iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

💥 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

100

🛫 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

100

🛫 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

100

🛫 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

100

🛫 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

100

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

100

⭕ 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

100

⭕ 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

101

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

110

⭕ 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

100

⭕ 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

111

⭕ 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

110

New Economics Foundation @neweconomics.bsky.social · 23/09/2025

🔔 New study🔔 What is the relationship between air transport and economic growth in Europe? Dr Felix Pot and I break it down like never before in our new report for @neweconomics.bsky.social and T&E: /1

155

Reposted by Alex Chapman

Check out our senior economist @alchap.bsky.social on the Energy Revolution podcast talking airports, economic growth and the climate crisis. Full episode available here: linktr.ee/energyrevolu...

linktr.ee

energyrevolution - Listen on Spotify - Linktree

View energyrevolution’s Linktree to discover and stream music from top platforms like Spotify here. Your next favorite track is just a click away!

042

Alex Chapman @alchap.bsky.social · 18/09/2025

I did my first episode on the NEF podcast 🫣

181

Alex Chapman @alchap.bsky.social · 10/08/2025

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.

030

Alex Chapman @alchap.bsky.social · 10/08/2025

My dad was arrested in London yesterday for holding a placard saying "I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action". He's a retired university lecturer who is involved in his local church. Prior to yesterday's demonstration his only legal infraction was a speeding ticket for doing 36 in a 30 zone.

230

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

020

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

100

Heathrow’s investment plan punctures the third runway myth

The right questions getting asked. This week in the Times, Alistair Osborne punctures the myth that a third runway at Heathrow is "crucial for business". Why? Because of the CEO's admission that the "decline in business travel appears to be permanent.../1 www.thetimes.com/business-mon...

thetimes.com

The airport has admitted the decline in business travel is permanent, and wants to spend £10bn raising passenger numbers by only ten million

164

Alex Chapman @alchap.bsky.social · 03/07/2025

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'.

230

Alex Chapman @alchap.bsky.social · 20/06/2025

This just in. Kemi thinks the actions of Palestine Action at Brize Norton might have stopped a war crime... Not sure she fully thought this one through 😂

010

Reposted by Alex Chapman

Chaitanya Kumar @chaitanyakumar.bsky.social · 18/06/2025

You've heard of frequent flyers, but we've got some new research for you on the idea of ultra- frequent flyers. Exciting work from my colleague @alchap.bsky.social where he makes a compelling case as to why this new class of flyers is not paying it's fair share of tax and how we can fix it. 👇👇

01711

Reposted by Alex Chapman

New Economics Foundation @neweconomics.bsky.social · 01/05/2025

There's broad public support for net zero by 2050 & people are concerned about the impact of the climate crisis. So let's deliver net zero policies that benefit ordinary people rather than calling it into question. @alchap.bsky.social spoke to LBC News in light of Tony Blair's comments.

0166

Reposted by Alex Chapman

New Economics Foundation @neweconomics.bsky.social · 03/04/2025

🚨The government has given Luton airport approval to expand. This is despite the fact that it will do very little to boost economic growth and will be devastating for our climate goals. @alchap.bsky.social responds.

Quote from Alex Chapman, senior economist: Growing Luton will not deliver the economic growth the government so desperately wants. Business air travel has collapsed over the last few years and even the airlines admit it isn’t coming back. Instead, expansion at Luton will see another 8m UK residents taking their money overseas on holiday instead of spending it on UK high streets. This is even though the UK already has enough capacity for 300 million passengers to fly in and out every year.

31816

Reposted by Alex Chapman

Eachann @gillies.bsky.social · 02/04/2025

somewhat tongue in cheek here but I saw this and was reminded immediately of @alchap.bsky.social talking about the negative impacts of air travel expansion

131

Reposted by Alex Chapman

Tom Pollard @pollardtom.bsky.social · 15/03/2025

Hi @davidtwilcock.bsky.social. I just wanted to flag that your Mail Online piece from Thursday is hugely misleading & seems to be based off a fundamental misunderstanding of the statistics I'll explain why, then maybe you can retract the piece & issue an apology... 🧵1/6

Daily Mail online headline: The great benefit con? Just 14% of people claiming disability cash can actually PROVE they are too ill to work - as total getting handouts nears 2.5m

510145

Alex Chapman @alchap.bsky.social · 14/03/2025

Recommended reading on the smoke and mirrors government is using to build out a justification for austerity

010

Alex Chapman @alchap.bsky.social · 10/03/2025

I wrote a thing about what really went down in the Gatwick airport expansion decision. Refusal recommended, but it might go ahead? Economic growth? Techie post, you were warned. www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-r...

linkedin.com

What really happened at Gatwick?

Gatwick Airport is getting a second runway. Or wait, is it? Prior to the government's announcement I spent a morning doing a pre-recorded interview for BBC news on the Gatwick Airport expansion.

012

Reposted by Alex Chapman

New Economics Foundation @neweconomics.bsky.social · 27/02/2025

All the reasons why the Gatwick airport expansion is a mistake, in under 1 minute - from @alchap.bsky.social on @lbc.co.uk with @shelaghfogarty.bsky.social

195

Alex Chapman @alchap.bsky.social · 19/02/2025

Had a great chat with @adamtranter.bsky.social and @lauralaker.bsky.social on the Streets Ahead podcast. All things transport, economics, growth, and yes, sorry, the 'Green Book'! Have a listen here: shows.acast.com/streets-ahea...

shows.acast.com

Growth, but at what cost? | Streets Ahead

2155

Reposted by Alex Chapman

Stephen Frost @sfrost.bsky.social · 18/02/2025

Great to hear @alchap.bsky.social (surely one of the busiest ppl in transport at the moment?) on @podstreetsahead.bsky.social talking all things economics & transport. Agree with him that the Green Book doesn’t sit behind decisions like Heathrow - it is all politics. Highly recommend a listen.

shows.acast.com

Growth, but at what cost? | Streets Ahead

091

Reposted by Alex Chapman

Jim Pickard @pickardje.bsky.social · 12/02/2025

statistic of the day: approving the expansion of Heathrow, Luton and Gatwick airports would wipe out ALL the benefits of the government’s 2030 "clean power" target within five years of expanded operation, according to analysis by the New Economics Foundation (NEF) neweconomics.org/2025/01/airp....

neweconomics.org

Airport expansion would wipe out carbon savings of government’s clean power plan

Claimed growth benefits of expansion don’t stack up and will create major climate damage

1214491

Reposted by Alex Chapman

New Economics Foundation @neweconomics.bsky.social · 03/02/2025

👀The research Rachel Reeves used to evidence the benefits of Heathrow expansion was commissioned by Heathrow itself. @alchap.bsky.social spoke to the @theguardian.com about why, with our climate goals at stake, this is such a big problem www.theguardian.com/environment/...

Alex Chapman, senior economist at the NEF, said: “It is very concerning that the chancellor appears to be basing her support for Heathrow expansion on a figure from a report commissioned by Heathrow airport. Even more worrying is the fact that the methodology they have applied is one that the Department for Transport has previously decided is not fit for purpose, and that the report uses forecast data supplied by the airport itself. Heathrow expansion represents a major threat to the UK’s climate goals and flies in the face of scientific advice. To ensure that the claimed economic benefits are concrete, assessments should be carried out by independent government economists following best-practice methodology.

23316

NEF analysis identified a range of weaknesses in the economic case, since it was last fully appraised in 2015. Not least, the decline of business air travel, the surge in outbound leisure travel and the negative impacts on wider regions of the UK – all of which erode the potential growth benefit.

050

Heathrow expansion represents a major threat to the UK’s climate goals and flies in the face of scientific advice. To ensure that the claimed economic benefits are concrete, assessments should be carried out by independent government economists following best-practice methodology.

160

5. ...and that method just *happens* to result in costs about 80% lower than had they followed *the government's actual recommended approach* 6. Nor is it a good look for the *full* report to still not be in the public domain days after its numbers were shared with the nation by the Chancellor.

3. Nor does the study come across very "independent" when it uses forecast data "provided by Heathrow". 4. Nor does it look very "unbiased" when that consultancy uses a completely made-up method to calculate the scheme's biggest costs/downsides...

1. No, the Chancellor should not be basing a decision as climate-critical as this on a study commissioned by the airport themselves. 2. Yes, it gets worse when that very study applies a methodology that the government itself (the DfT) literally decided was not fit for decision making.