Images of aircraft guzzling fuel, spewing carbon out of their engines and wasteful use of resources are things of the past. Today, even the simplest things such as ticketless travel, recycling of materials and latest aircraft technology using composite materials all attest to the great strides made. Just one example: South African Airways recently introduced the A350 – which uses around half of the fuel of the previous A340 aircraft – on their Johannesburg-New York service; two engines really are better than four! 

Before we get carried away with targets that are some 30 years away, and for which no one is likely to ultimately be held accountable, should we perhaps take a step back and put sustainability in context? 

The recent Flybe situation – for which the full details are still to be announced – highlighted the need for a comprehensive UK aviation policy that both combines the economic need for regional connectivity and the longer-term objectives of carbon-free operations. Ultimately it may be that some form of light-handed regulatory approach to regional air services, expansion of PSO type support and secured access to Heathrow without the constant attraction of slot swapping will be necessary.

Sustainable aviation also requires – as the coalition identifies – investment in infrastructure to achieve a zero position. Anyone who has arrived on a flight at Heathrow and, increasingly, Gatwick and not had to circle the delights of Essex and Sussex has been arriving on the first flights of the day. Aircraft holding before landing is a uniquely British event and something we shouldn’t be particularly proud of, although the skill of NATS and the airports to squeeze more and more into an already full system is a near magic trick. 

Part of the challenge we face is linked to the frequency of services operated to some destinations. Each day of the week there are some 19 flights a day from London to the United Arab Emirates, with perhaps 80% or more of those passengers connecting to another destination. Do we really need that many? Is it the right use of valuable resources? Is trade between the two countries that large? Similarly, do we really need 23 flights a day from London to New York? And at the other end of the spectrum perhaps we need to find a way to regulate services to destinations where average load factors are consistently below market averages; is a 73% load factor for a daily Heathrow service best use of the resource?

And then of course APD needs to be considered in the context of sustainability. Originally imposed on the industry at relatively short notice and “sold in” as designed to support investment in UK aviation, it’s done nothing of the sort.

It has in fact, if you believe the airlines, damaged profitability, frustrated demand and accounted for more airline failures than any individual’s career. Hindsight is wonderful and frustratingly useless, but you just wonder how much further forward we would be if all the funds from APD had been ploughed into the development of alternative fuels and other carbon-saving schemes.

Today’s words are just that: words. Commendable, great sound bites for everyone and some nice warm fuzzy feelings. Ultimately actions always speak louder than words and if today’s words lead to those actions and the development of a coherent, sustainable aviation framework that allows airlines to develop profitably and have the subsequent confidence in which to invest in saving the planet then that would be great. But first we need that framework and environment to be created. Let’s see if the regulatory authorities are pretending or really listening.

John Grant is a senior analyst at OAG.