China Vs EU
 

To early to tell how this may change the larger game?

BBC News - Top China airlines to ignore EU carbon tax, body says

Will be dam interesting times ahead for some in the trade....... :confused:

I think its fantastic that China has come out with this. I only hope that the US and other countires that were objecting join forces with them and take the same stance.

At the end of the day this is just yet another tax that the poor punter will have to absorb, levied on the easy pickings of Airlines as it would be impossible to impose on car users.

GO China GO!

EU could easily impose a carbon tax on motorists, simply put the price up at the pump.
Damn sight easier than imposing it on the airlines, either buy fuel and pay tax or don't drive - political willpower and self-preservation due to piss poor timing are the only things currently stopping this.

200 bucks on China. The Game is up for the EU and the only thing left for them is to try to tax themselves out of their own incompetence.

Ryanair has an opinion
 

“At a time of deep recession,” O’Leary said, “only the European Commission could invent something as stupid as this.”

Dunno, over here car users pay around a 65 euro cent energy tax (aka carbon tax) per liter gasoline. It is a bit less for diesel (47 cent). Quite a bit more expensive than what airlines have to pay.

Since fuel prices are going up five times faster than the average inflation for the last 10 years the politicians had to stop any further increase in carbon tax or they would have lost the next election. Airlines are a cheap target though, anybody knows they just absolutely pollute the world, don't they? Therefore it is the second tax in two years that supposedly helps the environment which applies to airlines. I surely hope the chinese and american airlines can win this war, it would in turn help our airlines over here as well.

Can´t say I´d agree with many things O'Leary says, but this time he hit the nail squarely...

Saving the planet my ar$e, like all "green" taxes it's just another way of emptying wallets and on top of APD it is adding insult to injury.

Good on China though, I hope the US follows them - forcibly.

BTW, will Cruise Liners be affected?

British Govt have already admitted APD is only used to plug their deficit. If O' Leary is anti EU why are his aircraft carrying pro EU propaganda? As my old boss used to say follow the money.

O'Leary can't be anti-EU as that's what has allowed his airline based in a green bog to fly between any cities it chooses in the "union".

He probably just sees the European Commission as a gassing shop of overpaid civil servants who couldn't have run an airline even in the bad old days of bilateral fare fixing.

Is it fair that Chinese airlines have to pay for emissions produced during the whole flight and not only the distance covered in European airspace?

I think that's the whole point the airlines are trying to say. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't mind paying for the "carbon tax" if only it was for the portion they fly over the EU and not the total flight.

I'm not one to support new taxes generally, but I have to say currently flying is too cheap. Car fuel prices are taxed to hell, why should air travel - a fairly polluting business in its own right - be exempt?

IMO flying is currently too cheap if you take everything into account, sorry for everyone whose job is involved. Since a tax should apply to all airlines equally it should simply raise ticket prices a little. And it'd still be cheap if you look at the amt of fuel burned.

That said calling it a green eco tax is of course BS and they should call a cat a cat.

Indeed this new tax is unbelievably stupid thing for today. I don't believe in any kind of this "global warming" rubbish.

JCviggen
Do you really assume the money collected by means of this new tax will be spent for sake of environment?! My experience by no way could confirm this.

Would he not be correct then? :}

Not at all, but neither is the insane amount of tax levied on other fuels. Hence why I said they should just have called it what it is (a regular tax to plug their budgets)

Even in cases of a road tax levied on registered cars, often very little of the road tax goes towards maintaining roads. Par for the course...

Hence why I said they should just have called it what it is (a regular tax to plug their budgets)

It would be at least honestly.
IMHO ticket prices don't look so cheap.

I was thinking exactly the same.

This tax is madness and will do nothing positive for the economy.

just my view
 

Carbon tax is wholly dependant on the aircraft x the amount flight hours. The only way to reduce it would be to lower journey times (in the short term), which can be viable on short haul flights but are much harder on long haul flights since they generally follow the great circle route. Penalising passengers or airlines for the efficiency of the aircraft or the effectiveness of the Air Traffic services seems like a money making game rather than having any actual benefit to aviation. Most utilised long haul aircraft are made by Airbus or Boeing.
Another point to note is the efficiency of operators is very dependent on the saturation of the market and predictability of the public. In Europe where most markets are explored, airlines can increase utilisation of aircraft based on historic data. But, in emerging economies statistics are blurry and demand is volatile. Asking for high levels of efficiency is just not possible until the data and infrastructure to support it are in place.
USA on the other hand will simply oppose it on principle. Taxing an already heavily taxed and regulated industry is never going to get very far with them.
I feel this tax is very very biased and unfair almost to the point of being underhanded and sly behind a facade of environmental caring. It will most definitely stall growth of Asian carriers coming into Europe primarily due to competition by European airlines which are more efficient and thus will pay lower carbon taxes. This would mean the Asian carriers will have to either absorb the difference in cost and suffer from lower margins or pass it on to the passengers by which they become uncompetitive.
The tax will most likely be used to increase research in efficiency for Airbus aircraft giving them a competitive edge and thus killing competition that is naturally found between aircraft manufacturers. Whilst Airbus is a good manufacturer and produce some amazing aircraft I definitely don't want it to become a one man show.
Looking back on history it's easy to see that during the golden years of aviation in Europe, European carriers had little worry for the environment and posted amazing growth figures year after year with little tax and huge government subsidies. If we compare that to Asian carriers at present in what I believe to be Asian aviation's golden years where Europe is trying to deter their growth that they themselves had the pleasure of experiencing in order to maintain an advantage or even stay relevant.
On a similar playing field European carriers would be irrelevant due to heavy bureaucracy, high labour wages and frankly much poorer levels of service compared to Asia.

Your thoughts?

To bring a bit of balance into the discussion, a couple of points.

• The ETS is not a new invention, neither is it something the EU cooked up on a whim in the middle of a recession. Aviation was told in 2005 the scheme would come into force, and was given 7 years to come to terms with that fact.
• Aviation was only included in ETS because years of talks with ICAO had gone nowhere. Still going nowhere, actually. EU wanted to include aviation in ETS and grew tired of waiting, so forced the issue
• Airlines have been given carbon credits based on 2009/2010 fuel usage. They will be given 85% of that in credit. Airlines who are able to find ways to burn less than their allocation will have credits to sell, and might actually make a buck or two
• The first airline to react, Delta, has imposed a 3 USD per ticket ETS surcharge. This will of course grow, but even a four fold increase will hardly have an impact
• The European Court has ruled against US protests and declared ETS legal
• EU takes environmental policy quite serious, and is not expected to bow to US/Chinese/Russian pressure

SMT Member you sound like one of those Eurocrats.

What a load of bollocks you spout, fair enough this is the same crap the European Parliment produces.
Do you really think the more than 10% of this monies will benefit anybody but the pockets of said morons.
The fundamental flaw in the EU plan is the money for carbon produced outside of the EU goes to the EU and does not benefit anyone else.
A simple and effective plan would have been to add a levy to fuel but that would have mainly penalized the European operators and this is not allowed.

Having to deal personally with this stupid scheme is a burucratic nightmare and insanely expensive.

But apparently the unelected politicians in the EU are smarter than us.

We are in a toilet bowl slowly circling the drain.

Then the EU expects the rest of the world, including the US/China/Russia bow to greedy EU pressure?


So it is the EU's way or no way? It is beyond bizarre to charge carbon credits (tax) on aircraft that are not in the EU's airspace. Just what gives the EU the right to charge a tax on aircraft for the entire length of the flight from say China or New Zealand, all the way to EU airspace.

If they wish to charge this tax while aircraft are in EU airspace, I see no other option but to pay. But outside, get serious.

When I flew corporate aircraft around in China, I paid a 'pollution' tax on every leg, thought it was a bit silly with all the pollution in China, but we paid it and went on.

Because it was their airspace. China did not charge me for a pollution tax in the airspace flying into or out of China.

I'm sure the pending Airbus cancellations won't have any effect either... We'll see how we bow then.

I agree with you Con Pilot - and I'm a 'European' (apparently)

We all need some kind of a level playing field - keeping operators and the tree huggers happy. How the powers that be have gone about this is not the way. What we can't have is the European operators paying and the rest of the world not. Scrap the idea and put it down to a bad experience, just like the Euro!

I'm not going to pass comment on the rest of your pro-EU rant but, seriously - do you actually believe what you wrote there? or did you copy it from some socialist / environmentalist workshop somewhere? Firstly this is a TAX, not an environmental policy.
secondly, the EU is a washed up, unelected talking shop, which has given itself huge legal powers, but actually has very little mandate from any of the EU population, and as such will garner very little popular support for any of this
Thirdy - "The EU will not bow to China / US / Russia". Wow, really? What not even if russia and china close their airspace to all EU airlines? or they cancel all airbus orders? or they impose huge trade tarifs, I mean its not as if the EU imports much from china is it.
I'll pop down to the bookies and put a million euros on china winning this one. Of course this won't be too hard, as due to the stunning competence of the EU in other endeavours, a million euros will be worth about £2.68 in a few years time.

He perhaps knows better than I, but if he is just high or low of the mark this could prove interesting. Of course a lot rests on the legal basis of the various bi and multilateral air accords that have been inked but in such standoffs one has to ask "do the EU nations need air access to China more than China needs air access to the EU?" This will prove to be the leverage point around which any resolution "or standown" will hinge. Of course I think the answer to this question is obvious that the EU nations need China access far more than China needs them. Plus, Air China is in harness in the Star Alliance with, among so many others, LH with would get them a lift there if they really needed it...so I cannot see the Chinese foregoing much sleep over this one.

I think it's time to invest in Boeing then. :hmm:

Whoever believes the EU drivel should get a free membership and passport to Brussels then close the borders and airspace and let them live in La la land. :E

And to top it all, some Eurocrat has deemed we need to calculate our trip emissions as great circle distance plus 90 KM's - yes, kilometres!

Shove it up yer hectopascal!

Oh dear Uncle Fred

Is that all we should worry about, I guess the peddling of Euro debt by our esteemed leaders to the Chinese counts for nothing, or the nice airbus orders hmmmm one should forget the avergage Chinaman bringing some currency to the United Euro States to see the sights or buy new fancy Bm's and Mercs.

If one had to lose I guess the Chinese wont be it, and seeing we can't produce plastic crap in the EU we still need there workforce.

Last time I checked my IpAd was made in China.........

Mattman--not putting forth the position that the Chinese are independent of the worries that a little malentendu would cause for both sides--after all, major trade means that both sides are significantly invested in the outcome. I am just maintaining that in this case if all other factors are equal and if the above quoted analyst is (note the subjunctive tone here) off the mark in his expectation, then it seems that one side would have to blink first and it is my mere postulation that it would perhaps be the EU.

In trade wars (or even spats) one side rarely prevails without scars. This would need to be settled long before Foxconn (sp?) workers have to idle the assembly lines for our iPads or that Airbus has to tell its workers to take a long weekend away with the missus.

Without that level of brinkmanship I just have a hunch that the Chinese have a bit more leverage in this game.

Fred - impressive vocabulary. Tell the tree hugging environmentalists you promise not to buy any more paper books (instead, you will download them on the iPad from China)

That aught to save a vast quantity of trees and reduce your carbon footprint!

In all seriousness, obviously both sides have a vested interest in the outcome. Let's hope they can work it out soon to end this lunacy. With the ailing state of the Euro economy, let's hope it's soon.

Absolutely Fred, the problem we have with the EU is that they think they are bigger than the rest.
You can only push so far, China is the first to openly oppose this using there airlines (it is probably safe to say there is a huge political influence there). The Americans have logged their complaint by aggreeing on the bill to ban any American operator of complying. 26 ICAO members have lodge compalints.

But in true EU political form the plan to steam roll it through, this time there are people that will not sit ideally by and accept that we should pay more.

Apart from the last point, I only listed facts. I didn't say I agree to them, nor did I advocate against them. Merely stated facts.

As for the last point, well, that was a personal observation. But I'm not saying I'm in favour of the EU position, merely that in my opinon (and that of others who know much more about this than me) it's unlikely they'll succumb. Particularly after the US has more or less admitted defeat (by Congress not making it illegal for US airlines to join the EU ETS).

I take it you're quite alright with anti-EU rhetoric of gutter quality, but anything that's not is labelled as pro-EU rant. Gotcha, nice to know where we stand.

As for China cancelling orders, how many times have we heard that? One week it's Boeing cancellations because us.gov have made remarks on human rights, next week it's Airbus because Germany or France has gone done something China doesn't agree to. Well, they've got to buy their aircraft somewhere, and neither Airbus, nor Boeing, nor a combination of either and local production, can meet the demand alone.

And on your last point, China exports more to the EU than the EU does to China. You do the math.

SMT

This has been a long time coming...

China Blocks Airbus Order Over EU’s Emission Trading Scheme ‹ Aviation News – AviaTime.com

And this...

China backs off Airbus order in favor of 747-8s - KCPQ

More...

China blocks billion-dollar Airbus order - FT.com

EU Emissions Policy Throws Spanner in Broughton Airbus works

Interesting reading...

In 2011, No Clear Resolution on EU-ETS | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association

Report: EU-ETS Will Be Costly, Have Minimal Emissions Impact | NBAA - National Business Aviation Association

Let's wait and see.

Smoke/fire??

Hey I am all for Pro Eu if it is fair trade, ETS is not!

Want to play tree hugger, bunny ect.... Why don't you tell the EU to pay all those credits back to the countries that these airliners cross for there very own wind farms Eco crops blah blah blah.....

If they were clever, they would have made the EU a cheaper place to live then we could have produced our own and not relied so heavly on China. Plus there are only so many Airbusses the EU can actually purchase, maybe one of the biggest aviation growth markets is a little bit important.

But skirt the fact that I made earlier, of Eurocrats trying to sell bonds to the Chinese to save there precious Euro.

We can go in circles for days regarding the failure of the EU, and I might not be so eloquent as some but I see it for what it is and where we are going and it is not a good place.

The tax is stupid. Global warming is reality. What do you think happened to all the glaciers? I'll give you a hint...they m*****.

Hi,

Not the first time ... and in the past .. we were not there :)

Unilateral economic rule making doesn't work.

Hard times will result and somebody is going to lose big time. I guess I'll just watch and see how powerful ICAO and IATA are when backed up by governments versus governments.