Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
There's no comparison. Coal mines employed almost every man in a given town or village. I challenge you to find a town where aviation employs even 10% of the local workforce. We are also living in an era of full employment, it won't be difficult for people with transferable skills to find work elsewhere. I said before that I know of both pilots and cabin crew retraining for railway roles.
In any case, we're not talking about an overnight massacre of jobs. As taxes are progressively increased the industry will slowly contract.
I reckon you will find such towns near airports. I bet it's a fairly large proportion of inhabitants of Wythenshawe and Luton.
However, there won't realistically be a ban on aviation, so those jobs won't all vanish, though there might be a slow attrition by way of recruitment stops, which is fine because there will be other jobs.
Crawley certainly falls short of 10%. Definitely nothing like the sort of dependency that mining towns had on a single industry. All located in areas with plentiful access to alternative employments too.
There's a range of what people are calling for, a very few would be calling for zero flights, whilst others at the other end of the argument will be asking for flights to be unlimited and so (by extension) to allow aviation to be permitted to be 98% of global carbon emissions (even if the reality is that it never gets that high).
The vast majority would like to see aviation have some form of limit, as I've said even if that's no increase in current levels that works still be useful.
A 10% reduction in emissions (which isn't a 10% reduction in flying) over the next 10 years again isn't going to be significantly in the wider impact on industries linked to aviation. Even if it was a 10% reduction in flights, quite a lot of that could be dealt with via things like the French rule of no domestic flights where there's a reasonable rail alternative - again having a limited impact on linked industries.
You could probably get more than a 10% reduction just by reducing private jets (not even a total ban).
I’ll take your word for this (my bold), however is it not the same old problem of people wanting limits to apply to others but not themselves? The “we only fly to Alicante twice a year” brigade would be outraged if they had to pay additional taxes, trust me!
The rest of your post(s) I largely agree with; in theory there are perfectly reasonable options to reduce aviation emissions. It’s those calling for extreme and immediate action with no thought as to the consequences with whom I disagree.
To be fair this was my families experience during the 1980's and early 90's. We managed a few decent holidays here though, and there were also school trips to France.
But yes, it's the frequent fliers that need to be made to cut down.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
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.
The problem you have is that (some of) those arguing with you appear to be fixated on the worst possible outcome(s) of climate change, believe it’s all the result of human activity, and therefore is within our gift to prevent. The cost-benefit analysis you’re asking for won’t be forthcoming, as there’s no cost too high to prevent certain “catastrophe”.
As you say, climate policy (and politics) is going to collide with reality at some point. It’s therefore important to focus on realistic, worthwhile, and sustainable measures to mitigate man-made climate change, rather than draconian measures such as banning commercial aviation (or making it unaffordable). People advocating the latter are simply undermining their own cause.
Reading (but not participating so far in this thread) I would argue the @Bantamzen is fixated on the worst possible outcome(s) of reducing flying…
As you say it is important to focus on realistic, worthwhile, and sustainable measures to mitigate man-made climate change and reducing flying is all of those things.
Gatwick, Luton and Stansted flight paths are not generally over the neighbouring towns so they get all the benefits of employment and business rates without the noise issues. Heathrow and Manchester are noisier neighbours.
Reading (but not participating so far in this thread) I would argue the @Bantamzen is fixated on the worst possible outcome(s) of reducing flying…
As you say it is important to focus on realistic, worthwhile, and sustainable measures to mitigate man-made climate change and reducing flying is all of those things.
There are people who want to ban or severely curtail flying (see thread title). I think it’s those people @Bantamzen is arguing with; I’ve not seen him suggest we shouldn’t do anything.
Apparently 4,400 people in the Wythenshawe and Sale constituency are employed in aviation, against an electorate (most of whom will be of working age) of 85k.
There are people who want to ban or severely curtail flying (see thread title). I think it’s those people @Bantamzen is arguing with; I’ve not seen him suggest we shouldn’t do anything.
The world won't end in 2030/40/50 if aviation, or for that matter any industry doesn't comply with the targets. So let's stop fart-arsing and panicking about on the fringes of climate change, and tackle the big issues. That is energy production, energy storage & distribution, and re-fixing carbon. No more silly targets, no more blaming & shaming, just real world solutions. Its time to do what we do best and innovate, its how we've got this far.
I’ll take your word for this (my bold), however is it not the same old problem of people wanting limits to apply to others but not themselves? The “we only fly to Alicante twice a year” brigade would be outraged if they had to pay additional taxes, trust me!
The rest of your post(s) I largely agree with; in theory there are perfectly reasonable options to reduce aviation emissions. It’s those calling for extreme and immediate action with no thought as to the consequences with whom I disagree.
Why do you keep trying to take this back to allegations of hypocrisy?
They're really not engaging with the content of the discussion, and obviously the intention to do something, like reduce flying, naturally starts before the action, like actually not getting on a plane?
@Bantamzen It's not that I don't want to talk about solutions for reduced employment in the airline and tourism section. However, it is hard to have a useful discussion about this for every place globally that employs people in that sector, as local situations differ, and therefore appropriate solutions also differ.
To pick a location that I'm somewhat more familiar with, let's go for Amsterdam. It has one of the biggest airports in europe, as well as a significant tourism industry. There's also a massive shortage of workers in every sector, so a reduction of jobs in aviation and tourism would likely lead to people getting jobs in the various other sectors, such as the railway, shops/restaurants/etc. mostly used by local people, jobs in the port and industrial area, jobs in the financial sector, jobs in construction, etc. depending on the interests and skills of the individual people involved. Just in case you're wondering, all the sectors I listed have a shortage of employees in the Amsterdam area.
Of course, other places will have different situations, but the shortage of workers across sectors isn't even remotely unique to Amsterdam, and present in many communities across Europe.
As others have pointed out, it would also be a slow contraction rather than a cliff-edge situation.
If you want to discuss the situation in another place, feel free to suggest one
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There are people who want to ban or severely curtail flying (see thread title). I think it’s those people @Bantamzen is arguing with; I’ve not seen him suggest we shouldn’t do anything.
This thread was split of from somewhere else, and that discussion was originally almost entirely limited to UK domestic flights, where the suggested bans would be bans on things like domestic that don't cross any seas, and I for example stated that it was good that the most socially necessary domestic flights (those that connect Scottish Islands, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands with the UK mainland, and most key, provide connections for those places to hospitals, or in some cases more specialist hospitals) are easiest to electrify.
While clearly the discussion has moved beyond that, extrapolating the position that there shouldn't be non-electric domestic flights within the UK to the position that no flights should exist anywhere on the planet based on a thread title that wasn't originally referring to that seems a bit of a stretch.
EDIT:
and many people in this thread have explicitly talked about reducing flights, not outright banning all flights everywhere
You appear to have misinterpreted my point. I'm not (and have not) accused people on this thread of hypocrisy, all I've done is point out that the general public are far less enthusiastic about restrictions that affect them personally. So, when people who fly to Alicante twice a year (as per my example) realise that they themselves will be affected, their enthusiasm will suddenly evaporate, and the whole issue will almost certainly become a political football.
They're really not engaging with the content of the discussion, and obviously the intention to do something, like reduce flying, naturally starts before the action, like actually not getting on a plane?
I think they simply disagree with you in regard to the extent of the reduction required and the potential benefits, whilst also pointing out that it will come at a cost. I don't think it's fair to say they're not engaging; it's a different viewpoint, that's all.
This thread was split of from somewhere else, and that discussion was originally almost entirely limited to UK domestic flights, where the suggested bans would be bans on things like domestic that don't cross any seas, and I for example stated that it was good that the most socially necessary domestic flights (those that connect Scottish Islands, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands with the UK mainland, and most key, provide connections for those places to hospitals, or in some cases more specialist hospitals).
While clearly the discussion has moved beyond that, extrapolating the position that there shouldn't be non-electric domestic flights within the UK to the position that no flights should exist anywhere on the planet based on a thread title that wasn't originally referring to that seems a bit of a stretch.
EDIT:
and many people in this thread have explicitly talked about reducing flights, not outright banning all flights everywhere
I think this is the issue; there are two threads and I accept that there's an element of debating at cross purposes. However, some posters clearly support what can only be described as extreme measures, even if they fall short of an outright ban globally.
You appear to have misinterpreted my point. I'm not (and have not) accused people on this thread of hypocrisy, all I've done is point out that the general public are far less enthusiastic about restrictions that affect them personally. So, when people who fly to Alicante twice a year (as per my example) realise that they themselves will be affected, their enthusiasm will suddenly evaporate, and the whole issue will almost certainly become a political football.
I think they simply disagree with you in regard to the extent of the reduction required and the potential benefits, whilst also pointing out that it will come at a cost. I don't think it's fair to say they're not engaging; it's a different viewpoint, that's all.
In this second point, the "they" was accusations of hypocrisy, and as you have just explained those weren't present my point you're reacting to is moot, but it appears you've misinterpreted what I meant here
I think this is the issue; there are two threads and I accept that there's an element of debating at cross purposes. However, some posters clearly support what can only be described as extreme measures, even if they fall short of an outright ban globally.
I guess it depends on what you consider an extreme measure. Personally, I would be in favour of a frequent flyer tax that taxes as soon as a person is doing more than a single return pair of flights a year tax increases rapidly with increasing numbers of flights. (I accept there are serious challenges in implementing such a policy)
I'd also be in favour of banning private jets, as their emissions are absurd when compared to commercial aviation (looking at a per-passenger-km emissions)
Another potentially useful policy would be to define an emissions cap for the aviation industry as a whole globally, that reduces absolute emissions year-on-year (probably starting with a 2019 baseline), as that provides strong motivation to actually implement efficiency improvements quickly, and where efficiency improvements fall short, flight numbers will need to be decreased. Of course, this does have the challenge of making global policy.
I don't think that something has challenges means it shouldn't be pursued though.
I'm also flexible with the actual policy instrument used to achieve it, and am very open to suggestions for this, as long as aviation (and all other sectors for that matter), does its share of reducing emissions.
In this second point, the "they" was accusations of hypocrisy, and as you have just explained those weren't present my point you're reacting to is moot, but it appears you've misinterpreted what I meant here
I guess it depends on what you consider an extreme measure. Personally, I would be in favour of a frequent flyer tax that taxes as soon as a person is doing more than a single return pair of flights a year tax increases rapidly with increasing numbers of flights. (I accept there are serious challenges in implementing such a policy)
The obvious problem with this (and I say this as fairly right wing conservative!) is that it would disproportionately affect the less well off. Maybe that's just the way it is; at the end of the day the less well off are unlikely to eat fillet steak twice a week, or drive a luxury car, but you can see the political challenges. The question is whether cheap air travel is a "right". (I'd argue not, but others may disagree, or at least see it's curtailment as a regressive measure).
I'd also be in favour of banning private jets, as their emissions are absurd when compared to commercial aviation (looking at a per-passenger-km emissions)
As this is unlikely to ever affect me it would be easy to agree. Ideologically I see "banning" as an absolute last resort; maybe this is where heavy taxes should be implemented?
Another potentially useful policy would be to define an emissions cap for the aviation industry as a whole globally, that reduces absolute emissions year-on-year (probably starting with a 2019 baseline), as that provides strong motivation to actually implement efficiency improvements quickly, and where efficiency improvements fall short, flight numbers will need to be decreased. Of course, this does have the challenge of making global policy.
I don't think that something has challenges means it shouldn't be pursued though.
I'm also flexible with the actual policy instrument used to achieve it, and am very open to suggestions for this, as long as aviation (and all other sectors for that matter), does its share of reducing emissions.
I don't view your suggestion as entirely unreasonable, and at least you accept that it comes with serious challenges. Personally I think reducing aviation should be a last resort as there are opportunities to reduce emissions by other means. That won't happen quickly however, so I suppose our underlying difference of opinion is in regard to the urgency required.
Where I absolutely do agree with @Bantamzen is that there are bigger issues to deal with, but reducing commercial aviation is seen by some as an easy win. Some industries and activities simply don't lend themselves to decarbonisation (without the implementation of regressive measures), and aviation is one of them. More needs to be done to reduce net carbon emissions through carbon capture, using both technology and natural means such as reforestation, and cleaning up energy production. These are areas in which governments around the world have completely failed for decades, and emissions from everyday activities such as flying (or driving) are a convenient distraction from their failings in my opinion. (Again, that's not to say that nothing at all should be done in these areas).
The obvious problem with this (and I say this as fairly right wing conservative!) is that it would disproportionately affect the less well off. Maybe that's just the way it is; at the end of the day the less well off are unlikely to eat fillet steak twice a week, or drive a luxury car, but you can see the political challenges. The question is whether cheap air travel is a "right". (I'd argue not, but others may disagree, or at least see it's curtailment as a regressive measure).
I suppose that it depends upon how you define "less well off" but by my definition people who are less well off aren't having multiple foreign holidays per year. One per year at best, the least well off holiday at Pontins.
The problem you have is that (some of) those arguing with you appear to be fixated on the worst possible outcome(s) of climate change, believe it’s all the result of human activity, and therefore is within our gift to prevent. The cost-benefit analysis you’re asking for won’t be forthcoming, as there’s no cost too high to prevent certain “catastrophe”.
As you say, climate policy (and politics) is going to collide with reality at some point. It’s therefore important to focus on realistic, worthwhile, and sustainable measures to mitigate man-made climate change, rather than draconian measures such as banning commercial aviation (or making it unaffordable). People advocating the latter are simply undermining their own cause.
Thank you, its encouraging to know that at least someone understands where I'm coming from. It's all very well people coming up with ideas on how to reduce our impact on the climate, but they have to be able to pass the reality test.
I suppose that it depends upon how you define "less well off" but by my definition people who are less well off aren't having multiple foreign holidays per year. One per year at best, the least well off holiday at Pontins.
It's open to interpretation as you say, but by "less well off" I mean the average working class family as opposed to those struggling. Many of these families can currently afford a couple of tips to Spain a year (other destinations are available) and would be the first to be hit by an incremental increase in taxes.
I actually agree with you here. It would require global cooperation (that's the challenge), but in principle there's no reason why kerosene should be exempt.
It's open to interpretation as you say, but by "less well off" I mean the average working class family as opposed to those struggling. Many of these families can currently afford a couple of tips to Spain a year (other destinations are available) and would be the first to be hit by an incremental increase in taxes.
Ideally, but EU cooperation would be enough to begin with. That covers a long list of short haul flights and stops transatlantic flights stopping off at Shannon to fill up with cheaper fuel.
It's open to interpretation as you say, but by "less well off" I mean the average working class family as opposed to those struggling. Many of these families can currently afford a couple of tips to Spain a year (other destinations are available) and would be the first to be hit by an incremental increase in taxes.
I actually agree with you here. It would require global cooperation (that's the challenge), but in principle there's no reason why kerosene should be exempt.
The APD for flights to Spain are £13 each way, even if the increase kicked in after the first return flight, if the increases was +50% for each pair of fights the next two fights would add £13 (£19.50 APD each) with the next two adding £32.50 (£29.25 APD each).
Whilst that would start to add up as a family of 5 (~£100 for the first two after the rises start and ~£150 for the next two) it's unlikely to be all that significant, especially if the rise was after 4, 6, or even 8 flights (the later would allow 4 trips to Spain before any increase and so would realistically only impact those who are wealthy enough to go on holiday quite a bit more than the example given).
The APD for flights to Spain are £13 each way, even if the increase kicked in after the first return flight, if the increases was +50% for each pair of fights the next two fights would add £13 (£19.50 APD each) with the next two adding £32.50 (£29.25 APD each).
Whilst that would start to add up as a family of 5 (~£100 for the first two after the rises start and ~£150 for the next two) it's unlikely to be all that significant, especially if the rise was after 4, 6, or even 8 flights (the later would allow 4 trips to Spain before any increase and so would realistically only impact those who are wealthy enough to go on holiday quite a bit more than the example given).
I can't argue with the your maths(!), and I agree that in your example the "penalty" for taking two or three return flights probably wouldn't be prohibitive. That raises the obvious question though of what's the point in implementing it this way? I think it's more than likely that most people will simply "pay to pollute". To have any worthwhile effect it would need to be far more punitive in my opinion, which I can't say I'd be comfortable with.
I can't argue with the your maths(!), and I agree that in your example the "penalty" for taking two or three return flights probably wouldn't be prohibitive. That raises the obvious question though of what's the point in implementing it this way? I think it's more than likely that most people will simply "pay to pollute". To have any worthwhile effect it would need to be far more punitive in my opinion, which I can't say I'd be comfortable with.
The implementation is so that it doesn't impact those who only do a few fights more than the cut off.
Where it starts to hurt is as you get higher, with the APD being (short haul):
+1 pair £19.50
+2 pairs £29.25
+3 pairs £43.88
+4 pairs £65.81
+5 pairs £98.72
(Skipping a few lines)
+10 pairs £749.65
+15 pairs £5,692.62
+20 pairs £43,228.32
+25 pairs £328,625.19
Yes some will pay the circa £100 (even for a family of 5, £493) for +5 pairs of fights, however not many will pay the near £5,700 for +15 pairs of flights beyond the cut off (which could be 2 pairs of flights).
Very few would be able to justify their time at £5,700 (even for the journey taking an extra 24 hours by some other mode).
However it's not just that higher rate per flight but the total extra paid (per person), for example after
+5 pairs £384
+6 pairs £645
+7 pairs £1,072
+8 pairs £1,713
+9 pairs £2,686
+10 pairs £4,160
+15 pairs £33,688
+20 pairs £258,772
+25 pairs £1.97 million
Whilst pay to pollute isn't ideal, nor is having a hard limit and causing people to (for example) miss a loved ones last minutes (something for which people will pay a lot to try and do if they are able to) is arguably worse.
There could be ways to tax the airlines, for example they pay a tax if they don't have a minimum value of zero carbon fuel/energy use/reduced fuel use (which would likely increase as times goes on to encourage the use of technology).
The implementation is so that it doesn't impact those who only do a few fights more than the cut off.
Where it starts to hurt is as you get higher, with the APD being (short haul):
+1 pair £19.50
+2 pairs £29.25
+3 pairs £43.88
+4 pairs £65.81
+5 pairs £98.72
(Skipping a few lines)
+10 pairs £749.65
+15 pairs £5,692.62
+20 pairs £43,228.32
+25 pairs £328,625.19
Yes some will pay the circa £100 (even for a family of 5, £493) for +5 pairs of fights, however not many will pay the near £5,700 for +15 pairs of flights beyond the cut off (which could be 2 pairs of flights).
Very few would be able to justify their time at £5,700 (even for the journey taking an extra 24 hours by some other mode).
However it's not just that higher rate per flight but the total extra paid (per person), for example after
+5 pairs £384
+6 pairs £645
+7 pairs £1,072
+8 pairs £1,713
+9 pairs £2,686
+10 pairs £4,160
+15 pairs £33,688
+20 pairs £258,772
+25 pairs £1.97 million
Whilst pay to pollute isn't ideal, nor is having a hard limit and causing people to (for example) miss a loved ones last minutes (something for which people will pay a lot to try and do if they are able to) is arguably worse.
There could be ways to tax the airlines, for example they pay a tax if they don't have a minimum value of zero carbon fuel/energy use/reduced fuel use (which would likely increase as times goes on to encourage the use of technology).
Again, I see where you're coming from with this. However, in the "mid-range" scenario above (say 5 or 6 return flights), I could still see a lot of people paying as they'll more than likely be able to afford to. Some may reduce the number of flights they take, but will it have much of an impact (genuine question)? Similarly, once you get to upwards of 10 return flights and it starts getting really expensive, how many people would this actually affect? Do many people take that number of flights annually? (That's another genuine question incidentally; I don't know the answer!).
I agree with you though in regard to hard limits, they really ought to be avoided (and I suspect will never be politically palatable anyway).
Again, I see where you're coming from with this. However, in the "mid-range" scenario above (say 5 or 6 return flights), I could still see a lot of people paying as they'll more than likely be able to afford to. Some may reduce the number of flights they take, but will it have much of an impact (genuine question)? Similarly, once you get to upwards of 10 return flights and it starts getting really expensive, how many people would this actually affect? Do many people take that number of flights annually? (That's another genuine question incidentally; I don't know the answer!).
I agree with you though in regard to hard limits, they really ought to be avoided (and I suspect will never be politically palatable anyway).
Existing research has indeed shown that the distribution of air travel is very skewed, with a minority of high-mobility individuals responsible for the large majority of trips, travel distance and emissions, even in countries where flying is most common (Gössling and Humpe, 2020, Ivanova and Wood, 2020). In the UK, roughly 50% of the population does not participate in air travel in any given year, with 15% of the population responsible for 70% of all flights (Hopkinson and Cairns, 2021). In many, especially poorer countries, the share of the population who takes a plane in any one year is even lower than that (ibid.: 18–19).
They average at 7 flights a year (or about double the 4 flights that it would be if all the flights were equally solid between the UK population). In France there's data to suggest 50% of flights are from just 2% of the population. With further data suggesting that 1% of the population accounting for 20% of international flights from the UK.
On that last one 20% of international flights is 28.5 million (2018), whilst 1% of the population is 667,000, which works or at about 40 flights a year.
As such whilst it's unlikely to be a significant percentage of the population, it could have significant impact on the total number of flights taken.
The implementation is so that it doesn't impact those who only do a few fights more than the cut off.
Where it starts to hurt is as you get higher, with the APD being (short haul):
+1 pair £19.50
+2 pairs £29.25
+3 pairs £43.88
+4 pairs £65.81
+5 pairs £98.72
(Skipping a few lines)
+10 pairs £749.65
+15 pairs £5,692.62
+20 pairs £43,228.32
+25 pairs £328,625.19
Yes some will pay the circa £100 (even for a family of 5, £493) for +5 pairs of fights, however not many will pay the near £5,700 for +15 pairs of flights beyond the cut off (which could be 2 pairs of flights).
Very few would be able to justify their time at £5,700 (even for the journey taking an extra 24 hours by some other mode).
However it's not just that higher rate per flight but the total extra paid (per person), for example after
+5 pairs £384
+6 pairs £645
+7 pairs £1,072
+8 pairs £1,713
+9 pairs £2,686
+10 pairs £4,160
+15 pairs £33,688
+20 pairs £258,772
+25 pairs £1.97 million
Whilst pay to pollute isn't ideal, nor is having a hard limit and causing people to (for example) miss a loved ones last minutes (something for which people will pay a lot to try and do if they are able to) is arguably worse.
There could be ways to tax the airlines, for example they pay a tax if they don't have a minimum value of zero carbon fuel/energy use/reduced fuel use (which would likely increase as times goes on to encourage the use of technology).
There is one small problem with your calculations that mathematics cannot solve. Airlines may not evenly spread the cost of APD across the board. They pay for the number of passengers departing from a UK airport (it is not payable for flights from outside the UK to it), they don't have to add the same level of it to everyone. How do you suppose that Ryanair for example can offer seats at £9.99 for overseas destinations when the lowest rate of APD is £13. Or how do passengers with enough loyalty points book seats using them only? All your proposals will do is push extra costs onto those who can afford them least.
Plus of course those people who can afford to fly very regularly will probably be able to soak up any extra costs. Once again, reality kicks in.
There is one small problem with your calculations that mathematics cannot solve. Airlines may not evenly spread the cost of APD across the board. They pay for the number of passengers departing from a UK airport (it is not payable for flights from outside the UK to it), they don't have to add the same level of it to everyone. How do you suppose that Ryanair for example can offer seats at £9.99 for overseas destinations when the lowest rate of APD is £13. Or how do passengers with enough loyalty points book seats using them only? All your proposals will do is push extra costs onto those who can afford them least.
Plus of course those people who can afford to fly very regularly will probably be able to soak up any extra costs. Once again, reality kicks in.
It's perfectly possible that the law could be changed to mandate that the full APD rate must be paid directly by each passenger, and to ban the airline from "swallowing" it in the way Ryanair does.
I find it quite remarkable that it seems to be a prevailing view on this Forum (not just by yourself, it's very common) that legislation is immutable. It's not, every single piece of it can be changed if Parliament sees fit, we have no constitution so nothing is protected from change per-se.
France will seek support from other European Union countries for a minimum price on flights in Europe in a bid to reduce the aviation sector's contribution to climate change, Transport Minister Clément Beaune has said.
www.euractiv.com
France will seek support from other European Union countries for a minimum price on flights in Europe in a bid to reduce the aviation sector’s contribution to climate change, Transport Minister Clément Beaune has said.
The move, if approved, would hit airlines offering super-cheap fares. But it may struggle to win sufficient support among EU countries, which include island nations that rely on air transport, and regions with tourism sectors buoyed by low-cost flights.
France’s aim is to “open the debate on the fair social and environmental price of a flight ticket,” Beaune said in written comments after meeting with Brussels-based journalists on Monday (18 September).
The issue will be raised during an informal meeting of EU transport ministers taking place in Barecelona, Spain, on 21-22 September.
“It’s not a question of multiplying by ten the price of tickets. Why? Because there are also people who take a plane once in their life, who don’t have much money – it’s also a freedom, a means of transportation that can’t be reserved for only the rich,” he said.
They average at 7 flights a year (or about double the 4 flights that it would be if all the flights were equally solid between the UK population). In France there's data to suggest 50% of flights are from just 2% of the population. With further data suggesting that 1% of the population accounting for 20% of international flights from the UK.
On that last one 20% of international flights is 28.5 million (2018), whilst 1% of the population is 667,000, which works or at about 40 flights a year.
As such whilst it's unlikely to be a significant percentage of the population, it could have significant impact on the total number of flights taken.
Next question; to what extent will a reduction in flights taken equal a reduction in actual flights?
I ask this as more often than not, the flights I’ve been on over the last couple of years haven’t been sold out (or anywhere near sold out in some cases). I’m not sure if my experience is particularly representative though.
(I don’t necessarily expect a definitive answer to the above incidentally!).
Next question; to what extent will a reduction in flights taken equal a reduction in actual flights?
I ask this as more often than not, the flights I’ve been on over the last couple of years haven’t been sold out (or anywhere near sold out in some cases). I’m not sure if my experience is particularly representative though.
(I don’t necessarily expect a definitive answer to the above incidentally!).
That is indeed an interesting question. It would depend on the frequency of the flights.
Two flights a week in each direction and chances are it'll have limited impact. Conversely flights between London and the Central Belt where there's quite a lot each day and a reduction in passengers would likely result in fewer flights.
Even if the EU don't take up the suggestion of minimum ticket prices being put forwards by France, it would appear that the EU is likely to do something to discourage flights - if they do then the UK doing something becomes more likely to also try and do likewise as the risk of hopping to a nearby hub (like Amsterdam or Paris) to bypass UK costs.
It's perfectly possible that the law could be changed to mandate that the full APD rate must be paid directly by each passenger, and to ban the airline from "swallowing" it in the way Ryanair does.
I find it quite remarkable that it seems to be a prevailing view on this Forum (not just by yourself, it's very common) that legislation is immutable. It's not, every single piece of it can be changed if Parliament sees fit, we have no constitution so nothing is protected from change per-se.
So how exactly would you pay it directly? Log onto gov.uk and do it there after you'd booked a flight? How would the government monitor that? And what about non-uk nationals who won't have gov.uk accounts? This raises way more problems than it solves.
Personally I feel the biggest problem these forums have is that so many expect everything to be solved by rules and regulations. Taxing passengers for flying more than others won't stop them doing it. There are enough skilled accountants out there to help them circumnavigate any additional tax laws. All it does it pushes cost onto the people that can't afford skilled accountants.
