Open Skies for Cheaper Domestic Flights in the UK! Meanwhile France Restricts Routes to Clear The Air
Is the UK government for real? Do you have a moral right to fly and drive? And would you go by train if trains were reliable and affordable?
Dear Human of Planet Earth,
I was shocked to learn airlines lobbied the UK government to pay less duties, so lower priced fares could encourage more domestic flights! What naivety made me think the airline industry would volunteer to shrink itself, when the skies are open for expansion?
EasyJet said in its submission: “Our analysis shows that if domestic APD is reduced by 50%, this would support an overall 31% increase in domestic volume, to 10.6 million passengers.” BA’s owner, International Airlines Group, told the Treasury that “positive outcomes could include new routes, increased frequency and larger aircraft on existing routes as well as lower fares”. - Source, The Guardian, Sunday March 12th 2023
Given the Conservative government’s wavering commitment to Net Zero once they have a whiff of potential profit, I was less surprised to hear the then Chancellor, now PM, Rishi Sunak, agreed to this.
How does an airline reject a tax though?
The airline also rejected a frequent flyer tax which would have progressively increased the fees for each flight taken. It argued it would be “likely only to punish passengers that have an ongoing practical requirement to fly frequently”. - Source, The Guardian, Sunday March 12th 2023
I thought decisions on taxes were made in Parliament! I bet trade unions wished they had as much government influence as the airline industry!
Also, since domestic flights aren’t expensive, a frequent flyer tax might reduce demand somewhat. It would certainly act as a psychological nudge for all but the very wealthy.
The new cut in air passenger duty (APD) for domestic flights was approved by Rishi Sunak when he was chancellor, halving the price to £6.50 from 1 April. The rail industry has warned the move could increase carbon emissions by 27,000 tonnes a year and result in 220,000 fewer rail journeys a year. - - Source, The Guardian, Sunday March 12th 2023
You could argue the reduction in air passenger duty is negligible and won’t impact people’s choices, but the airlines themselves are talking about introducing more routes and larger planes - and greater availability of flights and routes could definitely have an impact.
Greater connectivity between UK cities and regions seems like a good thing for business and for the government’s stated agenda of ‘levelling-up’ the economy.
Not being random here but the real problem is trains. Why?
Because train tickets aren’t cheaper than plane tickets. In fact, for some routes they are many times more expensive. For many routes, trains aren’t more reliable than planes either. Travelling can be a pain and typically humans will take the path of least resistance.
Over in France, where domestic flights have been cut as a matter of policy, the problem is still trains. Consider this:
France banned some short-haul flights - but only where the journey can be accomplished by train in under 2.5 hours.
So, yes. France needs more trains too.
Building new railways and trains is carbon intensive, but so is expanding airports and building planes. With so much of France’s electricity coming from nuclear energy and increasingly from renewables, more journeys run on cleaner energy are clearly the wiser option than more journeys run on petrol and diesel.
And sadly, though France’s ban on short-haul flights is welcome, they’ve left quite a lot of domestic flights in the air. And the ban will be reviewed after three years anyway. Greenpeace France notes it’s a step in the right direction but not a particularly big one.
Still, small wins deserve some celebration. Do we want some Momentum or all Perfection? (I’ll tell you more about that in my next letter!)
In the UK, Easy Jet says it doesn’t operate domestic flights where alternative train routes of less than 3 hours exist. But is this a company policy subject to change if the profit motive arises, or government policy restricting such routes on principle? I don’t know.
Either way, Easy Jet’s policy in the UK is ‘ahead’ of the French government’s - and nobody’s given them any plaudits. Perhaps that’s the difference between business and politics. Politics runs on praise, business runs on profit.
We do know France is coming down harder on private jets though:
A report from Transport and Environment (T&E), the European federation for clean transport, found that private jets are up to 14 times more polluting than commercial flights per passenger mile, and 50 times worse than trains …
Ooooh!!! Who knew? I didn’t realise they were that bad an individual choice! Did you?
… Heavy taxation and restrictions are the most likely measures to be introduced. Companies could also be forced to publish details on their use of corporate aircraft, for greater transparency. - Source euronews.com
Les gilets jaunes made it clear to the Macron government a few years ago that the cost of the climate transition shouldn’t be shouldered chiefly by those who could least afford it. So perhaps the pressure on private jets is an indication the French government is heeding their message.
Confession time: I once flew from London to Cornwall
Why? Because my husband thought a short direct plane flight (via what was then Flybe) was a far better option than taking an eight-hour train journey with a nine-month-old.
You might agree?
It was 2014 and we were new to the UK. Folks in our circle were shocked: ‘Whoever heard of flying to Cornwall?’ Suddenly, with a little bit of social pressure on, flying to Cornwall seemed like a vastly extravagant and impatient thing to do! I was shamed effectively into considering short-haul flights an option of last resort. Nobody set out to shame me though - and I’m not sure shaming others would be my technique of choice either …
But today the travel decision to fly between London and Newquay might already be settled. I don’t think there are direct flights from London to Newquay anymore. Having to go via Dublin increases the journey time (including the airport tedium) to the point where the trains would win.
Am I saying less options to choose from is a good thing?
That depends.
Should school be optional?
Should treating sewage before dumping it into rivers and seas be optional?
What happens when we make it easier for people to make harmful choices?
Is maximising choice a cherished principle solely because we’ve started thinking of people as consumers?
Would it be such a bad thing if as a couple with a baby, we’d chosen instead to have a holiday somewhere closer, till our family had better tolerance for a longer journey?
Is flying from London to Newquay a fundamental right?
Are we asking stupid questions here?
I don’t think so. We’re discussing the cultural shifts required as our governments ask us to make changes towards a Net Zero world.
Or on the flip side, we’re asking ourselves what we’re asking of each other and of our governments, whom we hope will stick we fear will not stick to their Net Zero pledges.
I’ve been out knocking doors for the Labour Party again, and some folks are furious about the impact of the expanding ULEZ zone on their lives.
Like the gilets jaunes, the argument they’re making is that the hardest hit are those who can least afford to replace their car with a less-polluting vehicle.
What cultural shifts apply here?
I’ve spoken to people who were able to move some money around. They sold their more polluting cars or vans to people outside the ULEZ zone and bought less polluting vehicles. If they accepted the shift towards cleaner vehicles was inevitable and positive, then they shouldered their cost in good faith - or more likely with some grumbling, despite understanding the motives behind the policy!
If they cried foul and screamed to the highest heaven about ULEZ being ‘a tax’ (it’s not!) opening the way for an ever-increasing tax merely to drive on the road, and eventually to the abolition of cars altogether, then they haven’t made the cultural shift. If they see the freedom to own and drive a polluting vehicle as a fundamental right then they’re living in a different cultural paradigm - one that belongs in the past.
If they fear authoritarian government and see ULEZ as an authoritarian policy, then there’s work to be done in establishing trust.
But there is a significant minority of vehicle owners who rely on their private vehicle for work, to visit loved ones, to get to medical appointments and to care for elderly or disabled relatives. There is a significant minority of vehicle owners who can’t easily access public transport, nor can they afford to replace their polluting vehicles.
It’s this last group, who like the gilets jaunes, are justifiably angry. And there are others angry on their behalf because perceived injustice generates outrage. That’s a healthy human behaviour.
So, what’s the cultural shift needed here? It’s with policy-makers.
Policy needs to focus on the people it affects.
The ULEZ policy needed a wider safety net. Government needed to do better than mandating the scheme and then blaming the Mayor for its failings. They needed to support it with an adequate scrappage scheme. On the other hand, the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority could have implemented a more gradual scheme, with in-house controlled buying and selling of vehicles to ensure affordability, and to allow more time for vehicle owners to make the transition.
Easier said than done, I know. But if you’re going to make a big change, it’s worth earning your stakeholders’ trust. It’s worth getting their buy-in, and making the effort to ease their way through the change.
London to Glasgow. Get ready to be surprised!
Many people drive for several hours between cities because it’s more convenient than catching a plane, or hoping for a train - and even after inflation blew up petrol and diesel prices last year, cheaper too.
Now a plane has to be lifted against gravity and stay up there while propelling itself forward. Surely, flying is always more energy intensive than driving?
It’s not that simple. The economy seating area of a plane is a form of mass transit. So you have to divide the fuel by the number of passengers.
Assuming all plane seats are filled, driving a large SUV as a single occupant is nearly three times as emissions-intensive than booking a seat on the plane!
A small electric car is half as emissions-intensive as a plane flight - and since you can get as far as 200 miles before you need to stop to re-charge it, you might get to your destination with one fully charged battery!
A petrol car can easily be about 60% as emissions-intensive as flying - which is shocking really, considering how meek and mild a car appears next to an aeroplane!
Though if you fill the car with people and baggage, emissions per passenger begin to beat going by train, far less by plane!
Coaches beat trains by being 40% more emissions-efficient. How? Weight per passenger is less for the coach, and coaches are slower, whereas trains consume energy merely to overcome air resistance.
Why is cycling so emission-heavy? Besides the emissions in creating a bicycle, the fuel for the bicycle is food. So yeah.
Finally, here’s a comparison, using a journey between London and Glasgow to illustrate:
We Need More Trains
There’s no way around it. We need more trains and a grid that sources its electricity from renewables. We need affordable train travel. And we need pleasant train travel. If you’re going to take the train, then not having to drive should be a pleasure. You should be able to sit for a long journey, read a book, listen to music or have a conversation. As it stands, sometimes you can, but you should be able to count on it.
Trains aren’t the only change we need. But they are a big part of re-imagining travel in a Net Zero world.
With Love,
Your Friendly Neighbourhood Radical,
Croydon,
London,
That patch of earth known today as the United Kingdom
Lat +51.51 Long, -0.118
PS I think we need more coaches too! I guess the new ones will be electric.