PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight-61/)
-   -   UK Government Taxation to Deter Air Travel. (https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/388232-uk-government-taxation-deter-air-travel.html)

Bruce Wayne 9th Sep 2009 09:14

UK Government Taxation to Deter Air Travel.
 
Passengers face new tax to halt rise in air travel - Times Online

Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment, according to the Government’s advisory body on climate change..

[...] Ticket prices should rise steadily over time to deter air travel.


[...] David Kennedy, chief executive of the committee, said: “A global scheme could raise tens of billions of pounds a year."

discuss..

northern boy 9th Sep 2009 09:20

All they will do is drive airlines away from the UK at the cost of thousands of jobs. The rest of the world will expand their aviation to compensate whilst thanking us for giving them their business.

We are pathetic.

Do yourself and the rest of us a favour, find a Greenie and boot them up the arse as hard as possible.

Rusland 17 9th Sep 2009 09:39

"Driving airlines away from the UK" is not necessarily a bad thing, and encouraging physical violence against those who argue against environmental damage is perhaps not the most measured response.

We have to balance the growth of our own aviation industry against the downside of such growth - and there are many, I'm sure, who would prefer to see airlines migrating to Schiphol and Frankfurt than see hundreds of acres of England disappear under tarmac and aviation fumes. I think most people would prefer our airports to be world-class in terms of their comfort, facilities and ease of use than purely in terms of number of flights, and the easiest way of achieving that - bearing in mind that none of our airports is easily expanded - is to reduce the number of flights.

If all EU nations take similar measures - as they probably will - then there will be no economic disadvantage to this country.

Blacksheep 9th Sep 2009 09:53

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8243922.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8243922.stm


The UK may have to cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 90% by 2050 so the aviation sector can continue to grow. That is the warning from the government's official climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC). It would mean even bigger cuts than the 80% drop on 1990 levels already planned for households and industry in Britain.
The EU "Guidance for the Aviation Industry, Monitoring and Reporting Annual Emissions and Tonne km Data for EU Emissions Trading" requires in
  • Section 7(a) - Monitoring Plan Template and
  • Section 7(d) - Procedures to ensure total uncertainty is met
that we airlines demonstrate the satisfactory operation of our aircraft fuel quantity measurement systems and check for inaccurate measurement instruments exceeding the threshold (accuracy error). In fact a typical airliner FQIS is designed to an accuracy within +/- 1% of FSD, far more accurate than that of most other vehicles.

We note that aviation is being targeted with requirements to provide direct certification of fuel quantities consumed despite the admission within the EU source documents that aviation is responsible for just 13% of EU transport emissions, while no such onerous measurement and reporting requirements are proposed (or even practical) for direct monitoring of the remaining 87% of EU transport activity.

Given that transport is only a small proportion of total emissions (power generation is the major source) and aviation is a minor contributor to transport emissions, why are our politicians so keen to single out the aviation industry for such draconian measures? Further, looking at that statement in the above quote, the question arises as to why the UK Government in particular seems so determined to damage our industry and destroy thousands of jobs, despite the fact that the EU's own admitted figures show that the CCC's claim is such an outrageous lie?

racedo 9th Sep 2009 10:09

Cars do more damage to climate than air travel YET UK Govt is subsidising thousands of sales of new cars.

Love the idea of giving billions to developing world who will use it to enhance the lives of their people, mainly the miitary people who get all these shiny new toys in which to control the population and their masters (oops fraudulently elected Government) who will use the billions transferred for the shopping visits to London, acquisition of Swiss bank accounts and making their own lives better. The general population in these countries will of course be no better off then than they are now.

Climate change is a good story BUT None of the Climate change gurus can answer the question of What climate they want to end up with. If the climate stops changing the Earth is dead.

W.R.A.I.T.H 9th Sep 2009 10:12


If all EU nations take similar measures - as they probably will -
You keep dreaming. In the last 10 years I haven't seen such BS to emanate from any other European country, by a country mile. Same with the draconian airside security policy, just by the way. It's a UK thing, shoot yourself in the foot and cut off your nose, tax everything to death and then blame consequences on the EU in Daily Mail. How the government stance on the Heathrow 3rd runway helps deter air travel is for everyone around to have a good laugh. Hypocrisy is paramount.

WHBM 9th Sep 2009 10:44


Originally Posted by Bruce Wayne (Post 5178288)
Tens of billions of pounds will have to be raised through flight taxes to compensate developing countries

Which the "developing countries" will doubtless spend on whisky and Mercedes for their leaders and their extended families, as per usual.

Oblaaspop 9th Sep 2009 10:48

Lets get real folks, the UK Government doesn't really give a toss about the environment, all they really care about is boosting its coffers and making as much money as it possible can through taxation in its easiest form.

They (we) know full well that people will always fly, Joe Public will ALWAYS go on holiday in the summer, and business folks will always use any excuse not to use video conferencing in favour of flying off to Vegas for the week!

The point being, Aviation is a soft target. People WILL stump up the extra tax cash to fly..... They wont like it, but they WILL do it, and the Government knows it!

A few years ago, fat boy 'Two Jags' Prescott (the then Deputy PM), declared that everyone should get out of their cars and on to public transport. Well there are 2 problems with that fatty, firstly, if everyone suddenly decided to do that then the smelly, expensive UK public transport system would grind to a halt in 12 minutes flat, because its ALREADY overcrowded, and secondly if everyone stopped buying petrol, then the 87% the Government takes in fuel duty (the most in the world) would suddenly stop and the country would become bankrupt in a matter of weeks. So despite the fact that cars in the UK are amongst the most heavily taxed in the world, it doesn't stop people from driving, the same goes for flying.......... another soft/easy target.

Lets face it, air travel is cheeper today than it has ever been. When I was about 9 years old, my folks took me on holiday to Antigua, back then (many moons ago), BA only had 1 flight a week there which went via St Lucia. The cost of 1 Economy ticket....... 1800 quid! The same today would be around 500 including a weeks full board hotel. Tellingly back then only those that could afford it could travel, today all and sundry are flying... good or bad, that's now the way it is, and it will never change because the traditional Bognor Regis summer holiday makers have now had a taste of 'the high life' and will not be prepared to give it up...... So to all you sandal wearing, Guardian reading, unemployed hippie oxygen thieves...... Get over it!!!

This rip off attitude (and the bend over and take it up the wrong 'un stance of the British public) is one of the (many) reasons I emigrated from the UK in the first place.

Jeremy Clarkson for PM I say............. maybe then I'll come back!!

Bruce Wayne 9th Sep 2009 11:09

A point to consider is the following quote;

"Donald Washburn, a former executive at Northwest Airlines, has observed that airlines are merely cash accumulators for other constituencies" - The various government entities that tax it.

No matter what the increase in taxation, the travelling public will still demand ever lower prices, while operationally costs will continue to increase.

This will ultimately result in lower T&C's industry wide. Shareholders will also move their shareholdings into more profitable business shareholdings.

The resultant factor, both in the short term as well as the long terms will see a reduction in the competitive nature of the UK aviation industry, the reduction in industry stability within the UK and a reduction in T&C's for those that remain in the UK based industry.

The IPCC itself states;


"However, model studies have indicated that volatile organic emissions from aircraft have an insignificant impact on atmospheric ozone at cruise altitudes (Hayman and Markiewicz, 1996; Pleijel, 1998)."
Conversely, in the manufacturing industry, the production of concrete produces an equal amount of waste and contaminants to product. That is to say, one one ton of concrete produces one ton of waste and contaminants.

Do we see environmental protesters at cement plants ? No, we see them at airports.

Do we see heavy industry being subject to punitive taxation ? No, we see aviation being subject to punitive taxation.

We witness the destruction of this industry by means of poor government policy based on data that is nothing short of that peddled by a snake oil salesman.


Monday, November 17, 2008

Climate scientists allied with the IPCC have been caught citing fake data to make the case that global warming is accelerating, a shocking example of mass public deception that could spell the beginning of the end for the acceptance of man-made climate change theories.

On Monday, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

“Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.”

It soon came to light that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.



When NASA was confronted with this glaring error, they then attempted to compensate for the lower temperatures in Russia by claiming they had discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic, despite satellite imagery clearly showing that Arctic sea ice had massively expanded its coverage by 30 per cent, an area the size of Germany, since summer 2007.

The figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are one of the primary sets of data used by the IPCC to promote its case for man-made global warming and they are widely quoted because they consistently show higher temperatures than other figures.

“Yet last week’s latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen’s methodology has been called in question,” reports the Telegraph. “In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.”

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC and a close ally of Hansen, also raised eyebrows recently during a presentation in Australia, during which he claimed that global temperatures have recently been rising “very much faster” than ever as he cited a graph showing purported temperature increases over the last decade. In fact, as even the vast majority of man-made global warming advocates will concede, temperatures since 1998 have moved sideways and over the last 18 months they have clearly begun a downward trend.

Whether such “mistakes” are made in genuine error or are part of a politicized push for man-made global warming to be universally accepted, and the evidence clearly suggests that latter is the case, the fact is that we can no longer tolerate the cry that “the debate is over” on man-made global warming in light of such gargantuan falsehoods.

Likewise, the push for carbon emissions to be reduced by 80 per cent or more, a figure that would completely cripple western economies and lower living standards to a near third world level, can no longer be accepted as a reasonable course of action now that the primary authority on man-made global warming, the UN IPCC, has been proven to be using fraudulent data to make its case.


Foisted upon the public by means of giant multi-million dollar PR campaigns and brainwashing mandates that have worked themselves into every sector of society, including education, movies, television the arts and culture, all the attention and funding is being lavished upon a manufactured hoax, peddled with the aid of phony data, as governments prepare to suck what’s left out of the middle class and poor with carbon taxes that do nothing to help the environment, while all the real environmental problems are left in the shadows.


Bruce Wayne 9th Sep 2009 11:34


"Driving airlines away from the UK" is not necessarily a bad thing, and encouraging physical violence against those who argue against environmental damage is perhaps not the most measured response.

We have to balance the growth of our own aviation industry against the downside of such growth - and there are many, I'm sure, who would prefer to see airlines migrating to Schiphol and Frankfurt than see hundreds of acres of England disappear under tarmac and aviation fumes. I think most people would prefer our airports to be world-class in terms of their comfort, facilities and ease of use than purely in terms of number of flights, and the easiest way of achieving that - bearing in mind that none of our airports is easily expanded - is to reduce the number of flights.

If all EU nations take similar measures - as they probably will - then there will be no economic disadvantage to this country.
Rusland 17,

I just don't know where to start with that, I really don't.

Perhaps another forum member may be a bit less terse, blunt and/or offensive than my desired response !

Hussar 54 9th Sep 2009 11:44

Can anyone confirm whether there are simlar Airline Passenger Ticket Taxes paid by the millions of passengers who buy tickets on the the cruise ships ??

If not - why not ?

Read somewhere that some of these ships manage something equivalent to about 14cms distance for 5 litres of ( presumably untaxed ) diesel fuel...And absolutely all for holiday/leisure travel and absolutely zero for wealth creating business travel....

Seems the playing field regarding holidaying passengers travelling by air and those by sea is more than unlevel - it's vertical...

Oblaaspop 9th Sep 2009 11:49

Good post Bruce. It pretty well sums up this Global Warming 'Religion' and that people without common sense are just jumping on the bandwagon without getting all the facts.

On a micro level, Summer 2007 in the UK was the hottest since 1976, and boy was the media full of the gloom and doom merchants forecasting the downfall of humanity and that the end is neigh due to man using fossil fuel!!

Yet where were those same one sided argument folks when the winter that followed was the coldest for quarter a century and the summer of '08 and indeed this summer have recorded the lowest average temps for over a decade, no doubt if asked to raise their heads from the stones under which they live will say that it is global warming that has caused that as well. Oi morons, you can't have it both ways!!!

Professor Dr David Bellomy (of 1970's TV fame), has produced many papers on 'Global Warming', basically saying man only has a very minor effect on the planet, and that of the 10's of thousands of scientific writings on the subject, only 2% actually pin the rise in average global temps on man's influence.....

But of course not scaring the public into paying more tax and bolstering 'Green' companies doesn't bring any money into the coffers....... Funny that!!

fireflybob 9th Sep 2009 11:56

Well we have a general election coming up fairly soon.

If anyone from any of the parties turn up on my doorstep canvassing I intend to ask them about their policies with respect to APD and if I don't get the answers I am looking for I will advise them that they will not be getting my vote!

Aviation is being unfairly targeted and we need to get this message across loud and clear.

Recently on Radio Nottingham I put this issue to Kenneth Clarke MP and he babbled on about it not being a time to reduce taxation and, I thought, completely missed the point about people being attracted to AMS or FRA to fly long haul.

I despair of our politicians more and more. WHY should we have to pay more tax on aviation?

Mac the Knife 9th Sep 2009 12:03

"....to compensate developing countries for the damage air travel does to the environment..."

Hilarious! Hope we get some so that our corrupt and conscienceless ministers can go on yet another round of multiple luxury vehicle buying splurge while their constituents struggle to pay the taxes that paid for their first lot.

God you Westerners are idiots!

Mac

Dimitris 9th Sep 2009 12:18

Isn't aviation 'public transport'?
 

A few years ago, fat boy 'Two Jags' Prescott (the then Deputy PM), declared that everyone should get out of their cars and on to public transport.
Well... isn't aviation public transport?!?!?! As much as the privately owned trains in the UK with government built infrastructure.. no???:ugh::ugh:

300 people in a plane is mass transport in my understanding with (probably) lower CO2 emissions than anything else.

The problem with aviation I think arises from the fact that is the newest type of transportation that is considered 'posh' due to the very fact that 20-30 years ago tickets cost insane amounts of money, and people were served champagnes smokes cigars and had golden watches in their wrists. Forget about all that, and its nothing more than an insanely cheap (in money and environmental effect) way of mass transport. (were mass=public cause trains in the UK are not public!!!).

Why isn't aviation considered as 'public transport' can anyone give a good answer to that???

SLF here but the thread is not only pilot related I believe.

1800ed 9th Sep 2009 12:21


Cars do more damage to climate than air travel YET UK Govt is subsidising thousands of sales of new cars.
The point in the scrappage scheme is to get inefficient vehicles off of the road and replacing them with newer, 'greener' vehicles.

glad rag 9th Sep 2009 12:38

Rant.
 
OK I'll bite


Quote:
Cars do more damage to climate than air travel YET UK Govt is subsidising thousands of sales of new cars.
The point in the scrappage scheme is to get inefficient vehicles off of the road and replacing them with newer, 'greener' vehicles.
Oh please DO give us some examples of sustainable "green" vehicles and please include all carbon costs involved in their construction.

Oh hang on, errrr, did I ask the wrong question there????

I am amazed that after 2 gulf wars, Iraq, WMD, Hutton, Mandelson, Pensions, Gold sell off's, our soldiers dying in Afganistan for the want of bloody ladders (never mind helecopters), that ANYONE is dumb enough to actually believe what the lying, theiving bunch of ****'s that run this country promote as the truth!
Really, it's all just manipulation and mass mind control.:*

racedo 9th Sep 2009 12:44


The point in the scrappage scheme is to get inefficient vehicles off of the road and replacing them with newer, 'greener' vehicles.
The point of the scrappage scheme is to provide money to manufacturers, you buy into the green idea toooooooooooooo easily.


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.