Attention Families!
London, 11th July 2006
Budget and charter flights prove best route to a lower carbon footprint while private jets hammer the wallet – and the environment
Holiday makers jetting off this summer on a charter flight – will have a carbon footprint up to half the size of fellow sun seekers flying on scheduled carriers.
Analysis by Ascend, the world’s leading provider of information and consultancy to the global aerospace industry, reveals that for family of four flying to any one of a range of popular holiday destinations opting for a charter can dramatically reduce the damage they do to the environment.
For holiday makers around the world, flying offers the benefits of convenience and speed, as well as allowing for an unparalleled cultural exchange. But there are costs, too. The Ascend study acknowledges the negative environmental effects of flying, but shows that concerned consumers who want to fly can make choices that seriously reduce the size of their carbon footprint.
Ascend analysts dug into the data to demonstrate how a 'typical' UK family could reduce its carbon footprint – even if flying. They compared the environmental cost for the family flying to three popular summer holiday destinations – by charter, by scheduled flight, and by private jet, and found that:
- Flying to Goa from London on a charter flight, rather than a scheduled carrier, a family of four cut their share of emissions by more than half.
- Flying from Manchester to Orlando the difference is more than a quarter lower for a charter flight.
- On short-haul flights, the family's share of emissions is reduced considerably by flying charter rather than on a scheduled flight. For the London to Malaga route, the reduction is almost 10%.
The Low-cost, low emissions equation
Like charters, low-cost carriers prove more carbon efficient per passenger than their full service counterparts. Ascend’s comparison, made only on the short-haul London to Malaga route, showed that the low cost airline could slightly outperform even a charter, with the family’s share of fuel 17.6 kilograms on the low cost flight versus 18.8 kilograms on the charter.
“This is great news for families who care about the environment,” says Gehan Talwatte, Managing Director of Ascend. “Not only does flying on charter airlines or low cost carriers typically save families money, it also means they contribute less to the problem of carbon emissions. What many people may not realise is that on short or long-haul flights the reduction in environmental impact of choosing a budget flight can be dramatic. Charter operators, for example, typically create efficiencies by squeezing more people onto each flight – as many as 100 more than on a comparably sized plane with a scheduled flight.
"What's more, these figures don't take into account passenger load factors. If they did the carbon footprints for scheduled flights would be even higher as their flights are very often not full."
According to Ascend, as pressure comes on airlines to pay tax on aviation fuel, consumers stand to benefit even more by flying on the most efficient, least environmentally damaging routes.
"This is likely to mean flying point-to-point on long-haul flights, which as our figures for the London to Goa route show is easier on the environment than are the hub-and-spoke networks being developed by some major carriers," says Talwatte.
Aircraft manufacturers have so far taken very different views of how the industry will develop. Airbus is betting on the A380, which is designed to service hub-and-spoke networks but is also licensed to carry up to 853 passengers. In contrast, Boeing is backing the proliferation of point-to-point flying with the development of the mid-sized 787 Dreamliner."
The high cost of belonging to the jet set
Ascend's analysis also shows the real cost of private flights. On long-haul flights on a business jet the carbon footprint of a family of four is around 10 times larger than if they had flown on a charter flight, and around five times larger on short-haul flights.
"You play you pay," says, Talwatte. "Private flights may produce the least amount of emissions, but per passenger they are hugely inefficient in environmental terms."
