Readers of this newsletter know that I absolutely love train travel through Europe; however, budget airlines in Europe remain a powerful option for travelers who prioritize price and speed. That doesn't mean you should abandon the rails in favor of the skies. The economics and trade-offs are more complex than ever. A recent report from Greenpeace underscores just how skewed the system is in favor of ultra-low-cost aviation, especially when compared with train travel. 

A Few Real-World Examples: Flights vs. Trains in 2025

To illustrate how budget flying stacks up, here are a few key route comparisons from the latest Greenpeace analysis:

• Barcelona ↔ London Flight: ~€14.99 for a low-cost airline fare. Train: ~€389 for a comparable rail trip. That’s an up-to-26x difference, one of the most extreme in the study.

• Madrid ↔ Brussels According to Brussels Times coverage, this route shows a similarly stark contrast: the train costs about €240.50 (across two legs via Renfe and SNCF), while a Ryanair flight can be as low as €21 on comparable days.

• London ↔ Vienna Greenpeace found flight options at around €21.11, versus train fare of ~€266.90 for the same route in some booking windows.

These aren’t outliers either; in fact, among the 142 routes analyzed (109 cross-border, 33 domestic), flying was cheaper on 54% of cross-border routes for at least 6 out of 9 booking days. Meanwhile, trains only consistently beat flights (for most booking dates) on 39% of those cross-border routes.

Why Are Flights So Much Cheaper (on Paper)?

A few structural reasons explain why ultra-low-cost carriers (ULCCs) can undercut trains so aggressively:

1.     Tax advantages

o    Airlines don’t pay tax on jet fuel (kerosene).

o    International flight tickets are often exempt from VAT.

2.     Low operating and airport fees

o    Many budget airlines use secondary or regional airports with lower landing fees.

o    Public subsidies and favorable policy also tilt the field: Greenpeace argues that the cost structure isn’t purely market-driven.

3.     Rail’s higher costs

o    Rail companies often pay full VAT, high energy taxes, and steep track-access charges.

o    Infrastructure maintenance and investment also factor into ticket prices. Airlines do not pay to “maintain” air routes; however, rail companies do need to help pay for maintenance of the tracks.

Are Trains Getting More Competitive?

There is a silver lining. Since the 2023 Greenpeace report, the share of routes where trains were more often cheaper has increased.

Some routes are improving thanks to:

• Better direct rail connections (reducing the need for long or multiple transfers).
• Growth in night train services, which provide a more climate-friendly (and sometimes cost-effective) alternative to both high-speed day trains and cheap flights.

Still, the overall system favors flying on many cross-border legs, according to Greenpeace’s 2025 analysis.

How to Decide: Fly or Train?

Here’s a breakdown of when budget flights make sense, and when you might lean train despite the higher ticket price.

When Flying Makes Sense:

• Cost is the top priority. On many cross-border routes, cheap flights can be dramatically less expensive than trains.
• Time is limited. If you want to cover longer distances quickly, a flight may be far more efficient even when factoring in airport transfer, security, and waiting.
• You travel light. This is probably the most important. With strict baggage rules on budget airlines, traveling with minimal luggage (or paying carefully for overhead/cabin bags) is essential.

When Train Travel Might Win:

• You value convenience. Trains often go city-center to city-center, which can save you airport transfer time and cost. On a recent trip, I could walk between the train station and hotel in multiple cities.
• You’re environmentally conscious. Trains emit far less CO₂ than planes. Greenpeace notes flying has a “huge environmental cost.”
• You’re okay with booking in advance. For many train routes (especially high-speed or night trains), early booking can make tickets more competitive.
• You want a relaxed journey. Overnight trains let you sleep while you travel and avoid lost daytime on the ground.
• You would need to check a heavy bag. You don’t pay extra for your heavy luggage on trains.

The Bigger Picture: Policy, Climate, and the Future of European Travel

Greenpeace’s report isn’t just a travel-price comparison; it’s also a political and environmental critique. They argue that the European transport system is skewed: aviation enjoys tax breaks and lighter regulation, while rail, a far greener option, is burdened by infrastructure costs and higher taxes.

They’re calling for reforms such as:

• Taxing jet fuel (or introducing a kerosene tax)
• Applying VAT to more flights (or at least leveling the playing field)
• Introducing “climate tickets”: affordable, simple cross-border rail passes that make train travel more accessible and attractive.

From a travel-writer’s perspective, that matters: as much as travelers love a bargain, how we price and regulate travel shapes not just our trips but also the long-term sustainability of Europe’s transport system. It’s in all of our interest to ensure that the system is working for everyone.

Final Thoughts

If you’re planning a trip through Europe and looking to save money, low-cost airlines are still often your best bet, especially for cross-border journeys. But don’t just look at the base fare. Be sure to factor in baggage costs, airport transfers, and how much time you’ll actually save.

On the other hand, if you care about the journey and appreciate the views of the countryside as opposed to the tops of clouds, trains are becoming more competitive. Keep an eye on night trains or more direct high-speed links, and if you’ve got flexibility, you might choose rail even if it’s not the absolute cheapest option.

Flying vs. Trains in Europe: Updated 2025–2026 Comparison

Below are 10 representative cross-border routes (or “city pairs”) where you can compare ultra–low-cost airline fares vs train fares, based on the most recent data, and what that means for planning your trip.

Note: These are not “live” ticket prices but are based on Greenpeace’s survey of 142 routes (109 cross-border + 33 domestic), from their 2025 report. The fares are for economy / 2nd class, non-refundable, on several booking windows. Prices, of course, will vary depending on season and availability.

10-Route Comparison: Flight vs. Train (2025–2026)

Here are 10 cross-border routes (or representative city-pairs) drawn from or aligned with the Greenpeace analysis, with the reported price comparisons:

Route

Approximate Low-Cost Flight Fare

Approximate Train Fare

Observations & Implications

Barcelona ↔ London

Flight: ~€14.99

Train: ~€389

This is the most extreme example in the report. Train cost is up to 26× more expensive than flying. For someone on a tight budget, flying here is nearly a no-brainer. But, when factoring in transfers, wait times, and baggage, those savings might be less “free.”

London ↔ Vienna

Flight: ~€21.11

Train: ~€266.90

Another dramatic gap. Flying is much cheaper, and likely much faster in total travel time. Unless you highly prioritize train travel (for scenery or climate), the flight makes strong sense.

Brussels ↔ Madrid

Flight: ~€21 (Ryanair example)

Train: ~€240.50 (via combined train legs)

Significant difference: budget flight is under a tenth of the train fare in some scenarios. However, if you’re leaving from or arriving in city centers, and especially if train tickets are booked well in advance, the train could be more tolerable though still much more expensive.

Cologne ↔ Manchester

Flight & Train: varies greatly

(Greenpeace notes “some extreme cases,” including this)

The report mentions Cologne–Manchester as one route where train costs can be very high relative to flights, though it doesn’t give a single fixed fare. This suggests that for some less common cross-border train legs, budget air remains highly competitive.

France / Spain / UK Cross-Border Routes (general)

Flight & Train: vary greatly

Across many cross-border routes in France, Spain, and the UK, the report found that up to 90–95% of them were more expensive by train than by plane. This is not just a few outliers – it’s a structural pattern.

Baltic / Eastern Europe Routes

Flight & Train: vary greatly

Some of the more favorable cases for trains: in Poland, 89% of cross-border routes surveyed were predominantly cheaper by train. In the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), trains were always or almost always the cheaper option in the analysis.

Germany / Austria / Switzerland (cross-border)

Flight & Train: vary greatly

For German-speaking countries, the report found a more balanced picture: roughly half of cross-border routes were cheaper by train and half by plane, depending mainly on the destination country.

Domestic (within-country) Routes

Flight & Train: vary greatly

Interestingly, for domestic routes (under ~1,500 km), trains were more often cheaper: in 70% of the 33 domestic routes analyzed, the train was the less expensive option. That means for travel within a single country, the train is increasingly competitive — though “domestic” means different things in different places.

London ↔ Brussels

Flight & Train: (train is cheaper on some days)

According to older analyses, this is one of the few cross-border city-pairs where train tickets (e.g., Eurostar) can be cheaper than budget flights, but the Greenpeace 2025 report suggests that’s only true in 2 out of 9 booking windows in some cases.

Hypothetical / Not Explicitly Listed in Report

various examples

For many traveler-friendly routes (e.g., Paris–Berlin, Paris–Rome), the report doesn’t always give a single “cheap train vs cheap flight” number for all 9 booking windows. But the broader takeaway still holds: on a majority of cross-border routes under ~1,500 km, flying on a low-cost carrier is often less expensive than taking a train, given current tax and pricing structures.