The future of flying - Electric planes or bans on flying?

[Bantamzen]

Where in the UK is that going to happen, where the industry will not adapt and change? Which regions would that be?

I'm sorry I don't understand your point? The aviation and tourist industries are global, so any measures that the UK could ever set could only be imposed in the UK.

 

[RT4038]

How are people priced out of drinking? What your suggesting is the equivalent of saying people should be allowed to drink but tax should be increased incrementally until a pint costs £50 but people will adapt...

People drink less because of the price. So it will be with flights. It is you who are suggesting that people be taxed out of flying completely - I am suggesting that increasing the price of flights will result in people adapting to travelling less often (and therefore less individual aircraft flights). Although rejected out of hand by yourself, one way would be to go away for four weeks every other year [assuming two weeks is your norm.] Ticket price double, half the number of flights required and same amount of overseas holiday over two years at same cost.

I'm sorry I don't understand your point? The aviation and tourist industries are global, so any measures that the UK could ever set could only be imposed in the UK.

Why are you worrying about other countries' tourist resorts? No-one worried about the effect of Brits going on foreign holidays on UK resorts. Just have to adapt, or decline.

 

[Bantamzen]

Why are you worrying about other countries' tourist resorts? No-one worried about the effect of Brits going on foreign holidays on UK resorts. Just have to adapt, or decline.

Oh come on, there are plenty of Brits killing of UK resorts by buying up second homes and making the places too expensive for locals, let alone tourists.

 

[Krokodil]

What if the things you can afford and do enjoy suddenly went out of reach because someone decided they should cost more so you used them less? My point here is that it is asking the less well off to pay the climate tax / price increase whilst the better off carry on as normal. You may be comfortable with that, I'm not.

This is why the tax should be progressive. For your first departure from a UK airport per year you pay the normal rate of APD. For your second departure you pay double, for your third you pay treble etc. That penalises the frequent fliers but not the ones going on their only holiday.

Fuel duty should also be applied. Under the Chicago Convention you cannot tax the fuel already in the tank when the plane landed. Taxing the fuel that you fill the plane with does therefore have the issue of short-haul operators filling up in Europe with enough for the return journey which adds weight. You may also have transatlantic operators stopping at Shannon in each direction to top up. So we need a pan-European response.

 

[Bantamzen]

This is why the tax should be progressive. For your first departure from a UK airport per year you pay the normal rate of APD. For your second departure you pay double, for your third you pay treble etc. That penalises the frequent fliers but not the ones going on their only holiday.

And if you buy your flight abroad...?

Fuel duty should also be applied. Under the Chicago Convention you cannot tax the fuel already in the tank when the plane landed. Taxing the fuel that you fill the plane with does therefore have the issue of short-haul operators filling up in Europe with enough for the return journey which adds weight. You may also have transatlantic operators stopping at Shannon in each direction to top up. So we need a pan-European response.

That will just encourage airlines to fill away from the UK, which ironically could make them less efficient carrying around all that extra fuel.

 

[Trainbike46]

From the same article:



It’s reasonable to assume that there are widely differing numbers!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2023 ==



Oh I am in no way advocating this as a solution. If, as an example, short haul air travel to/from the U.K. was banned, the number of people travelling U.K.<>Spain each year would collapse to a small fraction of what it is now.

Actual capacity for a putative (say) London to Spain high speed service is an interesting question. But assuming the U.K. joined Schengen, and RFF finish their signalling / capacity upgrade of LGV SE and finish the high speed line from Montpellier to Perpignan, there is easily space for an hourly London - Barcelona service.



Not at all. 8 trains each way daily doesn’t mean that the trains have to return each way. The first couple would make it back, the others could have a siesta in the Catalonian sunshine before coming back the next day.




Well quite.
As are the timings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Sep 2023 ==



Not sure about that; about a quarter of BAs short haul fleet are newish A32xneos, which are very efficient and have more seats than the newish 737-MAX 8s that make a quarter of the Ryanair fleet. Similarly the rest of BAs short haul fleet is A32x, which again are more efficient and have more seats than Ryanair’s 737-2s and 8s. Theres only a couple of years in it, fleet age wide. I suspect Ryanair has a better load factor though, so in broad terms they’ll be much the same on a per passenger km basis.

The (massive) difference between cruises and ferries comes from 2 main sources:

- Cruises have much more on-board space dedicated to entertainment, taking up space and using energy, both leading to higher emissions per passenger
- Ferries typically take large amounts of vehicles and freight, meaning that the emissions can be split across the passengers and vehicles/freight

And that's why the government reports separate numbers for ferries and cruise ship.

The connections that started this ferry emissions point, the brittany ferries routes from Portsmouth/Poole/Plymouth/Rosslare to Santander/Bilbao, are firmly in the ferry category, taking many vehicles and freight. They are also relatively new ships, which should help limit emissions, as well as a few LNG powered ferries.

On many routes, there's actually quite a bit of spare passenger capacity, for example, according to staff I spoke to at the Belfast terminal, the busy crossings of the Irish sea to Scotland have ~1000 passengers (and full vehicle decks), while the capacity is 1200 people, with the option of taking foot passengers on all 6 crossings if passenger demand increased significantly (currently foot passengers are only taken on 4 of the 6 daily crossings).

 

[RT4038]

Oh come on, there are plenty of Brits killing of UK resorts by buying up second homes and making the places too expensive for locals, let alone tourists.

No-one worried about the effects on UK resorts when Brits started going abroad en-masse, and neither should we worry about the effects on foreign resorts if we no longer do. However, I don't think we will stop going, but we'll adapt to travelling less often but staying longer.

I think the second home revolution really got underway after the tourist money had departed to foreign climes (and many have become more affluent and can afford them.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if you buy your flight abroad...?

APD applies to all flights departing from the UK regardless of where they are sold.

However I think this is overcomplicated. One simpler option may be to apply higher APD to everyone for shorter flights, because it's shorter flights that could be done another way e.g. by train. Thus, £200 APD on London-Manchester unless on a through connecting itinerary pre HS2*, perhaps £100 London to Edinburgh because you could go by train but it is a longer journey for most so there's some justification for using air, maybe £50 for short haul European (i.e. Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam) respecting that Eurostar doesn't have infinite capacity and can be silly-expensive, but £20 for further afield where air is the only sensible choice?

It depends what behaviours you're trying to drive - to reduce flights by switching people to other modes or to reduce flights by putting people off going at all.

* Assuming HS2 is built, then airlines should code-share and offer through tickets on it so London-Manchester flying becomes totally unnecessary.

 

[Bantamzen]

APD applies to all flights departing from the UK regardless of where they are sold.

However I think this is overcomplicated. One simpler option may be to apply higher APD to everyone for shorter flights, because it's shorter flights that could be done another way e.g. by train. Thus, £200 APD on London-Manchester unless on a through connecting itinerary pre HS2*, perhaps £100 London to Edinburgh because you could go by train but it is a longer journey for most so there's some justification for using air, maybe £50 for short haul European (i.e. Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam) but £20 for further afield?

* Assuming HS2 is built, then airlines should code-share and offer through tickets on it so London-Manchester flying becomes totally unnecessary.

Or thinking a little outside the box, make rail fares that compete with domestic flights competitive. Better still would have kept with the idea of the Heathrow HS2 spur, that way code sharing would have been a whole lot easier. But that's something we are really good at not doing in the UK.

 

[RT4038]

APD applies to all flights departing from the UK regardless of where they are sold.

However I think this is overcomplicated. One simpler option may be to apply higher APD to everyone for shorter flights, because it's shorter flights that could be done another way e.g. by train. Thus, £200 APD on London-Manchester unless on a through connecting itinerary pre HS2*, perhaps £100 London to Edinburgh because you could go by train but it is a longer journey for most so there's some justification for using air, maybe £50 for short haul European (i.e. Paris/Brussels/Amsterdam) respecting that Eurostar doesn't have infinite capacity and can be silly-expensive, but £20 for further afield where air is the only sensible choice?

It depends what behaviours you're trying to drive - to reduce flights by switching people to other modes or to reduce flights by putting people off going at all.

* Assuming HS2 is built, then airlines should code-share and offer through tickets on it so London-Manchester flying becomes totally unnecessary.

I think your London-Manchester proposal will merely result in long distance passengers always choosing connections via European capitals, reducing the competitiveness of Heathrow for no advantage really.

 

[Trainbike46]

So would I.

Couldn’t find much doign some quick Googling. Perhaos you have more time than I do?

Numbers for ferries are available from the UK government, eg. here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/greenhouse-gas-reporting-conversion-factors-2023

And they clearly indicate that ferries, while there is undoubtedly variation between ships and routes, are much more sustainable than flying

Ferry foot passenger 18.7 g co2e
ferry car+driver 129 g co2e
Air travel (economy short haul) 183 g co2e

More detail on the emissions of flights in the quote below

Domestic, to/from UK Average passenger passenger.km 0.27258
Short-haul, to/from UK Average passenger passenger.km 0.18592
Economy class passenger.km 0.18287
Business class passenger.km 0.27430
Long-haul, to/from UK Average passenger passenger.km 0.26128
Economy class passenger.km 0.20011
Premium economy class passenger.km 0.32016
Business class passenger.km 0.58029
First class passenger.km 0.80040

 

[Krokodil]

That will just encourage airlines to fill away from the UK, which ironically could make them less efficient carrying around all that extra fuel.

Hence why my last sentence stated that a pan-European approach was needed.

However I think this is overcomplicated. One simpler option may be to apply higher APD to everyone for shorter flights, because it's shorter flights that could be done another way e.g. by train.

For flights as short as London-Manchester, I'd just go for an outright ban. Heathrow's capacity woes could be reduced by having some long haul flights go from Manchester/Birmingham/Edinburgh/Glasgow, reducing the need for connecting flights.

 

[Trainbike46]

I think your London-Manchester proposal will merely result in long distance passengers always choosing connections via European capitals, reducing the competitiveness of Heathrow for no advantage really.

That depends on how airlines respond. Generally speaking, airlines only code-share with railways in situations where not doing so would hurt them significantly (usually due to limited airport capacity). HS2 code-sharing is only likely to happen if the government either forces it, heathrow capacity forces it, or domestic flight prices force it, no matter how good the train connection is, airlines would rather people connect using their flights. So, coming up with a way to enforce HS2-flight throughticketing is sensible, and high APD is one of the options

 

[eldomtom2]

Foot passengers make up a pretty negligible tonnage on cross-channel and Irish Sea ferries. Their carbon footprint is next to nothing, the freight accounts for almost all of it.

Which suggests that perhaps the comparison should be between a ferry and the equivalent amount of planes needed to transport both the ferry's passengers and freight...

Or in other words the better well off will continue to be able to travel, whilst those not so won't. And for those places that will see tourism fall away, and along with it their incomes tough luck? Can you see the flaw in all of this?

Can you see the flaw in saying "tough luck" to those places that will see their economies ruined by climate change? What makes those places less worthy than those places who's economy relies on flights?

However the cost of climate change because of climate change is much harder to calculate. For a start we don't actually know the exact effects of man made climate change going forward. The range of possible effects is so wide that it makes actually costing it in economic terms nearly impossible.

You do realise that "the cost of climate change is hard to calculate" does not mean "let's assume the cost of climate change will be low".

Because for many cost is not an issue. I would have thought that would have been obvious?

Just because you can afford something when its price is increased does not mean you will still buy it.

Such as?

Ferries, trains, for short distance flights even driving is better.

 

[RT4038]

Hence why my last sentence stated that a pan-European approach was needed.


For flights as short as London-Manchester, I'd just go for an outright ban. Heathrow's capacity woes could be reduced by having some long haul flights go from Manchester/Birmingham/Edinburgh/Glasgow, reducing the need for connecting flights.

It won't be more long haul flights to these places, it would merely be more connecting flights to European hubs (Schipol, CdG etc) and the business going to other airlines.

That depends on how airlines respond. Generally speaking, airlines only code-share with railways in situations where not doing so would hurt them significantly (usually due to limited airport capacity). HS2 code-sharing is only likely to happen if the government either forces it, heathrow capacity forces it, or domestic flight prices force it, no matter how good the train connection is, airlines would rather people connect using their flights. So, coming up with a way to enforce HS2-flight throughticketing is sensible, and high APD is one of the options

Hs2 code-sharing is only going to work with through trains from Manchester to Heathrow, [probably with checked baggage facilities].

 

[Trainbike46]

It won't be more long haul flights to these places, it would merely be more connecting flights to European hubs (Schipol, CdG etc) and the business going to other airlines.


Hs2 code-sharing is only going to work with through trains from Manchester to Heathrow, [probably with checked baggage facilities].

Where code-sharing currently exists, there isn't necessarily checked baggage available, and sometimes even includes changes, and I think there's a few more connections that could work in any case:
Birmingham
Manchester
Liverpool
Glasgow
Edinburgh

Outside HS2, I'd say Cardiff and Bristol could also have railway code-sharing into heathrow, with a change at OOC. The main advantage for passengers is that if the flight or train is delayed, it isn't the passengers problem.

The main obstacle is the airlines, not the short hop OOC-heathrow airport [insert relevant terminal]

 

[Bantamzen]

Hence why my last sentence stated that a pan-European approach was needed.

There would definitely be resistance from a number of European countries whose economies are much more reliant on tourism.

For flights as short as London-Manchester, I'd just go for an outright ban. Heathrow's capacity woes could be reduced by having some long haul flights go from Manchester/Birmingham/Edinburgh/Glasgow, reducing the need for connecting flights.

There are barely any flights left from Manchester as it is. All that is needed is for rail fares to come in and compete for those final seats, although without a HS2 spur punters will still have to change at Old Oak if / when HS2 gets to Manchester.

Can you see the flaw in saying "tough luck" to those places that will see their economies ruined by climate change? What makes those places less worthy than those places who's economy relies on flights?

That depends, are flights the only source of climate change or will it continue even without as many flights if other much bigger issues aren't fully tackled?

You do realise that "the cost of climate change is hard to calculate" does not mean "let's assume the cost of climate change will be low".

Did I say it was. If you'd bother to read what I said it would be hard to calculate because the range of possible impacts is so wide, whereas curtailing tourism via aviation can be calculated a lot easier and would be an almost certainty.

Just because you can afford something when its price is increased does not mean you will still buy it.

And do you really think that will apply for frequent flyers who can afford it? Come on this is the real world we are talking about here. A lot of those frequent flyers will be going at least in business class, they don't choose economy even though its cheaper. Money won't be an

Ferries, trains, for short distance flights even driving is better.

Improving alternatives? You mean exiting ones? Ferries will only get people so far, are slow, often a long way from where people live, and very heavily impacted by weather. Trains in this country are overly expensive and improvements seem to move at a snails pace. And driving, most people just won't. Been there, done it, got the t-shirt. Long distance road travelling is about as relaxing these days as banging your head on a brick wall whilst listening to the Spices Girls at full volume. And of course the more people that drive, the worse it gets.

 

[Trainbike46]

There would definitely be resistance from a number of European countries whose economies are much more reliant on tourism.


There are barely any flights left from Manchester as it is. All that is needed is for rail fares to come in and compete for those final seats, although without a HS2 spur punters will still have to change at Old Oak if / when HS2 gets to Manchester.


That depends, are flights the only source of climate change or will it continue even without as many flights if other much bigger issues aren't fully tackled?


Did I say it was. If you'd bother to read what I said it would be hard to calculate because the range of possible impacts is so wide, whereas curtailing tourism via aviation can be calculated a lot easier and would be an almost certainty.


And do you really think that will apply for frequent flyers who can afford it? Come on this is the real world we are talking about here. A lot of those frequent flyers will be going at least in business class, they don't choose economy even though its cheaper. Money won't be an


Improving alternatives? You mean exiting ones? Ferries will only get people so far, are slow, often a long way from where people live, and very heavily impacted by weather. Trains in this country are overly expensive and improvements seem to move at a snails pace. And driving, most people just won't. Been there, done it, got the t-shirt. Long distance road travelling is about as relaxing these days as banging your head on a brick wall whilst listening to the Spices Girls at full volume. And of course the more people that drive, the worse it gets.

There are many other things that need to change to mitigate the climate crisis, but they would be off-topic in a thread on flying. Examples include shifting electricity production away from coal and other fossil fuels, something which the UK has been relatively succesful at, and steps to address building heating (e.g. this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/heat-pumps-and-other-domestic-carbon-reduction-measures.248726/)

Obviously the fact that a thread focuses on just one strand of the change needed does not mean other strands don't exist or aren't important. @eldomtom2 has consistently argued for reducing emissions across the board, so suggesting they don't realise work will be needed in other areas is a tad disingenuous

 

[Ediswan]

The (massive) difference between cruises and ferries comes from 2 main sources:

- Cruises have much more on-board space dedicated to entertainment, taking up space and using energy, both leading to higher emissions per passenger
- Ferries typically take large amounts of vehicles and freight, meaning that the emissions can be split across the passengers and vehicles/freight

I would add a third. The much higher crew/passenger ratio on cruise ships, along with all the facilities that crew requires.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or thinking a little outside the box, make rail fares that compete with domestic flights competitive.

They are, flying from London to Manchester is quite expensive, sometimes even more expensive than the price gouged Anytimes rail offers, and there's no low cost airline there. People do it because it's convenient, so you'd need to REALLY price it up to put them off.

I'd agree regarding Edinburgh/Glasgow, but equally on Avanti off peak times are quite generous north of Preston so again rail is fairly competitive and more frequent and flexible.

Edinburgh maybe not, but LNER is filling up anyway so pre-HS2 it'd be hard to do that without causing severe overcrowding.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Heathrow's capacity woes could be reduced by having some long haul flights go from Manchester/Birmingham/Edinburgh/Glasgow, reducing the need for connecting flights.

The problem is that there's simply not the demand from those airports. People want to fly to/from Heathrow, not from places like Birmingham. It also doesn't help that Heathrow and Gatwick are quite friendly towards travellers who have early morning flights, while Luton and especially Stansted are incredibly hostile towards those who have early morning flights.

Still, I think there's a strong argument for at least getting rid of domestic flights in the UK when the rail travel time is less than 3 hours. There's really no reason at all for domestic flights in England, minus perhaps Newcastle and Newquay.

 

[Noddy]

Still, I think there's a strong argument for at least getting rid of domestic flights in the UK when the rail travel time is less than 3 hours. There's really no reason at all for domestic flights in England, minus perhaps Newcastle and Newquay.

I don’t disagree at all but are there many internal England flights where the rail travel time is less than three hours? If you assume most people going on internal flights to Heathrow or Gatwick are transfers how many are left? Rail travel on the Manchester-Exeter and Newcastle-Bristol/Exeter/Southampton corridors is all far greater than three hours (and I would also add that Bristol Airport catchment increasingly includes most of south Wales and even factoring this in it’s still going to be quicker to get to Newcastle with EasyJet). Once again is the issue comes back to absolutely horrendous, slow, expensive, XC network. Likewise after travelling on the Scillonian 3 I would only ever fly to the Scilly Isles now.

UK wide I think Birmingham-Glasgow/Edinburgh will still be longer than this even post HS2 (and that’s assuming it includes Weaver Junction which now looks unlikely).

 

[Cloud Strife]

I don’t disagree at all but are there many internal England flights where the rail travel time is less than three hours?

Heathrow-Manchester is the obvious one, but yes, there really isn't that many. I just had a look, and Bristol-Newcastle is 5 hours by train or by car, so it's already at the point where flying makes more sense.

I've been thinking this over, and the major issue seems to be that there's no real alternative option to flying for many domestic routes. Belfast-Glasgow could theoretically be replaced with a fast ferry from Larne to Gourock, but it would still be unfavourable compared to flying. Even Liverpool-Dublin is a 30 minute flight, but P&O have just axed their Liverpool-Dublin ferry for 2024. Even then, the nature of the Irish Sea means that any ferry would be limited to around 25 knots maximum, or realistically an 8 hours sailing time.

 

[eldomtom2]

That depends, are flights the only source of climate change or will it continue even without as many flights if other much bigger issues aren't fully tackled?

I suggest you look up the term "whataboutism".

Did I say it was. If you'd bother to read what I said it would be hard to calculate because the range of possible impacts is so wide, whereas curtailing tourism via aviation can be calculated a lot easier and would be an almost certainty.

So is your argument we should weigh small definite losses much higher than large possible losses?

And do you really think that will apply for frequent flyers who can afford it? Come on this is the real world we are talking about here. A lot of those frequent flyers will be going at least in business class, they don't choose economy even though its cheaper. Money won't be an

Are you seriously arguing no frequent flyers will cut back on their flights if prices rise?

Improving alternatives? You mean exiting ones? Ferries will only get people so far, are slow, often a long way from where people live, and very heavily impacted by weather. Trains in this country are overly expensive and improvements seem to move at a snails pace. And driving, most people just won't. Been there, done it, got the t-shirt. Long distance road travelling is about as relaxing these days as banging your head on a brick wall whilst listening to the Spices Girls at full volume. And of course the more people that drive, the worse it gets.

Why are you assuming that improving alternatives is impossible?

 

[Noddy]

Heathrow-Manchester is the obvious one, but yes, there really isn't that many. I just had a look, and Bristol-Newcastle is 5 hours by train or by car, so it's already at the point where flying makes more sense.

I've been thinking this over, and the major issue seems to be that there's no real alternative option to flying for many domestic routes. Belfast-Glasgow could theoretically be replaced with a fast ferry from Larne to Gourock, but it would still be unfavourable compared to flying. Even Liverpool-Dublin is a 30 minute flight, but P&O have just axed their Liverpool-Dublin ferry for 2024. Even then, the nature of the Irish Sea means that any ferry would be limited to around 25 knots maximum, or realistically an 8 hours sailing time.

I imagine this has been discussed before but how many folk are doing London-Manchester domestically?

Certainly inter-island flights are going to be very difficult to get rid of, but island flights, as opposed to Northern Ireland flights, are likely to be the easiest to go electric/electric-hybrid. But internal GB mainland flights? It’s all possible with an extended high speed rail system and a decent XC network (with the exception of probably Inverness/Aberdeen-south and perhaps Exeter/Southampton-north).

 

[Bald Rick]

I imagine this has been discussed before but how many folk are doing London-Manchester domestically?

Not many at all, if you mean those not using a connecting flight.

Somewhere in the region of 150 each way per day. Willing to bet that a fair portion of them work at, or very near, Heathrow or Manchester airport (And/or for BA)

 

[Noddy]

Not many at all, if you mean those not using a connecting flight.

Somewhere in the region of 150 each way per day. Willing to bet that a fair portion of them work at, or very near, Heathrow or Manchester airport (And/or for BA)

Yep that’s what I meant. Cheers for the figures. I imagine that the end to end journey for many of these would be greater than three hours if they had to do the same journey by rail (or road), even if they don’t work at Heathrow or for BA.

 

[renegademaster]

Labour lost Uxbridge by 300 votes. 900 people voted for the Green Party. It’s not quite the anti-ULEZ protest vote that the Telegraph would have you believe.

It’s also funny how TfL were forced to implement it as part of the terms of the government funding they received after Covid.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Sep 2023 ==


Not really, it’s indicative that pollution is far more pervasive than just what comes out of the exhaust.

It was a still a unexpected result, bucking the national trend quite significantly, however you try to spin as a vote actually for environmental restrictions

 

[Trainbike46]

Heathrow-Manchester is the obvious one, but yes, there really isn't that many. I just had a look, and Bristol-Newcastle is 5 hours by train or by car, so it's already at the point where flying makes more sense.

I've been thinking this over, and the major issue seems to be that there's no real alternative option to flying for many domestic routes. Belfast-Glasgow could theoretically be replaced with a fast ferry from Larne to Gourock, but it would still be unfavourable compared to flying. Even Liverpool-Dublin is a 30 minute flight, but P&O have just axed their Liverpool-Dublin ferry for 2024. Even then, the nature of the Irish Sea means that any ferry would be limited to around 25 knots maximum, or realistically an 8 hours sailing time.

Stena is apparently considering taking over the route (not in a take-over sense, but they are apparently considering setting up a Liverpool/Birkenhead-Dublin ferry https://www.niferry.co.uk/stena-line-confirms-interest-in-liverpool-to-dublin-ferry-route/ )

But in any case, there is various routes where connections over land or by ferry could be improved, including many covered in threads on this forum, such as building HS2, increasing XC capacity, etc.

 

[The Ham]

I understand the sentiment behind this complicated scheme, but how exactly is it going to be administered/controlled? All airline booking systems connected to a central database of passport numbers? Do foreign passport holders pay on departure, will there be database of their numbers for subsequent journeys? Dual nationals? Sounds like a nightmare IT scenario.

Airlines already have to apply APD to fairs to/from the UK, depending on where the cut off is the reality is that not all that many people would actually be impacted by the extra costs.

You say there's room for debate, but then fall back to the debated to death position of charging more. Putting aside the difficulties in actually implementing such a system (I've highlighted some of the issues earlier), what you are proposing is practically the only solution ever offered. Charge more, move travel further away from ordinary people, and reduce income flows at the destination ends.

I'm happy to discuss other options, however few other options have been put forwards.

The problem with doubt nothing is that we run the risk of seeing aviation emissions increase significantly - that's not really a viable option in a world where everything else is reducing their emissions.

What if the things you can afford and do enjoy suddenly went out of reach because someone decided they should cost more so you used them less? My point here is that it is asking the less well off to pay the climate tax / price increase whilst the better off carry on as normal. You may be comfortable with that, I'm not.

The thing is unless we go for a hard limit (say 6 flights and then no more or an outright ban on domestic flights) there's few other options other than charging extra.

The numbers who can justify spending more and more on APD to carry on their lifestyle, is fairly small, however so are the numbers flying more than 4 times a year (at which point the extra cost would still be fairly small even if the ratching started after the first 2 flights).

The other thing to consider is that it's likely that more than just flying will start to increase costs for carbon intensive activities.

Being wealthy doesn't mean that they have unlimited resources or are willing to spend money that they don't need to, and so there's a good chance that even the wealthy would adjust their behaviour because of the extra costs.