EU Tax on Jet A1
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Martin
It's a result of deregulation rather than the EU per se. The EU was around about 40 years (as the ECSC/EC) before the major surge in air traffic that open-skies brought.
It's a result of deregulation rather than the EU per se. The EU was around about 40 years (as the ECSC/EC) before the major surge in air traffic that open-skies brought.
Guest
Posts: n/a
MarkD
The air-transport landscape in Europe is a 100% EU creation. The ability for any EU airline to enter any EU market, and set its own prices, flows directly from the 1993 Third package.
The Single European Act, which foresaw the creation of the internal market, was signed in 1986. 1986 to 1993 is pretty quick work for that kind of revolution; aviation was one of the pioneers of the single-market process, many sectors (eg energy) are still way off.
The air-transport landscape in Europe is a 100% EU creation. The ability for any EU airline to enter any EU market, and set its own prices, flows directly from the 1993 Third package.
The Single European Act, which foresaw the creation of the internal market, was signed in 1986. 1986 to 1993 is pretty quick work for that kind of revolution; aviation was one of the pioneers of the single-market process, many sectors (eg energy) are still way off.
Dr Dave.
Quote: The only real target of this is the lo-co sector, whereas paying an extra £40 on a >£300 airfare is unlikely to deter anyone from flying.
That >£300 airfare is already subject to fuel surcharges of around £70. A typical European shorthaul flight, LoCo or BA, costs around £120 after TAXES and surcharges are added. Airport car parking charges are exhorbitant, as are rail fares for those using public transport. Add £40 to each sector and passenger figures will plummet al la post 91 Gulf War What will this achieve? Job losses, bankruptcies, airlines will fail and another deep recession for commercial aviation. Meanwhile the greens, tree huggers and populist pseudo-scientists will continue to push their destructive theories. Politicians will rub their hands with glee and climb on the the bandwagon to extract even more "green" taxes from a gullible public, but the natural cycles of climatic change will continue on their merry way as they have done for millions of years.
Quote: The only real target of this is the lo-co sector, whereas paying an extra £40 on a >£300 airfare is unlikely to deter anyone from flying.
That >£300 airfare is already subject to fuel surcharges of around £70. A typical European shorthaul flight, LoCo or BA, costs around £120 after TAXES and surcharges are added. Airport car parking charges are exhorbitant, as are rail fares for those using public transport. Add £40 to each sector and passenger figures will plummet al la post 91 Gulf War What will this achieve? Job losses, bankruptcies, airlines will fail and another deep recession for commercial aviation. Meanwhile the greens, tree huggers and populist pseudo-scientists will continue to push their destructive theories. Politicians will rub their hands with glee and climb on the the bandwagon to extract even more "green" taxes from a gullible public, but the natural cycles of climatic change will continue on their merry way as they have done for millions of years.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brakedwell,
Not understanding the science behind global warming theory is no justification to ignore it, dissmiss it as some green conspiracy theory, or latch on to any other theory, no matter how small and unsupported, that attempts to refute it's validity. Refusal to acknoledge what is ocurring is very much akin to those who refused to accept the earth was not actually flat - it conflicted with everything they wanted to believe.
Far from greens or tree-huggers having destructive theories, they were the first to point out (at considerable risk to their credibility) exactly the kind of damage we are doing to the planet. If that means I can't take a trip to Thailand every year, so be it. Our present lifestyles are an unsustainable priviledge. The effect of our lifestyle is likely to have a dissproportionate effect on the vast majority of the worlds population who will never have the priviledge of sitting in an aircraft.
Far from the "natural cycles" of climate change, by nearly every account the current situation does not resemble any previous "natural" or "cycle". Not only that, but combined with the earth's propensity to produce CO2 anyway, the possibility that global warming might become self perpetuating and the continued and accelerating release of CO2 from previously buried hydrocarbons, your "cycle" instead looks much more like the first 90 degrees of a tan curve than a sine wave!
As for your predictions that the effect of £40 on a European Airfare will be a collapse in the industry I think you are the one spouting doomsday theories. The surchagre might not be the best way of going about it, but it may be better than keeping heads stuck in the sand.
Not understanding the science behind global warming theory is no justification to ignore it, dissmiss it as some green conspiracy theory, or latch on to any other theory, no matter how small and unsupported, that attempts to refute it's validity. Refusal to acknoledge what is ocurring is very much akin to those who refused to accept the earth was not actually flat - it conflicted with everything they wanted to believe.
Far from greens or tree-huggers having destructive theories, they were the first to point out (at considerable risk to their credibility) exactly the kind of damage we are doing to the planet. If that means I can't take a trip to Thailand every year, so be it. Our present lifestyles are an unsustainable priviledge. The effect of our lifestyle is likely to have a dissproportionate effect on the vast majority of the worlds population who will never have the priviledge of sitting in an aircraft.
Far from the "natural cycles" of climate change, by nearly every account the current situation does not resemble any previous "natural" or "cycle". Not only that, but combined with the earth's propensity to produce CO2 anyway, the possibility that global warming might become self perpetuating and the continued and accelerating release of CO2 from previously buried hydrocarbons, your "cycle" instead looks much more like the first 90 degrees of a tan curve than a sine wave!
As for your predictions that the effect of £40 on a European Airfare will be a collapse in the industry I think you are the one spouting doomsday theories. The surchagre might not be the best way of going about it, but it may be better than keeping heads stuck in the sand.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Care and respect for the environment is a admirable , humble and respectable thing to do.... BUT.... Is taxation really the answer seems like they are using are masquarading the cause in terms of bleeding more funds off us.
Mobility is a right, we have all contributed to the advancement of science and consequently to our society and why should we being regressing to the dark ages. It will serve no purpose to go backwards, that will merely suspend activity for the time being whilst giving the silly brigade a chance to bleed us dry too accompanied with the usual patronising overtures.
Lets initiate an agenda of 'cutting down' by introducing more efficient routing structures and get away from the lethargic post WWII route designs we have at the moment. From there we can start implementing practical point to point flying whilst initiating a reduction in ground queuing of aircraft. Lets get the B-I-G oil companies involved and ask for better and more advanced fuel blends that have more 'bang' and therefore less fuel is actually burnt, this will also lighten the aircraft too and make for more efficient trips in terms of fuel burn. However what we don't want nor need is ther blind personal agendas of the Greens who don't really have nor ever wish to have a firm grasp of the scientific basis, fact or task at hand (like a novice officer leading a dangerous cavalry charge). We need to do a New Labour maneouvre and steel the idea and momentum from the Greens and Loony left that way we'll be able to implement the ideas more effectively and in a timely manner.
Mobility is a right, we have all contributed to the advancement of science and consequently to our society and why should we being regressing to the dark ages. It will serve no purpose to go backwards, that will merely suspend activity for the time being whilst giving the silly brigade a chance to bleed us dry too accompanied with the usual patronising overtures.
Lets initiate an agenda of 'cutting down' by introducing more efficient routing structures and get away from the lethargic post WWII route designs we have at the moment. From there we can start implementing practical point to point flying whilst initiating a reduction in ground queuing of aircraft. Lets get the B-I-G oil companies involved and ask for better and more advanced fuel blends that have more 'bang' and therefore less fuel is actually burnt, this will also lighten the aircraft too and make for more efficient trips in terms of fuel burn. However what we don't want nor need is ther blind personal agendas of the Greens who don't really have nor ever wish to have a firm grasp of the scientific basis, fact or task at hand (like a novice officer leading a dangerous cavalry charge). We need to do a New Labour maneouvre and steel the idea and momentum from the Greens and Loony left that way we'll be able to implement the ideas more effectively and in a timely manner.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Dave Martin
As for your predictions that the effect of £40 on a European Airfare will be a collapse in the industry I think you are the one spouting doomsday theories. The surchagre might not be the best way of going about it, but it may be better than keeping heads stuck in the sand.
Three different assumptions were used for price elasticity, giving low/medium/high impact scenarios. In the high scenario, 25% of intra-EU volume would be lost, and 15% of traffic to/from the EU.
The Lucas proposal opens the door to ticket taxes (VAT) plus fuel taxes plus environmental charges plus an emissions trading scheme so heavy that it would effectively be another fuel tax. No impact assessment (what? Parliament voted on a proposal without an idea of what its consequences would be?) but you have to guess that it's at least as bad as the 2005 proposals and probably a fair bit worse.
If anyone was to venture that the European airline industry could lose 30% of it's business I wouldn't call that a doomsday prediction, I'd say it was a reasonable assessment of the likely outcome. 30% less business would seem to suggest 30% fewer jobs, not just in the airlines but at airports, ATC, all the support sectors. Sure, the price-sensitive LoCo market will be badly hit, but so will any market which is only marginally viable, and there are plenty of those throughout the industry.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, Dave Martin but what you are stating as unarguable fact is actually very speculative. Very many distinguished scientists disagree with what you say and are of the opinion that the case is -at best -unproven. Those making the case are often putting forward alarming statistics which are in fact misleading....e.g. "hottest summers since records began!!", while not stating that in climatological terms records have only been kept for the blink of an eye.
And as for the chap saying he felt an "environmental tax" would be fairer than VAT on fuel, let me say the distinction is lost on Gordon Brown. He will be happy to call it anything just so long as he screws a load more money out of our industry!
And as for the chap saying he felt an "environmental tax" would be fairer than VAT on fuel, let me say the distinction is lost on Gordon Brown. He will be happy to call it anything just so long as he screws a load more money out of our industry!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShotOne,
There is a massive difference between the subjective news reports of variable weather and hot summers compared with the science behind global warming theory.
The case is most certainly unproven and won't be proven until such time as we are wiped off the planet. Unfortunately the costs of inaction are simply too much, on top of the current environmental degredation of our lifestyles.
The interesting thing about global warming is the effects are being seen by in just about every field of science, whether you are studying Amazonian frogs, Micronesian coral reefs or climate change un sub-Saharan Africa, the evidence is overwhelming.
The solution could be had tomorrow, but the market isn't willing to react while it can still reap huge profits through inaction. Hence the need for government intervention. The very fact that governments are starting to pay attention to it speaks volumes. It could be the biggest con in history, but are you willing to risk it? PPRUNE is hardly representive of the wider global population. We might all have a vested interest in a continued aviation free-for-all, but the vast majority of people don't.
I really would like to exchange contact details with those madly clinging on to the shreds of theory that doubt the effects and causes of climate change. Perhaps in 40-50 years time we can get together and discuss the same matter again.
There is a massive difference between the subjective news reports of variable weather and hot summers compared with the science behind global warming theory.
The case is most certainly unproven and won't be proven until such time as we are wiped off the planet. Unfortunately the costs of inaction are simply too much, on top of the current environmental degredation of our lifestyles.
The interesting thing about global warming is the effects are being seen by in just about every field of science, whether you are studying Amazonian frogs, Micronesian coral reefs or climate change un sub-Saharan Africa, the evidence is overwhelming.
The solution could be had tomorrow, but the market isn't willing to react while it can still reap huge profits through inaction. Hence the need for government intervention. The very fact that governments are starting to pay attention to it speaks volumes. It could be the biggest con in history, but are you willing to risk it? PPRUNE is hardly representive of the wider global population. We might all have a vested interest in a continued aviation free-for-all, but the vast majority of people don't.
I really would like to exchange contact details with those madly clinging on to the shreds of theory that doubt the effects and causes of climate change. Perhaps in 40-50 years time we can get together and discuss the same matter again.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: next to sidestick
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, what you are suggesting is that aviation is the major cause of global warming. It is not and you know it. The biggest cause is by far, power plants that run on coal or oil. Much of the global warming problem could be sorted by one solution: although you may not like it, it's called nuclear energy. Although you green activists don't even want to hear about it, it may well be the lesser of two evils. At least for the next 60 years, by which time we probably will have found a way of harnessing nuclear fusion.
The punishment that some green MP's would like to inflict on commercial aviation is more to do with personal beliefs and ideology, rather than logical, objective reasoning, and is completely disproportionate with regards to the actual damage on the environment.
Sorry, but you (and the greens) lose all credibility when you try to convince us that cutting 3% out of the total CO2 emissions will actualy save the planet, when on the other hand you (the greens) advocate the use of coal power plants to replace nuclear ones.
The punishment that some green MP's would like to inflict on commercial aviation is more to do with personal beliefs and ideology, rather than logical, objective reasoning, and is completely disproportionate with regards to the actual damage on the environment.
Sorry, but you (and the greens) lose all credibility when you try to convince us that cutting 3% out of the total CO2 emissions will actualy save the planet, when on the other hand you (the greens) advocate the use of coal power plants to replace nuclear ones.
I have a far better, and simpler way, of decreasing emissions across Europe (other than to get rid of the hot air and pointless breathing that is the EU). Stick a €5 tax on normal lightbulbs that is ringfenced into subsidising and further development of energy efficient bulbs.
Would cut down pollution and CO2 emissions far more than killing the aviation industry.
Will they do it? Of course not - it doesn't fit in with the current climate scare story in the press.
Would cut down pollution and CO2 emissions far more than killing the aviation industry.
Will they do it? Of course not - it doesn't fit in with the current climate scare story in the press.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZBMAN
Dave, what you are suggesting is that aviation is the major cause of global warming. It is not and you know it.
Fact is that it is rapidly growing, and very visible, therefore it makes huge sense to be seen to be doing something. Taxation is great - if and only if it is also introduced for all other forms of public transport including trains, coaches and buses.
Emissions trading is a great way to ensure that polluters pay without being a nominal tax that discourages the poorer consumer more than the richer one as it has the ability to be spread over all fare classes on the aircraft (unlike a £5 tax on all seats impacts the budget traveller most - even those that are £5 economy, £10 business and first for example as the % rise of the ticket is enormous for the budget traveller).
There is a huge difference between what is provable with so many factors influencing weather, and common sense of what emissions cause. A pragmatic discussion of those common sense impacts of fossil fuels and the actions that can be taken is far better than a head in the sand approach, which opens it up to attack on all sides from unreasonable greens.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The biggest cause is by far, power plants that run on coal or oil.
Stick a €5 tax on normal lightbulbs
The way out of this dilemma is through sensible solutions. Light bulbs, nuclear power stations and ticket taxes might even have something to do with it but there is no easy answer. People who (like me) depend on air transport for their livelihood have got to hope that the Great Minds who direct our industry
can come up with an answer. They might not, but you had better believe that greater minds than Nuclear Man or Light Bulb Man are getting paid honest money for working on it.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZBMAN,
Well, I guess I must not be green - I'm all in favour of replacing coal fired stations with nuclear (as a stop-gap). But as I understand it is automotive traffic which is by far the largest "needless" producer and that is where we should be focussing, although not at the exclusion of other producers.
Fuel efficiency has dropped and car sizes increased in the USA over the last 20 years or so, while your typical American apparently drives 40% further to do their shopping (5% of the global population, some 25% of global automtive emissions). It is this kind of wasteful consumption that needs to be curbed and this extends to the aviation industry. Lo-co's have provided a great service, but encouraging people to travel 1000 kms to acessorise their wardrobes for a weekend, costing less than a taxi ride across London is insane. The smell of kerosine and the sound of a CFM56 might be sweet to us, but to the inhabitants near growing airports around the world, it is no better than having rowdy students move in next door.
It is the growth of air travel which is making the industry a problem. Yes, reductions in emissions are occurring, but they are outstripped by industry growth. We are beyond the point of limiting our consumption/emissions growth - we have to actually reduce it. The airline industry is certainly NOT heading in that direction.
Far from being a "green activist" I'm merely following what appears to be a common snese angle. Increasing populations, fewer resources and evidence of CO2 related global warming already causing a squeeze on life on this planet (thankfully so far not ours). Action is required and merely slowing growth isn't the solution.
The aviation industry is in danger of wiping itself out by becoming its own worst enemy - much like the fisheries industry has done to itself.
Well, I guess I must not be green - I'm all in favour of replacing coal fired stations with nuclear (as a stop-gap). But as I understand it is automotive traffic which is by far the largest "needless" producer and that is where we should be focussing, although not at the exclusion of other producers.
Fuel efficiency has dropped and car sizes increased in the USA over the last 20 years or so, while your typical American apparently drives 40% further to do their shopping (5% of the global population, some 25% of global automtive emissions). It is this kind of wasteful consumption that needs to be curbed and this extends to the aviation industry. Lo-co's have provided a great service, but encouraging people to travel 1000 kms to acessorise their wardrobes for a weekend, costing less than a taxi ride across London is insane. The smell of kerosine and the sound of a CFM56 might be sweet to us, but to the inhabitants near growing airports around the world, it is no better than having rowdy students move in next door.
It is the growth of air travel which is making the industry a problem. Yes, reductions in emissions are occurring, but they are outstripped by industry growth. We are beyond the point of limiting our consumption/emissions growth - we have to actually reduce it. The airline industry is certainly NOT heading in that direction.
Far from being a "green activist" I'm merely following what appears to be a common snese angle. Increasing populations, fewer resources and evidence of CO2 related global warming already causing a squeeze on life on this planet (thankfully so far not ours). Action is required and merely slowing growth isn't the solution.
The aviation industry is in danger of wiping itself out by becoming its own worst enemy - much like the fisheries industry has done to itself.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Surrounding the localizer
Posts: 2,200
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I understand household/industrial gas and oil fired boilers produce a large percentage of the Co2 produced in UK. If we generate all our electricity using nuclear or renewable means and heat our houses, factories and offices electrically, aviation would be less vulnerable to the crackpot proposals of overzealous greens. Being less reliant on Russia and the Middle East for our energy needs, we would enjoy a more secure future.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: London
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brakedwell,
And just how long will it take the build the tens, possibly hundreds, of reactors required to do this and where? Then what? Leave aviation to itself, steadily expanding faster than it reduces its emissions?
And just how long will it take the build the tens, possibly hundreds, of reactors required to do this and where? Then what? Leave aviation to itself, steadily expanding faster than it reduces its emissions?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: At home
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read this thread over the past few days with interest
A few things jump out at me.
1. The aviation sector needs to work more closely with regulators to ensure its emissions and negative effects on the environment and quality of life of those who live near airports are considered and mitigated.
2. The green lobby, partisan scientists, ideologists, and climatical sooth-sayers all need a reality check. The future lies in sustainability, not in the tax/slash and burn politics of fear and exclusion.
3. National governments/EU need to wake up to the fact that aviation whilst not being perfect is certainly not the big bad polluter that Mr Martin would have you believe. The reality is however that aviation is a soft target purely because it is seen by the environmental lobby as a trendy and topical argument, it is also very very visible with the rational being that if you can see it, it is far easier to identify with it.
4. This debate will rage on and on, it is a battle of ideas, rather than certain lobbyists would prefer as a battle of ideology, the facts are clear and for all to see that aviation IS NOT the major player rather it is a small bit player in the pollution of the planet. The problem here is perception is different to reality, chaps like Dave will argue to his last breath that this industry is killing the planet, there is no point trying to argue with ideology, just ask Osama Bin-Laden
A few things jump out at me.
1. The aviation sector needs to work more closely with regulators to ensure its emissions and negative effects on the environment and quality of life of those who live near airports are considered and mitigated.
2. The green lobby, partisan scientists, ideologists, and climatical sooth-sayers all need a reality check. The future lies in sustainability, not in the tax/slash and burn politics of fear and exclusion.
3. National governments/EU need to wake up to the fact that aviation whilst not being perfect is certainly not the big bad polluter that Mr Martin would have you believe. The reality is however that aviation is a soft target purely because it is seen by the environmental lobby as a trendy and topical argument, it is also very very visible with the rational being that if you can see it, it is far easier to identify with it.
4. This debate will rage on and on, it is a battle of ideas, rather than certain lobbyists would prefer as a battle of ideology, the facts are clear and for all to see that aviation IS NOT the major player rather it is a small bit player in the pollution of the planet. The problem here is perception is different to reality, chaps like Dave will argue to his last breath that this industry is killing the planet, there is no point trying to argue with ideology, just ask Osama Bin-Laden