The Congress has urged the government to promote a reduction in short-haul flights, favoring train travel with an average duration of approximately 2.5 hours, except in cases where a connection to an airport hub links to international routes. This stance was approved as a motion with 19 votes in favor and 17 against during a session of the Commission for Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge. [Attribution: Official commission records]
Originally, the initiative from Sumar aimed to urge the government to prepare a report analyzing the emissions reductions achievable by substituting short flights with a rail option of about 3 hours and identifying all other impacts that such a policy could have. After an amendment by the PSOE, the proposal was revised to advocate cutting domestic flights on routes with a rail option under 2.5 hours, again with the exception for hub airport connections that feed into international routes. [Attribution: Policy document references]
In practice, this wording mirrors what had been included in the governing agreement between the PSOE and Sumar. It contradicts earlier statements by Yolanda Díaz’s party in the initial motivation for the measure, which noted that many daily flights between Alicante, Barcelona, Málaga, Seville, Valencia, and Madrid have a high-speed train alternative around three hours. The effect, it was argued, would be to route any substitute flights via Madrid, the country’s largest airport and a collision point for international connections. [Attribution: Government program text]
Supporters of the measure argue that the reduction of short-distance flights is part of a broader European trend. They point to countries like Austria, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, and more recently France, which have curtailed or eliminated flights on routes shorter than 400 kilometers or where a rail alternative exists within 2.5 hours. The measure is justified on climate grounds, noting aviation’s share of global climate impact and, in addition, public health concerns tied to air quality. Proponents emphasize that thousands of premature deaths each year in Spain are linked to poor air quality, underscoring the health argument alongside climate concerns. [Attribution: European Environment Agency and national health statistics]
The PSOE spokesman, Arnau Ramírez, defended the position by saying that air travel causes more pollution than rail, while insisting that any reduction should not harm tourism, a sector that generates jobs and wealth. He also highlighted the importance of residents in the Balearic and Canary Islands and Ceuta and Melilla, who depend heavily on air transport. Ramírez stressed that measures would only be taken where a credible rail network exists to provide viable alternatives, and he also signaled openness to supporting research into fuels and technologies that could replace kerosene and reduce emissions. [Attribution: party statements]
Beyond the core proposal, the motion also calls for examining the directive being developed by the European Commission on the taxation of energy products. The debate includes considerations about imposing a tax on aviation kerosene, evaluating European initiatives aimed at restricting high-emission private jets, and continuing to promote the European Sky initiative as a way to curb emissions from commercial aviation. [Attribution: European policy framework]
Opposition voices from the Partido Popular and Vox rejected any prohibition or reduction of short flights. The PP spokesperson cited the Engineering College of Aeronautics, arguing that banning short flights would yield only a marginal national emissions reduction, and suggested that travel patterns would simply shift to other airports, potentially failing to improve the economy or cut emissions meaningfully. Vox, represented by a party spokesman, dismissed the measure as another round of prohibitions and higher taxes that would undermine competitiveness and living standards. He warned against policies that would push people back toward less efficient forms of transport. [Attribution: party responses]