The Frequent Flyer Levy is compelling, but will be dreadful for the UK events industry

October this year saw the publication of a controversial study from the New Economics Foundation (NEF) in conjunction with campaign group Stay Grounded. The study argued that introducing a Frequent Flying Levy (colloquially known as the 'jet-setter' levy) could reduce carbon emissions by 21% by 2028 from business as usual. The scheme aims to de-incentivise European air travel, by introducing an escalating scale of fees. The levy starts at zero for the first return flight in 12 months, then increases by €100 for each return trip, with additional surcharges for longer distances and first-class travel.It would replace the current UK air passenger duty, which varies according to distance travelled and cabin class, but a fuel tax would also be introduced. NEF argues the FFL would: 'achieve three things: 1) reduce excessive flights and their emissions 2) allow access to flights for low-income groups and 3) raise money for the necessary green transition,' projecting it will raise €64bn (£54bn) a year to funnel into climate-change efforts. They argue that the fee will hit the highest-income families, leaving the bulk of the population of Europe, who fly and earn less, with no additional taxes.90 organisations and 47 academics, including Greenpeace and ActionAid International, have given their support to the idea. The proposal is worth paying attention to, despite not necessarily being imminent: signing it into being would require unanimity among European member states, which is particularly hard to achieve on tax policy, considered one of the last bastions of national sovereignty.But climate change is the great existential threat of our lifetime, and the corporate and incentive travel industry has to reckon with its complicity in increasing emissions and find real, scaleable solutions if it wishes to remain viable, let alone ethically and morally justifiable. So when a proposal such as the FFL is raised, it's important to metaphorically kick its tires, to check what elements of it work, and where it misses the mark. "Higher travel costs might put pressure on budgets and impact attendance... but, it also opens the door for positive change. Organisers can pivot toward more sustainable practices, consider destinations with strong rail networks, consider who actually needs to be at an event in person, and keep leaning into hybrid or virtual formats to keep global access alive without the heavy travel footprint," argues Stephen McIntosh, Client & Strategy Director at event design agency Audience. Sustainability is of course a constant events industry by word and one that deserves more than lip service. The NEF model aims to dissuade 'thoughtless' excessive air travel. However, the FFL would hit business travel hard and would position the UK, in particular, as a thoroughly unattractive destination for events. With few rail or ferry routes to mainland Europe, we'd fall far behind destinations such as Belgium, Amsterdam, or Paris, all of whom operate as rail hubs. David Woodcock, Managing Director of PSP agrees, saying that with such a levy in place, "the UK risks losing appeal as an international events destination, with this levy further widening the divide. Without direct high-speed rail connections to Europe, UK venues may struggle to compete with cities that offer more convenient and lower-emission travel." Europe's (justified) disdain for the self-immolating consequences of Brexit may mean they're not especially bothered about the repercussions of a levy on the UK. But even if we park the notion that the UK will lose out under such a scheme, the levy doesn't seem fit for purpose - it will hit the middle, working, and business classes, but not those that create the bulk of airline emissions. The super-wealthy will not be touched by this measure - they can easily accommodate the extra cost, and they will continue to fly with impunity. Private planes cause the highest volume of carbon emissions each year - these 'super emitters' are responsible for up to 7,500 tonnes of CO2 each year per person. That equates to just 1% of the world's travellers being responsible for half of each year's carbon emissions. The levy designed is clearly to promote behavioural change - that is, make people fly less - but it won't scratch the surface of the actions of this 1%, who can pay for their habits without putting a dent in their crypto accounts. It will, however, hurt the events industry. As Stephen Morton Prior, Company Owner & CEO at Clearwater Events points out, "We are an industry that still hasn’t fully recovered from Covid and with ever-decreasing event budgets (due to the UK’s economic climate), there is only so much magic we can apply before events become unaffordable. "If we have an event with 100 travelling delegates, all potentially having to pay a €100.00 levy, this will increase spend by €10,000.00. This could easily be a make-or-break moment for the event, which means less international travel, less hotel spending, and significant damage to our industry."Jacquie Freer, Head of Global Sales at veSpace, concurs, noting that Covid already caused a huge shift, "meetings take place virtually rather than in-person where possible,' and is concerned about a levy, as 'valued networking and staff reward/recognitions, such as incentives, need to be in-person and to more 'attractive' destinations in Europe which can only be reached by flying."She echoes Stephen's concern 'I fear the event industry will be hit again with rising costs that will need to be factored into events – the negative impact may be that these European events may reduce impacting hotel suppliers, ground suppliers and airlines.'As a means of generating revenue to combat climate change, the FFL is an attractive one. Jacqui Freer notes, "The positives are of course the money raised would help fund the investment needed for EU to meet climate changes which we all support. I think the target audience was intended to be rich individuals who travel several times a year to their second homes in Europe - the impact on the event industry hasn’t been thought through."Even when agencies are able to swallow the cost of the levy, if a corporate traveller is left in the position of having to pay an additional exorbitant fee for their personal travel, due to their work flight commitments, it puts them in an invidious position. The idea, for an illustrative example, of having to pay €400 for a trip to a family wedding in Greece because you've had to travel extensively for work seems, at best an unkindness, at worst a reason to leave your role. Should a person whose job requires extensive flight travel be penalised at the same rate as someone who flies extensively for leisure, without investigating alternative modes of travel? Gavin Farley, CEO of Asembl, echoes Freer and Morton Prior's belief that a levy would decrease the viability of in-person attendance at events. Speaking of the 'value and importance of bringing people together instead of doing Zoom calls,' he's skeptical the change would improve transport infrastructure, but rather 'shift the dial towards regional events or hybrid formats', a move that he - along with many other event planners - would be deleterious, losing the specific connections that can be made in person. Gavin also expresses doubt that the revenue the levy would generate would, in fact, be used to strengthen the infrastructure of transport alternatives, as proposed. As mentioned above, the legislative challenges of bringing the FFL into being are considerable. Beyond that, however, there are other likely obstacles. Matt Grey, CEO of Event Decision, is sceptical that it will come to pass: 'Frequent business fliers as a cohort have significant access to the legal profession to challenge implementation and the aviation lobby is strong. Just look at the tax breaks enjoyed by the sector currently.' Capitalism still trumps climate change action, he notes: "jet fuel is exempt from fuel duties, plane tickets are usually exempt from VAT, and most flight emissions are left out of the EU’s emissions trading scheme. Frequent flying is associated with economic productivity, which is a metric held dear by all who govern us.""Overall, the proposal makes for interesting reading and highlights the debate; can aviation’s emissions profile be significantly reduced simply by technological solutions or will we change our behaviour in the event sector through regulation of demand?" The counter to these concerns, of course, is compelling: that we shouldn't worry about the effect on the events industry and business travellers, because our primary worry is curbing the causes of climate change, as quickly as possible. It is hard to disagree with that. But it does seem unfair to cripple an industry that celebrates connection and innovation, while leaving private planes in operation, whose outputs are significantly worse. If the FFL is to be put into being, it needs to be modified to consider those for whom frequent travel is a work concern. And if nothing else, the report serves as yet another reminder the UK's woeful train infrastructure needs to be overhauled, invested in, and bought into the 21st century, as soon as possible, or the country will continue to lose relevance as a global business destination.

The Frequent Flyer Levy is compelling, but will be dreadful for the UK events industry

IBTM World 2024 preview: The must-see talks and panels for Wednesday

New 10 step guide reveals how to become a leader in sustainable events

Review: B-Corp certification and a ‘bonkers’ new design: Ansty Hall’s multi-million glow up

The Frequent Flyer Levy is compelling, but will be dreadful for the UK events industry

IBTM World 2024 preview: The must-see talks and panels for Wednesday

New 10 step guide reveals how to become a leader in sustainable events

Review: B-Corp certification and a ‘bonkers’ new design: Ansty Hall’s multi-million glow up

Confirm cancellation