alt Hacker NewsThe cancellations are because of rising prices, that doesn't mean they can get fuel, just that the current price makes the destination unprofitable. (Technically this should free up some fuel).
But I was thinking from a political perspective, allowing airlines to just fly destinations that frankly aren't needed, like vacation hotspots, seems ill advised, if you truly expect to run out off fuel. The reality is that Europe won't run out of jet fuel, it's airlines can pay for the fuel it needs, for the destinations it requires, but prices will go up. Poorer countries will run out, because the fuel is worth more in Europe and will be redirected.
Replies
Three only flights which should be allowed are to transport politicians to and from climate conferences.
> allowing airlines to just fly destinations that frankly aren't needed
What exactly is a "needed" destination and who decides that? Who is going to shoulder the financial loss for banning airlines from flying to popular spots?
If you ban airlines, why not other industries too? Why not private individuals too?
See? It's not that easy
Yep I myself changed my holiday plans from Tokyo to a nice Greek villa. Because I know that ticket prices for Asian flights will skyrocket. That's how scarcity is dealt with: raising prices.
Long term the government will have to look into reshoring some refineries I suppose.