CorpComms Magazine

It should be a time of celebration for airlines and plane makers. The disastrous post-September 11 days, when stocks plummeted and fuel prices skyrocketed, are a distant memory, and record numbers of people are flying.

 Instead, the aviation industry is fighting a rear-guard action against a ferocious onslaught from environmental campaigners, media and politicians eager to climb aboard the climate change bandwagon.

This summer, hundreds of protesters camped at Heathrow and other airports to demonstrate against the aviation industry's expansion. Even those who once encouraged foreign travel are turning on the very companies that made it possible.

Mark Ellingham, founder of the Rough Guides travel book series, deplores what he calls 'binge flying', adding: 'If the travel industry rosily goes ahead as it is doing, ignoring the effect carbon emissions from flying is having on climate change, we are putting ourselves in a very similar position to the tobacco industry.'

It may sound hypocritical from a man who made millions extolling the virtues of exotic locations, but his comments have captured the nation's imagination - and inspired political debate. At a time when the nation's politicians are striving to prove their green credentials - witness the new prime minister's holiday in England - it is hardly surprising that all parties agree on the case for higher aviation tax.

In February, when he was chancellor, Gordon Brown doubled Air Passenger Duty, justifying the levy by claiming the aviation industry is not meeting its environmental responsibilities. The additional tax will cost all airlines flying out of British airports around £1 bn this year.

The Conservatives' proposals are even more far-reaching: charging fuel duty or VAT on domestic flights; replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per-flight tax levied on airlines that would, in turn, penalise the dirtiest engines the hardest; and giving consumers a personal 'green air miles allowance', which would punish those who fly more often with a higher tax rate.

Airing their views

But if MPs thought the airlines would accept their excess baggage charges without a fight, they are very mistaken. Easyjet chief executive Andy Harrison is among the industry leaders who believe taxing air travel is an ill-conceived remedy for a very real problem, which, he recognises, must be addressed. The airline has outlined its thinking in a report entitled 'Towards greener skies: the surprising truth about flying and the environment'.

'Much of the political debate has been characterised by gesture politics and discriminatory, of ten contradictory, proposals, and it is time for consumers to tell the politicians that they won't be 'green-rollered' into accepting higher air taxes for spurious green rationale,' retorts Harrison.

He is incensed that Air Passenger Duty is levied on commercial airlines but not private jets. His biggest complaint about the tax, however, is its non-discriminatory approach.

'Politicians of all colours recognise that different cars have different emissions, but do not seem to see the same distinction within air travel,' says Harrison. 'The critical thing is to get people flying in new aircraft. The Tories are talking about taxing gas-guzzling cars, but the way Air Passenger Duty works is that people pay the same whether they are flying in an old aircraft, a new aircraft, a half-empty aircraft or a full aircraft.'

 It is easy to understand the industry's indignation. The influential Stern Report estimated that air travel accounts for a mere 1.7 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. The anticipated growth in air travel - inspired, in part, by the rapid development of India, Russia and China, where fewer than 10 mn people in a population of more than 1.3 bn fly every year - could push this to as much as 6 percent by 2050. But this is still dramatically below the emissions from cars, which currently account for around 9 percent of the total.

Unsurprisingly, Captain Mervyn Granshaw, chairman of the British Airline Pilots' Association, defends air t ravel. 'No one is calling for restrictions on high-speed train travel or an end to ocean cruises,' he says. 'And nobody is calling for any dramatic reduction in travel by car, the biggest polluter of all transport modes. Air travel has just been an easy target. But not any more.'

The government's figures suggest that a long-haul plane emits 110g of carbon dioxide per passenger kilometre, which is about the same as a medium-sized car with two occupants. A train emits 60g per passenger kilometre.

But plane emissions, obviously, emerge higher in the atmosphere, which makes their effects far worse. And vapour trails (or contrails) lead to the formation of cirrus clouds, which stop heat escaping from the earth.

Sea change

That Harrison even concedes air travel is a factor in climate change is a major change in policy. For years, the industry dismissed the environmental agenda. Privately, many still believe environmental campaigners are, as the Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary puts it, 'half-witted loons'.

O'Leary has gone on the offensive when challenged on aircraft emissions. He argues that, by increasing the number of Ryanair passengers, he will be taking more people off other carriers' older, less fuel-efficient planes and putting them on his own newer, more fuel-efficient planes. 'So we'll be saving the environment,' he retorts. 'Not that we care much.'

Maurice Flanagan, the 79-year-old vice chairman of Dubai-based carrier Emirates, rages in the firm's annual report about airlines being 'demonised', claiming the methane exuded by cows in Europe exceeds global aviation emissions. But Toby Nicol, director of corporate communications at easyjet, admits airlines should have acted more quickly. 'Where the industry was caught sleeping was in not being quick enough to counter some of the research funded by the green lobby groups,' he says.

In response, the industry has formed its own lobbying group, Flying Matters, to counteract some of the negative messages put out by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, as well as mainstream politicians. Flying Matters - which comprises plane makers Boeing and Airbus, airlines including British Airways, easyjet, Monarch, Virgin and Flybe, and tour operators such as Thomas Cook - has already highlighted that 700,000 people are employed by the airline industry, which last year contributed £11 bn to UK gross domestic product.

Flying Matters has provided comment on aviation and climate change to various media outlets, sent out briefings on issues such as aviation and climate change, and aviation and the economy, and set up its own website, which can be found at www.flyingmatters.org.uk.

'What we need f rom politicians are policies that recognise the work being done by the industry to reduce its impact on the environment and which balance this with the economic and social contribution made by aviation,' says Michelle Di Leo, campaign director of Flying Matters. 'Economic sustainability needs to go hand in hand with environmental sustainability.'

Green wing

At the last meeting of industry trade body the International Air Transport Association, BA chief executive Willie Walsh found the environment was top of the agenda. At the previous meeting six months earlier, some industry executives had seen the environment as an unimportant issue. 'As an industry we really need to start addressing this and speak with one voice to ensure we get some balance into the debate,' says Walsh. 'Now every single CEO in the room is talking about the environment.'

British Airways is close to announcing a $15 bn (£7.4 bn) order for new planes, and Walsh says the environment is 'top of the agenda' in selecting these jets. Both Airbus and Boeing, the only companies to make commercial planes for large passenger numbers, have been fighting to establish their green credentials in the eyes of the public, to help ensure future orders.

There are around 17,700 commercial aircraft in the world today. Over the next 20 years, Boeing and Airbus expect to deliver 25,600 new planes between them. To fight a good PR battle, they need to prove these planes are more environmentally friendly than their predecessors.

And the Air Transport Action Group, an independent coalition representing the commercial aviation industry, has the facts to do just that. It claims aircraft operations are 20 percent more efficient - and thus greener - than 10 years ago, while a further 25 percent improvement is projected by 2020, when new technologies will be in place to make aircraft 50 percent more fuel-efficient than now.

At this year's Paris Air Show, Airbus bosses unveiled their new double-decker jumbo jet, the A380, by promising to 'save the planet, one A380 at a time'. The plane can carry 525 people, and Airbus is pushing the idea that bigger aircraft mean fewer flights and fewer emissions.

The A380 will also burn 17 percent less fuel per seat than the largest aircraft currently on the market. At three litres of fuel per 100 passenger kilometres, it is more fuel efficient than any car.

Boeing's Dreamliner launched within weeks of the Paris Air Show with much positive coverage of its energy efficiency. It is made from light carbon composites, and claims to cut fuel use by 20 percent compared with other planes of a similar size. It recently announced record orders for a new plane, with 47 customers signed up for 684 planes, worth $114 bn at list prices.

Alternative approaches

Airlines are also being imaginative in dealing with the problem. Cathay Pacific has stripped paint from freight aircraft to reduce weight and fuel consumption, while Virgin Atlantic is researching the introduction of 'starting grids' from which planes can be towed to the runway, minimising the time engines run prior to takeoff.

The industry is also lobbying to improve air traffic management, to ensure the shortest route is flown from A to B and planes are not stuck circling airports spewing out greenhouse gases. The EU estimates this could cut carbon emissions from aviation by 12 percent.

And then there are alternative energy sources. Sir Richard Branson, Virgin Airways' founder, has pledged to invest $3 bn over the next 10 years in renewable initiatives. Virgin is also developing bio-fuels, alongside Boeing and engine-maker GE Aviation. Boeing estimates that a usable bio-fuel could reduce flight-related greenhouse gases by 60 percent-80 percent.

'We've said we will fly a jet engine on a 747 using bio-fuels, maybe by the end of next year,' Branson says. 'But I believe we'll be able to bring that forward. We have to make sure it's economically viable to roll out across the Virgin fleet. Hopefully, 10 years from now our planes can be carbon neutral. It's not just charitable: we've got to come up with a fuel that knocks oil for six, so let's put some money into doing something about it.'

Virgin has already ordered 15 Dreamliners. Branson believes 'it makes good economic sense to be environmentally friendly'. Other airlines have launched emissions trading schemes (ETS), allowing customers to pay an extra charge to offset the greenhouse emissions from their flight.

BA found itself criticised earlier this year for not advertising its ETS prominently enough on its website, even though it was the first - and, at that time, the only - UK airline with such a scheme in place.

The airline industry has hit turbulence before. This time around it might be able to soar above the storms and assume cruising speed because, for once, it has conceded that environmentalists have a point.

share me: del.icio.us | digg | reddit | Tweet