I was not only talking to economists yesterday. I also had one of my regular discussions with an epidemiologist.
Their view was that in two or three weeks UK excess deaths from coronavirus will end, for the time being. They may even go negative. Some elderly people who might have died now have already done so. But this is not necessarily good news. The fear is that the government might use this to release more lockdown.
And lockdown has worked. What is more, right now we still have nothing else to tackle this virus in the UK, most especially when compared to other countries.
But the biggest fear was not what I expected. I presumed it would be the lack of track and trace. But it wasn't. That biggest fear was of air travel. This is thought to be the way any new outbreak could be spread. Just look at New Zealand.
And the suggestion? Just stop all air travel now unless it is absolutely vital, and very little is. We simply cannot afford the risk.
So when the FT asks, as it has today, the question 'when will we fly again?' the best answer would be 'not for a long time'. Corporate lobbyists will be paid a great deal to argue otherwise.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Lol – the rich and execs travel by air at will and i’m sure with impunity – as the number of private flights indicate.
Maybe a not so slow boat travel around the globe is a better idea – after all a two weeks there and two weeks back ought to satisfy the condition of quarantine/self isolation – that would get people past the infectious stages if having contracted any virus?
Movements of peoples is normal – restricting it is not. After all bugs and viruses move in the wind and indeed wing!
I expect the 14 day isolation to be u-turned on so that we can have one last hurrah with our booze cruises until the second wave, flu and hard brexit triple whammy locks us in like we haven’t been since the 40’s.
I do expect the EU to get a better grip on the virus and illness because they are looking after the collective interests of 400 millions of people – where as we are looking after the US ‘National Interests’ and the City’s preference for its ancient uneven playing field.
Aviation and travel & tourism are such large industries that the Tories are bewitched with them and can think of no other option than to open them up as soon as possible so the dividends come flowing back into the elite’s and Tory donors pockets. By creating the mood and actual ‘relaxation’ of the Covid-19 rules and guidelines they have already prepared the public for imminent change based on the lower excess death statistics and ignore the epidemiological warnings and the sidelining of SAGE in decision making. It is clear as you point out that no major transition to a green economy is anticipated soon (though they pay weak lip service to this) or to making major increases in the vital health, care and education sectors which will, as you point out help to absorb some of the massive unemployment that is looming up sooner than the government realises.
The airline industry is being propped up worldwide: “At least $33bn has been directed towards airlines, with few or no green strings attached, according to the campaigning group Transport and Environment.” Along with money pumped into other carbon intensive industries. We never learn. It’s symptomatic of the way the rich have earned their money and intend to keep hold of it – till we all fry.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/18/world-has-six-months-to-avert-climate-crisis-says-energy-expert
Scary
Surely what’s ‘scary’ is your inability to accept that ‘your side’ lost the recent election (badly) and therefore you should not expect your preferred strategies, which were roundly rejected by the electorate, to be implemented.
Accepting this should mean that you don’t need to act surprised and write yet another article about why the latest government policy proposal is wrong, and why they should be following your suggestions.
If the electorate had wanted your policies they would have voted for a party that included these in their manifesto. By a long shot, they didn’t.
Now there’s an enlightened approach to democracy: if you lose, shut up and never seek to put forward another idea again
And for the record, your side did not got a majority of votes
My side did
But a rigged democracy gave your side the majority nonetheless
At risk of being somewhat tangential, flying is a thing that particularly bothers me.
Many years ago I looked up my carbon consumption on some website and found that my flights to India and back comprised a fifth or a quarter of my annual carbon footprint. In most areas of life we have very little agency to affect change. I have almost no agency over the progress of the climate catastrophe but I can not bring myself to participate in an activity that has such a huge impact on my personal consumption.
I have not been on a plane since then (2008) and intend never getting on one.
I guess it was too much to hope that the general public would have a chance to reflect and decide to abandon this harmful activity in the name of at least sending a message to the powers that be. But no, we have to maintain the right to harm the ecosystem in order to spend ten days on a beach.
I’m not surprised that even with the need to restrict the movements of the virus people are clamouring to get on planes and collude with the government in our immanent doom.
(Sorry, I’ve been hoping to revise my tone to reflect something more hopeful but the world seems determined to obstruct my intentions.)
I have not flown for leisure since 2009 and do not plan to do so again
I have flown for work
I am glad that I will not be doing that now
EY Looks to Shrink Air Travel, Carbon Footprint Post-Pandemic
https://news.bloombergtax.com/financial-accounting/ey-looks-to-shrink-air-travel-carbon-footprint-post-pandemic
For what it’s worth I think this is more opportunistic PR from yet another Big 4 firm. This kind of empty statement actually misses the real point. It would have been much more effective if they make it crystal clear that they are banning all air travel (domestic and international) with immediate effect.
It is beyond any doubt that these and many other similar service providers can very easily continue with business as usual and keep on providing their so called professional services, without the need for any travel by air.
The article also mentions that ‘EY and the other Big Four accounting firms are working with the World Economic Forum to develop a set of 22 metrics that companies can report on to stakeholders. The goal is to provide common metrics so investors can compare and measure company progress in meeting goals relating to the environment, employees, stakeholder communities, and corporate governance, areas often referred to as ESG reporting’.
It is shocking that despite the catastrophic audit failures, the ongoing litigation, the huge out of court settlements, the number of public enquiries about their role and even whilst there are still very serious and big questions unanswered about their nature and conduct; the same Big 4 firms are being appointed to advise and design rules and standards on Environmental, Social and Governance metrics. How is this even possible?
You just need to read https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/06/18/it-looks-like-ey-are-failing-again-with-another-major-audit-crisis-in-the-making-the-question-has-to-be-asked-as-to-when-we-might-have-decent-audits-decent-accounts-and-even-decent-accounts/ to get an idea about the level and degree of audit failure that is taking place right now.
The WEF would be much better equipped if they started by looking into http://www.corporateaccountabilitynet.work/projects/sustainable-cost-accounting-the-essential-guides/ and if they engaged with organizations, individuals, academics, professionals that do not have a vested interest in ensuring that real action and progress on ESG is prevented.
The above article also ties in very nicely to your blog about Big 4 firms surviving the current crisis https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/06/18/will-the-big-firms-of-accountants-survive-the-coronavirus-crisis-dont-count-on-it/.
Question is if the layoffs, cost-cutting exercises and apparent reduction in air travel are all aimed at boosting reserves in the event of probable future liabilities that are expected to arise as a result of past audit and other corporate scandals and which cannot be covered under their existing indemnity cover and insurance policies?
I about as much trust the Big 4 with this as I trust their ability to do an audit
I can assure you that all Big 4 firms have prohibited air travel already, if only to cut costs during this pandemic.
What’s needed is what’s always been needed, lockdown on a global scale. Just as a household remains infected if the below stairs folk have and the upstairs folk don’t as yet, If any one part of the planet remains infected then potentially all the other parts are too. this needs addressing on a planet-wide basis. Leaving it to individual nations clearly isn’t going to work when some are so irresponsible.
Highly doubtful demand for air travel will decrease.
There have been numerous posts on social media about being able to book holidays abroad again.
Seven nights for a family of four at The Big Blue Hotel in Blackpool from 22-29 August this year is £1157, with breakfast included. That is without travel to and from Blackpool.
A holiday to Spain is just over £1500 half board with flights included and a better chance of decent weather.
To get from London to Inverness by train is £181 traveling this Friday and returning Monday according to National Rail, it takes just over 8 hours.
easyJet is just over £100 and takes just under two hours according to their website.
As a side note, I do think that a high percentage of these job losses were pencilled in before Covid-19, in the case of British Airways, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a way of getting rid of those still on old and better terms and conditions.
So we desperately need to tax air travel much more heavily
And I am certain that we will
Will that not simply restrict availability to those who can already afford it? Making it more expensive punishes the poor. Might not a better move be to make rail travel cheaper via subsidy? That way those not so well off, and we know there are going to be a lot more of them in the near future, can still get a break away from home.
There would be an allowance of at least a return trip
Remember only 15% of people fly more than that
Most are well off
Can you really see that happening?
Seriously?
Yes
Unless we do we’re really in deep trouble
“Now there’s an enlightened approach to democracy: if you lose, shut up and never seek to put forward another idea again.”
Not at all, but constantly bleating that the government aren’t implementing policies that people didn’t vote for maybe cathartic for you, but it achieves nothing.
“And for the record, your side did not got a majority of votes. My side did”
Your side? Who exactly is ‘your side’? You appear to criticise everyone!
The Tories won 43.6% of the vote, the highest in the last 40 years. In England they won over 47% of the vote, the highest in 50 years.
The Green party had less than 3% of the votes.
Where is this ‘majority’ you are claiming?
“But a rigged democracy gave your side the majority nonetheless”
Rigged democracy? Have you informed the Electoral Commission or is this just a refusal to accept that your views are nowhere near as possible as you’d like to pretend?
If you are unaware of the weaknesses of fptp you really aren’t engaged in anything approaching meaningful debate
Richard,
I haven’t discussed numbers of seats, only the actual percentage of votes for different parties, where is this majority that you were referring to?
You have noted it
Now, politely, stop wasting my time
Richard, can you give an indication of vital air travel which would be allowed to continue?
Maybe international diplomacy?
Two New Zealand residents want to get to New Zealand, to be with a relative who is about to die.
That’s a vital journey .
You’d have to negate both modernity and humanity to insist that is not vital and you should stay 11000 miles away.
I suspect NZ now strongly disagrees
As will hundreds of thousands who did not visit dying relatives here during lockdown
You are, simply, wrong
There’s nothing inherent to humanity that demands that the we destroy the ecosystem. When someone files to visit their dying relatives they are increasing the chance of premature death for others.
Modernity is a nebulous idea. It’s not a reason to do or not do anything. If modernity is negated, what of it?
Burning fossil fuels is causing catastrophic damage to the ecosystem that will impact all human beings and all other living species for thousands of years to come. Pollution, fishing, deforestation. These are all causing catastrophic damage.
We need to quit these damaging behaviours immediately and learn to create the most comfortable lives possible for everyone within contraints that will allow the ecosystem to regenrate itself as much as possible and life to thrive. This means the negation of a lot of stuff the richest people on the planet (the includes me and almost anyone living in the UK) take for granted. It’s very hard for most people to digest this. But the alternative is having constraints thrust upon us in the most horrific ways imaginable.
Let’s see which way it goes.
Fuel tax and VAT exemption for airlines have to be ended.
With both airlines and cruise ships being unsustainable in their present form, would it be possible to strip down the latter to basic comfort level and use them as long distance passenger ferries on popular routes (eg London to New York)? This would displace thousands of plane journeys and could also allow for self isolation in cabins if necessary.
Obviously there would still be a carbon cost, but the effect of airliner emissions at altitude would be eliminated and the emissions per passenger/km could be considerably lower. As an interim measure it could enable people to travel between continents without the need to fly. As long as there were enough lifeboats of course, but then there aren’t so many icebergs around these days…
Anyway, just an idea.
Before we get in a tizzy about visiting dying relatives, its worth pointing out that before the days of cheap air travel, many people left to go abroad, or even in the UK to go to another part of the Country and that was the last they saw of their relatives.
But do airlines and Tourism make economic sense?
Warren Buffett says that he doesnt invest in airlines as they are not profitable while tourism mostly provides seasonal poorly paid work, much – in the UK at any rate done by non UK nationals – I am not having any kind of dig at them, just pointing out who does a lot of that sort of work at least in Western Europe.
This also makes interesting reading
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020/jun/18/end-of-tourism-coronavirus-pandemic-travel-industry