There are many reasons that pilots may choose to quit and pursue a different career path. Here’s a reason I’ve never heard of, though, as flagged by AirlineGeeks.
Continue reading: Senior Air France Pilot Quits Due To Environmental Guilt
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
It's interesting how he found this new religion only towards the end of his successful career, likely near his mandatory retirement age, and after spending 20 years doing what he is now wagging his finger at others for doing. I will be judgmental and say that this is not only hypocritical, but evidences a narcissistic personality disorder and hero complex, and above all demonstrates poor logical reasoning and decision making. We are all better off without him in the left seat.
He's a free man, he can do whatever he wants with his career.
Air France is just going to hire some other pilot to replace him. I'm not sure his retirement will have any real lasting impact on the industry though.
Perhapd he can use his new free time to do environmental advocacy, if that's what he's passionate about.
This is what happens when environmentalism shifts from being a logical exercise, to a religion, for some people.
Global aviation accounts for less than 4% worldwide emissions; commercial alone less than 3%.
The same day this person did his little religious rite, he probably got into a car, utilized electricity generated from coal, and accepted a package shipped on an oceanic freighter: all of which contribute significantly more to global emissions than worldwide aviation.
The worshippers of the climate hoax are just… There’ll be another ice age in 50k years, annihilating most mammals. Why even bother? But hey, glad he resigned before crashing his plane into a mountain or building out of his eco anxiety. But as Ben wants us to be nice: I hope he gets the help he so desperately needs.
At least this guy is true to his values. Unfortunately those who helped to make him feel guilty about doing his job will continue to go to events like COP in their private jets.
I guess that guy won’t be traveling anymore if he stays true to his convictions. Unless he’s riding a bicycle, a trip anywhere would directly or indirectly burn fossil fuel.
…. I do hope that you are not suggesting that he should follow the example of that child …. Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg?
I appreciate this kind of news, I was dragging my feet on buying carbon credits and I'm happy to say I just bought some via goldstandard! Found a project in Cambodia where they are distributing water purifiers so locals don't have to boil water to purify it. Boiling water with wood increases emissions so this is pretty cool!
Glad he left. This sort of mental instability could have turned into an imminent threat to the safety of the plane and lives on board. He did the right thing to quit. I wouldnt want to be a passenger in his plane…
It is one thing to stop doing something which you have determined you are philosophically opposed to but how will he overcome the guilt of all that he has done? Coloring and writing music isn't going to put the emissions back into the engine.
The aviation industry plays an important role in connecting people across the globe - it definitely shouldn’t be stopped. Frequent flyer programs, on the other hand, basically thrive on getting people to make irrational and unnecessary travel choices. Frequent travellers and programs that encourage such behaviour need to be heavily taxed.
Anecdotally, many oil and gas workers, despite deeply believing in climate change, also feel a little guilt about making the planet worse.
Generally they use excuses (to themselves) such as "someone else will do the job" or "makes energy prices lower" or "cleaner than coal" or they just try to ignore what they're doing.
I'm not surprised there are pilots who feel similarly.
My actions as a frequent flier do virtually nothing bad to the environment. Every single flight I am going to take would fly anyway without me. Other than the extremely marginal additional weight presented by me/my family/our luggage, the flight would take off regardless of me being on it.
On the other hand, if I choose to take a roadtrip, those emissions do not exist without me making that decision rather than staying at home.
Completely. I have no idea how flying became the boogeyman of the environmentalists, when cars and trucks are 10 times worse
What nonsense. Nothing in his comments suggested he was mentally unstable or a threat to anyone’s safety. And you know that.
Why are you suggesting he is mentally ill? Is it because he has a different opinion to you?
Well, no, not really. Why should it only be for the rich? Only idiots come up with solutions that are just financial.
Id say quitting your job because of the climate is a pretty big red flag there might be other issues further down the line.
@ffrp Cheers Dr Google. Where did you get your mental health degree from? Someone believing in the damage of climate change doesn’t make them mentally ill. You disagree with this guy. Fine. Don’t go and then suggest he’s ill.
There is such a degree of malignant narcissism in some of the comments. I salute the pilot and wish him well on his new path.
Pretty of the whole First World, besides the US, isn't doing all that bad in this anti climate change agenda.
The thing is that the whole practices are pointless unless China and India change. They constitute the most of pollution, but apparently the "climate activists" forgive them.
No, just because Europeans take trains instead of planes, Koreans don't use plastic straws, and Americans buy Teslas, doesn't mean that the temperature would drop.
Is it a kind of "hard to swallow pill" thing?
Yeah right, he can quit now. His mortgage is paid off, children all done with college, retirement set up for life. He can now cry with guilt while sailing on his new boat.
Thanks for bringing us interesting news in addition to your fantastic reviews.
If you ever wanted to write a post about the various ways the aviation industry might reduce its environmental impact and their relative effectiveness, I’d love to read it. For example, how much does light weight paint at easyjet make a difference vs being a feel good press release?
@frrp - actually, flying wouldn’t be only for the rich. There was a scheme proposed in the EU where you get taxed based on the number of flights you take in a year - increasing sharply from the 3rd flight onwards. So, a majority of the population would remain unaffected, while the cost of flying would go up significantly for the small number of frequent flyers. Sounds fair to me.
@James K - yes, that’s a very original argument - one we’ve never heard before. You’ve convinced me. You may now keep flying.
this is the crux of the issue right here
"The thing is that the whole practices are pointless unless China and India change. They constitute the most of pollution, but apparently the "climate activists" forgive them."
There is very much a part of the climate change agenda that is related to penitence for colonialism. Part of the reason for pushback against climate change efforts in the US is related to this issue.
The US made the decision - largely because of its size which was the geographically largest developed country at the end of WWII - to use interstate highways and commercial aviation as the primary means of intercity travel.
I doubt that data will show that Americans travel by air proportionately more at distances greater than 500 miles - the realistic limit of train travel either because of geographic borders or time - than people in other countries.
modern civilization, regardless of the country, involves managing the climate in one's indoor space and being able to move around further from one's home than one can travel by foot or human or animal-powered transportation. Both use large amounts of energy.
There are some modern civilized people that are willing to give up travel - and I suspect part of this pilot's reason is because he is tired of traveling. But I can assure you he is not living in an unheated tent
The half life of CO2 in the atmosphere is 40 - 80 years. Think about that for a second: about half of the CO2 produced in the six years of WW2 is still floating around in the atmosphere. The excess of C02 presently in the atmosphere means it will be about 4 half lives till we're back to our pre-industrial baseline ..... 160 - 320 years ..... if we completely stop producing CO2 today. It's not just that the reduction in CO2 production by the US and Europe is being more than replaced by India and China. Yes, reducing production is necessary but far from adequate; we will only attenuate the rate of concentration rise if we don't learn how to efficiently capture CO2 both at the point of origen as well as the free content in the atmosphere. We need to focus more/most of our research dollars on CO2 capture.
So now the good captain will be freeing himself of all of his worldly possessions and wealth by donating ALL of it to some environmental charity as a penance for his years of malfeasance. From this moment forward, he shall forever live in poverty to atone for his lifelong participation in destruction of mother earth.
How am I doing?
He IS going to do all of this......right?
@James no mental health degree needed. Just common sense about slippery slopes.
@Chris - well, it doesn’t really make me crazy. I’m a frequent flyer who routinely flies long-haul J / F, often without a very good reason.
So, I’m a hypocrite. But I’m also a realist. Anyone who thinks we can all just keep flying the way we have for years and years to come is living in la la land.
A vast majority of the population, even in the US and Europe, don’t fly at all or fly very infrequently. So, reducing emissions from aviation can be an easy win from a political stand point.
After the initial rise in awareness of the issue, most of the world is in a denial and anger phase right now. This will pass in a few years and there will be broad consensus that something needs to be done urgently. Commercial aviation will be one of the first sectors to be on the chopping block then.
I’m sure he gave up his benefits also! Knowing the french he will take them to court to fight to keep them lol
This person has no business flying a plane. The thought of this moron in the cockpit if something went wrong is really terrifying.
Trees are pretty good at capturing CO2. Sadly we’re burning & cutting down forests like it’s Christmas every day.
A vast majority of the population, even in the US and Europe, don’t fly at all or fly very infrequently. So, reducing emissions from aviation can be an easy win from a political stand point.
. . . broad consensus that something needs to be done urgently. Commercial aviation will be one of the first sectors to be on the chopping block then.
Except that you missed a major part, that renders your conclusion more along the lines of wishful-thinking than probable-analysis:
Flying is ALSO disproportionately the purview of the rich, the political class, the upper middle class, and of corporate business.... and unless and until someone invents a teleporter, that's not going to change.
So while you may *hope* that politicians will side with what you believe to be majority consensus; in the real world, there's no chance in hell that they're going to make significant impediments that primarily affect themselves, their donors, corporations, etc.
If they were, we would've already seen it with private jets: something 99.9% of people don't routinely utilize, but which proportionately contribute more to this "problem" than anything else in aviation.
Best you're going to see is a few petty taxes/fees/surcharges, and a lot of political bluster during election seasons, followed by essentially no change.
Yep, malignant narcissism and a sprinkle of good old "hit dog will holler." I don't really agree with this pilot's analysis, but whiny performative pile-on in the comments is certainly telling as to the participants' lack of any core values worthy of making hard choices to defend.
Maybe you've heard this argument before because it's true?
Why is flying the boogeyman and not driving when
A. As explained above, driving and the consequent emissions are something I control directly
B. Driving contributes far more emissions than flying does
I, too, am an Airbus widebody Captain for one of the world's largest airlines. I have no idea what my carbon footprint is, but I do know that global travel is essential for the global economy (not just business travel, but think cargo, humanitarian airlift, governmental asset positioning, etc...). Until a better, economical, sustainable alternative comes along, jets will circle the Earth. If he wants to take such an absurd irrational stand, fine. But he should never again use anything but oars, sails, bicycles, deadwood, candles, snowmelt, rainwater, self-carved tools, quills and whale blubber ink, carrier pigeons, and his own two feet ever again. What whack job. Thank God he's no longer a Pilot-in-Command.
Here are some facts for context…
Co2 is only 0.041% of the atmosphere. For those not good at math, that’s less than 1/2 of one percent, which btw is necessary for the survival of the planet, because without it, we would be a dead planet like Mars. Also, it’s important to note that 97% of all Co2 emissions come from natural sources, so humans are only responsible for 3%. It’s also tough to see the biggest defenders of the climate are in fact the worst offenders as they fly around in their private jets, which on average emit as much Co2 in an hour of flight than your car does in 6 months, yet “you” are the problem. Hard to believe this is still a thing…
Such actions make no sense to me, but good for him to sticking to his new found principals.
because most people - and apparently this pilot - do not know facts and are swayed by noise.
We should ALL be careful stewards of the resources we have access to - which means for airlines to have fuel efficient aircraft to the greatest extent possible and for ATC to expedite planes to their destinations.
Climate stewardship does not include shaming other people for their justified decisions.
Commercial aviation is by far the most efficient way to move people over medium to long distances, regardless of the alternatives.
This captain’s decision is a good wake-up call that aviation’s climate impact needs to be addressed. The reality is that the vast majority of the global population does not fly. Of those that do fly, most are infrequent flyers, taking at most 1-2 flights a year. Most aviation emissions are generated by an extremely small number of extremely frequent flyers. Aviation is too key to keeping people and economies connected to be curtailed heavily. However, frequent, high-emissions flyers need to start paying for their pollution and reconsidering if they need to be hopping on planes multiple times a month.
I think eco-friendly technology is fine, but practices for going green or being eco-friendly need to make sense. Some political actions by governments do not make it more effecient or green such as limiting the number of flights and contribute to higher fares.
This is deeply sad and alarming. Aviation accounts for just 2% of global CO2 emissions.
While I respect the pilot’s personal conviction, this is yet another example of the eco-left’s psychological war against human progress.
What’s the alternative? Should we stop flying, freeze in our homes, and abandon the connections and discoveries that make life rich?
Very well put, Tim and thanks for a dose of realism here. Of course we should all try and be good stewards to the environment, but mass commercial aviation is an industry that contributes so little to the global carbon footprint compared to the seat-mile count achieved, and the economic benefits the industry brings globally. It's also an industry that has been at the forefront of fuel efficiency - out of economic necessity - for a very long time, which people should keep in mind.
It would make way more sense (but still be insane) to see auto-workers or coal-fired electric plant workers quit, rather than commercial pilots.
It's sad that misplaced "eco-anxiety" has hit this level, but perhaps best that someone who feels so affected by this steps away from the aircraft controls and chooses a different path.
No, they do not need to be paying some guilt tax which will just be a scheme to get more money into coffers to waste and give away for votes. We already pay numerous fees and taxes on our tickets. If the airline wants to waste that on eco-hysteria, be my guest, but average flyers need to balk at the use of that hysteria to try to make us feel guilty and get more of our money. I don't feel guilt over a grossly exaggerated "problem," and I don't intend to pay penance for the figments of many people's fervent and gullible imaginations.
We pay too much tax as it is. If someone wants to play the FF system for status, miles, etc. let them. It's freedom of choice in the marketplace. You can choose differently. What you should not be able to do is force your preferences on others via big government taxation, which, to make things worse, will simply waste that money with handouts and vote-buying schemes, guilty many of you along the way if necessary.
Eco-hysteria claims another one. Oh well, his choice. He can carry my "guilt" as well if he wants to luxuriate in guilt.
So the good captain develops a sense of 'guilt' AFTER years of collecting a hefty pay cheque, enabling him to set himself up very nicely indeed, thank you very much. Funny how those who've reached the finish line turn around and start (implicitly) wagging their fingers at those who are still struggling along..Conviction in old age is great. But showing courage in your younger years is far superior.
(Very) theoretically, bringing people together from different parts of the world could also reduce global wars. Could be a net benefit?
Right. Aviation is somewhere between 2-4% of global emissions depending on which source you’re looking at. The issue is that a tiny number of people are responsible for most of that. 1% of the world’s population is responsible for 50% of aviation emissions. Definitely some room there for scaling back and spreading things out more equitably. I strongly disagree with the “flight free” movement which shames people visiting friends/family overseas, families traveling on their yearly holiday, etc. for flying. It’s those who are flying long-haul in business class multiple times a year who bear some of the responsibility for cutting back.
Aviation fuel is for the most part not taxed anywhere globally. Other fuels (ground transportation fuels, etc.) are taxed. There’s an inequity there. Jet fuel should be taxed just the same as any other fuel used in the transportation industry.
Yea, after he has his house paid off, made millions of dollars, enjoyed worldwide travel, and gone through countless flight attendants he comes to this realization. what a joke. Don't give this guy any more press. He is not fit to fly a plane.
I love aviation, but I also am worried about the environmental consequences of the industry.
I admire the pilot because it couldn't have been an easy position for him to take. On my part, I spent two years not traveling by plane, even though trains and bus were more timely and cost more than airplanes, because of my concern for emissions. Now I fly, because I wasn't able to complete my travel goals otherwise, but feel guilty.
Those who don't believe that the aviation industry needs to do more to lower emissions are ignoring the science of climate change and/or in a place of privilege to deal with the environmental negative consequences. The people most affected by climate change are the ones who don't fly often. Such as people from poor, low-lying islands or farmers who's yields are affected by drought or floods. Those that travel all the time have enough money to adapt to a changing climate.
Mental illness exists even in the skies. He didn’t stop one flight nor change a single thing. Bizarre.
"but whiny performative pile-on in the comments is certainly telling as to the participants' lack of any core values"
Who's whining? They're just telling several truths that you don't want to hear:
First, if this dude was so concerned, then he wouldn't have waited until the end of his career to make any changes (to himself, since he's changing nothing about flying/emissions/etc).
Second, obsession with aviation from an emissions standpoint is rooted primarily in jealousy for those with more money and options. The only thing about emissions to matter is the aggregate output, there's no brownie points for having it lower per capita. X-amount of emissions into the atmosphere, is going to have the same effect regardless of whether it's coming from 1 person or a billion.
Yet instead of more thoroughly addressing the things that contribute to such emissions (coal-fired plants, global shipping, global automotion, etc), you people get off to coming up with new ways to annoy aviation, which is way down the list; because you'd rather punish "the rich," than do something that ACTUALLY has a higher net effect for the environment.
But we're the whiners for pointing that out?
@James K.
At least in the US, the YIMBY/Urbanist movement is pointing this out, and they get a lot of flak for it despite being 100% correct. It's easier to find support against flying since a large majority of people even in developed economies fly at most once a year. It's much harder when you tell them (Americans in particular) that their idealized way of life is killing the environment. Building a mass of single-family homes on an acre each necessitates driving for everything they do outside their house, and if everybody does it you get massive congestion, which leads to more fuel burn, more lanes, and more emissions. Going to EVs doesn't help, nor does self-driving vehicles, since congestion is a function of the number of vehicles on the road and not a matter how efficient you make each individual vehicle. At the end of the day, the best solution for both climate and congestion is extensive public transit networks and denser cities/suburbs that allow people to replace car trips with walking and/or biking, but most Americans reflexively think this means turning every small town into Hong Kong, instead of something like Hoboken NJ.
lmao ok, "loudly and needily complaining about inconsequent trivialities"
that make you and your brother-cousins feel better?