Some people have decided to reduce the number of times they fly every year or to stop flying altogether. Do you think the environmental benefits of this development outweigh the disadvantages for individuals and businesses?

Some people have decided to reduce the number of times they fly every year or to stop flying altogether. Do you think the environmental benefits of this development outweigh the disadvantages for individuals and businesses?

Benefits 

• Environmental pollution mitigation will alleviate disorders and disease 
• Noise pollution will be reduced 
• Destruction of ecologies will be prevented 
• Save money spent on climate control will be saved 

Drawbacks 

• People are foregoing the privilege of visiting their loved ones and acquaintances in person, especially those living overseas; weakening bonds 
• This propensity is also causing people to circumvent opportunities for receiving better medical care, education and employment opportunities, 
• Cultural exchange will stop 
• This will hamper business in several ways: tourism will come to a standstill, causing unemployment in the biggest commercial sector: tourism   
• Technology transfer will stop 

Undeniably, relinquishing flying, or minimizing it, can fetch a few short-term gains, it is likely to have severe ramifications not only for people but also for society at large.

The lobby supporting eliminating reliance on air travel assumes that it would force airlines to decrease the number of flights, resulting in less fuel being burnt. Consequently, the release of pollutants and greenhouse gases would be mitigated in great proportions: airplanes are considered to be the most polluting vehicles on this planet, and with fewer aircraft  getting airborne will mean reduced pollution. However, this presupposition lacks substance and proponents of this trend are barking up the wrong tree; air travel contributes a miniscule fraction to the ecological complications.

In contrast, this tendency will certainly cause several problems, both at micro and macro level, and the world will resign to the pre-aviation era, wherein travelling overseas will become onerous. Many will be deprived of opportunities to meet and reunite with their loved ones, and satisfy  themselves with virtual calls, gradually weakening their bonds. Similarly, those seeking better education, medical intervention, employment, and so forth, will be unable to access these. 

Additionally, the domino effect at a broader level will be far greater as this proclevity will jeopardize  the global efforts aimed at promoting cultural exchange, creating bonhomie between different communities, and preventing conflicts. Moreover, multiple economic sectors will be severely harmed, especially the tourism and hospitality industries, because the lesser number of travellers will cause closure of numerous businesses, engendering joblessness and lack of business. 

To conclude, although intentions driving this behavior are benign, the aftermath will result in unwarranted circumstances, and hamper commercial activities, as well as lives of individuals. Therefore, it can be said that the challenges resulting from this attitude overwhelm any advantages gained.

Air travel is cheap these days, allowing ordinary people to travel further. Some people say that airfare should be increased because this leads to environmental problems. Do you think raising airfare can help reduce air pollution?

 

Air travel is cheap these days, allowing ordinary people to travel further. Some people say that airfare should be increased because this leads to environmental problems. Do you think raising airfare can help reduce air pollution?

Nowadays, people belonging to all socio-economic strata have started travelling across the globe for numerous purposes by air owing to the inexpensive tickets which is affecting the environment adversely. There is a lobby that believes emerging air pollution can be addressed by increasing the airfares. This essay will justify the rationale behind their perspective and discuss that of others.

Many have hailed the proposal of raising the air ticket prices for curbing the ecological disaster prevailing in the society. Since people would not be able to afford the phenomenal prices of air travel for fear of tumbling their budgets, and by going beyond their financial feasibility, entailing a decrease in the number of passengers, thereby minimizing the colossal amounts of air pollution, by virtue of reduction in the number of flights.

However, there are many detractors of the idea of creating an upsurge in the prices. As per them, hike in the prices of air tickets would be of little avail since a major chunk of travellers, especially affluent ones would continue to travel as air transport helps them to save the most imperative commodity which is time. Moreover, in the contemporary era, most are using air travel to negotiate extremely long distances: undertaking overseas or journeys to distant locals, which cannot be substituted; thus, barring a few, most will continue flying. Additionally, this lobby also asserts that such a move will do little to reduce pollution but simply shift it from one mode to the other. Those who can ill-afford air travel will be using surface transport, thereby causing pollution elsewhere. 

To reiterate, the idea of raising the airfare would not bring in any improvement in the situation of deteriorating environmental conditions since people would persist to travel by airplanes owing to its time-effectiveness.

Nowadays airlines provide more benefits to the rich, often achieving this by reducing areas used by the economy class to provide more comfort to the 1st class passengers. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give your own opinion.

Nowadays airlines provide more benefits to the rich, often achieving this by reducing areas used by the economy class to provide more comfort to the 1st class passengers. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? Give your own opinion.

 

Ielts Essay - Business class in Airlines 

Air travel is in vogue today and more and more travelers choose flying, it is simultaneously being observed that airlines are tempted to provide more comfort to business class fliers at the cost of economy class space, even though others think quite differently.  

It seems quite natural for airlines to offer better services to fliers in business class since it fetches multiple benefits, like raised revenues and decreased costs. The passengers buying tickets in a business class pay exorbitant charges, that help airlines in boosting their revenues, and improve the per seat fare ratio. Furthermore, as high fares also mean lesser number of passengers travelling on any flight lesser flight crew members are needed per flight to cater to fliers. Some people even argue that this can also help in the bringing down the fuel consumption of the aircraft since less number of passengers would mean lesser take-off weight.

Apart from that, in the current era of low cost carriers, there is a newly emerging trend of craving among the passengers to opt for an airline that offers premium services, especially among the elite class and the people boarding extremely long distance flights. This has prompted the airlines to build up their brand image among the fliers wanting comforts, even if offered at premium.

However, as per some, in the times when commercial aviation business is passing through a very lean phase, and when almost all the airlines are struggling to survive since even the elite class passenger are becoming thrifty, offering more convenience to Y class at the cost of J class seems to be a very unlikely option.  

Hence, I am not convinced that airlines provide more space to business class travelers by reducing space in economy class.