I'm writing this in response to Karen's comment to a previous blog asking about video-conferencing (VC) as a substitute or supplement to air travel. For me I believe that it is and will increasingly be a supplement to air travel but not a substitute...

Karen,

Thanks for the comments on my previous blog.

 Aviation is an industry that is a critical part of the global community we live in. ATAG - the Air Tranporation Action Group (www.enviro.aero) states that 85% of all air travel is essential (either for business purposes, or to visit disparate family members). As well, air travel directly and indirectly accounts for the generation of 8% of the world Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  (I'll walk through those numbers in more detail in a future blog)

However, VC and teleco's are now a practical alternative to some face-2-face meetings.

At Bombardier we also video-conference and hold innumerable telephone conferences. My own view is that v-c may be good as a substitute for some but not the majority of face-2-face (f2f) meetings. As a rule, I suggest that in the future maybe at most 1 of 3 meetings that might have been accomplished by flying might be replaced by v-c and teleco's. However, there is a time and a need for f2f meetings. For example, I work with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) on many of their CAEP (Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection) working groups. We have set meetings, alternating between Europe and North America, usually 2 or 4 per year f2f, and in between we do our individual work for the task force and hook up by teleco. So that does reduce costs, but we need to know who we're working with, and spend real time with eachother to build trust and maintain networks. I expect that's true even within an global or x-Canada organization.

Relatedly, when I was working on my PhD more than a decade ago now the researchers and pop'r writing at the time predicted that all we'd be doing a year from now (any now!) would be v-c and teleco's. I'm still waiting for that to happen. I like some of the new technologies but it's still not the same as f2f.

The other comment, getting back to the 8% GDP statistic is just to say that cargo is a large part of the aviation economy, and it either travels by air or it doesn't. Video-conferencing won't make a difference on that segment of the industry. Should we all embrace a shop-locally, eat-locally, 100 mile philosophy, then maybe even the current increasing growth of air-cargo travel will change over time...

In terms of your second query regarding forecasting traffic: it is my sense that there only a few individuals and fewer companies that are cutting back on travel due to concerns about emissions and climate change. However, you are right that they are cutting back because of the cost of travel...In that respect, yes, all aviation forecasts anticipate that air travel in the near term (say 10 years) will be impacted by the rising fuel prices. My forecast, as an example, explicitly anticipates that: the number of older, less fuel-efficient planes in the commercial passenger market will retire at an accelerated rate. It also discusses how, esp. in North America, airlines will 'right size' their fleets, i.e. put appropriate sized aircraft on routes to minimize the number of empty seats. Other options include reducing the frequency of flights on a particular route, reducing weight within the cabin, discouraging passengers from bring "extra" bags along (through fees for 1st and 2nd bags),and making the price of a ticket reflect the actual cost of flying.

Let me know how you find your VC going. I'm interested in others' experience with it. I'd be interested also in knowing how reader's are dealing with increased fuel prices in general, both for business and family travel; are you cutting back, where; are you teleco'ing more, how's that working out?

Steven. 

There is a lot of myth, controversy and confusion about the role of aviation in today’s global environment and the industry’s commitment to environmental sustainability. On both sides of the fence you can find ‘scare-mongering’, and ‘green washing’.

Part of what I hope to do during this blog is address many of the issues, controversial and non-controversial, that surround aviation and the environment. The industry itself, to me, is much like Canadians in general; they rarely claim the bragging rights they are due, rather they just keep pushing forward doing their job, assuming that most of us ‘will get it’, or appreciate it.  In terms of the environment, however, it is clear that we ALL need to be better informed on the issues, the accomplishments, the risks of the status-quo.

Before I start, you need to know that my bias is that I work for a large Canadian aerospace manufacturing firm. My overall job is macro-economic analysis and strategy relating to the aerospace;  and one component of that job is environmental sustainability and aviation.

So here’s a view of the industry from 30,000 feet:

The air transport industry generates a total of 32 million jobs globally:

            5.5 million direct jobs in airlines and airport industry

            780,000 jobs in civil aerospace; airplane and engine manufactures, etc.

8.3 million indirect jobs through purchases of goods and services from companies in its supply chain

            2.0 million jobs through spending by industry employees

            17.1 million jobs through air transport’s catalytic impact on tourism.

Translating that, this means that the air transport industry alone is bigger than most developing nations and countries in economic terms. It generates some 8% of worldwide gross domestic product or some $3,560 billion US. (Aviation manufacturing impact in Ontario, Canada amounts to some $7 Billion (CAD) annually and more than 25,000 jobs). Globally, the aviation industry transports 2.2 billion people annually AND represents 35% of all freight transported worldwide.

These are not insignificant numbers and are used to provide you, the reader, with a sense of the scope and importance of aviation in a global community. Clearly, the industry is not going to disappear. Rather it needs to address environmental issues in a means that is sustainable, in terms of economics and society. 

Here’s the current aviation environment environment”

            The research from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that air transportations’ contribution to climate change represents some 2% of the man-made CO₂ emissions worldwide and is expected to grow to 3% by 2050.

The amount of passenger traffic in the next 20 years is expected to double and then likely to double again by 2050. The difference between the expected CO_{2 .}growth rate and traffic growth suggests that the industry has already begun addressing aviation environment concerns. For example:

• aircraft entering today’s fleet are 70% more fuel-efficient ago and;
• 20 decibels quieter (i.e. 75% quieter) than 40 years

The international aviation community, in the form of IATA (International Air Transportation Association) has committed itself to “working towards” carbon-neutral growth and to no overall increase in carbon emissions in spite of traffic growth, as a first step towards a carbon-free future. Lofty goals, the next few years will demonstrate the nature and extent of the international communities’ commitment in the form of giving form and developing action plans to meet these goals.

That’s the big picture, there are more details, and more to talk about moving forward!

Please post comments and questions. If you want detailed citations, contact me directly.