Are Frequent Flyer Programs Destroying The Environment, And Should They Be Banned?

There’s a debate, mostly in Europe, over whether to ban frequent flyer programs for the environment because:

  1. Flying contributes to carbon emissions
  2. Frequent flyer programs encourage flying
  3. And it’s inequitable that some people get to fly and destroy the environment while others don’t

Some climate activists suggest that it’s time to scrap these schemes. “The very last thing we should be doing is reward frequent flyers,” says Herwig Schuster, a transport campaigner for Greenpeace. “Frequent flyer programmes are not fair to the climate and the majority of people worldwide who almost never fly. We cannot allow airlines to incentivise a lifestyle that’s destroying the planet while they receive major tax cuts and subsidies, and fill their pockets by selling more flight tickets.”

This encapsulates the de-industrializing view, that we should stop economic activity to preserve the environment. That’s a wrong-headed approach for several reasons.

  • It’s never going to work, since poorer countries will never go along (they deserve to develop and become as rich as wealthier countries, why should they have to stop?)
  • Wealthy countries won’t go along either, even higher gas prices are a huge political problem
  • We need better technologies, that can provide benefits without harm to the environment and that can even remove harmful emissions from the environment (companies like United Airlines and Stripe are investing in carbon sequestration)
  • This particular proposal scapegoats something that barely moves the needle
  • And fails to recognize the important benefits of travel.

Aviation accounts for 2.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. That’s split roughly evenly between commercial air travel and cargo. All commercial air travel, then, accounts for 1.25% of emissions, so frequent flyer programs must be adding just a few bips.

Frequent flyer programs are a rebate, that makes travel less costly and more affordable. That’s what activists want to eliminate. But it means that only the relatively wealthy should be able to afford to fly, exacerbating the very inequities that activists use in arguing for the ban. By the way Lufthansa’s CEO also wants to ban lower-cost travel with the environment as a fig leaf because it would put his low cost competitors out of business.

Eliminating a rebate is just a price increase. Airlines, earning a higher rate of return from flying, will either:

  • Offer more flights, because flying is more profitable. That’s the exact opposite of climate activists would want.
  • Find other ways to rebate to customers to compete for their business. At one point, when prices were fixed (at an intentionally high level) by the Civil Aeronautics Board, the CAB discussed potential regulation of the thickness of onboard sandwiches, because carriers were finding a non-price way to compete for passenger business. This suggests banning frequent flyer programs would be unlikely to have an effect on the demand for travel.

The drive to ban reward travel confuses the average and marginal effect of flying on the environment. Saver award travel has, by definition, the lowest environmental impact of any flying. Airlines make saver inventory available when they’re flying anyway and they believe a seat won’t sell.

Most miles aren’t even earned from flying, and serve as a way of democratizing access to travel, which drives greater cultural understanding and even potentially reduces conflict across societies (which is good for the environment). Eliminating access to award travel, eliminating rebates on travel, is an elitist take which preserves access to the skies for the select few. While environmental discussions are important this is one the worst, least effective approaches to take.

There are people who see the solution to pressing environmental challenges as eliminating the human activities that lead to those challenges. If we stopped flying, stopped using fossil fuels altogether, stopped transporting goods and services around the world we could contain our damage to the planet. That would mean the poorest places in the world are destined to stay that way, because it’s industrialization that increases emissions.

If we’ve going to save the planet it’s going to have to be through better technology and human ingenuity. Airlines are already becoming more fuel efficient, with newer planes and engines. They’re investing in new fuels and technology. The environment is something to take seriously, but shutting down the world economy, and becoming a less well-connected world, isn’t the path towards improving the world.

About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community InsideFlyer.com, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »

Comments

  1. “Herwig Schuster, a transport campaigner for Greenpeace.”

    Bah, humbug Herwig! Doesn’t specify, what your real job is, however, your compassion certainly is verbose.

    Airplanes, are the single most vehicle, that touches children, adults, animals, grandparents, and every country in the world.

    Tourism alone, because of those dastardly flying machines, provide transportation to and from, origin and destination “wonders”, that would otherwise never be enjoyed by hundreds of million people.

    Further, it allows the average family, to experience tremendous places, they would otherwise, only see one dimensional, in a book or on the boob tube.

    In many countries around the world, tourism is one of their most profitable industries, and bring ungodly amount of revenues, otherwise, never to profit from. And, typically, industries that attract tourists, come from investors, outside their country. A win/win/win. Many countries have an incentive to invest in policies that enable the development of travel and tourism. Notwithstanding, the tens of millions of regular people, without any formal education necessary, who work within the industry. And, typically, the large majority, enjoy what they do.

    The next time, Herwig sees one of those flying pollution makers, he should “think”, of the immense, positive impact, they all have, for every individual, who ever set foot on a flying machine.

    The world is is a stage! And without flying machines, we, as actors, would all be outta work!

  2. Let’s revert to the dark ages. No fuel or electricity!! Of course, someone would be insisting that we ban campfires.

  3. More Betteridge’s Law garbage.

    As a rule, if the headline ends in a question mark, the author is hiding behind the question.

    If the author were certain of their position, they would remove the question. By invoking the question, the author can dodge.

    Lame.

  4. While climate change is a horrific issue, obscured and delayed by the lies of the oil companies and their paid shills in government, this is just a stupid idea. (Or more accurately, it’s a “get the rich” mob incitement.) What these groups might do is go after the military forces, which use gigantic amounts of fossil fuels. But that’s probably on a non-starter.

  5. The reality:

    A conservative reads this, and says: bullshit. And wonders what’s for dinner in first.

    A liberal reads this, agrees, that our chances are abysmal, and our efforts prevents our extinction and the planets survival is not enough… And wonders what’s for dinner in first.

    That’s why we’re fucked.

  6. man-made climate change is not real.

    people who thick otherwise should commit suicide to safe the environment.

  7. When I see rich liberals stop buying oceanfront property, I might listen to them for more than one second next time.

    Until then, where’s my first class seat?

  8. Soooooooooo stupid. The world is not communist … everybody is not equal … some people can fly where they want, others can’t afford to fly at all. Banning FF programs would have zero affect on travellers. The airlines, however, would LOVE to see these incredible liabilities erased … so we all should be careful.

  9. That’s right. Frist, ya hoi-polloy.

    Beyond the front. Astral traveling .

    Really, an edit button, @Gary.

    Srsly.

  10. Europe should probably be worried about how they are going to heat their houses now and stay alive in the winter, rather than continuing to push some retarded non-starter like getting rid of airlines, frequent flyer programs, vehicles, etc…

  11. I’d welcome a well reasoned piece, but this article isn’t it. Without any basis or explanation you equated the GP activist’s statement about frequent flier programs with encapsulating the deindustrializing view. And it went downhill from there with eliminating a rebate being a price increase (it isn’t; if it wasn’t over priced in the first place there would be no economic or financial basis for a rebate) to then effectively arguing that if prices did increase that airlines would offer more flight because they were more profitable (completely ignoring the basics of supply and demand economics). I truly like a lot of what you write, but this was just bad.

  12. There is no such discussing in Europe, but you give extremists a platform by picking up and promoting ideas from the far left. What they never mention is the overpopulation of our planet which is causing way more issues. All these billions of extra people in Asia and Africa want to eat, so they destroy forests for fields and build thousands of new coal plants in India. Who needs an ever growing population? In fact, only the western world keeps the population growth in check yet we are supposedly responsible for all evil.
    It’s like having a cat in your house, one, two maybe three are nice but imagine you had a hundred cats – each of them is cute but it would be a living hell to have a hundred.

  13. Frequent flyer programs are increasingly discouraging frequent flying and encouraging frequent big spending.

    The miles themselves are on such a devaluation trend that frequent flying to earn miles makes increasingly less and less sense.

  14. These people are nuts. We should do away w buses,as they.emit smoke . If we go back to horses, its inequitable as I don’t have a barn or a garage. My horse wouldn’t be able to swim the ocean.
    We should all.fly private like.jphn Kerry. Al.gire Nancy Pelosi or duchess of Sussex.

  15. Making flying more expensive isn’t crazy, especially in a place with HSR. You can do that with a tax and not with weirdo regulations though.

  16. The sniveling elites who want to ban air travel are the ones who fly around constantly in private jets. Follow the money. Same for the ones who cry “manmade global warming will raise the seas” but live in waterfront mansions.

  17. Those living in waterfront mansions should be most concerned about pollution-driven global warming leading to rising sea levels and increased frequency of bad storms. The property values drop down big time with the residence becoming one with the water, and is there anything more American than wanting to protect (the value of) one’s own property as private property?

  18. As far as I am concerned, leave the FF alone. There is a way to impact the environment, and some countries in Europe are already doing it. Flights under two hours should not be allowed if there is a high speed train connection. Americans don’t often think of this while traveling in Europe. And besides, you can see the countryside, go from downtown to downtown, and not have to show up early at airports.

  19. @ Gary

    What utter drivel, Gary. Out to trigger your DRWA audience with your Kindergarten level thought bubbles

    You are wantonly misrepresenting the articles and people you are quoting.

    The program Herwig Schuster represents for Greenpeace is called Mobility for All. This is promoting sustainable transport options and greater access to such for the community.

    This has NOTHING to do with your attempt at equivalence with a “de-industrializing view, that we should stop economic activity to preserve the environment”.

    Let’s look at some of the issues promoted to illustrate how far you have strayed from the core thesis in your shallow attempt at debate.

    One example is challenging the need for airlines to operate ghost fights to maintain their landing slots in European airports, that are alleged to run in excess 100,000 over the 2022 Winter. Can anybody herein seriously say that is a bad goal?

    Another example is to promote the use of public transport over private vehicles, by offering attractive public transport fares. Again, can anybody herein seriously say that is a bad goal? This already successfully done in many cities.

    Another is to encourage use of trains in Europe (which generally has an excellent rail network. with very high speed services between major cities) in preference to aircraft for relatively short journeys. Again, can anybody herein seriously say that is a bad goal?

    “That’s a wrong-headed approach for several reasons.’

    The unethical and specious underbelly of your article is you have shifted the goalposts (as noted by others above).

    “It’s never going to work, since poorer countries will never go along”

    The comments were made in relation to Europe.

    “(they deserve to develop and become as rich as wealthier countries, why should they have to stop?)”

    The program (apart from being a European focus) is about promoting mobility for all – not dispossessing certain folk.

    “Wealthy countries won’t go along either”

    But, in Europe, they are adopting various approaches to further the goal of sustainable transport and mobility for all.

    “This particular proposal scapegoats something that barely moves the needle”

    Actually, you are dodging back and forth between two targets in your argument. If this is meant to refer to FF schemes then go back and re-read the original UK Climate Commission report and you’ll find commentary on levying high mileage users.

    “And fails to recognize the important benefits of travel….”

    You fall exactly into the same trap by then proceeding with…

    “Aviation accounts for 2.5% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. That’s split roughly evenly between commercial air travel and cargo. All commercial air travel, then, accounts for 1.25% of emissions,”

    If you want to make comparative arguments, also quote the equivalence data rather than relative to the total pool and your perceptions will shift.

    “Frequent flyer programs are a rebate, that makes travel less costly and more affordable. That’s what activists want to eliminate.”

    Aside from the fact that these so-called “activists” are promoting concepts that are on the mainstream debate in Europe, the Greenpeace program is focused on mobility for all. So you are wantonly misrepresenting their goal.

    “By the way Lufthansa’s CEO also wants to ban lower-cost travel with the environment as a fig leaf because it would put his low cost competitors out of business.”

    According to Greenpeace, LH alone ran 18,000 ghost flights over the winter period.

    “Eliminating a rebate is just a price increase. Airlines, earning a higher rate of return from flying, will either. Offer more flights, because flying is more profitable.”

    But such facile and simplistic arguments doesn’t necessarily apply. Certain airlines aim to consolidate fights to increase profit margins and offset increased fuel costs.

    “That’s the exact opposite of climate activists would want.”

    Eh? You are wantonly misrepresenting the quoted advocate. Now you are jumping to some perceived group of activists? Just who are you talking about, Gary? The goal is to find more sustainable approaches to transport that also deliver a greater access to mobility.

    “Find other ways to rebate to customers to compete for their business.”

    For the vast majority of members, the FF scheme is NOT a rebate.

    “This suggests banning frequent flyer programs would be unlikely to have an effect on the demand for travel.”

    Readers should be encouraged to read the BBC article linked in the first sentence of the @ Gary’s article above.

    It provides a succinct counter-argument to the presumptions made about FF schemes in attacking their role in promoting air travel an why banning FF schemes would be misinformed and misplaced.

    @ Gary’s drivel adds little to that original.

    “The environment is something to take seriously, but shutting down the world economy, and becoming a less well-connected world, isn’t the path towards improving the world.”

    And per the above that is NOT what is being proposed. But, hey, Gary your article is to your usual trash standards (derelict in fact, argument and wantonly misrepresentative of your sources).

    Now, if you took the time to do ANY research or actual original analysis, you might come up with some better substantiated counter points.

    For example, in one of their published articles, Greenpeace estimated CO2 emissions based upon 747s making short haul flights with 200 people onboard. Surely that’s an easy target to counter?

  20. Gary.

    Suggest you remove the complimentary self imposed title “expert”, from your site.

    Every day, readers are finding fault, with your dialogue and “un-expert” opinions written under your pen.

  21. @ huey Judy

    “…The airlines, however, would LOVE to see these incredible liabilities erased … so we all should be careful…”

    But Judy, well run FF schemes make obscene profits against stunning revenues. The liabilities are part of the pathway to get to those revenues / profits. Airlines can and do lower such liabilities by altering the buy back price of their miles / points when they are redeemed, with little, if any, accountability (apart from having to comply with certain accountancy rules), unlike other “financiaL’ products and services.

Comments are closed.