Airline CEO Wants To Ban Business Class

With environmentalism being an increasingly hot topic, we’re seeing lots of suggestions for how emissions can be reduced in the airline industry, including some climate activists calling for frequent flyer programs to be banned.

One aspect of this debate that I find amusing is how some airline executives campaign for new environmental policies that very conveniently would only harm their competitors.

Wizz Air CEO Wants To Ban Business Class

The CEO of Wizz Air, Jozsef Varadi, is calling for business class to be banned on most flights in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Wizz Air is an ultra low cost carrier based in Hungary, and they claim to operate with the lowest per passenger emissions among their competitors. They also say that they hope to reduce per passenger emissions by more than 30% in the next decade.

As Varadi explains:

“Business class should be banned. The industry is guilty of preserving an inefficient and archaic model. A rethink is long overdue, and we call on fellow airlines to commit to a total ban on business class travel for any flight of under five hours.”

So his argument is basically that business class should be banned because per person emissions are so much higher. And he’s not wrong that emissions are higher.

The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) found that British Airways had 63% more emissions per passenger kilometer than rival Norwegian. Specifically, for premium seats emissions were an average of up to 2.7x higher.

It’s especially funny that Wizz Air’s CEO only wants to ban business class on flights of under five hours. Conveniently, that’s how long Wizz Air’s longest flights are. Shouldn’t business class be banned on long haul flights, where seats take up a lot more space, and where the emissions are even greater due to distance traveled?

Lufthansa CEO Wants To Ban Ultra Low Cost Carriers

As I said at the beginning of the story, airline CEOs clearly have vested interests in this battle. Over the summer, Lufthansa Group CEO Carsten Spohr essentially argued that Europe’s ultra low cost carrier business model shouldn’t exist.

He described selling tickets for less than 10EUR as “economically, ecologically, and politically irresponsible, and said that “flights for less than 10EUR shouldn’t exist.”

Again, rather conveniently, Lufthansa is facing huge pressure from ultra low cost carriers in their home markets. Furthermore, their ultra low cost carrier, Eurowings, isn’t exactly doing well, and can’t compete with the cost structures of the airlines selling these really cheap flights.

There’s No Right Answer To All Of This

These are all discussions worth having, though ultimately no one is right here. It is always amusing to see how airline executives make arguments about what should be banned, and it just also typically happens to be whatever their competitors are doing.

In fairness, not all airlines are doing this — KLM has even encouraged people to fly less, and take the train instead.

Should business class be banned? No, I don’t think so. Should ultra low-cost carriers be banned? No, I don’t think so. But I do think we should be more conscious — airlines should invest in more fuel efficient aircraft (and be given incentives to do so), and passengers should be educated about the implications of their travel.

In the same way that someone doesn’t “need” to fly in business class, someone also doesn’t need to take most of the trips that are taken. Ultra low cost carriers create demand for air travel with fares that are often the same price as a bus ticket. So it’s hard to point fingers here.

What do you make of the statements of Wizz Air’s CEO? Which airline CEO is more right here?

Conversations (42)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Joseph N. Guest

Here I am, arriving late to the party. (Lucky for me as I get to avoid the idiotic back-and-forth in the comments above.) My late contribution: since jets pollute so much, the answer is obvious: go back to propeller planes. What? Wizz Air is unwilling to dump all their jet planes and go to a propeller driven fleet? Well then, Wizz Air is not serious about fighting global warming.

0
‼ 0
BillC Gold

@SMH -- "@BillC on science is the equivalent to Kanye West on religion." -- ROFLMAO! I bet you wouldn't mind having his fame and fortune, though, right? But seriously, just how much <b><i>Real Science</i></b> do you think the public actually understands about AGW, when they mindlessly regurgitate AGW Alarmist Propaganda and Talking Points? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @SMH -- "@BillC-should we just continue on destroying the earth or do you have a solution to the transformation happening in front of us all? Venice is anxiously awaiting your response." Let's first make sure that we're not confusing Pollution + Weather + Climate! Note that <b><i>No One</i></b> wants Pollution and its catastrophic side-effects upon Earth and Mankind (especially with respect to plastics in our oceans)! We should all do the <b><i>utmost</i></b> to protect our environment at all times! But such actions will <b><i>not</i></b> make any significant impacts upon Global Weather, much less Global Climate! So, for example, if the argument is that we should use less fossil fuels to reduce air pollution and improve everyone's overall health, then <b><i>I'm All In</i></b> for that! But to say that banning fossil fuel use will "save the Earth from burning up" is just <b><i>Totally Fake Info</i></b>! Similarly, the recent regulations banning plastic straws might be well-intentioned, but it makes <b><i>miniscule</i></b> impacts upon the global crisis of overwhelming plastics waste worldwide, where USA is ranked #20 on the global list of worst plastics polluters -- www[.]earthday[.]org/2018/04/06/top-20-countries-ranked-by-mass-of-mismanaged-plastic-waste This said ... I still do support coercive enforcement of proper plastics waste recycling by all countries worldwide, since USA could hypothetically reduce its plastics waste to Zero and still have insufficient impacts upon that continuing global plastics waste crisis!

0
‼ 0
BillC Gold

@Jake -- "... he says this while he probably flies on his private jet to meetings,but even if he doesn’t, his argument is moronic and makes no sense at all.." -- If you're referring to my posts (since you didn't address your comment Re: anyone), what part is "moronic and makes no sense at all"? Put forth some specifics and I'll be more than happy to clarify with some facts for you!

0
‼ 0
Jake Guest

What an idiot, he says this while he probably flies on his private jet to meetings,but even if he doesn't, his argument is moronic and makes no sense at all..

0
‼ 0
BillC Gold

@STC -- "... they can add bigger engines that will change the aerodynamics of the planes and then paper the errors over with software changes. Just look what that philosophy did for the 737 Max." -- You do understand that there is a huge difference between Concept and Implementation, right? MCAS is a perfectly valid Concept (ie, using software within the feedback loop to control physical situations) that had already been used in lots of past systems, both commercial and military. The only problem was that Boeing did a sloppy job of Implementation on the MAX ... which, of course, must (and will) be properly fixed and validated over time!

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published