In December 2008 activists from Plane Stupid invaded Stansted airport runway in a protest against aviation’s contribution to climate change. The demonstration follows in a line of similar actions [Ref: Guardian], and coincided with important decisions on whether to develop further the UK’s civil aviation infrastructure. The government approved the building of a third runway (and sixth terminal) at Heathrow in January, following the opening of a fifth terminal there in summer 2008 and the go-ahead being given for expansion at Stansted in October 2008. All these developments have faced opposition both by local residents objecting to the disruption and by environmental campaigners focusing on the wider impact of carbon emissions.  Protestors have seized on ‘cheap flights’ as a particular problem, citing the ‘unnecessary’ nature of short-haul budget flights and their possible substitution with other, less carbon-intensive forms of transport. There has, however, been a backlash against critics of cheap flights, with renewed arguments for the economic and social benefits of cheap air travel. The economic necessity to the UK of expanding its aviation infrastructure has been argued for, particularly in the heated debate over the expansion of Heathrow and other airports. Others have detected snobbery in anti-flying arguments, as well as moral posturing and hypocrisy, with people bemoaning the effects of cheap travel while continuing to take full advantage of its many benefits.

What are ‘cheap’ flights?
Airline deregulation across the EU allowed for the importation of a new business model pioneered in the United States - that of the ‘no frills’ carrier. Cheaper fares offered by budget airlines like easyJet and Ryanair have led to the expansion of air travel across Europe, both in terms of new destinations opened up and the number of flights and passengers. While the better-off remain the biggest users of air travel [Ref: Times Online], there has been a real democratisation of flying, with travel abroad now affordable to many working-class families. It has also led to increasingly hyper-mobile migration and work abroad. Advocates point to the historic nature of this transformation and the freedom of movement and new experiences it has provided millions of people.

What is the debate over infrastructure?
The Government has based its arguments for a third runway at Heathrow on the economic benefits it would provide in terms of jobs and revenue, resulting from Heathrow’s position as a major hub and competitor to airports such as Schiphol (Amsterdam) and Charles De Gaulle (Paris). It is argued that London’s position as a global city is at stake. However there is a debate amongst those generally favourable to expansion about whether Heathrow would be the best place for a new runway, with some proposing a new airport in the Thames estuary [Ref: Evening Standard] and others questioning the future of the hub-and-spoke model. The Conservative party, amongst others, has argued that the UK should instead invest in high-speed rail links as an economically and environmentally more sound alternative [Ref: 2M Group]. While a third runway might run afoul of EU pollution regulation, investment in rail would be a step towards overcoming the underdevelopment of that sector relative to European neighbours. Critics meanwhile have remarked on the overwhelming lack of ambition in the UK’s transport policy as a whole [Ref: Times Online], arguing that environmental ‘sweeteners’ tacked-on to development only serve to slow down transport.

What is the environmental impact of air travel?
Local residents’ opposition to airport expansion has been joined up with concern over flying’s planetary impact. Environmentalists argue flying is the fastest growing cause of climate change [Ref: European Commission] and point to the government’s contradictory policy of developing air transport infrastructure while committing to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. In addition to the question of airport expansion, many argue for a punitive tax on each seat sold to discourage travel. Aviation, they claim, is under-taxed compared to other modes of transport, with no VAT imposed on jet fuel, and the Government recently backtracked on a proposed change [Ref: GreenAir Online]. Industry retorts that budget airlines are more efficient than other carriers, and that when all levies and tolls are factored in, the average plane ticket is already highly taxed. Furthermore, aviation only accounts for three percent of greenhouse gas emissions, with planes also becoming more environmentally-friendly, so penalising flying would involve much sacrifice for little impact.

Should we fly less?
Historically, increased mobility was a mark of social progress and travel was seen to ‘broaden the mind’. Now many people see flying as ‘unnecessary’ and even damaging: be it people flying to second homes or drunken stag and hen nights abroad. But who is to decide what is ‘unnecessary’? The moralisation of flying – some even comparing to it child abuse [Ref: Monbiot.com] – has led critics to argue that demands to restrict flight are based on prejudice against the freedom that cheap flights have afforded people, and that air travel should be celebrated [Ref: spiked]. But others argue that flying is now a moral issue that we can ill afford to ignore.