In a rather disbelieving tone, Tony Hayers expresses his skepticism as Alan Partridge delves into his notes and produces “Arm Wrestling with Chas and Dave.” Hayers responds with a blunt “I don’t think so.” So, let’s delve deeper into what it would mean to only allow one flight per person every three years. Essentially, this would limit individuals to one summer holiday every 36 months, which is almost twice as long as the interruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. This restriction would place a considerable amount of pressure on destinations like Cornwall, which would likely become overwhelmed with tourists.

Moreover, sticking to the 932-mile limit means that individuals would not be able to enjoy the Spanish Costas or the beautiful Aegean Sea. For instance, a round-trip from London to Malaga covers a distance of approximately 2,500 miles, while London to Athens and back would amount to more than 3,450 miles. Unfortunately, individuals residing in Glasgow would only be able to travel in a circular route to Bournemouth within the mileage allowance. Even for those based in the south of England, the best option would be a flight from Heathrow to Frankfurt and back, leaving around 12 miles as a remainder. While Frankfurt may have its charms as a significant financial hub with fantastic dining options, it may not rank among the top five favorite German cities for many. Additionally, Frankfurt’s appeal may not be sufficient to justify spending one of the allotted 3.3 flights per decade there.

However, if this drastic aviation restriction were implemented, it would not only significantly reduce the industry’s emissions by over 43 percent, but it would virtually eliminate it altogether. Without a viable number of passengers, airlines, many of which have struggled to survive the pandemic, would become unprofitable and eventually be forced to shut down. Consequently, the foreign holiday industry would collapse, leaving holiday package providers without customers and leading to widespread unemployment from Cascais to Cadiz to Crete. While this would eliminate the need for rescue operations due to fires on Rhodes, it would also mean that the hotels that once thrived on tourist traffic would be left vacant.

Furthermore, this limitation on flights would also impact business travel, which would undoubtedly come to a halt. Who would be willing to use their precious triennial flight token to attend conferences held in convention centers overlooking the River Main in Frankfurt? The answer is likely no one. Given these circumstances, Frankfurt’s significance as a financial hub would diminish. It is safe to say that if this aviation starvation diet were to become a reality, connections between the C40 Cities in time for the next conference would be virtually non-existent. People would either have to resort to hiring sailboats or simply walk to their desired destinations. The two-year habit of condensing life into a Zoom window, developed during the Covid-19 pandemic, would seem like nothing more than a fleeting 10-minute interlude.

So, while the idea of reducing air travel to such a minimal extent may seem beneficial from an environmental perspective, its real-world implications are far-reaching and detrimental. The economic, social, and cultural consequences of such a limitation would be severe, as industries dependent on tourism and air travel would crumble, leaving millions unemployed and communities struggling to survive. While finding sustainable alternatives to air travel is essential, it is crucial to consider the potential consequences of extreme measures and to find a balance that allows for both progress and preservation.