Rising air traffic has intensified noise, emissions and pressure for new airports, largely driven by the expansion of low-cost flights to leisure destinations. I agree that governments should restrain this growth through heavier taxation, provided it is targeted and proportionate, because market prices currently understate the environmental and social costs of flying.

First, higher taxes help to account properly for externalities by reflecting pollution, noise disturbance and land use in ticket prices. When fares rise modestly, discretionary holiday travel becomes less frequent, airlines deploy fuller aircraft, and marginal routes are reconsidered. For example, a surcharge on short-haul leisure flights would encourage travellers to choose rail or closer destinations, reducing emissions without banning mobility or essential journeys.

Second, taxation helps correct distortions created by low-cost business models that rely on minimal fares and rapid airport expansion. Critics argue that higher charges harm consumers and tourism; however, carefully designed levies can be paired with exemptions for essential travel and reinvestment in cleaner aviation technology. Such measures protect access while signalling that unchecked airport construction and persistent aircraft noise impose unacceptable public burdens on local communities.

Overall, heavier taxation is a justified and effective tool to reduce excessive air traffic linked to low-cost holidays. By pricing environmental harm more accurately and shaping airline behaviour, governments can limit pollution, noise and airport growth while preserving necessary national and international connectivity.