this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
78 points (98.8% liked)

Europe

11072 readers
465 users here now

News and information from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, islamophobia, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism. We follow German law; don't question the statehood of Israel.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in other communities.
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)
  10. Always provide context with posts: Don't post uncontextualized images or videos, and don't start discussions without giving some context first.

(This list may get expanded as necessary.)

Posts that link to the following sources will be removed

Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com

(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)

Ban lengths, etc.

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
federalreverse@feddit.org
poVoq@slrpnk.net
anzo@programming.dev
EuroMod@feddit.org
78
Europe’s smaller airports ‘under threat’ if fuel shortages cause many cancellations (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 4 days ago by HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org to c/europe@feddit.org
28 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Europe’s smaller airports may not survive if jet fuel shortages triggered by the Middle East crisis lead to widespread route cancellations, the industry’s trade body has warned.

Although airlines insist there are currently no supply problems within the normal four- to six-week horizon, the US-Israel war on Iran and the effective closure of the strait of Hormuz have doubled the price of jet fuel, prompting some carriers to cancel flights.

The Airports Council of Europe said regional airports were the most exposed and faced an “existential threat” if airlines cut capacity and raised fares, as demand on their routes was generally more price-sensitive – demonstrated when Lufthansa axed 20,000 summer flights operated by its regional subsidiary, CityLine.

top 28 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 22 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

If I remember correctly, to achieve any effective climate protection, we need to fly way less anyways.

Under this angle, a few airports for short distances and airlines going bust is not really that bad, is it?

And I guess its only the beginning of a bigger reshuffle as we enter an age with less fossil energy use...

[–] First_Thunder@lemmy.zip 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That’s not always great though, specifically in the case of islands (thinking of Portugal, with Madeira and Azores) where the constant communication is what allows the islands to thrive as part of the nation

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

There are ways of life that simply don't work in a sustainable way.

Nobody has the right to leave a scorched Earth to later generations. The limits of personal freedom are where what is done affects the essential rights of others.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Under this angle, a few airports for short distances and airlines going bust is not really that bad, is it?

Aside that people still need to move, are you sure that the alternatives to short distance flight are better ? And what can be used as an alternative ? Bus ? Trains (for which you should probably build the railways) ? Cars ?

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Do you think that people can't move without flying?

are you sure that the alternatives to short distance flight are better ?

Yes. Including arranging one's life so that you don't need to fly.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 points 4 days ago

Do you think that people can’t move without flying?

No, only that sometimes flying is better that other alternatives.
In France some connection was terminated because train was better (less expensive, overall faster) than flying and that's ok, but it is not always true.

are you sure that the alternatives to short distance flight are better ?

Yes. Including arranging one’s life so that you don’t need to fly.

Ok, but you should ask why people need to fly and I am sure you are not impling that people should never move from the place where they are born, be for work or any other reason.

But I am intrigued by what can be your solution for people who live on islands or has not other alternatives other than using a car/bus instead of flying in the case they cannot/don't want to spend 8 hours traveling by car or train instead of a one-hour flight.

[–] KatherinaReichelt@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

That is a problem that is hard to solve. Many people do not need to move but want to move for reasons. You do not need to fly to Mallorca in order to get wasted on cheap beer. You do not need to fly to Paris in order to start a shopping spree. You do not need to fly to Barcelona to watch a soccer game or fly into Vienna to catch a Taylor Swift concert. People are doing that. They like it, but it's totally okay if they are not able to use airplanes for that. It's also okay if the business class is going back to relying on online calls and meetings like they did during COVID. There's no reason for someone to fly to London just to present a power point.

But there are also reasons why people might want or need to fly, for example to visit their family in a far away country. And that is really hard to balance in our current setup because rich people will be able to fly to Mallorca to get wasted on champagne, while your poor migrant will not be able to afford to fly to Turkey to visit their grandma for the last time.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

That is a problem that is hard to solve. Many people do not need to move but want to move for reasons.

I hope you don't imply that people should never leave the place where they are born.
Yes, people want to move for some reasons and that's ok. I don't see why they should have limits on this.

You do not need to fly to Mallorca in order to get wasted on cheap beer. You do not need to fly to Paris in order to start a shopping spree. You do not need to fly to Barcelona to watch a soccer game or fly into Vienna to catch a Taylor Swift concert. People are doing that. They like it, but it’s totally okay if they are not able to use airplanes for that.

I don't agree.
Or better I agree for the reasons you cited, but you can go to the cities you list also to just see them, I think it is fine.

It’s also okay if the business class is going back to relying on online calls and meetings like they did during COVID. There’s no reason for someone to fly to London just to present a power point.

That's a stupid point.
It is not the single flight to London the problem, but that lot of us are forced to go to the office to do a work you can do from home. You want to fight pollution ? If you mandate remote work for every possible worker that can use it, the number of people on the roads will drop significantly and the ones that need to go to work (production for example) have a better public transportation system as a collateral effect.
At this point the single time you need to fly to London to present a power point (because sometime you need to do it in person) is offset by the large quantity of pollution you avoid letting people to work from home.

But there are also reasons why people might want or need to fly, for example to visit their family in a far away country. And that is really hard to balance in our current setup because rich people will be able to fly to Mallorca to get wasted on champagne, while your poor migrant will not be able to afford to fly to Turkey to visit their grandma for the last time.

People fly also to avoid to spend a lot of hours for a trip with a train that can be just a couple of hours flying.
An example: if I want to go to Sicily (Catania to be exact) from Milano I have the option to fly there (2.5/3 hours considering the time to reach airport) or to use a train (a little less than 15 hours with two train transfers). Or if someone want to visit their parent living on some island and the only alternative is the ferry (slower and more expensive).

In the end for every example that you can do about people that could choose to not fly, I could make an example about people that cannot choose to not fly, so maybe the real problem is not that.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yes, people want to move for some reasons and that’s ok. I don’t see why they should have limits on this.

You mean "flying" here. Flying frequently generates excessive amounts of CO2. That is killing other people. Killing other people for one's own fun or comfort is not OK.

Now the next person will come and say, that's not an individual problem, but a collective or societal one. But lifting the decision to a collective or political level, doesn't change the fact by one iota that frequently flying generates lots of CO2, and lots of CO2 kills people. The only collective solution can be to have collective boundaries about that.

In in respect to technomogical alternatives: They are not there, in terms of available, real solutions, they don't exist. No normal person is going to cross the ocean in a solar glider. We need to deal with reality, instead of what we wished that exists.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 3 days ago

You mean “flying” here.

Obviously

Flying frequently generates excessive amounts of CO2. That is killing other people. Killing other people for one’s own fun or comfort is not OK.

Everything we do affect other people, in a way or another, we cannot think otherwise.

Now the next person will come and say, that’s not an individual problem, but a collective or societal one. But lifting the decision to a collective or political level, doesn’t change the fact by one iota that frequently flying generates lots of CO2, and lots of CO2 kills people.

Flying generates only about 2% (against a 72% of the cars for example) on a global basis (%3 if you consider only Europe) of the CO2.

I agree that even if relatively small it is not to understimate but we can probably have better results if we choose to attack other aspects.

The only collective solution can be to have collective boundaries about that.

Or maybe ask for solution that benefit everyone instead of "punishing" only someone, like work from home for everyone who can. Or maybe to just stop to have a NIMBY attitude for everything (be a new solar field, a new railways or a wind turbine farm). Or maybe ask to make it easy to install solar/wind power generation plants for domestic usage.

There are a lot of things we can colletively ask to make thing better for everyone instead of saying that someone else should be stop to do something.

[–] KatherinaReichelt@feddit.org 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The problem is that we are trying to solve climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions regardless of who is causing them and why. That is leading to a world where some rich asshole in his private jet is flying to Monaco to watch the Formula One, and other people can't afford to heat their homes. That doesn't work and the current backlash is exactly caused by that. You are forced into the office by those rich CEOs and their private jets and the gov is telling you to drive less and is increasing the taxes for your petrol.

What I wanted to say is that there are totally fine reasons to fly or move around, and reasons that are not so great and should maybe be avoided. Our current setup is not reflecting that because it's simply based on your ability to pay.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The problem is that we are trying to solve climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions regardless of who is causing them and why.

It is not really important in my opinion to know who or why

That is leading to a world where some rich asshole in his private jet is flying to Monaco to watch the Formula One, and other people can’t afford to heat their homes.

So we "punish" the rich people without doing anything for the other people. Let's assume that you ban rich people to fly to Monaco, now what ? The amount of CO₂ produced by air travel is reduced by an amount that, on a global scale, is practically negligible, what good it do to the people who cannot heat their homes ?

That doesn’t work and the current backlash is exactly caused by that. You are forced into the office by those rich CEOs and their private jets and the gov is telling you to drive less and is increasing the taxes for your petrol.

The current backslah is caused by idiots who cannot read and understand facts. As i said flying generates about 2% of the global CO2, how much do you think a group of rich people would generate annually on a global basis ?
Moreover these idiots are the same that if you plan to build a new railways to reduce the cars on the road (and conseguently the pollution) protest just because with variety of stupid reasons, not last the NIMBY aspect.

Now, I agree that every reduction in polllution is good but we should aim for the bigger target (which, normally, is the impopular one) instead of the smaller that make the idiots feel good but does nothing.

What I wanted to say is that there are totally fine reasons to fly or move around, and reasons that are not so great and should maybe be avoided. Our current setup is not reflecting that because it’s simply based on your ability to pay.

You are targeting what, on a global scenario, is a niche in a niche. It make no sense if you want to solve global problems.

[–] KatherinaReichelt@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There are two things: The amount of CO2 produced by private jets is not "near nothing", it is quite significant and produced only by a small number of people. We need to get to net zero in order to save the planet and therefore we can't afford a "it's only a small amount" way of thinking. And we can already see how this behaviour of the super rich is tipping opinions against environmental protections. I'm sure you have seen this whole "Taylor Swift is flying everyday and we have to drink out of paper straws"-meme

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There are two things: The amount of CO2 produced by private jets is not “near nothing”, it is quite significant and produced only by a small number of people

Quite significant of what ? If the total CO2 produced by the aviation industry is the 2% of the total pollution, even if the private jets produce 50% of this quantity it just is the 1% of the total. And I think that commercial jets are way more and fly way more than private jets so the quantity by which you reduce the pollution is negligible.

Again, it is not to be ignored but maybe it should not be our first target.

We need to get to net zero in order to save the planet and therefore we can’t afford a “it’s only a small amount” way of thinking.

Then maybe we could start to focus on thing that have heavier impact, like cars or industry, instead of focusing on niche things that would not make a difference. But ok, I get it, after all the rich are the cause of everything.

And we can already see how this behaviour of the super rich is tipping opinions against environmental protections.

Let me ask a question: do you really think that changing the behaviour of the 1% richest people would change anything on the pollution problem ?
Not that we don't need to take also them accountable, but I still fail to see how reducing (or stopping) something this marginal can help.

I’m sure you have seen this whole “Taylor Swift is flying everyday and we have to drink out of paper straws”-meme

Yes, and I found it always stupid while looking at the cars lines on a random morning in every big city in the US.

[–] KatherinaReichelt@feddit.org 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Let me ask a question: do you really think that changing the behaviour of the 1% richest people would change anything on the pollution problem ?

Yes, I really do think that changing the behaviour of those people who are producing 15% of global emissions will have an effect on global emissions.

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Can you possibly post where to find the original image ? Too small to read anything other than some number.

Yes, I really do think that changing the behaviour of those people who are producing 15% of global emissions will have an effect on global emissions.

And how this 15% is calculated ? What is included ? What is excluded ?
Are you sure that you are not targeting this 1% only because it is more simple to just say "is someone else fault" ?

[–] KatherinaReichelt@feddit.org 1 points 2 days ago

Ask the World Economic Forum or the Stockholm Environment Institute:

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/05/climate-change-economic-impact-incomes/

(and if you are honest, it totally makes sense that rich people produce an overproportional amount of CO2. They have the money. They are flying. They are consuming more. They have bigger houses and all those fancy Saunas, Whirlpools and second homes. Why are you questioning that?)

[–] tal@lemmy.today 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

And I guess its only the beginning of a bigger reshuffle as we enter an age with less fossil energy use

Well, there's hydrogen, which could also fuel aircraft.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

hydrogen

You'd pay 1000 Euro to fly from Frankfurt to Munich?

[–] emmanuel_car@k.fe.derate.me 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

No, I’d pay 100€ to take the ICE from hbf to hbf. And that’s if I somehow need to buy a ticket for a train same day, cheaper if done in advance.

[–] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

pro tipp: Much easier and quicker to buy flex tickets from https://oebb.at/ (the national railways of Austria), they have a much nicer web site.

[–] emmanuel_car@k.fe.derate.me 2 points 4 days ago

Ehh I’ve used both the DB and ÖBB websites and apps, I find DB more intuitive, especially for return tickets, which are what I generally want to buy. Good tip for the flex ticket though.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 days ago

Honestly, my uneducated opinion is that this is a good thing

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago

Good. The less flights, the better.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

They will ground all private jets, right?

[–] trollercoaster@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

Anakin and Padme Meme - They will ground all private jets, right?

You forgot the picture.