News: Easyjet call for joint lobbying on environment
Flights > News > # 957 (15/09/2006)
Add to:
Related Articles:
Related Airlines:
Comment:
I have criticised enough environmental legislation proposals lately, so now let's take a look at some of the arguments used by the no-frills airlines. The most perverse suggestion has to be the idea that the no-frills airlines have a political disadvantage compared to lobby groups. It might well be true that environmental groups are well organised, and that they can always get far more attention drawn to their heart wrenching anti-aviation propaganda, but politicians also have to balance budgets, and the economic might of airline companies cannot be underestimated. Opinion polls might show that many people are happy to support the principle of more environmental taxes on flights, but the millions of people who vote with their feet and continue to take flights in increasing numbers cannot be ignored as an important political force.
At the same time, the aviation industry could be accused of being grossly arrogant and simplistic when they assume that the economic impact caused by cutting out other sources of pollution would be negligible compared to the “catastrophic” economic effects of stopping people flying.
Even the thermostat argument has its limitations - yes, it is certainly true that turning down the heating a little can save a great deal of energy. However, turn down the heating too far, and the house occupants become far more likely to contract a cold or flu, therefore having to stay off work.
We fully support Easyjet's calls for a rational and balanced debate on environmental issues, but don't think that it is enough for airlines to merely tell us that they are operating very efficient fleets and cutting out wasteful flight connections. The airline's cries of discrimination contain some legitimate points - especially regarding the government's woeful handling of the recent terror scares, but environmentalists will always see the discrimination the other way round as long as motorists throughout Europe continue to pay hefty prices at the pump to fill up their cars, yet aircraft, whether operated by no-frills airlines or others, get away without paying any tax or duty on fuel.
The bottom line is that the economics of each mode of transport are skewed in so many different ways by taxation, regulation and subsidies, that the level playing field which both airlines and environmentalists are asking for will never be achieved. The no-frills airlines only have themselves to blame if they feel that their voice is not being heard. It might well be true that politicians listen to trade bodies more than they listen to individual companies, yet in keeping with the low-cost model, the airlines don't want to provide the proper funding for the European Low Fares Airline Association (ELFAA) to lobby for their cause.
Without a unified voice, it will be much harder for the airlines to participate in what is ultimately an extremely important debate. This can only serve to hand an easy victory to the environmental lobby, whose many legitimate concerns are so often drowned out by headline seeking hysteria and hypocritical rhetoric.
