Route choices matter

Three aspects must be in place, if an airline means to continue operations in the future. They are social, ecological and financial sustainability.

Ecology will rule the future. Surveys on the importance of environmental and responsibility issues return crushing results, however. Customers are not interested, it has no impact on choices. In surveys one in ten may be prepared to compensate for their flights, but when flight passengers’ actual behaviour is examined, the result appears quite different – the number is non-existent.

When destinations and means of travel are chosen, an ecological approach clearly goes out the window. The price level and amount of sun are decisive.  In the media destructive effects of flying and tourism are covered in big headlines, with celebrities declaring their abhorrence of flying.

Is it a question of ego-tripping rather than eco-tripping?

Good ideas and thoughts in this debate are often drowned in fanatical nay-saying and tunnel vision, with discussion meandered between extremes. Facts need to be set in the right proportion. One activity, one industrial sector will not topple or save this world, even if that one sector is essential for an efficient global economy. Choices have an enormous impact, not just the boycotting of one industry.

Did you know, by the way, that the cement industry produces 5% of the world’s CO2 emissions? And this process simply cannot be changed. How many column inches are devoted to the cement industry? Are they climate enemy number one? Flying, with its 2% CO2 emissions, seems to be the big bad wolf; non-one has heard of cement’s contribution.

I believe nevertheless that increasing environmental awareness will affect the travel business. This may happen via companies and the public administration. A number of companies and public bodies already ask airlines detailed environmental questions in their invitations to tender. Have you taken action to combat climate change? What kind of environmental programmes do you have? What is you carbon footprint? What kind of water-, material- and energy-saving programmes do you have?

However, in corporate agreements to date euros and dollars have been the determining factor. A low price always wins; emissions have no impact in this game.

Companies’ campaigns to reduce flying by x per cent are to my mind most peculiar. At the same time, route and aircraft choices that have an enormous influence, are left completely ignored.

When the choice is between a more expensive option with modern aircraft plus a direct connection to the destination and a cheap flight with ageing high-emission aircraft and many stopovers on the way, customers often decide on the latter. The outcome, however, is higher CO2 figures, even though the number of journeys is reduced.

A sensible comparison of alternatives is what’s needed, not populist demands to stop flying. If we are truly interested in the environment. We may like to dress other saving targets in a green cloak. But under that cloak it is easy to discover the facts, if you examine the available choices closely.

If you fly from Central Europe to China taking the most direct or a circuitous route, it is easy to calculate the environmental effects. Even if you make three trips instead of five, the fact is that fewer trips produce more emissions, if you choose the circuitous route. Instead of prohibitions we really need better reasoning.

Consider how you fly! Save yourself and the environment!

Kati Ihamäki