders will be very badly hurt. They are liable to waver in and out of bankruptcy and restructuring. It will be a death of a leviathan like watching the UK ship building go through its decades long death throws.

The space industry will contract but should be about the last piece of civilisation to be kept open by government. It is just so increadibly valuable. Especialy weather satalites but many types of earth monitoring satalites are liable to be kept going. There costs are not really energy related but the cost of design and manufacture. It is even possible for innovative companies like scaled composites or some other to come up with cheaper and more flexible delivery means that could see us reatain our global satalite chains.

Manned space is a different kettle of fish.

I can see endless pain and suffering for the financial industry though. Who ever truly grasps the full extent of what peak oil means first and gets there money into the right places will be laughing those in all the wrong places will suffer and suffer until they eventualy die off.

Flexibility, innovation and grasping the nettle of the resource depletion problem are the keys that each nation has to stand up too and deliver. Either that or it will be assless chaps on bikes hunting 'guzzeline'.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', 'I')t was interesting to note that three 'all business' airlines collapsed along with some charter airlines. This may disprove the belief that higher nominal fares can completely make up for an overall drop in demand as cost cutting and efficiency gains proved to be inadequate.

[MrBill]

Yes, that is my understanding. They were burning through their cash reserves faster than they could pass along higher fuel prices to passengers. However, the ingrained corruption surrounding incuments and landing rights also means that these business airlines that come is as later-comers and outsiders, always start at a disadvantage to begin with.

It comes down to product mix. Business may make more money than economy or discount, but a larger airline can eat away at a business competitor by temporarily subsidizing business with their other routes assuming they have the cash flow to keep doing so.

Very anti-competitive, but some state airlines or privatized airlines with a state ownership either reap benefits by having access to prefered airports, cheaper landing rights, better time slots and/or access to deeper pools of capital to keep flying regardless. Witness Air Italia. It should have been dead and buried more than a decade ago. They cannot dig themselves out of their own hole, but they can be a spoiler to other airlines with a better business model just the same. Too much capacity.

UPDATE:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s U.S. airlines reel from soaring oil prices and a sinking domestic economy, most of their European rivals look much better placed to ride out the storm. The reasons range from their ability - unlike most of their U.S. competitors - to insure against escalating fuel costs, to the fact that a much larger proportion of their flights serve lucrative routes.

But the outlook is not the same for all European carriers. Among the strong players are Air France, which is reaping the benefits of its acquisition of KLM, and Lufthansa, which is doing the same with Swiss International Air Lines. The two acquiring airlines succeeded in increasing the number of passengers per plane - their "load factor" in aviation parlance - on the airlines they absorbed.

Significantly, analysts say, both those transformative deals took place after the 2001 terror attacks in the United States and amid the ensuing global downturn in air travel, while many U.S. airlines limped through that dark period under bankruptcy protection.

Most European airlines that were not part of the consolidation trend, like Alitalia, which today is surviving off Italian government support, are stuck in the same position as their U.S. counterparts: unable to protect themselves against soaring fuel costs by so-called hedging in the futures markets. Only airlines with strong balance sheets are able to hedge, as commodity traders and banks rarely take a chance on a weak counterparty.

[cube]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MrBill', '.')..
It comes down to product mix. Business may make more money than economy or discount, but a larger airline can eat away at a business competitor by temporarily subsidizing business with their other routes assuming they have the cash flow to keep doing so.
...
Very anti-competitive,
...
Too much capacity.

[MrBill]

Life is a game of attrition! ; - ))

A good business model is a mix of short and long-term survival, so even a great business plan needs to generate short-term cash flow to pay for long-term projects. Of course, being the last man standing, so to speak, means that reduced competition will eventually lead to monopolistic-like profits that reduce consumer choice and cost more.

However, just as interesting is that we see once again that allowing companies to operate from Chapter 11 protection is not always the best policy, and by sheltering these airlines from competition can lead to unforeseen consequences like a sick industry that eventually cannot compete against stronger foreign rivals.