Taylor on Travel

How wise is this, exactly? The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has given the go-ahead to a company that builds flying cars.

That may sound like a possible double solution to constraints on Heathrow expansion and congestion on the M25, but how safe will it be to have any number of these things hopping up and down?

Terrafugia, based in Massachusetts, makes what it calls the Transition Roadable Aircraft, which has four wheels, a propeller and fold-up wings. You can see the thing in flight and on the road here.

The FAA has granted the firm an exemption from normal take-off weight restrictions so the Transition can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards as a 'roadable aircraft' that "gives pilots a convenient ground transportation option", allowing them "to drive under bad weather".

It can fly at up to 115 mph and drive at "highway speeds" on the road, apparently making travel "a hassle-free, integrated land-air experience".

Unhappily, land experiences on the road are rarely hassle-free and having some clown come into land ahead of you won't reduce the hassle. God forbid there is some idiot somewhere trying to put wings on a sports utility vehicle.

News of a 26-hour flight by a solar-powered aircraft is of rather more significance than the light-plane-turned-car referred to below.

The Solar Impulse aircraft, built by a Swiss group, flew over the Alps this week, at night, without using a drop of fuel - powered by solar energy stored during the day.

The aircraft looks like a large glider with the wingspan of a passenger jet but the weight of a car and can fly at more than 8,000 metres. Perhaps photographs and film of it will one day be as iconic as those of the Wright Brothers' maiden flight.

On the plus side, the Impulse has 12,000 solar cells in its wings that power four electric motors and batteries. On the downside, it carries a single passenger - the pilot.

The developers now plan a 36-hour flight and aim to fly the Impulse around the world in two years.

Airline association IATA supports the project. But commercial solar flight remains a long way off given the limitations of existing batteries, the power required for take-off, the problems of weight and so on. IATA cautions: "Solar power is unlikely to be the solution for commercial aircraft."

Still, many engineers probably thought the same after watching the Wrights in action, and IATA notes: "Nobody can [now] say carbon-free flight is impossible. The industry's job is to achieve the same for a plane carrying 400 people."

Let's hope the industry is quicker to aid developments in this area than it was in that of volcanic ash detection, with a cheap system using infra-red cameras developed in the early 1990s only now being tested with the support of EasyJet.

The publicity surrounding any and every test of a biofuel for aircraft has tended to overwhelm the unhappy truth that, despite recent rapid development in this area, there is little or no prospect of a biofuel wholly replacing kerosene even if the production difficulties - and there are many - can be overcome.

Solar power for flying may remain a dream, but it represents precisely the kind of step-change in technology that will be required in the decades to come.

The Boeing 787 represents a step change in the technology of flying - it might already be a cliché to say so, but it does.

This is not immediately obvious on first viewing at Farnborough, where the aircraft christened the Dreamliner is making its first appearance in Britain following two years of delays that at times made it appear merely the stuff of dreams.

The aircraft looks sleek despite its size, particularly alongside the hulking Airbus A380 parked next to it. But there is no outward visual surprise to the twin-engine, twin-aisle 787. What counts are its light-weight carbon-composite fuselage and long range - a killer combination. The aircraft will be capable of flying from East Midlands or Bristol direct to Pattaya and should use 20% less fuel to do so. It is the ultimate point-to-point aircraft.

Unfortunately, it's hard to get an impression of the finished article aboard a cabin full of monitoring equipment and cabling, as is the case at Farnborough. The test aircraft also has a galley planted in the atrium mid-way down the cabin, masking one of the most-touted interior features - and one that should convey a sense of space on entry. The aircraft appears roomy nonetheless. Certainly, it should not be necessary to duck and twist on boarding.

Passengers should also not have to queue and shuffle along narrow aisles while those in front park bags and settle because the cabin is wider by 15 inches than existing twin-aisle aircraft - enough to make a noticeable difference. There is sufficient room to pass a fellow passenger, maybe even a trolley, if the extra inches are not swallowed by wider seats. Movement around the cabin should be easier.

UK-launch customer Thomson Airways has yet to decide whether to plump for nine seats per row (three sets of three) or eight (in the form of two-four-two). How roomy the aircraft will feel when full with passengers nine to a row is debatable, but certainly it felt spacious aboard the test aircraft despite the clutter of equipment - although the effect was compromised by raised boards on the floor that meant having to stoop to avoid the ceiling.

Several commentators have raved about the windows. These are bigger than anyone bar pilots are used to, but whether they allow a view to the horizon from every seat as Boeing suggests, I can't judge. Certainly there will be many more seats with a view.

The aircraft will undoubtedly be comfortable and the onboard systems state of the art - lighting, humidity, oxygen levels all geared to ensuring passengers arrive as little jaded as possible. Tui believes the 787 will so reduce jet lag that it transports long-haul travel into the realm of shorter trips. However, passengers will take their body clocks with them so it will be interesting to see how much fresher a Dreamliner flight really leaves people.

Thomson Airways managing director Chris Browne went so far as to describe the 787 as representing the biggest change in air travel since Concorde. The comparison is apt in two senses - in relation to technology and to long-haul flying: where Concorde shortened journey times, the Dreamliner will eliminate refuelling and reduce the wear on bodies from time in the air.

However, the comparison is also misplaced: Concorde was both the first and last of its kind. It did not represent a point of departure in aircraft evolution but an end point.

The 787 truly is different. It does represent a point of departure.

See it here

The demise of Goldtrail Travel is not good news, and not just for the tens of thousands who have had trips cancelled or faced hoteliers' demands for payment. The company may pass unlamented by some in the industry, but the bill for its passing will be substantial.

The figures are so far provisional - the Civil Aviation Authority hopes to clarify these soon - but we can assume close to 16,000 people were abroad when the company collapsed and up to 50,000 more had holidays booked. Some bookings will be flight only. Many more may be covered by other Atol-holders - at a hefty cost to some of these.

This does not put the failure on a par with XL Leisure, but it is the biggest in many years aside from XL. How much is it likely to cost?

Flyglobespan went down last year with 1,000 abroad (cost of repatriation £840,000) and 9,000 bookings (£2.9 million in refunds). The combined bill of £3.7 million was more than covered by Flyglobespan's bond with the CAA.

Goldtrail did not have a bond.

Scottravel, which also failed last year, did not have a bond either. It failed with 1,300 abroad (cost of repatriation £540,000) and 15,000 bookings (refunds £3.7 million). That £4.3 million bill will fall squarely on the Air Travel Trust fund.

It seems reasonable to assume Goldtrail will cost more than either of these failures. The repatriation bill should be lower, pro-rata, than Flyglobespan's because Goldtrail clients flew on other companies' aircraft - there has been no need to arrange alternative flights. So Scottravel provides a possible guide on repatriation costs. The Goldtrail bill for bringing home more than 10 times as many passengers might be 10 x £540,000 or £5.4 million.

The refund bill for Flyglobespan approximates to £322 per booked passenger and for Scottravel £247. That is not much for a week in the eastern Mediterranean, which is where Goldtrail customers were headed, but let's take a mid-point figure (£285) - and allow for the fact other Atol-holders will foot some of the bill. So we might estimate the cost of refunds at perhaps 40,000 x £285. That is £11.4 million.

This back-of-an-envelope calculation puts the possible cost of the failure to the Air Travel Trust fund at £16.8 million - enough to wipe out entirely the improvement in the fund's deficit in the financial year to April. At even two-thirds of this amount, it will be a hefty bill.

The Air Travel Trust fund will not now escape from debt next year. The deficit will continue at least into 2012 and, with it, the £2.50 Atol Protection Contribution on bookings - unless the move to an extended Atol scheme, and thereby extended contributions, comes first. That appears unlikely.

The timing of Goldtrail's failure is a particular concern - as is the lack of close involvement of the CAA consumer protection group in the days and hours leading up to it. To say this looks odd is an understatement. Let's hope the timing is not a sign of things to come - and that my maths needs attention.

The latest vote by British Airways cabin crew leaves airline and union at an impasse and renewed strikes in prospect.

The rejection of BA's revised offer should be no surprise, although the 2:1 margin is probably greater than BA anticipated. Willie Walsh will, no doubt, study the turn out - just over 5,100 out of 11,000 - and see fresh evidence of erosion in the proportion wishing to continue the dispute. In a war of attrition, each turn of the screw matters.

However, the turn-out argument works both ways. Unite can draw comfort from the fact that only 15% of crew voted in favour of BA's offer despite the union making no recommendation. It can also point out this was the fourth rejection by ballot of BA proposals. The argument that Unite, or its cabin crew section Bassa, do not represent their members appears redundant.

Where to go from here? BA can continue the war and may well do so in the belief there can only be one winner. It has won the battle in the media and beaten Unite in all but one confrontation in the courts - a record it will expect to maintain.

Walsh has pledged to operate 100% of long-haul flights from Heathrow during any fresh strike and may choose to demonstrate BA can do that.

And yet what's striking is the union's resilience. No one at the outset foresaw cabin crew striking for 22 days or retaining such an appetite for a dispute that has seen them at the point of walking out - balloting or taking action - for almost nine months. The only previous strike by BA stewards and stewardesses was for three days in 1997. As an industrial dispute, it is unprecedented.

Given a choice of negotiating a settlement or balloting yet again, the union would undoubtedly prefer to talk. But negotiation requires movement on both sides. Without that, it's tough to see beyond the uncertainty of continuing war.

Philip Hammond's appearance before the transport select committee on Monday told us little we did not already know.

The transport secretary reaffirmed the government's commitment to move domestic traffic from air to rail, while signalling passengers would have to wait more than 10 years to see the first benefits of high-speed trains.

So there was no unexpected reverse in government policy on air travel.

Most of the transport secretary's two-hour appearance was taken up by questions about rail travel. His remarks were, therefore, of most interest to the outbound sector for what he did not say.

Hammond referred questions on air passenger duty to the Treasury, where the industry can expect short shrift, and he spoke of the problems of volcanic ash without mentioning airline demands for compensation. The industry can expect little joy on either count. 

He did mention Atol reform, but gave no indication the department had decided how to proceed or even when it would decide, and though the transport secretary spoke of the need for clarity about who pays to repatriate passengers when a travel company fails, he omitted to mention refunds on bookings.

Indeed, his comments on Atol reform - from a politician noted for attention to detail - generally lacked precision. Hammond described including flight-only sales in a reformed scheme as "an option" - which it is. But he did not make clear whether he meant charter flight-only sales - which are Atol-covered but could be removed from protection - or all flights by all airlines, a move previously ruled out. He also referred to Goldtrail Travel customers as "covered by bonding", which they were not.

Fortunately, Hammond does not need to be fully briefed on the Atol proposals because transport minister Theresa Villiers will make the decision . . .