**A disproportionate carbon footprint** A growing body of research is putting premium-class cabins under the spotlight. According to a study commissioned by Greenpeace Europe, 14% of passengers—those flying in first or business class—are responsible for 36% of commercial aviation's CO₂ emissions. Another study led by the University of Oxford, analyzing over 27 million flights in 2023, goes further: it suggests that eliminating premium seats in favor of all-economy configurations, combined with using the most fuel-efficient aircraft and achieving a 95% load factor, could reduce global aviation emissions by 50% to 75%. Simply reconfiguring cabins to all-economy would cut emissions by 22% to 57% without reducing the number of flights, simply by using wide-body capacity more efficiently. **NGOs call for action** Environmental groups such as Greenpeace, Transport & Environment (T&E), and the Climate Action Network argue that reducing premium seating is a priority lever. They advocate for stronger climate taxes on business and first-class tickets, and even for a gradual reduction in premium cabin capacity in favor of denser configurations. The goal is to make those with the heaviest carbon footprint contribute more, while financing the transition through investments in more efficient aircraft and sustainable aviation fuels. **Business travel defends its ground** Philippe Taïeb, president of the business travel agency Jancarthier, acknowledges the climate reality: "The planet is in bad shape, that's a real question." But he warns against reducing the debate to a simple opposition between "good" economy passengers and "bad" premium ones. He argues that business class serves a specific need: "Large companies send their employees on strategic missions, often on long-haul night flights, expecting them to be operational upon landing. Saying the solution is to eliminate business class shows a misunderstanding of business travel reality." **Economic fragility of airlines** Beyond the carbon footprint, the economic model of airlines is at stake. Revenue from business and first class is often critical for the profitability of long-haul routes, including maintaining affordable economy fares. A drastic reduction in premium cabins, as suggested by all-economy reconfiguration scenarios, would fundamentally alter the revenue structure of air transport. Taïeb warns that such a move could lead to higher economy fares or the closure of routes that rely heavily on corporate clients. He also notes that French companies are already tightening travel budgets: "If a company cannot invest 1,000 or 1,500 euros in a trip to Rio, it won't go to Rio. Public markets, which represent a large part of business travel in France, are hitting the brakes." **Risk of shifting the problem** NGOs counter that comfort in the sky is not an acquired right in the face of climate urgency, and that aviation must accept targeted degrowth on the most emitting segments. However, business travel stakeholders fear unintended consequences: a shift to private aviation, which is far more emissions-intensive per passenger, or an increase in multi-stop itineraries. "If you drastically reduce business class supply without a credible alternative, some travelers will switch to private aviation, which is infinitely more emitting per passenger, or will multiply connections to find a product that suits them," warns Taïeb. "We could end up shifting the problem rather than solving it." **Towards negotiated sobriety** On one point, NGOs and business travel actors agree: the sector cannot continue as before. The first changes are already visible, with some companies adopting stricter travel policies and favoring virtual meetings. The debate now is whether the transition will be driven by regulation, market forces, or a negotiated compromise that balances climate goals with economic realities.