Well, the issues I'm aware of: Ryanair pay their staff poorly. And that is not cheap enough, so they also employ them under employment law from "cheap countries", to try and circumvent income taxes and other charges of the local countries they service.

Ryanair demand subsidies from local governments to fly to far-flung airports. They can hold these governments hostage, as often the airports fail if they stop their service. Of course, this could be seen as simply "bad management" by our local governments.

And to finish, though this is something that applies to all airlines : no VAT or "eco" tax, that the rest of us have to pay.

People seem to be using the economic word “externalities” as “things I don’t like”.

That is what externality means -- "a side effect or consequence of an industrial or commercial activity that affects other parties without this being reflected in the cost of the goods or services involved." (unless this person is affecting the cost somehow as a result of this dislike)

In a sense, economics is entirely about what people like and dislike.

No, an externality is an impact you create that isn't a part of your business model. It can be positive or negative. Most of the time people talk about negative externalities these days, especially with airlines, they're talking about profiting from climate change. (Although I don't know that Ryanair is worse than anyone else.)

So if we priced airlines in regards to all of their externalities, they would have to pay for climate change but would get a portion of the all revenue derived by business trips (ie. the time saved traveling by air compared to other modes of transport and what the employees traveling would have been able to produce during that time). I wonder if they would end up better off under that system.

They’re already capturing those benefits - they are among the reasons customers buy tickets and thus contribute to the price.

I’m sure positive externalities are a thing, but direct benefits to one party in a transaction aren’t externalities.

In the same sense the climate change effects are also priced in as most people in the west use air travel or add enough carbon via other means to have to be personally responsible for any ill effects.

In the OPs example, hiring low wage labor, is in fact reflected in the price.

Can you explain more about how Ryanair refusing to fly to far-flung airports without a subsidy is an externality?

Someone else is paying for something they are using. Better still:they're getting paid to use it.

Of course, nobody is twisting the arm of these politicians. But the fact remains that Ryanair is exploiting this weakness to avoid paying themselves.

Type "Ryanair airport subsidies" in google and have a look at the first couple of titles. It's a mess that has been going on for 10 years now and is only now slowly being called a halt to.

https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/24-ryanair-airpor...

He’s provably referring to ghg emissions, and sure no one pays that (it’s also not something we can conceivably pay for)

Quite possible for Europe to charge landing fees based on ghg emissions for all planes arriving/departing.

That would be great. I think if they were being aggressive enough, there would probably be less demand for airport expansion, because there would be fewer flights. I don't currently see any way to curtail the carbon from the airline industry that wouldn't involve raising the price so drastically that people would fly less often.

I’m all for charging fees (especially when the chargee is not me), but fees don’t put CO2 back in the ground.

The point is they act as a deterrent. The money raised can be used to mitigate the effects of the emissions.

Cap and trade does in fact make it so that polluters pay for ghg emissions. Why do you say that we can't "conceivably pay for"?