Aircraft environmental damage
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft environmental damage
What is the actual cost of 'aircraft environmental damage', what is the physical form of this 'damage'and what precisely are the methods of rectification of this 'damage' that lead to these costs.
Or is this proposal to pass on these costs to airline passengers just a tax in shallow disguise.
Perhaps this is not just a technical issue and may be more suited on jet blast.
Or is this proposal to pass on these costs to airline passengers just a tax in shallow disguise.
Perhaps this is not just a technical issue and may be more suited on jet blast.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft do suffer from a multitude of environmental induced damage during their lifespan.
Damage may be caused by hail, lightning, severe turbulence and sand/dust ingestion to name but a few. The price of rectification depends on the position/extent of the damage.
For example I recently had an aircraft that had encountered severe turbulence and this resulted in the aircraft undergoing a fairly heavy inspection in the Hangar. Although no damage was found the aircarft was out of service for a good 24 hours.
Damage may be caused by hail, lightning, severe turbulence and sand/dust ingestion to name but a few. The price of rectification depends on the position/extent of the damage.
For example I recently had an aircraft that had encountered severe turbulence and this resulted in the aircraft undergoing a fairly heavy inspection in the Hangar. Although no damage was found the aircarft was out of service for a good 24 hours.
Golden Nugget
While I think that your answer is informative and more suited to this forum, I think the original poster was looking at it the other way round, e.g. what damage does the aircraft cause to the environment.
Vague things like global warming vs autos, wars, destruction of trees for agricultural purposes etc.
The aircraft postulated causes are measurable and taxable, while the others are not. Hence the need to put some restrictions on the alarming growth in airtravel and the jobs and salaries that go with it.
sarcasim mode off
While I think that your answer is informative and more suited to this forum, I think the original poster was looking at it the other way round, e.g. what damage does the aircraft cause to the environment.
Vague things like global warming vs autos, wars, destruction of trees for agricultural purposes etc.
The aircraft postulated causes are measurable and taxable, while the others are not. Hence the need to put some restrictions on the alarming growth in airtravel and the jobs and salaries that go with it.
sarcasim mode off
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 462
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny you should mention that, because I was debating whether the post meant damage to or by aircraft.
As the post mentioned 'rectification of damage' and was posted in Tech Log as opposed to the Tree Huggers and Comfy Shoe Wearers forum, I went for damage caused TO aircraft.
When was the last time any airline paid for damage caused to the environment - if indeed such damage could be measured/proved !
Maybe Buskis could be more specific....
As the post mentioned 'rectification of damage' and was posted in Tech Log as opposed to the Tree Huggers and Comfy Shoe Wearers forum, I went for damage caused TO aircraft.
When was the last time any airline paid for damage caused to the environment - if indeed such damage could be measured/proved !
Maybe Buskis could be more specific....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted on this forum with reference to the UK proposals to add further tax to air tickets.
I did this in the expectation that there may be a spectrum of technical or scientific knowledge on this forum which could discuss the realities and accuracies of the claimed basis for this tax.
The tax is supposedly based on a measure of environmental damage which has been able to be itemised and costed in money terms, proportioned and and passed on to airline passengers via ticketing.
I note from the link given in a previous post that the study is preambled as a limited study dated Nov02 yet a mere 4 months later a tax is being discussed on the basis of this limited study.
I did this in the expectation that there may be a spectrum of technical or scientific knowledge on this forum which could discuss the realities and accuracies of the claimed basis for this tax.
The tax is supposedly based on a measure of environmental damage which has been able to be itemised and costed in money terms, proportioned and and passed on to airline passengers via ticketing.
I note from the link given in a previous post that the study is preambled as a limited study dated Nov02 yet a mere 4 months later a tax is being discussed on the basis of this limited study.
Buskis
No heat intened to you
But with my tongue in cheek, I suggested that the aircraft related causes were measurable and therfore taxable, but I doubt that much expertise exists to exactly quantify relative damage beween these causes and all the others, like autos, wars. burning forests etc.
It's easy to go for a small sector that already has a formal tax structure and just demand more. It would be nearly impossible to go after the others, since there is little commonality in their taxable structure.
No heat intened to you
But with my tongue in cheek, I suggested that the aircraft related causes were measurable and therfore taxable, but I doubt that much expertise exists to exactly quantify relative damage beween these causes and all the others, like autos, wars. burning forests etc.
It's easy to go for a small sector that already has a formal tax structure and just demand more. It would be nearly impossible to go after the others, since there is little commonality in their taxable structure.
