The UK's Committee on Climate Change is charged to look at how carbon emissions can be reduced.
Its latest recommendations include banning frequent flyer schemes on the basis that they incentivise travel. The report, written by academics at London's Imperial College, argues quite forcibly that frequent flyer programmes encourage flying. After all, the more you fly, the more points you earn and, as we all know, points mean prizes.
The report's authors claim that 70% of all UK flights are taken by 15% of the population and therefore recommend an air miles levy on a sliding scale. In other words those that fly once a year for their annual holiday would pay less than the frequent flyer would on their 30th flight.
On the surface it sounds very straightforward. Air travel produces carbon emissions so disincentives should be put in place and, like taxes, those who benefit most, should pay incrementally more than others.
However, many kinds of everyday activity produce emissions (turning on the gas heating, eating beef) and so do many people, not just flyers. If one looks at the issue through a leisure travel lens, it is easy to see flying as an optional activity where those on lower incomes save all year for a holiday (one return flight) while the rich have many holidays and are thus frequent flyers.
But leisure travel and business travel are two different fulfil two different functions. Those on a leisure break, for example, have a choice of destination — those for work, travel to where there is a business issue. On this model would a company be incentivised to send a wider pool of people on trips to manage costs? Some might then fly less frequently but that would not reduce total emissions. Anyway, does a company where everyone has the same skill set, experience and external relationships exist?
The researchers have neglected to distinguish the dynamics of leisure and business travel but they have identified that loyalty programmes are a clever means of influencing behaviour by encouraging loyalty. They are also powerful sources of consumer data.
The report claims that many of those who are members of frequent flyer schemes take unnecessary flights to maintain their elite status. That is a charge levied by some buyers who believe loyalty programmes undermine travel programmes by encouraging business travellers to use non-preferred partners or to take unnecessary trips.
However, others believe that membership of a preferred supplier's programme can encourage compliance.
Placing a monetary value on points is probably what will stop the CCC's idea ever becoming reality. It is exceedingly challenging to tax reward points. Immediate benefits that come from status such as priority boarding are difficult to value and benefits with an ostensible price tag, such as flights or hotel stays, are not received when points are awarded but only when redeemed. A long-haul flight which once could be purchased with 25,000 points can at another time cost 40,000 and, as frequent flyers know only too well, "black-out periods" mean that reward seats are not available at popular times such as Christmas or holiday season or busy times of day.
A simple levy per flight or even the existing European Emissions Trading Scheme based on a carrier's emissions output are easier to calculate and enforce.
Flying is polluting — perhaps those who are looking at ways to influence behaviour to cut emissions should consult travel buyers.
They should know.