The government has launched an outspoken attack on major airlines for refusing to take climate change seriously, branding Ryanair "the irresponsible face of capitalism" and describing the attitude of major American airlines "a disgrace".

<...> the minister is determined to stand up to the intense lobbying by parts of the airline industry, especially its efforts to delay market-based curbs being placed on its emissions.

<...>

Mr Pearson also said he regards the predicted growth in airlines' carbon emissions such a threat to the government's plans to cut emissions by 60% by 2050 that he still wants the European Union to go further - and faster - to include airline emissions in its trading scheme.<...>

The EU says the proposals will constrain growth in carbon emissions. But Ryanair's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, has vowed to boycott the scheme, dismissing the proposal as "just another tax", while the big American international operators are threatening lawsuits to prevent the inclusion of US flights in and out of Europe.

In surprisingly tough language, Mr Pearson described Mr O'Leary's attitude as "just completely off the wall. When it comes to climate change, Ryanair are not just the unacceptable face of capitalism, they are the irresponsible face of capitalism. O'Leary just seems to take pride in refusing to recognise that climate change is a genuine problem". He also said the attitude of the American airline industry was disgraceful and needed to change: "They just seem to be saying they don't want anything to do with the trading scheme, and that they will take the EU to court if transatlantic flights are included. It is completely irresponsible."

In a companion Guardian article, Environment Editor John Vidal laid out a number of points in support of Pearson:

The government's aggressive language about the aviation industry's failure to get to grips with cutting pollution reflects growing frustration that its emissions are undermining Britain's strategy on climate change...  cheap flights, globalisation and the mounting cost of train travel have made aviation by far the fastest growing source of carbon dioxide in the UK.

Emissions from UK aviation have increased by nearly 70% since 1990 and rose by 11% in 2004 alone. While they amount to less than 3% of national carbon emissions, expected growth will nearly double this within 25 years.

In addition, aviation is the most highly polluting mode of transportation on earth, and its low share of total emissions hides the fact that the complex chemical reactions that take place when aviation fuel is burned at high altitude make emissions from aeroplanes nearly four times as damaging as those at ground level.

Not surprisingly, Ryanair replied to Pearson, and then The Independent talked about hot air, and Green and other movements accused both sides of making a lot of noise to mask inaction.

Why attack Ryanair? Because the problem with GHG emission from aircraft as a share of total GHG emissions, is the rapid expansion of civil aviation, and that expansion is led by the explosion of low-cost flights, Ryanair leading the way. And also, no doubt, because Ryanair CEO Michael O'Leary has a big mouth and has used it on many occasions.

Mr O'Leary, the particular source of Mr Pearson's anger, has gone out of his way to upset the environmental lobby, saying his company is planning to increase its carbon emissions as it expands. He has dismissed a recent report by the Treasury's chief economist, Sir Nicholas Stern, saying: "A lot of lies and misinformation has been put about by eco nuts on the back of a report by an idiot economist."

So Pearson had a go at him while raising his personal profile, and gave another example of New Labour no longer staying on message, symptom of Blair's more-or-less impending departure. A storm in an airport lounge teacup?

But this shallow marketista populism, that of O'Leary who defends his airline by saying it's "popular", and that of Blair and his government who have consistently said that cheap flights were democratising air travel by opening it up to the less well-off, doesn't go down too well with me (well-known elitist ;)). Not because I like high prices, but because the externalities, the costs to the environment and therefore to all of us, are not priced into air fares, which also benefit from a long-term hidden subsidy because plane fuel is not taxed.

And Ryanair's reply to Pearson struck me as having an unlikely ring to it. A Ryanair spokesman said that Ryanair was Europe's greenest airline, because:

<...> Ryanair has spent over $10bn on a fleet of fuel-efficient engines which have reduced fuel burn by 45% and cut CO2 emissions by 50% per passenger <...>

Greenest airline, huh? Well, it so happens that Ryanair has just finished phasing out its old fleet of Boeing 737-200s and replacing them with 737-800s. So just right now, it has a young fleet.

Ryanair Fleet:

Boeing 737-800

Number           107

Capacity           189

But is that the result of an environment-conscious policy, or the pursuit of rapid expansion? The main deal with Boeing (carried out at considerable gain to Ryanair in the aftermath of 9/11) was set out in a shareholder document (pdf!) in July 2002. Here's the overall outlook it presents:

In the fiscal year ended 31 March 2002 Ryanair carried approximately 10.2 million passengers... the aircraft acquired under the 2002 Boeing Contract will help provide Ryanair with sufficient capacity to handle up to 40 million passengers per annum by 2010.

Projected growth by four times in eight years... In fact, Ryanair has done very considerably better than that, since it will probably reach the 40 million passenger mark in 2007 or 2008, rather than 2010. Look at this:

In the current year [2006] Ryanair will carry over 35m. passengers on 438 low fare routes across 24 European countries. We have 18 European bases and a fleet of over 100 brand new Boeing 737-800 aircraft, with firm orders for a further 138 new aircraft, which will be delivered over the next six years. These additional aircraft will allow Ryanair to double in size to over 70m. passengers p.a. by 2012.

Expansion, expansion. But surely the fuel efficiency was planned for too? Back to the 2002 shareholder document:

Ryanair selected the Boeing Next Generation 737-800 for the following reasons:

• a competitive offer from Boeing


• more seats (189) on the Boeing 737-800s, than on the A320s (180) or 737-700 (149)


• lower per seat operating costs than A320s or 737-700s


• Ryanair already successfully operates 23 Boeing 737-800s


• streamlined turnarounds, crewing, training, maintenance and spares


• phased deliveries will give Ryanair the capacity to achieve a 25% annual increase in passenger numbers

The phased delivery of these aircraft should provide Ryanair with sufficient capacity to allow it to meet management's long term target of continuing to achieve an increase in passenger volumes in the order of 25% per annum by opening new routes and increasing frequency on certain existing routes.

Well, they didn't choose the 737-800 for the fuel efficiency of its engines, it isn't on the list. The shareholder report does say this about the engines:

The Boeing 737-800 is powered by new CFM 56-7 engines produced by CFMI, a joint venture of General Electric of the United States and Snecma of France... The engines operate at noise levels well below Chapter 3 limits (under EU Directives governing aircraft noise emissions, all aircraft operated by EU carriers are required to comply with Chapter 3 noise requirements established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation).

That's all well and good, but still nothing about fuel efficiency. Let's check on the engine, the CFM 56-7 (Wikipedia). Nothing special. No great whizzbang advance in fuel efficiency noted. It's just the latest CFM 56 in a long series, that Boeing has fitted to its aircraft for 25 years now.

The Ryanair web site does talk about fuel consumption in relation to the environment (no need, apparently, to bore the shareholders with it):

The Boeing 737-800 Next Generation aircraft has a vastly superior fuel burn to passenger kilometre ratio than that of the 737-200 aircraft. The move from these older aircraft to new 737-800 Next Generation aircraft alone has reduced Ryanair's fuel consumption and CO2 emissions per passenger kilometre by 45%.

Ah, here we get the 45% figure. Per passenger, you'll note, not per mile flown by the plane. The 737-800 carries more passengers than the 737-200, and is being used by Ryanair in a context of rapid growth; so the airline's overall emissions are of course rising, and that's what ends up in the atmosphere. And is the 45% number astounding? Not really. Let's take a look at the fleet Ryanair was flying just yesterday, made up of 737-200s:

Boeing 737-200:

These models are heading for extinction owing to poor fuel efficiency, high noise emissions (despite the vast majority having had their JT8Ds fitted with hush kits) and escalating maintenance costs. A large number of the -200s still in operation are with "second tier" airlines and those of developing nations. The first generation 737s are all powered by Pratt & Whitney JT8D low-bypass ratio turbofan engines.

These are planes and engines designed in the 1960s. Ryanair now has planes designed over thirty years later. It's not surprising there's an efficiency gain, all the more that the Pratt and Whitney engines that equipped the 737-200s were already mediocre in this respect.

Finally, there's this statement of policy in the shareholder document:

The Directors believe that Ryanair's operating costs are among the lowest of any European scheduled passenger airline. Ryanair strives to reduce four of the primary expenses involved in running a major scheduled airline: (i) aircraft equipment costs; (ii) personnel expenses; (iii) customer service costs; and (iv) airport access and handling costs.

Reduce fuel consumption and thus GHG emissions? It isn't even on the radar.

Am I making too much of this, am I Ryanair-bashing? Could be. But Ryanair are the aggressive leaders of European civil aviation growth, particularly for "frivolous" short-haul flights where the company's policy is just to go out there and create demand for what was not there before. This they do by increasing the number of flights on existing routes, creating new routes, running intensive point-to-point short-haul services at the lowest possible (sometimes incredibly low) ticket price, and thus doing the supply thing: put it out there, people will buy it. In the light of that expansionist policy, calling yourself "the greenest airline" is a plain lie.

No matter, will say Blair (and no doubt many others). Ordinary people are at last being able to afford flights. Old-age pensioners can at last take the holiday of a lifetime. Air travel is no longer the privilege of the well-off.

Really? The UK's Civil Aviation Authority's statistics don't appear to back that up. The CAA compiles annual passenger survey stats for a number of UK airports, including Stansted. Stansted is one of London's four main airports, and is the low-cost hub. It is Ryanair's biggest base, while serving for other low-cost airlines too. The passenger survey for 2005 (latest available) shows that passengers come predominantly from South-East England, and:

- The household income of UK leisure passengers at Gatwick was around £52,000 per annum, slightly more than their counterparts at Stansted (£51,000) and Luton (£50,000) but considerably more than passengers using Manchester (£39,000), Bournemouth (£37,000) and Prestwick (£41,000);

From the full report (pdf!) I worked out the median household income of Stansted leisure passengers, around the £40,000 p.a. mark. These figures rather support the idea that low-cost airlines are catering for a fairly comfortably-off middle class (if you factor in the business passengers, the income levels rise sharply, of course). This conclusion is borne out by the socio-economic breakdown:

A and B are professional, managerial, and technical occupations, C1 non-manual skilled occupations, C2 manual skilled, D/E low- and unskilled.

The age breakdown doesn't indicate a rush of old folks either. By my calculations, only 8.7% of Stansted leisure passengers are over 65.

Conclusion: low-cost airline expansion is neither green nor egalitarian. It doesn't matter, says Blair: only yesterday I was saying we had to get serious about carbon emissions, now I'm defending the English middle classes' much-loved cheap flights they don't need, it's all the same, let's get a techno-fix, shall we? <grin... how did I do, Rupert?>