Why A Frequent Flyer Levy Is Vital For Climate Justice

Whether you’re taking your first-ever journey on a plane or jetting off for the tenth time in a year, everyone currently pays the same tax for their flights. It doesn’t matter how much you’ve travelled before, or where you’re going, everyone is charged the same.

But what if we actually focused on the highest polluters properly? Implementing a frequent flying levy is a key strategy to target the world’s mega-polluters: hitting the wealthiest frequent flyers while not affecting the majority of the population. It would also create six times more tax revenues from aviation, which are needed to fill the large finance gap for the green transition in Europe and the Global South.

In October 2024, Stay Grounded and New Economics Foundation published a study on the Frequent Flying Levy in Europe, based on economic modeling by CE Delft and a legal assessment by AdaStone Law. Here’s what you need to know.

How does a frequent flyer levy work?

A frequent flying levy is a tax applied across all airline tickets, aiming to limit excessive flights which are most often taken by high-income earners. Right now everyone’s taxes subsidise the aviation industry but, if introduced, the levy would mean most of the reduction in flights (54%) would come from just 4.5% of the Western European population. Meanwhile, 72% of the population in Western Europe, those who fly and earn the least, would pay no charges at all.

The policy works incrementally, replacing existing ticket taxes and instead raising the tax rate of the levy after every two single flights taken. Essentially there is no levy on the first return flight each year, a 50€ charge on the second, 100€ on the third, and so on. 

Additionally, jet fuel is currently untaxed in most countries. If this tax exemption continues, Stay Grounded also proposes a distance-based surcharge. This is because longer flights burn much more jet fuel and are more polluting, but this surcharge would be unnecessary if a kerosene tax was properly implemented. Plus, they also suggest that a surcharge on business and first-class seats should be introduced, as these take up much more space and are therefore more polluting on flights, with a charge of 100€ on luxury seating for each flight.

Why does this matter?

Globally, 1% of the world’s population produces 50% of aviation emissions, while approximately 80% have never set foot on a plane. Within Western Europe, the highest-income households (more than €100,000 per year) are at least six times more likely to take frequent flights each year than those on the lowest incomes (less than €20,000 per year).

A frequent flyer levy would achieve three things:

• It reduces excessive flights and their emissions
• It allows access to flights for low-income groups
• It can raise money for the necessary green transition.

The levy will lead to substantial emission reductions because only a few wealthy people need to reduce their flights. In an example year of 2028, CE Delft calculated that the levy would see a 21% reduction in aviation’s carbon emissions. Other measures could see even more reductions, such as banning private jets and expanding alternatives such as affordable train travel.

Currently, subsidies and tax breaks for aviation are huge, with T&E estimating that by 2025, European governments will miss out on €47bn in revenue from aviation. Additional taxes paid through the levy would instead deliver a six-fold increase in current revenue from aviation; generating €74bn for the 31 European countries, and €56bn for the EU. Since the levy would replace current ticket taxes, this would also lead to a €63.6bn increase in tax revenue for Europe and a €50.9bn increase for the EU.

For context, the increase in EU aviation tax revenues alone would cover 24% of the annual green public investment needed to meet the EU’s climate targets. This revenue could then be used to compensate countries and communities who are bearing the brunt of the climate crisis despite having done the least to cause it; support workers and communities with jobs directly in, or heavily reliant on, aviation and tourism; and boost investments in alternatives such as rail travel.

What else do we need to consider?

Private jets are at least ten times more polluting per passenger than a scheduled flight, with a ban being the obvious option for such a destructive, and non-necessary practice. Until that happens, it would of course be necessary to at least apply a significantly higher levy on private jets. While not modelled in most recent calculations, this is simply a no-brainer.

Additionally, while many will try and argue about ‘sustainable aviation fuels’ Stay Grounded’s Greenwashing Factsheets explore why biofuels for aviation are highly problematic, while electric planes are only realistic for short distances, making the train a better alternative. 

Meanwhile, a kerosene tax would address the type of fuel and incentivise airlines to use better options. This is why Stay Grounded also argues for finally ending the tax break for aviation fuel, with a kerosene tax would to replace the proposed distance-based surcharges for the frequent flyer levy.