NATS survey shows a continuing disconnect of public attitudes to the environmental impact of flying

The latest annual survey by UK air traffic management organisation NATS of public attitudes towards the environmental impact of flying shows that while the public has a strong concern and awareness of the climate cost of flying, individuals’ behavioural change continues to lag behind expressed environmental values. Based on the survey of over 1,200 UK adults in April, 56% of interviewees identified emissions reduction by the aviation sector as a key area for improvement, up from 53% in 2024 but still a significant decrease compared with 2022 (62%) and 2020 (70%). Asked who should take the most responsibility for reducing the sector’s environmental impact of flights in the UK, 30% said it was the government’s, 26% airlines, 23% bodies such as the CAA and NATS, and just 4% said it was up to individual passengers. The percentage of interviewees who had already stopped taking flights within the UK and using other public transport has also fallen to its lowest level over the past five years. A new report by Greenpeace, meanwhile, says short-haul flights remain cheaper than the equivalent train journeys on the majority of cross-border routes in Europe, “creating a perverse incentive that encourages polluting air travel.”

The NATS Aviation Index 2025 survey of public perceptions and priorities, now in its eighth year and carried out by Ipsos UK, showed that while environmental issues remain important, 63% of respondents cited punctual arrivals and departures as their leading priority for industry action. In the past 12 months, 52% of UK adults reported flying internationally, while 32% flew domestically, whereas during the previous year, 50% had flown either domestically or internationally. One in four (26%) expect to fly more in the year ahead, particularly younger adults and ethnic minorities.

The results show that commercial air travel has continued its post-Covid recovery in the UK, with 58% of the public reporting they have flown in the past 12 months, the highest level since 2019 (55%).

Policy interventions to reduce emissions continue to receive moderate support and behavioural intentions remain relatively strong, with one in three respondents say they are willing to avoid domestic flights or opt for public transport when travelling to and from airports, but a gap remains between environmental concern and individual action, finds the survey.

Of six listed actions to reduce their flying-related emissions, 33% of respondents said they did not take any. Flying with airlines that are more ‘environmentally friendly’ is the only action that has increased in popularity over the last six years of the survey.

When asked to prioritise strategies for reducing aviation emissions, respondents ranked sustainable aviation fuel as the top choice – ahead of airspace modernisation, and well above carbon removals and offsetting. “This reflects growing recognition of SAF as a practical, scalable alternative to conventional jet fuel,” comments NATS in the report.

While only 10% of respondents were willing to pay a climate charge or levy on every flight booking, half (50%) would support the introduction of a frequent flyer levy, a slight upward trend from last year’s 48%. In contrast, support for placing limits on the number of flights individuals can take saw a small decline – 36% in 2025, compared with 38% in 2024.

The cost of flying remains the most influential factor in travel decisions, with 89% of people citing this as important when considering whether or not to fly, with 51% of those expecting to fly less pointing to cost as the main reason.

When it comes to domestic travel, the decision to take a flight over using other forms of transport is often driven by convenience (58%), travel distance (53%) and comfort (39%), indicating, says NATS, that air travel still offers a perceived advantage over road or rail in certain circumstances.

Meanwhile, research by carried out by Greenpeace found that on 109 cross-border routes across 31 European countries, flights are predominantly cheaper than trains on over half of them, with low-cost airlines “dominating through unfair pricing,” says the environmental group. Its newly-released Europe-wide report, ‘Flying cheap, paying dear: How airlines undercut rail and fuel the climate crisis’, also reveals the UK as the country with the largest price difference between plane and train tickets.

On cross-border routes, trains in France cost more than flights on 95% of all routes, followed by Spain at 92% and the UK at 90%. Five of the top ten most expensive cross-border train trips, compared to flights, are to or from UK destinations. The research found that not a single UK cross-border route was predominantly cheaper by train. Where cross-border trains are cheaper than flights, Lithuania tops the rankings at 100%, with Poland second at 89%.

Greenpeace says low-cost airlines such as Ryanair, Wizz Air, Vueling and easyJet are able to have ticket fares often starting lower than airport and ticket fees as a result of the advantage of untaxed aviation fuels and the VAT exemption on international flight tickets.

In contrast, it adds: “Rail operators often pay full VAT, rising energy costs and high track access charges. The rail system is also fragmented and underfunded, with complex ticketing, inconsistent operators and underinvestment making trains less competitive and accessible compared to flights.”

Greenpeace is urging EU and national governments to reform transport policy by ending what it sees as subsidies for aviation, introducing a simple rail ticketing system and investing more in public rail infrastructure. It also calls for the introduction of Europe-wide affordable “climate tickets” – flat-rate passes valid across national and cross-border public transport.

“The report reveals a UK transport system that’s rigged in favour of airlines, creating a perverse incentive that promotes air travel over cleaner rail journeys,” commented Ami McCarthy, Greenpeace UK’s Head of Politics. “The environmental cost of planes is huge, with flights emitting five times more carbon per passenger kilometre than trains on average. If ministers are serious about tackling the climate and cost of living crises, they need to stop rewarding pollution, end tax breaks for aviation and make rail travel affordable. Train passengers should not have to pay a premium for choosing the greener option.”

Photo: London Gatwick Airport

Christopher Surgenor
Editor