just my view
Carbon tax is wholly dependant on the aircraft x the amount flight hours. The only way to reduce it would be to lower journey times (in the short term), which can be viable on short haul flights but are much harder on long haul flights since they generally follow the great circle route. Penalising passengers or airlines for the efficiency of the aircraft or the effectiveness of the Air Traffic services seems like a money making game rather than having any actual benefit to aviation. Most utilised long haul aircraft are made by Airbus or Boeing.
Another point to note is the efficiency of operators is very dependent on the saturation of the market and predictability of the public. In Europe where most markets are explored, airlines can increase utilisation of aircraft based on historic data. But, in emerging economies statistics are blurry and demand is volatile. Asking for high levels of efficiency is just not possible until the data and infrastructure to support it are in place.
USA on the other hand will simply oppose it on principle. Taxing an already heavily taxed and regulated industry is never going to get very far with them.
I feel this tax is very very biased and unfair almost to the point of being underhanded and sly behind a facade of environmental caring. It will most definitely stall growth of Asian carriers coming into Europe primarily due to competition by European airlines which are more efficient and thus will pay lower carbon taxes. This would mean the Asian carriers will have to either absorb the difference in cost and suffer from lower margins or pass it on to the passengers by which they become uncompetitive.
The tax will most likely be used to increase research in efficiency for Airbus aircraft giving them a competitive edge and thus killing competition that is naturally found between aircraft manufacturers. Whilst Airbus is a good manufacturer and produce some amazing aircraft I definitely don't want it to become a one man show.
Looking back on history it's easy to see that during the golden years of aviation in Europe, European carriers had little worry for the environment and posted amazing growth figures year after year with little tax and huge government subsidies. If we compare that to Asian carriers at present in what I believe to be Asian aviation's golden years where Europe is trying to deter their growth that they themselves had the pleasure of experiencing in order to maintain an advantage or even stay relevant.
On a similar playing field European carriers would be irrelevant due to heavy bureaucracy, high labour wages and frankly much poorer levels of service compared to Asia.
Your thoughts?