Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK Gov't Attacks Airlines Over Emissions Again  
User currently offlineLHRjc From Netherlands, joined Apr 2006, 1964 posts, RR: 19
Posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2242 times:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/travel/story/0,,1983334,00.html

Today's Guardian has an interesting article where the UK Government has launched another attack on airlines over carbon emissions:

Very long article but a fair use excerpt:

"In surprisingly tough language, Mr Pearson described Mr O'Leary's attitude as "just completely off the wall. When it comes to climate change, Ryanair are not just the unacceptable face of capitalism, they are the irresponsible face of capitalism. O'Leary just seems to take pride in refusing to recognise that climate change is a genuine problem". He also said the attitude of the American airline industry was disgraceful and needed to change: "They just seem to be saying they don't want anything to do with the trading scheme, and that they will take the EU to court if transatlantic flights are included. It is completely irresponsible.

"Even British Airways are only just playing ball. They say they are happy with a trading scheme that is confined to flights within Europe, rather than one that includes all flights departing the EU.""


The best bit of the article is the photo at the top which shows Ryanair 737-200's, although the article says "Yesterday a Ryanair spokesman said: "Mr Pearson is sadly misinformed. Ryanair has spent over $10bn on a fleet of fuel-efficient engines which have reduced fuel burn by 45% and cut CO2 emissions by 50% per passenger, making Ryanair Europe's greenest airline.""

Nice one Guardian  Wink

JC


"Our 319's are very reliable. They get fixed very quickly."
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAndz From South Africa, joined Feb 2004, 8468 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2149 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Michael O'Leary was just on Sky and is understandably peeved, referring to "idiot ministers". From some of the things I have heard said by Government talking heads today they are just looking for reasons to tax the airline industry.


After Monday and Tuesday even the calendar says WTF...
User currently offlineFlyingColours From United Kingdom, joined exactly 11 years ago today! , 2315 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

By the sound of it, MOL can sue them for Slander.

Its besides the point blaming air travel, there are more causes for global warming that need to be tackled as well but the government always blames air travel. In reality all the current government want to do is tax everything right down to the air we breathe.

Phil
FlyingColours



Lifes a train racing towards you, now you can either run away or grab a chair & a beer and watch it come - Phil
User currently offlineLHRjc From Netherlands, joined Apr 2006, 1964 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2125 times:

Quoting FlyingColours (Reply 2):
Its besides the point blaming air travel, there are more causes for global warming that need to be tackled as well but the government always blames air travel. In reality all the current government want to do is tax everything right down to the air we breathe.

 checkmark   checkmark 

MOL was making the same point on the news asking why the government does nothing about the power stations that account for 20+% of the emissions etc. and road traffic that accounts for 18%. Mind you that said we don't need to pay any more road tax but I do see his point.

JC



"Our 319's are very reliable. They get fixed very quickly."
User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2122 times:

More hot air from the environmental wackos. They are just looking for more tax money. First Chirac and his global flight tax for AIDS and now this. Has the Airline industry become the charity for the world. If people are worried about higher fares do not look at the airlines. Between local airport fees, departure fees, tax on fuel and now these global taxes buying you ticket will be half the price.

Why do these people never make the distinction between global warming and man made global warming? There is no proven science or study that has proven that man made emissions are causing anything. But there are plenty of studies showing otherwise. Just like in court the man made globalists could never prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Just a lot of rhetoric and hot air.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...cienceB2C/articles/V3/N13/EDIT.jsp


User currently offlineCMHSRQ From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 999 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

Does the RAF fall under carbon trading? What about having the govt build an efficent ATC system. How much gas is wasted circling over an airport or having crazy routings? They need to shut up!


The voice of moderation
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3689 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2085 times:

IMO carbon trading schemes are just a way of the "haves" salving their conscience, by sponsoring a few trees to compensate for their lifestyle.

How often would the trees have been planted anyway ?

The proper way forward is to use all energy as efficiently as possible; flying FR might not always be the best use of energy compared to surface transport; it cannot however be disputed that FR and U2 with possibly the newest fleets of aircraft in the World are at the forefront of energy efficiency in the aviation business no matter what an ill informed Uk politician may say.

There is however one problem UK wise at least.

In the UK aviation flies using fuel with either no duty at all, or very low duty, whereas road transport has to pay high fuel duty and a licence fee to use the roads. This results in a bias towards air transport on short haul routes which are probably not energy efficient. e.g Stansted - Newcastle, a journey which should be by train or coach.

How however do you solve this, as aviation fuel is for short haul trips easily transportable, and if taxed by the UK government could be brought in by air, by a plane doing a UK trip after a foreign one using spare fuel.


User currently offlineLHRjc From Netherlands, joined Apr 2006, 1964 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2075 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 6):
e.g Stansted - Newcastle, a journey which should be by train or coach

By train this takes 4.5 hours, by road you've got the delights of the M11, A14 and A1 to deal with - again a journey of 4 hours. Even including check-in, it's still way faster and less frustrating to fly, so you can't blame people really.

JC



"Our 319's are very reliable. They get fixed very quickly."
User currently offlineWingnut767 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

Quoting CMHSRQ (Reply 5):
Does the RAF fall under carbon trading? What about having the govt build an efficent ATC system. How much gas is wasted circling over an airport or having crazy routings? They need to shut up!

I would not speculate on the percentages but I imagine that just by updating the ATC and Airports of the world that emmissions would be reduced dramatically. And do they also plan on taxing corporate and GA or just airline passengers?The Airline manufacturers and Engine makers have already done a great job the last twenty years in reducing fuel consumption. Reduction can be done without taxation.


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 8):
would not speculate on the percentages but I imagine that just by updating the ATC and Airports of the world that emmissions would be reduced dramatically.

But that is happening. The SESAR programme is the biggest shake up of Air Traffic control in European history. There will theoretically be a massive reduction in delay and constriant on the system - but as far as emissions go of course this will mean that more Airspace is freed up for more flights (airport infrastructure permitting).

The biggest problem for the industry is that we are completed disunited in getting the message across to support our case. This has been acknowledged by some important people in the industry but we are seemingly doing nothing about it. The Green lobby is very united in getting their message across. The air transport industry is fragmented and airports and airlines are always busy squabbling wih each other when with such a major issue in front of them they should be putting on a united front and starting to promote the benefits of air transport and sell the positive environmental credentials.

Instead we get a situation where IATA and ACI aren't even on speaking terms any more, when they should be working together to promote common interests and to combat common threats.

To call airlines the "unacceptable face of capitalism" is frankly nonsense. If aviation in the UK has reached a stage where airlines - particularly the LCCs are able to offer such cheap fares to travel then it does highlight that perhaps they are working that much more efficiently. If rail is that much more expensive then perhaps more needs to be done to government to look at the reasons why here in the UK. Certainly by allowing massive fare increases by rail to an extent that air travel becomes a cheaper option makes the government just as responsible. And where is the investment in high speed modern rail lines between London - Manchester and Glasgow for example (a la France) to give modern efficient operations that causes people to switch to rail from air?

Where is the modern network rail station at Heathrow (like CDG or FRA) that allows easy connection from all regional points in the country into the international air market at the airport thereby removing much of the need for domestic connecting flights?

It isn't there. All we hear is an environment minister criticising airlines (who have to make money) who are going about the business of transporting passengers and cargo. We hear about solutions that will add additional costs to try and cut traffic and yet nothing about REAL incentives - however they might dress it up.

Yes the environment is important - yes its important we do something about it. But the targets are wrong. Where is the heavy incentive to manufacturers to produce more efficient aircraft/engines in order to bring climate chage (rather than operational/commercial reasons)? Instead we have policies that have no real bearing on reality, have no real guarantee of working and may in fact marginalise large parts of Europe - the poorer perifieral areas that need airlinks more than most - as flying may only become profitable to key markets around the world.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineRJ100 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2000, 4126 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

I just received an e-mail from easyJet, that I need to pay an additional 11.50 Swiss Francs for my Stansted-Basel flight this summer due to an additional environmental tax.

 Sad

RJ100



none
User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2003 times:

After flying JFK, LAX, LHR...etc etc. Ive always wondered if there is a better way to coordinate slots rather than first one on the taxiway wins. If we really want to cut emissions lets start at the airport and end 30 minute - 1hr taxi times.
As much as I hate FR, I cant say they are to blame although most of their routes would probably be better (emissions) spent on turbo props, few would fly them.
Although, if a suitable 100-200 passenger turboprop ac was developed that had most of the characteristics of lets say a 738, public perception may change. I guess the blame would go to the airport, government, peoples perception, all the airlines of the world and finally the individual airline. Everyone of these makes a difference but not everyone makes as large a difference.

My 2 cents.


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1989 times:

Quoting RichPhitzwell (Reply 11):
After flying JFK, LAX, LHR...etc etc. Ive always wondered if there is a better way to coordinate slots rather than first one on the taxiway wins. If we really want to cut emissions lets start at the airport and end 30 minute - 1hr taxi times.

Or here at LHR for example, also the problem of aircraft stacked and circling waiting for the opportunity to land.

AT LHR if the third runway is fully approved and built then instantly a lot of this problem is removed due to far greater capacity. This means that INDIVIDUAL flights will immediately become more environmentally efficienct due to less time spent waiting on ground or in air - but of course the big flip is that we then see a greater number of flights thanks to the greater runway capacity provided.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineBobski From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 83 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1979 times:

Quoting Wingnut767 (Reply 4):
Why do these people never make the distinction between global warming and man made global warming? There is no proven science or study that has proven that man made emissions are causing anything. But there are plenty of studies showing otherwise. Just like in court the man made globalists could never prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Just a lot of rhetoric and hot air.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...2C/data/ushcn/stationoftheweek.jsp
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO...T.jsp

I was going to write my own post, but you pretty much summed it up for me. Good show and welcome to my respected posters list!



Who is Benjamin Breeg?
User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1944 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 6):
In the UK aviation flies using fuel with either no duty at all, or very low duty, whereas road transport has to pay high fuel duty and a licence fee to use the roads. This results in a bias towards air transport on short haul routes which are probably not energy efficient. e.g Stansted - Newcastle, a journey which should be by train or coach.

Are you sure? I thought that aviation fuel for domestic flights (within the UK) paid duty on aviation fuel. Taxation of aviation fuel for international flights is banned by the Chicago convention.

Just because the industry doesn't pay tax on fuel, it doesn't mean that the industry isn't paying substantial taxes - have a look at this report from IATA.

Perhaps a better illistration is this report (also IATA) which shows that in the UK aviation makes the highest net contribution to HM on a proportionate basis, with a net payment of €4.6 per air passenger journey. Rail and Light Rail both receive a net subsidy towards their infrastructure costs of €2.40 and €2.30 respectively per passenger journey.


User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 15, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Quoting RichPhitzwell (Reply 11):
If we really want to cut emissions lets start at the airport and end 30 minute - 1hr taxi times.

That is what VS have trialled at LHR and LGW with the "starting grids".

To tow the a/c out rather than taxi them out would save thousands of tonnes of fuel and cut emissions around airports drastically if all airlines adopted the procedure.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3689 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Quoting ANother (Reply 14):
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 6):
In the UK aviation flies using fuel with either no duty at all, or very low duty, whereas road transport has to pay high fuel duty and a licence fee to use the roads. This results in a bias towards air transport on short haul routes which are probably not energy efficient. e.g Stansted - Newcastle, a journey which should be by train or coach.

Are you sure? I thought that aviation fuel for domestic flights (within the UK) paid duty on aviation fuel. Taxation of aviation fuel for international flights is banned by the Chicago convention.

I wasn't entirely sure on this, but the IATA report you quoted shows a nil contribution from UK aviation for fuel duty; working from this I conclude that the duty on all UK aviation fuel is zero.


User currently offlineBHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1866 times:

Quoting RJ100 (Reply 10):
I just received an e-mail from easyJet, that I need to pay an additional 11.50 Swiss Francs for my Stansted-Basel flight this summer due to an additional environmental tax.

We received the first one today so as agency director, I sent them one back telling them to shove it. Once a ticket has been issued, whatever taxes / fares go up later is irrelevent. It's their problem, and what they are trying to do is probably illegal in Portugal (where the journey originates) anyway.

I don't agree with MOL very often, but he was spot on. Ian Pearson is an idiot.



Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
User currently offlineBwaflyer From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 1845 times:

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 16):
I wasn't entirely sure on this, but the IATA report you quoted shows a nil contribution from UK aviation for fuel duty; working from this I conclude that the duty on all UK aviation fuel is zero.

No duty on fuel for international flights (as per international agreement), but VAT is applicable on fuel used for domestic UK flights


User currently offlineRichPhitzwell From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1807 times:

Quoting Leezyjet (Reply 15):
To tow the a/c out rather than taxi them out would save thousands of tonnes of fuel and cut emissions around airports drastically if all airlines adopted the procedure.

I wish i encountered that on my last trip after they initiated this... but there still has to be a better way, eliminating the actual waiting in line on the taxiway by coordinating ground ops for the entire airport. I always found it silly that in some cases an airport could be essentially shut down, yet you will find aircraft lined up just hoping for a break. Needing to be deiced multiple times, passengers getting a bit nasty after 8 hrs...etc etc.


User currently offlineEgmcman From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 898 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1749 times:

I think it's just a smoke screen for a revenue earning exercise by the government at the airline industries expense.

FR operate modern efficient aircraft so to single them out seems unfair. Will there be any reduction airlines that use aircraft aircraft that produce less emissions like on the congestion charge in London?

IMHO the government should be making sure government departments offices are better insulated so require less heating for example.


User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1716 times:

Quoting BHXFAOTIPYYC (Reply 17):
Once a ticket has been issued, whatever taxes / fares go up later is irrelevent.

Have you read their conditions of carriage?

Quote:
5.2.Taxes and Charges

Any taxes or charges imposed by Government or other authority, including the operator of an airport, which we are obliged to collect from you or pay in respect of you and your Flight may be payable by you to us in addition to the Fare. At the time you make a reservation you will be advised of the total amount of such taxes and charges not included in the Fare and payable by you. Such taxes and charges imposed on air travel are constantly changing and can be imposed after the date that your reservation has been confirmed. If any such tax or charge is introduced or increased after the reservation was made you will be obliged to pay it prior to departure. Similarly, if any such tax or charge due is abolished or reduced before we are obliged to pay it you will be entitled to claim a refund from us.

The government puts up the tax, why should Squeezy absorb them?


User currently offlineBHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1711 times:

Because where the terms and conditions conflict with local law, local law applies. Any ticket sold here is subject to regs here, not the UK. I already asked our trade association about it and they said forget it. If EZY tries to collect it from the pax at check-in, that is up to them.


Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
User currently offlineLite From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1703 times:

Why does the airline industry not have the same promotional literature that the environmentalists have? I'm pleased we have somebody like Michael O'Leary to stand up for the airline industry, because at the moment all I hear are people from Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace, and nobody seriously defending the many benefits the airline industry brings about.

User currently offlineANother From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1682 times:

Quoting BHXFAOTIPYYC (Reply 22):
Because where the terms and conditions conflict with local law, local law applies. Any ticket sold here is subject to regs here, not the UK. I already asked our trade association about it and they said forget it. If EZY tries to collect it from the pax at check-in, that is up to them.

Shouldn't you be thinking of your customers? Informing them of the increase - so they can avoid the hassle at the airport. Realise there is nothing financial in it for you, but wouldn't your customers thank you?

I would doubt that 'local law' would prohibit another government from imposing an increase in taxes. The airlines are 'facilitating' passengers by collecting these amounts for governments. They get no commission, or other compensation, for doing so but it does ease the process for everyone.

If you want to get angry, get angry at the tax collector - not the middleman


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UK 'must Act' On Plane Emissions posted Tue Oct 17 2006 18:04:59 by Vasu
UK: Hand Baggage Rules To Change (again) posted Thu Sep 14 2006 00:55:26 by BMIFlyer
USAToday: Why United Airlines Will Fail Again? posted Thu Feb 2 2006 21:11:07 by Douwd20
U.S. Gov. To Take Over Four Pension Plans At Uni posted Sat Apr 23 2005 20:09:52 by Rsmith6621a
Upgrades On Airlines Over X-mas posted Sat Dec 18 2004 19:01:23 by Alespesl
Italian Gov't Orders Airlines To Raise Fares! posted Mon Aug 9 2004 05:14:36 by Hoya
Will Midway Airlines Ever Fly Again? posted Thu Feb 26 2004 23:23:33 by MainRunway
Singapore Airlines Reduces Capacity... Again posted Mon Apr 28 2003 23:43:11 by Singapore_Air
Airbus Sues American Airlines Over Flt 587 posted Thu Mar 20 2003 23:50:03 by Racko
Delsey Airlines/VG Airlines To Fly Again! posted Mon Feb 10 2003 11:48:53 by A330DAT