That Was The Week That Was 24-27 May 2021
Telling the truth about safety and emissions
Last week, the week that was, was not a good week for the aviation industry. Oh yes, for sure, there were some slightly better figures on traffic, there was some measure of accord regarding a Covid certificate that will let us travel this summer, just as the sun finally started to shine, but in the areas that matter most, safety and the existential issue of sustainability, the industry took some serious hits.
First there is not much more that can be said about last Sunday’s act of hijacking/piracy, other than to note, again, that maybe our system could do with updating. Just a thought. To the extent that the events over Belarus were nothing more than a hard man showing off, we can perhaps dismiss them. The MiG29 makes that a risky option. We cannot assume that everyone loves aviation and indeed the concept of total safety. Maybe we need to give ourselves the right to act decisively and in ways that are shaped by current and future risks and technologies. Nevertheless Monday was spent analysing the events of Sunday and vowing to take action. Outrage was also expressed and the Council agenda altered to make way for discussions on the topic, giving a perfect platform for further outrage. Some of that outrage from the Council included a strong show of support for that well known and highly-valued European carrier Ryanair from that well known supporter of Ryanair, France. Suddenly, Ryanair was a European airline after all.
Tuesday saw more outrage, including from those that needed to come in off a long run-up to fully express their concern. ICAO, for example, was ‘strongly concerned’. So was the global community of pilots. It is remarkable that alone was enough to see a Belarusian change of heart.
The more important risk we had to start to look at this week was on the emissions front. Nothing made that more obvious than a court decision on Wednesday. Shell was sued in the Dutch courts and found liable to reduce their emissions, and the emissions of their products, in line with their obligations under the Paris Accord. This has huge ramifications. The case was brought by Greenpeace and other activists, most of whom have noticed that aviation is an industry with an emissions conundrum. On the other hand, aviation emissions are currently not really in the Paris Accord, unless national budgets agree to include them.
To the extent there is an upside, it will force fuel suppliers to move more rapidly into bio-fuels, or as we call them in aviation, Sustainable Aviation Fuels. Just as well, is all that the German Aerospace Research Institute, DLR, can say, because on Thursday, they released the results of a long term study they conducted that showed even under extremely favourable assumptions on aircraft technology development, ATM efficiency improvements and SAF usage, emissions in 2050 are likely to be only marginally below 2014 emission levels. To be carbon neutral, DLR is saying that 80% of fuel must be SAF.
Making that task all the harder, apparently, is the headlong rush to electric cars. Going directly to such cars, the lobbying groups for, er, non-electric cars, noted in a letter to the Commission, means that there is less incentive to push forward quickly and with determination on bio-fuels. So by weekend, not only did we have an unholy alliance between France and Ryanair, but between road transport and aviation. What a week that was…