Steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9369 posts, RR: 21
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 13723 times:
Quote: "There is, however, nothing new in Lufthansa's position on emission trading. We are not against it per se, but there are so many other ways manufacturers, carriers and air traffic management could, with the help of politicians, achieve a reduction in emissions other than introducing this bureaucratic scheme."
Interesting. So basically, they try to forcefeed this bureaucratic nonsense down the airlines' throats rather than to research engineering and scientific studies to reduce emission of pollutants.
Lufthansa... to leave Germany... and FRA is a massive hub for LH, not to mention, how many people work for LH in Frankfort and the several thousand other jobs impacted by the hub as well. A lose-lose situation if this happens if you ask me...
This would bring up a number of questions... instead of going to Germany, then all of the international traffic as well as domestic traffic would go through Zurich? (the majority of the traffic rerouted through Zurich is a given.) Would there be any international traffic left at FRA like JFK, IAD, BOS, PHL, DEN, LAX, SFO, ATL, or ORD flights? How about Asia traffic as well?
Talking about one heck of an altimatum... "Knock this off or we cripple Frankfort"
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3207 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 13574 times:
It's a lot of bla-bla. Of course, they threaten to move their hub. But it won't happen. Between now and 2011, the European Union will put a lot of political pressure on Switzerland. The Swiss will reject, the EU will insist, the EU will give some goodies to Switzerland, like some extra CO2 allowance for the first 1 or 2 years, and they will join the program.
Actually, the CO2 emission trade isn't too bad for the airline industry. Compared to current issues like the ADP tax in the UK and proposed taxed in the Netherlands and Germany, the CO2 emission scheme is far favourable, as it offers an incentive to the airlines to operate better. They can actually DO something to minimize their costs. And, when they are operating very environmental-efficient, they can even earn money by selling their allowance to more poluting companies.
(I know, in the current draft this is blocked, but I don't expect that in the final version).
The Swiss can do whatever they want! There is no way they would join the EU and let thier standard of living decline. They already have problems with immigrantion, no way they would open themselves up to more.
SandroZRH From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 13366 times:
From what i read, this won't affect FRA, but MUC. LH threatens to move a lot of their MUC operations to ZRH and basically kill two flies with one hit: the pollution fee and the proximity of two major hubs.
Quoting Joost (Reply 7): It's a lot of bla-bla. Of course, they threaten to move their hub. But it won't happen. Between now and 2011, the European Union will put a lot of political pressure on Switzerland. The Swiss will reject, the EU will insist, the EU will give some goodies to Switzerland, like some extra CO2 allowance for the first 1 or 2 years, and they will join the program.
LOL! Do you really think the EU is in the position to put pressure on us? They may try to put pressure on us, but it's not going to help them, all it will do is bad publicity and basically make sure that the Swiss will reject to join the EU on the next vote. And your CO2 "goodie" is a bit flawed aswell, as Switzerland's yearly CO2 emissions are far lower than a lot of EU countries's.
With the immigration problems we suffer, it was a huge mistake to join the Schengen treaty and there's no way that we will go any further.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 69
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13341 times:
Quoting XJET (Reply 3): Sounds like the EU is teaching a class called Socialism 101 and LH ain't buying it.
No, but don't let reality distract you from your opinion...
Quoting USflysagain (Reply 9): The Swiss can do whatever they want! There is no way they would join the EU and let thier standard of living decline. They already have problems with immigrantion, no way they would open themselves up to more.
The Swiss cannot do quite all they want - they're not only in the EU's common aviation market, they're also joining the Schengen area, so they're not quite as free in making some decisions as some seem to think...
And could you perhaps drop the 'let thier (sic) standard of living decline' nonsense??
AA777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 2557 posts, RR: 27
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13295 times:
haha... LH operating out of ZRH. I'm sorry but the idea sounds silly. FRA is a huge city, with lots of O/D traffic as well as connecting traffic. ZRH just couldnt handle it all. It just isnt feasible. Coupld they move a small proportion of their traffic to ZRH, sure... but a big chunk? Probably not. I believe that this is just as the title says: a threat.
ZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5578 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13244 times:
Of course it is only a threat and will never happen in this way. But what I like is that LH is aware that the ZRH hub can be quite important and should not be given up in the next few years. I hope that they apply pressure on the German Governement regarding the approach procedures in Zurich.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 10155 posts, RR: 32
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13228 times:
Unfiortunately, ZRH does not have the capacoity to handle all of the potential traffic.
Mayrhuber has brought it down exactly to the point - instead of extorting more and more money from consumers by raising all kind of BS taxes the politicians should do their homework and get single skies finally started. We have a single market in the EU since years but 1 meter above the ground its borders like centuries ago. The single sky could save 8 to 12 percent co² emissions immediately. It would save consumers and airlines lots of money in saved fuel and salaries and depreciation of investments.
A CEO of a successful airline that is a world market leader and creating thousands of jobs every year, a good number of those in Munich and still even in capacity restricted FRA must be a world class diplomat when he is faced with daily new phantasies like CO² taxes, problems with getting a new build in FRA, threatening night curfews etc. This is like putting aq 50 kgs rucksack on the back of a 100 meter sprinter in an Olympic competition.
Politicians who impose all that instead of doing their work properly are just plain I**ots, unfortunately, Mr,. Mayrhuber cannot say that.
XJET From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 13119 times:
Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 16): was that supposed to mean sick? what is your problem with us?
[sic] is a Latin term used to indicate that the preceding word may be used awkwardly or spelled incorrectly beucase it is quoting someone. Basically it shows the writers intentional misspelling or incorrect verbage.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 10155 posts, RR: 32
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 12900 times:
Quoting AA777 (Reply 13): haha... LH operating out of ZRH. I'm sorry but the idea sounds silly. FRA is a huge city, with lots of O/D traffic as well
well, O&D ex ZRH isn't that bad either, although the even richer Geneva area residents seem to have passed them last year. I have been standing at the baggage belt in FRA many times with only a small number of people, even when the flight was on a 747.
The fact that Switzerland will join Schengen and has signed the air agreement with the EU does not mean that it has to join emissions trading as well. Mayruber's point simply is, that a passenger flying from Hamburg to Singapore via FRA has to pay an emissions tax, whereas the same passenger flying via DXB does not have to pay a cent. If politicians and EU bureaucrats don't get that simple message, they should shut up or go back to school.
When Mayruber says that they could route some longhaul flights via ZRH, he simply does what a wise business man has to do, run always three steps ahead of the bureaucraft trying to stop you.
Flyorski From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 999 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 12811 times:
The article is talking about moving more flights out of MUC not FRA. It would make sense as the carbon plan would give an unfair advantage to airlines from outside of the EU on long haul international flights. LH would most likely reroute the connections too, many international destinations through ZRH and local (EU) connections through FRA (or MUC?), if I understand the article correctly.
The reason airlines like Easyjet are for it, is because they would only compete on routes within the EU and still have a "fair" playing field, while LH would have an "unfair" playing field on international routes.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3618 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12690 times:
Quoting Flyorski (Reply 19): The reason airlines like Easyjet are for it, is because they would only compete on routes within the EU and still have a "fair" playing field, while LH would have an "unfair" playing field on international routes.
The other reason that easyJet would be in favor of the emission trading scheme is that it would raise the overall costs, which will raise ticket prices across the board, which in turn causes customers to be more price sensitive, giving the Easyjets and Ryanairs more of the market share.
Don't think there is any altruism involved with any of the participants, including the politicians.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3207 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12682 times:
Quoting USflysagain (Reply 9): The Swiss can do whatever they want! There is no way they would join the EU and let thier standard of living decline.
Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 10): LOL! Do you really think the EU is in the position to put pressure on us? They may try to put pressure on us, but it's not going to help them, all it will do is bad publicity and basically make sure that the Swiss will reject to join the EU on the next vote.
I'm not stating they can tell Switzerland what to do. I'm also not saying they want Switzerland to join the EU. What I do say, is that they want Switzerland to join the CO2 emission trading scheme on a individual basis, just like Switzerland is involved in many other individual agreements, like Shengen.
The vast majority of Swiss export goes to European Union countries and the most important trade partners of Switzerland are EU countries. Why would Switzerland not join the CO2 scheme, when it would only worsen the relationships with their most important economic partners, pollute the Swiss environment, in order to help a GERMAN company to make large profits? I don't buy it.
Joost From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3207 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (8 years 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 12543 times:
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 15): The single sky could save 8 to 12 percent co² emissions immediately. It would save consumers and airlines lots of money in saved fuel and salaries and depreciation of investments.
No doubt that the single sky is a very good thing. Downside with respect to CO2 emissions: as cost would lower, the price of aviation can drop further, making it even more competitive (compared to train, car), causing more flights, offsetting the gains within a couple of years.
Having said that, I'm absolutely in favour of the single sky, as the current situation is plane waste of fuel, money and environment. But it isn't a structural solution for CO2 (and other GHG) emissions.
Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 10): And your CO2 "goodie" is a bit flawed aswell, as Switzerland's yearly CO2 emissions are far lower than a lot of EU countries's.
Have you considered the word "trading" in Emission trading system?
In the draft proposals for the trading systems, current airlines would get a certain allowance for free to start with. What they need more, they need to buy it from the market. What they have in surplus, they can sell to competitors. If Swiss airline companies would receive a wide CO2 allowance, they can just sell it.
That, I'd say, pretty much sums it up. While there's a very theoretical possibility that this might happen, I'd say that it would only have even the slightest chance if ZRH were massively expanded: just imagine LH trying to route even half of their longhauls currently going through MUC through ZRH - just wouldn't work.
Quoting Joost (Reply 22): Why would Switzerland not join the CO2 scheme, when it would only worsen the relationships with their most important economic partners, pollute the Swiss environment, in order to help a GERMAN company to make large profits?
Interestingly, the Swiss seem to be in an ironic situation here - obviously, they could use this as a bargaining tool with Germany to resolve the questions regarding the northern approach routes into ZRH - but they'd have to rely on LH not suddenly deciding to change their minds (if, indeed, LH ever went into planing stages for such a move). If, for the cost of joining the CO2 scheme, they'd negotiate a better contract than the current, rather ridiculous, situation, they'd be improving the situation for ZRH on the one hand, but also removing the competetive advantage by joining the trading scheme. If they chose to stay outside of the scheme, they'd run the risk that non-European/non-EU carriers would send their modern equipment to airports within the EU to reduce their cost exposure there, while sending not-that-modern/low-in-pollution equipment to ZRH.
Problem is that whenever they help that German company, they're also securing Swiss jobs at the same time... while doing something that hurts LH will also hurt LX in the end...
Smile - it confuses people!
: There's an empty threat if I've ever seen one, LOL Somehow I don't thing the cost advanatage of skipping the emisions tax, would compare very favorabl
: some of the posts here seem to suggest LH has a 'problem' on their hands with the proximity of their hubs... they've just announced $1.1 billion in an
: LH was threatened to move to AMS, ... (1990s) then it was threatened to move its operations over to MUC, ...(2000beginners) then onwards to BBI ...(If
: would they really have to move many flights, or could they do more of a "paper" move for the HQ and get the same benifits of telling the EU to sod off
: And the midnight news on RTL just ridiculed Lufthansa for that! Patrick
: I wonder if they'll still laugh if it will really happen
: Maybe you should not raise passenger fees 4 Francs in July then
: That's not gonna hurt LH so i dont think they'd really care
: A new LX? Maybe swissair isn't dead! I don't know if I buy it, but it seams stupid for a flag carrier to operate outside of it's country.
: why does LH have the rights to operate out of Zurich?? How did swiss air allow this?? also why is switzerland want to be so different?? Why dont they
: Maybe because LH owns a large percentage or if not, all of LX.
: Actually, the EU wants Switzerland to join them. I think you know that each country of the EU has to pay a "fare" based on their PIB (french for Prod
: Couldnt agree more, Swiss was forced already to adept almost every European standard in the last years. Indeed, and also lot here seem to forget < 90
: Swissair or Swiss Air stopped operating in 2002. The airline that resulted out of its demise was and is an airline operating as SWISS International A
: never gonna happen though. People in Frankfurt or Munich, will not be happy transfering in ZRH. Additionally, all the crew and hq is in Germany. Plus,
: Correct, but I think they were talking mainly about internatinal -not EU- flights that are allegedly to be moved from muc to zrh. LH does not per se
: Added to this, actually, an eventual takeover by a strong partner airline, was They would need to use LX flight numbers, and operate through the legal
: Swiss is not happy at all with the taxes Unique charges...and an increase won't change that... Switzerland decided to regulate the relation to the Eu
: Neither is a tax on top of the many other taxes, especially not when such a tax is only imposed on carriers who are already forerunners in environmen
: Without a dought, but it's not logical, in fact it's plain stupid to move everything from FRA/MUC to ZRH -CXfirst
: I don't see LH destroying its MUC hub - in fact, it's still growing nicely. Especially this year there are many new longhaul flights - DEN, ICN/PUS, J
: Mayrhubes did not mean to move any hub entirely to Zurich. It is just they he reminds everybody that they could also grow in ZRH instead of FRA or MUC
: You're right, but this is the wrong forum...
: We should not wait till the last corner of the world agrees.... If the EU bureaucrats do it right and also charge foreign carriers (as said they said
: Sounds like time for the refresher of 8th grade Social Studies class. Either we're having a bit of trouble with the terms or someone spellchecked wit
: This is just posturing. It will be a cold day in hell before LH moves the bulk of its ops from FRA to ZRH. As already stated they could move over a go
: well, it's questionable if the success is really attributable to the partnership... They stepped in at the right time and got LX for nothing. I think
: Exactly, thats what it's all about, it's not like they would move their whole FRA or MUC hub to ZRH. Why do people always jump to wrong conclusions?
: I tend to disagree once again. For instance, gas prices in Switzerland are much cheaper than in the rest of Europe. Come to BSL or GVA and you see tha
: I am sure that the politicians who hysteriucally advocate the CO2 tax have not read the air agreements and the Chicago Convention. Like Mrs. Kuenast