The UK Government has set a target to reduce UK aviation emissions in 2050 back to 2005 levels or below.  The Committee on Climate Change recently published a report which considers how this target might be achieved.

A key issue is the future growth of demand for air travel, particularly for leisure purposes which currently comprises 75% of all passengers. Only about half the population flies in any one year, with trip frequency increasing with income. The CCC concludes that the income elasticity of demand is high, so that income growth is an important driver of demand growth.

The problem with this argument is that the cross-sectional data on which this conclusion is based, a snap-shot at one point in time, may reflect a relationship in part between socio-economic status (for which income is a proxy) and air travel, in which case future growth of income would be less of a driver of demand. (This is what is found for non-air travel.)

The Committee’s ‘Likely' scenario takes account of expected improvements in aircraft efficiency, use of biofuels, rail expansion and videoconferencing.  It permits a 60% growth in demand for air travel to 2050, consistent with the Government’s target for aviation emissions. Airport expansion would need to be compatable with this growth and would not preclude expansion of Heathrow.

An article in The Guardian of 19 December reported that Ryanair had pulled out of talks with Boeing for an order or 200 aircraft.  Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou, founder of easyJet, is quoted as saying that the era of endless fast growth is over, and that it’s getting difficult to find significant new passenger traffic within Europe which is profitable.  So perhaps the CCC is overestimating to scope for future growth in air travel.

A key question for research is why half of the population don't take to the air.  Is it that they can't afford to, despite some ultra-low prices on offer?  If so, then as we get richer we would fly more.  But perhaps there are other explanations.  We need to know.