Flying around the Houses
Before the world of aviation was knocked for six by the Covid-19 pandemic, an environmental movement, born in Sweden, started to spread across northern Europe. In Swedish, it was known as ‘flygskam’, which translates as ‘flight shame’, and it was aimed at discouraging people from taking flights in order to lower carbon emissions.
‘Shame’ is a strong word and, in typical Scandinavian style, the movement doesn’t pull any punches. It has gained significant traction, partly due to the popularisation of the concept by high profile figures such as, Greta Thunberg. The opposite of ‘flygskam’ is ‘t?gskryt’ which literally means ‘train brag’. The movement is bound to come back with a vengeance once we all start flying again.
So, if we are all to feel ashamed of flying where does that leave ‘Sixth Freedom’ flying. For those who don’t know what this means, as defined under the ‘Freedoms of the Air’, so-called ‘Sixth Freedom’ flights are flights from country A to country B, by way of country C. In other words, a classic indirect connecting flight via an airline’s home hub. For example, a flight from Frankfurt to Shanghai via Dubai. Regular travellers among us will know that, while this may not be the most direct way of flying, it is very often the cheapest and can better enhance your frequent flyer status. It follows that, if it is not the most direct way of getting to a destination, then it certainly is not the most environmentally friendly. So where does this leave predominantly hub airports like Dubai and where does that leave bargain hunters like me?
It’s long been a mystery to travel consumers as to why I should pay less for a flight from Stockholm to Chicago via London than for a direct London to Chicago flight. Not only do I take two flights if I start in the Swedish capital, but the total distance flown is much greater. As a former airline salesperson, it makes total sense to me. In order to compete with a direct service and to fill otherwise empty seats on both sectors, it has to be cheaper. The customer needs to be compensated for the inconvenience and the greater time taken. This sort of pricing is also a very effective way of selling off excess business class seats without diluting your higher priced direct or ‘point to point’ business.
Those of you who look at this from the outside may ask the quite reasonable question: why not just operate smaller aircraft and smaller premium cabins? Well, this may be the logical outcome from the pandemic as many airlines ground their larger aircraft and the need for so much sixth freedom traffic is reduced. This will not be the case for operators such as Emirates Airline whose entire business model depends on this transfer traffic and whose fleet is largely made up of A380s and other large wide body aircraft.
The other reason I might take a connecting flight is the absence of a direct service. I cannot currently fly directly from Rio de Janeiro to Austin, Texas but I can change planes in Miami. While there may be no ‘shame’ in this, with the advent of long range smaller narrow body aircraft will mean that a direct service one day is much more likely. The airline who launches this service may not also have to rely on cheap transfer traffic from across Latin America to fill it.
Maybe the days of flying around the houses to reach your destination are over. Undoubtedly, Greta will be pleased.
VP, Global Accounts @ Collinson | Leading strategic direction
3 年Great article Richard; I think the definition of of cost needs to be further defined. Cost in monetary terms, but what about cost in terms of CO2 emissions. Should we be looking at CO2 budgets as opposed to just monetary ones?