Greens against Aviation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greens against Aviation
Just read in the local rag that the UK Green party are claimingthat the UK airline industry gets £9.2 billion pounds in tax breaks from the government. They also state that Manchester airport alone gets £807 million.
I wonder where this money comes from since I saw no mention of this massive sum in the budget...and where does it go . Certainly none of it has been given to the company I work for.
Oh yes, and they are still trying to get VAT on air tickets and aviation fuel. Isn't it about time we launched a concerted anti green campaign. They are trying to wipe out our jobs
I wonder where this money comes from since I saw no mention of this massive sum in the budget...and where does it go . Certainly none of it has been given to the company I work for.
Oh yes, and they are still trying to get VAT on air tickets and aviation fuel. Isn't it about time we launched a concerted anti green campaign. They are trying to wipe out our jobs
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greens
ShotOne - VAT on aviation fuel, what next, duty? Unfortunately SO you have clearly no idea what ACTUALLY happens in the aviation world. Many of us still use piston engined a/c and guess what - we pay duty and VAT. You're not an ill informed journo by any chance? Your remarks suggest as much.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you have ten pounds in your back pocket which I can see, and if I do NOT take it; have you received a 'subsidy' of ten pounds?
If you go into a room containing ten people and none of them steal (sorry, I mean tax) your ten pounds, then have you received a subsidy of £100?
Perhaps I am naive and simple.
If you go into a room containing ten people and none of them steal (sorry, I mean tax) your ten pounds, then have you received a subsidy of £100?
Perhaps I am naive and simple.
The airline industry, since it is a huge employer, gets not to be taxed out of existence (or grossly overcharged by the CAA).
I'm sure that if either the "environmentalist" industry, or for that matter any part of light aviation was a huge employer on the same scale, it would get reduced VAT and duty on fuel, buildings, etc. etc. etc.
Ah, except that light aviation is a major UK employer, and has it's fuel taxed out of existence, ludicrously expensive business rates on hangars, £151/hr CAA charges to gain company approval, VAT charged on flying training, etc. etc. Bu**er, there goes that argument.
And environmentalists make very little for the country (okay, they do keep it looking and smelling nice I'll grant them that), are largely unproductive and the activity employs very few people - yet they get huge government tax breaks for virtually everything they do, protection by charity rules for their organisations, large government grants for all sorts of things. Damn, I've shot that argument down too.
Nope, it all makes no sense whatsoever.
G
I'm sure that if either the "environmentalist" industry, or for that matter any part of light aviation was a huge employer on the same scale, it would get reduced VAT and duty on fuel, buildings, etc. etc. etc.
Ah, except that light aviation is a major UK employer, and has it's fuel taxed out of existence, ludicrously expensive business rates on hangars, £151/hr CAA charges to gain company approval, VAT charged on flying training, etc. etc. Bu**er, there goes that argument.
And environmentalists make very little for the country (okay, they do keep it looking and smelling nice I'll grant them that), are largely unproductive and the activity employs very few people - yet they get huge government tax breaks for virtually everything they do, protection by charity rules for their organisations, large government grants for all sorts of things. Damn, I've shot that argument down too.
Nope, it all makes no sense whatsoever.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 8th Dec 2003 at 20:19.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Both sides of 40W
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And all that money, will probably go to, amongst other things, into maintaining a bunch of jobless, ‘greens’ that, are nothing more than rebels lacking a plausible cause!!! It amazes me how certain groups that merely for political reasons, look for arguments and reasons to bring down any industry. That, all in all contributes to the livelihood of an enormous amount of families and individuals.
Modern day technology does not have an answer to all their claims. Maybe they have the answer?
Modern day technology does not have an answer to all their claims. Maybe they have the answer?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: London
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a large employer doesn't exempt haulage industry or company car fleets from VAT and fuel duty, as well as GA as noted. What are the arguments as to why the tax exemptions on fuel for commercial aviation should continue, aside from its present poor financial condition? (Genuine question).
The original reasons were in the Chicago convention which then thought aviation in need of a leg-up in the world, similar to the cap on insurance claims under the Warsaw convention, things which don't apply any longer.
The original reasons were in the Chicago convention which then thought aviation in need of a leg-up in the world, similar to the cap on insurance claims under the Warsaw convention, things which don't apply any longer.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, if VAT is placed on aviation fuel then the costs will just be passed on to the passengers. This will hit hardest the low cost operators since they will have a higher percentage price rise overall on their tickets.
I think in these current times when the industry is trying to attract new customers and return to previous levels it would be unwise to knock it back further.
I think in these current times when the industry is trying to attract new customers and return to previous levels it would be unwise to knock it back further.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For those who are interested, the Green Party report is available in full here:
Aviation's Economic Downside
Selected elements of the summary (pertinent to the posts above) are:
S1 Aviation is the most highly-polluting transport mode on earth, and its pollution constitutes a major hidden cost to the economy. Aviation is also subsidised directly and indirectly by the taxpayer, and is a major drain on the UK balance of payments.
S2 The health costs of air pollution from the UK aviation sector are estimated at more than £1.3 billion pounds a year.
S3 The economic costs of aircraft noise in the UK are estimated at £313 million a year.
S4 The costs of UK aviation's contribution to climate change are estimated at well over £2 billion a year in 2001. And unless the government radically changes its policy on the matter, aviation's CO2 emissions will have increased by 588% between 1992 and 2050, and its NOx pollution by 411%. By 2050, aviation could be contributing up to 15% of the overall global warming effect produced by human activities - with staggering economic costs.
S5 The overall hidden economic costs of the European Union's aviation sector are currently estimated at £14.3 billion a year - of which the UK alone accounts for £3.782 billion, or 26%. This doesn't include the costs of aviation accidents, accident services, and direct subsidies like the £500 million given to BAe to help it develop a new airbus.
S6 Hidden subsidies to the aviation sector also include the costs of building and maintaining the surface transport infrastructure which serves airports - costs which are growing fast in parallel with the growth of aviation.
S7 Aviation is under-taxed compared to most sectors. Flight tickets, aircraft and aviation fuel are zero-rated for VAT. HM Treasury collects £1 billion in air passenger duty per year, but forgoes £3 billion due to VAT zero-rating of aviation products and loss of excise revenue. Aviation fuel pays no tax at all, although if it were taxed at the same rate as unleaded petrol, this would raise some £5 billion a year. Effectively, society is subsidising the aviation industry through a colossal tax-break of £7 billion a year.
Dr Dave
Aviation's Economic Downside
Selected elements of the summary (pertinent to the posts above) are:
S1 Aviation is the most highly-polluting transport mode on earth, and its pollution constitutes a major hidden cost to the economy. Aviation is also subsidised directly and indirectly by the taxpayer, and is a major drain on the UK balance of payments.
S2 The health costs of air pollution from the UK aviation sector are estimated at more than £1.3 billion pounds a year.
S3 The economic costs of aircraft noise in the UK are estimated at £313 million a year.
S4 The costs of UK aviation's contribution to climate change are estimated at well over £2 billion a year in 2001. And unless the government radically changes its policy on the matter, aviation's CO2 emissions will have increased by 588% between 1992 and 2050, and its NOx pollution by 411%. By 2050, aviation could be contributing up to 15% of the overall global warming effect produced by human activities - with staggering economic costs.
S5 The overall hidden economic costs of the European Union's aviation sector are currently estimated at £14.3 billion a year - of which the UK alone accounts for £3.782 billion, or 26%. This doesn't include the costs of aviation accidents, accident services, and direct subsidies like the £500 million given to BAe to help it develop a new airbus.
S6 Hidden subsidies to the aviation sector also include the costs of building and maintaining the surface transport infrastructure which serves airports - costs which are growing fast in parallel with the growth of aviation.
S7 Aviation is under-taxed compared to most sectors. Flight tickets, aircraft and aviation fuel are zero-rated for VAT. HM Treasury collects £1 billion in air passenger duty per year, but forgoes £3 billion due to VAT zero-rating of aviation products and loss of excise revenue. Aviation fuel pays no tax at all, although if it were taxed at the same rate as unleaded petrol, this would raise some £5 billion a year. Effectively, society is subsidising the aviation industry through a colossal tax-break of £7 billion a year.
Dr Dave
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Columbia
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the UK government were to unilaterally place duty / tax on jet fuel, and much dependent upon the level of taxation, the airlines will simply tanker fuel in from countries where the fuel is cheaper and / or not taxed.
Nb. Many airlines already tanker fuel as a viable method of reducing the uplift required from airports where fuel is expensive - indeed at my airline we do a "should we tanker ?" analysis before every flight.
That said, tankering fuel increases the weight of the aircraft and this in turn causes more fuel to be consumed, however the additional burn required to lift the tanked fuel is more than offset by the fuel price differential.
Accordingly, and somewhat ironically, the overall effect of a tax on aviation fuel is likely to cause more fuel to be consumed - which is probably not quite what the 'Greens' intend any such a tax achieve.
Nb. Many airlines already tanker fuel as a viable method of reducing the uplift required from airports where fuel is expensive - indeed at my airline we do a "should we tanker ?" analysis before every flight.
That said, tankering fuel increases the weight of the aircraft and this in turn causes more fuel to be consumed, however the additional burn required to lift the tanked fuel is more than offset by the fuel price differential.
Accordingly, and somewhat ironically, the overall effect of a tax on aviation fuel is likely to cause more fuel to be consumed - which is probably not quite what the 'Greens' intend any such a tax achieve.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 46
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Green Party document is typical sensationalism and figures plucked out at random. It uses terms like "estimated" (which means they dont know) and "hidden" (which means they dont know).
If aviation is contributing 15% of the global warming gasses, who is contributing the other 85% and how does aviation compare to them?
The modern long range airliner (say A330), in terms of miles/per pax/per gallon is more efficient than a family saloon car.
Accidents?(touch wood). When did we last have a major aviation accident in the UK? Over a decade ago. The UK has an excellent safety record.
I fly privately. I pay plenty of VAT on fuel thanks very much. The government makes plenty of money out of VAT on GA fuel.
Aviation results in more transport links having to be built which costs money. Well if we scrap the plane we will have to build more roads and railways to replace them with wont we? So the point is what exactly?
The government give BAe £500m to help with A380. But how many jobs will the create/protect. And how much will the government raise in tax revenue from those people employed on the A380 at BAe over the lifespan of the aircraft (ie tax on earnings, tax on petrol to get to work, airport taxes on business and leisure flights, VAT on things bought with earnings). Probably more than £500m I would say, so isnt that actually a good investment? That money will contribute to environmentally friendly projects like wind farms, cleaning up the countryside. At the end of the day it all goes in one pot and comes out of the same pot.
If aviation is contributing 15% of the global warming gasses, who is contributing the other 85% and how does aviation compare to them?
The modern long range airliner (say A330), in terms of miles/per pax/per gallon is more efficient than a family saloon car.
Accidents?(touch wood). When did we last have a major aviation accident in the UK? Over a decade ago. The UK has an excellent safety record.
I fly privately. I pay plenty of VAT on fuel thanks very much. The government makes plenty of money out of VAT on GA fuel.
Aviation results in more transport links having to be built which costs money. Well if we scrap the plane we will have to build more roads and railways to replace them with wont we? So the point is what exactly?
The government give BAe £500m to help with A380. But how many jobs will the create/protect. And how much will the government raise in tax revenue from those people employed on the A380 at BAe over the lifespan of the aircraft (ie tax on earnings, tax on petrol to get to work, airport taxes on business and leisure flights, VAT on things bought with earnings). Probably more than £500m I would say, so isnt that actually a good investment? That money will contribute to environmentally friendly projects like wind farms, cleaning up the countryside. At the end of the day it all goes in one pot and comes out of the same pot.
Guest
Posts: n/a
A couple of corrections:
1. According to IPCC, aviation is responsible for 2-3% of total ahthropognic emissions of carbon dioxide (not 15%)
2. Transportation across all classes is responsible for 15% of anthropogenic CO2
3. If we take radiative forcing, the contribution from aviation is estimated at 3.5% (effects of contrails, other greenhouse gases, etc.)
4. Isn't the British Government contribution to the A380 (at least in theory) a commercial loan, repayable on royalties. Surely therefore this should not be considered here?
DrDave
1. According to IPCC, aviation is responsible for 2-3% of total ahthropognic emissions of carbon dioxide (not 15%)
2. Transportation across all classes is responsible for 15% of anthropogenic CO2
3. If we take radiative forcing, the contribution from aviation is estimated at 3.5% (effects of contrails, other greenhouse gases, etc.)
4. Isn't the British Government contribution to the A380 (at least in theory) a commercial loan, repayable on royalties. Surely therefore this should not be considered here?
DrDave
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the claims from the farmers for reduced milk production from the cows that would have given more if not for the noise and less egg production from the poor stressed out chickens.
When was the last time a company that got a huge pile of cash from the government as a loan actually paid it back (Chrysler and Lockeed are the exceptions)? Got to do somethingto compete with those nasty Americans.
When was the last time a company that got a huge pile of cash from the government as a loan actually paid it back (Chrysler and Lockeed are the exceptions)? Got to do somethingto compete with those nasty Americans.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Iron City
Errr - Airbus in fact!
The last figures for the A320 that I heard were for the year 2000.
The UK government provided a loan of $369 million (in 2000 dollars) to BAE Systems for A320 launch aid.
By 2000, BAE/Airbus had repaid $459.2 million, giving the U.K. government a profit of $126 million on this program. Given that payments occur on a per aircraft sold basis, and the A320 is selling well, I guess this is somewhat higher now.
Figures for the A330/A340 are a little less impressive though I believe.
Dr Dave
Errr - Airbus in fact!
The last figures for the A320 that I heard were for the year 2000.
The UK government provided a loan of $369 million (in 2000 dollars) to BAE Systems for A320 launch aid.
By 2000, BAE/Airbus had repaid $459.2 million, giving the U.K. government a profit of $126 million on this program. Given that payments occur on a per aircraft sold basis, and the A320 is selling well, I guess this is somewhat higher now.
Figures for the A330/A340 are a little less impressive though I believe.
Dr Dave
There was a debate about this on Radio 4 the other day. In the time honoured fashion they put a greenie (nothing should be built anywhere, ever) against somebody I think from BAA (we should be able to build runways everywhere, and only heavy metal should be allowed to use them), with the inevitable argument.
Then, they hauled in from some UK university a chap who was a "Professor of Sustainable Aviation". He told them both, very politely that they were talking complete airbollox, and explained how you need a certain amount of additional runway capacity, a constant improvement in noise and efficiency, and only build on a handful of occasional nature reserves if absolutely necessary to the economy. Apart from spoiling a good argument, he sounded thoroughly good value for money - anybody know who he was and whether he can be persuaded to join Pprune.
G
Then, they hauled in from some UK university a chap who was a "Professor of Sustainable Aviation". He told them both, very politely that they were talking complete airbollox, and explained how you need a certain amount of additional runway capacity, a constant improvement in noise and efficiency, and only build on a handful of occasional nature reserves if absolutely necessary to the economy. Apart from spoiling a good argument, he sounded thoroughly good value for money - anybody know who he was and whether he can be persuaded to join Pprune.
G
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: luton,geneva,tokyo
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pollution + noise
Once calculated that 250 pax on a DC-10 used less gas than 250 drivers, each in a separate car, doing the same distance.
So why aviation should be the most polluting travel I don't know.
As for noise, the only annoying aviation noise comes at the beginning and end of the flight. Road traffic noise never gets away from the surly bonds - and is nation wide.
So why aviation should be the most polluting travel I don't know.
As for noise, the only annoying aviation noise comes at the beginning and end of the flight. Road traffic noise never gets away from the surly bonds - and is nation wide.
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that Greens act in part as a natural brake on society is not a complete loss. There exists a need for some caution in any field of human endevour, and they provide it. The a**hole is not a very elegent or beautiful part of the body however we would all concede that it does perform some neccesary functions. That the Greens are a**holes does not detract from their essential nature in the scheme of things though they do come up with a load of sh*t a lot of the time.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: EDDM
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<rant>
Just to throw in a number of figures:
1) Lufthansa consumes about 4.5 liters/100 passenger kilometers flow, Hapag Lloyd does it even with under 3 liters (thanks to 3-3-3 layout on their A310
), while an average mid-sized car guzzles around 7.5 liters/100PKM. Now for the greens, most of who have profound lack-of-knowledge in elementary arithmetics: Thats 40% less fuel for LH or 60% less fuel for HF. (sorry I don't have figures for other airliners).
2) Commercial aviation uses less land aera per RPK and emits less noise per RPK than ANY OTHER known means of transportation, apart space transportation systems.
Facts about subsidies:
3) The german government wastes 10 billion EUR every year in wind power plants, a form of power generation which is completely unsable on the large scale, unless we discover a means to store vast amounts of electircal energy, all in order to fight "evil" nuclear power plants, in order to make "enviromentally friendly" power. However, if you provided 100% of the worlds primary engery needs with solar power plants by 2050, the albedo (reflection coefficient of Earth) would change enough that the climatic consequences would be unpredictable. However, it is not possible for this fact to penetrate the thick green skulls because of lack-of-scientific-knowledge.
4) The very same government wastes 3-5 billion EUR every year in SUBSIDIZING mineral coal, which is then to be converted into electric energy, ignoring the fact that Germany has over 25% of the world's known brown-coal supplies and the best brown-coal powerplants (the only power plant that produces energy at a cost simlar to nuclears)
5) The very same green government keeps ranting about "subsidizing" commercial aviation, however, they try to make life hell-on-earth for the airlines, by imposing airport curfews, making them pay for the neighbours noise-surpessing windows and other things. I live near a busy railway line. Why don't we shut it down at 2200 every night and make the people pay for MY windows?! No, we're throwing billions of EUR into the German Railway because they don't get their act together, and drive rotten trains around the country which are filled under 20% on the average.
Not taxing someone or something does NOT equal subsidizing.
6) Commercial Aviation is not only the backbone of globalization and international trade, but also an ambassador for peace and mutual understanding of cultures.
Things in Europe are getting ridiculous.
I think it is time to bomb the greens back to the stone age for their own safety and finally bring Disney World to Vladivostok
"I wish to warn you about the highly dangerous 'green movement', that threatens to stop progess of human knowledge"
</rant>
SailorOrion
Just to throw in a number of figures:
1) Lufthansa consumes about 4.5 liters/100 passenger kilometers flow, Hapag Lloyd does it even with under 3 liters (thanks to 3-3-3 layout on their A310
), while an average mid-sized car guzzles around 7.5 liters/100PKM. Now for the greens, most of who have profound lack-of-knowledge in elementary arithmetics: Thats 40% less fuel for LH or 60% less fuel for HF. (sorry I don't have figures for other airliners).2) Commercial aviation uses less land aera per RPK and emits less noise per RPK than ANY OTHER known means of transportation, apart space transportation systems.
Facts about subsidies:
3) The german government wastes 10 billion EUR every year in wind power plants, a form of power generation which is completely unsable on the large scale, unless we discover a means to store vast amounts of electircal energy, all in order to fight "evil" nuclear power plants, in order to make "enviromentally friendly" power. However, if you provided 100% of the worlds primary engery needs with solar power plants by 2050, the albedo (reflection coefficient of Earth) would change enough that the climatic consequences would be unpredictable. However, it is not possible for this fact to penetrate the thick green skulls because of lack-of-scientific-knowledge.
4) The very same government wastes 3-5 billion EUR every year in SUBSIDIZING mineral coal, which is then to be converted into electric energy, ignoring the fact that Germany has over 25% of the world's known brown-coal supplies and the best brown-coal powerplants (the only power plant that produces energy at a cost simlar to nuclears)
5) The very same green government keeps ranting about "subsidizing" commercial aviation, however, they try to make life hell-on-earth for the airlines, by imposing airport curfews, making them pay for the neighbours noise-surpessing windows and other things. I live near a busy railway line. Why don't we shut it down at 2200 every night and make the people pay for MY windows?! No, we're throwing billions of EUR into the German Railway because they don't get their act together, and drive rotten trains around the country which are filled under 20% on the average.
Not taxing someone or something does NOT equal subsidizing.
6) Commercial Aviation is not only the backbone of globalization and international trade, but also an ambassador for peace and mutual understanding of cultures.
Things in Europe are getting ridiculous.
I think it is time to bomb the greens back to the stone age for their own safety and finally bring Disney World to Vladivostok
"I wish to warn you about the highly dangerous 'green movement', that threatens to stop progess of human knowledge"
</rant>
SailorOrion