News: Lib Dem policy on cheap flights attacked
Flights > News > # 980 (21/09/2006)
One of Britain’s leading no-frills airlines has slammed the Liberal Democrat’s latest environmental proposals.
Flybe has launched a stinging attack on plans which they claim could destroy the low cost flights industry. The Lib Dems want to introduce a tax tied to the emission levels from planes in a bid to encourage airlines to go green. If elected, they would also impose duty on aviation fuel and press for an international agreement to extend emissions trading to aviation.
Flybe chief commercial officer, Mike Rutter, says such a policy would bring an end to affordable flights and make air travel the preserve of the wealthy elite.
He added: “Flybe is at the forefront of the efforts by the airlines to reduce the environmental impact of air travel. We have recently invested in some of the most environmentally-friendly aircraft in the world, the Embraer 195 and Bombardier Q400.”
Rutter said passengers should have the freedom to choose to fly with the most environmentally-friendly airlines. Flybe has recently set up a new ‘eco-labelling’ scheme to measure how green airline fleets are.
Add to:
Related Airlines:
Related Airports:
Comment:
We really do wonder why Flybe is so worried about these proposals. Flybe is acquiring a fleet of very efficient turboprops and regional jets, with new Embraer 195s replacing their older BAe 146 aircraft. We are assuming that the BAe aircraft will be fully phased out by the time of the next general election, so what is Flybe panicking about? Have they also considered that the Lib Dems have about as much chance of getting into power as Andorra has of winning the World Cup?
We can only assume Flybe is getting its knickers in a twist because the Lib Dem’s constituency map corresponds well to the airline’s route network. It therefore makes sense that Flybe, which has a very important role to play in the regional economy, wants to make its opinions known to the UK's third biggest party.
The Lib Dem taxation proposals focus on imposing a cost on the aircraft's total emissions, rather than a flat rate duty on every single passenger. This theoretically sounds a lot fairer, as it encourages airlines to keep occupancy levels on their flights as high as possible. As a general rule, low-cost airlines are a great deal better at doing this than traditional carriers, but on many of Flybe's domestic routes, frequency is very important, in order to attract business passengers. Operating flights at a higher frequency tends to mean more empty seats during the daytime, but airlines counterbalance this by being able to charge a lot more during peak times.
Flybe will also be at pains to point out that airlines such as themselves are a lot more flexible when it comes to adapting their schedules according to demand, and that they are ultimately a great deal better at putting bums on seats than their rail-based rivals. Environmentalists like to target the short-haul flights because they say that these journeys can easily be made by other means, but this is not always such a realistic proposition.
The UK rail network is heavily focused around London, and even if there might be several air routes from the capital from which more passengers could reasonably be switched from plane to train, this is much more difficult for Flybe's passengers travelling, outside the airline's busy shuttle routes between Birmingham and Scotland. Someone travelling on a business trip, or on a quick weekend away, simply isn't going to want to make a journey between Southampton and Aberdeen, or between Exeter and Edinburgh, by train, but Flybe's low-cost flights have made this journey possible by air.
If airline passengers were made to pay the "true environmental costs" which green groups are asking for, then they would no doubt find that these came to a much lower figure than the £5 air passenger duty that is currently levied on UK domestic and European flights. The current carbon cost of a domestic flight between even the remotest corners of the UK is less than £1 each way, according to figures used by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (although we can fully understand people being cynical about this government’s maths!!!). In fact, as Flybe claim that 80% of their flights are on UK domestic routes, they would be much better off by drawing attention to the fact that as air passenger duty is levied at the point of takeoff, their passengers are doubly stung, because they have to pay into the Exchequer for the return flight as well as the outbound journey, whereas passengers travelling on flights to Europe only pay the £5 tax on the outbound journey.
There might well be some finer details which would need to be worked out, but the Lib Dem proposals have to be more palatable than former Tory Transport Minister Steven Norris' recent suggestion of increasing air passenger duty to £20 per flight. This, of course, would work out at £40 for a return flight within the UK. All Flybe have proposed so far as an alternative to more legislation is that airlines should adopt an eco-labelling scheme, in a similar manner to the energy star ratings which are available on electrical appliances. This will do very little to help consumers make informed decisions, as countless surveys have always shown that factors such as price, scheduling and convenience will always take precedence over environmental concerns.
Some change in legislation to ensure that the environmental costs of flights are covered, and that aviation makes a reasonable contribution to the Exchequer, just as other consumer goods and services already do, is inevitable. This will almost certainly result in an increase in the cost of flights, but if the legislation is fair, then this increase should still account for a relatively small portion of the cost of flying. Flybe have an important message to put across, but they could do this much more effectively if they acknowledged the ‘polluter pays’ principle, and worked to ensure that emissions charges were proportionate to the actual cost of the damage they cause, rather than just trying to shoot down every proposal which comes to the table.
