The skies are not as friendly as they used to be. It isn't just the carbon dioxide — although, at 385 parts per million, it continues to rise about 3 ppm per year above the pre-industrial comfort level of 280 ppm. It isn't just the weather — although storms are getting more intense and climate anomalies more extreme. And it isn't just the environmentalists — although in Europe an umbrella organization of about 150 groups called Plane Stupid have been demanding a hefty carbon tax on jet fuel and an immediate moratorium on the expansion of all airports. It isn't even just the flying public — although they are stressed by the inconvenient array of exasperating security measures.

The skies aren't as friendly as they used to be because the rising cost of oil is changing the character of air travel as airlines around the world cut flights, trim staff and implement creative measures to reduce weight and, therefore, save fuel. Air Canada is laying off 2,000 employees, Continental Airlines 3,000, Delta Airlines 4,000 and American Airlines 7,000. Some airlines are trimming the amount of excess fuel they carry, reducing the amount of water on board, scrimping on canned drinks and wine, even trying to lessen toilet use. Some are removing ovens and eliminating hot meals. US Airlines announced it is taking out its in-flight entertainment systems on domestic service for a weight saving of about 230 kilograms per plane and about $10 million in annual fuel savings (Maclean's, July 28/08). Lighter beverage carts can save $500,000 per year for large airlines, and just carrying five fewer magazines can save $10,000 annually (Ibid.). Other airlines are even considering removing the exterior paint for a weight saving of about 150 kilograms per plane (Ibid.).

To compensate for rising fuel costs, some airlines are charging for all on-board food and for a second bag of luggage — one airline is even charging for any piece of checked luggage. The result is more expensive flying. And cuts to airline personnel mean less customer service, bigger queues, longer delays, and more late flights, late arrivals and cancelled flights.

As a measure of the effect of the high price of oil on airline economics, the cost of fuel as a proportion of operating costs has risen from 13% in 2002 ($40 billion) to 34% ($176 billion) in 2008, according to the International Air Transport Association. In early June, for example, Air Canada spent $68,948 for kerosene to fly a Boeing 777 one way from Toronto to London's Heathrow. Filling a larger airplane can cost $80,000. Air Canada's fuel costs are expected to increase by $1 billion this year.

Some of these costs are passed on to passengers as fuel surcharges. But even a surcharge of $145 to cross the Atlantic doesn't offset Air Canada's fuel cost of $200 or more per passenger, creating an economic imbalance that places airlines in a lose lose dilemma. If they inflate their charges to cover the full cost of fuel, they lose ticket sales; if they don't charge the full cost, they lose money. The surcharge on a return flight from Vancouver to Ireland on one airline is now $430, nearly doubling the advertised ticket price. Air Canada recently promoted a flight from Vancouver to Newfoundland for $334. But that was one way. And with the fuel surcharge and other levies, the return flight came to $903.50 (Ibid.).

In the struggle to reduce fuel costs but keep passengers, US airlines alone are expected to lose $10 billion this year. Sir Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic Airways expects "spectacular casualties" over the coming year (Ibid.). Analysts are now openly contemplating the end of mass international air travel, an event that could reconfigure world economics and make flying an option for only the rich.

The problem is that airplanes presently have no viable alternative to the oil derived fuel that powers them. Efficiency, much improved since the 1970s, is now extremely difficult to get — a new design can gain only a few percentage points but the planning, building and testing can take nearly a decade.

Air travel, when considered in the global perspective, presents staggering statistics. About 85,000 flights each day or 2.6 million per month. A flight across the Atlantic can easily consume 60,000 litres of fuel — more than a motorist would use in 50 years of driving — and generate 140 tonnes of carbon dioxide. The world fleet of jetliners burns about 130 million tonnes of kerosene each year (New Scientist, Feb. 24/07). Until recently, the airline industry was predicting a doubling of flights by 2050.

But this prediction may have to be adjusted downward as the price of oil rises and the profile of climate change gains prominence. Pressure is building for a global carbon tax on jet fuel, a measure that would add further costs to air tickets. In tandem, passengers are increasingly disenchanted by the growing inconvenience of security measures and the service cuts that are eroding the fun of flying.

Of course, fewer flights mean less air pollution. The airline industry presently produces about 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions. But critics charge that this represents about 8% of the environmental damage due to the high altitude deposition of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides and other gases, and the warming effects of particulates and condensation trails.

All considered, the skies are not as friendly as they used to be. And more and more people are deciding to travel closer to home.