It is preposterous to think banning frequent flier points will fix the environment when we have superhighways around the world and people flying private. Banning FF programs sounds like people would like to keep travel like an elite hobby for the super-rich and don't like how crowded the sites have become as travel has become normalized.
Better keep the "Ghost" flights under wraps. These are the practice of flying empty planes to ensure the airlines maintain their 'slots" at major airports.
1
“I believe that all the award travel and these mileage or status runs would collectively be 1 to 2 percent of the total, or with award travel could be a bit more,” he said, adding that much of it would fill otherwise empty seats. “I don’t think the airlines have to schedule extra flights because of that.”
Since retiring, I no longer fly frequently, but
1. Almost all the flights I have been on recently have no empty seats. Often they have asked for volunteers to take another flight because they are overbooked. People who are trying to use rewards miles for flights are out of luck because ticket-buying passengers come first.
2. No, airlines don’t “schedule extra flights because of that”. In fact, some consistently overbook when they SHOULD schedule additional flights (or larger aircraft) instead. But customer service for airline coach passengers is dead. The lowest pre-tax pre-fees pre-baggage fare rules the Internet, and people don’t care if cattle prods are used during boarding.
I agree that airline rewards programs should be structured more like credit card rewards programs which make a wide variety of perks available.
At the very least air travel needs to price in externalities such as the massive inefficiencies of flying much better!
As an engineer flying for 50 years I still do not understood how it only costs $100-200 to fly anywhere within the US...
How is 6,000 miles of grossly inefficient (energy-wise) air travel so cheap? How is this energy inefficiency subsidized so heavily?
3
Frequent flier miles are high visibility and therefore fun to get outraged about but are insignificant overall. We must instead make air travel itself carbon neutral by using artificial fuels manufactured from non-fossil carbon using non-fossil energy sources. This will solve the problem for all fliers, frequent or not.
1
Having regularly flown for business for the past 20 years, I've seen the rapid decline in the coach class flying experience. Tighter and tighter pitch, charging for things that used to be basics (a checked bag), consistently overbooked flights, thinner and more uncomfortable seats, poorer in-flight food choices (the hot meal cross country wasn't necessarily super tasty but at least I didn't feel like I had dinner from a vending machine), etc.
While each of these things is a relatively small inconvenience, added up they made the flying experience a little better than what it is today. Now that the no-status, economy flight experience is so uncomfortable and stripped down, many of us who must fly regularly for business (in coach class, to be clear), chase after status for some modicum of comfort.
They've taken too many "chocolate chips out of the cookie" so to speak. Put some chips back in--especially some more padding in the seats and inches between rows--and I know I wouldn't care nearly as much about having status.
3
One solution would be to ration carbon use. Everyone would get the same amount but would be able to buy and sell individual vouchers. Open market as usual. Less polution for all.
3
@Z Or we just institute a carbon tax.
@Z
At some point we’re going to have to face facts. The only way we’re going to make any progress is to at some point ration humans as well.
I see lots of postings as to why each of us should travel, most of which seems justifiable in the short term and at the individual level. Our society needs to put a price on carbon, otherwise people will act as if climate change does not exist and people in rich countries will generate more than they should because they can afford to. People and businesses will adjust their behavior accordingly when carbon intensive consumption costs more.
People need to do a little less of everything. We are such a society of excess.
Less driving, less flying, less tech and gadgets, less take-out and fast food, less plastic, less meat, less diary, less energy. Be less lazy. If you cut back on a little of everything, you will even save some money. You will be more efficient.
4
The jury seems to be out on the environmental impact of airline flights. All I ask is, if you travel to someplace with wet meat markets and beliefs that various animal parts have medicinal value, virus testing should occur as a condition of boarding a return flight.
Banning frequent flyer miles is the airline industry equivalent of outlawing plastic straws. It looks good on paper but since most reward travel has blackout dates and utilizes planes that would otherwise be less than full it’s not forcing more planes in the air. Upgrades, similarly, are not changing the composition of plane cabins. Upgrades move people into unsold seats.
2
Ironically, closing down the NYT Travel section would probably do more to help the environment than getting rid of FFM's.
How many trips has the Time's Travel section inspired by highlighting parts of the wold that have been elusive to most travelers.
7
We’re not rich. My spouse and I worked our behinds off to get an education and eventually into the top tax bracket, but in an expensive city that still means a mortgage a car payment, and saving money wherever you can. We bike and walk to work, recycle, eat local, share an electric car, and we didn’t add a kid to the overpopulated planet.
Although we rarely take enough time off to vacation someplace that requires flying to, we’re diligent frequent flyer miles collectors. Why? Because we each have elderly parents across the country. Flying out for increasingly frequent emergencies gets really expensive really fast. If your point of view is that air travel outside of business trips is only for fun, you haven’t lived long enough to have aging loved ones. And if you’re enjoying the luxury of living within a driving distance of the people you love, maybe you didn’t happen to be born in an area of the country where you couldn’t pursue your highly specialized career.
I spend quite bit of time in an airline seat these days. I have yet to sit next to someone who’s frivolously flying out for a shrimp cocktail on the other coast just so they can keep their elite status. Let’s not propose to legislate frequent flyer savings away because there are outliers who do.
4
Guilt schmilt ! Who isn't enjoying reading that it took fear of dying from some weirdo new disease to put the kabosh on untold numbers of plane trips, all cancelled. Why, I ran out today and took a deep deep breath of less dirty air, just to celebrate !
5
My father delighted in telling me a story from his childhood
which I remember vividly to this day.
Apparently back then the Italian Communist Party had its own stump speeches, just like our politicians today. In his day, the Bernie of the day would ask, "If you had two houses [mullians or bullians"], what would you do? To which the loyal Bernies would shout, "I would keep one for myself, and give one for the Party!" "And if you had two cars, what would you?" And they would immediately proclaim, "I would keep one for myself, and give one for the Party!" And next the Bernie would ask, "And if you had two bicycles, what would you do?", to which (after a stunned silence) the audience would scream, "You keep your bloody hands off our award miles!" Apparently some socialist/communist truths never get old...
2
Great thinking! How big do you want the police state to be?
2
@EddieRMurrow Big enough to prevent human extinction?
3
Toxic tourism promulgated by the airlines, credit cards, Instagram and the New York Times travel section. Boycott them all.
7
This article suggests that a lot of flying might be bad for the planet and the link below it suggests 52 far flung places we should go in 2020. I'm so confused.
18
Journalists, PLEASE stop repeating the categorically false statement that flying is "the worst possible single action you can take for climate change." That is wrong by several orders of magnitude. You can fly to Europe and back every week of the year and it still won't equal the annual carbon footprint of creating a human baby -- which carbon cost continues year after year, likely exponential as those babies have babies, etc. By far the best possible action you can take for climate change is to have one fewer child than you otherwise would have. That will massively outweigh any amount of flying you might or might not do. Journalists who write about climate change without pointing this out and who mislead people into focusing on other issues like flying or meat are being drastically counterproductive and and irresponsible.
10
Overpopulation, greed and ignorance are killing the planet. Frequent flier miles are ancillary.
7
This is the kind of frivolous and mean-spirited idea that turns people off of environmentalism.
9
So radical measures are needed to address the 2.5% of global emissions that air travel contributes??
Stop The madness....this is Climate Change people lose the argument with the middle and right....FOCUS on the problem and fixing it rationally....
Attack carbon dioxide emanating from global shipping and power generation....and then cattle farming
2
While airlines sit on the verge of bankruptcy because of the CoronaVirus the timing of this article seems absurd.
1
Well, not right now.
This may all quickly become a moot point till we have a COVID-19 vaccine.
See Kugel's website sethkugel.com .
"I’m Seth, and that’s me above in Indonesia’s Baliem Valley..."
Obviously he got there by swimming.
This is really out of control, and shame on the NYT for promoting it.
Obviously, a flight from Hannover to Hamburg would be accomplished more efficiently by rail than by air.
But in the United States, to get from anywhere to anywhere, air travel is needed.
I am headed out to Melbourne next week from SFO via LAX to visit a dying friend. You don't like it? B l o # me.
BTW I have not driven a car since 1995; I am a strict vegan; ALL of my clothes are bought vintage. I challenge ANY self-absorbed "climate change activist" to compare carbon footprints at his/her/per convenience. Obviously, these people are not out looking for jobs.
4
“Are Frequent Flier Miles Killing the Planet?” No; the planet will be fine. Come back in a million or two years and it will still be orbiting the sun. Heck, there might even be some life on the surface.
3
OH yes. much better to fly empty planes than to let people fly using their FF miles... And on the FF mile flight I had my own seat with no one next to me... Terrible food... and too much plastic being thrown away...
Actually the problem is too many people and over reproduction can be best curbed by birth control and encouraging one child families... but why discuss anything real.. It's so much more fun to discuss the peripheral.
Once up a time people took boats to cross the ocean... Not a cruise ship but and Ocean Liner.. fro 5 to 7 days... and there those who hitched rides on freighters.. very cheap.
All those fruits and veggie from S. America are undoubtedly flown. in-- so stop writing half true articles. Please... or learn to think more broadly.. don't eat blueberries and blackberries in Jan. even if they taste a whole lot better than the local ones you get in July... Tomatoes from Holland?? Flowers from Central America…
Come on...
Truth time. really and I for one never would touch Dasani or Fiji water... or Perrier.. in glass bottles which tastes better. No microplastic. And thank you I will use my FF miles plus 90$ to go to Europe in Feb. (Most handy with the funeral in WI would would have otherwise necessitated an expensive last minute flight reservation.)
1
I must say, it's weird that comments are disappearing. The airlines are going to need a tax payer bail out and all the greedy people are getting a little testy. Because they know it will be just more evidence that our government doesn't really believe in a market, they believe in propping up old stale industries that have enough money to buy their loyalty.
Flying produces less CO2 that data centres run by Google and Facebook, etc. Funny how I don't see anyone asking people to give up Facebook to save the planet.....
Flying produces roughly 2.5% of global CO2 emissions. If all flying stopped tomorrow it would make NO difference to climate change. It is just not a major factor.
I love travelling and will continue to do it, thank you very much.
3
So in the top comments so far, in order of popularity, we have people who worked hard for their miles by buying a lot of other stuff (154 recommend); people who think planes travel whether there's people in them or not (151 recommend); two commenters who think frequent flier miles primarily benefit limited income people (121+95 recommend); one person who thinks emissions from planes/travel are insignificant (84 recommend); etc. The top comments, one after another, consist of blatant falsehoods, dishonest selfish rationalizations, which people "recommend" presumably because they're prepared to believe ANYTHING rather than giving up the smallest of their priviledges.
Are Air Miles the problem? No, they're just a system by which the most priviledged people (NYT readers, frequent fliers) get cheaper flights at the expense of poorer ones (infrequent fliers who never get to spend their miles). The solution is of course to tax fuel consumption to compensate for the negative externalities. In the absence of such a tax whenever you fly, you're exchanging your personal pleasure for the destruction of the environment for everybody else in the planet, and you're not giving them a cent for the prejudice caused. Such a tax would be reflected in ticket prices and therefore in air miles.
But how NYT readers react to this simple proposition reveals just how abject they are, and how little hope there is that the most priviledged people will ever stop destroying the rest of the world.
4
Banning mileage runs would be the aviation industry equivalent of outlawing plastic straws.
3
I have never made a mileage run, which I think is a silly idea and a waste of time and money. That said, this attempted guilt trip over mileage runs only makes sense if the hypothetical person Mr. Kugel is trying to shame is a passenger on a plane that otherwise would not be flying. Otherwise, that plane is going to fly whether you are on it or not.
Is there a secret contest going on to pretend to be outraged by something even more trivial than straws?
3
Only disconnected people from reality can write an article like this.
As if everyone can afford to have a frequent flyer membership.
And the one’s that can afford it are paying so much money.
3
I would suggest a progressive tax for miles flown a year. Make flying progressively expensive. Eliminate the tax break for business travel. Really, a lot of these “business” trips are unnecessary unless you to literally need to be there to kiss a clients but.
Oh, good lord. Have we descended to such a point that FF mikes are an issue? Ugh. Meanwhile, plastics are being rejected at landfills, cows continue to pass gas, and my SUV only gets 20 mpg on a good week. Priorities people. Priorities.
1
Airlines are a false target. Kerosene is irreplaceable as fuel for intercontinental flights because no alternative comes anywhere close to the required energy density, environmental impact, cost and other characteristics. The right place to reduce petrol use is on the ground: make cars that can run both on gasoline and compressed natural gas (CNG is already prevalent as automotive fuel in many developing countries), put more hydrogen-powered cars on the road (e.g., Toyota Mirai) and fuel them with H2 made by water electrolysis with the mid-day excess of solar electricity, etc. Invest in fusion and closed-cycle nuclear energy R&D. Above all else, stop wasting billions on fake "green" corporate welfare!!!
Ground the Fortune 500 Air Force (and their private ilk). I can assure you that not a single commercial flight will take to the air to satisfy a frequent flier. Flew for 35 years on business and frequent fliers (when you can use the benefits) are not the problem. Focus on the big fish before slaughtering the goldies.
All of this is meaningless virtue signalling. The only way to truly reduce carbon emissions, global warming, and loss of habitat and species, is to curb massive overpopulation and breeding. Stopping runaway breeding, alone, is orders of magnitude more important than all the other "green" efforts combined. Frequent flyer programs? Massive waste of time, and I say again, worthless virtue signalling.
2
You certainly struck a nerve here. I'm going to fly today; something I rarely do. As a person of moderate means, I don't relish being squeezed in progressively smaller seats and can't afford to travel the world.
Somehow, I'm still content.
My flights are purely for pleasure so it takes me a very long time to collect my points. I then only use my points to fly long haul in business class as I can’t afford to travel on business class any other way. I still have to pay taxes and fees on top of the points I use.
I love travelling and will avail myself of all manner of transportation in the pursuit of learning about new places. My infrequent use of my points is no where close to the carbon footprint that your President has used for his frequent golf games!
Why don’t you start with the rich and their private planes and leave us poor schleps and our points alone?!?
13
Data on the percentage of fliers are doing mileage flights at any one time would be very helpful. Some arithmetic could convert this to a percentage of total miles flown in, say, a year on mileage flights, and this would make or break the argument Mr. Kugel is trying to make. I fly Delta when I do fly, and it is not easy to get a mileage flight because the number of seats is restricted, especially when they are busy. The airlines probably also have data on the (likely small) number of people who fly just to accumulate miles.
The mileage run will survive simply because status at an airline gives one many benefits. For instance United Gold status gets you entry into lounges on all Star Alliance carriers. You get Group 1 boarding privileges. And you get complimentary upgrades - at least on flights that aren’t hub-to-hub. I’m near a million miles so I won’t need the mileage run. But I have done it twice. Once from Chicago to St Louis & back (to secure gold status) And once from LA to Heathrow and back (to secure Platinum status). On the first flight, 1st Class was full of people doing what I was doing. On the 2nd flight, I was probably the only one.
What this overlooks is that many people now were born in one country and are citizens of another. Such people, including me, have to travel frequently to their birth country to (a) look after elderly parents (meet friends and family) (c) feel at home speaking their own language and eating their own food.
Airlines could compromise (but they won’t) by eliminating expiration dates on those miles. I generally take one trip a year that requires flying, often with different airlines (depending on the destination). So it’s pretty much impossible for me to ever accumulate much of anything before miles expire, and thus I have no incentive whatsoever to fly with the same airline. (I used to be able to with the now defunct TWA, when I lived in France and flew back once a year - free RT after about 5 of them, a good deal).
The mileage which now works well for me are with Amtrak (tho less rewarding than before), between credit card expenses and actual travel. No driving, easy luggage handling, more comfortable than being stuck in either plane or bus seat. Win-win all around.
I've flown a lot since the early 70s and have never seen the value in the plans offered by the different carriers. My personal needs have always trumped anything intended by the carriers to cause me to choose their brand for a particular flight. It's my belief that the whole "loyalty program" marketing shtick is so 90s.
Eliminating travel rewards would only penalize middle class consumers and do nothing to curb travel for the wealthy. My husband and I depend on travel rewards (earned mainly through our credit card spending) to finance family trips. While not having this to fall back on would curtail our travel, it would make virtually no difference to wealthier travelers capable of absorbing the difference in cost.
I fly one flight per year with the miles I earn from my credit card. No other flights. None at all. As a teacher, I wouldn’t be able to travel otherwise.
I sincerely hope that nobody -- the author of this piece among them -- is under the impression that the airlines are giving anything away here.
Of course they aren't. Frequent flier miles are all part of the cost of the ticket, pre-calculated into the overhead, just the the alleged "discount" the loyalty card at the local grocer gets me.
People who get them in largest numbers are the sort of folk who fly a lot anyway, and would continue to do so. I suspect the number of frivolous miles flown as a result is minimal.
1
"Climate activists say it is time to rethink loyalty programs that reward consumers for taking flights."
No.
It's just time to rethink climate activists.
Industry is responding with actual technical progress, not sitting on its hands and dreaming about unicorns. US CO2 output has been dropping for years.
Technology can solve air pollution problems.
In fact, the CO2 scrubbing technology required to remediate the atmosphere exists today. It has existed for decades. And it works really well.
It just costs money, to build a network of scrubbers.
But that not what the activists are actually about.
They want to orchestrate the lives of other people, and redirect the economy to their own twisted worldview, a lot more than they want to solve the problem.
1
The closest this article comes to being sensible is its proposal of a flight tax. The most important policy necessary to fight climate change is a carbon tax which would penalize flights, burgers, and everything else that contributes to climate change in one fell swoop. Instead of seeing countless articles about how we should worry about one thing or another that accounts for a tiny fraction of emissions, I would much rather focus on comprehensive policies like a carbon tax that can bring us meaningfully closer to halting climate change.
The impact of frequent flier miles is perhaps 1-2% of airlines' emission, and airline emissions account for 8% of total, meaning this issue might account for a whopping 0.1% of emissions. After a thousand articles like this we might finally stop climate change!
Frequent defiler miles
Tax fossil fuels to the point that artificial fuels made from non-fossil carbon using non-fossil energy are competitive.
I am a frequent flier - not at the top of the list but around 150K per year. I have never purchased a flight with points that I would not have paid for. Its cost savings for me, or but not an incentive to take a flight that I would not otherwise take. The real problem i the 150K miles a year, not the points.
The solution is painfully simple - a tax on carbon, or greenhouse gasses generally. Let market signals decide.
A small improvement would be this. It's not uncommon for a traveler to near the end of the year (say) $500 short on spending for the next status level. The airline will ask a $1000 payment to buy up, incentivizing passengers to take a needless $500 trip. The airlines could price the buyup more rationally.
But the actual percentage of travel on status runs is quite small. I'm speaking as someone who has done it.
Roughly estimating, the CO2 released from a gallon of jet fuel will melt three or four cubic feet of ice in this century, more in the longer term.
Think about that as we watch the Antarctic ice sheet break apart.
Thanks for this article. As someone whose father's job requires frequent flights to Asia, Europe, and North America, but who also identifies as a climate activist, this article hits close to my own tug-of-war. Telecommuting is a great way to address both needs, but people always bond more easily in person. I feel guilty every time I board the plane, but I love being able to see my family and visit parts of the world I learned about in school more easily thanks to the benefits from my father's frequent flyer miles. I try to balance it by eating mostly vegetarian, biking or using public transportation, sorting my trash, and not buying new clothing or shoes until my current ones fall apart or stop fitting. However, I know this is not enough. I don't believe the sustainability actions of airline companies are much more than lip service compared to the carbon dioxide released by flying. I feel stretched between my milage impact and my want to make a positive impact on the climate. Americans have a greater per capita carbon footprint than any other country, including China. Our footprint is about 5 times greater than the world average. I am contributing to this.
Where do I draw the line? What would you do here?
Also, in response to many comments:
Could we stop taking offense and/or pointing fingers and just do our best to reduce our own footprint?
I wonder if it would help if the miles accrued by an employee were retained by the employer. It isn't obvious that a frequent flier benefit should or must be given to employees for their private use when the travel is paid for by an employer.
If my employer pays for virtually all of my travel but the benefits of my frequent travel go to me, I can justify spending my money on a last of the year trip to maintain the privileges of a "gold" status traveler. If the frequent travel benefits of my work travel accrue to the employer who paid for the flights, I have no incentive to spend my money on a flight that has no other purpose than to make sure I have continued access to a business class lounge.
Airlines can create a corporate version of the frequent flier program. Employers will are incentivized to be "loyal" to a particular airline while presumably operating under the usual business incentive to minimize wasteful spending. And airlines can chose to negotiate discounted fairs without frequent flier programs with employers as an alternative way to engender loyalty.
No doubt some people who will say they fly a lot -- that they deserve the miles. I guess my answer would be that they accepted a job and a salary knowing there would be a lot of travel. Ask for a higher salary (and pay the taxes owed. No doubt, very few people report the value of the frequent flier benefit that they receive for business travel for travel paid for by an employer).
1
We forget that most travelers for business purposes will tell you that their quality of life is inversely correlated to their mileage. That is the vast majority of frequent travelers, so if you want to focus on a minority to make a point you can but just know that it is flawed. So NO frequent flyers are not killing the planet, travels are weighing heavily on frequent travelers who would need more work-life balance. Lets look for bigger ways to save the planet, shall we?
Anyone else notice the irony of the ad attached to this article: 52 Places to Visit in 2020? Most people visiting those 52 places will fly.
Flying is cheaper and faster than most of the alternatives and until that changes most people will fly. I will say that since my husband and I stopped flying we’ve gotten to know this vast country better.
1
So let's find ways to de-incentivize other wasteful activities, since they hasten climate change.
Let's start with cancelling all climate change conferences that require attendees to travel by any means of transportation that are not carbon neutral.
Next, let's modify the meals and other food and drink served at such conferences, so they do not contain any product whose production is not climate-friendly.
Now that we're making some progress in reducing our carbon footprint, let's go a step further and stop using computers or any other modern means of communication, since their use certainly contributes to global warming. Let's bring back the trusty manual typewriter as it does not require the use of electricity and its use is certainly carbon neutral.
That's all I can come up with right now since I'm not accustomed to thinking along these lines, so hopefully some climate change experts can build on these ideas and suggest other ways that they can set an example for others to follow, living their lives in ways that will not result in climate change. Hand carved canoes instead of cruise ships, no cell phones, who needs them when you can walk from house to house to deliver messages, no elevators too. This is such a brilliant way to exercise one's mind, thinking of ways to be carbon neutral and prevent climate change! If enough concerned individuals can get involved in such activities, the rest of us can live productive lives without having to worry about climate change!
"Required" business travel is often a misnomer. Most meetings can occur nearly as well via video conference these days. Sure, its nice to meet in person and has some relational advantages, but it is not "required." If there was an 80% cut in business travel budgets, companies would adjust, it would generally be an even playing field and the economy would not collapse. The environment would be better off and frankly people would spend more time doing other things.
1
Frequent flyer miles are a joke. They are always expiring on me. In about 30 years of flying, I’ve gotten one free flight. This is said as somebody who takes about 25 flights a year, but I’m not devoted to any one airline. In the past month I have circumnavigated the globe, and only got 6000 miles applied to my accounts. Many of the international carriers I’ve flown aren’t in any alliance. Long story short: for me frequent-flier miles don’t serve as an incentive to make me fly more.
If this is true - aviation accounts for only 2 to 4 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions - then this whole effort seems pretty silly and a waste of time. Don't think there really is a substitute for Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Pacific, Coast-to-Coast travel, or any trip exceeding 500 miles.
Would be more constructive to see how coal plants could be replaced, and electric passenger cars encouraged. If there are strong feelings about this cause, then we should be looking at 4th Generation Nuclear plants, to generate the electricity needed for base load requirements of grids, as well as to consume recycled fuel, and possibly even provide process heat for industrial applications.
An acquaintance, retired with time aplenty, routinely flies trips with multiple stops in regional cities for no other reason but to achieve and maintain higher status with a frequent flier program. Aside from it being an unappealing use of one’s time, it strikes me as a egregious squandering of resources which contributes to climate damage solely for individual travel benefits.
Yes, I've never understood the business of needless flights. I have to be a FF because my families are in the UK, but also in S-E Asia and Australia. I lived, and live, as frugally as possible so now retired, I can share precious time with them. Never got on a plane that wasn't going anyway and use Bus & Train where possible. Drive an oldish hybrid and always kept my cars for years. I do feel a bit guilty, however - and my daughter won't let me off the hook... Miles? It is nice to not have to queue, and to use lounges & fast-track in economy (coach) And all bought out of taxed income - no freebies for me, alas.
It's far past time for the doomsday cult of Climate Change Inc to focus on bigger issues than people's airplane trips. They speak from a place of extreme first-world privilege, not realizing or taking into account the voices of small island developing states for whom air travel is a lifeline, providing critical goods and connections they'd otherwise be marooned without. That's not even taking into account places where tourism is the lifeblood of the economy, where whole populations would be destitute without air travel.
I agree that airlines should not reward people with mileage, but they want to keep all the flights filled. If they could get a tax break for NOT filling all flights to capacity, that might work - and having company meetings on Zoom.
Before the virus outbreak I decided not to go on a vacation trip w/my partner, a friend said “The plane,s going to fly there anyway
..”- if we all think like that, nothing will change.
Calm down everyone! No one’s talking about stopping ALL flying or ALL travel (NB not all travel involves a plane). Only reducing it, de-incentivising it and possibly insuring the price of it reflects it’s actual environmental cost. Airlines are also looking at increasing fuel efficiency and using biofuels and electrification, but it’s not easy and it will take time for the technology to kick in. Decarbonising will require many different sorts of changes across many sectors. With coronavirus, maybe this is a good juncture for people to reflect whether each trip is really necessary and whether with computer technology they may be able to achieve their goals in other ways. This should be music to ears of all those complaining about what a grind business travel can be. Also, reducing travel may increase gender equality. For instance, last year I was contemplating applying to give a paper about global risks (ha, ha!!) at a conference run by Cambridge with possible publication in their journal. While I would have loved to have gone to England, as a mother it was simply too difficult and costly for me to take kids out of school, put them on a 24 hour flight each way and drag them across the world. With the coronavirus pandemic in hindsight I’m really glad I didn’t apply. But, if it all happened online or through podcasts or something, much more doable (even if less opportunity to mingle and sight see). Will have to find another home for my paradigm-shifting risk paper:)
Thank you for this article. The amount of meaningless travel by my coworkers and friends is INSANE. And I’m pretty sure a lot of it is done with frequent flyer miles.
I’ve lived abroad and speak three languages, but I’ve always stayed a significant amount of time in a place. I would never fly to London for a weekend or to Fiji to sit on a beach for a week. It’s a status symbol that is damaging our planet.
I also find that I meet a lot of interesting people at local travel spots. I live in the pacific NW and I never run out if interesting new places to see. However, I wish I could access more places on Amtrak.
Roughly estimated, the CO2 released from a gallon of jet fuel will melt three or four cubic feet of ice in this century, and more in the longer term.
Think about that as we watch the Antarctic ice sheet break apart.
Much a do about nothing. So someone is using their miles or buys a ticket on an already existing flight. The airlines don't send an extra airplane to make room for above traveler. They just go on an already scheduled flight. It would fly with or without the frequent flier.
These programs have all already changed from a miles based calculation to a pure monetary calculation where status is achieved based on dollars spent. It was disappointing to see the frequent flyer programs go.
I haven’t flown since 2004 (Gatwick to Dorval). I can’t afford to fly. In 2019 I took my first trip outside Britain and Ireland in 15 years. Manchester to Munich and Salzburg by train.
How is someone going to go to a distant destination for business or pleasure without flying?
My son likes to travel, has been to Japan and Europe.
Try to regulate the oil and gas industry to reduce emissions at wells. Travelers don't have a powerful lobby.
I invite anyone who is interested to do the math, compare published data about per-mile emissions of various jets and typical cars. Then divide them by the number of passengers each holds, generally around 80% of airplane seats and under 1.5 persons per car. You'll find that planes emit no more GHGs per mile per passenger than do cars. The difference comes from distance. Most people no longer drive across country, and of course can't drive across the ocean. But Americans drive their cars annually nearly 10,000 miles, which is more than a few flight's worth. Focusing on planes like they're an extraordinarily evil source of GHG is incorrect and speaks to the over-the-top moralizing that hurts efforts to mitigate climate change.
Maybe articles like these, new carbon taxes (in Europe at least), and corona virus fears will reduce flights, encourage people to travel by train, stay at home, or do business virtually, and flights will remain reduced for good.
There's been so much talk about the virus hurting the economy, but not about how it might be helping the environment.
It's like nature's white blood cells, trying to ward off this Human-19 virus.
1
Oh please - the number of people who do thins are probably inconsequential in the big picture. Airlines have made these programs less and less beneficial. Meanwhile, your publication promotes "52 Places to Go" every year - most of which require traveling by air, and often to over touristed areas. And for the sanctimonious who do not own a car - not everyone lives in a large urban center. Some of us live in rural areas or small cities where mass transit is non-existent. We should all do what we can to be environmentally conscious, but people are going to travel. Being as efficient as possible is probably the best we can expect. I think damage from the cruise industry, for example, is much more damaging to the environment than a few people who take an extra flight to keep their airline status.
On my credit card, Capital One, the points can be used for other non flight rewards. But It seems to me that if you use the points for a flight, that is a flight you would have paid cash for anyway. I doubt that frequent flyers fly anymore than what they have vacation time for. What the activist want to do is incrementally restrict any and all leisure flights. The result would be a more xenophobic and narrow minded world than what we already live in.
Consider that a B-767 uses (with IFR reserves) 60,000 pounds of fuel to get from DFW to London. That’s approximately 10,000 gallons being dumped in the stratosphere on each flight.
Couple of thoughts.
I can't believe people would fly just to, or because, they've earned points. Frankly it's just not that much fun.
Surely the most efficient flight, carbon emission wise is a full flight. An empty Jumbo is around 300 Tons, a full Jumbo 520 Tons.
the notion of "...a meeting too important to not be in the room..." in the business world along with per diems, expense accounts and comp time incentivises air travel more than frequent flyer miles.
So far, it appears none of the top commenters has absorbed the information that we need to cut it out. Nothing should be exempt from consideration
There's only one problem, and that is the survival of civilization itself. Our broad habits of consumption will not lead to survival.
The coronavirus is doing a much better job at providing a reality check to the way we live. It's just too extravagant.
We cannot continuously expand on a finite planet, and there is nowhere else that is so hospitable.
Everyone, noone is exempt, needs to consider what is necessary and what is not. It's not the frequent flier miles, it's transportation entire.
Time to wake up.
1
When people talk about corruption in DC, this is what they're talking about - cynical, self-serving people:
"Jared Bierbach, an environmental protection specialist for the U.S. Department of Energy in Washington, D.C., said he was concerned about the impact of travel... he made a status run to Barcelona for the weekend last December rather than give up platinum status on American Airlines for 2020."
Jets can be run carbon neutral. Using clean energy you can pull Co2 out of the air with carbon scrubbers and make jet fuel with it by combining it with hydrogen sourced from water. This technology already exists but is not up to commercial scale because it's presently to cheap to just pull the oil out of the ground.
There is no need to shame people from traveling, we just need to start adopting better technology that will enable us to live comfortably without destroying the planet.
The number one thing that will spur the development of carbon neutral technologies is a carbon tax. Everything we do that isn't a carbon tax is just kidding ourselves.
When the "climate activists" and others such as those who attended the Paris Accord meetings modify their behavior I am would be willing to give some thought to changing mine.
2
I take about a dozen round-trip flights a year, most for business, and one or two for vacation. Now when people hear the term "business trip," they think executives or salespeople who work for big corporations, but most of my flights are to meet up with a band for whom I mix live sound. My plane ticket and the cost of renting a tour vehicle are the highest non-salary expenses incurred for our trips. To penalize me with a higher travel cost, and hence the group because they pay for the tickets, just because I might "fly a lot" is unfair.
My other flying is for day-job business and for those, I'm all about minimizing my time away from my family. If they want me in central California for a week of testing, I'm not going to drive.
And while I do collect miles for those trips, using them is difficult. I've tried to get upgrades to first class and I get put on a waiting list of 40 people, which means that doesn't happen. Using the miles for award travel is a problem because I choose flights based on convenience and schedule and reward flights often don't work for me.
While I know that these "status" people exist, pretty much everyone who flies does so because they must, either for work, or because they don't want to spend half of their vacation time traveling by car or by bus. I can drive to Los Angeles for a vacation. I can't drive to New Jersey.
8
I used to travel a lot on business. The main effect of loyalty programs is to encourage people like me to fly on the same airline over and over, not to take more trips. I would have liked to make less trips, but that was not an option.
It was not unusual I was away from home three or even four days a week.
I was in advertising and my Clients would schedule 9 AM meetings that involved me waking up in the middle of the night to catch an early flight. Then during the meeting, the Client would say, you don't have a plane to catch do you? We did, but always said no, and caught the last plane home and I'd get home after midnight.
I earned two first class tickets to Hawaii, bought a coach ticket, upgraded it to first class and the three of us made that long trip in comfort. I learned all the other people in first class were either frequent flyers like me, or relatives of crew members.
If there were no frequent flyer program, one year I would have bought coach tickets for my family to reach Hawaii. I'm sure there are a lot of other ways to help the environment, and can't believe that compared to suburbanites choosing to drive to work every day that frequent flyer programs are a major problem.
8
‘KLM’s Fly Responsibly campaign asks potential customers, “Could you take the train instead?”’ – For most of the United States the answer is no. An Amtrak train trip from Denver to Seattle takes three days and with a first-class ticket cost $1500 one way. For the same trip, a first-class ticket on commercial carrier cost 5 or 6 hundred round trip and takes, in a direct flight, three hours one way.
Worried about corona virus when traveling? Chances of getting it from a fellow passenger are much greater in a three-day trip than they would be in a three hour one. Concerned about fuel consumption? A modern jet airliner is on a per mile basis about as efficient as a Honda Civic on the same trip with two passengers. You are kidding yourself if you think taking a passenger train saves energy.
Most frequent fliers are frequent fliers because employment requires it. Employers generally hate telecommuting because it is more important that they control their employees than it is to make money, strangely enough. If employees are not in the office or employers don’t know exactly where their employees are every minute, then such employees are not being controlled.
This article concerns frequent flier miles but ignores the proliferation of private jets. Warren Buffet’s private plane is called “the Indefensible” and Mr. Buffet is right.
6
I have no problems with imposing on anyone who flies, drives, takes the train, bikes, walks, breathes the true cost of doing so. What I object to is this religious fervor to punish some people who, in this example, fly because some pundit believes his trip is frivolous or not needed or excessive. But of course, the pundit's periodic trip to some wonderful place for a conference extolling his virtue is necessary.
71
@Bostonreader
The point is to highlight polluting behavior one at a time. We'll need to reduce all types of pollution, not only airtravel. The question here is whether it makes sense to reward polluting activities by facilitating more of it. Does it?
@Bostonreader I would agree with one exception - travel to areas of the world that are designated as extremely fragile and endangered. I also believe that there should be some parts of the world that are off limits for travel that does not meet some specific standard such as medical or environmental assistance (such as putting out fires).
1
@Bostonreader, there is no climate cost from walking / breathing. The carbon we exhale is carbon that comes from plants wer've recently eaten, or animals who have eaten those plants, which have pulled carbon from the air to construct the sugars which give you energy. An endless cycle.
Jet airplane fuel is made from fossil carbon, which has been sequestered underground for millions of years - long before Homo Sapiens adapted to the environment in which we live today. Many (myself included) consider any trip threatening to return global temperatures to a time when reptiles ruled the Earth frivolous, and unnecessary.
I converted my frequent flyer point to Amtrak!
16
@JR Me too!
They have amazing frequent flier credit card too.
Go trains!
I have flown 2 million miles. I have not flown a mile for points. I have flown just 1-3 airlines, and paid more, because of the benefits.
7
@Michael B. , the climate change hero.
Penalizing or taxing one polluting activity over another is a path to nowhere. I travel a lot. But I live in a small apartment and have no car. Why would you tax my travel when overall my carbon footprint is far less than the average American? Demonizing one particular form of polluting may make you feel better but it doesn't solve the problem.
75
@Anish
I agree that we should not demonize one particular form of pollution, and air travel will be among the hardest areas to improve on.
It is unlikely that your carbon footprint is far less than the average American. If you travel a lot there is a zero percent chance that your emissions are less than average.
Let's say you fly once a month 2,000 miles each way. At 50mpg/passenger that works out to almost 10 tons of CO2 annually. That right there is an average Americans CO2 pollution for the year and you still need to eat, clothe and house yourself. And even average Americans are huge polluters by global standards.
@Anish Very good point, Anish. I also live in a small apartment and travel quite a bit -- I do have a car though. Quite often I have a bucket in my shower and with that water (some soap in it, so what?) I do the first cycle of my laundry. Not to mention the way I cook things to save water in the process. I would be very interested in learning and adopting the measures climate activities take to protect the planet's limited resources, other than singling out frequent flyers.
@Anish
I think the point is to raise awareness, one polluting issue at a time, to recalibrate our lifestyles. Any one article can't (effectively) argue against all of the ways we spew pollution.
1
Yes! Frequent Flier points are definitely a Nono for the planet. One would think the perk for fliers, since free, would not be rewarding for airlines anyway.
8
Frequent Flyer miles are a huge profit center for airlines. All those miles given by credit cards are purchased from the airline so they are not “giving away free seats”. Plus loyal frequent flyers spend more with their preferred carrier
1
@Julia, yes, the airfare purchased with FF points is not directly bringing in revenue to the airline, but it is buyng loyalty to that airline. When a choice comes as to which airline to choose when you do have to pay for the ticket, you are going to choose the one where you get points. A lot of people get their points through a credit card that has a deal with a certain airline. The airline is making money every time you use that credit card since it is splitting the profits with the bank that sponsors the card. Whether you are charging groceries, restaurants, movie tickets, or doctor bills, the airline is making money. That you eventually get a free ticket does not hurt the airline. Plus, there are only a limited number of seats on each plane available for points. So on any given flight, very few passengers on that flight are flying with points. And if you pay the entire credit card bill off every month, you’re not even paying interest on what you charge to get the points.
1
Avoiding potentially catastrophic global climate change is a moral imperative, demanding significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from all important transport sectors, including aviation.
Aviation's share of total global emissions, at 2-4%, is already substantial. And it's growing, since total air traffic is growing at 5-6% annually while airplane efficiency improvements are stuck at around 1% annually.
The reality is that most passenger air travel represents unnecessary luxury consumption, which we should work to reduce.
For a detailed argument see the article "Reducing Consumption to Avert Catastrophic Global Climate Change: The Case of Aviation."
https://docs.google.com/a/philipcafaro.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=cGhpbGlwY2FmYXJvLmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6MzY3ZjFkZjI3NDJhZmY5Mw
26
@Philip Cafaro
The cause of global climate change is the increase in the no of people on the planet. BUT no one mentions control of reproduction.. No, it's nonsense like no enough Japanese, Americans, Italians etc. being born.. The birth rate in the third world is horrific... and yet CONGRESS and the idiot president try to prevent Planned Parenthood to function overseas or even at home.
Really want to do something for the planet., don't make a mini-me. Love children? adopt or teach school.
Yes, there is loads of selfishness and irresponsibility. around.
You know what?!? Just put in some efficient, comfortable, ground transportations routes: train, anyone?? Busses with well thought out itineraries, anyone?? I am retired and have ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD. Wake up, America!
30
Ah, Anthropogenic Global Heating.
Nothing meaningful will be done about it until it is too late, judging by the top comments.
Fly away.
15
These climate activists want to end frequent flyer programs for the same reason that eighteenth century New England Puritans wanted to end public drinking or sex outside of marriage: they resent anyone else have too much fun, especially of the sort in which they do not participate.
38
@Quiet Waiting I love to travel and I love to have fun. I also love my children and want them to live in a habitable world. So, I’ve taken fewer planes and explored more locally. When I do fly, I do it for a journey of several weeks or months. No loss here. It is fantastic.
@Quiet Waiting You seem to think human nature consists purely of self gratification. Newsflash: altruism is real.
I am one of the many people who care deeply about preserving the habitability of our blue planet. We would like to save the many thousands of species--many of them iconic and charismatic--that are presently free falling toward extinction due to anthropogenic climate instability, poisons and pollution. We would like to ensure that all of creation does not suffer mass extinctions at the hands of us humans. This has nothing to do with envy or puritanical peevishness.
While working in S. Texas in the early 1990s I witnessed what may turn out to be one of the last great monarch butterfly migrations. It was as thrilling and transformational as any world travel could be. That such natural wonders may never happen again is beyond heartbreaking, and I pity the people who do just don't get it.
@Quiet Waiting You are right. I know Greta is a minor but I wonder if she doesn't secretly have a frequent flyer membership somewhere?
1
Is it time to travelling with zeppelin balloon / air gondola ?
If there are some alternatives to give gases in it.
2
@John
Trump gives off gas and hot air on a regular basis. It's a start.
1
This is a ridiculous and wasteful segment of our economy and it is bad for the environment. I cannot deal with people who portray themselves as so concerned about global warming and yet feed their sense of self importance by being platinum members of whatever airline. Flying to eat specifically at an airport restaurant?? GAL, as in, "get a life." It takes no special talent, and does not mean that you are a special person, to take a lot of flights on a plane. It may make you feel important, but that has nothing to do with reality.
32
@Clarice
Well said. Could not agree more!
Yes - ban the big seats: first and business class takes a lot more room than economy.
And make the cost of flying progressive: the more you fly, the more you pay per mile and/or flight. As opposed to the other way around.
Probably not so popular with the not-quite-wealthy-enough-to-own-their-own-jets.
34
Believe it or not, business class sears subsidize the rest of the plane. If the airlines felt that they could get away with it, they’d ditch economy first. Not to defend anybody or anything, but that’s the way the finance of commercial air travel works.
1
@Scientist So airlines should get rid of the part of their operations that actually make them money and push as hard as possible to get their customers to stop buying their services. Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
1
Why stop there? Why are we just banning big seats? Let’s pass some laws to require even economy class to be standing room only. This would discourage people from taking long flights.
Don’t just stop at planes. If we cram more people into buses and trains, we can cut the carbon footprint of those forms of transport too. It’s incredibly inefficient and wasteful in Western countries. Why don’t we take a leaf out of Japan or China’s book? They can fit a ton of people on trains. You just employ someone with a stick who pushes passengers in to cram a few more on a carriage.
Finally - why are people allowed to live in houses? houses, even with eco-friendly setups, unquestionably contribute more to global warming. People in Hong Kong live perfectly functional lives in 150 square foot apartments. We can do the same.
Why are we living anything other than ascetic lives when doing so has some form of carbon footprint??!?
*********
Articles like this - with its click bait headline and sensationalist focus on a tiny segment of fliers who are so small in number that they can’t possibly increase the number of global flights - actually take away from the broader goal of reducing the carbon footprint from flying, which is commendable. Frequent flier programs are much more likely to redistribute existing travel than encourage new travel. Let’s focus on ways to improve the impact of flying instead of getting sidetracked by nonsense.
"Dr. Carmichael would like airlines to prohibit customers from using their rewards points on flying and instead restrict them to low-carbon goods and services like e-bikes and gym memberships." This is an unfortunate strain of environmentalism: the environmentalist as school marm, telling people "you're doing this wrong, and if you want to know how to do it right, just ask me." It's ineffective and off-putting.
The best solution is the one I work for: put a rising price on carbon emissions and rebate the proceeds to families. The price signal will help mitigate unneeded travel. The rebate helps offset the increased prices. Win-win, and trust people to make their own decisions.
15
@Mike Kelly you just did what you recommended not doing.
No. This really has helped people who cannot to afford to fly. Those with points were allowed to share their points with family and friends so they could afford to fly. How about dedicating a significant amount of time and money into creating fuel efficient planes and not attack this program.
18
We use our credit card points to reduce the bill. “Payback With Points” gives us more value than the “free airline tickets” we don’t actually need. Those ‘free’ tickets are paid for but all of us in higher prices, and annual fees. Those “not really free” tickets stimulate people to buy vacations they don’t actually need. “I mean, why not, it’s free!” Genius marketing from airlines.
I do think points stimulate a lot of unnecessary travel, but the most egregious thing is that they are often a ploy for the card to give you less value, than paying back with points.
No matter what you think of planes doing way more damage than your car, don’t be a sucker. Check the value, do the math!
5
This is a non-issue. Even if a small percentage of fliers add an necessary trip to meet some mileage threshold, it's extremely doubtful, almost unthinkable, that airlines are increasing capacity to accommodate those trips.
When people meet mileage thresholds they should be encouraged to donate some number of miles to carbon offset programs. Airlines could offer incentives, like doubling the number of trees planted. Delta used to make it extremely easy to purchase carbon offsets with every trip. I think it used to be a default account setting.
I've been enrolled in a loyalty program for 15 years with one particular airline. I travel mostly for work but not exclusively. It has occurred to me more than once that I might take a trip to maintain frequent flyer status but it's never come to that. I have twice upgraded my cabin on a flight to earn more miles. The only effect the loyalty program has on my travel is on my choice of carrier.
16
@Stephen Trask Keep it up! Fly as little as humanly possible.
I have one frequent flier charge card, but it does nothing to motivate me to 'travel more'. In fact, I rarely fly, and I only fly for long distances. I never fly if there are reasonable options available for travel by train.
Why are we focusing just on 'frequent flier miles'? What about the dirt cheap airlines in Europe (of all places!) and which American tourists take full advantage of (instead of availing themselves of the wonderful train options throughout Europe)? I'd imagine that Europeans as well, are opting more for cheap flights versus their own train systems. This too should be considered.
And...what about all the private vehicles all over the world? Don't these contribute more to global warming, and to local air pollution, than flights? Many car owners decidedly do not need to own a private vehicle, but simply do so for convenience, status, laziness, habit, etc. That too needs to change.
16
Too little too late. This article should have been published years ago. It’s no longer particularly applicable.
Over the years, airlines have made sure that miles are basically meaningless. They’re no longer worth what they used to and are now way too difficult to redeem because of multiple rules and exceptions.
19
@Tony S I’m in the middle of a round trip from LA to the Caribbean, and this summer will do LA to Paris round trip, all on American Airlines miles. Yeah there are fees and redemptions aren’t wide open, but the miles are certainly ‘meaningful’ to me. I love ‘em.
Those reward miles are not free. So should I expect coach with free peanuts and a complimentary beverage. It still costs a couple of thousand dollars to fly business with miles and its a huge hassle. So the so called activists can sail away on the Kon Tiki. The planes will fly with or without my using miles. Who allowed this article to even happen? Some angry editor who didn’t get an upgrade. This is ridiculous.
27
A friend who travels frequently for work told me that the years he had higher airline status, the worse his quality of life was, and vice versa. I think about that every time the platinum 1k people board first.
5
Why are upgraded passengers interested in getting on flights before normal people? Do they want to spend MORE time on planes than necessary? Do they get a charge out of watching normal people walk past them while they relish their cheap chardonnay? Really. Is that what they are looking to accomplish? Looks stupidly snobbish to me AND, to boot, counterintuitive. Most folks that travel a lot prefer to spend LESS time on planes, not more. Thinking just a smidgen more seriously, I’d enthusiastically subscribe to an air carrier that offers no travel rewards. Everyone knows the rewards aren’t free. They are being paid for by normal people, not by the upper crust folks who rush to get onto the plane first so they can guzzle their cheap Chardonnay.
11
Far be it from me to nudge you off your soapbox...
But no, normal folk aren’t subsidising frequent fliers who then benefit with free miles. The most profitable segments for airlines are corporate travellers and frequent fliers (usually those with some form of status). Airlines then sell economy and cheaper seats to help fill with utilisation - so they’re not flying empty planes.
But they offer frequent flier programs so that they can win share versus competitors. The entire premise of this article - that frequent flyer programs materially increase air travel by incentivising travel - is ludicrous if you stop and think about it. Other than a tiny segment of society who undertake status runs - and put your hand up if you personally know anyone, because I don’t personally know a single person who took a flight for no purpose than to earn miles or status - people generally plan travel and then find a way to fund it, whether with $ or points/miles.
@Mark Larsen As someone who travels quite a bit for work, I have earned status on a carrier- and choose to pre board. Flying out of SFO on typically full flights- the value is getting my luggage on the plane- as I suspect it is to most people who pre board. It’s not the cheap wine or looking down on other people. Take a look next time you’re boarding: I bet most people have carryons they would rather spend 20 min more on a plane at departure gate than sometime 35+ minutes at baggage claim upon arrival.
Frequent flyer miles aren't killing the planet.
Flying is killing the planet.
32
@John Not using modern nukes is what’s killing the planet.
@John
Our entire lifestyle and unrestrained breeding are both killing the planet. It takes both.
sad very sad. its not y'all ruining the planet. its the people you blame. I understand now. thanks for that
5
Better to ban coach.
12
May the rich stop blaming the working class for the problems they cause?
Who travels to exotic locations? Who profits the most off environmental degradation? Yet who is left to suffer when climate disasters hit...
Frequent flier milers are not the problem. It's the people who shame them with their reusable bottles and vacations in Bora Bora who are.
15
"Are frequent flier miles killing the planet?" The answer is yes and sadly nobody really cares. If you follow the issue of environmental degradation one gets a sense that there is no sense of urgency, no sense of an impending catastrophe waiting humanity, that's all of us not far away. Covid-19 is only one of many plagues that await us in the future.
14
@Jean W. Griffith
Burning of rain forest in order to grow food for the ever increasing masses of people...the real cause of global warming... everything else is peripheral damage.. the damage is caused by human reproduction.
North Americans probably have the largest carbon foot print per capita. Excessively large houses, sprawling subdivisions.... excessively large vehicles. Do you really need a 4000sqft house for your family of 3 or 4? Or a pickup truck if you’re job doesn’t require it?
Mileage runs are a niche thing... they’re for the hardcore travel junkies.
13
I gave up my frequent flyer program because it took too many miles to get a free trip. I now purchase my ticket online and look for the best price available and I save the high yearly fee. I will not give up traveling as it is my passion. Will Hollywood types and those with private jets give up their traveling lifestyles. Do not hold your breath.
12
KMW, it’s not “ the Hollywood” types buying biz jets, it’s corporations that get a huge tax break. I worked for Gulfstream Aerospace and asked someone in the know what the yearly average a private jet as flown. Answer 200 hours. That is why the business jet builders went nuts when Obama suggested cutting the biz jet tax break, no one would be able to justify buying one. The private jet buyers aren’t paying for them, the average taxpayer is.
Nor should you. Travelling, especially internationally, opens your mind, makes you more empathetic with your fellow man, breaks down prejudice. It helps you appreciate the rich history, culture and natural beauty of our world
We have a society in which money buys political power and the people with the most money want fossil energy to continue and oppose and competition or replacement technology. We will cling to dirty old technology because they own our government. Republicans and democrats alike.
We'll be too late when it gets bad enough such that it seems obvious that we should make a political change, so in fact, it is already too late.
3
This is among the stupidest things I have ever heard. The added burden on climate of airline loyalty programs is minuscule compared to the overall burden of aviation.
Flying from place to place is a fact of life in the 21st century. Depending on how you look at things, one mile driven has roughly as much carbon burden as one mile flown.
We need real solutions to overall problems regarding climate change, not stupid unitary "solutions" that make a few people feel good but ultimately have no impact.
If you really want to solve problems of climate change, pollution, food shortages, oil shortages (and wars over oil), deforestation, etc. talk about population control.
22
@RS Ok then. We're getting somewhere. Free condoms everywhere and we drive and fly as little as possible. Let's do it!!
One of the greatest emitters of CO2 is the United States military. In fact, the US military emits more carbon than many nations. It's time we stop focussing on a few flights that individuals make when the problem is much, much greater than that. If we're going to shame every little thing, let's start with eating animals and animal products.
Animals graze on approximately half the land mass of the globe. Animal grazing decimates forests, such as the Amazon, as it's cut down day after day to make room for cattle. Further, the single greatest thing people in the West can do is *not have kids.* Creating exponentially more humans that will consume more and add to the outsized carbon footprint we already have. This is the elephant in the room. But still, it's much easier to demonize the few flights people take.
Sure, take away frequent flier miles. That still does absolutely *nothing* to the massive output of CO2 from the military. I am a huge proponent of doing everything we and our society and especially our governments can to draw down our carbon load.
This isn't the solution. This is ridiculous. This is called greenwashing. People, please, learn of what you speak!!
25
Some people travel for work, some for humanitarian purposes. My father (who’s account I am commenting with) works in Liberia conducting essential medical research. Frequent flier miles are a literal lifesaver. -NW
21
@Dr D This sounds like one the exceptions to the rule. The rule being: don't eat meat, free condoms everwhere, drive and fly as little as possible. Onward ho!
The only real solutions to climate change will rise from advancing technologies. Electric cars, wind, solar and new types of aircraft propulsion are humanity’s only real chance at getting ahead of the carbon problem. Climate activists only harm their cause when they try to force freedom reducing changes upon individuals. It’s called public backlash, it’s real and you don’t have any proven way to mitigate it. Focus on what works and has a built in level public support instead, funding the infrastructure that will eventually make the world truly carbon neutral. Feel good carbon neutral demagoguery won’t accomplish anything.
14
@AndyW Hyperloop for airline replacement. Google it. There are many technologies that work. They need to be invested in, and they may not make much money. They could eventually but the wealthy don't want to give up 20% return rates and even at less, if the industry is big, like oil, everyone wants it to continue because they are invested in it. Retirement funds and other investors will not divest of profitable oil for something that may or may not be profitable. They would rather get more money than save the planet. Most are old and don't care.
3
Same is true for supermarket gas discounts of up to $1 per gallon here in Denver. Buy food, get cheap gas.
4
People fly because they have to for work, or they fly because they want to explore this world and have a bucket list of things that they want to do.
The most important step that someone can take is not to stop flying but rather to have fewer children. The government should not be subsidizing population through deductions and tax credits for families with extra children. Give a one-child tax credit and no more, or better yet, take it away from families that have more than one child. Get the planet in balance with what it can support and do not subsidize the increased carbon footprint associated with growing populations. This is as destructive as subsidizing oil production.
The second most important thing that can be done is to subsidize the technologies that are the only way to solve this problem, GMO plants that give off a higher level of oxygen and less carbon dioxide, batteries that power our system and can cary energy from one place to another with out energy loss, a brave new world which many feel confident will ultimately be the only solution to the carbon dioxide component of planet warming.
And while we are at it, how about a multi billion dollar prize annually to the scientist who comes up with the most important technologies to make a dent in climate warming.
28
@Critical Thinker
"People fly because they have to for work, or they fly because they want to explore this world and have a bucket list of things that they want to do. "
And some people fly (vs take a train) out of habit. Or because they think trains are 'gross'...unsophisticated... for 'common people'. There is no reason to take a one hour flight for what could be a four hour ride by train. There's no reason to take a $50 flight from Paris to Madrid 'just because you can'.
As far as exploring the world, there's so much to see right here in the US, and trains that'll get you there. You might even just have a real conversation or two while on the train. Imagine that! ;-)
8
@Lisa First of all, I meant that the frequent flyer programs were not a culprit. Now more than ever, they are unrewarding, and people go for the cheapest flight, not the one with miles that they can use. They are worth only 2-3 percent of the cost of the flight. So their motivations are not tied tied to the miles.
I don't know about cool. I don't show off when I travel. I'm 70 and want to enjoy my retirement and go where I please. I don't take 1/2 hour flights. I drive from New York to North Carolina, but I have a strong suspicion that we travel in different circles. My friends are not looking to be cool. Perhaps you could describe this decision making phenomenon among the those of the generation that does fly in order to be cool.
1
Maybe post covid-19 people will never go back to unnecessary travel.
8
"Are Frequent Flier Miles Killing the Planet?"
No. Nothing is "killing" the planet. But the existence of 7.7 billion human beings, more than triple the number who were living 75 years ago, is making life impossible or unbearable for many non-human animals.
Ideally, a moratorium on the birth of any human babies between 2020 and 2050 would be implemented. But of course, that will never happen. Too many humans are "dominionists" or more accurately malignant narcissists who would be horrified by the thought of not being able to reproduce (or see their children reproduce). The religious authorities, forever dependent on future adherents to brainwash, would never accept such a policy.
The planet is not doomed. But humans can't and won't stop multiplying, the consequences be damned for themselves and the world's elephants, dolphins, giraffes, tigers, lions, bears, etc.
32
@AR My thoughts exactly.
5
AR & Olivia, I’m with both of you.
@AR we still need famine, disease and pestilence to keep us humble and keep our numbers down. Let's make Planned Parenthood clinics as numerous as McDonald's and Starbucks franchises all over the world. Coronovirus may give us more time.
Yes, air travel are helping to destroy an inhabitable planet. We need to cut way back on our air travel.
We also need to re-think our credit cards and where we bank. Chase, in particular, is funding the climate crisis.
I had a Chase card but just switched to a credit card from my credit union. I don't think I'm saving the world, I just couldn't live with the guilt any longer.
14
For many years, I have advocated taxing as income the monetary equivalent of miles for business fliers who do not have to turn the miles into the company, as many government agencies require. My brother raised the roof arguing that he had earned those miles. Yes, if it is earned it should be included in earned income. I lost the argument, clearly. I shall happily raise this new point about the "carbon footprint".
Always, it is nice to be on a plane and learn that a business person is taking the family on a trip using the miles earned. Skype, email, teleconferencing, and other long-distance means of communication reduce the need for business flying. Now it looks as though COVID-19 reinforces the idea of staying in the office.
11
So are you also recommending that health insurance from employers should be taxed ? After all it is worth money .
5
Health insurance, along with parking, cafeteria discounts and all other benefits amassed as compensation should be taxed as income.
1
@Barbara
I would like to see health insurance separated from work. Executive "Cadilac" policies were subject to limits with the excess taxable. The ACA and/or Medicare should be extended to all.
Re: ...he believes it is the role of the government and industry, not of consumers, to push toward carbon neutrality.
That convenient rationalization does no good since it obviates
personal responsibility for one's own carbon charge. What is clearly needed, and which may even exist by now, are individual apps that tabulate one's carbon charge on a daily basis. The more people are aware of the carbon charge implicit in their behavior the more their behavior might also
change.
The feedback that the Prius gives about one's fuel consumption is an example of this.
Another essential feature would be the ability of consumers to pay their own carbon charge by means of a renewable fuels app that would be a standard feature in any online transaction.
Until governments stop playing
ostrich and decide that carbon charges need to be adopted to
get markets to respond to the costs of carbon emissions,
it is up to individuals themselves to nudge governments in
this direction by exhibiting a form of model behavior that needs to be generalized en masse and very soon.
2
These articles are infuriating. The only way to stop climate change is through enhanced technology and innovation. It is not by going back to the Middle Ages.
16
@James huh?
4
@James You are spot on. A bit confused that others missed your point.
But just in case others did... the point James is making is that aviation is part of our society. Much more effective to invest in technologies to make it more sustainable and eco-friendly than try and find counter intuitive ways to stymie and constrain travel.
I would add... viable and affordable alternative forms of transport are great ideas as well (invest in a better train system, one that doesn’t derail at rates several times higher than European or Japanese rail systems).
@James
The only solution to our climate change problems already exists. It’s called birth control.
There are far, far bigger targets. This one seems designed to turn the middle class against fighting climate change (false flag?). My personal response:
1) Focus on food waste which is HUGE in US at 280 lbs per person per year -- and generates methane equivalent to the greenhouse gas emitted by 37 million cars.
2) That plane is flying anyway.
3) If I couldn't use miles for first class international travel, I would pay for first class or business travel on the same flight.
4) Maybe Musk can bring us a large electric "jet."
More focus on clean energy replacing fossil fuels and recycling. Air travel is about 10% of US transportation emissions.
15
@Beth : no, that plane does NOT "have to fly anyways".
Remember after 9/11?
All planes were grounded for about 10 days or so.
Nobody missed out on anything.
It was pure bliss.
Do that again, only make it permanent.
@Concerned Citizen
Are you saying to ground planes when you are currently generating 280 pounds of FOOD WASTE each year, which generates methane equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions of 37 million cars? That far exceeds airline emissions.
I did not experience pure bliss when the planes were grounded after 9/11.
@Concerned Citizen ... air travel in the US resumed two days later, on 9/13.
If climate activists don’t want to fly they can gladly walk. I personally love to travel, and in particular to fly, and will continue doing so.
12
Thank you for total lack of concern, Mike.
I'm sure your parents are proud.
20
@Socrates
Why is it important to have everything any time?
@Socrates
You're welcome, oh humble one. And they are, extraordinarily so.
1
Traveling on earth is always safer and cleaner than in the air. We need many more trains, and train routes, as well as smaller passenger ships going from port to port, picking up and dropping off people en route. Cruise ships are not a practical means of transportation. Also needed are many more long-distance busses.
The good news is that all of these methods can be quiet and clean~ powered by Solar Electricity!! Creating those options would decrease the use of airplanes over time. We will need some wealthy visionaries for these undertakings.
Slowing humanity down, changing our speed-oriented lifestyles, is absolutely necessary to end our addiction to fossil fuels, and to preserve the green plant mantle that covers our earth, and upon which we all depend.
These are practical solutions for our survival here. However I understand, that those who are caught up in the middle of earth's oil-fueled fast lane, will often dismiss them as outlandish.
9
Traveling on earth is much more dangerous than traveling by air . Just look up traffic fatalities in any country . You’re much safer in a plane than in a car or bus
9
@Lolostar I ran calculations on this recently for two domestic trips for two people traveling together. I was surprised to find that flying produced less carbon than driving if you have a vehicle that gets less than 25 miles per gallon and you include the footprint of staying in a hotel room for a night or two along the way in each direction. Buses and trains are great for the relatively short distances traveled in Europe, but not so great in the U.S. where you can spend 2-4 days getting somewhere that way compared to a few hours by air. So no, traveling on earth is not always cleaner, and certainly not safer. I support your general intentions here but by overstating your case you undermine it.
Which is worth driving every day or flying once a month for environment? We cannot go abroad without flying but we commute offices with public transport. I can live without car but cannot go without airplane. It is important for us to consider the environmental problems from the overall perspective.
7
Ban frequent flier loyalty programs? Really?
-How about knocking some sense into Jair Bolsonaro's head in burning large swaths of the Amazon for logging and ranching
-How about knocking some sense into Scott Morrison's head, a climate change denier with a pro fossil fuel agenda
-How about knocking some sense into DJT head - period!
-How about cutting down on meat consumption
-How about not having as many children and breeding less
-How about driving less and using more mass transit
-How about consuming less
-How about MORE green technology
-How about eating less, 2/3 of Americans are overweight, obese, or morbidly obese!
-How about living in smaller homes instead of McMansions
-How about a paradigm shift in thinking that less materialism means better quality of life.
-How about living mindfully.
What a ridiculous article. It only makes climate deniers strengthen their resolve in their indulgent lifestyle.
35
@David Still, you don't need to fly so much. Have you heard of video conference. List the things you say are more important but still, you don't need to fly so much.
PS Private jet emissions are 4x higher per passenger than commercial coach/economy passenger. So let's ban private jets. Ha!
19
I find articles like this humorous, or at least ironic. It is crazy to think that an airline would intentionally shoo away customers. That flies in the face of the underlying premise of our capitalistic world. And furthermore, if people really wanted to limit their carbon footprint, they should not be demanding that airlines quit giving them incentives to fly, they should just stop flying. It is like an overweight person demanding that Nabisco stop making cookies so the person can lose weight!
10
@Scott Werden : I have stopped flying.
You can do it too.
Yes. But hey that's not an issue any longer. Airline travel will no longer exist after Corona gets done with it.
2
I thought business travelers are the ones causing huge carbon footprinting. Now that the coronavirus is here, maybe there will be more remote meetings and less flying.
5
i haven't read the article yet - but NYT really with such a click-baity headline?
1
People fly half way around the world for three-day Galapagos trip to check their "bucket list." Our children's children will marvel at such wasteful folly.
10
All loyalty programs encourage us to be good consumers. It might be good for the economy, but rampant consumerism definitely impacts the environment. Having said that, isn't it funny how liberal we are until someone starts talking about taking away something we use and enjoy? The thing about flying is that you can either be in the back with the people who sneeze and cough in your face, take more space than they're allotted, and are ill-mannered in any number of ways, or you can be in the front with the people who think they're better than the people in the back. I can't afford to sit in the front with the snobs, and I won't subject myself to the nightmare of coach. Not that taking a paid vacation is even an option for many of us, who don't get paid vacation days. Or paid sick days. So we'll just keep going to work - sick, tired, and disgusted that people can be so completely self-absorbed and tone-deaf. The planet is on fire, people are dying, atrocities are everywhere - but, please, tell me more about why it would be egregious to take your frequent flier miles away. If I could get reward miles from how much my eyes are rolling right now, I'd be platinum, for sure!
4
Lighten up! The TSA is doing its best to discourage air travel.
6
Here are the data
"On the measure of CO2 emitted each kilometre travelled by a passenger, air travel ranks top at 285 grams per passenger kilometre. Road transportation follows at 158 and rail travel at 14 grams per passenger kilometre, according to figures published by the European Environment Agency."
https://www.france24.com/en/20190410-aviation-faces-challenge-reduce-pollution
If you believe in saving the planet, not the way to go.
4
@Woof
Good point. Also, if your spouse travels with you in your car, that is 79 g each, if you add in 2 kids, that is 39 g each, if it is a Tesla running on solar energy it is 0. Speaking of kids, regarding these air travellers who propose that they continue to fly and then suggest people stop having children - please note that most children born in the world (India, China, etc) do not contribute anywhere near the carbon emissions as North Americans do - we are the problem, not them. This is not an overpopulation problem, it’s excessive emissions from a subset of the world’s population.
Awesome.. let’s go back to travelling by ship for all international travel. That sounds really practical.
Charge an appropriate environmental surcharge for each flight. Or even better, just add a surcharge to jet fuel to reflect the true environmental cost of burning that fuel. Then get out of the way and stop making stupid interventions with 101 unintended consequences. Burning jet fuel has a high social costs. That cost should be paid, and people should adjust their demand for flights accordingly. That’s it. Let the airlines figure out how they spread that cost over passengers themselves.
14
And the stupid miles also add to the burden of running a small business. Sure, for transactions under $500 and greater than $20 we take cards. But someone buys a big ticket item for, say, $3000 - we take checks, echecks, or a fee for use of that card (fees would run over $100 on the transaction) just so they can get their "cash back" or free airline miles. And, like many others, when Amex won that suit about people asking customers to "use a card with lower fees", I was at my merchant account within an hour and dropped out ability to take Amex - problem solved.
2
I’m sorry, but there’s fundamentally something silly about this piece because the real story is buried in the middle in a couple of sentences. Everybody knows what miles are about. They are most obviously not about encouraging you to fly. They’re about encouraging loyalty to one or two airlines so that if there’s a $50 fare difference, you’ll stick with the airline you get miles on. The number of people making “status runs” is minuscule, and could hardly be said to have any affect on the planet at all. Really, I’ve seen articles that are much ado about nothing but this one is nothing much about nothing.
56
For the last two decades I have had status with one of the legacy carriers. Often when I fly I don't look for the most direct route, I look for the route that allows me to accumulate the greatest number of miles and now more recently segments. I don't do this because I love flying, I only do it too preserve my status. I believe in science and the fact that global warming is real and more specifically that flying is a major source of CO2 emissions. The airline industry needs acknowledge their role in this looming catastrophe and stop rewarding people to fly more segments / miles just to acheive status.
5
The bigger problem with frequent flier miles, especially when paired with expensed business travel, is they greatly reduce competition in an industry with already-limited competition.
Flying less is good, and even added weight on a plane means more fuel is used. But people who earn free flights are probably not averse to flying so this seems like it would have a tiny effect. Not as tiny as eliminating toilet paper cardboard rolls, but tiny.
We can aleays tax jet fuel and flights much more. We can use this and other policy levers to encourage airlines to use turboprops as they are much more efficient. We can encourage road trips and express bus service with better maintenance and fewer tolls in sparsely populated areas. There is a lot that can be accomplished without piling the burden disproportionately on a small group (frequent fliers).
2
I fly fairly regularly between NY and LA. I also take several other flights a year. So yes, I do garner frequent flier miles.
I don't feel particularly guilty about flying albeit some friends have noted it.
So I ponder my carbon footprint. In NY I mainly walk or take mass transit. Heck, I even take mass transit to the airport.
In LA, believe it or not, I walk to my supermarket, the bank, the drugstore etc. We are fortunate to live in an area where it is easy to do so.
In addition, in both NY and LA we live in multifamily structures. No big house with big lawn etc. We do have cars in LA (who doesn't?) but given the errands noted above they actually see little usage. We're retirees and fitness-oriented cyclists and spend many days riding bikes (real ones; not those electric thingamabobs).
Oh, and they are about to wire up our building's garage so we will soon trade in one of our gas vehicles for an electric one.
This all said, I think, all in all, I've more than fully offset whatever carbon "sins" I commit when flying. Which, BTW, we do in the cheap coach seats where they pack three people in a row as opposed to one per up there in Mint....
6
NY Times readers are generally environmentally conscious. Fascinating that so many commenters are up in arms. For most upper middle class folks air travel is by far the biggest aspect of their CO2 footprint. But it sounds like we are all for being eco-conscious as long as it doesn’t crimp our style. Blame the oil companies, governments and those brainless conservatives but don’t take away my perks.
7
@Tap- Please show us the data that supports your claim about NYT readers. Do you have the demographic data?
1
@Fighting Sioux I didn't make any "demographic" claims about NY Times readers. I said they are generally eco-conscious (which is my experience, others may differ). I said for most upper middle class folks (not necessarily NY Times readers), plane travel is their biggest CO2 footprint. Thanks
@Tap For most folks of any class, having children is by far the biggest aspect of their CO2 footprint -- orders of magnitude greater than their air travel.
3
I fly a few times a month and this is insanity.
5
This idea that humans can save our host planet is absurd.
Every life form seemingly procreates and grows its population at greatest possible rate. without cause or concern, even if it means killing its host. That includes influenza, HIV, ants and other insects, reptiles, birds, mammals and - yes - humans.
Is banning frequent fliers is the best the U.K. Committee on Climate Change can come up with?
Some of us travel 40+ weeks per year for business. Year after year. It's far from glamorous - it's a grind.
So sitting up front for 1-2 longer flights per year after 40+ seems reasonable to me.
4
The planet is doing just fine. A little warmer, but that's not hurting anyone.
3
Give it time, Jonathan Katz....and watch the mass migrations and resource destruction and depletion from drought, famine, flood and human overpopulation, overconsumption and pollution.
The Amazon is burning and being logged, among many other environmental degradations.
The earth and its ecosystem are not doing fine.
13
@Socrates
It’s a full moon.
1
@Socrates Oil prices are down almost 30 % tonight which means that global warming is going to cost less!
1
Wow, was I wrong. I thought it was fracking, dumping of commercial waste, burning and mining of resources, burning of rainforests, drilling for oil, pesticides and toxins in the water supply, commercial meat production, light pollution, styrofoam, micro plastics, air pollution, and a general lack of respect for nature and each other that was killing the planet?
47
@kaboom It is and you were wrong about frequent flyer miles. They contribute as well.
No rational person would credit what "climate activists" have to say, much less follow their directions.
7
Two thoughts- 1) It is a shame the word "Activist" has become a codeword for "Whackjob" The world needs activists and never more than now. 2) I suggest applying this energy spent discussing airplanes to banning "Drive-thru" lines at fast-food outlets, coffee shops, banks, pharmacies, and any other enterprise with a Drive-thru. I have no data, but intuition tells me there are millions of vehicles sitting all over the world at any given time both wasting fuel and adding to our carbon footprint.
15
Good grief. If someone pays for a ticked to fly from San Francisco to Boston to eat at an airport restaurant & and turn around an go back on the same plane to maintain passenger status, who cares? The airplane is still going to fly, with or without this ridiculous person on it.
162
How many trips an airline takes is entirely based on collective consumer demand. Fulfilling frequent flyer rewards adds considerably to this demand, as does a strong economy with more disposable income.
Currently, United Airlines is reducing flights and asking employees to volunteer for unpaid leave because of weak demand because of coronavirus. They are set to cut passenger-carrying capacity 20% on international routes and 10% in the U.S. The number of flights is not fixed at all.
39
@Nadia
If 100 people do that then they need to add another flight.
Do you get that?
42
@Matthew: Yes, if 100 people bought the same flight for mileage runs, then the airlines would indeed need to add another flight. But in practice that is quite unlikely to happen.
Airlines price tickets dynamically, based upon supply and demand. So when there are many empty seats on the flight, the cost of those empty seats is low. They become attractive for people seeking "one more flight" to qualify for mileage status for the next year. As the flight fills, the ticket prices rise. When the ticket prices rise, the small # of people buying mileage run tickets will pick a different flight that costs less. (E.g., if cross-country to Boston costs $2,000 -- because the flight is almost full -- that person will fly to Newark for $600 instead). Or a different day or time.
Remember, these people are flying to earn miles -- and care more about distance than destination. They certainly add weight to the plane and consumer jet fuel (although these same-day trips generate little luggage), but they rarely add new flights. Plus, these are an insignificant # of the total flights taken.
There is lots of low-hanging fruit on energy savings and carbon reduction.
1
Give me a break.
35
@Ryan Bingham This is also rich coming from the NYT who flies models , photographers and all of the assistants required over the world for photo shoots for "Style" magazines.
16
Sure - think of all of the flights that would be cancelled if a single point-chaser was not on board a particular flight.
Oh wait - not a single one?
Well that doesn't fit in with the thesis of the United Kingdom’s Committee on Climate Change - you think maybe they are just making this stuff up?
19
I spend over $100K each year on business expenses using a mileage plus credit card. My wife and I have received over 50 free tickets to Hawaii. We go there once or twice a year and have done so for over 20 years. We cannot calculate the exact number of flights we've taken but it is a "yuge" number. We've also had three free flights to and from Europe and countless trips around the USA. I have over 750,000 miles to use up on flights and can't afford the hotel room rates that go along with international travel. But frequent flyer miles are here to stay for sure. And we won't be reducing out travel plans out of concern over global warming.
10
@JW Keep enjoying your trips to Hawaii. I will also.
5
@Olivia - I'm hoping Elon Musk will honor his points for a one-way trip to Mars.
2
Well, aren't you just so special, JW.
18
You folks have way too much time on your hands if this is the biggest issue you can come up with. Too funny and too sad.
53
No. Emissions from airplanes are insignificant compared to the amount of coal/oil/gas we use.
It is important to travel. Mark Twain said this about travelling “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.”
We need to encourage more traveling. Maybe that will shake the world from our current nationalistic bent.
If you really cared about greenhouse gas emissions build new nuclear energy-just like the world's top climate scientists, NASA, MIT and the IPCC said we should have done decades ago.
96
@Adrian - Yo Adrian, times changes. When Twain said that there were 76 million Americans and 1.6 billion peeps globally - less than 1/4 of today's explosive overpopulation.
31
@Adrian Planes are estimated to contribute up to 3% of the US' total emissions, a factor Twain couldn't have considered when he made the quote (Center for Biological Diversity). After all, he died in 1910, only 7 years after the Wright brother's flight.
9
@Adrian
When Twain wrote travel was travel and remote people and places were really different from the ones you left hen you embarked. Today’s jet travel is like switching TV channels. You cross a continent or an oceans with a snap and arrive to find yourself in the same processed reality: standardized airports, standardized hotels, standardized food, even the weather standardized for your comfort by air conditioning. Your world, mediated by your smart phone, is hardly changed. You’re living on a shrunken planet. Mark Twain would have found the experience suffocating.
20
DO NOT encourage airlines to take this benefit away. I can't believe you elitist charlatans are posting this. NYC has had global access to travel at low cost for years and now that it's becoming ubiquitous and more accessible, you're making a case against such.
There are way worse things than frequent flyers contributing to climate change. DO NOT advocate to take away the single largest tangible benefit that millions of people gain from having to travel for work.
Before you make me forego my reward for working hard in the form of a trip to Italy once a year, tell Crissy Tegen and John Legend they shouldn't take a 1000 mile getaway in a private jet for a one night date on Valentine's Day
29
Ban frequent flier programs? Outlaw mileage runs? Strip out first class seats? As an industry analyst, I can say with confidence that none of these ideas will be broadly adopted within the foreseeable future. This article suggests completely gutting how airlines actually make money. It also neglects to mention that all airlines are well aware of the tremendous business incentives to operate in an environmentally friendly manner. Fuel is the largest expenditure for many carriers. Hundreds of full-time positions across the major airlines are dedicated to reducing fuel consumption as much as possible. There's been significant innovation in this space, ranging from optimizing cruising speed to redesigning seats to reduce weight.
29
Is there anything more satisfying than bossing other people around?
Activists are the new scourge of mankind. The vast majority are dilettantes. They do not know what they are talking about. At best they strive to sub-optimise some tiny area, like in the case of mileage programs. This discussion is unbelievably silly.
However, activists often have the dangerous tendency to put ends before means. That is how the nazis got started in Germany.
The media unfortunately pay for too much attention, but obviously nowadays, whatever generates clicks, will be published.
32
@Christoph Roettger -Activism led to the rise of the nazis?
5
Poorly researched article that’s more like an opinion piece promoting the writer’s own beliefs. People who fly every week for business survive the misery of airline travel by receiving small benefits based on their FF status. It’s not a matter of showing off; it’s about the airline figuring out how to get you to your destination when your original flight was cancelled. Of course mileage runs are ridiculous; it would make much more sense to make a charitable donation for that $ amount, or donate the flight to a needy person, while receiving the status benefit. If I fly business class, it’s because a 12-hr flight in economy is an uncomfortable, interminable, and way-too-close exposure to other people coughing and sneezing (even before Coronavirus). I’m not sitting up there instagramming my followers.
16
Just when I think the New York Times can't possibly top itself, I see an article like this. You're setting a high bar for The Onion, we'll see how they respond.
30
The only thing less useful than a frequent flyer mile is a professional "climate activist".
27
@PeteH Yea, who cares about the climate and the destruction of the world as we know it, those pesky concerned citizens.
6
Of course, no one asked our plants of the world if they are even interested in us humans being carbon [dioxide] neutral. If we would have a Dr. Dolittle of the plant world, I believe the plants would tell him, that they do not desire a reduction of it in the least! They are very happy with the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 we now have, because at 150ppm they would start to die! They most certainly love this CO2 buffer we‘ve given them.
What don’t they like? Well, they absolutely don’t like carbon monoxide! They also don’t like too many chemicals in the soil. That’s something both man and plant can agree with.
So why all the carbon [dioxide] scare mongering?
Well, as it turns out, humans really are highly susceptible to believing anything they hear. Did you even read what I said above? Plants die at 150ppm atmospheric CO2! That’s why greenhouse farmers have to pump in CO2 into their glass greenhouses, otherwise their plants would die! Because they produce all that oxygen that we need but they don’t! Pumping in a little bit more CO2 is what causes the plants to grow better!
If you get close to your plants and talk to them, they really could care less what you’re saying, but they do love the 40,000 ppm CO2 you are exhaling onto them!
So, you have a choice to make: You can vote for Biden/Sanders who will tax your CO2 footprint while your plants roll their eyes or you can vote for the other guy who’s really only interested in himself but somehow doesn’t want to tax that.
3
Paying good money for a ticket to earn points makes absolutely no sense at all. Points are typically worth $0.01--0.02 each, but a 3000 mile flight typically costs $300 (advance purchase, etc.), or $0.10 per point.
2
While we're on the subject of saving the planet, why does the NYT still offer a paper version when you can get an identical digital version with a much lower environmental impact.
9
@chris I ask they same question every time the NYT adds one of their lavish, glossy "style" magazines to the print edition.
7
Some people use the frequent flyer programs so that they can afford to fly to see family or to do research or work.
3
At the rate corporate travel is collapsing this year, the only people who will qualify for status in 2021 are working for the CDC.
3
Maybe we cancel frequent flier miles AFTER we ensure all corporate jets are grounded including flights by climate activists to international global warming events. Do we really think cancelling frequent flyer miles will stop global warming? What about diesel engined trains and trucks too?
8
@Tom : we need to stop many of those other polluting things, but fancy air travel for rich people is truly unnecessary and should be curtailed very sharply.
It's not necessary, it doesn't help the rest of us -- doesn't bring products to our homes -- doesn't supply our food.
It's just vacation fun times and bragging rights for rich spoiled folks.
I agree BTW that "climate activists" like Thunberg are often hypocritical. Thanks for calling them out.
1
Next let's have an article about "mattress runs" for those in hotel loyalty programs who just need a couple more nights to maintain status. It's a thing.
Seriously, though. Most people who accumulate enough miles for elite status these days are flying for business, and the reward is an upgrade and a free vacation flight.
YouTube "superstar?" Stop. You're killing me.
3
Due to the coronavirus, airlines are suffering falling numbers of customers. Mother Earth is giving herself a chance to breathe.
3
We could first try taxing the fuel and removing the numerous tax breaks the airline industry gets. Then they'll charge higher prices and that should impact the number of miles travelled.
8
I suppose that, if I need or wat to travel anywhere from Australia, I could improve my swimming....
7
@Gary : if you choose to make your home in Australia….then accept that is where you live. It's a beautiful place. Be happy where you are.
You have no inherent right to travel the globe. Not when it causes great environmental harm.
If you don't love Australia enough to be there all the time…find a nation you do love, and immigrate there.
AND STAY PUT.
1
This is just silly. Airlines are in business to provide air travel. It certainly happens, but the number of flights people make to maintain/increase status is less than insignificant to environmental impact. (Not to mention that the flight they are taking are scheduled anyway, and would go regardless.) The number or flights made
The best, quick but perhaps inadequate, analogy I could come up with is suggesting that automobile manufacturers make their cars more uncomfortable so people would be less inclined to drive.
10
With all due respect, why does the New York Times continue to promote its own sponsored global journeys? There are wonderful places in North America accessible by train. If everyone of us doesn’t make these kind of sacrifices, our children and grandchildren will pay the price.
It each of us says “I’m too insignificant to have any impact on global climate change.”, that would be raising a white flag to the looming disaster.
19
@Tony Marple
Even better---just read about them in books.
For example, you will learn much more about Antarctica by reading "South" (by Shackelton) than by taking a boat ride there.
4
@Jonathan Katz And the dangers of dying a horrible death in a smelly tent are greatly reduced.
2
I have sworn never to fly again. My United Miles program membership expired long ago.
But we need more people flying unnecessarily in order to spread Corona Virus to more places that don't already have it, don't we?
8
@Andrew Porter you and Jonathan Richman are not flying anymore. Pretty good company!
1
Frequent fliers and too many flights are also a major source for insidious noise pollution seriously affecting the health of thousands of residents on flight paths and living near major airports.
The airlines should be regulated as to not not fly planes that are not at near or full capacity, discontinue shuttle flights and give the government the 25$ they charge per bag to fund climate change initiatives.
2
@Hisham Oumlil
I must disagree. Most airports and their flight paths have been in place for decades, meaning most residents moved close to the airport KNOWING about the noise pollution.
I am one of them - moved to Brickell in Miami where flights regularly fly loudly overhead.
It was my choice.
And by this argument, traffic around my old place on east 63rd St. in Manhattan should be banned because of honking horns and empty ambulances blaring their sirens to avoid waiting at red lights.
And let's ban Metro North to save the people who bought a home next to an existing railroad from the racket.
And let's build a seawall to save anyone living near the ocean from the constant pounding of waves on the beach.
And what about cicadas and crickets? As a city mouse THEY KEEP ME AWAKE FOR HOURS every summer night I spend in the country. I say, "ERADICATE THEM ALL!!!!"
Or take a Xanax, enjoy a glass of red wine and smoke a joint. You'll be out in no time.
8
I accumulate points on my credit card and can redeem them for airline miles. I recently started using Amtrak, which is not an option for my points. I would like to see credit cards offer Amtrak miles as well as frequent flyer miles.
19
I'm sorry, Ruth Marrion, your suggestion is too thoughtful, reasonable and earth-friendly.
We simply can't consider it.
18
@Ruth Marrion
There are 2 Amtrak credit cards issued by the Bank of America that do just what you want.
11
I pay full fare first class travel usually due to a back issue. While I've sometimes used the miles accumulated to get merchandise (which has promptly broken down) I find all these FF plans to be highly cumbersome to keep track of and to use as desired. In almost all cases, booking and upgrading travel as needed is difficult I find with United/American/etc. I suppose the combined value of what I got could be another international first class ticket to a remote place like NZ or Sydney but I find it hard to use them due to various restrictions around holiday travel, etc. I don't know---just hasn't worked out for me I guess.
Perhaps some people just like "deals" or fly on a regular schedule or don't care where they fly.
These days I find the cash back cards to be more useful for actual cash rather than stuff or miles which are difficult to use (and bad for the environment apparently).
6
I guess it had to come to this. Unfortunately. I for many years had to travel extensively both in the United States and abroad. I never took a trip I could avoid. Anyone who thinks people are flying to earn mileage credits is obviously not aware of the dramatic decline in the quality of air travel. If you want to focus on something check out the use of private jets.
18
@T Smith Thanks -- excellent point re: private jets. Most flyers now find their planes to be uncomfortably stuffed with their fellow passengers. This is clearly the most profitable arrangement for the airlines -- and coincidentally, the more climate friendly way to do it (reduce the overall number of flights). But it's surely the most miserable.
6
A man I dated in the fall asked me if I would like to take an around the world trip with him in December so he wouldn't lose his frequent flyer status. It was the deciding factor in my dumping him.
Anyone who would burn that much jet fuel for a vanity run doesn't have the values I am looking for in a romantic partner.
20
Well dumped, Drlg !
9
@drlg - I will bet his wife put the kibosh on the planned trip. Good thing you dropped him like a hot lattke
5
Didn't we just see the impacts of less flying through the reduction of air pollution over China due to the coronavirus? Of course, some of it was attributable to factory carbon emission reduction too. My father in law, who was an USAF pilot, said that commerical air travel was like riding a bus...I liken it to a cattle car, myself, even in first class. Attendants seem harried and flyers are just unpleasant and disrespectuful. Wasn't Skype and other internet meeting services supposed to reduce the need to fly and still provide face time? Obviously, one can begrudge a vacation but really, taking flights to spend your points or make your points is just not planet friendly.
6
Climate change may be real, but worrying about frequent flier miles is simply nonsense as a solution. Consider that China has recently been opening one new coal-fired power plant a week.
China Is Still Building an Insane Number of New Coal Plants
https://www.wired.com/story/china-is-still-building-an-insane-number-of-new-coal-plants/...
10
The world's Academics should have to pay for their trips and lodging with their own money - not on their school's dollar.
That will reduce flights by quite a bit!
I know people that brag about travelling all over the world their entire lives and not have to spend one penny. Frequent flier miles is a drop in the bucket compared to Higher Ed travel.
18
@One of the Many Few
Well said!
2
@One of the Many Few
Clearly, extreme wealth in academia is a huge part of the problem?!
I guess if one considers the sports coaches academics.
Amtrak NYC to Chicago is 20 hours. in the civilized world the same distance takes 4.5 hours or less using regularly scheduled trains. Plus you leave and arrive at the center of town minimizing car use. Put your efforts into providing benefits for travelers instead of attempting to remove perceived benefits.
30
I read this online and was sad to see a link, at the end of the article, to the latest iteration of the ever-creepy “52 Places to Go to Help Destroy the Planet More Quickly” column.
Perhaps the New York Times might consider the ethics of its Travel section?
87
@A. Reader Or perhaps we should realize that travel isn’t the enemy, that the fight against climate change shouldn’t mean cutting ourselves off from the world. -NW
1
It's true, all those cheap airfare and cheap accommodation options like airbnb have immensely liberalized the travel market. In era past, it costed a fortune to plan for long trips. Now, taking the plane is like jumping on a greyhound bus. It's cheap and it's easy.
For the upwardly mobile afluence-aspiring crowds, this is great. But it's a disaster for the climate and environment. Tourist dollars bring as much business as damage to communities, big and small.
No doubt the wording of any "ban" to frequent flyer miles is going to get people up in arms, no doubt fighting tooth and nail to keep it alive. But, there really needs to be far more regulations on the way it's implemented.
Perhaps if airlines are forced to reckon with its negative impacts, by mandating them to becoming carbon-neutral, they would not doling out miles to everyone so readily, thereby allowing everyone in, like kids rushing in a candy store.
6
@Michael
Guess you don’t rely on oxygen to breathe , because we get it from trees.
It is attitudes like this that are leading to human demise and the death of the planet.
8
Flying is so unpleasant that no frequent flyer program could incentivize me into taking more flights in order to earn miles. Some airlines make it next to impossible to spend the earned miles on flights or upgrades, so why bother to earn miles.
20
@an observer, You would be surprised to know that you're solidly in the minority. There are far more people whose raison d'etre is to hunt for cheap airfare/accommodation so that they can fly as often as possible, utilize as many freebie amenities as they can, and take/post as many pics on their instagram or facebook account as humanly imaginable. It's sadly crass, but true.
9
@an observer Well said, absolutely correct.
4
@tiddle I look forward to not sitting next to you on an upcoming flight. That'll make us both happy.
3
Some of us have necessary, non-capricious reasons to fly overseas; if we use an airline-branded card to pay for those flights and other expenses we accumulate miles that defray the cost of subsequent ones. How is that somehow a problem?
While Greta Thunberg can use her international profile to hitch a lift on a private yacht when she crosses the Atlantic, the average traveler doesn't have that advantage. Leave the mileage programs alone; plenty of ordinary people use them (not the types who hop cross-country and back for lunch).
They help.
59
@Olenska
What are the "necessary, non-capricious reasons" and does it matter if one is ordinary or not?
2
1) Greta didn’t travel on a yacht, 2) we should all do what we’re able to contribute to save the planet, not find excuses.
As noted by another commenter, how many flights would be cancelled if half the people taking mileage runs stopped taking those trips?
Go for the low-hanging fruit. With the coronavirus epidemic, we're going to see more telecommuting, fewer business trips, even where allowed. Hopefully some of that will continue once the epidemic passes. Maybe also new, regional manufacturing sources.
In the nineties, I traveled up to 50% of the time, mostly in the U.S. I now work on 3 continents, travel about 15%, thanks to internet and good, cheap international phone service. Hardly even use FedEx any more.
4
Yesterday's NPR mentioned that data use - phones, storage, and the like - are powered by fossil fuels and result in 2x the damage of flying. Stop using the web.
10
> From a travel enthusiast’s point of view, that’s a nearly free international flight; for a climate change activist, it’s an unconscionable incentive to pollute the planet.
Being conscious about the results of your actions makes you a “climate activist”?
3
As far as business travel is concerned, the one thing worse than not getting elite flier status is getting elite flier status.
5
When it comes to saving the planet, too many environmentalists and conservationists propose solutions that are nothing more than rationing. Completely ignored is the problem of increasing population; as more and more people attain middle class or higher economic status--and who would object to that?---the demand for products and services such as air travel increases. The only solutions discussed are just ones that result in rationing (probably, the richer one is, the less he or she will be subject to rationing based on price.
Regarding air travel, why not, for example, have a tax on air tickets that goes for direct research and development of non-fossil fuel propulsion systems? Or divert defense spending toward new propulsion systems? A Manhattan Project for a new propulsion system? If we consciously ignore population growth, then lets concentrate on developing technology to save the planet.
4
How about awarding good passengers with a section of humanely spaced seats?
14
No, it’s not the frequent flyers, it’s the vegans who are eating all the greens thus slowing the photosynthesis of CO2.........
7
We get most of our FF miles/points from our credit card. We use the free/low cost airfare to visit our three adult children. One lives on the opposite side of the country and one lives overseas. The third is a full day’s drive away and often we don’t have time from work to drive the equivalent of two days just to visit our child for two days (using a 4-day weekend). We also use the free airfare so the child working in Europe can fly home for Christmas with the entire family as the holidays are typically a very expensive time to fly.
Are we killing the planet? Should we be punished? Should we pass a law that says everybody has to live and work in the same state or country as their parents? My children have gotten to know a lot about other people and cultures, just even here in the US, by working and living somewhere far away from where they grew up. The one in Europe has lived and worked in more than one country and now is fluent in 3 languages. He has had roommates from countries other than the ones he works in. In short, my kids and our lives are, in a mundane way, increasing global awareness of different cultures and understanding of same. Families don’t all live within a few hours of each other now, and they don’t all live in the same city either. Provincialism is out and globalism is in. In our own way we are working for a more peaceful world, and honestly, I don’t think we are killing the planet in the process.
Sticking to your own peculiar corner of the world is bad.
15
@Neil
"Are we killing the planet?"
You and your family are making an inordinately high contribution to that.
7
@LTE, me flying to see my children or them flying to see their parents is a drop in the bucket for climate change. Like I said, staying in your own peculiar corner of the world is bad. It promotes narrow-mindedness. I’m glad my kids have expanded their horizons through their education and their careers. Fwiw, one child rides a bike to work every day, and the one in Europe has no car and either walks or takes a bus/subway/train everywhere. So flying home for Christmas is completely carbon neutral for them. Nice try with the blame game, tho.
1
We only fly once a year to Switzerland to see our son, and his family. Now, we only get one free ticker, as the miles needed to get one are very high. So, if it didn't happen, that would be okay. However, who is really the ones doing it, is business flyers, who must fly often for the job, and they receive lots of miles, that they can use not only for themselves, and their family. The truth is that there probably aren't a lot of people around the world who haven't flown, and most do this often, to visit family, to travel, and for their job. Jet fuel emissions is one of the most polluting things out there, for the cost per person. It has been interesting, that during the coronavirus in China, where much of the manufacturing, and airplane activity was shut down, the air quality improved. Sadly, if all females would of used, and, or had access to the birth control pill over 50 years ago, the population on earth would of remained the same, 3.4 billion, but indifference, patriarchy, religion, laziness, etc. won out, so now, we have 7.8 billion people who want a modern life of driving, flying, and being on their digital devices that must be transported on cargo ships all across the earth, and purchasing consumer goods, like large screen televisions to watch sports on. What a life, or not?!
15
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/111894/103194.pdf
The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute says that the energy intensity of driving is 57% greater
than the energy intensity of flying.
12
@Cali You can’t drive to HI for the weekend
3
This, like every other narrowly focused article, just points out the obvious. Our entire economic “system”, which is a poor word because it implies some structure and planning, is based on excessive resource use and wasteful practices as well as an ever increasing supply of easily exploited workers and docile consumers. This Ponzi scheme is how we purport to fund everything from social security to keep the insane idea of always increasing growth on a clearly finite planet as though this is not only possible ( it isn’t) but good. Every single thing we do, from our present growth at all costs economic system to the adding of ~250,000 more humans to the planet everyday has to come from somewhere and that is the environment we and all life depend on. Until we come to grips with this flawed system of constant growth in both people and consumption we are wasting our time and dooming much of life on the altar of infinite growth- which cannot go on.
24
@AT - Excellent! Thank you. And yet, we just don't seem to give a hoot about how our demand for immediate personal gratification affects Our Only Home.
8
A CapitalOne card lets you use points for other travel such as trains - or (for less reward) everyday purchases. So it's a bit more complicated...
6
It is really pretty irrational to go after air travel. It is a relatively small contributor overall to CO2 and most of it is super hard to supplant with non-carbon generating options. We have to focus on areas where it is doable to switch to a non-carbon alternative. Solar on roofs should essentially be universal - there should be tax and interest-free loans so every homeowner can do it. That would probably take several times more carbon out of the atmosphere than would all air travel, probably hundreds of times more than frequent flyer related travel.
This kind of stuff actually undermines efforts to save the planet - tell people you want to take away something from them that cannot be replaced. Generates antipathy to environmentalism when instead we need friends and allies.
50
@Les
The nyts had an article last year saying global air travel produced 900 million tons per year of co2. 2.5% of the total. Far less than say ground travel but growing fast. They estimated it could be 25% by 2050. There is no magic lever we can flip that will fix Climate change. Everything is just one part. Which do we address and which do we ignore? At this point I’m thinking we can’t skip over anything, although we are mostly skipping everything currently. While we dither the problem gets harder to fix.
16
@AT "The nyts had an article last year saying global air travel produced 900 million tons per year of co2. 2.5% of the total. Far less than say ground travel but growing fast. They estimated it could be 25% by 2050."
If air travel accounted for 25% of CO2 by 2050 that would be great! It would be a sign we've saved the planet.
Why? Because the only way that is every going to happen would be if ever other source of CO2 emissions plummeted. There is no way the current 2.5% would grow by more than 10x if total CO2 emissions continue to climb, rather than begin reducing.
@AT
If the CO2 contribution of air travel is 2.5% then let's deal with that number. Citing 25% in 2050 is a number pulled from thin air and has no bearing on reality.
We will not solve climate change by shaming a few travelers from taking optional trips. We will do much better to put a price on carbon emissions and let people decide with their wallets how best to consume less.
I have had a mileage card for 20 years. We fly 2-5 times a year, Not once have I used miles for a trip I wouldn't otherwise have taken. This is true of many friends as well.
If you want to discuss travel rules that would make a real difference, consider banning drive-through "fast food" restaurants, pharmacies and other businesses except for people with special license plates.
14
My wife and I intentionally accumulate frequent flyer miles by using our credit cards, so that we can afford an annual vacation overseas. What’s wrong with that? We should just stay home to save the planet?
9
@Craig King
You can stay home but it won’t save the planet. With the human race adding >80 million more people per year and nobody even willing to start a conversation about the number one threat to the planet, over population, we aren’t likely to make much progress even if everybody stayed home. Population growth will overwhelm any lifestyle changes we make.
13
@Craig King - Yes!
10
@AT It’s not or or the other - it’s both.
6
Loyalty programs mostly reward based on credit card usage, not miles. Spend money, get miles. Don't people in the U.K. have other issues these days to deal with like Trump Jr.?
11
The benefits I get from my credit cards do not go towards airfare. The card I use for recurring bills gets me travel on Amtrak. The card I use for everyday purchases gets me hotel rooms.
4
Redeem thousands of frequent flyer miles for $20 tupperware I don't cook with, magazine subscriptions I can buy on sale for $10 and seldom have time to fully read, a gym membership I have no interest in, and e-bikes that I won't be able to ride? Good grief, this is absolutely ridiculous!
26
How about shifting to a Frequent Flyer Fee to raise funds to pay for implementation of solutions to the climate crisis? A back-of-the-envelope calculation for California shows 240 million passengers flew in and out of its top 8 airports in 2018. If we charged a $10 per passenger, we'd raise $2.4 billion annually, much more than we are currently investing in direct climate solutions in the state. With global warming impacts accelerating much faster than predicted and 9 of 15 global tipping points already activated (from a slowing Atlantic circulation and abrupt permafrost thaw to a drying Amazon and accelerated loss of ice in Greenland and West Antarctica), we must significantly increase public investments in climate solutions now.
38
@ellie cohen
Maybe $9.99 of those $10 should come from first and business class travelers? Reverse the 0.01%!
1
re commenter's 'plane flies anyway'.
The logic of this proscription is that foregone trips by individuals, done in the millions and over long periods, causes the airlines to reduce the number of flights. Hence, less CO2 dumped.
8
Except they’ll gladly fly a mostly or even half full flight internationally because of their cargo business.
I dont think the problem would be the frequent flier programs..it would be reduction in the amount of flights or routes that they are running. The flight will leave regardless if i board it or not. Yes more fuel is expended on heavier flights but I think reducing routes or frequency would actually reduce the carbon impact. I dont like that as a consumer but if their goal is carbon reduction that seems like more of an effective solution
1
Just what is meant by a necessary trip?
Going to see your dying parent?
The 2nd business trip this month and the 10th of the year and it's only March?
38
@m.pipik : when you move far away from family and loved ones….you should pay a PRICE for that.
The price is you can't be there for dying parents or new babies being born.
That is what our ancestors did. My grandparents moved here from Eastern Europe over 100 years ago -- and never saw their friends or family members again.
Sure you can go back and forth, burning fossil fuel and killing the planet.
Or you can stay put -- in perfectly nice places that just don't happen to be NYC or San Francisco.
Or you can move your elderly parents nearer to where YOU live (or vice versa).
Here's a heads up: you can't have it all.
I worked hard for my miles (mainly through credit card purchases on branded cards), and have never taken a flight simply to earn more. Go after the plutocrats with their private planes!
163
@Richard
In 2018, after an article on a similar subject, I wrote the following comment to someone who seemed to feel that air travel's carbon footprint had to be someone else's problem:
"It's nice to not feel guilty because surely others are polluting, but consider this: According to the International Civil Aviation Organisation, in 2017 more than 51 billion kilometres (about 31 billion miles) have been flown by civil aircraft all over the world. Some of us (not just the others) are surely flying! We must acknowledge that we're all part of the problem in one way or another."
16
@Paul Metsa : since 9/11, I have taken exactly one airplane flight -- for my 15th wedding anniversary.
We flew to Las Vegas. It was horrible -- cramped, miserable, overcrowded, no decent food or drink -- trapped in the window seat (nearly impossible to go to the bathroom!) by a nice but extremely large fellow passenger with whom I was physically closer for 3.5 hours than I normally would be with my own husband. Not a good experience for either of us.
The noise! the smells! the air pressure! my suffering sinuses!
I remembered all the reasons I hate air travel and why I rarely flew. (9/11 was just an excuse, but a very effective one -- at least for the first 10 years after.)
So frankly I know I am not the problem. The folks posting here are, and especially Mr. Kugel -- travel writers who glamorize air travel and foreign destinations.
You work hard for your credit card miles?
How?
By spending money?
Totally agree. I know of folks at work that booked round trip tickets for multiple family members to Saudi Arabia so they could reach a certain status level for the next year. We are in rewarding people for the wrong behaviors.
57
As a former global road warrior for over ten years, I'm still enjoying my ff status. I earned it and it compensated for the dangerous and hardship missions undertaken to promote international projects to make the world a better and peaceful place.
16
Flier Miles are not necessary to be used for air travels. As American Express offers, one can also use the miles to purchase electronics and more on their rewards program offers.
3
@manysummits Did you get to the concluding sentence of the article? (It speaks of prohibiting the use of ff miles for flight travel turns the 'and more' of your comment into presumably health-promoting awards. And interesting idea, but social engineering to the extreme.)
The most practical and fair way to deal with carbon pollution from flying, electricity, meat, driving, etc., is a national carbon fee and dividend program. This program would put a price on carbon, to encourage sustainable alternative to carbon-intensive practices, and would refund the money to the people, so that there would be no net tax burden. And as alternatives to fossil fuels and meat arise, costs would actually go down for most consumers. Only the worst polluters would pay a penalty.
9
@Grover : if you get the money BACK…how it would change behaviors?
You'd pay $2000 for a flight that normally costs $300, but then you get $1700 BACK?
So what stops you? the temporary charges?
One of the few silver linings of Covid-19: This problem will be solved shortly.
20
@Daniel Wrong. This is the perfect time to take advantage of all the special offers due to the virus outbreak. The WSJ reported today that the number of cancellations for travel to Europe exceeded the new bookings. This is a great time to travel! Much like after 9/11.
2
@JW : yup, nothing says "vacation" like getting a life-threatening disease! or pneumonia! or dying!
Or better yet, getting a silent case of COVID 19 and then bringing it back to ensure your family, friends and even fellow passengers get sick and die!
Good times!
I mean…how many frequent flier miles? KEWL!
Hey activists, lay off frequent flyer miles. People of limited income use the miles to save money for the necessary trips they have to make. Have you conducted research to see how may unnecessary pleasure trips people use their miles for? I think you'll see majority are people like me who use miles to save money on required trips.
126
Required by whom?
20
How are "people of limited income" traveling enough (or spending enough on branded cards) to collect enough miles to qualify for free or discounted travel? What is your definition of living on a limited income?
84
Delta's frequent flyer miles never expire. So even if you fly only once or twice a year to visit family you can still rack them up. Add to that the miles that you can earn through Georgia Natural Gas, Lyft, and other companies--yes, a person who doesn't make a lot of money/fly for vacations can still go visit their family in another state or country from time to time for free.
8