Kentucky Fried Panda wrote:If you think removing one airline will actually help. Dream on.
I think it helps a little.
The closure of a single airline does make much difference, but every little helps.
Some of the routes run by by bust airlines will probably be taken over by competitors, but some will porobably close for good.
Peak oil=peak air travel.
If an air route is taken over by another airline it is likely that they will charge higher fares. If the bust airline went bust charging say £100, it is likely that the replacement will charge more in the hope of making a profit.
The higher fares will lead to fewer passengers and hopefully to smaller aircraft or a less frequent service, less fuel used.
If an air route closes as a result of an airline busting, then of course no aviation fuel is used on that route.
Some will drive instead, which uses almost as much fuel as flying, but others may go by rail or ship which uses less fuel, or stay at home which uses none.
Busineses go bust all the time as a result of declining demand, poor management, or simply bad luck.
Other busineses take their place.
In the case of air travel though, there seems to be a structurall change towards less air travel, rather simply replacing a failing airline with a more competitive one.
I cant see any descision being taken on a proposed additional London airport for some years, hopefully by then it will plain for all to see that it wont be needed.
Air travel wont vanish unless the world ends, but it may be at or near a peak.