To think we need to increase taxes on flights. If you fly more you pay more.

[ThereWillBeAdequateFood]

Just that really. I think something like 70% of all flights are taken by 30% of people.

I think we need to move to a system where the tax increases the more you fly. Something like (per year)

10% tax for the first 1000 miles
20% tax for the next 1000 miles
30% tax for the next 1000 miles
40% tax for the next 1000 miles (etc).

AIBU? Should we tax flights more?

@Notenoughbookshelves but getting rid of first class won't actually have that big of an effect on the environment. Just putting up the prices alone that it will be less affordable will have the biggest effect. We need to stop the 4/5 of the people that fly regularly in economy to stop flying so much. That would be the biggest effect. Getting rid of first class and even private jets would be more a well if I can't have it they can't as they are not tge big problem

No it wouldn’t. Your average individual doesn’t fly a lot in economy because it’s already too expensive. My dh is a higher earner and we took our teens on their first long haul flight in 16 years of parenthood. We’ve done 2 short haul in that time. Due to cost we’ve driven and done the ferry all other times.

If you got rid of first you could fit more seats in and would need to run less planes. It’s not about others having what the maj can’t. Private jets are ludicrously wasteful as regards the environment.

"Unprecedented changes" will indeed be required. Increasing tax on flights is only a tiny part of what is required - and look at the outrage that provokes.

Again, let's put pressure on our government to themselves put proper pressure on industry.
Remind me who won? Was there much in the way of green policies in their manifesto?
Change at state level, at industrial level is what's required, not guilt tripping the family of 4 that can finally go to Orlando for a week.

I’d put a sliding tax in place depending on the length of the trip: the shorter the trip, the higher the tax. This would mean businesses would need to think long and hard if the person could possibly do the work over Skype). It would also reduce weekend jollies. Most people who go on one annual holiday would be less affected. You could put in a provision to allow for important work or family illness etc.

Your average individual doesn’t fly a lot in economy because it’s already too expensive

That argument doesn't work for everyone. We fly in Europe about 3 or 4 times a year and the spend on flights averages £80 PP return each time. It is unlikely that we could leave the country any cheaper or travel by train to anywhere we might want to go within the UK for that price.

And while the annual impact per child that we do not have any of is about fifty times each flight, I refuse to feel guilty about the flights we take. If I never flew again and instead had one child, I would be increasing my carbon footprint many times over.

I've only ever flown economy

Save my money to spend at the destination

I know a few people that are frequent flyers
I've never heard anyone talk about how unethical it is

People who have holiday homes abroad
People who have family who live abroad
People who have long distance relationships
I know someone who works 2 jobs, then has time off to go traveling

So my conclusion, is that this is a minority way of thinking
Because everyone that I know loves their holidays & looks forward to them

Something needs to be done to drastically reduce flying but the tax idea in your original post isn't it. It wouldn't make any difference.

Good idea in principle, but there are many wealthy people/business users who wouldn't be put off. Higher taxes on all flights would be unfair though. I haven't flown in at least 8 years and don't have any plans to.

Change at state level, at industrial level is what's required, not guilt tripping the family of 4 that can finally go to Orlando for a week

For the last time, a system that increases rapidly with the more flights taken means that a single flight per year could actually be cheaper.

I don’t know what you mean by at state and industrial level? We have to do everything as soon as possible and this would be a state level intervention.

I know a few people that are frequent flyers
I've never heard anyone talk about how unethical it is

Now WHY COULD THAT BE?

Actually, you already pay emissions tax on intraday EU flights, and soon (2021) you will pay on international flights.
ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation_en

Me and my family are planned 57,300 each, that quite a lot I presume. Higher taxes wouldn’t stop me though.

Kazzy is quite right it’s not “the rich” “the government” or “big business” that needs to act. It’s all of us. Deeds not words and all that. But people hate this message. Who doesn’t love steak long haul travel and being transported in a nice warm car not cycling a bike in the cold? That’s the problem.

Even with heavy tax I would still be flying for holidays. Tax away. It's not going to really prevent many from flying.

@hiddenmnetter — are you really suggesting that someone who can afford £3K for a holiday can easily afford £6K for a holiday so it wouldn’t make any difference? That is just crazy! Just because people have money does NOT mean they can afford to continue traveling just as much if the prices go up. We generally budget more like £6-8K for a long haul family holiday, but that certainly doesn’t mean we can afford to pay £12-16K! If the prices go up we would travel less frequently, which is the whole point. I totally support a tax like this. Yes there are a tiny number of stratospherically wealthy people who don’t even notice what they pay for anything but that does not include people who spend £3K on a holiday.

And all of the people who are saying what about my family, what about my grandma, etc etc etc, I really feel for you, but it’s simply not possible to determine who is “deserving” on a case by case basis. We make choices in our lives, and perhaps fewer people will choose to move far away from their families if it’s more expensive to fly. Nobody owes you a cheap flight, even if you do have what feels to you like an important reason to travel. Is it more important to see your grandma now or for your grandkids to have a planet later?

Last year I holidayed in Spain and Japan, both requiring flights.

Previously I have flown more, I think my record in a year was around 50 flights (partner at the times career), some economy, mainly business and some private.

This year I have Sweden at the end of the month, Spain in July.

Additional taxes would have to be high, I’m a high earner so a moderate increase wouldn’t be enough to make flights too expensive.

I know it’s environmentally damaging, but I don’t do things others do. I have never eaten meat or fish, I have also never eaten/drank dairy products. I do eat eggs from a small local producer. Where possible I eat in season and eat british. I rarely drive, not driving at all at the moment as someone stole my lovely car. I don’t buy a lot of stuff, most of my sons clothes are second hand, I don’t use disposable wipes, drinks bottles etc.

If I ate beef 1-2 a week it would be the equivalent of taking a return flight to Malaga over a year. Or 604KG of carbon dioxide.

If I drank dairy milk daily in tea it would be the equivalent of driving 1,700 miles in an average petrol car.

Have a look at your own consumption below

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-46459714

The APD is already massively harming the UK aviation industry and doing pretty much that, taxing those who fly more more. More effective carbon offsetting and more investment in green fuel research is the answer, not trying to stop people from flying. Also not sure why single out the aviation industry - how about taxing the living daylights out of sport cars and petrol guzzling SUVs or tax drivers based on their annual mileage or disproportionately tax those who buy (plastic)bottled water instead of drinking tap, parents who opt for disposable nappies, etc etc..?! Quite a short-sighted suggestion in my opinion.

I know it’s environmentally damaging, but I don’t do things others do

I do see where you are coming from. An individual carbon allowance is a lovely idea. But how the hell do you police it? At least with flights it’s fairly easy to track where you’ve been.

Flying, eating meat, the soft targets to give those who aren't effected the warm fuzzies. Yawn. More investments in affordable and efficient public transport and the two elephants in the room - people reproducing and living too long. YABU

Yanbu with the caveat that business travel is taxed separately to leisure travel.
My ex used to travel by air almost weekly, stay 3 days at EU destination then return. His company paid for him to do this for 3 years and probably paid for many others to do the same. He shouldn't be taxed if he also went on holiday for leisure as the business mileage is not his fault (the company insists.

Why should I be made to feel guilty for visiting family occasionally when there are people out there with 6 children and 3 Chelsea tractors who take 4 long haul holidays a year?

Who is saying you should feel guilty? The point is that you quite simply cannot decide some travellers are more deserving than others. To suggest people are going to give up travelling is simply unrealistic for a whole number of reasons including yours.

This thread is all about justification. People make the changes that suit them and that's it. If we are honest we are all the same, really.

All of the threads about housing on MN are totally anti modern houses that require less energy to heat, for example. Only sad unfortunates (like me) live in new builds that take 10 minutes to get warm after the heating goes on. Small cars are increasingly rare - most middle class families have 2 large cars. Children get driven everywhere however close. Only losers don't go round the world a couple of times before they 'settle down' (thread the other day). People have enormous amounts of clothes and stuff, girls and boys have to have separate everything sending double the crap to landfill. But as long as we use bags for life and sort out the wine bottles for recycling we're doing our bit do it'll all be good 🤔🤷🏻‍♀️

No- because flying is a necessity for many, and I include myself in that. Live opposite side of the world and see my family every 18months. Instead of trying to stop people travelling- how about encouraging investment in improving air travel.

Crikey no.

DH works away most weeks and had to fly to get there.

Once there. He walks everywhere.

If he’s working locally ish he can be driving anything up to 1500 miles/week.

So flying = less carbon thanks DHs car, if he flies it’s only 60 miles in the car per week.

This thread is all about justification

Yup, everyone has a justification for why their flights are OK, so relying on good will/environmental guilt alone will not solve the problem. That's why it needs to be a government imposed tax (preferably progressive so that the frequent fliers are hit hardest) to make everyone less likely to fly.