Full report here: neweconomics.org/2025/11/the-...

💥 A big caveat. Our economic model does NOT include the climate driven economic impacts - that will be considered in Part Two - so all outcomes are actually worse than stated. Our model does NOT include equity of impacts - that will be considered in Part Three - and who benefits really matters. /13

🛫 In Cluster 4: Capitals and already well-connected regions. There are signs of saturation in both directions. People here don't need more connectivity. Chances of finding a causal relationship driving economic growth: 29% /12

🛫 In Cluster 3: Tourism sending regions of northern and western Europe. Business air demand is way down. Most regions have a travel spending deficit. Chances of finding a causal relationship driving economic growth: 23% /11

🛫 In Cluster 2: Mainly tourism recipients. Business air demand is down. Air transport remains important to bring tourism, but the quality of that tourism matters. Chances of finding a causal relationship driving economic growth: 59% /10

🛫 In Cluster 1: Mainly eastern Europe. Business air demand is still rising. Incoming tourism is lower, and so are incomes and pre-existing connectivity. Chances of finding a causal relationship driving economic growth: 53% /9

To help characterise the air transport-economy relationship across European regions, we applied a statistical clustering approach to create four distinct groupings (map below): /8

⭕ But even in tourist receiving areas, the relationship isn't as strong as it used to be. Declining duration of tourist stay and the rise of informal accommodation, overtourism and land/rent rises, have reduced the value it brings./7

⭕ Why? A major factor is the decline in business use of air travel. It's accelerated since the pandemic, but was already stagnant in most of western Europe prior to that (Figure below). /6

⭕ but... that causal relationship, relied upon to promote airport expansion and resist aviation taxation, is hardly present in northern and western Europe./5

⭕ In a minority (37%) air connectivity growth drives economic growth. These regions are mainly found in Eastern Europe and tourist *receiving* areas. This is the impact policymakers want, and the industry lays claim to./4

⭕ In the majority of European regions (53%) economic growth drives air transport demand. Higher incomes create demand for outbound leisure travel. This may create a welfare benefit to flyers, but not a wider economic benefit. /3

⭕ Yes, air connectivity and GDP per capita are correlated. But causation, direction and location are too often ignored (and in 11% of regions they are negatively correlated!). /2

Now, in the eyes of this gvt, he is a supporter of a terrorist group. The proscription of PA is clearly stupid and must be repealed. Even more urgently the gvt must stop gaslighting us and actually respond in a manner proportionate to the genocide Israel is perpetrating against Palestinians.

Below is a fresh cut of my favourite graph. Air trips per £million real GDP, with linear trend lines. The world has changed, but will the government catch up in time? /ends

If this question can be asked without any reference to the climate issue, then when we fold in the astronomical level of emissions (enough to wipe out the entire benefit of the Clean Power Plan in 5 years) then it should be an open and shut case. /3

"growth is from the likes of flights to the Greek islands and the Caribbean — up 77 per cent since 2019."

"if Heathrow’s growth is mainly direct leisure flights, how does it make sense to spend tens of billions on a third runway" /2

Yup, Lauren would have won easily. Curtis only showed up on the scene shortly before selection process kicked off many of us had no idea who he was. Lauren had massive support from all wings of the local party, not just 'the left'.