COMMENT: Airlines and HSR - Uneasy Bedfriends?

In an article in the Evening Standard in June, Peter Dominiczac reports that Boris Johnson's aviation adviser, Daniel Moylan, believes that there is a better business case for the proposed Thames Estuary Airport (I'll call it TEA for now) than for the planned High Speed 2 (HS2) rail project. Johnson has long been one of the most outspoken proponents of the TEA project over a third runway at Heathrow.
Moylan quotes budget figures for the two projects, pointing out that TEA will have a much higher return-on-investment than HS2, owing to the business connections it can foster.

But why should these projects oppose each other? I mean, yes, a new "four-runway mega-hub" airport would bring more economic benefits than a domestic rail network (well, not even a network) but realistically there's hardly any reason to compare them to each other.
Firstly, a new mega-hub in the south-east of the United Kingdom would reduce congestion at the full-to-bursting London Heathrow, and provide those all-important business travellers with their beloved onward connections to the Middle East, Asia and North America, and would create jobs.


On the other hand, HS2 will give passengers a quick, easy and presumably affordable alternative to flying between the north and south of the UK. Not bring investment from abroad (apart, perhaps from sponsorships and advertising?). It will also create jobs, up and down the west of the country. I don't see how you can compare them.

Airlines and high-speed rail have a mixed history. Most people see rail as a 'green' alternative to flying, and the commonly held belief in the industries (yes, both of them) is that on overland journeys up to around 800km, aeroplanes are less efficient. Not necessarily so. Several articles from both the New Scientist and The Guardian show that, in fact, depending on how full they are running, the fuel used to power them, and the infrastructure needed to run them, they could as environmentally damaging or worse than flying. Now, I can't say for HS2 for certain as I don't know the exact details, but it is something to bear in mind.

Environment aside, I strongly believe there is the capacity for HS2 (and, indeed, other rail networks) to compliment airline route networks. In fact, it has been proven. In Germany, Deutsche-Bahn's Rail&Fly initiative allows passengers to board onward train connections using the same ticket as for the flight, for an extra fee. France has a similar, albeit more limited service with the subjects this time being Air France and SNCF, the French national rail company. They call it TGVair.

The tech-mag Wired also thinks collaboration is key. The opportunities are endless; codesharing, alliances, marketing opps, connections for passengers... However, at the moment it is dubious as to whether these opportunities will be grasped with HS2 as some are claiming that Heathrow might not even have its own station built after all, and if it is the trains would be leaving at a low frequency. No good for businessmen and women!

Regardless of the final decisions on HS2 and the Thames Estuary Airport projects, I see great scope for integrating rail networks with those of airlines, and I hope that those in charge of the planning of them will see it too.

Global Aviation Market Outlook 2012

Airbus today released its 20-year forecast for the civil aviation industry (Boeing's has already been released) and it predicts nothing short of continued growth. Here are some of the key figures:

• 27,350 new passenger aircraft are to be built which, with retirements taken into account, brings the total fleet  to over 32,500 (an increase of 109%).
• 850 new freighter aircraft, leading to a total fleet of 2,900 (+82%)
• This brings total new aircraft deliveries to 28,200.

But the really important figure to look is the third:

• Revenue Passenger Kilometres (RPK) to increase by a factor of 2.5, from 5.1 trillion to 12.8 trillion per year. Twelve-point-eight trillion seats. It's an increase of 150%, and it's not just seats available on aircraft (ASKs), it's the number of people paying for them.

Boeing's forecast is even more optimistic, seeing a demand for 34,000 new civil aircraft. Of these they believe that 68% will be narrowbodies, with widebodies and Very Large Aircraft (VLAs) making up 26%. 

Both companies give a total value for aircraft deliveries up to 2031 of around US$4 trillion. This is a tasty sum for whomever can get their hands on some of it. Of course the majority - around 60% - will be split between Boeing and Airbus (pretty much equally) with the remaining 40% split between the second-tier players such as Bombardier, Embraer, Comac etc.

Boeing notes some of the influences on the industry in the forthcoming two decades, including global economic growth of 3.2% leading to industry growth of around 5%, strategic aircraft utilisation to help offset fuel costs, emerging markets and business models.

These are mirrored by Airbus, who also add increasing population and internationalism. They say that "Aviation Mega-Cities" (those who handle more than 10,000 long-haul passengers per day) are driving demand for VLAs such as the A380. There are currently 42 classified as these by Airbus, and they predict this rising to over 90 by 2031.

Airbus' John Leahy, Chief Operating Officer Customers, who presented the 

market outlook in London today

Of course, all of this barely scratches the surface of the information provided by the two companies, but it demonstrates the continued faith that experts have in industry's recovery from the turbulent past few years.

I'll leave you with a quote from John Leahy, Airbus' Chief Operating Officer Customers; "...by 2031 four of the world’s biggest traffic flows will all be domestic - US, China, Intra Western Europe and India – and these account for a third of world traffic”

You can view the Boeing pages here, and the Airbus slideshow (in PDF format) here. 

You can also see the forecast from Bombardier here, and from Embraer here too.