A new report has a solution to reduce emissions by air travel: fly slower at higher altitudes and eliminate short haul flying. This should totally work.
If you are considering booking travel or signing up for a new credit card please click here. Both support LiveAndLetsFly.com.
If you haven’t followed us on Facebook or Instagram, add us today.
The “Future” of Sustainable Aviation
Cambridge University released a report that envisions the future of aviation in a sustainable environment.
But not really of course, it simply explores ways to reduce carbon emissions but not eliminate them. Aviation is one of the world’s most carbon-intensive industries, but responsible for a less significant share of global emissions than most imagine (about 8% of consumption.) As the sector continues to grow, the challenge of reducing its environmental impact becomes increasingly pressing. The University of Cambridge study highlights several strategies to make aviation more sustainable, including flying at slower speeds, introducing newer planes, adjusting flight altitudes, and preparing for rising ticket prices.
The real struggle is matching obtainable environmental objectives without killing the industry, and damaging global economies.
Slower Planes: Cutting Fuel Burn at the Cost of Time
One of the most attention-grabbing suggestions in the study is to reduce flight speeds by about 15%. The report claims this could lower fuel consumption by 5 to 7%, contributing significantly to the industry’s sustainability goals. However, this change would come with a cost—longer flight times. For instance, domestic transatlantic flights could be extended by as much as 50 minutes.
The introduction of slower planes would require new designs and a “whole systems process change,” meaning airports, airlines, and manufacturers would need to collaborate extensively. While this solution promises environmental benefits, the practical implications—such as managing longer flight times and maintaining productivity—present a logistical challenge. Although the study suggests that reduced airport waiting times could offset longer flight durations, it doesn’t specify how such efficiencies would be realized.
A 15% increase in flight time would have additional effects across the system that are not accounted for in the study. For example, departures and arrivals would have to stretch even earlier in the morning to even later at night. For most of the US, a connection is involved, so increases in travel time would be doubled to account for that connection time. Ultimately, to implement this airlines would require more planes and fuller flights when they already operate at near capacity. If we examine one nonstop flight that only takes a little bit longer, it doesn’t seem that bad, but when that spills to an entire additional jet that needs to be added to the schedule and an already congested airspace, does that continue to help? Unlikely.
For what it’s worth, increased labor costs would be further exacerbated by longer flights. That means more staff members will have to be hired adding training costs and labor costs to the longer flight model. An increase of 15% longer flight times when the study was performed doesn’t accurately reflect labor contracts that are 30%+ higher than just a couple of years ago, then add the additional hours of work.
Newer Planes
In addition to slower planes, the study emphasizes the need for newer aircraft. Replacing older planes with more fuel-efficient models could reduce fuel consumption by 11 to 14%. However, achieving this would require halving the average fleet age from 30 years to 15 by 2050, which demands a significant increase in aircraft production.
Boeing and Airbus, the industry’s leading manufacturers, already plan to double production by 2050. Still, the study suggests that a third manufacturer might be necessary to meet the demand. While the scale of this task may seem daunting, the report notes that aircraft production during World War II demonstrated the industry’s capability to rapidly scale up in a time of crisis.
What the study, again, neglects to consider are the current struggles in delivery of aircraft. Airbus has an engine issue slowing deliveries, Boeing has a litany of trouble with certifications for both the 737-MAX and 777-X airframes. The delivery schedule is close to a decade out for some new orders as it is now. And the study fails to acknowledge that additional manufacturers already have a position in the market with Embraer for example, but COMAC could also help deliver airframes sooner, probably much faster than European and American builders. The existence of alternatives is not the issue (though in wide-bodies it remains a two-horse race), the market has spoken.
Avoiding Contrails
Contrails—those white streaks left behind by airplanes—contribute to climate change, with a warming effect that could rival aviation’s CO2 emissions. The study proposes an initiative called “Operation Blue Skies,” which recommends adjusting flight paths to avoid regions known as Ice Supersaturated Regions (ISSRs), where contrails form. By tweaking altitudes, airlines can minimize the formation of contrails, thus reducing their environmental impact.
While these altitude shifts may go unnoticed by passengers, the associated costs might not. The study estimates that airlines would need to increase ticket prices by about 1% to cover the additional fuel and air traffic control costs required to avoid contrail-heavy areas. However, the environmental payoff—lower climate impact from contrails—far outweighs the minor fuel burn increase from these adjustments.
Rising Ticket Prices: The Cost of Sustainable Aviation Fuels
The transition to Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF), hydrogen-powered aircraft, and other eco-friendly alternatives is another key element in aviation’s path to net-zero emissions. However, these greener fuels come with a price. The study suggests that by 2050, ticket prices could increase by 33 to 34% for hydrogen-powered and Biomass-to-Liquid (BtL) SAF flights. More complex but efficient fuel options could push prices up by as much as 81%. This does not account for the increased labor costs outlined elsewhere in this post.
Currently, SAF accounts for a mere 0.2% of all jet fuel used in the industry, making it a critical area for development. The UK government has mandated that airlines increase SAF usage to 10% by the end of the decade, but the aviation industry warns that production levels are far from sufficient. Virgin Atlantic’s Holly Boyd-Boland notes that SAF production would need to be scaled up by 80 to 100 times the current levels to meet future demand. Government action and investment will be crucial to achieving this ambitious target.
Domestic Flight Bans: Reducing Short-Haul Emissions
Another potential solution to reducing aviation’s environmental impact is limiting the demand for flights, especially domestic routes. France has already banned domestic flights on routes where rail alternatives exist that take less than 2.5 hours. This approach cuts emissions by up to 95% per passenger per kilometer. However, domestic flights account for just 7% of global aviation emissions, with most occurring in the United States. Outside of the northeast, trains are not a practical alternative. If a short haul ban was mandated in the US as it is in France and Germany, many would resort to driving which is far worse for the environment than a train. Either a short haul ban doesn’t do what the study thinks it will do, or they didn’t consider the practicality of solving the matter.
While domestic flight bans may not provide a significant reduction in global emissions, they demonstrate a shift in how governments and regulators are thinking about sustainable travel. Encouraging the use of alternative transportation methods, like high-speed trains, could play a role in reducing aviation’s environmental footprint, especially on short-haul routes.
Conclusion
The extensive study remains short sighted and, frankly, mostly unfamiliar with the cause and effect of these policies. It assumes that world governments will back (in the hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars) the deep infrastructure changes required to implement these fixes. It makes flying impractical for millions if not billions of people worldwide and would ultimately collapse the market costing millions of jobs globally. Travel also provides much needed GDP growth, foreign spending, and support to local small businesses in the tourism trade.
If changes are going to be made, they have to be practical, scalable, without disenfranchising the public footing the bill both in taxes and much higher fares. It’s a good thing this report was produced digitally, because if not, the waste alone would outweigh any actual beneficial outcome. And it makes for terrible toilet paper, though that’s its most practical service.
What do you think?
What’s a “domestic transatlantic” flight?
Haiti to Ohio ?
Look, I’m conflicted. On one hand, you’re a reactionary troll who consistently spouts hateful nonsense.
On the other hand, this is a really good joke.
I’m all in for reducing short-haul domestic flights on jets . Some of those are ridiculous .
Far better to use turbo props .
Why not just stop non essential travel if the issue is that important?
After all we are destroying the planet for future generations. Isn’t that what that goofy looking retarted girl says?
I am all for saving the planet and I will row from the US to Europe so all the celebrities and politicians can fly private. I will take one for the team. As for domestic travel, I already bike everywhere so my emissions are very low.
Environmentalists question why they are not seriously respected. It is impractical nonsense like this that makes otherwise reasonable people crazy. Irritation is a terrible way to initiate change.
We should all stop wearing clothes too… for the environment of course. Just think how much petroleum products are used in the manufacturing and transportation of clothes to stores.
STOP WEARING CLOTHES.
It’s interesting that private jet and general aviation flights haven’t been banned in the EU. Or elsewhere.
If they want to come after my leisure travel crammed into a tube with 200 others and shame me for it. Get rid of the private jets first…..
The fleet of corporate and private jets going to COP conferences and WEF conferences meant to shame me for my first class upgrades…..hypocrisy. Practice what you preach…..more hunger games hypocrisy and little wonder there is growing populist movements growing as a result.
If you want change, this is exactly the wrong way to deal with me.
Great. Who wants to spend 50 minutes more in. Metal tube? Also who wants to take a train for hours vs a jet to get anywhere in EU? Not me
I will gladly take a 6 hour TGV train in France over a N/S flight. And, I’ll feel better rested after it is done.
Climate change is real. This needs to be stopped. The cost of this should be paid for by the rich…just making them pay their fair share. To start with, have a wealth tax. That would include taxing anyone with more than 50,000 miles…taxing them 9% of those miles per year and giving it to the poor.
Harris is for a wealth tax…yes
Climate change is absolutely real, but is it caused by humans or is it from natural causes?
Our planet has had an ice age, how do we know the planet isn’t naturally going into a heat age?
I am derek, not Derek, but I agree that climate change has occurred in the past with no human intervention or cause.
It has occurred sometimes because of a cataclysmic event like a meteor strike, or as part of natural fluctuations that take hundreds of thousands of years to cycle. The speed of temperature change is more than 10x the rate of change you see from natural ice ages (per Derek’s thought on a “heat age”), plus with isotopic analyses of air chemistry you can trace the amount greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that originate from fossil fuel burning, which has been steadily increasing on target with estimations in emissions.
Domestic transatlantic flights? Are you referring to the seasonal St Pierre to Paris flight?
I will say that the idea you can automatically cut fuel burn by flying slower and at a higher altitude isn’t true.
Airlines are already intensely interested in cutting fuel burn because it’s one of their biggest expenses. It’s not true that flying slower and higher will always save fuel. For example flying into a strong headwind you’re better off often at a higher speed because you will exit that wind sooner. And sometimes winds at higher altitude make it more economical to fly lower. Not to mention ATC constraints, turbulence, weather and other factors.
By far the biggest driver of wasted fuel in airline operations today is our broken and antiquated ATC system. Because of it we often have to fly a significant extra and pointless distance. Or we get forced to descend to a lower and much less fuel efficient altitude well in advance of when we should.
If you want to save a serious amount of fuel fix the ATC system. It’s possible and it doesn’t depend on pipe dream nonsense.
Excellent points. Thank you.
But, a segment of the climate change throng don’t likevsolutions like fix ATC. It may be the best short-term solution, but it doesn’t have the necessary sacrifice. Reduce emission by 2X% with no pain? No, we want a painful X%!
This is the type of idiocy that the Harris admin wants to make commonplace!
New planes and adjustments in altitude, I forgot to clutch my pearls!
OK so we cut emissions. Then what happens? Seriously. They use cutesy terms like environmental benefits. What exactly is that?
And what about all of the emissions that have been cut in the last 10 – 15. They tell us we still have a climate crisis? Why is that? Here’s a hint, we don’t control the environment. And like so much of an agenda that doesn’t work, they keep pushing for more of it. Time to start asking questions before we handle over more control of our lives.
Yeah we need to start asking the important questions…like why did fossil fuel companies hire some of the same individual people that the tobacco companies hired to dispute the health affects of second hand smoke, to put out “research” trying to dispute what 95% of the rest of the scientific community had agreed on?
Another attempt to build clicks because the election is stealing views from the travel blogger crowd. What a dumb way to get attention, nobody believes you actually care about any of this.
Of the increasingly unhinged political posts I’ve seen cropping up on this website this has to be one of the most ridiculous. While some concerns might have validity, there are some very sensible adjustments recommended here and sarcastically dismissing a whole report just because there are a few suggestions you think are unfeasible (while you admit some individually have real merit) is the only thing about this that is short sighted. In a world where changes in demand and the price of oil (especially with war in the ME on the horizon), some of these suggestions have benefits far beyond the environment. Let’s go point by point:
Slower flights: Reduce flight speeds by 15%….we’re talking dialling back the throttle from 580 knots to 500 knots. I can see the issue of increased crew time and a minor inconvenience to passengers but when you look at the other daily delays that have much bigger impacts than that, the airline industry has not fallen apart. Why would this suddenly throw things out of whack? If anything it might reduce the burden on airports if the planes are in the air a little longer and reduce ground delays and infrastructure needs.
Newer planes: I am failing to see the problem here. It just highlights underlying issues in the airline industry, specifically issues with production and delivery, that you yourself pointed out. This just provides yet another reason to shore things up there. Isn’t that a good thing?
Contrails: You said yourself the increase in prices would be unnoticeable to consumers and that it has real environmental benefits. So you can admit then that there are at least some good suggestions here?
Alternative fuels: so some might increase airline prices 33-34%. We have seen far more dramatic changes than that on multiple occaisions in recent decades just from volatiliy in the price of oil alone. So ironically, there is an equal rationale that the dependence on oil, especially with wars involving Russia and increasingly the middle east, leaves the airline industry even more exposed.
Short flight bans: It’s not entirely clear if they actually recommended a “ban” or if that’s just your read on what was a more general narrative about reducing short haul flights. But let’s take the most extreme scenario and they proposed a ban. That’s probably the most extreme thing here, yet some countries have taken similar measures already that are working? And while it may seem aggressive, it makes a good overall point that supports the development of high speed rail networks like those proposed for much of the US and that China has done in the last 20 years.
Conclusion: A lot of these don’t require governments to step in, the airlines, manufacturers, and the rest of the free market are fully capable of doing most on their own. At worst some of these things might be inconveniences for daily travelers, but to suggest they would collapse the market is absurd compared to events like COVID, 9/11, and political conflicts across the world that have tested the airline industry far more…have you not been paying attention? Talk about being an alarmist…
@Hank82: My argument is that while any of these things might be solutions, they are, pardon the pun, “blue sky.”
– Buy newer planes is very much a “let them eat cake” concept. Spirit bought all-new planes but can’t pay for them and is considering bankruptcy if they can’t refinance.
– And if Airbus and Boeing haven’t exemplified why “just start a new manufacturer” is a problem too. You shrug off 33-34% increases in flight prices, that’s an awfully privileged outlook.
– Remember too, that it’s not just the cost of fuel but the cost of infrastructure and it won’t be ubiquitously available as it will require municipal and federal intervention and investment but on a global scale. There are cruise ships that can run off LNG, but that only matters if the ports they visit also have the fuel source.
– Airliners don’t operate at 520-580 knots, they cruise at 450-490 knots; regardless as mentioned, it’s not the direct flights you have to consider. First, consider it in aggregate – how many flights does a 737 make in a day? Let’s say it’s seven spread over 18 hours from 6 am to midnight – that means that the first flight is 15% longer and continues along the entire day. The more stops and less connection time that aircraft made, the fewer flights it can now operate. in the above example, you drop an entire flight from the schedule which in and of itself is better for the environment, right? But it’s yet another bad move for consumers. It kind of goes along with the notion that if you just increase prices by 40-50%, you make 40-50% more. But you don’t, because consumers start to drop out of the buying process. With fewer flights, especially during daylight hours, business professionals won’t be able to find seats and prices might make flights difficult to justify. All of this means fewer passengers, lower revenue, less investment and a worse experience for the flyer.