EU Tax on Jet A1

[Empty Cruise]

Forgive my ignorance...

...but AFAIK the EP cannot introduce EU regulations - it can only make recommendations to the Council. The members of the council are "just" national ministers, and need therefore - just as members of the Comission - not to be elected, merely appointed.

I wouldn't worry - the appointed (as opposed to the elected) will yet save us - they have national votes to think about, and nobody wants to be the one to sell price-hike-legislation to their national electorate.

Sad - that we look to the appointed for rescue, while the elected are bypassed. The above structure is what makes the EU undemocratic, not the elected MEPs!

Therefore, not necessarily the end of the world as we know it - but I could be wrong...

[INKJET]

I suspect there is a long way to go on this yet. We should start by cancelling all order for Airbus and order Boeing, this would get the attention of the French to start with. I agree 100% with Easyjets statement, this move will do nothing for the enviroment. A 737 with 148 pax on board will pay the same as a 747 with 148 pax on board, which emits more Co2?

As ever with MEP's its tax first, think later.

No doubt the the MEP's will continue to enjoy cheap (ie free) flights at our expense.

[Sunfish]

This is indeed predictable. The fact that one fuel is taxed and another is not is called an economic distortion.

One of the factors allowing Ryanair and Easyjet to offer "ten quid" fares to hither and yon and apparently still make a profit is the lack of any tax on Jet fuel.

So the trumped up "efficiency" of LoCo air travel is actually just a reflection of the fact that they are not paying tax like everyone else.

Sorry guys, no sympathy, I guess its entirely predictable. The greenhouse stuff is just an excuse.

If you really want to scream, wait till carbon taxes bite on manufactured goods - aluminium is basically congealed electricity - usually produced by burning coal.

[ZBMAN]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

This is indeed predictable. The fact that one fuel is taxed and another is not is called an economic distortion.

One of the factors allowing Ryanair and Easyjet to offer "ten quid" fares to hither and yon and apparently still make a profit is the lack of any tax on Jet fuel.

So the trumped up "efficiency" of LoCo air travel is actually just a reflection of the fact that they are not paying tax like everyone else.

Sorry guys, no sympathy, I guess its entirely predictable. The greenhouse stuff is just an excuse.

If you really want to scream, wait till carbon taxes bite on manufactured goods - aluminium is basically congealed electricity - usually produced by burning coal.

What you say about lo-co fares is quite far from the reality. Your reasoning is flawed since the average fare is much more than ten quid. To believe 10 quid is the price of a low cost ticket is a common misconception. Yes, the average fare may be cheaper than, say, BA, but this achieved by cutting costs, and yes sorry to say, increased efficiency, or rather productivity.
Also, we are not seeking your sympathy, but to add 40 pounds on a ticket within Europe will cause people to think twice before flying, and WILL result in bankrupcies and mass redundancies. So you may not have any sympathy for us, but do realize these people in Brussels may well destroy our lives, if they are left to introduce such ludicrous measures.
We must not let these green idiots make aviation their target of choice, since they, themselves, are responsible for increased CO2 emissions by lobbying for more coal power stations, and their irrational and unscientific fear of nuclear power.

[Nov71]

How about making Countries pay a levy on CO2 increase due to -
Deforestation/illegal logging
Slash & burn clearances
Volcanic eruptions
Spacecraft & missile launches
Military air traffic
Cigarette smoking
Concreting over the 'green belt'
Air breathing organisms (humans included) per sq mile

That should set Creation back by a few days!

[charterguy]

Just cut out the locos

AFAIAK the EU is introducing these measures because our skies are being unneccesarily polluted by locos, carrying pax that should travel on coaches and trains. Locos offer artificially low fares by 'raping' secondary airports and regional governments. And when their special deals expire, they simply move on (see RYR's move from CWL to BRS). They are thus creating an unneccesary demand for air travel and and take great pride in carrying UK rejects to some of the most beautiful capitals of Europe, so they can cause havoc and throw up in the streets. The EU is sick and tired of this, and quite rightly so. Of course it wouldn't be politically correct to blame it all on the pax and MOL's arrogance, so we have to blame it on emissions. MOL, they are coming to clip your wings !!!! About time, too.

CG

[ZBMAN]

Originally Posted by charterguy

AFAIAK the EU is introducing these measures because our skies are being unneccesarily polluted by locos, carrying pax that should travel on coaches and trains. Locos offer artificially low fares by 'raping' secondary airports and regional governments. And when their special deals expire, they simply move on (see RYR's move from CWL to BRS). They are thus creating an unneccesary demand for air travel and and take great pride in carrying UK rejects to some of the most beautiful capitals of Europe, so they can cause havoc and throw up in the streets. The EU is sick and tired of this, and quite rightly so. Of course it wouldn't be politically correct to blame it all on the pax and MOL's arrogance, so we have to blame it on emissions. MOL, they are coming to clip your wings !!!! About time, too.

CG

You may not like LoCos but quite a few of us work for them, and needless to say, our families and children depend on their success. Your comment about pax taking the train or coach is typical of an ill informed green tree hugger. Are you sure that a coach is more fuel efficient than an a320? On what figures do you base that? As for trains, they run on electricity (or diesel! ). How do you think electricity is produced? By burning coal (thanks to the green's hysteria over nuclear power)! And you know what? CO2 emissions due to power plants accounts for the vast, vast majority of all CO2 rejected into our atmosphere. These are scientific FACTS, which of course the greens choose to ignore to make their point that air travel is bad, although the hard FACTS may say otherwise.
It seems you have a lot to learn about Low Cost travel, because although you may not like Ryanair (who could blame you for that?), it is not the only Low cost airline in Europe. eJ for instance are not guilty of 'raping' secondary airports as you quite elegantly put it. And finally, many European cities are quite happy that the 'UK rejects' are there to boost their local economy... nuff said!

[spud]

The EU seems determinined to accelerate it's own decline. Unfortunately, as time goes on, it will have to find more and more ways to take money off of people who have earned it in order to pay for their policicies. Hopefully, Mrs Whatsername of the Green party will never have to explain to her grandchildren why their generation have to ask for food aid from India but if her ideas prevail, it will be become more likely. Sorry to hear voices telling us how reasonable these proposed taxes are, it will only lead to Europe going into the ring with one hand tied behind it's back and so losing to the competition with no such handicap.

Think I'll just sit in a corner and worry.

p.s. Spare a thought for the French owned China Clay industry in Cornwall (South West of England), just under half of the workers are about to be made redundant. Much of the work is going to South America which, last time I checked, was outside of the EU.

[INKJET]

charterguy

I don't think that the likes of Leeds DSA CWL to name a few will feel "raped" at the hands of Loco's but rather the word "grateful" will come to mind. Sure some of the people who are flying on Loco's are Gods great unwashed, but most are down to earth folks, for who a couple of weeks in the sun(or a weekend) is very important in their lives, they earn't the dosh, paid the tax, how they spend it is up to them.not you, not me and certainly not the tossers in BRU.

The IT people (charter) were the people that took forgien holidays down market in the first place, Loco's just allow people to travel to Malaga on days other than change over days.

C02 emissions are rising and airlines play their part, but this type of hike in costs is just plain stupid, it will hit low income groups hardest and that in turn will decimate airlines, pilots,airports and oveseas resorts.

[TightSlot]

Air Passenger Duty

We are already taxed quite heavily in the UK on the purchase of air tickets within the EU by Gordon Brown. Is any element of that tax for green purposes? If so, could/should that be offset against the new EU tax, otherwise we are surely subject to dual taxation?

Possibly, I am misunderstanding air passenger duty? Please correct me.

[Billy the Kid]

The problem as I see it has nothing to do with emmisions. The TAX is just another way to milk the public. How else will we pay for Blair's adventures in Iraq and Afganistan? The beauty is that the EU is doing Robber Brown's dirty work.
Let's face it we don't have a manufacturing base in the UK. Blair knows air transport is a service economy. It can change a local region from a basket case to an economic success. I once read LHR contibutes 11% of the UK's GDP. Also jobs (skilled and unskilled) are plentiful.
What I'm interested in is how airlines could aviod the Tax. Tanking in fuel from outside the EU?
I agree with the earlier poster(or was it EJ) who said a common ATC for europe is the way forward. Why do I have to go to German Corner? I think we could learn alot from our cousins in the US were ATC is excellent

[FougaMagister]

If this tax does go forward, I think we can expect more tankering from out of the EU.

In the same vein, I have learned recently that some continental countries will shortly introduce a 1 Euro surcharge on every air fare to pay for AIDS relief in the Third World.

Fair enough, you'd say; who could be against more money to fight AIDS? But what's the connection with air travel (other than considering it the perennial cash cow)?

Cheers

[Joe le Taxi]

I find it disheartening the way aviation is picked out for govt bullying because its customers are perceived by your average air-headed voter/politician, as frivolous members of the bourgoisee, and therefore by definition, legitimate targets for totally disproportionate levels of wallet bashing.

The shipping industry pollutes on a far greater scale and the nature of the pollutants are more damaging (eg high levels of sulphur dioxides); yet that industry is almost entirely untaxed. Trains are also regarded as the target towards which air-travellers should be pushed, yet their pollutants emit into the low level amostphere which we all must breath from, not to mention the fact that the high level of the train's noise pollution is imposed upon residences at full volume and close proximity along its entire route; not just the start and finish like aeroplanes. Cars are of course highly polluting, and this is the means to which travellers will resort, for sectors such as London-Glasgow or Paris-Geneva; particularly when the convenience of door to door travel is now enjoyed.

Aviation is already massively taxed both through business tax and tax on tickets. Maybe a few letters to the editors of the broadsheets would help bring some balance to the public debate.

[Dr Dave]

OK, can I try to take the discussion forwards. There is now a well-established principle in environmental management of "polluter pays", i.e. the generator of pollution should pay for its clean up. There is a widely-held perception that aviation is a moderately large polluter, especially with respect to carbon dioxide. It is also generally-agreed that at present aviation operates in a comparatively low tax environment (but note certainly not tax-free) when compared with many other industries.

So taking those things together it is inevitable that the aviation industry will come under pressure to pay a higher levy to recognise the environmental damage that it causes. Note that most sane politicians are not talking about this to reduce current levels of aviation usage, but to limit future growth and to encourage the development of, and use of, better technologies (aviation and ground-based).

Now clearly the proposed EU charge is not the way to do this, so my question is this. What would the best mechanism for this increased taxation on the aviation industry to recognise the (surely basically fair?) polluter-pays principle? Would it be a worldwide levy on each litre of Jet A1? Or a tax per passenger km? Or a tax per seat km (this encourages 100% occupancy, which is theoretically at least beneficial)? Or a tax per passenger flight? Or something completely different?

The fact is that it seems inevitable that increased environmental taxation will occur. Surely it is in the interests of the industry to be proactive in getting the most acceptable regime, rather than having something loopy imposed upon it.

I realise that the knee-jerk reaction from a few will be that there should be no increased tax. This is however an ostrich-like reaction that ignores the realities of the environmental costs of flying, which are substantive even without the carbon dioxide issue.

For the record I am not a pilot, but am an academic in a climate-change related discipline.

Dr (actually now Professor) Dave

[ZBMAN]

Dr Dave, a good post, thanks for your input.

I think most of us here agree on the polluter pays principle. What we will not accept is the proposed increase of 40 pounds (at least) on tickets within Europe, simply because this will not only limit future growth, but will force airlines to downsize dramatically. Also bear in mind that airlines operate on very low yields (compared to their cash turnover), so any increase in tax can have quite dramatic effects. Of course, airlines can transfer some of the cost onto their passengers, but there is a limit to this.

[Dr Dave]

ZBMan, your point is well-made and quite correct. A blanket £40 charge is a nonsense that gets almost nowhere towards the polluter-pays principle. The point that a fully occupied Q400 flying from London to Manchester would pay the same tax as a near-empty L1011 flying from Aberdeen to Porto is a nonsense.

So, what would be a more sensible and logical, and acceptable, alternative? How should this be introduced - 5 year lead in time to allow airlines time to adjust? How should the proceeds be spent - research into better technologies; subsidy of less polluting technologies; carbon offsetting; coastal defences; third world debt alleviation?

Between us surely we can actually come up with something that is sane and fair, but achieves the polluter pays principles?

Dr Dave

[Joe le Taxi]

Dr - You seem to be missing the point that unless ALL polluters are taxed directly proportionately to their emissions, then there will be market distortions and counter-productivity such as above mentioned fuel tankering and switching to more polluting transport methods such as the car; and also use of 'flags of convenience' which are outside distorting tax regimes.

I also find the whole case for carbon taxes unconvincing, because all the worlds accessible fossil fuels are going to be used in the next 100-200 years, whatever governments do, so the net effect on climate after that time will be the same. All regional taxes do is put these regions at a comparative disadvantage to developing countries like China and India, whose economies will enjoy even greater advantages over the 'west', fuelled by relatively cheaper energy, and at the end of the day, gaining a larger slice of a scarce resource.

[Dr Dave]

Joe le Taxi

With respect, where in my post did I imply that aviation should be taxed disproportionately compared with other transportation? It seems eminently fair to me that all users of hydrocarbon should be taxed. In essence I think you have provided a partial answer to my questions - which is that "polluter pays" should apply to all polluters. However, I would ask whether is there a case for saying that aviation should face a higher tax IF the impacts of the CO2 it produces are greater because the emissions are at higher altitude, where the effects are thought to be more severe (or indeed vice-versa if the impact is lower). Similarly if contrails are implicated in the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, should the industry face a pollution tax to recognise this?

Regarding your comments about carbon taxes - I think you ignore one aspect, which is that the total lag time for carbon dioxide emissions is now considered to be about 200 years. The scary aspect of that is that our current climate is still responsing to the early part of the industrial revolution. That means that even if we stabilise carbon dioxide emissions at the current level immediately, we will still see a warming trend for the next 200 years. If we adopt your policy, we will see a warming trend for 300-400 years or more - is this really responsible - even if we use up all fossil fuels. You refer to regional taxes - I did not. Presumably you are also arguing that these taxes should be global, not regional, which seems reasonable. Is it however possible?

Finally, you believe that we will use up all fossil fuels in the next 100-200 years. This has massive implications for future societies. Is it not sensible to put in place a tax regime that encourages the most efficient use of these resources, and which encourages the development now of sustainable technologies?

[Monarch Man]

Dr Dave (oops sorry now professor ) you make some nice concise points.....
A couple of things.

However, I would ask whether is there a case for saying that aviation should face a higher tax IF the impacts of the CO2 it produces are greater because the emissions are at higher altitude

Where is the hard science regarding this? Ive read some very interesting articles relating to this, and Ive yet to find anything other than to suggest that this concept is at best a vague hypothesis..at worst..pure conjecture.

Is it not sensible to put in place a tax regime that encourages the most efficient use of these resources, and which encourages the development now of sustainable technologies?

You surprise me with this one...surely an educated man such as yourself can view history and deduce that punitive measures (such as direct taxation) act to discourage..rather than encourage technological advancement.
What seems to be forgotten here is that the business leaders..and research companies that will make the next break-through in combustive efficiency (propulsive technology etc..) are driven by the profit imperative..not by any real altruistic values. That being said..the only real way forward is to offer incentives..rather than punishment to solve this problem.
Taxation is not a viable alternative...it stifles innovation, with most people interested in avoiding the charge. Look at london congestion charging as the latest example of this, sure its cut traffic, but the revenues are 1/3 of what was expected, and less that a 1/4 of that is being reinvested.
If taxation would solve this problem, I would be the first one to sign up, however those that believe this will make any progress are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[Joe le Taxi]

With respect, where in my post did I imply that aviation should be taxed disproportionately compared with other transportation?

- quite simply, where you advocate an increase in taxation for aviation. The are many examples of industries that are taxed less per kg/CO2 or SO2 emitted, (I have argued the case against shipping and cars, but all industries should be entered into the emissions equation). However, you advocate increasing this disparity, which leads to distortions and counter-productivities. We do at least seem to be agreed that a Jet A1 tax is particularly bad because emissions could well be increased due to tankering. Carbon trading has merits and BA advocates its use, but the mechanics of its application have got serious flaws at the moment.

I would accept that it would be preferable to spread our use of fossil fuels over 400 yrs rather than 200, but without some utopian 'world government', it simply isn't going to happen, because those who don't sign up to limitations will always gain the advantage and burn the fuel available on the market just the same. Therefore, why must the EU 'self-flagelate' itself for no gain, while the East (and the US) makes hay.