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, our analysis shows that the highest-income households (more than €100,000 per year) are at least six times more likely to take frequent flights per year than those on the lowest incomes (less than €20,000 per year).
Right now, it doesn’t matter whether you’re flying to visit your family for the first time in years, or taking your tenth annual flight to your third luxury house on the coast – you’ll pay the same tax for that flight. We think that is as unfair and backwards as a flat tax on income would be.
The FFL would achieve three things: 1) It could reduce excessive flights and their emissions 2) allow access to flights for low-income groups and 3) raise money for the necessary green transition.

The FFL will lead to substantial emission reductions – coming mostly from a few wealthy people who need to reduce their flights. CE Delft calculated that there will be a 21% reduction in aviation’s carbon emissions reduction by introducing the FFL in the example year 2028. This would be an essential part of the necessary reduction. The rest of emissions would need to be tackled by other measures such as reduction measures for non-CO2 impacts of aviation, a ban on private jets, short haul flights, a reduction of regional airports, caps on flights, and expanding alternatives such as affordable train travel.

Currently, we all pay with our taxes for the subsidies of aviation – and we all bear the brunts of the worsening climate crisis. The FFL will make sure that the polluters pay.
The majority (54%) of the reduction in flying will come from just 4.5% of the Western European population that fly the most. These are overwhelmingly the higher-income social groups (63% coming from households with income above €100,000).
Meanwhile, 72% of the population in Western Europe, those who fly and earn the least, will pay no FFL charges.

Currently the EU has unnecessarily restricted borrowing to finance necessary public investments towards the green transition. More tax revenues are needed so as to ensure the EU is able to meet its climate targets. The Frequent Flying Levy can help fill this hole, and ensure those that pollute the most contribute their fair share to the transition.
Currently, subsidies and tax breaks for aviation are huge, with T&E estimating that by 2025, European governments will be missing out on €47bn in revenue from aviation.
The additional taxes paid through the FFL will deliver a six-fold increase in current revenue from aviation (in the example year 2028). It will generate €74bn for the 31 European countries, and €56bn for the EU27. Since the FFL would replace current ticket taxes, this leads to a €63.6bn increase in tax revenue for Europe31 and a €50.9bn increase for the EU27. For context, the increase in EU aviation tax revenues would cover 24% of the EU’s annual green public investment needed to meet the EU’s climate targets. The FFL revenues would be similar to the EU’s spending on the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which cost €55.7bn in 2021.
We propose to use the revenues for accelerating the transition to a fairer, greener economy. They can compensate countries and communities who are bearing the brunt of the climate crisis despite having done the least to cause it. Revenues can support workers and communities with jobs or local businesses directly in, or heavily reliant on, aviation and tourism. Revenues can also boost investments in alternatives such as rail travel.

Our study calculates that if distributed equally worldwide, every individual could take up to four economy short-haul return flights (e.g. Amsterdam to Barcelona), or one economy long-haul return flight (e.g. Amsterdam to Tokyo), in total over the next 26 years, to remain within the global carbon budget.
If the current, unequal, distribution of aviation emissions between the Global North and South was accepted, the share of each European citizen would rise to 10 economy short-haul return flights or three economy long-haul return flights.
Note that this is calculated with current rates of efficiency, without considering non-CO2 effects.

Methods for securely monitoring air traveller data are already available – it happens every day for security reasons. For the Frequent Flying Levy to be operationalised, the privacy of travellers must be ensured. The most efficient implementation approach would be through the creation of a unique passenger identifier number. This number would be the link to a centrally managed database tracking flight numbers which would be accessed by the ticket seller in a secure way during the final stages of the sales process.

No, there would be ways to avoid this. In our modelling, no distinction was made between those passengers flying for business purposes (typically 10%–20%) and those travelling for leisure. In this case, the easiest option would be that employers compensate employees for levies incurred for work duties, or pay the fee produced through work flights.
However, other studies looking at the design of an FFL have suggested that corporate travel could be subject to a separate levy scheme.

An EU-wide FFL is the goal. However, ambitious national governments or a group of national governments could begin by introducing a Frequent Flying Levy. This would also increase pressure on the EU to follow in adopting this progressive policy. Getting things rolling will prepare for more climate ambitious EU times.

As soon as possible. Our study used 2028 as the example year. But with an escalating climate crisis causing extreme weather events around the world, the earlier the better.

Yes, our FFL proposal does. Business or first class seats take up a lot more space, which means that pollution per passenger is much higher. Our FFL proposal includes a surcharge on luxury seating of 100€ per flight.

Private jets are the pinnacle of climate injustice, and at least ten times more polluting per passenger than a scheduled flight. Stay Grounded therefore demands a ban of private jets (see here for more information). Until that happens, it would of course be necessary to at least apply a significantly higher FFL on private jets. Such a levy on private jets was not modelled in this research.

Our FFL proposal does not include such an exemption. As we show in our Greenwashing Factsheets, biofuels for aviation are highly problematic, electric planes are only realistic for short distances for which a train is the better alternative. Moreover, the availability of e-fuels is extremely low so far. Reducing frequent flying is a must to meet our climate targets, and the FFL is aimed at achieving just that. Meanwhile, a kerosene tax would address the type of fuel and incentivise airlines to use fossil substitutes. This is why Stay Grounded also argues for finally ending the tax break for aviation fuel. Such a kerosene tax would then replace our proposed distance-based surcharges for the FFL.

Unfortunately, these are far from enough to solve the issue. The efficacy of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has been systematically undermined from the outset by lobbying from high carbon corporate interests. While the huge amount of free allowances for airlines are now being rolled back, the market price remains low, with little impact on ticket prices and demand for air traffic. The ETS also currently only applies to flights within Europe. Flights outside Europe fall under CORSIA (Carbon Offset and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation), relying on dubious offsetting and having more holes than a Swiss cheese. See more in the Aviation FAQ.
Concerning ReFuelEU, the hopes of substituting fossil fuels at scale will be almost impossible to reach, especially in a sustainable way. The aviation sector has missed all but one of 50 climate targets set in the 21st century. Delaying climate action with the hope of being saved by not-yet-developed technology is extremely dangerous. See more in the Greenwashing Fact Sheets.
Just recently, the lack of so-called “Sustainable Aviation Fuels” have led to the EU proposing a 20-year prolongation of the kerosene tax exemption. This means that the technology myth is stalling the needed reduction.