Latest airline tax rip-off
 

Until today's proposals the Tories seemed to be the most aviation friendly UK political party. Unfortunately they appear to have jumped on the airline-bashing bandwagon. In particular there's a demand for tax on fuel on shorthaul flights. That seems pretty unfair as our main competitor, railways, don't pay tax on fuel -or any other tax as they in fact get an overall handout of several billion ££'s every year.

Yes, the last thing the aviation industry deserves is higher tax in order to cut emissions as this link clearly shows.

Interesting thing, the EU...

In Germany the railways pay tax on their diesel fuel and also the mandatory "ecology surcharge" which is applied to all energy consumption (private and corporate consumption) - therefore also on the electricity used by train engines (in GER, most mainlines have electric power instead of Diesel engines).

So, here the railways are complaning that they are paying taxes that the airlines don't have to pay as they don't pay taxes on kerosene...

The baby kissers are full of C*&p as usual. Why are they using aviation as their current whipping boy? Because they think that they can get away with it, as usual. Aviation is responsible for a tiny portion of the world's CO2 emissions and however much they chose to rip off the travelling public the flights will continue anyway. So whets the point? I guess the various campaigns around the world (which nobody wanted anyway) need paying for and they feel that aviation is under taxed:ugh: :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

Swindle
 

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html

Try and catch this on MORE4 - thought provoking stuff...

There was I thinking that at last we have a Tory party with a charismatic leader who has a chance of giving Labour a run for their money and then they come away with that one - who advises them I wonder?

A vote loser if ever I saw one.

If our 'leaders' are as green as they claim to be, why are they allowing a new runway to be built at Stansted ? Surely this will increase airtraffic and is in complete contradiction to the policy on green tax. :ugh:

wizo

a 2nd runway at STN for existing movements could in some circumstances be considered environmentally friendly - fewer holds for takeoff/landing at peak, fewer diversions due to a runway being closed due to an aborted takeoff perhaps. However, to accomplish this govt policy would have to be to fund such infrastructure on that basis, not on cost recovery which would demand an increase in overall movements, leading to more congestion, a third runway (see LHR).

MarkD

I understand your first point, perhaps you could elabotate on the second:

However, to accomplish this govt policy would have to be to fund such infrastructure on that basis, not on cost recovery which would demand an increase in overall movements, leading to more congestion, a third runway (see LHR).

Wizo