The anti-flying movement is taking off across Europe by literally not taking off. The movement sees individuals shunning air travel in the name of the environment, and to an extent they have good reason to.
The anti-flying movement is pretty much as the name suggests. A movement against flying. But who are these people, and should we care about them? Simple Flying decides to dig into the issue and analyse both sides. We’ll look at some example of when flights should be avoided, and others where it makes sense to fly, and compare the two. However, let’s start simple.
Who are they?
The movement reportedly started in Sweden, known as Flygskam. This literally means flight shame, and is the feeling somebody gets when taking a commercial flight damaging the environment. It is deemed especially bad when one did not need to take the flight, for example if a train connection exists.
The movement is slowly growing in momentum as more people join. As such, the movement is now a Europe-wide phenomenon with thousands of individuals shunning flying. This is especially true as more people are considering the environment, and the future it holds in store for us and our children. Such routes where the movement is popular include Paris to Lyon where the train is almost always faster. Even I’m getting involved, by taking the Eurostar to Paris for the Paris Airshow.
The anti-flying movement has some very valid points. Each day there are hundreds of flights operating unnecessarily. This could be that they are not filled, or they don’t even need to run. Let’s start with some numbers.
The Ryanair Group cites that its passenger load factor for January was 91%. Now, taking the Frankfurt to Manchester route, on 28th May, Ryanair will operate one flight on the route, whereas Lufthansa will operate five. Interestingly, the Lufthansa Group’s load factor for the same month quoted stands at just 76.4%.
Now, there is no need for so many flights. Cutting one would potentially accommodate the passengers wanting to travel the route. Additionally, Etihad is busy operating pointless flights to London Heathrow just to make sure it doesn’t lose its slots. A ludicrous practice by anyone’s estimation.
However, it’s not all doom and gloom
It’s not all doom and gloom, however. The airline industry is not going to crumble overnight because of the anti flying movement. Instead, airlines need to adapt their offering in order to ensure they are considering the environment too.
However, this doesn’t go far enough. Currently airlines are penalised for not using slots at Heathrow and numerous other busy airport. This has and is seeing carriers operating empty ‘ghost’ flights to the airport. I think a more prudent approach for the airlines would be fining them for for not correctly utilising their slots.
What do you make of the anti-flying movement? Let us know in the comments.