The Flybe debacle shows how far the debate on flying has come

Not long ago, the row over Flybe’s future would’ve been all business. Now it’s a climate issue

‘Flight shame’ has taken off – with domestic journeys most frowned upon (AFP/Getty)

To Flybe or not to Flybe – or, rather, to give Flybe a massive tax holiday or not to give Flybe a massive tax holiday – that is the question. Whatever your thoughts on the hot topic of the moment, the whole debate has shown, more than anything, just how much the conversation has shifted when it comes to flights and climate change.

For those not up to speed, Flybe, Britain’s largest regional airline, came within a hair’s breadth of going bust this week. The beleaguered carrier, which serves various key domestic routes, admitted it had all but run out of dough – this despite a significant cash injection from the consortium of businesses (including Virgin Atlantic) that bought it last year.

The airline was ultimately saved after shareholders agreed to pump more money in and the government made the controversial decision to let Flybe defer paying its Air Passenger Duty (APD), a compulsory tax that it owes to the tune of £10m.

Rival carriers such as Ryanair and BA are obviously grumbling about such preferential treatment, but the main debate, for most, wasn’t about whether or not it was fair for the government to step in. Instead, it centred on whether it was a responsible move to shore up a domestic airline at a time when awareness of the dangers of climate change is at an all-time high.

While Flybe’s defenders bemoaned the dearth of regional connectivity in a world without its distinctive purple planes, critics and activists brought home the environmental cost of the business staying airborne.

“Bailing out Flybe would be an act of climate vandalism,” wrote deputy Green Party leader Amelia Womack in an editorial for this publication.

“At a time of climate crisis we need better travel alternatives, including more efficient and cheaper rail links between the cities that Flybe serves, not measures that would increase the number of domestic flights,” Anna Hughes, the founder of Flight Free UK, told The Independent. Former Labour transport secretary Lord Adonis, meanwhile, railed against “giving a free lunch to air passengers by removing Air Passenger Duty, which would be bad for the environment, bad for our green credentials and also would impose a big, big charge on the general taxpayer”.

These concerns would never have been part of the mainstream narrative even 12 months ago. It just goes to show: whatever your thoughts on government intervention or ditching APD, the flygskam (flight shame) movement has totally transformed the rules of the game.

Yours,

Helen Coffey

Deputy travel editor