Rethinking Europe's airport ecosystem in the age of short-haul flight bans: Winners and losers across airport tiers

This study examines the potential impacts of first-round exposure to future short-haul flight bans in Western Europe. It develops five hypothetical policy scenarios inspired by real-world regulations and academic literature. These scenarios vary according to route distance, rail travel time alternatives, perceived travel-time penalties, and geographic scope. Airports are classified into three tiers based on their size and business model: regional airports (fewer than 5 million passengers per year), major non-hubs, and full-service hubs. Using 2023 traffic data, the shares of passengers, flights, and seat capacity potentially affected by each policy were calculated for every airport. A one-way ANOVA was conducted to test for significant differences in impact across airport tiers. Results show that regional airports face the highest proportional losses, followed by non-hubs. Hubs demonstrated greater resilience to these exposures, particularly under domestic-only restrictions. However, in less restrictive scenarios, non-hubs outperform hubs due to their concentration on medium-haul intra-European routes that initially fall outside policy thresholds. The gap between regional airports and their larger counterparts is substantial, whereas the difference between hubs and non-hubs is relatively narrow. Further intra-tier analysis reveals notable regional disparities. Airports located in countries with extensive high-speed rail (HSR) networks and high volumes of domestic air travel are disproportionately affected. In contrast, airports in less rail-integrated nations face fewer disruptions. Similarly, airports focused on low-cost international leisure routes remain largely unaffected. As the modal shift from short-haul flights to rail accelerates under climate policy pressure, uniform bans risk disproportionately burdening smaller airports and weakening regional connectivity. A tier-sensitive, context-aware strategy is essential. Policymakers must align climate goals with network resilience through rail investment, air–rail integration, and regional support. Only differentiated frameworks can ensure a fair and balanced transition to low-carbon mobility.