Yesterday I took a flight from London to Stuttgart.  It was a business trip, but after the business part was done I had time to enjoy what is a beautiful city.  Busy and vibrant on a Friday afternoon, the weather good, and plenty of street cafes to sit and watch the human traffic go by with a beer in hand.  My question is this:

 Is it right that it cost me only 100GBP to fly there? 

The same journey by road or rail would have cost several times more.  Aviation fuel is tax subsidised leading to budget airlines springing up, creating over supply and artificially reduced prices.  But is this a good or bad thing? The argument that a single plane journey replaces the 100 single journeys that would be made by road or rail otherwise doesn’t stack up – most people on my flight wouldn’t have paid the extra money or time to do that.  And without that demand, the budget airlines wouldn’t exist etc etc.  To sum up:

The bad: Massive damage to the environment, consumption of scarce resources (oil) on in some case pointless journeys.  The good: The chance for the mass market to visit places they wouldn’t otherwise.  A boost to the economy where the people end up as they spend money at their destinations.  Translation of people intra Europe boosting the notion of Europe as a single nation.

It was midway through the return trip (cramped up in my German Wings plane) that I made my mind up.  I was sat behind a noisy group of very excited German schoolgirls about to embark on a weeks trip.  They applauded the stewards performing the pre-flight safety demonstration.  They applauded the take off, the announcement we were going to land, the landing itself.  They tore through the arrival lounge to get to our hallowed country.  And where were they going I hear you ask?  Not London, but a weeks retreat in NORWICH.  Anything that can make someone excited about going there has to be a great thing!

But joking side I concluded that budget flights were a good thing.  Increased use of air travel and the associated environmental damage are here to stay.  If the rich western world denies itself in this regard fine, but the developing nations will not as they move rapidly into the 21st Century.  China is already racing to match the oil consumption of the US, and they are only getting started.  Globally, it is going to happen anyway.

On the upside the opportunity for increased travel will broaden the horizons of those who use it, increase the ties that bind us within the European region, and make the economies of all involved better as business travel is made cheaper and easier.  And, along the way, one of those girls on the schooltrip to Norwich may be inspired and motivated to become a scientist, one that 20 years down the road invents an atmospheric CO2 scrubber, or who assists in the refinement of nuclear fusion and cleaner energy sources.  Better that then left to join the games console generation sat at home, pretending that the ability t0 email mates and surf the web is as mind expanding as an actual trip abroad.

My wife has read this, and disagrees with me.  My view is swayed by my own positive experience yesterday.  This debate will run and run.

I have 4 children.  There was a view that an odd number 1 or 3 would result in lone or middle child syndrome.  4 seemed a nice round number.  Given the eldest 3 are all girls there was an assumption by many that we kept going until we had a boy.  Oh whatever.  At least this is not a new phenomenon.  Stone Agers would have kept plugging away until they had the requisite number of males, and not worried about the social esotericism of getting the mix right.  Mind you, I imagine they wouldn’t have worried about who they had those kids with.    Now that would be a mix.

All I know is that each, in their own way, fit perfectly such that you couldn’t imagine the mix being different or that we’d want it to be different.  Parental rosy specs I know but there you have it.