The aviation industry operates under extreme regulatory scrutiny when it comes to safety, ensuring that every aircraft and operation meets rigorous certification standards. Yet, on the commercial side, regulation is shockingly minimal, typically limited to passenger rights in case of flight or baggage disruptions.

Rather than relying on dubious carbon offset schemes—ineffective at best—we should prioritise meaningful ways to prevent and reduce emissions…with impact NOW. The industry’s focus has been almost entirely on fuel, as if no other variables exist. While advancements in hydrogen-powered aircraft and Sustainable Aviation Fuels (SAF) are promising, they are far from immediate solutions.

The aviation sector has long shielded itself behind the claim that it contributes only 2% of global emissions. With thousands of fossil-fuelled airplanes on order, still emitting just as much—even when using SAF—how long before that figure rises to 10%? The key to achieving balance lies in degrowth, technological replacements, and traffic redistribution. Without these, we would paradoxically be better off with the less congested yet more polluting skies of the 1970s.

What can we do now? Qualify growth and enforce a user-payer principle on both ends: passengers and airlines.

Low-Cost Carriers: Transparent Fares Needed

Low-cost carriers (LCCs) have perfected the art of illusion; while base fares remain low, airlines inflate all sorts of ancillary fees, making direct comparisons of such additional fees impossible. Once a passenger selects a ticket with one of those airlines because of the low-cost base fare, they are locked in, facing exorbitant fees for baggage, seat selection, and even basic services. The U.S. has attempted to regulate this through the FAIR Act, and Europe should follow suit. To end the deceptive practice of advertising €10-type fares, key ancillaries like carry-on baggage should be included in the base price and no longer be charged separately. Low-cost carriers claim such measures would make people fly less…and that’s a problem!?

Network Airlines: Ending the “Hub-For-Free” Farce

It is ecologically indefensible for airlines to price nonstop flights significantly higher than the same flight combined with a connecting flight. For example, KLM charges much more for a direct New York-Amsterdam ticket than for a New York-Amsterdam-Frankfurt itinerary, and Lufthansa mirrors this practice in reverse.

This pricing model has given rise to “skiplagging,” where passengers book longer itineraries to pay cheaper, only to exit at their intended destination without taking the connecting flights. Airlines want to aggressively penalise travellers who exploit this loophole, yet they created the absurdity in the first place. Worse, this system incentivises additional, unnecessary flights, worsening emissions and creating the illusion of airport congestion.

A simple regulatory fix could resolve this; when purchased simultaneously and for the same date from the same airline, a direct flight should never be more expensive than the same flight combined with a connection. Translated: that KLM flight from New York to Amsterdam could never be more expensive than the same flight, but with the final destination Frankfurt. A European directive akin to EC 261/2004 could mandate this rule, yielding immediate benefits: lower emissions, fewer artificial feeder flights, more transparent pricing, reduced airport congestion, and the reallocation of valuable airport slots.

A Smarter, Greener Future

Regardless of what aviation will look like in 2050, eco-logical pricing reform is a minimum requirement. By addressing the flawed economic structures that incentivise excess pollution, we can create a fairer system for passengers, airlines, and the environment. And remember, the time for meaningful change is now, not in 2050!