A Tale of Profit and Loss - The Future of Air Travel – Part 2

This is a guest post from Cameron Leckie of ASPO Australia.

The first post on this series on the future of air travel1 looked at the fuel economy of the aircraft fleets in service with QANTAS and Virgin Blue on fuel economy and fuel economy per passenger perspective. Not surprisingly, the smaller aircraft were more economical than the larger aircraft, however the larger aircraft, in general, were more economical on a per passenger basis. Thank you for all those who commented on the previous post and the information that you provided.

This post gets to the crux of the matter. Profit and loss! No business can survive on sustained losses; sooner or later it will become insolvent. This post will investigate how long Australia’s two largest airlines, QANTAS and Virgin Blue can remain profitable in the era of high oil prices.

How long can they remain profitable?

This post will examine in some detail Australia’s two largest airlines with the aim to establish how long they will remain profitable in an era of high oil prices.

The approach taken is to develop growth figures across a number of categories based on the airlines historical data. The data has been obtained from the financial reports of both airlines.2 The time frame that has been used is from FY 2003/04 through to 2006/07. The historical growth rates will then be projected forward until 2018. After developing the base case, a number of differing scenarios will be developed that will provide an indication of how long we can expect the airlines to remain profitable. The factors that have been considered and the per annum growth rates over the period are displayed in table one.

Factor QANTAS Group Growth pa Virgin Blue Growth pa Description
Revenue 8.4% 9.9% Data calculated from financial statements
Expenses 9.3% 10.2% Data calculated from financial statements
Expenses (less fuel) 5.1% 6.7% This has been calculated due to the different growth rates in non fuel expenses and fuel expenses.
Fuel 36.5% 29.3% Data calculated from financial statements
Available Seat Kilometres (ASK) 4.3% 8.3% Measures the airlines capacity growth.
Revenue/ASK 3.5% 1.1% Measures revenue per ASK
Expenses/ASK 4.3% 1.3% Measures expenses per ASK
Fuel/ASK 27.5% 14% Measures fuel costs per ASK

Table One: Factors considered in determining the future profitability of QANTAS and Virgin Blue.

This table shows that expenses have been growing at a faster rate than revenue for the last four financial years, mainly due to the significant increase in fuel costs over that period.

To determine the airlines future profitability, the revenue and expenses of the airline have been related to its capacity, or Available Seat Kilometres (ASK) giving two values, being revenue per ASK (R/ASK) and expenses per ASK (E/ASK). For as long as an airline can keep R/ASK greater than E/ASK an airline will remain profitable.

Using the historical growth rates, a baseline (or business as usual) projection has been made for the period 2008 to 2018. The non fuel and fuel expenses have been calculated separately and summed to provide the projected expenses. Using this baseline projection, fuel as percentage of total operating cost, increases from 24% in 2007 to 58% in 2018 for QANTAS and 27% to 75% for Virgin Blue. Chart one and two detail the future profitability of QANTAS and Virgin Blue respectively using this baseline.

Chart One: Baseline for the future profitably of QANTAS and Virgin Blue. Based upon historical growth rates for the period FY 2003/04 to FY 2006/07 projected to 2018.

Using this baseline, QANTAS will make a net loss from 2009 and Virgin Blue from 2012. Over time the losses per ASK increase and at some point the airlines will become insolvent. This baseline will be now used to develop a number of other scenarios. The scenarios that will be used are described below:

  • Scenario one. Revenue, fuel costs and capacity growth continues to grow at historical rates whilst on-fuel costs reduce.
  • Scenario two. Revenue and fuel costs continues to grow at historical rates (calculated according to provided capacity), whilst non-fuel costs and capacity reduce.
  • Scenario three. Fuel costs continues to grow at historical rates (calculated according to provided capacity) whilst revenue, non-fuel costs and capacity reduce.
  • Scenario four. Fuel costs remain constant relative to capacity whilst revenue, non-fuel costs and capacity reduce.
  • Scenario five. Fuel costs remain constant relative to capacity whilst revenue, non-fuel costs and capacity increase at historical rates.

2% per annum has been used as the figure declining costs, capacity growth and revenue. Obviously, higher or lower figures will result in changes to the predictions developed.

Some of these scenario’s assume that the airlines can increase revenue and reduce non fuel operating costs in an era of high oil prices. Oil prices have been negatively impacting airlines for some years now. For example in the QANTAS annual report of 2005 it stated that ‘Qantas’ greatest challenge remains the cost of fuel, which we believe will stay at the current high levels.3 As a result airlines for a number of years have been reducing costs. The easy cost saving options have already implemented, meaning that to further reduce costs will be increasingly difficult. The airlines will no doubt continue to raise fuel surcharges in an effort to increase revenue. Unfortunately for the airlines, each fare increase will result in fewer passengers, meaning that their Revenue Seat Factor or Load factor will fall, leading to further capacity reduction.

Chart two and three provides a summary of the profit/loss per ASK for the base case and the five scenarios for QANTAS and Virgin Blue respectively.

Chart two. Summary of profit/loss for QANTAS against the base case and four scenarios.

Chart three. Summary of profit/loss for Virgin Blue against the base case and four scenarios

This chart shows the fairly sobering picture that, with the exception of scenario four and five, both QANTAS and Virgin Blue are likely to become unprofitable between now and 2018. The scenario’s have not been assigned probabilities, however my gut feel is as follows:

  • The price of jet fuel will continue to increase at or above the current rate as we approach and past peak oil.
  • Both airlines will slow their capacity growth over the next couple of years before reducing it.
  • Both airlines will attempt to reduce their non-fuel operating costs, although this may be difficult due to inflation.
  • Revenue will decrease over time as fewer passengers can afford to travel, due to increases in the cost of air travel and the worsening economic situation associated with the onset of peak oil. I don’t see passenger numbers beginning to fall for a year or two yet, as I don’t think that the pinch from higher fuel prices has as yet significantly changed spending habits (either that or we are just going further into debt?).

This most closely resembles scenario three, meaning that as early as 2010, both of Australia’s major airlines could cease to be profitable. At some point, if they continue to be unprofitable they will become insolvent.

Winners and losers

The impact of Australia’s two largest airlines collapsing would be enormous. But, as in all situations, there are winners and losers. The losers would include:

  • Those people who work for the airlines.
  • Those individuals and funds managers invested in airlines, airports and associated infrastructure.
  • The industry that supports aviation, including component manufacturers, maintenance and repair, air traffic control, catering etc.
  • Airports, including the corporations that own them, security staff, retailers operating from airports, car hire companies, taxi drivers.
  • Tourism, including tour operators, hotels, restaurants and retail outlets in tourist centres.
  • Organisations that rely upon air travel for movement of personnel for meetings, courses and work such as mining, government and many other businesses.

The winners list is somewhat shorter:

  • Public transport such as trains and buses.
  • Long distance bus companies.
  • Telecommunications companies, particularly those support tele-conferencing, video tele-conferencing and other technologies allowing people to work from home.
  • Our climate.
  • Oil depletion may slow due to reduced fuel demand.

Hopefully Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) vision of an undulating oil production plateau4 will eventuate (see here for a response to CERAs view5), demand will soften and the airlines will remain marginally profitable for the next decade or two. Personally however, I don’t ascribe to hope as a method of fixing problems, particularly problems of such magnitude.

Inaccuracies

The model is relatively simple, and as a result has some inherent inaccuracies. These include:

  • Not all revenue is derived from passengers. For example, only 79% of QANTAS’ revenue came from passenger revenue in 2006-07. The bulk of the remainder came from air freight and tours and travel services. Higher oil prices will likely have a negative effect on these revenue sources as well, so this should not have a significant impact on the model.
  • Does not specifically account for changes in foreign exchange rates and changes in the oil price. My first model attempted to oil prices and foreign exchange rates to calculate total oil costs, however there was too many unknowns (such as hedging strategies) to make this viable.
  • Does not consider the performance of differing groups within the airlines. For example QANTAS has domestic, international, regional and Jetstar amongst its groups. The performance amongst these groups could vary significantly. Whilst operating statistics are available for each of these business units, the financial data is not so easy to source.
  • Historical growth rates are not an accurate prediction of future growth rates. To counter this, the model will be updated over time using a four year moving average. The FY 07/08 full year results will be interesting.
  • The impact of oil supply disruptions has not been considered, however with minimal capacity to surge current oil production, we are probably only an extreme weather event, terrorist act or geo-political event away from physical shortages. This would most likely be a very costly for airlines.

Conclusion

This analysis provides some very worrying findings. Both of Australia’s major airlines could become unprofitable within a couple of years if current trends continue and unviable at some point shortly after that. There is some hope that a reduction in capacity and non-fuel operating costs with a steadying of fuel costs may allow the airlines to remain profitable, but with peak exports likely past and peak oil in the not to distant future, this is a slim hope.

From a risk management perspective, the collapse of airlines would have a major negative impact on the Australia economy. Based on this analysis, it is almost certain that the airlines will collapse, it is only a matter of time unless fuel prices are reduced, and quickly, to a more manageable level over the long term. Declining exports and discoveries whilst demand continues to increase, means that it is unlikely that this will occur. The net result is that Australia faces an extreme level of risk.

With so much at stake, it would be reasonable to expect that our nation’s leaders would be doing everything in their power to prepare the nation for a new age of higher oil prices. Over recent weeks, there has been much discussion by the major political parties on issues such as FuelWatch6 and reducing either the GST or excise on petrol, but very little on practical methods of reducing our dependence on oil. I will leave it to you to decide how well we are being served by our leaders on an issue of such vital importance to the future of our nation.

The final post in this series will consider the airlines response to peak oil, particularly looking at alternative fuels and new aircraft types and determine whether there is any hope for airlines and air travel in a world of high oil prices.

1 http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/4143#comments_top
2 http://www.qantas.com.au/info/about/investors/index and http://www.virginblue.com.au/AboutUs/Virginbluecorporateinformation/Investorinformation/index.htm
3 http://www.qantas.com.au/infodetail/about/investors/2005AnnualReport.pdf
4 http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/news/pressReleases/pressReleaseDetails.aspx?CID=8444
5 http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/15/83857/186
6 http://assistant.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayDocs.aspx?doc=pressreleases/2008/023.htm&pageID=003&min=ceb&Year=&DocType=0

The Charts have not come up too well. The legend for Chart One is:
Red = QANTAS
Blue = Virgin Blue

Thin line = Revenue
Hashed line = Expenses
Thick line = Profit/Loss

For Charts 2 and 3, although you can't see out to 2018, you can still see the picture, unprofitable for base case, scenarios 1-3 and remain profitable for scenario 4 and 5.

Cameron Leckie

Some recent airline news:

Soaring Fuel Costs Carry Risk Of Airline Collapse, By TED JACKOVICS, The Tampa Tribune
Published: June 24, 2008, http://tinyurl.com/6jfnp4

Fuel prices a bigger problem than 'Sep 11 or SARS'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/24/2284116.htm?section=justin

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23912344-2702,00.html
Qantas will try to offshore labour especially where a high AUD helps.

Major airlines facing closure 'within six months'
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/20/2280374.htm

I've cropped the image sizes now - hopefully they display corectly for everyone now - click on them to enlarge to full size.

Clearly you don't have as wide a screen as I do :-)

Wide screen? Plasma????
(First the news that Euan Mearns flies off to go skiing twice a year, and now this!) ;-)

Its just a Mac - nothing too out of the ordinary.

It is a fair bit wider than my PC screen at work though, hence my occasional lapse using large images - they look good to me.

I did once see a reader (in SiteMeter) with a screen that was 6000 by 5000 pixels - would love to see how we look on that :-)

Big Gav,
Airline travel is also public transportation!
The conclusion that Qantas is going to become insolvent is assuming that it won't continue to increase air-fares. At 3-4L/100km, most trips use less fuel than driving. Trains and cruise ship travel is more expensive at present, buses very uncomfortable. 30 years ago we paid much more for air travel, and most will still travel by air because it saves time and money relative to alternatives. The biggest impact would be on retired tourists, who are not paid for lost travel time.
The last 5% of oil availability will probably be used on aircraft fuel because there is not other ways of traveling overseas at 700km/h.
All other uses for oil can be replaced by various alternatives.

Neil:

You're assuming that citizens of the world are going to have the money to spend on air travel. I suspect the first segment of society to stop flying will be vacationers who simply won't be able to afford it. Business travel will continue for some time but with declining global trade, that too will enter decline.

Peak Oil is going to decimate the tourist industry. A huge number of people carve out a living in that business & it's going to have dire effects for some countries that need that infusion of capital. There comes a time when you think...I can fly there in 3 hours or drive in 2 days in a small car & I'll save 50%. You start asking yourself..what's more important, the 2 days you spend driving of the 500 bucks you save. If you're a family that's cash strapped, it's the 500 dollars.

I figure the first airlines to collapse will be the economy carriers. They don't have alot of wiggle room & raising flight costs is out of the question for many. It's much easier to increase costs to a well paid businessman in first class.

Has there been any work on Hydrogen planes ?

Hi Anti_Elvis,
You are not including all the costs of driving;1) uses more fuel for one person than flying 2) accommodation costs 3) loss of wages for 2 days or 2 days less vacation time. I would agree that for retired people time and even accommodation may not matter(sometimes the best part of the trip is the travel).
Yes, if there is a complete economic collapse the airlines will go down with everything else, thats self evident. The question is surely will people fly even if they spend twice or even ten times the real cost of airfares?. We know form 40 years ago, they will, at least to travel overseas. As a student my first trip overseas in 1972 cost 6 months salary for the airfare. Today it would be 1 months of a graduate students salary. Similarly, if we still have business people, they will travel by air rather than drive 1 or 2 days.

In the USA people are already shifting to driving instead of flying. Yesterday my cousin and his wife from North Carolina stopped by St. Louis, Missouri while driving to Wyoming. They decided on short notice to visit some reletives there and considered air fare (about $2000) versus two and a half days each way in the car. In comparing the gas cost to flying over half the $$$ is saved by taking their 28mpg car (3800 miles total / 28mpg) x $4 per gallon = $543. My cousin has a good paying job and lots of vacation time, so the time factor was not so important. Many middle and lower income people simply will not make the trip instead of taking the time off work to drive or pay the much higher air fare.

The bottom line is that flying in ten years will be done largely by the wealthy people and business travelers, just like 45 years ago. Others will take a train or bus or, if gas is not rationed, take the car. Many trips will be foregone. I forecast air travel to fall by 30% or more in the next ten years.

On the topic of using trains, I did read recently in the NY Times that Amtrak was booked right up. I was most shocked that Amtrak only has around 700 rail cars for the entire nation. Is Amtrak a private company or is it controlled by the US government? I'm Canadian, we have Via Rail, which was national for years, but that ended in the 80's. I don't think things are much better up here.

IINM, Amtrak is a private company, but recieves annual funding from various levels of Government. The lower down the totem pole you go, the more generous elected officials are willing to be towards Amtrak.

Amtrak itself came about as a result of pretty much every railroad in the US withdrawing their passenger trains. Moving people was never profitable (or perhaps marginally so), even in the heyday of the passenger fleet. Rather, it was the extra revenue generated by the mail that allowed the vast numbers of passenger trains to flourish. As air and road took larger and larger pieces of the Mail traffic away, the trains became unprofitable.

In it's own way, Peak Oil will force mail back to the rails (as trucking and air companies go bust), and help with a rebirth of long-distance rail passenger travel. :)

At 3-4L/100km, most trips use less fuel than driving.

A few points:

  • That's a per passenger number. My car does 5L/100km on the highway, and with a family of four that's 1.25L/100km per person. At least twice as good as the most efficient airliner.
  • You have the ability to travel much further in a given time period in a jet plane than a car, so even though the L per 100km consumption is pretty good, you can travel about 10x as many kms in the same time frame, and therefore burn 10x as much fuel.
  • Jet fuel (I believe) has a 2.8c/L excise for domestic flights, and AFAIK, there is no excise on jet fuel for international flights. Compare that with 38c/L for petrol. This is a massive distortion in the tax system that favours air travel over ground transportation.

The lack of any fuel taxation on air travel is exactly why 'The Airlines' are said to be the canary in the coal mine wrt. PO -as they are so highly leveraged to fuel costs and an incremental cost in the underlying wholesale aviation fuel price would have a much smaller effect. If they where heavily taxed and still in existance then they would have built a business model that works with higher fuel costs. Since their business model barely works in a cheap energy regime they will be absolutley hammered in the coming decade/PPO (Post Peak Oil).

Nick.

carbonsink,
Its great that you have one of the most efficient cars, and you travel with 3 passengers. How many cars on the major roads between cities will have no passengers and will use >10L/100km? Also fuel is just the beginning of the costs of driving, extra Kms depreciate car, require additional servicing( not cheap under warranty) wear out tires. Also on many trips will require over-night accommodation.
Good point about fuel tax, this is why we know that oil can go up to >$300 a barrel, Europeans have been paying this for years when you include taxes, and while $8-9 a gallon seems ridiculously expensive to US drivers they will adapt in time and the suburbs will not be abandoned. Wouldn't be surprised if most SUV's stay on the roads even if only used occasionally as the second car(insurance and depreciation still more than fuel for modest driving).

European prices are not comparable with oil at $300/barrel since most of the money is tax - so it is just redistributes in the same economy, and in a sense is not a 'real' cost to the overall economy.
Money paid out to the oil exporters is in a different league, and represents a real cost to the importer.
Put simply, it has to be paid for.
In a perfect world that would just mean that folk in oil importers had a lower standard of living, and produced more stuff for export to the oil exporters.
In practise great swathes of invested capital are made worthless, for instance the aircraft industry to take an obvious example, and the car fleet running at 20mpg to take another, so massive losses are incurred over and above the nominal price of the oil.

Tourists buy package deals, composed of airtransport and accomodation + food. That is the reason why long distance destinations are getting priced out of the market. Bad for Brits visiting the Aussies.
On a more serious note, Air Berlin for instance is slashing it´s chinese destinations, and also Mauritius.

That's a link:

Soaring fuel prices clip Air Berlin's wings

From November, the second-biggest German airline behind Lufthansa will trim its fleet by 10 percent, cut long-distance services by nearly one-third and return 14 leased planes to their owners.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080622041117.dffzzj70&show_artic...

German airline Air Berlin is reviewing whether it still makes sense to buy charter carrier Condor from Thomas Cook, Chief Executive Joachim Hunold told the carrier's annual shareholder meeting.
http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1214314142.html

There is still an awful lot of discretionary air travel that really is mostly unecessary but is done becasue it's cheap. I live in a regional NSW city and we get a steady stream of business day trippers that fly in from Sydney or Melbourne in the morning and then depart that afternoon. It has become so routine that they call it catching the "bus".

I have been sent to Sydney for 20 minute meetings that could have easily been acomplaished via teleconference, which is what I now insist on with clients.

We have Qantaslink, Virgin and Rex all servicing the route from to Sydney and the council run airport is now being expanded to accomodate three carriers. I suspect by the time the renos are finished, there will be at least one and maybe even two less carriers than there are now.

I've recently booked some vacation tickets with Air NZ at a very good rate. Yes. discretionary, unnecessary; but here's why...

Locking in a deal is highly advantageous to the passenger at the moment; the fare rules say that when you book ahead you innoculate yourself from all forthcoming rises in the fare and taxes. (But make sure you don't book so far ahead that the airline collapses before you fly!)

Over the next year or so, while they've still got some cash left, the airlines will start to panic and throw lossmaking discounts into the markets in order to try and shore up their economies of scale. (This won't work of course, because the fuel price will keep tracking up, and right when the airlines think it's as bad as it can get, carbon pricing will come in!)

However, for the next year or so my advice to everyone is that you may as well take advantage of the upcoming deals, and at least see those places that you've always wanted to see ...before the "final call" for affordable global transport!

- I suspect this will literally prove to be a "once in a lifetime" opportunity.
(The onrushing Peak Oil disaster for airlines makes the current wrangling of Qantas and its Engineers over a 2% pay differential seem pretty rediculous.)

Oh, and it's probably a good idea to think about burning up your Frequent Flyer points pretty soon, too...

Thanks Cameron for this great post- maybe you can send it to Anthony Albanese's office? The STCWA is one of a few cty groups to respond to the Dept of Transport's issues paper on a National Aviation Policy (see http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/files/SustainableTransport...).

I think the Fed. government will have to buy back QANTAS if Australia is to have any sort of regional air transport system in the next 5-10 years. No-one in the ALP is yet interested in this idea, but maybe the Future Fund's $100 billion will be needed to buy back QANTAS and the national rail freight system, so Aussies can get around in the future?

dave

Buy it back? Buy...The government, if it absolutley has to have an aviation industry, should just wait until jet planes are virtually worthless and then pick up a whole fleet on the cheap. I seem to rememerb that there is a whole desert full of old commuter aircraft in the US. Hey don't we have plenty of desert in Oz? Maybe we should set up our own scrap plane yard and be the worlds depositry of used aircraft. Recycling the scrap value alone would surely ahve to be worth something? Any takers?

In order to keep Australia connected to the outside world, these are 2 options:

(1) Quantas gets government subsidized fuel
(2) barter deals are made with Middle East countries "food for aviation fuel", e.g. wheat or sheep for Eid festivities against refuelling Qantas planes at discounted prices, en route to Europe, for example.

The Commonwealth Governments Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) website has a lot of statistics on International and Domestic Air Travel.
http://www.bitre.gov.au/info.aspx?ResourceId=223&NodeId=101

With many airlines now reducing capacity, the data provided by the BITRE may provide an indication of what routes will face reduced capacity. The routes with the lowest Revenue Seat or Load Factor for Australian domestic travel are as follows:

Brisbane - Darwin 70.9
Cairns - Sydney 70.0
Broome - Perth 69.8
Brisbane - Canberra 68.3
Albury - Sydney 64.5
Canberra - Sydney 53.8

So I guess it is likely that the capacity on these routes will be reduced first with aim of increasing their load factor.

The last two of those routes could be easily serviced by 100kmh rail, with almost no time pentlty (consider the loading/unloading time delays when you catch a plane). Crazy.

They already are. Sydney-Albury is serviced by the 160Km/h XPT service. The train can go that fast but the track mostly won't allow it. A billion dollar upgrade could take care of it, reduce the distance by 100Km and allow the train to travel at its rated speed. Don't know what that does for the fuel efficiency of the tain though>

There is no doubt that airlines in Australia are in big trouble.The CEO of QANTAS said a few weeks ago that,if oil went to $200/barrel then "all bets are off".
There still seems to be the classic disconnect from reality in government unless there is some furious paddling underwater going on.I doubt it.A good example is the second runway for Brisbane airport which is a billion dollar job as it requires dredging sand from Moreton Bay for fill.The airport site is swamp and not far above MSL.This is still to go ahead as far as I know.
Outside of tourism, Australia,with it's vast distances,will continue to need some sort of internal air transport system even if it has to be subsidized.Are there any plans for this? - I doubt it.

Meanwhile,QANTAS engineers are engaged in a campaign of rolling stoppages to secure a 5% wage increase versus the 3% offered.QANTAS is threatening to take even more of their maintenance work overseas.There is a name for this sort of thing in psychology but it escapes me at the moment.

Hi Thirra, I and a couple of other peak oilers submitted papers to the Brisbane Airport New Parallel Runway project on the impact that PO will have on the need for the new runway, which were downplayed as seems to be the norm for the Government and business.

I have heard since then on the grapevine that the Project Manager for this project has been stood aside and the airport is going to wait and see what happens to oil prices before commencing the project.

Time will tell! I hope they don't build it because I believe my super fund is investing in it.

I hope they don't build it because I believe my super fund is investing in it.

Then get out of that superfund. If all employees did that, that would shut the money tap for those types of projects.

There is a name for this sort of thing in psychology but it escapes me at the moment.

I think you mean cognitive dissonance

The airport site is a swamp and not far above MSL

That did not stop the Queensland government from approving a massive increase in coal exports, all contributing to sea level rises.

The airport link is also planned, a doubly doomed project. The actions of our politicians are incomprehensible.

Even before reading this article, I thought QANTAS should just give them the money. It's not like it'll make a huge difference in five years.

Interestingly, On 730 Report/Lateline this week, they mentioned that a 3% deal had been struck between QANTAS and the Union negotiators, but the workers voted it down. Boy, are some peoples faces going to be red.

Very interesting work Cameron. I like your focus on standard industry measures (ASK) and your leap to a simple growth comparison. I can hear an army of financial analysts huffing and puffing in the background and poking holes in your model. My response to them would be that it is a good thing to use simple numbers to raise questions about current strategy in time to avert a crisis if we are heading in the wrong direction.

Personally I have no expectation that Australia's airlines will fail unless we have widespread national/global economic failure of a catastrophic kind. Why?

Firstly Qantas and Virgin are masters of tactical and political manoeuvering - for example I bet that Qantas is delighted to be able to blame the striking engineers for cancelling dozens of flights this week because Qantas will be saving money on every flight it cancels. How? Through higher capacity utilisation in the fewer remaining flights and less use of the crappy old flying relics that Qantas engineers work so hard to keep in the air. Expect to see marginal services disappear from the timetables and fares and charges rise steadily as soon as the airlines run out of fuel hedging benefits. Also expect to see Frequent Flyer benefits trashed. I have cashed out most of mine.

Secondly air travel is reasonably energy-efficient for single-person intercity trips in this huge country of ours. The emissions picture is worse by a factor of 2 to 3, but from the energy perspective you need to take a coach or train or put three or more people in a car to get from Sydney to Melbourne using less fuel per person than flying. My bet is that we will see a boom in intercity coach travel in coming years but that's another story.

Thirdly there is a prestige, premium and political level of demand for air travel that won't go away whatever the price. Just take a look at the rows and rows of extra business-class seats at the front of all the 737s Qantas flies in and out of Canberra and the 767s used on the Perth route. When I look at the CityFlyer departure boards in any of our bigger airports the level of over-servicing and underutilisation screams at me. Expect more consolidation of timetables and fewer flights "every half hour".

Fourthly Perth, Darwin and North West are pretty well inaccessible without air travel.

Keep up the good work!
Cheers, Mark

Thanks Mark,
I suspect airlines will survive, but in a very much different and smaller form than they do today. I also think that the government will need to become involved to avert the total collapse. The days of cheap and readily available travel for the masses however will soon dissappear.

Fast electric trains will help. Here is a video of a French TGV achieving 574.8 kmh to break the world land speed record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8skXT5NQzCg

I definitely support trains in your area as well as my native California.

But, most electricity is coal- or natural gas-fired. Those peak too.

SOlar panels only last 5-30 years depending on quality/type.

Then what?

Australia and California have Geothermal, Solar thermal, and Wind resources, all of which are currently under utilized. In the past thi