Gillards Carbon Tax and effect on Aviation fuel
For the sake of the discussion I'm using the absolute worst case figures, filling from completely empty dry tanks to 100% and the fuel capacity figures for the 747-8I from Wikipedia (it looks to have the largest fuel capacity of the 747 family).
Fuel today in Brisbane will set you back $1.6592 per litre of Avtur, so it will cost $403,385 to fill up 243,120 litres.
Using the quoted figure of an increase in excise from 3.556 cpl to 9.53cpl gives a change of 5.974 cpl, and the total cost goes from $403,385 to $417,909 - a change of $14,524, or 3.6%. With fuel being a proportion of the aircraft operating costs, the actual aircraft operating costs will increase by somewhat less again.
Realistically this scenario will never happen with fuel uploads being significantly less than the complete tank capacity every time - you'll never fill from empty (I hope!), and rarely fill to 100%, so the actual cost will be a fair bit lower. So in answer to your question NN - not very much! The numbers are big, but the proportions are small
Fuel today in Brisbane will set you back $1.6592 per litre of Avtur, so it will cost $403,385 to fill up 243,120 litres.
Using the quoted figure of an increase in excise from 3.556 cpl to 9.53cpl gives a change of 5.974 cpl, and the total cost goes from $403,385 to $417,909 - a change of $14,524, or 3.6%. With fuel being a proportion of the aircraft operating costs, the actual aircraft operating costs will increase by somewhat less again.
Realistically this scenario will never happen with fuel uploads being significantly less than the complete tank capacity every time - you'll never fill from empty (I hope!), and rarely fill to 100%, so the actual cost will be a fair bit lower. So in answer to your question NN - not very much! The numbers are big, but the proportions are small
Last edited by De_flieger; 10th May 2012 at 01:05. Reason: answering the question asked...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Carbon Tax is a responsible thing to do in an effort to reduce carbon-based emissions.
Don't fuss about a few bucks now, think of our kids future and our responsibility to leave the world in a better place than we found it.
I think Julia Gillard is doing a good job and showing dignity in a difficult situation.
Don't fuss about a few bucks now, think of our kids future and our responsibility to leave the world in a better place than we found it.
I think Julia Gillard is doing a good job and showing dignity in a difficult situation.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel today in Brisbane will set you back $1.6592 per litre of Avtur,
People that full up 747s do not pay the bowser price. They buy futures and options and play the fuel market. (except maybe Sheik Al-ur-oil-Dolari's private 747!)
Unless you work for them or the suppliers you won't know what each tank costs.
Delta has now resorted to buying their own refinery!
But you are right: expect low single-digit increases in ticket price to cover it.
By playing race-to-the-bottom on ticket prices for so long, the airlines have damaged themselves more than any tax ever could.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
One of the things that bothers me is the cumulative nature of this tax. Think of situations like building a house and how many times over you are going to be paying this phoney tax...
Trees are felled in the forrest using stinking chainsaws and heavy machinery. Costs go up due to carbon emissions and are passed on to the sawmill. Sawmill cuts up your timber and passes on the extra carbon tax costs to the next person. Transport to the fabricator involves trucking transport. Their transport cost goes up as they pass on their carbon costs to the fabricator. Frame fabricator purchases more expensive timber and formes it into frames and adds on their carbon costs before selling on to the builder. Builder has to get frames transported to the building site. Increased transport costs again passed on to the cost of erecting your frame. But wait! The builder has to pass on his carbon expenses to you also.
Been counting? Yes, that's right. 6 Times over you are going to have to pay a stinking carbon tax just for this part of a building project. The best bit is that it is CUMULATIVE. Every component of the process ADDS a tax charge to the final product. How the heck can anybody reasonably forecast the full impact of a carbon tax for these sorts of situations? 3% - yeah right...!
The clincher? Of all the money forked out for the tax, large amounts will go to compensating big business for continuing to do what they have always done with very little actually going to changing anything to do with the percieved problem. If that doesn't make you mad - it should... It is only an ignorant fool who would believe that this tax is magically going to be translated into all kinds of renewable 'planet friendly' energy solutions popping up all over the place.
Trees are felled in the forrest using stinking chainsaws and heavy machinery. Costs go up due to carbon emissions and are passed on to the sawmill. Sawmill cuts up your timber and passes on the extra carbon tax costs to the next person. Transport to the fabricator involves trucking transport. Their transport cost goes up as they pass on their carbon costs to the fabricator. Frame fabricator purchases more expensive timber and formes it into frames and adds on their carbon costs before selling on to the builder. Builder has to get frames transported to the building site. Increased transport costs again passed on to the cost of erecting your frame. But wait! The builder has to pass on his carbon expenses to you also.
Been counting? Yes, that's right. 6 Times over you are going to have to pay a stinking carbon tax just for this part of a building project. The best bit is that it is CUMULATIVE. Every component of the process ADDS a tax charge to the final product. How the heck can anybody reasonably forecast the full impact of a carbon tax for these sorts of situations? 3% - yeah right...!
The clincher? Of all the money forked out for the tax, large amounts will go to compensating big business for continuing to do what they have always done with very little actually going to changing anything to do with the percieved problem. If that doesn't make you mad - it should... It is only an ignorant fool who would believe that this tax is magically going to be translated into all kinds of renewable 'planet friendly' energy solutions popping up all over the place.
Baswell - you're right there - I went with the prices quoted off the Shell website to get a feel for the total costs involved in the heavy metal ops and the relative change in fuel prices that would occur if I towed a 747 up to the gate and said "fill 'er up". Another example would be a PA-28 , expect a wet hire rate of around $200 per hour, maybe more, maybe less depending on where you go. (Plus ~$20 of GST) As nitpicker330 observed, 35L/h will cost you an extra $1.77 per hour - or just under 30 seconds of the hourly rate of the aircraft. You can easily save well more than this 30 seconds/$1.77 by leaning the engine out a bit rather than leaving it at full rich, picking an optimal cruising altitude or just navigating a bit more accurately! (not having a go at anyones nav skills, this was just my experience!)
Unfortunately when I was training the cost of hiring an aircraft tended to go up by $5 or $10 per hour easily every 6 months or so without the slightest hint of a carbon tax, so I would expect most people will not notice any real difference - this time the newsletters and invoices will explain the truly unfortunate and entirely unavoidable government-inflicted price rise (sarcasm alert) as due to the carbon tax, as opposed to whatever it was 6 or 12 months ago...maintenance costs, increased airways charges, pilots drinking the alcohol out of the standby compasses?
- I went with the prices quoted off the Shell website to get a feel for the total costs involved in the heavy metal ops and the relative change in fuel prices that would occur if I towed a 747 up to the gate and said "fill 'er up". Another example would be a PA-28 , expect a wet hire rate of around $200 per hour, maybe more, maybe less depending on where you go. (Plus ~$20 of GST) As nitpicker330 observed, 35L/h will cost you an extra $1.77 per hour - or just under 30 seconds of the hourly rate of the aircraft. You can easily save well more than this 30 seconds/$1.77 by leaning the engine out a bit rather than leaving it at full rich, picking an optimal cruising altitude or just navigating a bit more accurately! (not having a go at anyones nav skills, this was just my experience!)Unfortunately when I was training the cost of hiring an aircraft tended to go up by $5 or $10 per hour easily every 6 months or so without the slightest hint of a carbon tax, so I would expect most people will not notice any real difference - this time the newsletters and invoices will explain the truly unfortunate and entirely unavoidable government-inflicted price rise (sarcasm alert) as due to the carbon tax, as opposed to whatever it was 6 or 12 months ago...maintenance costs, increased airways charges, pilots drinking the alcohol out of the standby compasses?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The clincher? Of all the money forked out for the tax, large amounts will go to compensating big business for continuing to do what they have always done
And that's not just with carbon tax. Licenses are still being handed out to build new coal and gas plants. We have enough of those. Just tell them: if you want to sell electricity, build wind, solar, hydro, whatever. They will complain and talk about taking their business elsewhere, yada yada yada, blah blah blah. In the end, they have shareholder to please and money to make and they'll do it.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is largely the least informed debate I have ever read.
If you're not keen on the tax, wait 3 years. After that time, it reverts to a floating price scheme - ie an emissions trading scheme. The "tax" will be gone and replaced with an ETS which Gillard did promise at the election (though nobody remembers that). So at worst, it is a broken promise for 3 years.
It will then be excatly the same as Europe, South Korea and China (yes China) among others have/are implementing. Even the 12th largest economy in the world - California - has one.
On July 1, most pilots, certainly those workiing for small business, will see extra money in the pay packets becuase their tax rate will go down, and prices will barely move. The sky will not fall in (just as it didn't with the GST despite the doom and gloom predictions and that had a much bigger impact on prices) and everyone without a political agenda or trying to fleece their customers will say "what was that all about?" and the caravan will move on.
Abbott will not repeal becuase he won't be able to. He can't reverse the tax cuts and pension increases because without the revenue generated from taxing the big polluters how will he pay for it. It is an egg almost impossible to unscramble.
In the meantime, business will do what business always does, they will try and reduce their input costs, so if their carbon intensive inputs are more expensive then they'll try to reduce them. It's called a price signal and it has worked time and time again. (BTW, transport fuel is exempt from to the person who was complaining about costs on costs - not being rude, just can't remember who it was.)
Seriously people, don't believe what the papers say, do a bit of original research. And wait until July 1. We'll still have the best performing economy, with low unemployment (even lower as of today), low inflation, high wages, good working conditions, good public facilties etc etc int the world.
As somebody once said. Australians are a funny lot. We know we live in the best country in the world, but everything is sh*t here.
If you're not keen on the tax, wait 3 years. After that time, it reverts to a floating price scheme - ie an emissions trading scheme. The "tax" will be gone and replaced with an ETS which Gillard did promise at the election (though nobody remembers that). So at worst, it is a broken promise for 3 years.
It will then be excatly the same as Europe, South Korea and China (yes China) among others have/are implementing. Even the 12th largest economy in the world - California - has one.
On July 1, most pilots, certainly those workiing for small business, will see extra money in the pay packets becuase their tax rate will go down, and prices will barely move. The sky will not fall in (just as it didn't with the GST despite the doom and gloom predictions and that had a much bigger impact on prices) and everyone without a political agenda or trying to fleece their customers will say "what was that all about?" and the caravan will move on.
Abbott will not repeal becuase he won't be able to. He can't reverse the tax cuts and pension increases because without the revenue generated from taxing the big polluters how will he pay for it. It is an egg almost impossible to unscramble.
In the meantime, business will do what business always does, they will try and reduce their input costs, so if their carbon intensive inputs are more expensive then they'll try to reduce them. It's called a price signal and it has worked time and time again. (BTW, transport fuel is exempt from to the person who was complaining about costs on costs - not being rude, just can't remember who it was.)
Seriously people, don't believe what the papers say, do a bit of original research. And wait until July 1. We'll still have the best performing economy, with low unemployment (even lower as of today), low inflation, high wages, good working conditions, good public facilties etc etc int the world.
As somebody once said. Australians are a funny lot. We know we live in the best country in the world, but everything is sh*t here.
Baswell, I am not going to argue with you because, even though I don't agree with you, I do see where you are coming from.
I think what most people on here are angry about is that lack of choice. If the carbon tax is being introduced to force people to use less carbon (which is what I beleive it is intended to do) then what are my options for using less carbon?
For example, fuel. Oil based fuel = bad. Renewable fuel = good. I think eveybody would agree that saving the planet (if indeed it needs saving, but that is another argument) is a good idea. The problem comes when we park our plane/car at the bowser. Fuel has gone up, because the carbon tax has made it go up, and me being a good environmentalist wants to save the environment and some money.......what choice do I have? I can either buy oil based fuel or............... I can buy another oil based fuel.
And that is the point.
The idea is that one can pay the least amount of carbon tax based on choices you are willing to make about how much money you want to spend. If you can afford it then you can wreck carnage on the environment. If I want to be more environmental in my choices then I can pay less tax.
But at the moment, there are no choices in anything (electricity, gas, fuel) and being environemntal may cost more. We have no choice and that is what is Pi88ing people off!
The ultimate test of any tax is that there has to be away to pay less or little/none based on choices you can make. So Baswell, I will ask this. In my everyday living as a consumer how do I reduce the amount of carbon tax I will have to pay? without turning my house into a candle lit cave and converting my Subaru to peddle power?
Alpha
I think what most people on here are angry about is that lack of choice. If the carbon tax is being introduced to force people to use less carbon (which is what I beleive it is intended to do) then what are my options for using less carbon?
For example, fuel. Oil based fuel = bad. Renewable fuel = good. I think eveybody would agree that saving the planet (if indeed it needs saving, but that is another argument) is a good idea. The problem comes when we park our plane/car at the bowser. Fuel has gone up, because the carbon tax has made it go up, and me being a good environmentalist wants to save the environment and some money.......what choice do I have? I can either buy oil based fuel or............... I can buy another oil based fuel.
And that is the point.
The idea is that one can pay the least amount of carbon tax based on choices you are willing to make about how much money you want to spend. If you can afford it then you can wreck carnage on the environment. If I want to be more environmental in my choices then I can pay less tax.
But at the moment, there are no choices in anything (electricity, gas, fuel) and being environemntal may cost more. We have no choice and that is what is Pi88ing people off!
The ultimate test of any tax is that there has to be away to pay less or little/none based on choices you can make. So Baswell, I will ask this. In my everyday living as a consumer how do I reduce the amount of carbon tax I will have to pay? without turning my house into a candle lit cave and converting my Subaru to peddle power?
Alpha
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hey guys.....Think about this for a minute.
The list price Vs the contract discount price means nothing. The EXCISE is on every litre.....so to fill your B748 it will be $14.5K more.
So my rough mental maths at $12.5K per load on a B744 and probably the A380 is about right.
peterc, have you noticed the alarmist AGW folk have vannished up their own hole in the ozone layer in recent years.
If you are worried about our kids, take the carbon tax now, invest it and hand it back to my kids in 20 years when this phoney crap is seen for what it is. Hang on, in 20 years I hope to be around to collect it.
The list price Vs the contract discount price means nothing. The EXCISE is on every litre.....so to fill your B748 it will be $14.5K more.
So my rough mental maths at $12.5K per load on a B744 and probably the A380 is about right.
peterc, have you noticed the alarmist AGW folk have vannished up their own hole in the ozone layer in recent years.
If you are worried about our kids, take the carbon tax now, invest it and hand it back to my kids in 20 years when this phoney crap is seen for what it is. Hang on, in 20 years I hope to be around to collect it.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the carbon tax is being introduced to force people to use less carbon (which is what I beleive it is intended to do) then what are my options for using less carbon?
And if you are using electric heating or hot water: really, do you hate your money that much?
And of course solar panels work exactly as advertised, but take an investment and some years to pay back. (But they WILL pay back many times over.)
As for aircraft, we should find a way to encourage more efficient engines. More Diesel/Jet-A1 piston power would be a good start for larger aircraft. For LSAs (including GA training!) the new Rotax 912iS is awesome. So much less fuel (compared to standard 912, let alone to other 100 HP engines) that despite its higher cost it almost pays for its own overhaul, let alone carbon tax.
There are so many savings right on our doorstep that the real crime is that we need a carbon tax to open our eyes to them.
PS: Candles are very polluting. It is the irony of Earth Hour; the candles many people end up burning send more carbon into the atmosphere than a couple of low energy globes would have done!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys.....Think about this for a minute.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As seems to be the usual case, several of you miss the real point. MOST people don't mind paying a reasonable amount of tax. What is detestable, even despicable, is the comparison of that collected versus that which will be spent supposedly rectifying climate change. Whether you believe in it or not. This government, and others like it, are simply into the socialist agenda of wealth redistribution, nothing more, nothing less. I'll let you work out whose wealth is going to whom.......
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Centre
Age: 42
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This government, and others like it, are simply into the socialist agenda of wealth redistribution
The born to rule mob are out and proud
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe this thread is still going with the antagonists and same old protagonists locked in wasting bandwidth. The deal is done and until it's undone, discussion like this only serves to increase blood pressure.
We have a socialist/ communist/ meagalomaniac/ co-alition government that need "turfing" because any of them can't govern in their own right. The alternative has the numbers given the rest are moronic self serving individualistic poofters.
We have a socialist/ communist/ meagalomaniac/ co-alition government that need "turfing" because any of them can't govern in their own right. The alternative has the numbers given the rest are moronic self serving individualistic poofters.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Frank,
Are you off your medication mate......finally a post I agree with
Just joshin with ya
Reality is that GA struggles with costs as it is, and some folk might easily scoff at a 6.5CPL increase however look at any charter gig, flying school. I have a mate with the aforementioned increase of $60K+ to his business in jet fuel, his Avgas bill per year just went up $2000 and that is a tragedy as a fair chunk of that will be sharing at his expense (a very rare in Australia) Warbird. So go ask all the AWAL members how much spare coin they are willing to throw at sharing their passion with others.
As Porchie has pointed out, this is an unwanted, unfair and moronic tax.
For aviation it is really bad.
Are you off your medication mate......finally a post I agree with
Just joshin with ya
Reality is that GA struggles with costs as it is, and some folk might easily scoff at a 6.5CPL increase however look at any charter gig, flying school. I have a mate with the aforementioned increase of $60K+ to his business in jet fuel, his Avgas bill per year just went up $2000 and that is a tragedy as a fair chunk of that will be sharing at his expense (a very rare in Australia) Warbird. So go ask all the AWAL members how much spare coin they are willing to throw at sharing their passion with others.
As Porchie has pointed out, this is an unwanted, unfair and moronic tax.
For aviation it is really bad.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, after watching Swan's budget speech and the opposition reply tonight, I understand where it all went wrong. The thing is, after balancing the two, and mainly directed to Swan;
WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME COBBER?
A QUICK APOLOGY!
"I apologise for the "poofter" remark. It was totally out of order and should have included Lesbians".
WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME COBBER?
A QUICK APOLOGY!
"I apologise for the "poofter" remark. It was totally out of order and should have included Lesbians".
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The clincher? Of all the money forked out for the tax, large amounts will go to compensating big business for continuing to do what they have always done
Gillard should have just told them: "Suck it up, princess."
Licenses are still being handed out to build new coal and gas plants.
The pitiful wages to the majority of the population, which they then have to spend on services the government doesn't provide anymore so they can't afford to buy the goods and services from their own, or any, employers which thus have to lend them money via credit cards or mortgages funded by their employees 401(k) plans until it all blows up. (The only way they can keep it going is by colluding with OPEC to require payment for oil in USD.)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a socialist/ communist/ meagalomaniac/ co-alition government that need "turfing" because any of them can't govern in their own right.
You hear this a lot how "this government" isn't legitimate because they had to form a coalition. I wonder if the same people would have said the same thing if the coalition had to form, well, you know, a coalition with some of the independents.
Just saying'...