15.03.2025 Aviation, Aviation Investment, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Fossil Free Flying, Impact Investment, SDG Cherry Picking, Sustainability, Values

Climate Friendly Mobility – Claims vs. Reality

Others are faster. But we have BIG PLANS. Ursula von der Leyen Meme

Volkswagen’s own Life Cycle Assessment claims the Golf Diesel is about the same “sustainable” as their fancy ID.3. Airbus (finally) admits that their first hydrogen airplanes won’t be there by 2035, demanding all new storage and logistics. An aircraft maker senior official just this month again disqualified electric flying as for years to come being constrained by 50 passengers for 200 miles or a trade-off between the two, but nothing for mass air transport. And Europe refocuses on a war and threats from the East and an erratic president in the West, shifting away from climate action or sustainability. Some more detail thoughts and a reality check on climate friendly mobility as Food for Thought.

Table of Content

The Electric Cars Lie
Climate Friendly Flying
Energiewende (Energy Transition) – A Limited View
Impact Investor = Greenwashing?
Why I Keep Fighting to Fund Kolibri

Yeah, it’s been a while. I had a lot on my plate, moving into a nice old town house, smartifying it, modernizing. At the same time looking for and managing jobs that keep me afloat, managing Airportinfo and still seeking potential investors for Kolibri.

And in the recent weeks had some more learning curves, about claims and the harsh reality check hitting my own life with brute force.

While Sustainable Mobility is something of importance to me, there’s two major areas that impact my life rather directly. Car Mobility. And Flying. Though keep in mind that “sustainability is about 17 SDGs, not just climate. But let’s focus on the famous “climate side” of it today.

So let me share two findings on each today. And yes, I do appreciate if you disagree, comment or call me to discuss. But so far, I get a lot of support from other “activists” focusing on sustainable mobility.

The Electric Cars Lie

While developing Kolibri, for our company ground mobility, we looked into (ground-based) e-Mobility. You may remember the Volkswagen own life-cycle assessment I shared before on their ID3 vs. the Volkswagen Golf:

When The Numbers Don’t Compute: Braunschweig

A Real-World Example…

Now it happens, that I live with my family in a satellite suburb of Braunschweig (English: Brunswick), location of Germany’s Research Airport. Close by Volkswagen-Hometown of Wolfsburg, Braunschweig is also a very Volkswagen dependent city. And yes, I drive a car with a combustion engine. Say what?

But yes, investing now into solar power for my own use, I just checked again, if I have the possibility to turn to an electric car. Have one of those fancy Wall Boxes…? But. Naaaaw. What’d you’re thinking?!

New supermarket parking lot 50+ spaces, 3 EV car loading stations. Reality Check.

In this suburb I live together with some 24 000 others, the entire area does not have “own parking”. Almost all (98%) of the buildings have no own car parking but the cars are parked (like in many cities) “on the street”. Between the house/garden and the parking area on the street is the walkway. Which you may not “block” by putting a cable from your house to the car to load it. Technically it’s neither easily possible, nor is it at all allowed, to add a parking space in the garden. Or the front yard. Naaaaw. What’d your’re thinking?!

City Claims Fact Check: Climate Neutral by 2030

So I reached out to the city’s “Sustainability Pros”. A city with a population of some 250 000 (so almost 10% in our satellite suburb). Asking what their plans are for their claim to become climate neutral by 2030. How they support me – aside no more investment help for roof photovoltaic (PV). But. Naaaaw. What’d you’re thinking?! Noooo, there are no plans on how I could ever use own PV to load my car. But hey, they are going to invest into a “massive” 500 loading stations across Braunschweig by 2028, right. No. To load … what?

Official statistics: On 1 000 people, there are 980 registered cars in Germany. So we talk about some 245 000 cars in Braunschweig. We talk about 80-90% not having their own loading infrastructure (even if they want to). So in the best case (I guess worse), 200 000 cars. We talk about what? 500 loading stations in Braunscheig? Roughly 400 cars sharing the same loading stations? You got to be kiddin’, right?

Aside the fact that the power cost is minimum double of what I’d pay if I could use my own PV-power through a wallbox. And see below on the issue of the loading cycle.

And don’t believe this is an isolated case, it’s the same all over Europe. Guess why the number of cars with combustion engines are still outnumbering electric drive. Only 2.1% of the cars registered in Germany are electric. And recently the numbers of combustion engine powered registrations is on the rise again.

Climate Neutral by 2030? Maybe 2050? Naaaaw. What’d you’re thinking?!

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Loading Cycle

Loading takes 30 minutes fast charging (high strain on the battery, shortened life-expectancy) to about four hours in average (German Automobile Club ADAC). Frequently a problem during summer vacation, long lines of EVs (electric vehicles) waiting for their turn at the charging station. Then sitting at the truck stop for three, four hours before they can continue. Good business for the truck stop.

Now residents want to park their car and charge over night. Not leave the parking lot after four hours (in the middle of the night) to allow the neighbor to load.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Car Life-Cycle vs. e-Mobility

Today, an average car is used for 10-20 years in Europe, then exported to other countries where those “old cars” are still in great demand. So a car in average has a life-cycle of 20-30 years. But Germany, as an industry country with supposedly “better” infrastructure than most, still sells only a small fraction (2-3%) of the cars with electric engine, the other 97-98% are combustion powered. End of the Combustion Engine by 2035? Without serious, practicable plans for loading infrastructure capable of the mass demand? #greenwashing

And in the “less sophisticated countries”, how do you get the electricity “powered up” to supply the loading? That ain’t just about Africa, that’s true for rural areas even within the mighty EU! The image was published by New York Times just recently.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Side Issue Braunschweig: The Green District Heating Lie

This is also quite in line with another self-deception here. “District Heating is green”. Just that in Braunschweig it’s (well hidden) 71.4% fossil (coal, “natural” gas, oil), remaining 28,6 wood waste… Green like in #greenwashing! Yes, they have big plans. Especially to extend their reach. And use “natural gas” and extend use of wood, resulting in more trucking. Or use surplus heat from steel mills in the region. Who cares, where that energy comes from…

Reality Check: Forget about it.

My other big topic on sustainable mobility is

Climate Friendly Flying

And inside Climate Friendly Flying, there were some rather frustrating news, mostly ignored by general media. Talking to them, I got the response as it not being noteworthy, as (aside me) who would believe in climate friendly flying to happen in the next 25 years anyway… Yes. That hurt. But it’s true and in line with my own experience. So let’s quickly look at that.

Electric Flying

The issue with electric flight remains very much as it was back in 2019, when Boeing pulled out of their venture with Zunum.aero. There was a statement this month by an aircraft maker’s senior manager (yes, I know who), relating to the 2019 statement by then Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg that they would be at best make it to fly 50 passengers and no freights for 200 miles (300 kilometers). Possibly able to trade capacity with range. Nevertheless, nowhere near a “mass market.

Even giving developments of new batteries with higher energy density, that senior official and other experts in the recent academic video conference call on battery development warned quite emphatically about the increasing risks relating to the high altitude flying and pressure changes straining those batteries. Their assumption was that flight certified batteries would not benefit in the near (or not so near) future from those density improvements. Using the examples of the Samsung Galaxy Note 7, proving also that the first events unfolded airborne, due to the additional strain changing altitude (air pressure) rather quickly. As well as the Boeing 787 door batteries that caught fire, attributed to “new batteries with higher energy density”. He questioned the ability to improve “quickly” on the range/load, as higher density batteries will pose additional risk to aircraft safety and such would demand a lot of additional testing for flight certification.

Reality Check: Forget about it. 50 passengers. 200 miles. Max.

Air Taxi

I do hope you know my Whitepaper on Air Taxi. Three reasons, why Air Taxi IMHO is a ruse. Vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) is the most energy inefficient mode of air transport. Aside that there are helicopters covering that niche. Second, individual transport is the most energy inefficient mode transport. Third, air traffic control is already often on the brink of collapse, now add thousands of air taxis transporting potential travelers in and out of the restricted airport air space. Or collide midair over a populated area like Manhattan?

The recent insolvencies of Lillium and Volocopter haven’t come at a surprise to anyone having followed their expensive developments.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

“Funny” (telling): After their friends at Earlybird Capital just lost quite some money on Air Taxi, World Fund now celebrates their “green” investment into electric flight. Sorry that I am not elated. You know my (justified) take on Electric Flying and Air Taxi.

Hydrogen Powered Flights

As I wrote some years ago in my whitepaper about the Road to Environementally-Friendly Flying, there are quite many setbacks about hydrogen flying. Namely NO_x being a problem known in the academic research groups, but far bigger and quite logical, it’s an issue of (green) source, refining, logistics, storage and then use. As someone in a video conference on the topic asked. Talking about liquid, ultra-cold hydrogen, what happens if the tank leaks (very hard landing, crash)? Shock-frosted passengers?

Even since back in 2020, many in academic research questioned the ambitious time lines used in aviation, giving that a first prototype is most likely not available before 2035, first aircraft in best case making it to a fleet (in small numbers) by 2040, more likely 2045. Given the challenges in storage and logistics, hydrogen in best case becoming “mainstream” not before 2080, more likely in the next century!

Airbus just a month ago finally admitted to those facts by confirming a “delay” in hydrogen development, here a source by Reuters.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Energiewende (Energy Transition)

A Limited View

As I mentioned in the Sustainability Energy Dilemma, the lobbyists intentionally work with incomplete energy demands, intentionally ignoring that in the end it all boils down to energy. Be it electric power, electric cars, but also trains, electric flying, … or the refining of fuel replacements, be they hydrogen or synfuels:

If you move a body from A to B, it requires one thing and one thing only: Energy. Basic Physics!

So for example. The German Research Institute for the Energy Industry (FfE) is a lobby body “supporting” the German government on the Energiewende. They work out the food the politicians then work with, to plan the energy transition towards green energies. But in their studies they intentionally ignored and ignores those needs. “The need for green fuels for Europe because of aviation such exceeds the defined [fuel] amounts defined […] those values were of secondary relevance, as we assumed an import of these fuels“. You. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Right?

What truly upsets me, is the likes of World Fund or European Investment Bank disqualifying Kolibri for our strategy based on green SynFuels, as their “study” disqualifies it. A study full of false lobby arguments, starting already in the naming using “electrofuels”. We use “synthetic”. No-one in his/her right mind would call hydrogen “electro”, just because you need energy to refine it! But their researchers call it “electrofuels”? And even their study says, that if you have a business case, their negative assumptions might require reconsideration…

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Impact Investor = Greenwashing?

One impact investor I “unlinked” last year, after argued that Kolibri wouldn’t work, as otherwise other investors would have already funded it… Look in the mirror my (ex’d-)friend, why didn’t you bother to take a serious look at our numbers. Then that investor argued about me questioning greenwashing on some cool stuff they’ve invested in. Though hey, those investments were into fashionable, but unsustainable projects, with a negative impact on the people working in that industry and on the energy demands projected. The focus was on maximizing the “green show-off” and the financial profit expectation. The very same investor telling me that they expect above market returns on their investment. Yeah, sorry. But at the cost of their sustainability claims.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Green vs. Grid Energy

Did you know, why we want to start Kolibri in Southern Europe? I just plan to put solar panels on our family-owned house in Northern Germany. But the angle of sunlight is an stark contrast to Southern Europe. Whereas the cost for electric power is multiple times higher. But the lobbyists use that energy cost to disqualify SynFuels as “too expensive”. And they consider buying the power needed to generate it … from the grid.

Just like those impact and green-tech investments’ blind-eye, claiming they buy and use “green energy” … from the grid. Germany last year increased their creation of green energy, though at the same time increasing overall consumption, as well as their import of nuclear and fossil energy (31.9 TWh) [Source: German]. And there are unconfirmed but recurring and for me reasonable accusations that the energy companies sell by all practical means more green energy than is being produced.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

The CPP-Distraction

Though just as others, they keep denying to have any closer look at our hard numbers. Numbers qualifying a profitability of the venture within three, 100% fossil-flying within about seven to eight years – still in the 2035 range! And while they fancy themselves for focusing on a 200 MT CPP (megaton carbon-capture potential), we talk about one gigaton fossil-fuel replacement, so a 1 000 MT CPP. Not by 2035, but in 2035. Doubling within the following three years on our 10-year plans.

Yes, depending very much on the fact that we will need to convince more impact investors and the political stakeholders that we can do it and supporting the onward funding. But for that there are a lot of political investment projects seeking the developments, but requiring an already existing company. As others, “they don’t invest in ideas”. But in “Climate AI” and greentech, exponentially driving energy demands up.

Reality Check: Forget about it.

Sustainable, Climate-Friendly, Carbon-Zero vs. Fossil-Free

Some “correction” in wording – guilty as charged myself.

Sustainable: All 17 United Nations Sustainability Development Goals. Not just Climate. Or People. Or Water. Or Air. All. Else it’s #cherrypickingsdgs
Climate-Friendly: Focused on SDG #13 “Climate Action. We’ve busted the Paris-goal of 1.5°C global warming last year. And it goes very clearly in line with the growing energy consumption. So as I keep telling, SDG #7 (Energy) goes together with SDG #13. But rather normally is used for #cherrypickingsdgs

Carbon-Zero, just like “circular economy” is usually a diversion, a ruse. Carbon-Zero means we use no Carbon. Doesn’t work. We must use Climate-Neutral in the sense that we don’t add more carbon (and what about the other greenhouse gases) to the athmosphere than we take it. In Circular Economy, it should mean that in the end, we return everything to nature what we took from it. All resources and energy. That would mean (but rarely is interpreted as such) that in a circular process, we take out food (being energy for us) and products from the cycle, but in the end must return it to where they have been taken from.
Fossil-Free in my humble opinion is what we must focus at as a key priority! If we fly and drive fossil-free, that means electric cars are not driving on fossil-generated power any more. Airplanes don’t fly on fossil-based kerosene, nor fossil-based “sustainable aviation fuels.

brown blue gray green SynFuel — Also applies to “Green Energy”

Why I Keep Fighting to Fund Kolibri

Yes, it does require both bold ideas, bold strategy and bold investment to make those ideas happen. Overcoming the Sustainability Energy Dilemma. Flying 100 jet aircraft across Eurpope 100% fossil-free in seven years, 200 within 10 years. No cherry-picking of the SDGs but holistically sustainable. Like. No-one is left behind!

Hm. Yes, we have such ideas and a strategy that is based to secure profitability first to justify the further investment. So after one year of investment to set up company and start operations being able to pay back the investment with an ROI after another two years. Though a real impact investor wouldn’t just want to launch and cash-in. A real impact investor (listening to us) would understand and believe in the lighthouse impact we’d have even across other industries. A real impact investor would want to join us for the journey.

It’s the real thing. It requires an industry scale investment to start an airline with competitive cost per seat. No cheap-crap small, fancy-looky-looky investing. But you get what you pay for. Including the ROI. Though yes, I also had a nice discussion this week on a comment of mine asking: Define “Return”. Or “Shareholder Value”. As they are usually rather different and far less one-dimensional than usually implied. Mine always has been and is: Do the right thing.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome:

08.02.2024 Aviation, Disruption Management, Values

Aviation and the Learning of Lessons

One of two incidents in aviation questioning the proper application of the "safety first" principle

Since the beginning of flying, aviation learns (often too late) from mistakes. There are some questions rising from the recent debacles at Haneda Airport of an Airbus A350-900 crashing into a Coast Guard aircraft and the Boeing 737-Max9 loosing a dummy door in-flight, that I find noteworthy to share. I will not mention the airlines, considering them victims.

Neither will pour blame over Boeing only again, at Haneda it was an Airbus raising questions. In my humble opinion, think the entire industry has an issue relating to “safety first” recently. And I am afraid, the “commercial focus” on the cost of safety hasn’t ended with the Boeing 737Max debacle with an amok running flight system driving two fully loaded aircraft into the ground just before the Pandemic.

Haneda (Airbus)

An Airbus A350-900 aircraft crashed into a small Japan Coast Guard Dash-8 aircraft at Tokyo Haneda airport, killing all people aboard the Dash-8. No fatalities aboard the Airbus A350-900. Which in hindsight is a miracle to many experts I heard talking the last days.

Airbus Fire Sensors
“After the aircraft came to a stop the cockpit crew was not aware of any fire, however, flight attendants reported fire from the aircraft. The purser went to the cockpit and reported the fire and received instruction to evacuate. Evacuation thus began with the two front exits (left and right) closest to the cockpit. Of the other 6 emergency exits 5 were already in fire, only the left aft exit was still usable. The Intercom malfunctioned, communication from the aft aircraft with the cockpit was thus impossible. As result the aft flight attendants gave up receiving instructions from the cockpit and opened the emergency exit on their own initiative” (Source). Later information says there was a several minutes of delay because of missing or misinformation between cockpit and cabin. So why was the communication malfunctioning in that situation? Why were the pilots unaware? Even Haneda Tower should have informed them instantly of that danger! Why haven’t they? And … and why does the crew have to get approval from the flight deck to evacuate when the aircraft is burst into flames and mortal danger imminent?
Airbus Evac Procedures
Good thing first: The captain [reported only later] was the last one to leave the aircraft. 18 minutes after the aircraft came to a stop. (Source). Wait a minute … 18 Minutes??
Given he aircraft burned out and was on fire rather instantly after the collision, what the heck have those passengers been thinking or doing? I’ve seen my first flight attendant training back in 1989, the emergency training a major part of the training courses. The shouts, day and night in the training center echoing in my ears: “Move it, move it. Get out of my way!”. But 18 minutes? Especially with the issue of 5 out of 8 emergency exits blocked by fire when the purser went to the cockpit to get evac approval?! I believe both Boeing and the airline must have to review the procedures urgently.

Side note. I find it rather telling that there is a lot, a big lot of footage (images, video) of the A350-900, but virtually none of the smaller Dash-8 suffering all the fatalities. At least, I didn’t see or find any? A nice example of “biased news reporting”?

Portland (Boeing)

Above Portland, Oregon (USA), a Boeing 737-Max9 lost a “door plug” in-flight, by sheer luck, not causing any fatality. That this can end far more tragic is burned into my mind, remembering the Aloha Airlines 737 loosing its entire roof shortly after I’ve been there and flying Aloha. A flight attendant being ejected by the decompression. And given the picture, it makes one wonder on the miracle the entire aircraft didn’t break up. One of the many “near-misses” in my life to date. (Wikipedia)

Following the two fatal disasters of 2018+2019 forcing the lengthy grounding and near-bankruptcy of Boeing, the new accident now “naturally” raises the question about the quality of Boeing engineering. In my humble opinion, it does raise the question especially about their constant claim of “Safety First”! With subject matter experts claiming loose screws having caused the door to come apart. What was that about four-eye principle on aircraft construction and all major maintenance?

The door was later found in a teacher’s back yard in Portland Oregon. Just like a phone from the aircraft, the pieces “sailed down”, aerodynamically similar to a Frisbee and landed almost unharmed.

Added 08Feb24: According to preliminary media reporting, there were bolts not just not fastened but missing. Say what??

Is the 737 MAX safe?

Fact: I will neither voluntarily fly, nor allow my immediate family to fly a 737 Max anytime soon. In my humble opinion (IMHO), that aircraft has been misconstructed from the outset and should be shelved for good. It only flies and is approved IMHO for commercial reasons; if it’d be grounded for good, the losses for Boeing can very well proof fatal. To me, it seems the door plug again was a “quick and dirty” solution. On the other end, I won’t “actively” avoid the aircraft, flying was and remains the most secure transport in the world. Just that any incident instantly receives scrutinous media coverage. But yes, booking flights, I usually happen to look at details – and given the choice, avoiding the MAX will be a clear decision making factor for me.

The new incident brings up feedback that I got during the 2019 grounding media uproar. Questions why the “better” Boeing 757 was shelved. It didn’t have the low profile causing engineering complications as there wasn’t enough space under the 737’s wing. Which led to the fatal idea of MCAS, later being the cause for the two fatal crashes killing 346 people. And commercial reasons leading not only to base that on a single sensor (instead of the originally planned three), false readings causing the misinformation of MCAS causing the crashes. But also to the secret implementation not shared with the pilots to avoid potential demand for an “expensive” full type-rating as a new aircraft.

Conclusions

Flight Safety is back to “reactive”. But aircraft engineering must be proactively focused on flight safety! As must be processes, just like the evacuation of aircraft under grim circumstances! Ever since the beginning of flight safety with the Comet-disasters back in the 1950s, aviation “reacted” to disasters. A lesson we also learned with aircraft deicing.

I truly believe that flight safety ain’t a luxury. Just like “service” or “sustainability” being only identified as “cost factors” by finance-focused aviation managers. The recent “cases” are just more examples where things went awry and off track. There are enough cases, not just old, but rather recent, when airlines in distress started to save on the aircraft safety and maintenance. Usually reducing it to the rule-book, “encouraging” their maintenance staff to “look the other way” and to delay parts replacement in questionable situations. Or to have supervisors “sign off” as the additional pair of eyes but in fact reducing it to a single pair of eyes on the job! To safe cost.

Boeing engineers are well advised to return to spend a few more screws and bolts on securing a door plug and to demand four-eye-principle on their construction.
Airbus better finds out, what too so long to evacuate the aircraft.

All else is to be looked at when the incident reports come out. And media is well advised to not just jump the incident, but also report on the final findings. Not 1:1 copying the press release, but questioning them. I think that would be good for (shareholder-value-focused) “managers” to not stray from “Safety First”. As in the end, it’s a trust thing.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome…

14.11.2023 Aviation, Aviation Investment, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Impact Investment, Low Cost, Management, Values

Airline Start-Ups – an Unreasonable Risk?

Two (good) articles today about the riskiness of starting up an airline and the comments they got shared with, triggered some controversial thoughts with me.

The Articles + Comments

OAG summarized on the Evolution of airlines since 2019 (just before the Pandemic) to today. While their findings are very interesting, there is a tone in the summary and a resulting summarization by Tim (someone I generally value) that I happen to disagree with. OAG’s John Grant wrote:

“Airline start-ups are incredibly difficult, cash rapidly disappears and securing the necessary operating licences frequently takes longer than expected and that’s even before sourcing aircraft, securing slots, avoiding the competition, and building all the necessary reservations systems and back-office support functions.”

And Tim shared the full post with a comment: “OAG is a great data resource for large scale review and schedule activity. This data really doe strike a chord. Airlines are a very risky business. This is very illustrative.”

The other one was an analysis by McKinsey, checking on the aviation value chain’s recovery shared by Patrick, which he introduced with these words: “McKinsey & Company has done an interesting analysis of the aviation value chain. For each subsector, they’ve calculated the “economic profit”, meaning (return on invested capital – weighted average cost of capital) x invested capital. In other words, are firms in that sector creating or destroying value? Their conclusion: only fuel suppliers and freight forwarders created value last year, and airports and airlines lost a lot!”

The Economist’s (My) Response

As an economist by original education and having experience with Startups and Business Angels, I do happen to believe in a sound “business case”. As an airliner, I learned with American to focus on the business case. Like to reconsider twice before approving any waiver on fare rules or trying to upsell to the more expensive (i.e. more flexible) air fare. But I also learned the value of a renowned brand (AA) and service. Or to treat your colleagues as your most valuable customers – they help you sell each and every day. And can ruin a customer relation as quickly.

In “global fares training”, I learned the cost of a flight transfer, something that I never forgot; thanks Ruth King (our fares trainer), I will never forget you.

At Northwest Airlines, I learned that airlines and their managers just sold “cheap”. With full flights in summer season, the airline generated losses on the transatlantic flights. A lesson I’ve seen later over and again. Most sales staff had neither information, nor idea about the “yield” they had to generate to fly profitable. Northwest focused on a minimum yield (revenue per seat-mile) half of that of American. Then sold at that yield as the standard “special fare” and making group offers or “reseller-rebates” below that rate aplenty. As I summarized 2019 on my article about why airlines keep failing, “know your cost”.

Yes, talking about Why Do Airlines Keep Failing. It’s the same response I have on the above two mentioned articles. And many like them. At ASRA 2008, I emphasized brand faces. But I also told those brand faces – the airline sales managers – that they are not there to sell the cheapest price. Anyone can do that, the Internet lives of that. A real sales manager understands that they have to sell the high-end tickets.

Live story, also happened today. Qatar Airways passengers (mother and three kindergarden-aged kids) arrived with >18 hour delay in Düsseldorf. German Rail (clerk) sold tickets to the customer to pick up the passengers that are neither change- nor refundable. So they had to buy completely new (expensive) tickets. A good clerk of this company renowned for it’s unpunctual trains (<60%) would have mentioned the possibility of a flight delay and sold the slightly more expensive tickets that allow for a change. Or at least the optional insurance.

So thinking back to my experiences with Northwest and other such airlines, it’s my questioning about KPIs as well. If my KPI is load and not revenue, I must expect to loose money. It remains beyond me, why airlines offer connecting flight at what a rough calculation on Ryanair or easyJet CASK/CASM (cost per available seat km/mile) proves as below cost, even without the “stop en-route” (landing fees, complexity, etc.). Those are managers who had a nap, when their tutors talked about sound economical calculation? And I keep questioning, why airlines publish loads without revenue per seat. To date, we have hundreds, if not thousands of flights every day, that fly full but loose money. All this is confirmed by the above mentioned and many other such articles.

The Fairy-Tale of Loss Making Airlines

To claim “aviation” is a loss making business is true and can’t be further from the truth.

Yes, many airlines are loss making. And it fits the common reasons I elaborated before. And yes, you can make airlines very profitable, if you have a management that thinks just a bit outside the box and applies economic rules to their modus operandi (mode of operation). But this also goes in line with route development and other areas. If you don’t have your numbers under control and focus on the ones that are “good to sell to shareholders”, you’ll fail.

Like with any company, with any startup, in and outside the aviation sphere, we must constantly have an understanding of our cost. And of the competition. What is it our customer wants? There is a psychological price. If you missed that in your economics studies, make your Internet-search for it now. If you have sales teams, train them to upsell the seats. Sell the higher yield fares. Not at a discount, but at a value!

This is one reason, I do not believe we can make Kolibri ever happen by taking over an already failing or failed airline. Wrong structures, wrong thinking in place. I learned this lesson with Air Berlin. The force of inertia was simply too strong. There are some airline that make revenue, but even their managers I find often blindly “follow the worms” (a Pink Floyd referral, yes, the picture is lemmings).

(That’s) The Way Airlines Operate

But unfortunately, all investors we talk to, always think inside their boxes. Can’t tell how many talks I had to radically change our approach and take A320 and do like everyone else does. Ain’t that contrary to the concept of Unique Selling Propositions?

And has ever a “disruptive investment” (another investor buzz word) been developed out of the box using the same thinking? The same values (I’m the cheapest)?

The others are usually starting to tell you that you have to start with smaller amount of money. Sure way to burn your money is a cheap business plan. As OAG writes “getting to size is so important”. You can’t produce a low cost in small numbers. For us, the ideal mix is seven aircraft, where the “administrative overhead cost” becomes manageable. i.e. You have the same cost if you maintain one – or seven aircraft. The same reservations office (just less staff and calls), only little less marketing. You must outsource your operations (at cost) to share the necessary organization with other small airlines. Etc., etc.

To date, I am still working with consulting companies reviewing airline business plans. Aside the usual failure issues, size is a recurring issue. Another being the lack of fallback in case of flight disruptions, may they be caused by technical issues, weather or other events. Their focus on cheap “human resources” and missing team building results in friction and internal competition that further weakens their product offering.

But even taking that into account, we believe the business and financial plans we developed are sound. And profitable from the outset. With a focus on services and a military-style responsibility “for ours” (no “HR” in that company), a “service-focused concept”. Everyone to pull on the same side of the rope. Yes, not starting with a dead corpse, trying to revive, adds some bureaucratic hurdles. But it allows you to think outside the box and instead of following the worms (or other airlines), to do things “right”.

So ever since I entered into the business, I learned at American Airlines under Bob Crandall how to do things right. And learned over and again that the same mistakes are made by short-sighted, narrow-minded managers. And I know all the reasoning used to distract and divert off the incompetence to operate an economically sound business. Usually, I account this as “no faith in your brand”. That then goes along with topics I mentioned before, like brand dissolution (airlines are often academic example), missing USPs, etc. – Cobalt CEO told me about their USP shortly before their demise “We are Cypriotic”. Seriously? When I started, Lufthansa was the brand. Lufthanseat was the employee. All employees of American Airlines knew “Proud to be AAmerican”. Then came the button counters. And mighty AAmerican was taken over by their once-small rival U.S. Airways. Another box of memories.

So yes, airlines are often a loss making business. With bureaucrats leading them into disaster. Sometimes fast, often times a veeeery long death. Air Berlin and Alitalia are very good examples. “Too big to fail”? Simply “prestigious”? And there are “the others”. Airlines that have an idea about what they are doing. That know their niche(s). That know their cost and marketing. That value their brand. That build a reputation. Until button counters (aka. bureaucrats) take over.

I hope that someone of my hundreds if not thousands of readers (hard to believe, that’s what my server stats claim I’d have) knows some investor with the guts to understand that profitable aviation and sustainable aviation can be the same thing. That the stories those consultancies and their statistics and reports tell have two sides to the coin. And that we get a chance to proof, that climate neutral flying is no heresy, but the future of flight.

Food for Thought – Jürgen

27.04.2023 Aviation, Aviation Investment, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Impact Investment, Sustainability, Values

Sustainability – Ideas for Discussion

Going Beyond Greenwashing

This is not about Kolibri, but some thoughts and assessments about sustainability and greenwashing. And some ideas on why all the statistics show that the situation worsens. From Earth Overshoot Day to Energy Consumption to rising CO₂ levels.

Working on Kolibri and benchmarking our cost against easyJet and others, we found our cost too high. One of the typical reasons for the airline one-day-flies, as I call them. Flying one or two seasons before they are pushed out or swallowed by the big shark. Looking for ways to cut cost, and as we thought about a sustainable operation, the extended way of the U.N. Sustainability Development Goals, we developed the business cases for truly sustainable aviation. Focused on fair income for the employees (that we refuse to call “human resources”), housing, food, transport and ground mobility, health… Yes, completely outside the box, but all contributing to the profitability.

While we now suffer from decades of management misconception that everything must be subordinate to (quick) financial profit and that profits justify the means, we now start to recognize that “sustainability” must be a “shareholder’s value”, as long as “long-term success” (viability). My friends and audience do know I questioned the pure financially focused “shareholder value” for the past 25 years at minimum. And as an economist by “original” profession, I question all those dreamworld models that burn money in the next big hype.

That said, aside our idea on Green SynFuel for aviation, as we though outside the box, what are other ideas I recommend investing in. Admittedly, ideas we plan to reinvest on our own journey to establish what shall become a truly carbon-neutral airline within ten years.

Circular Economy

One of the abused topics is Circular Economy, which Wikipedia defines as “a model of production and consumption, which involves reusing, repairing, […] refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible.” While I find Wikipedia already distracting from the core of the case, the image they show is quite on the point. Whatever you use, must come from sustainable sources, and after being used must return into a state it can be reused for the same product.

Looking at plastics, 95% of the recycling in reality is downcycling! Or export. Or local landfills. Or incineration. Or – and quite a lot – ending up polluting the oceans and landscapes. But downcycling ain’t circular but add to disposal and pollution!

In a discussion group on Circular Economy and the Agenda 2030 organized by U.N., the focus was directed to the LifeCycle Assessment (LCA). In which i.e. Volkswagen came to rather devastating results for their ID3. The life-cycle of one of their ID3 electric “Golf” is not substantially better than the Diesel, worse if you consider the German grid-energy mix and not the more favorable (beautified) European one. It’s considered a direct consequence when United Nations Secretary General António Guterres ahead of COP26 blames: “Far too little, far too late“.

Vertical Farming

Given the current droughts and considering circular economy, thinking about greenhouses filling entire regions in Spain, I think we will need to invest into vertical farming. Given a “closed system” to improve the water usage. Reduce use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Discussing with a startup recently, I was surprised on the efforts on seed sequence. Not for the plant or the soil, but to make sure the bees they use at all times find sufficient nectar.

They are experimenting with water conservation and are able to provide a quality way better than “bio”. And it’s not just salad, but potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, broccoli, corn, you name it, they grow it. And they are testing apples, grapes, and other vegetables too. And they are using moving trays, from seedling at one end, to harvesting on the other.

The few remains they can’t reuse go into high quality compost for the plants that still require soil – there is no downcycling, it’s just that they use pure nutrients without soil wherever they can.

Desalination – Hydrogen – SynFuel … i.e. in the UAE

Last year, there was an article by the World Economic Forum about the UAE strategy on “extended” Hydrogen, reflecting about 1:1 on my, since 2008 frequently shared opinion that hydrogen is a natural successor to fossils in the expanded tropical belt. I strongly recommend reading!

Given our work in 2008 on the hydrogen-powered WIG, a “wing-in-ground”, an “airplane” that uses the “ground-effect” for smaller wing-size and improved performance, we were told the idea would be perfect for the tropical belt. As those WIGs “fly” in five to ten meters above ground, water is perfect for them. But even more important, the use of seawater allows to develop a salination. The sweetwater can to a large extend be used for the population. Naturally, before desalination the seawater is being cleaned. Then the salt from the desalination process is used to increase the salination levels of more seawater. That salinated seawater is then used for the electrolysis.

Operating in the “extended tropical belt” and seaside, the availability of wind and water for the “green” process is very safe.

Sure, this was a very steep learning curve. It triggered my understanding that carbon-neutral transport is not just imaginable. It’s feasible. And many of those ideas, applied to our ideas for Kolibri made and make it possible for me to develop a plan that makes it possible to use a body like Kolibri to make it fly carbon-neutral within 10 years (even less, given the right support). Saving a mere 2 Gigatons of CO₂. Not by then, but by then every year!

The Four Columns for Happy Living

United Nations defined the four columns as the foundation for people to be happy as:

Shelter
Food
Health and
Safety

That naturally includes the families, something often ignored. Or is identified as “salaries”, hiding behind “politics” resulting often in the inability to secure the above columns. And did you know that those are a growing problem even in the so mighty “industrial world”?

Learning From the Military

Ndrec and I are both having a military background. While Ndrec was a career officer in the Albanian military, I grew up in a U.S. garrison town in Germany with their families.
In the military, while you are there, everything is taken care of. Aside a salary the soldiers can use for surplus luxuries.

Quite similar, in the last centuries, many companies developed housing and even just 35 years ago, I’ve stayed in an American Airlines-owned residence. All larger airports have own cantinas for the airport employees and “external” airport workers.

Precarious Working Conditions

Most companies pay a “competitive salary”, but increasingly, those competitive salaries do no longer cover the most basic needs of people. That is especially true for families with children. “In 2020, there were 96.5 million people in the EU at risk of poverty or social exclusion, representing 21.9% of the population.” [Source] But while EU highlights progress on SDG1 (no poverty), even for industrial leader Germany reports show a growing poverty with wealth increasingly piling up with the rich 10%, owning currently 56.1% of it, the top 1 % holding about 18% of all wealth, as much as 75% of the population owns. More than 60% “own” less than 5% of the wealth, while 20% are being in debt! And those numbers are growing.

Those numbers are looking even bleaker on a European level!

#Greenwashing and #Raisinpicking

While the SDG funding gap grows at an alarming speed, poverty rises at alarming levels in Europe, there is an entire industry of greenwashing impact investors out there, using raisin-picking creatively to greenwash their investments. But there are 17 SDGS. And the possibility to do aa life-cycle assessment.

And as referred to before, two simple question disqualifies many, if not most of those “impact investments”: What is the energy bill and where does the energy come from? Is carbon-certificate-trading used to paint the idea green? Investments needing carbon certificates to go green are unsustainable themselves, selling their indulgences by buying what good others do. If you buy into grid energy, use grid-energy shares. Only if you have your own plans for energy source (solar and wind parks, etc.) you can calculate.

Our growing energy demand causes directly rising CO₂-levels. The graph is already a bit older, but the statistics are showing that the short improvements during the global pandemic have already recovered and the rising energy demand in Europe is in line with the CO₂-rise.

And do you claim climate action but pay no attention to your staff (and their families) happiness in form of sustainable salaries? Delivery services claim their “riders” deliver “green” using bicycles. Whereas it is commonly known that those very riders usually work in precarious working conditions! Same for Uber and other “investors’ darlings”.

Earth Overshoot Day

Did you know the Earth Overshoot Day after a very brief respite 2020 fell back again in 2021 and 2022? So what are your plans on using resources?

And did you know that “sand” is a resource in short supply? As is clean drinking water!

There is a frightening map on OvershootDay.org on the countries that use more resources than they have and there individual overshoot days. The U.S. overshot by March 13 already! Germany May 4th. All European countries overshoot in the first half year, so they use more than two Earths resources.

Timeline + Scale

There are many investments into small-scale change, with a focus on two to three years. That by itself should be an issue of concern for any real impact investor. As for climate change and sustainability that can only be a start. What is the 10 year outlook? What impact will it make by 2050?

What is the impact on which SDGs? The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals! Precarious jobs are clearly a negative impact on the SDG1 and ripple also into the other SDGs. A negative energy balance naturally impacts climate. SDG7 and SDG13 are related, as are all the other SDGs!

Sustainability is a generation challenge! To turn around our abuse of global resources back to a sustainable level. Conserve energy. All that with as little impact as possible to the luxuries of the decision makers? Having grown up in the 70s, that was the time this all started. And my boss on the practical part of my economics studies questioned “price wars”. While there can always be someone cheaper, a good buyer considers the well-being of their supplier. And buying cheap from China comes with a price. His lessons resonate more than ever nowadays!

A Holistic Approach to the SDGS

One of the main concerns we are faced with at Kolibri is our approach to sustainability. First of all, why would an airline turn sustainable, it’s heresy, ain’t it? And why would we pay salaries above country average? Maybe, because they are sustainable and secure the people’s motivation and loyalty?

What about our plans for training, kitchens, real estate, residence parks, solar parks, transport? Can’t you shelve those (in the trash)? But we believe that if we right those wrongs, we will have a motivated and loyal work force. And ain’t that funny? All those “investments” are to be profitable too. As that is what we consider real impact investing. Do the right thing. With the right profit. As such, they are part of our 10 year strategy.

So after 10 years, we don’t only save more than two gigatons CO₂, per year that is by then, we will not just be a sustainability lighthouse, we will be not just profitable, but also disruptive. But only, if we get to #walkthetalk. Which means that we do find a real impact investor.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome!

19.06.2022 Aviation, CrystalBall, Disruption Management

A-CDM, TAM, NDC and other Wishful Thinkings

This last week began with a client in North America, continued with a call from a subject matter expert in South America and culminated in two discussions I commented a bit longer on. Triggering this new article talking about “digital in aviation”, pioneering days and the impact of dinosaurs. And why we suffer in aviation from too much #talkthetalk

Not Invented Here, part 1

Last week, I had a lengthy phone call with an airport manager in the U.S. Snow-Belt, asking me about ideas, how to break up the silo thinking that keeps all his ideas about a common airport operations center as a basis for some A-CDM-style development from moving forward. Next winter approaching, he’s worried about repeating the past years’ experience of unnecessary delays. “The airline always knows better” he complained to me. If we offer them solution, it’s not theirs, so it’s being turned down. Communication is faulty and in crisis, everyone works on their own. #talkthetalk

Passengers spend 156 Minutes at AMS

Now give me a break. When I read this “promo” on LinkedIn, is it just me, seeing the fault in it?

As I outlined 2011 and 2014 in my two posts about a contemporary check-in process, contemporary airport passenger processes, to be attractive for the passenger, we need to minimize the wait time, the “ineffective” time spend at airports! It’s the big advantage of regional aviation, to minimize airport spent time.

Planning my current travels, I will spend some time with the family in Northern Germany, in between two events in Switzerland. In both cases, traveling eight hours by train will reflect in several hundred Euros in cost savings, and adds less than an hour on the total travel time door-to-door. As no, the meetings are not in Zürich.

This reminded me of the time we pioneered online travel booking (today Amadeus’ Cytric™). Own story. But as I mentioned back in 2018, compared to those pioneering days, development has almost come to a halt, with just little cosmetics and changes to the functionalities. Very little real improvements.
Working on what was to become Cytric and the first commercially used corporate online booking tool, we discussed:

The Multimodal Approach

Our vision for what was to be Cytric, that we wanted to follow, a vision not existing now, 25 years later, was to enter the home address, the destination address and the system would provide you the best travel options for you to get to the airport using car, rail, taxi, whatever, fly towards your destination and again take rail, taxi, rental car, whatever, to get to where you needed to go.

Back in those days, we already understood that it’s not about the flight. Or rail. The customer, especially the business traveler, needs to go somewhere. Getting to and from the airport, the check-in process and delays, connecting and waiting for the connecting flight, getting off the airport, all adds to the travel time. But even mighty Google only offers me to select one mode of transport, i.e. car, rail or flight… #talkthetalk

Travel Agent or Data Processor?

Speaking about Business Travel Management, we don’t need data typists any more. In the good old days, travel agents were the experts, knowing how to get the traveler from A to B, halfway (or all) around the world… Then came the GDS and the travel agents became data interfaces to the big data accessed through travel computers being connected with mighty servers. Something we call cloud computing today, using “dummy terminals”. Using codes like AN19DECFRAMIA and SS1B1M2 to search for and book a flight. Or similar complicated tools to book a rail ticket.

(And yes, that’s me in the American Airline office back in 1987 at an “ICOT” terminal.)

Then we enabled online booking and all that easy trips anyone can “book” now without any help. But what if you want to combine several destinations? What if you’re not living in Frankfurt or Paris, but in a rural, small industrial town with not many flights? We need the real travel agents again. Not the data processors. We need travel experts, that require strong and ongoing training and some specialization to provide the customer with a solution to their travel needs. That think beyond computer algorithms and understand “cross tickets” or “interlining” or multimodal travel. That take into account getting from and to the transportation hubs. And less conservatism, opposition to change and other #talkthetalk

Total Travel Time

It is why I believe we need regional aviation and we need more of it. Smaller aircraft, connecting secondary cities, offering quick and direct connection. Hubs are good for the global networks. And as I kept and keep emphasizing. Regional airports must not look out, how to get their locals out to the world. But to justify their existence, they need to bring the world to their regions! If that is by car, bus, train and/or flight is irrelevant for the passenger. To offer good connections at competitive cost and speed is the task at hand. And no, there is no reason for #flygskam if you do that right.

We need holistic thinking. Beyond our petty box. And less #talkthetalk

The “C” in A-CDM

On the call from an aviation IT professional it triggered that A-CDM is for big airports only. Is it?

Also the first article today on LinkedIn was from my friend Kalle Keller about TAM (Total Airport Management) and A-CDM.

As I outlined in my articles on that topic and i.e. the article about the Polar Vortex + Collaboration, A-CDM is about the C: Collaboration! It’s not what EuroControl, with their own agenda of this, markets as A-CDM. Neither that “bible” of theirs, they call the Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM) Implementation Manual. A “bible” about everyone I speak to reads and believes it to be the holy grail. It isn’t.

As I approached it back in 2016/17 and shared the learning curve at Passenger Terminal Expo 2017, the first step into A-CDM is and must always be a collaborative approach between the stakeholders at the airport. Systems and IT are secondary. Less than secondary! It is about tearing down siloes in the heads, between the stakeholders. The development of a common understanding of the common goal to optimize the processes for the greater good: A smooth management of airport operations beyond “the operations management”. Overall. Holistic.

And unfortunately, only once you did your homework at the airport … or the airline … the air traffic control, only then you can reach out to integrate with other A-CDM systems. And beyond. Not behind paywalls, but sharing for joint process improvements.

But then I research airports and my birth country Germany, mighty pacemaker in A-CDM, the ANSP (German Air Traffic Control) hides the basic aviation data from the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) is hidden behind a paywall. So other sites, like OpenStreetMaps, Wikipedia, etc. are forced to use secondary sources. Are you kidding me? And yes, even for countries with a truly open AIP, we find some 10% of discrepancies on the data. As those AIPs are published as PDF, not as data tables to quickly update. And the IATA code search is full of airports defunct for years. As they simply “add” but never check… And hide their misery behind a paywall? #talkthetalk

OTA + NDC – Barrel Bursts

An older article addressed NDC, the “New Distribution Capability” as a barrel burst. And reminded me of my project back in 2006/07, when we tried to develop a common database for hotel-information (descriptive) based on the OpenTravel Alliance XML standards that I had originally worked on in the early days. The standard has been so blown-up, that you simply can’t “comply” with a standard set of features, but anyone can pick what they want and that not being the same that others use, we have an overblown “standard” that in practical life allows everyone to be compliant, but still speaking totally different languages.

The same is with NDC. Original idea of NDC was to allow standard packaging of new or unique parts into the package. I recall early discussions when airlines started to unravel their travel packages and thought a way to package their individualized offers with new and unique ancillaries. The demand was to overcome the limitations of the smallest common denominator represented by the classic GDS. Nowadays, the GDS-ability to manage NDC is a key driver… In my opinion, the original intend was completely turned around. It’s now focused on a solution to put anything the airline comes up with in boxes that the GDS can manage.

As a bold example, we had the AIRIMP back in the 80s. To date, it is the smallest common denominator all airlines work with. Even though, a large number of functionalities specified in the AIRIMP are amiss in all those hip online (flight) booking interfaces (here’s the AIRIMP’s table of content). 26 years after we did the first commercial flight bookings on the web. Again a lot of #talkthetalk, tons of bold ideas how to make things better, whereas the basics are not yet covered? #talkthetalk

Disruption Management

A-CDM and TAM are in a large part about disruption management. Ten years ago we talked about “situational awareness” to manage disruptions. And I ask the same question ever since. I would like to see a tool that reflects the contemporary visualization of not what hits us now, but to see, how our industry-partner’s efforts impact the setbacks from weather, technical etc. – to identify hours ahead bottlenecks from aircraft delays, crews exceeding their duty hours, technical problems, peaks exceeding capacity, ATC problems, ground problems.

To do this, we must exchange data in large scale. All I see is data siloes and paywalls and a distrust to share data, keeping defunct and outdated processes alive, but no vision of collaboration on an industry scale. That even no matter that the same data is available in island solutions on interfaces like flightradar or the individual airports’ websites. #talkthetalk

The Source of the Most Common Truth

Our main problem is that our Powers-That-Be still consider themselves in a competition. Data is value, so put it in siloes. Where OpenStreetMap enabled mapping solutions, aviation data is still locked away. It takes two months until IATA publishes passenger data, after four months those numbers happen to differ substantially.

Looking at ICAO vs. the national AIP data, there are differences aplenty, worse even for IATA. So instead of working all together to manage common data together, we have different sources with different data. It is what I learned at SITA to be the art to find “The Source of the Most Common Truth”. There are industries living to develop and manage tools to overcome standard industry messages with airlines adding non-standard “features” to their messages, forcing rejects and delayed processing.

Back in 1995, Bill Gates spoke about the Internet about “Information at your Fingertips”. For the aviation, that is #talkthetalk

Status Quo + Outlook

Where aviation in the 1960s to -80s was a pacemaker in global eCommerce, it is now limping behind. Can tell stories about replies from industry bodies when I informed them about factual mistakes in their data. And their ignorance shown by neither directing the report to their PTBs, nor updating the faulty information. Instead of working together to develop the aviation of the future, we have conservative forces in play that hinder real development. Be that about A-CDM, data interfaces, data intelligence. We limp behind and instead of doing, we #talkthetalk.

Sure the same is true on sustainable aviation, but that’s another topic I discussed and discuss in other blog articles.

To overcome this, we must strengthen IATA and ICAO and demand the change from our PTBs. Stop the paywalls, speed up the availability of LIVE KPIs. Once a flight is finished the data must be available. Not tomorrow. All else is #talkthetalk.

My humble opinion. Happy to discuss how we can encourage real CHANGE.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome

15.06.2022 Aviation, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Corona, CrystalBall, Europe, Impact Investment, Russia

A (Fast Forward) Look Into 2022/23

In the recent weeks, there were some discussions about hopes and expectations for 2022. Related to aviation, tourism, Corona and politics… So let me share some expectations here in a (fast forward) look into 2022/23.

And sure, let’s start with

The Pandemic …

In the first year of the pandemic, in the first wave in May, I voiced my expectation already of Corona CoVID-19 as the new Measles. It’s even less, it will be more like the Flu. Get vaccinated one year for the latest SARS-variants. And keep in mind that SARS is in the wild for almost 20 years, it ain’t new! So to take it with the former German Minister for Health Jens Spahn, we will (globally) have 3G; in German Geimpft (vaccinated), Genesen (recovered) or Gestorben (died).

Omicron being good, as it spreads aggressively with a focus on unvaccinated people, who will then be recovered (or dead). Yes, Yulia and I are boostered, the kids are “officially vaccinated”, got their second shot early January, about as quickly as it was possible for 5 to 11 year old’s. Both wanted it, both had friends suffering the infection with side effects.

But now a new variant hits from Portugal, that seems immune to the vaccines or body’s own defense from previous infection. And Germany is hit by another peak. Whereas the infection rates a mere year ago would have called for lock-downs…? But our airlines promote travel without masks… And what happens, if the next variant is a more hostile version again?

… Turning Endemic (in Europe and U.S.)

There was a very good article on Al Jazeera about why the WHO refuses to turn Covid from a pandemic to an endemic state. Including the graph linked here on the impact of existing endemic diseases.

So given we have covered European and North American countries with enough vaccine for anyone who wants to be vaccinated, three, even four times, the times for lock-down will slowly be past. That will have impact to recovery of intra-European and North American air travel.

The only reasoning allowing for lifting air travel restrictions will then be the the hospitalization rates, though I expect those to go down to more manageable levels. Though we have ongoing reports of countries less privileged with vaccine access that report problems:

#vaccinationalism

The next big challenge is the look across borders and out of the “industry nations”. Over and again, news about vaccines that expired in the richer nations were met by the ones of i.e. African countries being delivered expiring vaccines or even ones that were not certified in the donor countries. At the same time, vaccines like the Russian Sputnik were still not “certified”. In turn, my own mother-in-law was denied entry into Europe as she got Sputnik, to visit to take care of my kids in my absence, while Yulia (my wife) works full time too.

Air Travel Industry #testingregime

“Principle Hope” and the Saint-Florian’s Principle dominate our industry: “Oh holy dear Saint Florian, don’t burn my house, take the neighbors one.”

During the recent handball European Championships, the German’s team played. With a mere four players from the core team, all others infected. Airlines and their lobbyists demand to end mask requirements and testing regimes in gross negligence and full knowledge that all those new variants can only spread that quickly globally by means of air travel.

It is my personal understanding that aviation needs to improve health rules and not hide behind the individual, political rules in place somewhere. How expensive would it be to have temperature scanners added into the check-in- and or security-process? And if someone has high temperature, to demand wearing of an FFP2-mask in flight. A mask that should then be provided if needed. They are no longer excessively expensive. A requirement shared by security with the airline, to ensure safety of the other passengers (and the flight crews). We must think beyond the current pandemic, as this is nothing new, just the worst case so far in “aviation history”.

Airports would be well advised to have processes in place to ensure #testingregime for the current and future infections., demanding and assuring the ability for pre-flight testing.

Given the issue of #vaccinationalism, I expect a first “recovery” in the rich industry nations, but also future variants swapping across those countries like Tsunamis from the neglected countries. Again, what happened to #weareallinthistogether? Or #thenewnormal?

This week I got reminded that the next variant-rise in infections that the experts predict for coming fall (again) is so much like airline winter ops. It hits every year again. To the surprise of the airport and airline managers…? Why is it that the mask requirement is liftet in Germany and I still enter shops with a mask? With about 50% of the shop visitors doing likewise – while the others play Russian Roulette?

Airline Loads and Revenue

Also “again”, we had discussed load and revenue just recently. Whereas aviation experts report own experience with flights cancelled on short notice. Which is met by reports from many airports, that airlines register more flights than sensible, with a large number cancelled in advance due to lack of passengers/revenue.

I keep voicing my concerns that airline management must rethink. The KPI “load factor” is useless by itself, even dangerous. The KPI we must focus on is “revenue”. But in the recent IATA Regional Economic Briefs stopped reporting KPIs that reflect on revenue. Likely as they try to avoid “bad news”? Good-weather-mentality. Works well, when there is sunshine, but we are now in a thunderstorm. Even with some brief respite, we’re anywhere but “back to normal”.

Reports I read fed hopes again about a summer recovery in Europe. A recovery now threatened by the new BA.5 variant spreading throughout Europe. And again, what is the airlines’ role in spreading those new variants so quickly across countries? And Lufthansa recently cancelled 600 flights (5%) for lack of staff. A main reason being the infection of their own. Mainly infected “at work”. What was that again about employee health protection? Naaaw, let’s not play it safe, let’s go back to old normal?

Personally, I’m a bit afraid, we are just in the eye of the storm…

Back to (the new) Normal?

Speaking to airline and airport managers, they prioritize no “new normal” which they promoted in the beginning of the pandemic. But they focus to “renormalize” back to the old normal. Which bites them in the butt over and again. Demands are to lift mask and testing requirements. In an obvious ignorance of the pandemic development. In line with political developments, but not in line with the infection rates.

As I asked before: Why do the new variants spread globally in a matter of weeks, if not days. I am quite sure, they are not contracted that quickly by air. Nor by rail, bus of freight. This should have been a wake-up-call for aviation to understand their role in globalization, not only in commerce, but also in health, in the spread of diseases. How many pandemics does it need for us to start “new thinking” and take responsibility?

What about #weareallinthistogether and #thenewnormal? Ain’t this the “safest industry in the world”? Safety first? What happens if we stray from that priority towards maximized returns, we have learned all watching and commenting on Boeing and the Max (and the 787) disaster(s).

Flying Empty

There can be reasons to fly an aircraft even empty.

One being to avoid aircraft hibernation. If an aircraft is not used for too long (and that time frame is rather short), the requirements to “reactivate” the aircraft explode the complexity and cost to do it. So it makes sense to consider which aircraft to take into hibernation, which ones may come soon back into service. And rotate the reserves to make sure they are ready to fly when needed.

Another would be to rotate the pilots to make sure they all keep their “type rating”, their license to fly the aircraft. Which also expires just too quickly. And while airlines now recognize the shortfall on pilots that they had either “laid off” (fired) and (or) didn’t support in keeping their type rating, the current feedback from pilots is that airlines still fail to have programs in place to rotate the pilots as good as they could to keep the type-ratings.

The Role of IATA?

I am very much missing the leadership I’d expect from IATA. Not a leadership towards the next disaster, but same rule for all. Like requirements to implement measures helping to identify sick passengers. Standards how to handle such. What if it’s not a single traveler, but a small child traveling with its family? But in the end, I believe if in doubt, a medical flight readiness certificate may be required. But also made available at airports offering commercial flights. Maybe demanding FFP2 mask. Maybe even plastic gloves or a hazmat-suit. What about the ticket? Will it be allowed to rebook. Airlines and/or travel insurances may need special rules for handling medically denied boarding? Maybe that we must add certain insurance as default to tickets?
But looking at the current line of communication by IATA, it does show a frightening ignorance, promoting future infection spread.

All things, the IATA could set up and require. Or ICAO if IATA doesn’t have the balls. #talkthetalk #discouragechange …

Side note: There was a nice article back in December ’20 from Simple Flying, Why You Shouldn’t Expect Masks To Disappear From Planes Soon… But who cares about the crap we thought reasonable yesterday?

War in the Ukraine

Being married to a Russian with close friends in the Ukraine, I would have never, never-ever believed an invasion of Ukraine. And while NATO-expansion threatened Russia – reminding of the political uproar when Khrushchev attempted to base nuclear missiles on the U.S. “doorstep”. Whereas NATO territory in fact is as close or closer to the Russian capital cities of Saint Petersburg and Moscow. That taken into account, there is no reasoning for an invasion of the Ukraine or the claims of a denazification. C’mon, I’m from Germany and Russia is the aggressor, too close to comfort following the propaganda and strategies of the Third Reich.

It became more obvious, when the “special operation” failed to achieve the Russian targets, when they invaded from Belarus towards Kiev and when they leave scorched earth (and hundred of massacred civilians) behind. The entire Donbass region now looks like Donetsk Airport, as does Mariupol.

The streamlining of the Russian media is totally in line with German propaganda. Control the media, promote your side, anyone voicing other opinion is taken to jail. Gestapo like. The next level being Stasi-methods jailing people already if there are unqualified claims of opposition. I am indeed afraid we will see that coming.

So with a focus on the impact of aviation? We are back into cold-war times. No overflying of the Russian territories is #thenewnormal for years to come. There will be exceptions – there are still flights between Russia and Turkey or Russia and China. How that will backfire on long-haul airlines though? There are discussions in the U.S. to ban those airlines from connecting to U.S. airlines. Which in turn would sure be followed by Europe. And then? This war has a big impact on our industry.

The Energy Crisis 2.0

While the aviation industry and it’s Powers-That-Be (PTBs) argue that we must delay sustainable flight in face of the crisis, I am on a complete opposite belief. We must, but we failed, to take the crisis as a chance for overdue change. Instead of investing into sustainable fuels and developments, into optimizing the airspace, our PTB try to go back to old normal. Then finding reasons to delay the change further.

Power from the Plug Greenwashing — The Sustainability-Energy Dilemma

It’s the very same with the necessary transition on ground, in Germany, fuel is subsidized now, not forcing consumption to be reduced, but we keep using more and more energy. Which in turn does result in increasing demand for crude oil, not in a reduction.

All “sustainable investors” come up with is “green tech”. Demanding more power, not less. And we produce more plastic every year, even in this crisis and even knowing we hit the 1.5°C target by 2026 most likely, not even by 2030. As we consume more and more crude oil, wind, solar and even nuclear power being a drop on a hot stone. And while there are ideas aplenty out there, I know of too many projects that happen to fail triggering investor interest.

In my humble opinion, most “impact investors” are greenwashers. It’s beyond cognitive dissonance when they focus their investments on “green tech” but in turn increase the energy demand instead of focusing on solutions that safe and conserve energy. Yes, I can sing not just a song but an entire opera about “green investors” that either look for max-profit under a green umbrella or they look for the next “tech unicorn”. It’s what I said before. If you want to invest into sustainability, pick your industry. Pick your “brown” company and invest into solutions that change that industry. Or. Look at energy consumers and how you can improve their energy consumption. Or replace them. And yes, any of your investments should target a reduction of energy consumption. Which can be, to provide the same service in demand, but having a clear strategy on your energy source.

And we talk about leveling the energy to a sustainable level. Use as much energy as you return. Like Kolibri. Not just launching the airline, but having plans to develop your own sustainable fuel-source. Which can be Synfuel. Which still uses energy and creates CO₂, but no more than it takes from the air to create it. A circular solution. Which we assume would trigger the use of SynFuel locally, which works better on a global scale than e-mobility, which has the worse life-cycle impact then. But so far, all “impact investors” we talked to expressed our idea to be very good and worthwhile, but they did not intend to invest themselves. Then they invest into money-graves like Uber or

The Fairy-Tale of Travel Recovery

Just like last year (2021), we will have a careless “Corona summer”. We will very likely hit another infectious peak by fall – all the pandemic experts are warning of that, we better start listening. With BA.5 now spreading and aircraft full of mask-free travelers likely much faster. So here I go early this year with the update of LaLinea Corona extending into 2023.

While most our political and industry leaders lead us from the darkness into deception and back into the cold.

The war in the Ukraine will impact not just long-haul travel, like the reestablishing of the polar route avoiding Russian air space. And that we can not trust in “neutral air space” we learned when Belarus took down a civil aircraft from transit with the sole reason to jail a political opponent living in exile abroad.

We have rules. But I see too many of them “bent” to commercial or political benefit. Rules the international and aviation communities leave unpunished if broken or bent.

So my outlook 2022/23 is kind of bleak. Given our own and our leaders ignorance, the pandemic ain’t over, Putin will continue wreaking havoc (not just to the Ukraine) and the planet will continue warming. And the people who could make a change keep focusing on maximum financial ROI, wearing a cheap “green” mask.

#talkthetalk #greenwashing #cognitivedissonance #cheapexcuses #nochangeleadership etc.

Food for Thought
Comments Welcome

24.11.2021 Aviation, Carbon-Neutral Flying

Biofuel SynFuel SAF – What is it?

Honored to be sharing my thoughts on sustainable aviation at ASTM, the Association of Swiss Travel Management (the Swiss successors of ACTE.org), at their Earth ’21 sustainability conference (their first, definitely not the last), the main question, not just in the Q&A but also in the following discussions and messages was the issue to understand the difference between BioFuels, SynFuels and Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF).

There is a lot of greenwashing and intentional abuse by using especially SAF for unsustainable fuels. So let me give you a short definition and help me and all others on the road to sustainable aviation to understand the greenwashing and using the proper wording for the proper thing!

Fuel Blending

At first, we started to blend biofuels into our car fuels. It is what you use in your car, blended as E5 (5%) or E10 (10%) into to fossil fuel. So it is lipstick on pigs, as in reality, it is still 90% or even 95% fossils! And may be very likely the reason, why fossils (and CO2) are still on the rise and growing.

Anything not Zero-fossil such by definition is not “sustainable” in reality. At max it can be a step on the road to sustainability. Mostly an attempt for Greenwashing!

Biofuel

So first we had biofuel. Which by definition is from a biological source, like rapeseed. With environmental activists for years complaining that valuable agricultural space (fields) are abused for biofuels instead of human food. And Amazon and other forests are being burned down to plant such seeds.

Biofuels to date comes always blended, engines are not able to operate on unblended biofuels without major modifications! There was another greenwashed development, where Lufthansa in cooperation with DB Schenker operated a 100% Carbon-Neutral cargo flight, offsetting the CO2 from unsustainable fossil fuels. As was openly discussed at and reported from COP26, offsetting is #greenwashing. It’s not in itself “green” but a sale of indulgences.

While we also planned with Biofuel when we developed the Kolibri business and financial plans, we back then already understood that as the only option then available and such the maximum step we could do to fly somewhat sustainable. But then I learned about

SynFuel (my choice)

Just about three years back, I stumbled across a report about Sunfire.de, developing something they called SynFuel. I still use that word, whereas SynFuel is also called e-Fuel or PowerFuel. I do not like those two “modern” terms. As e-Fuel implies (I believe intentionally) “electric” (e-Mobility), which has nothing to do with it. And PowerFuel implies a higher power efficiency which as as missleading. So I file those namings under attemps for white- and greenwashing.

SynFuel by definition is Synthetic Fuel, refined by CO2 and Hydrogen. The name is program. So I encourage use of SynFuel and not those other names that are rather distractive.

Speaking to Sunfire back then, I triggered their understanding that aviation is a key target market for their SynFuel, which they originally envisioned as a Diesel-replacement. So I speak about SynFuel for the generic addressing of fuels, SynKerosene and SynDiesel for specific replacements.

SynFuel has been proven to be able to operate unblended, at 100%, both for cars, trucks, ships or aircraft. It might be noteworthy that the Hamburg SynFuel pilot facility at Hamburg Airport is said to not have been just opposed, but in fact boycotted by Lufthansa there. For the fear to be pushed towards it’s use, which they are not ready for. Unwilling. A clear sign about their real “sustainability interest”, which is pure greenwashing!

In my opinion, SynFuel is the main, in fact the only candidate to replace fossil kerosene in aviation. At this time, the production of SynFuel requires quite some energy; 15.3kWh/liter. Energy that taken from the grid, especially in Germany with the worldwide highest grid cost, will make it very expensive. But.

But if you develop green energy sources and use those to refine SynFuel, you have several advantages. The energy cost drops drastically. You replace grid-power, which is not green, no matter what you “buy”. The demand for green grid power by far exceeds the supply today. So that’s just more greenwashing! Only green SynFuel is sustainable and Grid-Energy is not sustainable either!

It’s rather new, which might explain conservative politicians and industry leaders still holding on to the less sustainable e-mobility. Or wishful thinking like liquid hydrogen flying, which will not have any impact by 2030, realistically a lot later than 2050! And a meek excuse by most of our industry leaders to delay investment into real sustainability.

Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) – the Greenwashing Lie

When IATA commits to 2% blending of SAF into fossil fuels by 2030, that “SAF” is used to pretend sustainability. In IATAs definition, that includes both BioFuels, as well as any-colored SynFuel. If they would be honest, their commitment would require to amount for 2% net sustainability. Which in itself remains an embarrassment! Even on cars we have already E5 in most countries as a standard, E10 an option. And aviation commits to E2?

The only real SAF is 100% green SynFuel
meaning the source energy is green!

Even waste-to-liquid is not really SAF, as the waste often is not from sustainable sources. But experts agree so far that it is “circular” and helps to reduce the carbon-footprint. There it is more the waste-producing industry to replace i.e. fossil-based plastics with bio-degradable alternatives. Though I just had some lobbyist trying to convince me (seriously!) that plastic is good for climate…

And the #Greenwashing Continues

While we have sound plans to establish a profitable airline, planning to operate carbon-neutral, #greenwashing and lip-services dominate responses we get from “impact” investors, why our model cannot be supported. And the same what is heard and seen from politicians and public funds.

Now the last weeks, the “green strategy” is a big issue in the media. European Investment Bank claiming to be be the “Sustainability Bank”. The Mission Hydrogen 24 hour workshop. The reality check on to German Rail’s sustainability. Or the facts about the “global recycling champion” Germany. So let me summarize these reports. And call for any serious investors interested to make a true impact, to talk to us and learn the big impact we want to make. While establishing a profitable, future-focused airline.

German Rail & 100% Sustainable Power?

Don’t get me wrong, this ain’t new. There have been reports about this ever since they started their fake promotion about 100% sustainable power. But just this week, German Television did a reality check, with rather devastating results!

Just 61% of German Rail’s power comes from renewable energy. 28% come from coal and natural gas, where German Rail partly owns the latest built coal power plant, built against all public opposition. German Rail has long-year delivery contracts for atomic power. And only 33 out of 5,679 railway stations are powered from renewable energies, 0.5 % … And by 2038 (17 years from now) German Rail wants to increase the use of sustainable power to only 80%, targeting 100% only for 2050.

That excludes non-rail business, like Schenker logistics, clearly focusing on Dieseltrucks. Where container transport by rail is more than six times more ecofriendly than trucks. But having demolished most of the industrial accesses, parallel tracks and being delayed on major infrastructure projects like the European North-South rail axis, now backfires and cannot be remedied quickly.

ECB & EIB – the Sustainability Banks?

While we talk with impact investors, we do also understand the European Central and the European Investment Bank claiming to be “Sustainability Banks”. Talking with the very same investors being “naturally” and clearly interested in sustainable projects, we asked why they would not make use of those funds to complement an investment into Kolibri or other impact investments.

The feedback I get is painfully clear. They do not work with the EIB (or other government fund programs) for the bureaucratic process required to be “approved” as an investor. I have multiple statements that attempts to support the investment failed. Assumption being voiced that those funds again go to the big players and into unqualified “green projects” that are mostly about #greenwashing. That includes a claim that EIB funds new aircraft for the dinosaurs – without any requirement(s) for those aircraft or the airline to develop a strategy to reduce their carbon footprint.

I also reached out to one of the experts in my network, working closely with those banks and doing studies on their sustainability, asking why venture capital or family offices don’t work closer with such government funds: “But what you report from your interactions with public investors is true even for smaller and less ambitious projects and companies in that public VC funds invest only if the concept is validated by the market in one way or the other. In other words, only if someone else confirmed the commercial success elsewhere.

Germany – the Global Recycling Champion?

Reality is, that Germany is the global champion in export of plastic trash. Instead of a strict recycling regime, 80% of the trash collected from the recycling bins is being either exported or burned.

The drop in export results directly from China having stopped and banned the import of plastic trash. So now, the pictures of plastic from African countries dominate the respective stories about German “recycling”.

At the same time, the plastics industry is booming. And instead of developing sustainable packaging, the trend is clearly towards mixed-use, the known bad example being “Tetra Pak^®“; a packaging made of several layers that make it exceptionally difficult to recycle. And the few recycling factories being more for greenwashing than for recycling any meaningful amounts of that stuff.

There was also a report on TV this week on Coca Cola and how they changed from the recycling glass bottles to throw-away plastic bottles and Aluminum cans. Which was the beginning of the end of bottle recycling. And how their lobbyists ever since fight any recycling requirements…

Aviation – the Scapegoat?

Now, how about “my industry”, how about aviation? And why is it constantly the scapegoat and blamed for global warming?

When the aviation industry claims that it’s only responsible for 2% of the CO₂-emissions, this is also green-washing. As aircraft engines exhaust contains also other “greenhouse emissions” and many if not most not on ground level, but at high altitude. The “contrails” being a visual reflection that people “know” and can identify. Experts in a report about Airbus this week accounted the greenhouse emissions by aviation to 6%. Not much, but only 4% of the world population flies. And 6% is substantial.

So aside our plans to use Kolibri.aero to establish the infrastructure and certify the use of 100% synkerosene to fly carbon-neutral, we also understand the issue of the aircraft-engine exhaust will require further research into greenhouse-effects of the remaining exhaust. But which only can start, once we start flying “carbon-neutral”! And yesterday, I was challenged twice about synfuel and that we’d need to look at use of battery, hydrogen and fuel cells. Referring to a very academic presentation by Prof. Dr.-Ing. Josef Kallo of the German Aerospace Agency (DLR) about How to fly with Hydrogen, addressing fuel cells at the European Hydrogen Workshop by Mission Hydrogen GmbH (Ltd.).

See my recent blog about The Road to Environmentally Friendly Flying…

Electric, Fuel Cells and other Aviation #greenwashing

Speaking with one of those “challengers”, he argued that in 10 years the first regional aircraft will fly on fuel-cells. Being “project planning”, I’d say better add 50% reserve to that, then we talk about 15 years. And personally I still doubt that time line. And then we will have aircraft with 10, 20 or maybe 30 seats. With a range of one to two hours. When we will have aircraft that transports 100 seat? Or ones that can replace the 150-250 seats used by the low cost airlines? When do we expect aircraft to transport 250-350 passengers long haul? Hiding behind “Research”? Science Fiction…

The argument given was that batteries and fuel cells will become more effective. Which I file under “cognitive dissonance“. What excess in miniaturization results in, we all experienced with the B787 batteries self-enflaming. Or the Samsung Galaxy Note 7 “fiasco”. Trying to mend the rules of physics is a true challenge. And that does not even cover the devastating ecological footprint not only of Lithium. If you want to wait for that to be resolved, we talk about “dirty” kerosene still in use in 20, 30 years!

And if that happens, our industry is worth being used as a scapegoat…

Change Happens – NOW!

Sustainable economy and global warming are big issues today, but most that we see is lip services. An investor group just recently checked impact investments for the “real” impact. They reported about 4% of all investments having a quantifiable impact or quantifiable targets. Only 4%. All others to be #greenwashing. On the “impact programs” of the 100 largest companies in Europe they found not a single one having more than one or two percent impact to global warming. Most of them being “lighthouse projects” that are being developed inside a “bubble” that does not immediately impact the company. Mostly lip-services addressing already established programs, but don’t really change the existing processes.

One example mentioned being the Electrolyzer delivered to Salzgitter AG for delivering hydrogen to be used in their steel-making process. A “research project”, largely funded by the hydrogen program. And now, being still in research phase, trialing it’s impact, it’s a “lighthouse project”?

The Fight against #Greenwashing + Lip-Services

And today I was confronted again with “avoid flying” as the first and foremost advise to stop global warming. While people will fly, economy needs flight connections as well. What we need is to stop blaming aviation, but start changing it. And the governments and public funds won’t help, so we need bold investors with a mission to help establishing the environment that allows us to work together on the common goal. Clean flying. Flying without remorse. Flying with a conscious mind.

We choose to fly Carbon-Neutral in this decade. And do the other things. Not because they are fashionable and easy, but because they must be done. But we can’t do it alone, we need investors that are interested in more than greenwashing their conscience, but the ones supporting the real thing. Investors that understand this is a big deal, it’s disruptive, it’s a journey. A journey that needs conviction, founders with the commitment and vision to make it happen…

Food for Thought
Investors welcome!

16.03.2021 Aviation, Aviation Investment, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Impact Investment

The Road to Environmentally Friendly Flying

Electric? Hydrogen? All the aviation associations promote going “green” 2040. Or beyond. Whereas the technology for the first step is here.

Being asked on my baby KOLIBRI.aero on why we don’t wait for electric planes or hydrogen planes, my answer is simple. They are fog-screens, intentional distractions allowing the airline to hold on to them to avoid really addressing the issue! To avoid Change. This can be brought down to very easy to understand examples.

The Fairy Tale of Electric Passenger Flights

Zunum 50 seat electric plane — Zunum Electric Plane

Boeing dropped out of funding Zunum, having the plans to develop an electric air plane. Because there is a simple, physical challenge that they cannot overcome. The battery size. Reducing the battery size, Boeing learned the lesson with the 787 Dreamliner. Where internal batteries caught fire. Would that have happened inflight, you can imagine the catastrophic impact. They had reduced the size vs. capacity to the point where batteries happen overheat. Especially rechargeable ones that we talk about it here. It is rumored and I heard it from Boeing, that their engineers disqualified electric passenger planes beyond 35, maximum 50 seats. The max size Zunum targeted, but with a range of one flight hour, maximum 90 minutes.

There may be developments that may one day increase battery capacity while reducing the size, but they are wishful thinking as of today.

The Fairy Tale of Hydrogen Powered Passenger Flights

The very same issue is it about hydrogen powered passenger flights, Airbus recently promoted as their “Zero-Emission Aircraft”. Again, the physical challenge.

To put into those aircraft cooled hydrogen tanks with the related cooling makes those tanks very bulky. In fact, sources inside Airbus have been cited assuming 50% or more of the fuselage (cabin and freight compartment) to be needed to build in the hydrogen needed to operate the aircraft 60 to maximum of 90 minutes. Unpressured (uncooled) Hydrogen does not have the needed energy.

That is, why those airplanes Airbus showed in the picture are also small aircraft, with about 50% less seating of a comparable aircraft those sizes today. Another wishful thinking and fog screen if you ask me.

Electric + Hydrogen Electric – a Summary

There is a very interesting summary on electric (and hydrogen-electric) flight in a 45-minute YouTube video:

Generally it confirms my opinion, that we won’t have any substantial development in time for any meaningful impact on the climate goals. With first liquid-hydrogen prototypes expected by the research experts by 2035 to 2040 and first commercial operations likely 10 years faster. See my summary from an expert panel in the comments. A bit late for a 2050 impact?

And electric will start with small air taxi-type services of 15-20 passengers. And while that is a good development, it will only replace (and enable) very small regional routes. Can you imagine 5-10 slots an hour at any of the larger airports to be burned by such small planes?

It will very likely take beyond 2050 until we will see any of the 100 or 200 seat aircraft flying commercially on either technology. Bullocks. Just more #greenwashing …?!

[Added 28.Jul.2021]

The Road to Carbon Neutral

Biofuels greenwashing

Developing Kolibri, from the outset we thought about using contemporary aircraft allowing us to use bio-fuel. Though bio-kerosene must be “blended”. Must be mixed at least one to one with the classic, dirty kerosene. Often, it is mixed like “E10” gasoline, only 10% “bio”. It’s not uncommon to have a 10-20% blend only, using 80-90% classic Jet-A1. Whereas the “bio” comes mostly from rape seed monocultures (picture), having already it’s own negative impact on bioversity. That ain’t “clean”, nor “sustainable”.

Hydrogen – a volatile gas

From my work on a solar powered WIG 2008, replacing it’s diesel-engine with an hydrogen-engine, I understood hydrogen as the future. Clean electrolysis using solar power (and wind, bio mass and other sustainable energy sources) and salted water, whereas desalination facilities produce the surplus salt to augment seawater to the level needed for the electrolysis. So sunny regions with access to seawater have a “natural advantage” to develop the infrastructure to create hydrogen.

Now hydrogen is exceptionally volatile, even in special tanks, the losses are substantial, so it’s not easy to transport. Now…

Synfuel

Two years ago Sunfire’s Synfuel triggered my attention, from a National Geographic report – not reported in Germany, but in the U.S. … I instantly understood synfuel a perfect solution to replace our plans to invest in expensive electric and hydrogen powered ground fleet, still with the need to have Diesel-powered trucks and emergency generators in an airline, with syndiesel. And to develop into synkerosene to replace biokerosene.

Developed since, Sunfire with partners started a construction of a synkerosene facility in Oslo, Norway. No, not in their home-country Germany, but in Norway. Norway is not full member of the EU, “only” an associated country. Make your guess, why not inside the EU… Maybe Ursula von der Leyen’s implied quote below gives you a hint.

Aside, synfuel can be used quite easily as a buffer technology, using excess power to create synfuel during peak times and using it in common and tried power generators to recreate energy in low times. Until we have something better, Syngas is a clean energy source that can make us independent of crude-oil for power generation. a technology that can create a future for many “poor countries” in the “tropical belt”, the tropic (red) and subtropical zones (yellow), as their surplus of solar energy is way higher than what the northern hemisphere has in the temperate to polar zones.

The Fairy Tale of the End of the Combustion Engine

Guess what, there is a Workshop “Mission Hydrogen” this week in the EU with some focus on Germany. At the same time, Saudi Arabia announced to invest 700 billion to become the global leader in hydrogen … While European players still make plans, others stake their claims. And to transport that hydrogen, syngas offers the advantage to be using the same logistics infrastructure.

And while German transport minister Andreas Scheuer demands the end of the combustion engine by 2035, I can only interpret this as another short-sighted publicity stunt. A distraction and a fog screen! By a minister who’s not known for his realism. Combustion technology will still be around a while, cars having a lifetime of minimum 10 years. Other technologies like aviation, simply lack an alternative for now. And while privileged nations can likely afford the switch, less privileged regions will rely on combustion engines for a great number of reasons and even more years.

Making the Change

So while we make again big plans in Northwestern Europe, developing synfuel facilities in the “poor South” makes a lot of sense. Developing synfuel facilities at airports will be an incubator for the regional conversion from classic gasoline to synfuel. Developing a new “regional” airline with the large demand of synfuel, will make the development a profitable venture. A classic win-win.

So anyone believing in electric passenger planes is daydreaming, or whitewashing why they don’t invest to become clean. A distraction, a fog screen. The same is true for purely hydrogen-powered planes.

But anyone who wants to make a change, can do so today. Modern aircraft engines are ready to apply 100% synfuel. Or so Sunfire, Norsk-e-Fuel and an engine maker assure me. Synfuel created from hydrogen and carbon-dioxide. Not carbon-positive, but yes, carbon-neutral. Proven tech. Today.

And we have a business plan, and we have the interest to make this happen. Starting today and being carbon-neutral within this decade. If not faster.

Food for Thought
Investors welcome!

11.12.2020 Aviation, Carbon-Neutral Flying, Impact Investment

Clean Aviation Whitewashing and the Real Deal

The Future of Clean Aviation is Now

I’ve started to write this as a part of my post on Impact Investing vs. Whitewashing, but I decided to take this into it’s own article and only summarize and refer to it. This article addresses the known ideas about clean flying and why I believe there is a lot of whitewashing and intentional delaying. But if you want to go carbon-neutral for a start, the technology is there. Even with the bureaucratic hurdles, we can start flying carbon-neutral within a matter of three to five years. The challenge is the speed we can secure the funding to build the necessary facilities.

Investors interested to turn aviation carbon-neutral, here is our reasoning which technology you should look at. And why helping us making this happen will be disruptive. Not because noone else could do it, but because to succeed you need the right people who want to do it, not the ones considering it disrupting their plans…

Electric Flying

“But how about electric flying?” you might ask? Yes, how about it? In December 2013, a battery on a Boeing 787 Dreamliner caught fire. It was later attributed to a “design flaw”. Yes, Boeing had quite some trouble even before the MAX-disaster.
In 2016, the Samsung Galaxy S7 batteries happened to explode. It was found that a manufacturing defect in the phones’ batteries had caused some of them to generate excessive heat, resulting in fires and explosions. And as much as they research possibilities, there are no ideas yet how you can “minimize” batteries (size and weight) further without risking them overheating. But given existing battery size and weight, the battery will only allow for very short flights with relatively few passengers. Commercial flying over two, three hours? You got to be kidding…

I find Zunum’s story (their jet pictured here) quite interesting. From Wikipedia: “In November 2020, Zunum Aero filed a lawsuit against Boeing alleging that Boeing tried “to gain access to proprietary information, intellectual property” and then used its dominance “to delay and then foreclose” Zunum’s operation, “in order to maintain its dominant position in commercial aviation by stifling competition”, using this proprietary information “to provide a hybrid-electric propulsion system for a different aircraft design” with Safran. Zunum said that Boeing tried to poach Zunum’s engineers.”

Electric Flight is a nice idea, but without a breakthrough in batteries, in my opinion it’ll be too inflexible a niche market and in best case need 10-20 years of active development to come up with a sizeable aircraft for mass transportation. And then there is the devastating ecological footprint of the mining of the needed Lithium, Nickel, “rare earths”, that experts expect to become a likely killer issue for Tesla – now thinking about battery-powered flying?

Hydrogen

Many of you remember that back in 2008 I worked with investors and potential climate-sensitive customer we worked on a hydrogen-powered WIG (wing in ground). Combining the then existing research platform SeaFalcon with a common hydrogen-engine and refining hydrogen from solar power. Back in the days, we got a viability study funded to work out the business case based on Maldivian Air Taxi. Very successful business case in fact. Then came Lehman and we never further followed up on it, something I regret to date. Back 2009/10, we could have proved the business case for carbon-free flying.

But I also learned the downsides of Hydrogen, disabling it for large aircraft. Say what? Didn’t Airbus not just promote their vision of hydrogen-powered planes? Just the required cooling and/or pressure tanks for any sizeable aircraft sure is a challenge.

On the picture I found it interesting to see the focus on small aircraft and how much of that they already assume to be used for the hydrogen-tanks… Given Corona, I doubt they will give this the focus to keep the development timeline at 2030 (ten years). And I believe this is just another case like Boeing on e-flight, a means to proof failure to justify continuation of “dirty flying”. I doubt their managements real interest in clean flying!

Synkerosene – Hydrogen reloaded

Since I learned about Synfuel in early 2019, I understood that quickly as true impact, a disruptive technology. Given it’s “circular” nature, it will not provide “clean flying as quickly. But carbon-neutral flying and substantially less side products in the exhaust. Then I was surprised recently that Sunfire had secured a joint venture as Norsk e-Fuel, building an “industrial-sized facility” in Oslo. Okay, their annual output I learned is rather small, only 25% of what we assume as need for an all-synkerosene fleet at our bases, enough for seven regional aircraft.

But yes, we believe that given Synkerosene can transform all existing fleets in a matter of years. Starting with Synfuel for company cars, energy generators beyond emergency, but also as a buffer for the solar power needed for a 24/7 operation will require a large sized facility at our headquarters. Developing the plans and securing the funding for the large-sized facilities needed at the bases, we expect first bases to be 100% carbon neutral realistically within three to five years. But only, if we get it started. If we overcome lip-services, white- and greenwashing but join forces with investors interested doing the real deal.

Now back to the investor who told us this week that we’d not be innovative enough. I don’t care to be innovative. I want to use innovation available to make a change. A real one.

Challenge: Three years to the first carbon-free base. Ten years for all bases to be carbon-free. And looking at 10 years, this will be profitable development! Real IMPACT INVESTING.

The Truth About ZERO-Emission

Synkerosene is not emission-free. But even Airbus “Zero-Emission” is a lie! Sure there will be emissions, though using hydrogen, it will mostly by H₂O, simple water.

Synkerosene is refined from hydrogen and carbondioxide (CO₂ + H₂). The chemical components of the engine exhaust must be researched and we expect a journey to further optimize the exhaust. Amateurish ideas are a catalyzer. I was also introduced to a team working on a contrail-free engine. If I understood that right, they use ammonia (NH₃), but how that then impacts the high altitude atmosphere?

Yes, there are questions that will demand answering. But Synfuel is an answer available now. And it is definitely much better than the crude-oil product. Not only for aviation, but also for all those used cars with combustion engines around the world! And be real, the number of e-powered cars is rather limited, both e- and hydrogen-powered cars are quite a bit more expensive if you don’t build your own infrastructure.

Aviation Beware?

There is a very strong force of inertia in aviation about turning “green”. Like other problems in aviation management, such as their disbelieve in branding, the resulting focus on “cheap” as the sole difference and a missing loyalty for partners and employees alike. that, plus missing USPs made airlines a running gag about ROI. But as in all other industries, you cannot expect change and disruptions with blind managers. You need vision.

A real impact investment, with managers that breath “impact” and commit themselves “naturally” to the U.N. SDGs will be countering the greed-driven likes of Ryanair or others, saving on the backs of their employees, their customers, the airports and regions they serve to maximize their evil impact. And their profits. Especially their senior managers’ profits. Everyone complains about Ryanair, then why do people fly them? Why do airports and regions fund their “semi-legal” (illegal) subsidy schemes? Why does no-one divest to stand up to them? Why don’t they name and shame them? Why still investing in them?

Or look at Lufthansa, securing for the group more than 10 billion bailout, grounding Germanwings as they’re too expensive, firing their staff aplenty, grounding airplanes. The bailouts multiple their worth before the crisis, what is left of the formerly proud crane? And guess, one day they have to repay all those debts. At least they use those with professional care. Will they invest into anything “sustainable”? Their government did not bother to require something like that. And accusing the pandemic, I was told they oppose the development of the Synkerosene-pilot in Hamburg. That being likely the reason the German-lead Joint-Venture to develop a first industrial-sized facility chose Oslo instead…?

But yes, at KOLIBRI.aero we have the understanding of the necessity to make an impact. To disrupt aviation to force them to become “green” and sustainable. And keep in mind that for decades, aviation was a growth market. And will be. The demand is there.

Impact Investment or Whitewashing – What is it?

I do believe that we will find family offices and may even trigger the interest of some of the institutional investors. Maybe even EU monetary bodies might understand the impact we can make. And different from existing players, we neither have Corona debts, nor do we have “hidden agendas” or different plans. We want to do this. Do you?

And if you’re no (real) impact investor reading this, but one of my many friends and followers, please share this.

Food for Thought
Comments welcome!

Table of Content

The Electric Cars Lie

When The Numbers Don’t Compute: Braunschweig

City Claims Fact Check: Climate Neutral by 2030

Loading Cycle

Car Life-Cycle vs. e-Mobility

Side Issue Braunschweig: The Green District Heating Lie

Climate Friendly Flying

Electric Flying

Air Taxi

Hydrogen Powered Flights

Energiewende (Energy Transition)

A Limited View

Impact Investor = Greenwashing?

Green vs. Grid Energy

The CPP-Distraction

Sustainable, Climate-Friendly, Carbon-Zero vs. Fossil-Free

Why I Keep Fighting to Fund Kolibri

Haneda (Airbus)

Portland (Boeing)

Is the 737 MAX safe?

Conclusions

The Articles + Comments

The Economist’s (My) Response

The Fairy-Tale of Loss Making Airlines

(That’s) The Way Airlines Operate

Going Beyond Greenwashing

Circular Economy

Vertical Farming

Desalination – Hydrogen – SynFuel … i.e. in the UAE

The Four Columns for Happy Living

Learning From the Military

Precarious Working Conditions

#Greenwashing and #Raisinpicking

Earth Overshoot Day

Timeline + Scale

A Holistic Approach to the SDGS

Not Invented Here, part 1

Passengers spend 156 Minutes at AMS

The Multimodal Approach

Travel Agent or Data Processor?

Total Travel Time

The “C” in A-CDM

OTA + NDC – Barrel Bursts

Disruption Management

The Source of the Most Common Truth

Status Quo + Outlook

The Pandemic …

… Turning Endemic (in Europe and U.S.)

#vaccinationalism

Air Travel Industry #testingregime

Airline Loads and Revenue

Back to (the new) Normal?

Flying Empty

The Role of IATA?

War in the Ukraine

The Energy Crisis 2.0

The Fairy-Tale of Travel Recovery

Fuel Blending

Biofuel

SynFuel (my choice)

Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) – the Greenwashing Lie

Further Reading

German Rail & 100% Sustainable Power?

ECB & EIB – the Sustainability Banks?

Germany – the Global Recycling Champion?

Aviation – the Scapegoat?

Electric, Fuel Cells and other Aviation #greenwashing

Change Happens – NOW!

The Fight against #Greenwashing + Lip-Services

The Fairy Tale of Electric Passenger Flights

The Fairy Tale of Hydrogen Powered Passenger Flights

Electric + Hydrogen Electric – a Summary

The Road to Carbon Neutral

Biofuels greenwashing

Hydrogen – a volatile gas

Synfuel

The Fairy Tale of the End of the Combustion Engine

Making the Change

Electric Flying