EU Tax on Jet A1

[paulthornton]

Originally Posted by easyprison

The threat of VAT on fuel may even tip a few over the edge. I’m worried I work for one.

Not wishing to sound dumb, but if VAT is applied to Jet A1 then surely the airlines will simply reclaim it in the same way that they reclaim any other VAT component of any purchase. I find it hard to believe that any airline's turnover is below the VAT registration threshold...

There maybe something magic which says "Thou shalt not reclaim VAT on fuel if you are an airline and we start charging it" in which case HMRC (and their European brethren) have got you by the short and curlies

[757manipulator]

Just read some info on Carolines website.......it seems she is determined to have us all go back to the ploughshare...and horse and cart

[Freehills]

Presume they mean VAT on airline tickets...?

Meh, good luck to us all. I remember in one discussion meeting, the manufacturers warning that some of the EU greens were looking at banning all flights >8 hours, on the basis that flights longer than that are much more inefficient energy wise. (carrying fuel to burn fuel)

But as PAXBOY points out - difficult one to argue against. If the Europeans want to encourage fuel efficiency (massive taxes on petrol etc.) then it is their right, for intra EU flights at least. Reducing demand is the whole point.

But just seen VERY interesting US gasoline numbers. Price went up 30% over last year, but consumption INCREASED 0.9%. Many people have no choice but to travel, so demand may not be hit as bad as the greens hope

[LGS6753]

Oh dear, yet another simple minded moron failing to understand that legislating almost always doesn't work.

The loony's proposal - tax aeroplanes because they pollute the atmosphere.
What happens next - USA will not apply it and will not allow it to be introduced on trans-atlantic flights.
Then - rest of the world goes along with the US, or does nothing (same thing).
Result - fares in Europe increase. It becomes cheaper to fly long-haul. People choose Florida, Dubai, Thailand in ever greater numbers.

The next loony complaint - everyone's flying long-haul and polluting the atmosphere even more than before I crept out of my swamp.

If she can't see that, Caroline Lucas needs her head read.
As for the EU , the socialists there just want to tax everyone. After all, it's taxes that they live on. Parasites!

[PAXboy]

paulthornton

but if VAT is applied to Jet A1 then surely the airlines will simply reclaim it in the same way that they reclaim any other VAT component of any purchase.

This is NOT to be VAT on jet fuel but a tax on fuel that cannot be reclaimed from govt. The reclaim is via the pax and cargo.

[L'aviateur]

I think people have become so reliant on air travel, that I can't forsee a big change. In the tourist market, I imagine people will simply borrow yet more money from the banks/credit card companies to fund the holidays, I think the biggest damage to come would be if the interest rates rose rapidly rather then the price of jet fuel being taxed.

Another alternative would be for a Hub to be developed in a non EU country (North Africa for instance) and aircraft to route via the hub for refuelling.

[POHL]

May I suggest all MEP's strive to improve the polutive effects of aviation by NOT flying anymore between their homes, Brussels and Strasbourg at our expense.
Perhaps they could walk between these destinations in sandals.
This would have beneficial effects all round. Firstly there would be few MEP's in their parliaments pontificating and wasting money. Secondly we would save a fortune by preventing them 'double claiming' for their journeys and gratifyingly we could identify them on the road especially if wearing their 'free issue' sandals (Yellow?) for 'on the road surgeries' or do I mean surgury!

[northern boy]

Does anybody really belive that the airlines are going to lie down and be trampled out of business by a few idiot greens like Caroline "back to the trees" Lucas? The reason that no response is yet forthcomming is that they are keeping their powder dry. I imagine that this particular piece of student union nonsense will be tied up in appeals and court hearings until 2020 at least.

Then we have the reaction of the public to consider. Once they realise that they will be unable to afford their two weeks in Benidorm or their stag do in Prauge or Amsterdam because some po faced misery in Brussels that no one has ever heard of is telling them so, I should imagine more than a little uproar. The government of the day will realise that they are being held accountable by the great unwashed over an issue that is both deeply unpopular and also of no environmental benefit (unless the US, China, India and the Gulf states suddenly get a fit of the greens - very unlikely), the popular press will be up in arms and the prospect of airline bankruptcies, unemployment and loss of tax revenues will inevitably cause the whole thing to collapse or at least be modified out of recognition.

The greenies, lefties, druids and general nutters will spend the whole time arguing amongst themselves over their own little agendas, Lucas and her band of medieval barmpots will disappear into obscurity and the world will carry on being run by the grownups. The greenies will by then be too stoned to remember what the argument was about in the first place.

In the end money talks and the bullsh*t walks. It was ever thus.

[MarkD]

Has there been an explosion from Ryanair Towers yet?

So will this internal EU flight tax apply to connecting flights? e.g. BOS-LHR-MAN. If so the economics of airlines dependent on the hub and spoke model (i.e. a certain Big Airline) will be hit compared to the point-to-point traffic with 757s and 767s the US majors are employing.

[James 1077]

This is simply a money raising ruse. If the EU really cared about the environmental issues of flying then they would sort out flight routes etc so that people could fly the most efficient routes and not burn excess fuel unnecessarily.

[BenThere]

It makes perfect sense to me.

Aviation in all its forms is enjoyed primarily by 'the rich'. The poor don't go to Ibiza, they don't have business reasons for air travel, they don't benefit in any way, do they?.

Therefore, aviation should absolutely be taxed to the maximum extent, even at the risk of destroying it, which would be good. To do so while invoking Green sensibilities is a perfect solution for raising revenue to be used in helping 'the poor'. How anyone can be opposed to this fantastic idea reflects only on their selfishness.

[Flies-like-a-chicken]

A recently released article in the prestigious scientific journal Nature claimed that the way to avoid the global warming effects of aviation (through contrails) was to reduce night flights. Surely by increasing the capacity of airports so as to support a greater volume during daylight hours would satisfy most parties (except the NIMBYs)!?

[boogie-nicey]

I think the might of the industry and their tax free fuel has resisted numerous calls in the past by previous governments. This is just another battle to fight something that they are quite experienced in by now. Which government from the past didn't relish with delight the prospect of earning (I use that term loosely --- very) extra revenues from this sacred cow of aviation. They were no doubt rebuffed either at ground level by the airlines (which lets not forget are large multi nationals and can seriously disrupt if not paralyze economies) or by the government's own realisation of the consequences of these actions.

The green's are relatively easy pickings as their viewpoint is static to say the least and thus predictable. They lack true 'bulk' in most European countries and can quite easily be conveyed as the bogey man (no link to me ).

If nothing else they'll be engaged in legal pursuits for so many years that by the time they get to introduce it aviation may be revealing it's first new generation fuel.

People such as the greens aren't really green otherwise the VAST MAJORITY of waste is a result of home consumers. Namely the simple light bulb, that's right lets get incentives for low power light bulbs. If GE can get more power from less fuel generation after generation then why can't we have low energy consumption light bulbs please (also reduce my energy bill too). Caroline is just going for the fashionable target of the day and that seems to be uncaring, dirty and awful aviation that provides a mammoth input to any economy and directly employs more people than Caroline can imagine.

[ZBMAN]

Ironicaly, it is the greens that pressured the germans to scrap their nuclear power stations, replacing them by mass CO2 emiting coal power stations , apparently oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of green house gas emissions come from coal and oil power stations. Many green nutters lack any technical or scientific knowledge, so they have nothing concrete to base their decisions on.
Their ignorance is quite dangerous really, and could lead all of us to the job center at best, or in a major recession at worst. Someone should lock them up!

[055166k]

This is obviously a joke; or else the "green" lobby are completely and utterly out of step with reality..... this measure deserves to fall at the first hurdle. If the aim is to reduce air travel then how do they explain the millions being spent to develop new air services and to prop up ailing airlines? If the aim is to reduce pollution then how do they explain that it is the respective governments' own fleets [air forces] that are the dirtiest noisiest polluters by far?
Dear EU members.....put your own houses in order first....lead by example and not by diktat.

[MarkD]

Easyjet responds.

[MercenaryAli]

Laughable

Democratically elected what?
Nobody asked for the EU.
Nobody will admit to voting for the EU.
Nobody actually wants the EU.
The EU waste some £15 milliion of YOUR money, from the UK alone, EVERY day. The overseeeing accountants refused to "sign off" the EU accounts for more than 11 years now as they are riddled with fraud and missing funds.
And yet. . . . . .
NOBODY DOES ANYTHING ABOUT IT!

[luoto]

But the MEPs will keep flying between Brussels and Strasbourg and on other jollies and we the tax payers will pay their new more expensive tickets.. Nice eh.
Save these emissions and stop the trcuking and flying when the parliament shuffles between the two locations.. But that won't happen though.

[northern boy]

Very good reply from the orange website, worth a read. The back to the middle ages brigade are going to have a hell of a fight on their hands. I hope that BALPA and the ECA get stuck into these luddites as well, after all its our jobs at stake. I have no intention of sitting back whilst the greens try to do to aviation what Mrs. Thatcher did to the miners in 1984. Interestingly, many of those who decry aviation as a polluter were out supporting the mining industry back then (remember coal not dole?) and coal mining is a damn sight more polluting than flying. For an insight into the green mindset, its well worth visiting their website and reading their "manifesto", especially the transport bit. They hate the idea of flying, comparing it to the nuclear industry and promise to get rid of it even should non polluting engines be developed. This is not an argument based on logic or science. The green argument departed from reason long ago and has now become more like a religious cult where no argument or dissent is tolerated.
As for the European parliament, its just a bunch of hopless nobodies who never got over their days as student agitators. Next time i'll be voting UKIP.

[green granite]

Perhaps a good time to buy shares in the channel tunnel, because for trips to the near continent they will become very competitive methinks