h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sitting in the departure lounge at Gatwick Airport on Tuesday waiting to board an Easy Jet flight to Belfast I wondered just how many of the other passengers were flying only because of the very low fares
Not only on my flight but on all the other flights operated by all the low fare air lines from airports every day all over The UK
The number is thousands

Which means more flights are needed to cope with the demand?
This in turn means more overcrowding, more pollution, and a demand for new airports, and an expansion of existing ones
With the loss of valuable agriculture land, and peoples homes

Is it time that airport, and fuel taxes were raised, or some other measures be introduced to discourage so many people from flying?

Or should airfares remain low so that anyone who wants to fly can afford to do so?

Airlines don't pay tax on aviation fuel, or pay VAT. Therefore, you could say they are subsidised compared to other forms of transport. Given what we know about CO2 emissions etc, then flying IMO should be restricted somehow. Making airlines pay appropriate taxes would be a start, but really putting additional taxes on flying is the only reasonable way to dampen demand.

PS it's funny how airline bosses talk about open/competitive markets and ignore the multi-billion pound subsidy they get every year, isn't it?

I don't see why we would want to discourage flying for the less well off just so that the wealthier people can fly.

I see it as a mixed issue really, on the minus side of everyone flying more you can quote things such as climate change, oil depletion, affect on indigenous tourist industry, land use etc, but there are also many positives: people have better quality of life, can see more places and witness places other than their locality, they can stay in touch with relatives and friends much more easily, it helps keep business prices down and helps marginal areas compete better. It brings valuable tourist and business revenue into places that previously would not have been touched with a barge pole. From a climate change perspective you always have to balance the environmental costs spent flying with what people would do otherwise - 300 people travelling places in cars might be much more environmenally taxing than 300 people in a plane for instance.

I'm not sure it would really work - you might disuade some people from travelling - but as most low-cost flights are relatively short-haul then you might just end up with more people on the roads.

would restrict all airlines to just one outward , and one return flight per destination per day

That would just about kill off every single airline in existence - think of the number of flights between London & Paris, or London and New York.

I agree with Woodpigeon. Many more people would drive if they couldn't fly. I live in Portugal and to see my family in the UK, I fly home. I could pay 400-500 pounds for a British Airways flight or I can pay £50 for a Monarch or Easyjet flight. For a 2 hr 10 min flight, it's an easy choice and means that I can afford many more visits home!

I could, however, drive home for about the same price as the BA flight and it would take me 2 days!

Why should I, and people like me, be penalised for travelling home? I probably cause less pollution in my 4-5 flights home a year than most British people do driving to work every day in their cars.

All the points raised so far are very interesting but should their be any restriction on our right to fly if so what form should they take?
Or should we allow air travel to increase without any restrictions?

I don't see how you can restrict them. It would require agreement from every airline in the world and every government as any who did not agree would step in and fill the gap left by those who were restricting.

And then you would have the Equal Opportunities lot saying that if you restrict air travel, then why not train, car, boat and pogo stick travel as well?

I don't particularly agree with rising air traffic and its effects on the environment but I do rely on cheap airlines so maybe I am hypocritical, or just apathetic!

There is no 'right to fly'.

try telling that to the Pigeons

>>I don't see how you can restrict them.

Each individual government can restrict air travel any way it likes in its own country. Provided it gets approval from the voters, or is a dictatorship of course.

I agree with that Gnomon, but I doubt there are many governments(those not involved in conflicts etc)who would actually curtail the number of flights in and out of their country. Most governments raise a lot of revenue through taxes on air transport and would they really be willing to give that up?

And since I have only really lived in democracies, I wonder how many voters who would vote for a government which was trying to curtail their travel choices!

<>

No but with the number of flights increasing circumstances might one day force them to take action to restrict air travel , if only for safety reasons
We already hear of over crowded skies because of so many aircraft, and the more flights there are the more over crowed it becomes with the increased chance of accidents

Hmm, It's still very hard to balance that with the needs of people on the ground. For example, the Airport nearest to me has changed the flight paths so that they go over quiet country villages etc, all hours of the day and night. (There's a particularly annoying one that goes over about 3am, and always wakes me up )

It's also a very busy freight airport, hence a huge increase in traffic over the last five years..

There are many local campaigns continuing, but it's very difficult when flights are so cheap, to actually put one's hand on one's heart and join the anti camp. An interesting point is that many of the people living in the outlying villages are (It must be said) fairly wealthy middle class people, who could probably afford to pay full price...
Sorry to rant on..

Sparky, I agree with you completely. I used to live in Surrey, right under the Heathrow flight path and sometimes the noise was unbearable! It also drove the house prices right down. The 11am Concorde (when it ran)was awful.

But I am a practical person and hand on heart, I tend to go for the cheapest airfare around. BA and similar are great for long haul flights because of the service, comfort level etc, but as I now live in Portugal, a frankly cattle coach flight from Faro to the UK is bearable for the short time you are on it. The price differences between the two are just so huge at times that it seems like a waste of money to pay BA fares.

I would imagine that most people would say that they care for the environment and worry about increased pollution, noise, accidents etc, but how many would actually be willing to pay 4/5 times as much for a plane fare because of those reasons.

As I said above, perhaps that makes me hypocritical or apathetic but at least I'm honest about it!

"The price differences between the two are just so huge at times that it seems like a waste of money to pay BA fares."

I live in Lyon - and everytime I've checked with the 'Budget' airlines for ticket prices I've been extremely disappointed...

Ok, their advertised ticket prices are extremely low - but then you look at the small print - add on airport taxes and VAT - plus the amount of money and time it's going to take to get from Lyon to an airport 50 miles away and then from Stanstead back into London and it has _always_ ended up _more_ expensive than a direct BA flight!

Nowadays I ignore flights altogether though - getting from my front door to the centre of London is actually only 30 minutes longer when travelling by train than it is when flying - and it's cheaper (especially when you can pick up cheap 1st class tickets which get you a meal in the on-board restaurant) - No hanging around for hours at airports - no baggage reclaim, more legroom, decent coffee (well - on the French TGV anyway ) - why bother flying!

Sounds good Whisky, but have you ever been on a Portuguese train? Actually, most of the Portuguese rail service is OK but the Algarve Line.....

I live not far from Faro Airport and as it's a fairly major tourist destination, you can pick up seriously cheap flights if you know where to look! My last flight home cost me just £9.00! Even with the taxes and stuff added on it only came to about 30 quid! My sister came on BA a few weeks ago as it was the only flight she could get and she was nearly £500 return.

Yes, I would fly BA or TAP if I could but with those differences, then I can't justify it! And wouldn't like to try to justify it to my other half!!!

I find the talk of BA being preferable because of better service and quality quite amusing.

I flew BA back from Australia once. Never again. It was the worst flight I've ever been on, and I've been on many. I've taken flights with budget airlines that were way better.

Britains favorite airline? Don't make me laugh. As far as I'm concerned BA stands for Bloody Awful.

I agree wholeheartedly. Nowadays my dislike of BA and their "one queue for everywhere" stupidity has extended to a blanket dislike of Heathrow. I fly Hong Kong to Amsterdam and then to Humberside or Dublin and arrive relatively rested. The agony of getting from Heathrow to the North of England without a connecting flight is no longer part of my twice-a-year coming home experiences.