Wiped away, never to come back?

24

Comments

  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 22,025
    There were a lot of things wiped out in 2008 that were to never come back, but did e.g. CDOs, 95% mortgages, massive bonuses
  • Jeremy.89
    Jeremy.89 Posts: 457
    TheBigBean said:

    There were a lot of things wiped out in 2008 that were to never come back, but did e.g. CDOs, 95% mortgages, massive bonuses

    Which I guess is both a positive and a negative!

    I reckon we've pretty much seen the last of the four engine jet passenger planes. Although arguably we already had before lockdown.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Jeremy.89 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    There were a lot of things wiped out in 2008 that were to never come back, but did e.g. CDOs, 95% mortgages, massive bonuses

    Which I guess is both a positive and a negative!

    I reckon we've pretty much seen the last of the four engine jet passenger planes. Although arguably we already had before lockdown.
    This is an interesting one... both the 747 and decades later the A380 was designed in response to the market... it was more profitable to have fewer planes carrying a large number of passengers, than the opposite.
    Then the 787 and the 737 max were designed in response to the opposite. I think the aviation industry was under too much pressure with too low profit margins, hence trying to squeeze the last penny out of these aircrafts.
    Hopefully the majority will go bust, air fares will go up, fuel cost will go down and airport "fees" will go down too, so that the all industry becomes more sustainable in the long run... and not just environmentally sustainable
    left the forum March 2023
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    ugo.santalucia said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    There were a lot of things wiped out in 2008 that were to never come back, but did e.g. CDOs, 95% mortgages, massive bonuses

    Which I guess is both a positive and a negative!

    I reckon we've pretty much seen the last of the four engine jet passenger planes. Although arguably we already had before lockdown.
    This is an interesting one... both the 747 and decades later the A380 was designed in response to the market... it was more profitable to have fewer planes carrying a large number of passengers, than the opposite.
    Then the 787 and the 737 max were designed in response to the opposite. I think the aviation industry was under too much pressure with too low profit margins, hence trying to squeeze the last penny out of these aircrafts.
    Hopefully the majority will go bust, air fares will go up, fuel cost will go down and airport "fees" will go down too, so that the all industry becomes more sustainable in the long run... and not just environmentally sustainable
    Unless there is a collective decision to actively reduce air travel, I don’t foresee the types of change you envisage.
    Sure, higher prices etc. in the short to mid term will naturally reduce air travel and damage the industry.
    But unless something materially changes in the desire to readily travel the world, market disrupters such as laker and Ryanair will keep re-emerging to drive costs down and accessibility up.
    If the desire is there, the market will deliver.
    If you expect real long term reduction, you have to either legislate or remove the desire to travel by air. Just making it more costly won’t do it.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,811
    morstar said:

    ugo.santalucia said:

    Jeremy.89 said:

    TheBigBean said:

    There were a lot of things wiped out in 2008 that were to never come back, but did e.g. CDOs, 95% mortgages, massive bonuses

    Which I guess is both a positive and a negative!

    I reckon we've pretty much seen the last of the four engine jet passenger planes. Although arguably we already had before lockdown.
    This is an interesting one... both the 747 and decades later the A380 was designed in response to the market... it was more profitable to have fewer planes carrying a large number of passengers, than the opposite.
    Then the 787 and the 737 max were designed in response to the opposite. I think the aviation industry was under too much pressure with too low profit margins, hence trying to squeeze the last penny out of these aircrafts.
    Hopefully the majority will go bust, air fares will go up, fuel cost will go down and airport "fees" will go down too, so that the all industry becomes more sustainable in the long run... and not just environmentally sustainable
    Unless there is a collective decision to actively reduce air travel, I don’t foresee the types of change you envisage.
    Sure, higher prices etc. in the short to mid term will naturally reduce air travel and damage the industry.
    But unless something materially changes in the desire to readily travel the world, market disrupters such as laker and Ryanair will keep re-emerging to drive costs down and accessibility up.
    If the desire is there, the market will deliver.
    If you expect real long term reduction, you have to either legislate or remove the desire to travel by air. Just making it more costly won’t do it.
    Surely the desire is to get to a holiday cheaply rather than the experience of flying Ryanair.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    edited May 2020
    Foreign holidays were much rarer before Laker and Ryanair.
    Low cost was the driver. Remove the low cost, remove the demand.
    I can specifically remember the thought process. If I can go to Spain for the same cost why would I holiday in Britain? Weather was the appeal, but cost was the driver.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    Anyhow, you make my point for me.
    There is demand for low cost air travel. It may not be fulfilled in the short term but the gap will be fulfilled eventually.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    We might heading towards a scenario where quarantining air passengers is a possibility in some countries... there might be volatility in decision making in other countries, leading to a reduced demand.
    Let's assume you are still keen to go to Thailand despite the risk of being quarantined on the way out or back... you still have to face a large travel insurance bill, if you want any real cover, even just healthcare cover.

    Some punters will think twice before travelling to some countries where the healthcare is not as good as in Western Europe and a lot of people who currently have medical conditions might be deterred from travelling abroad altogether, or might have to face astronomical travel insurance costs...

    Combine that with the fact that travelling for business in general is bound to go down and you can see how the travel industry and the airlines in particular are in this for the long haul.
    left the forum March 2023
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    pblakeney said:

    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    I’m not sure what we’re disagreeing about.
    Air travel is going to get more expensive and reduce accordingly. We all seem to agree about that.
    My point is merely that a desire will remain for cheap air travel. Eventually the market will manage to fill that gap.
    The only way the reduction in air travel is permanent is through either, legislation, a fundamental change in the desire to travel or some material change that makes it impossible for cheap air travel to ever return.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    morstar said:


    My point is merely that a desire will remain for cheap air travel. Eventually the market will manage to fill that gap.

    My point is that desires are quite often wishful thinking.
    I am happy to agree to disagree.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    As per above,

    We might see cheap flights making a comeback, but if the rest of the trip costs a lot more, then the desire drops...

    Travel insurance will have to cost more
    Restaurants and bars will have to charge more or close down
    left the forum March 2023
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Anyone has any clue whether a travel insurance to fly to the US and covering for Covid-19 is already costing more?

    Is there any flight to the US at the moment?
    left the forum March 2023
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    In line with the thread title

    - BBC journalistic impartiality
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    Anyone thinks we'll see the state running the railways for quite some time... I mean years?

    I can't see them being profitable to run for the foreseeable future... they barely break even when the trains are crammed and overflowing and increasing ticket fares is unimaginable
    left the forum March 2023
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    The flip side to that point is that they will close if not profitable.
    Then the options are nationalisation or no railways.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,325
    pblakeney said:

    The flip side to that point is that they will close if not profitable.
    Then the options are nationalisation or no railways.

    There might be a middle ground, where the state runs some non profitable local routes and the private sector runs the pricier long distance routes
    left the forum March 2023
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,108
    pblakeney said:

    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    Nobody has said that - you seem to think there is no chance any pro sports will resume in the Autumn as if govts are just leading the governing bodies and organisers on.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    edited May 2020
    DeVlaeminck said:

    pblakeney said:

    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    Nobody has said that - you seem to think there is no chance any pro sports will resume in the Autumn as if govts are just leading the governing bodies and organisers on.
    Yes. I do think the chances of pro sports existing in the autumn as we knew them are slim to none. Also, in my life's priorities watching sport is way, way down the list.

    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,108
    pblakeney said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    pblakeney said:

    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    Nobody has said that - you seem to think there is no chance any pro sports will resume in the Autumn as if govts are just leading the governing bodies and organisers on.
    Yes. I do think the chances of pro sports existing in the autumn as we knew them are slim to none. Also, in my life's priorities watching sport is way, way down the list.

    Which is fine but you seem to also deliberately misrepresent the views of others.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Useless tech start ups that will never make money.
    _
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    DeVlaeminck said:

    pblakeney said:

    DeVlaeminck said:

    pblakeney said:

    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    Nobody has said that - you seem to think there is no chance any pro sports will resume in the Autumn as if govts are just leading the governing bodies and organisers on.
    Yes. I do think the chances of pro sports existing in the autumn as we knew them are slim to none. Also, in my life's priorities watching sport is way, way down the list.

    Which is fine but you seem to also deliberately misrepresent the views of others.
    Such as?
    I just give my own view. Feel free to ignore.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 9,108
    Such as your post above that people are asking for sport to return to normal right now. Nobody on that thread has that expectation.
    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 27,484
    edited May 2020
    DeVlaeminck said:

    Such as your post above that people are asking for sport to return to normal right now. Nobody on that thread has that expectation.

    It was a comparison and there appears to be that expectation in the other thread.
    Point being that the new normal will not be like the old normal.
    Other opinions are available.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,592
    pblakeney said:

    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    I think it's more deluded to think that when this is finally over most people won't want to go back to their foreign holidays and that at some point companies will come back in to undercut the competition and provide flights that pushing profit margins to the limits. If most people end up holidaying in the UK then the likes of the Cornish coast and Lake District are going to struggle to cope without massive investment in facilities and infrastructure.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,660
    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    I think it's more deluded to think that when this is finally over most people won't want to go back to their foreign holidays and that at some point companies will come back in to undercut the competition and provide flights that pushing profit margins to the limits. If most people end up holidaying in the UK then the likes of the Cornish coast and Lake District are going to struggle to cope without massive investment in facilities and infrastructure.
    IAG CEO said it’d take 5 years to return to 2019 passenger levels.
    _
  • Jeremy.89
    Jeremy.89 Posts: 457
    If Gatwick were to shut down, and passenger levels did return to previous levels, then a new runway at Heathrow would be a no brainer!
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,592
    rick_chasey said:

    Pross said:

    pblakeney said:

    morstar said:

    So you went by coach then!?
    No, so it was a combination of cost and convenience.
    The convenience factor being provided by air travel.

    It's not very convenient if you can't afford it though.
    No company is going to survive offering low cost flights at a loss.
    This is like the pro sports thread. "We want things to go back to how they were, now!"
    Deluded.
    I think it's more deluded to think that when this is finally over most people won't want to go back to their foreign holidays and that at some point companies will come back in to undercut the competition and provide flights that pushing profit margins to the limits. If most people end up holidaying in the UK then the likes of the Cornish coast and Lake District are going to struggle to cope without massive investment in facilities and infrastructure.
    IAG CEO said it’d take 5 years to return to 2019 passenger levels.
    Sounds a reasonable guess. It's a long way from from people predicting an end to cheap flights and any long term significant reduction in air travel though.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,592
    Jeremy.89 said:

    If Gatwick were to shut down, and passenger levels did return to previous levels, then a new runway at Heathrow would be a no brainer!

    Gatwick won't shut. For years we've been told London needs greater capacity so the Government can't afford to lose the countries second largest airport that handles 40 odd million passengers a year because of a short to mid term reduction in demand. If all else fails I would assume they'd buy it out and sell it off when business picks up like with the banks.

Categories