4 July 2025 (Geneva) – The International Air Transport Association (IATA) expressed its deep  disappointment at the recommendation of the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force (GSLTF) to target  air transportation in its aim to “improve domestic revenue mobilization of developing countries and  support international solidarity (in particular with regards to climate change mitigation and  adaptation, pandemics and other development challenges).”  

An initial assessment of the GSLTF’s proposals reveals severe deficiencies, including that: 

  • A Competitive Airline Industry Does Not Generate Excessive Profits: The GSLTF  announcement, while lacking any meaningful detail, quotes a CE Delft estimation that a  premium flyer levy could generate EUR 78 billion (over USD 90 billion) per year. That is  approximately three times the airline industry’s global estimated profit of USD 32.4 billion in  2024. Airlines’ structurally thin net profit margin (estimated at an average of 3.4%  industrywide for 2024 and approximately half the global average for all industries) must also  be considered in any policy deliberation. 
  • The Airline Industry Has a Multi-Trillion Dollar Commitment to Sustainability: Airlines have  committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050—an effort that is expected to  cost USD 4.7 trillion over the period 2024-2050. This will ensure that aviation can deliver its  direct contribution of 3.9% of global GDP and 86.5 million jobs globally while addressing its  estimated 2.5% share of global carbon emissions. Increasing aviation taxes on airlines as  proposed will limit the industry’s ability to invest in solutions that deliver long-term emissions  reductions. 
  • A Specialized Climate Financing Mechanism for Aviation Already Exists: The GSLTF’s  proposal disregards the role of the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International  Aviation (CORSIA), which was agreed through the International Civil Aviation Organization and  is the world’s first globally agreed mechanism to manage carbon emissions from an industrial  sector—in this case international aviation. The GSLTF states were among those that created  CORSIA under the principle that it would be the single harmonized market-based measure to  manage international aviation’s carbon emissions. Overlapping measures, such as the  Solidary Levy, would undermine CORSIA and lead towards a fragmented, inefficient and  inconsistent global policy framework. It is essential that all states (those in the GSLTF  included) focus on making CORSIA successful rather than advancing overlapping measures.  Topping the agenda of critical support needed for CORSIA is states making available the  carbon credits so that airlines can fulfil their CORSIA obligations and states can realize their  climate financing value. 
  • Failure to Assess Rising Costs is an Inescapable Consequence of the Proposed Levy: In  addition, the GSLTF has not released any assessment of the impact that such a levy would  have on the economies of the very states to which it aims to funnel the funds, or the broader  impact it will have on all travelers. It has also not detailed how such funds would be used.  Although the GSLTF is positioning its proposal as targeting premium travel, it fails to  recognize the critical importance of this segment to making route networks viable. Punishing  premium travelers or burdening the sector with excessive taxes would upend route dynamics  which enable the connectivity that nearly five billion travelers will rely upon this year. The  impact of the GSLTF’s proposal would make airlines less efficient and more financially  strained. This would mean higher costs for all travelers and for items shipped by air. Such  reduced affordability for a sector that is an indispensable economic catalyst ultimately brings  the unintended consequence of weaker economic growth.  
  • Failure to Assess Rising Costs is an Inescapable Consequence of the Proposed Levy: In  addition, the GSLTF has not released any assessment of the impact that such a levy would  have on the economies of the very states to which it aims to funnel the funds, or the broader  impact it will have on all travelers. It has also not detailed how such funds would be used.  Although the GSLTF is positioning its proposal as targeting premium travel, it fails to  recognize the critical importance of this segment to making route networks viable. Punishing  premium travelers or burdening the sector with excessive taxes would upend route dynamics  which enable the connectivity that nearly five billion travelers will rely upon this year. The  impact of the GSLTF’s proposal would make airlines less efficient and more financially  strained. This would mean higher costs for all travelers and for items shipped by air. Such  reduced affordability for a sector that is an indispensable economic catalyst ultimately brings  the unintended consequence of weaker economic growth.  
  • Failure to Assess Rising Costs is an Inescapable Consequence of the Proposed Levy: In  addition, the GSLTF has not released any assessment of the impact that such a levy would  have on the economies of the very states to which it aims to funnel the funds, or the broader  impact it will have on all travelers. It has also not detailed how such funds would be used.  Although the GSLTF is positioning its proposal as targeting premium travel, it fails to  recognize the critical importance of this segment to making route networks viable. Punishing  premium travelers or burdening the sector with excessive taxes would upend route dynamics  which enable the connectivity that nearly five billion travelers will rely upon this year. The  impact of the GSLTF’s proposal would make airlines less efficient and more financially  strained. This would mean higher costs for all travelers and for items shipped by air. Such  reduced affordability for a sector that is an indispensable economic catalyst ultimately brings  the unintended consequence of weaker economic growth.  
  • “The airline industry is an economic catalyst, not a cash cow. Yet governments casually suggest a tax  on flyers that is three times the airline industry’s annual profit without considering the real-world side  effects for an industry that is a lifeline for remote communities, invigorates tourism markets and links  local products to global markets. Moreover, while the modalities for the GSLTF proposal are not  specified, history shows us that these taxes simply go to the general exchequer, with little, if any, of  the revenues generated going to climate change adaptation,” said Willie Walsh, IATA’s Director  General. 

    “The GSLTF says that their solidarity levies won’t increase the cost of living for ordinary citizens or  impact things like household bills. This is untrue. The bottom line is that, if followed, the GSLTF’s  recommendations will increase the cost of air travel for all travelers and do more harm than good.  Extracting tens of billions from aviation will cripple its ability to invest in achieving net zero by 2050,  change route dynamics to the extent that connectivity will suffer, and short-change countries on the  critical economic support that air transportation provides,” said Walsh. 

    “To be clear, airlines are not evading doing their part to mitigate the impacts of climate change. The  industry is doing everything possible to achieve net zero carbon emissions with Sustainable Aviation  Fuels (SAF), more efficient operations, and better technology. The last thing these efforts need is a  USD90 billion gut punch of a tax. With respect to air transportation, the aims of the GSLTF could best  be realized by supporting investments in SAF production so airlines can deliver prosperity by  connecting people and businesses to global opportunities,” said Walsh. 

    Independent global research carried out by Savanta in 15 countries for IATA reveals deep public  skepticism over air travel taxation: 

  • 73% said that green taxes are government greenwashing
  • 79% said there are too many taxes on flying
  • 78% said that taxation is not the way to make aviation sustainable
  • 74% don’t trust governments to spend tax money wisely
  • 88% believe that taxes collected from air travel should be invested to improve travel for  passengers
  • Taxation was the least popular modality to compensate for carbon emissions associated with  flying with only 9% support. More popular preferences are SAF purchases (25%), carbon  emissions reducing technology investments (23%), emissions reduction research (18%) and  offsetting (13%).