No, it is obviously not the question.
This was a question before the pandemic but is still there. The arguments for banning flying are still around, not so loud as before but they have not gone away. thus let us look at the question seriously before it takes off and gets lost in all the hubris.
Flying as a means of transport was introduced to us in the twentieth century, and it is not going to disappear. It is the fastest and most direct way of getting from A to B. For people who live on islands and wish to get to another land-mass flying is the best, most rapid and cheapest form of transport. The Scottish Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland Isles are home to some of the most isolated communities in the British Isles. so they depend on the air services provided to keep them in connection with other essential services which their own communities cannot provide. But you do not need to live in an isolated community so as to have to take advantage of air services to other communities. The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are all depend on air services, not to mention the whole of Ireland, which does not have to connect to Great Britain alone but also to its partners in mainland Europe. The only alternative are ocean going ferries. However, these are much slower than aircraft, turning a one-hour plane journey into an expedition of several hours to reach one’s destination.
So far, we have looked at most of the islands in this archipelago off the coast of mainland Europe. However, if we look at the rest of Europe we have, Cyprus, the Aegean Islands of Greece and Turkey, Malta(and Gozo), Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, The Balearic Islands, The Canary Islands, The Azores and Madeira, all of which are separated by sea from Mainland Europe. Ask the people who live on those islands as well as the people wanting to visit them. Do they want to be forced to take ferries when travelling away from/to them? I am sure that the vast majority would prefer flying. This truth would be underlined when travelling further afield, such as Cyprus to London (and elsewhere in Britain) or Gran Canaria to peninsula Spain (and on to e.g. Vigo). The argument is unanswerable.
So if the question is not, ... to fly or not to fly? What is the correct question?
Maybe it should be....."How can we reduce, as much as possible, the negative impacts of flying on the environment?"
It should be emphasised here that flying only represents 2-2.5% of global warming gasses. As such a large reduction in its quantity will only have a minor effect on the environment. Does that mean we can ignore its effect? - certainly not.
The gas guzzling giant jets such as the B747s and A380s are being withdrawn completely. In the case of Air France it has already done so. The pandemic has given the process that extra push as loss making airlines, meaning all of them, started scrambling to obtain the efficient B787s and A350s as soon as they came off the assembly line. The jumbos were popular with customers but have become uneconomic. Four engines for the former and two engines for the latter though all four planes are widebodied. The introduction of lightweight materials in construction has also made a marked difference. When you talk about savings on running costs of up to 30 per cent, that is something which cannot be ignored.
That means the aircraft manufacturers have made great steps in the reduction of pollution. The airlines are taking these innovations on as soon as is feasible. So the ball falls back into the court of the government about when the measures to apply the improvements are put into effect. The logistics of replacement of the older by the new will dictate matters.
The other thing which should not be forgotten is what is provided as on-land services to the airline companies (and airport). Airside vehicles must change from petrol/diesel usage to electric battery usage (or other means) --- "Follow Me" vehicles, push/pull back tractors, baggage and luggage movements, container freight movement, passenger on/deloading stairs, passenger buses to and from the terminals, and many more. Not least should be the prohibition of any use of combustion engine vehicles airside, private, company, or official.
One minus one minus one etc. soon increases to a considerable reduction up to one hundred. Quickly the reduction in noise is substantial until the only noise would be airliners moving along the taxiways. In the same way the level of air pollution airside of the terminals quickly diminishes. Once this becomes measurable then the cleaner air becomes noticeable.
On the other hand the policy landside must of necessity be more pragmatic. Much depends on the size of the airport. Southampton, Teeside and Inverness are by no means the same size as Stansted, Gatwick nor Manchester. "Horses for Courses" as the saying goes. Apply what is applicable and viable to each airport individually but with the aim of reducing the use of combustion engine vehicles within airport bounds wherever possible. The obligation to use electric (or other non-polluting) vehicles and the prohibition to use combustion engined vehicles should be applied to all public (and airport)and private freight and passenger means of transport.
The question of other airports is varied but all the main ones should have a two runway capacity at least. Why two runways? This is a fundamental question for all the airports. If the main runway is out of use what alternatives exist? Accidents on the one hand do happen, while maintenance of the runway operations is an ongoing necessity. These factors alone demand that the airport can offer a reasonable alternative to its customers - - - the airlines, the passengers and the freight hauliers who use the aircraft do not want delays nor inconveniences so would applaud such a measure - - - to increase the possibility of increasing the use of the runways at the airports.
An add-on effect of having two runways in use, will be the reduction of aircraft traffic over the flight paths. If we maintain the total volume of traffic permissible, compared to a one runway airport, only half the traffic would fly over the same residential areas as before. Heathrow residents are witness to this when the traffic was altered to landings and takeoffs on alternate runways halfway through the day. This solution still lasts at Heathrow and could be introduced at Gatwick as soon as the second runway is built.
As usual solutions exist to satisfy neighbours of the airports. The machines can be made to suit the needs and not the other way round which is erroneous. All it needs is some constructive thinking so that all the desired aims are achieved. That way the airport noise is reduced and the environmental targets can be achieved.
-----------------------
