Air travel: We need to cut back, especially for the most frequent flyers

This article was originally published in our "Décryptage Mobilité" newsletter. To receive future articles by email as soon as they are published, Subscribe now.

By Nicolas Meunier – Consultant

Following the decline in air traffic in Sweden in 2018—partly due to “flygskam,” which refers to the shame of flying for environmental reasons (another reason being the introduction of an aviation eco-tax in April 2018)— the fear that this trend will spread beyond Sweden’s borders is on the minds of everyone in the industry, starting with Alexandre de Juniac, the president of IATA. [1­] According to a recent UBS survey of 6,000 people from the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, and France [2], this concern is not unfounded: “More than one in five respondents said they had changed their plans at least once to avoid flying in the past year.” And UBS forecasts air traffic growth of 1.5% in Europe and 1.3% in the United States, which is lower than the figures announced by IATA last year (2% for Europe and 2.4% for North America) [3]. If this trend continues, will we need to revise growth forecasts even more drastically, or even consider the possibility of traffic leveling off? It is still too early to say, and the 2019 traffic growth figures will serve as an initial indicator.

The fact remains that this trend is currently limited to regions where air travel is already well-established—namely, Europe and North America—while the bulk of growth potential lies in emerging markets. Furthermore, if this reduction in air traffic growth—initiated voluntarily by passengers—is not sufficient to meet the sector’s goals (halving emissions between 2005 and 2050) [4], the use of an aviation carbon tax could be another possible solution, as is already the case in Sweden, and will be next year in France and Germany. And as some have quite rightly pointed out regarding “flygskam”: Swedes travel five times more than the global average. The reduction in air traffic therefore raises the issue of social justice : Who should cut back on air travel? First of all, Let's dispel the misconception that air travel has become "more accessible". Today, about half of the residents of wealthy, developed countries such as the United States, England, or France never fly. Although air travel is becoming more widespread across all segments of the population, it remains the preserve of an elite: in the United Kingdom, 15% of people account for more than 70% of flights, while that in France, 50% of thefts are committed by the 2% of people with the highest incomes. [5] [6] [7] Based on this observation and with a view to implementing an aviation eco-tax—similar to how income taxes are structured with progressive brackets based on income level, for reasons of social equity— it would be possible to create a tax for air travel that adheres to this principle. Thus, the Committee on Climate Change, the equivalent of the High Council for Climate in the United Kingdom, recommends implementing a tax on air travel that would be proportional to the class of service and the distance traveled by air over the past few years. [8]

This measure would help reconcile the ecological transition with social justice, by imposing higher taxes on frequent travelers—who tend to be wealthier and less price-sensitive and whose carbon footprint from air travel is significant—while not penalizing other social groups who wish to fly occasionally. Another measure proposed by the CCC: eliminate airline loyalty programs, which aims to boost air travel by encouraging travelers to fly more often. The value of these programs is, in fact, highly debatable from both an environmental and a social perspective, since the participants in these programs are, by definition, frequent travelers.

As the public becomes increasingly aware of the climate impact of air travel, European airlines are stepping up their public relations efforts to explain their commitment to the environment, but that commitment does not yet measure up to the challenges at hand, no airline (except perhaps KLM) questions the explosive growth in air traffic (doubling every 15 years!). Will they accept the CCC’s recommendations to commit to a genuine climate transition and a more meaningful “democratization” of air travel? For now, that is not the case [9], and the longer time goes by without any fundamental change, the greater the risk that “flygskam” will grow.

Article written by Nicolas Meunier - Consultant

Sources: [1] RTL [2] BFM [3] IATA [4] Mobility Insights #9 - Carbone 4 [5] NY Times [6] Committee on Climate Change [7] ENTD 2008 [8] Guardian [9] CNBC