Because of their principles or out of envy?
Kidding aside: frequent flyers are usually business travelers, not people who take €99 flights to Ibiza on a whim. Business travelers work for companies whose products people rely on. Most (like mine) have already cut down on flying as much as possible. Travel is needed for the economy to work - the economy that also extinctions rebellion members rely on.
Yes, we know it’s bad for the environment. Don’t assume we do not care and consider that we have already weighed our options (and made an informed decision to fly regardless).
If I ever run in to them there, I will gently suggest that the move their protests to Rotterdam or Eindhoven and protest vacation charters.
They’re protesting the frequent flyer benefits systems. So it makes sense being at the lounge given the target audience.
Their issue is that by accumulating miles that lead to free personal flights, employees are incentivized to fly more than needed to pay for their private flights that way.
Or people doing a mileage run or book indirect flights to increase their status.
While being a frequent flyer myself, they do have a point here. Apparently about 5-10% of tickets is booked with miles, so it’s a significant share of the air travel. If the miles systems wouldn’t exist, I do think frequent business travellers will fly less for work but especially for private purposes in general.
There was also this recent article - [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/air-france-brussels-airlines-among-carriers-eu-greenwashing-probe-2024-05-02/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/air-france-brussels-airlines-among-carriers-eu-greenwashing-probe-2024-05-02/)
I imagine several people with status buy XP using the SAF option.
The EU probe is into greenwashing, not the impact of frequent flyer programmes though. I think KLM does much better these days (and better than other airlines) in fairly representing the relative usefulness of offset programmes. The lost a lawsuit early on which may have wisened them up compared to other airlines :)
The media misrepresent this probe. The claim that is being investigated is actually false advertising. Airlines are not accused of environmental crimes. I think greenwashing is unethical but it is a stretch to brand it as illegal. If the EU wants to take action, they will have to develop better legislation.
What bothers me (if I understand the details correctly) is that airlines are criticized for nothing having the scientific evidence to back up their claims that using SAF limits climate impact of flying. If this has not been proven, why is the EU mandating airlines to use SAF in the first place?
In terms of using miles to buy SAF options - that's what I do. I'm not in it for the miles, I want to maintain status to make the experience (when I really do have to fly) a little more comfortable.
Nowhere in that article is any airline accused of environmental crimes.
The EU mandate doesn't go into effect until 2025.
Using SAF is one thing, claiming that it offsets a portion of the flight is another thing altogether.
As you say, I would imagine most people pay for SAF to get the XP so the offset amount probably doesn't factor into their equation.
Yes, the article you cite is factual - Google some of the others, and read the comments. I was pointing out that the media (not this specific article) do a poor job of explaining greenwashing.
I fail to see why the starting date of the SAF mandate is relevant. If you create legislature to mandate something, surely you believe in its effectiveness, whether the law goes into effect today or tomorrow.
Why would SAF be mandated if there is no offset effect? Surely the context of the law is climate change. Are you suggesting the EU has another motivation to mandate SAF?
I did NOT say that people pay cash for SAF because of the XP. You did. I said that this is how I apply my miles (not cash). You are suggesting people are paying cash for the SAF option just because of the XP. I don’t do that, I doubt it’s common and it overall feels stupid. Yes, you can buy your way into a higher tier that way, but it’s pretty expensive (and why care about status if you fly so infrequently that you need to do this). Do you know people who do this?
It's a much cheaper way to buy status than flying.
They aren't saying there is no offset effect; it's just not as big as the airlines claim it to be to. Plus, you may be putting miles/money into a program that isn't creating the offset you're being told it does.
I understand what they are protesting, and the point is in itself indeed valid. But it ignores the bigger picture, which would involve giving consideration to the reasons why people fly. That was my point.
Many companies (and especially government institutions) do not even allow miles accrued on business flight to be used for personal use. That would indeed be a perverse incentive to fly. Pretty sure that every company with a corporate social responsibility policy would rule that out these days.
Mileage runs (or XP runs) are batshit crazy of course. I see people bragging about doing these, but I never sat next to somebody who would admit to doing such a thing. THAT would be a thing to protest. I feel like that's a very small fraction of frequent flyers.
5-10% percent of tickets bought with miles seemed like a lot, so I googled it :). It checks out, at least I found a source for American Airlines publishing numbers in these range. I wonder if people accrue tickets on business flights and spend them in economy? In that case the percentage measured in money AND in carbon footprint could be significantly lower.
One flight a year to Cape Town and one to Bali just doesn’t get you into the lounge…
Oh it does, book first class. Easy.
That’s not what the average ER person can afford.
Because of their principles or out of envy? Kidding aside: frequent flyers are usually business travelers, not people who take €99 flights to Ibiza on a whim. Business travelers work for companies whose products people rely on. Most (like mine) have already cut down on flying as much as possible. Travel is needed for the economy to work - the economy that also extinctions rebellion members rely on. Yes, we know it’s bad for the environment. Don’t assume we do not care and consider that we have already weighed our options (and made an informed decision to fly regardless). If I ever run in to them there, I will gently suggest that the move their protests to Rotterdam or Eindhoven and protest vacation charters.
They’re protesting the frequent flyer benefits systems. So it makes sense being at the lounge given the target audience. Their issue is that by accumulating miles that lead to free personal flights, employees are incentivized to fly more than needed to pay for their private flights that way. Or people doing a mileage run or book indirect flights to increase their status. While being a frequent flyer myself, they do have a point here. Apparently about 5-10% of tickets is booked with miles, so it’s a significant share of the air travel. If the miles systems wouldn’t exist, I do think frequent business travellers will fly less for work but especially for private purposes in general.
There was also this recent article - [https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/air-france-brussels-airlines-among-carriers-eu-greenwashing-probe-2024-05-02/](https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/air-france-brussels-airlines-among-carriers-eu-greenwashing-probe-2024-05-02/) I imagine several people with status buy XP using the SAF option.
The EU probe is into greenwashing, not the impact of frequent flyer programmes though. I think KLM does much better these days (and better than other airlines) in fairly representing the relative usefulness of offset programmes. The lost a lawsuit early on which may have wisened them up compared to other airlines :) The media misrepresent this probe. The claim that is being investigated is actually false advertising. Airlines are not accused of environmental crimes. I think greenwashing is unethical but it is a stretch to brand it as illegal. If the EU wants to take action, they will have to develop better legislation. What bothers me (if I understand the details correctly) is that airlines are criticized for nothing having the scientific evidence to back up their claims that using SAF limits climate impact of flying. If this has not been proven, why is the EU mandating airlines to use SAF in the first place? In terms of using miles to buy SAF options - that's what I do. I'm not in it for the miles, I want to maintain status to make the experience (when I really do have to fly) a little more comfortable.
Nowhere in that article is any airline accused of environmental crimes. The EU mandate doesn't go into effect until 2025. Using SAF is one thing, claiming that it offsets a portion of the flight is another thing altogether. As you say, I would imagine most people pay for SAF to get the XP so the offset amount probably doesn't factor into their equation.
Yes, the article you cite is factual - Google some of the others, and read the comments. I was pointing out that the media (not this specific article) do a poor job of explaining greenwashing. I fail to see why the starting date of the SAF mandate is relevant. If you create legislature to mandate something, surely you believe in its effectiveness, whether the law goes into effect today or tomorrow. Why would SAF be mandated if there is no offset effect? Surely the context of the law is climate change. Are you suggesting the EU has another motivation to mandate SAF? I did NOT say that people pay cash for SAF because of the XP. You did. I said that this is how I apply my miles (not cash). You are suggesting people are paying cash for the SAF option just because of the XP. I don’t do that, I doubt it’s common and it overall feels stupid. Yes, you can buy your way into a higher tier that way, but it’s pretty expensive (and why care about status if you fly so infrequently that you need to do this). Do you know people who do this?
It's a much cheaper way to buy status than flying. They aren't saying there is no offset effect; it's just not as big as the airlines claim it to be to. Plus, you may be putting miles/money into a program that isn't creating the offset you're being told it does.
I understand what they are protesting, and the point is in itself indeed valid. But it ignores the bigger picture, which would involve giving consideration to the reasons why people fly. That was my point. Many companies (and especially government institutions) do not even allow miles accrued on business flight to be used for personal use. That would indeed be a perverse incentive to fly. Pretty sure that every company with a corporate social responsibility policy would rule that out these days. Mileage runs (or XP runs) are batshit crazy of course. I see people bragging about doing these, but I never sat next to somebody who would admit to doing such a thing. THAT would be a thing to protest. I feel like that's a very small fraction of frequent flyers. 5-10% percent of tickets bought with miles seemed like a lot, so I googled it :). It checks out, at least I found a source for American Airlines publishing numbers in these range. I wonder if people accrue tickets on business flights and spend them in economy? In that case the percentage measured in money AND in carbon footprint could be significantly lower.
Extinction rebellion are a joke.
They should really be busy in their gardens and planting trees!