[Discussion] Cheap air travel

Many people think cheap air travel should be encouraged because it gives ordinary people freedom to travel further. However, others think this leads to environmental problems, so air travel should be more expensive in order to discourage people from having it. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

With budget travel, this no longer needs to be the case -> emotional contribution is greater -> while this does not have a quantifiable impact on someone, it can be a great motivation -> incentivize workers to keep on working -> giving them something to look forward to 

Environmental issues -> planes primarily use kerosene to power their engines -> still fossil fuel -> create emissions 

Almost impossible to electrify or operate using green energy sources (hydrogen) because 

1. Our technology does not allow it 
2. Kerosene is relatively common, economical and stable compared to the volatile and highly combustible hydrogen 

People have different views about the necessity of budget air travel. Some are of the opinion that as this form of long-distance travel would result in increased carbon footprint, tickets should be more prohibitive so as to discourage its use. Despite this school of thought, I believe that low-cost flights play an indispensable role in allowing the average citizen to travel more freely and as such should be allowed to flourish. 

On the one hand, adversaries of affordable air transit may argue that since airplanes primarily use kerosene to power their engines, it is undoubted that this form of travel would result in further carbon pollution. They may also argue against the viability of air travel from an engineering stand point, that it is almost impossible to make aircrafts sustainable with our current level of expertise and technology. Whereby other forms of transportation like cars can undergo electrification or employ hydrogen power to ensure carbon neutrality, the same techniques can yet to be applied for aircrafts. New technologies, should they be invented, would take years of testing before they can be put into practice, and for the time being, these proponents believe that making air travel more exclusive would be the answer to our environmental problems. 

On the other hand, the implications of low-cost flights can be overwhelmingly positive in my opinion. For starters, not only will cheap air travel enable members of the lower and middle class to have more autonomy with regard to long-distance travel but it will also play a major role in bridging the socioeconomic divide. With the increased availability of flights, individuals can take on oversea employment opportunities or visit distant family members, privileges which were once reserved for the elite. Furthermore, cheaper flights have also played a major role in stimulating the growth of mass tourism, turning it into one of the backbone sectors of many developing economies around the world. It is thanks to the democratization of air travel that developing countries are able to capitalize on new economic opportunities stemming from tourism. In essence, cheap flights do not merely make travel easier; they make global participation fairer for individuals and nations alike.

All in all, in spite of the environmental damage that can result from the increased availability of cheap flights, I still believe it would be more beneficial to advocate for mass air travel, due to its indispensable role in stimulating tourism growth and providing increased autonomy for the ordinary traveller.