Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU Names Airlines That Must Limit Emissions  
User currently offlineRootsAir From Costa Rica, joined Feb 2005, 4186 posts, RR: 40
Posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 11269 times:

some airlines could even be forbidden to land in the E.U !
Nearly 4,000 commercial airlines, business jet operators and air forces from around the world will have to join the European Union greenhouse gas emissions trading plan by 2012 or be penalize when flying to the continent, the EU said Saturday.
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/pro...?feed=AP&date=20090822&id=10315805

Regards BM airplane  wave 


A man without the knowledge of his past history,culture and origins is like a tree without roots
105 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDavescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 11231 times:

Interesting that AZ, KLM and LH were all on list along with UA and US. I would be facinated to know who else that MSN didn't name. What is the issue? old engines that are less efficient?

This is going to seriously raise the costs of ticket s to the EU.

Dave



Can I have a mojito on this flight?
User currently offlineNetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 11150 times:

What if this "measurement" forces airlines to reduce the number of flights, which would mean more furloughs and job losses???

User currently offlineCaribillo From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 11086 times:



Quoting Netjetsintl (Reply 2):
What if this "measurement" forces airlines to reduce the number of flights, which would mean more furloughs and job losses???

I think that the key here is that the airlines should buy emissions rights from extra-EU countries or from other industries, as it already happens in other sectors.
Countries already trade with emissions rights (AFAIK USA hasn't signed Kioto agreement and is out of the loop)

It will not imply job loss, just costs increases.



Red, orange and yellow...with a big crown!
User currently offlineRunway24R From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10993 times:

Why on earth is EK on the list??

Surely they have one of the most efficient fleets in the industry with their A330s, A340s, A380s and 777s... and don't call me Shirley!!

But seriously, if this is going to affect Emirates, then it's going to apply to every airline that flies to/from the EU.



A319, A320, A321, A332, A333, A346, 732, 733, 736, 738, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 77L, 77W, CRJ700, MD80
User currently offlineCaribillo From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 10952 times:



Quoting Runway24R (Reply 4):
Surely they have one of the most efficient fleets in the industry with their A330s, A340s, A380s and 777s... and don't call me Shirley!!

Efficiency is not the main point here. They are talking about quantity.
EU will apply the same rules than in other industrial activities.
If you produce more than "such" tons of CO2, reduce them.
Two ways to do that:
- Increase your efficiency (or reduce your activity) and reduce them or
- Buy emission rights from another more efficient industry.



Red, orange and yellow...with a big crown!
User currently offlineKellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 691 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10816 times:

A few questions.

1. Do the powers that be in the EU not realize that human related global warming is basically junk science? The sun and volcanic activity are the primary engines of climate. And the sun is in a cooling period, with few sunspots. Also, human beings all breathe out CO2. Are we not then all polluting engines under this scheme? Are we then all going to be taxed individually under this type of scheme? Seems to me that plants actually need CO2.

The Earth had much warmer periods when there were no aircraft or SUVs. And colder. There are natural cycles.

2. What do the EU politicians do with the money that they get from taxes on emissions?

3. The Australians recently decided not to put in the cap and trade there. Huge problems in the science. India and China never will.

4. In the US, even though the Obama administration has tried to get "cap and trade" (also known as "cap and tax"), it won't happen.

It just seems that it is all a senseless intrusion into people's lives and another way to get money for the government from industry, and ultimately the consumer, for no real benefit.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10782 times:

No problem.

The USA can just charge an extra tax on every EU airline that flies to the USA an equivelent amount, and rebate the money back to the USA's airlines to cover the EU penalties.


User currently offlineCaribillo From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10753 times:



Quoting Kellmark (Reply 6):
1. Do the powers that be in the EU not realize that human related global warming is basically junk science? The sun and volcanic activity are the primary engines of climate. And the sun is in a cooling period, with few sunspots. Also, human beings all breathe out CO2. Are we not then all polluting engines under this scheme? Are we then all going to be taxed individually under this type of scheme? Seems to me that plants actually need CO2.

The trend and the speed of the global warming is higher than ever.
I agree with the cycles and sun effect, but the billion of tons of petrol and carbon burnt every year don't help so much.

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 6):
2. What do the EU politicians do with the money that they get from taxes on emissions?

Boost environmental policies.

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 6):
3. The Australians recently decided not to put in the cap and trade there. Huge problems in the science. India and China never will.

Never is sooooo long time.

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 6):
4. In the US, even though the Obama administration has tried to get "cap and trade" (also known as "cap and tax"), it won't happen.

It will happen. Late, but it will.
Late means that, while EU companies reduce the fuel and energy used on the machines, they are increasing their competitiveness against the USA products, reducing the operative costs (as we have seen on the automotive industry).

Quoting Kellmark (Reply 6):
It just seems that it is all a senseless intrusion into people's lives and another way to get money for the government from industry, and ultimately the consumer, for no real benefit.

Very open USA statement.  Sad

Returning to the topic, that measurement will push the airliners to press the manufacturers to reduce the sfc.
EU has obtained good results during the last years with the EURO1, 2, 3 & 4 and the next 5, 6 and EEV emission policies on cars and trucks. It is fair.



Red, orange and yellow...with a big crown!
User currently offlineStarAlliance38 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1445 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10719 times:

Very interesting. Is there a link to the complete list? I wonder how airlines, airplane manufacturers, and other parties are going to think of this. The US Navy is on this too!


Roar, lion, roar
User currently offlineCaribillo From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10719 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 7):
The USA can just charge an extra tax on every EU airline that flies to the USA an equivelent amount, and rebate the money back to the USA's airlines to cover the EU penalties.

What would be the purpose of that tax?



Red, orange and yellow...with a big crown!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5177 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10708 times:

Just as a suggestion, let's not have a debate about whether global warming is human induced or not; and actually keep on topic. The simple fact is that despite climatologists claiming that they have "proof" one way or another, we just don't know. But that is irrelevant to this topic: the EU has decided to introduce it so we, as consumers, have to live with it whether we agree with the policy, and the thinking behind, it or not.


Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineFoxecho From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 746 posts, RR: 17
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10682 times:

just another BS way for Governments to increase revenue..... They've taxed everything else to hell and ran out of things to tax.

Andrew



..uh, we'll need that to live......
User currently offlineSandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3427 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 10679 times:



Quoting Runway24R (Reply 4):
Surely they have one of the most efficient fleets in the industry with their A330s, A340s, A380s and 777s... and don't call me Shirley!!

Ah and despite them flying their "efficient fleet" to ie ZRH twice daily half empty just to dump capacity into the market to try to force their competitors out like that just cause they have the financial backing to do so, they still shouldn't be on the list, right?

 Yeah sure


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10648 times:



Quoting Caribillo (Reply 10):
What would be the purpose of that tax?

To offset the penalties the EU is planning on charging USA airlines that do not participate in the EU "carbon credit" trading scheme.

Simply charge an arrival tax on each EU airline so that the aggragate amount equals the penalties charges to USA airlines by the EU. Then use those monies collected by the USA government to rebate the USA airlines in full. That way the EU is just putting additional taxes on their own airlines, and it stays an EU "scheme".


User currently offlineCaribillo From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10637 times:



Quoting StarAlliance38 (Reply 9):
I wonder how airlines, airplane manufacturers, and other parties are going to think of this.

Running the risk of being repetitive, let's use the automotive experience as the automotive companies faced the same situation years ago.
When the UE limited the car emissions, the companies where highly concerned about the technical development and the costs of that developments.
At the end of the day, the policies where enforced, the technology developed and the costs of the european cars are as competitive in price than any other. The prove is that european cars are sold everywhere and the european companies are expanding in other parts of the world (FIAT in the USA, for example)

So, it shouldn't be different for the airplane industry.

Quoting StarAlliance38 (Reply 9):
The US Navy is on this too!

From now on, if the yankee army wants to pollute the EU air, that have a price. At the end, it is "our" air.  Wink



Red, orange and yellow...with a big crown!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 17
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10618 times:



Quoting Kellmark (Reply 6):
It just seems that it is all a senseless intrusion into people's lives and another way to get money for the government from industry, and ultimately the consumer, for no real benefit.

I personally agree that natural cycles are the most likely cause of global warming. After all there was a time when the Arctic ice-cap reached as far south as 40 miles north of London. And it did not retreat to its current position because on man made carbon emissions.

However if the EU initiatives improve the efficiency in the use of aviation fuel it will clearly be good for all of us.

First we will be able to travel long distances economically further into the future. Oil, like all natural resources, is only extractable in finite quantities.

Second the escalation in real air fare costs - i.e. excluding inflation - will be slower. This is because as an commodity becomes scarcer - and here we are talking oil - so its price rises.

Some airlines will at last partially be pleased about this EU initiative because they see it as the only long term way forward for the industry. For example here is what BA had to say in their press release of July reviewing their 1st quarter 2009 performance:

"The Aviation Global Deal Group, which British Airways co-founded, last month presented its proposal for a worldwide carbon trading framework to UN negotiators preparing for the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen in December. Carbon allowances would be allocated partly by auctioning, generating up to $5bn a year to fund environmental projects in developing countries. (See website www.agdgroup.org)"


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10620 times:



Quoting Caribillo (Reply 15):
From now on, if the yankee army wants to pollute the EU air, that have a price. At the end, it is "our" air.

I say good. It's about time that the USA pulled all of our military personnel out of the EU.

Europe is more than capable of defending itself.


User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8661 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10597 times:

Well I am sure the US will state the same for all EU airlines that come through here plus make the taxes bigger.

KH



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineCaribillo From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10598 times:



Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 11):
the EU has decided to introduce it so we, as consumers, have to live with it whether we agree with the policy, and the thinking behind, it or not.

100% agree.

My point is that this, at first sight, controversial policy will be used by the airplane companies as a vector of innovation and increased competiveness.
Not only the customer drives the reduction of the sfc. Now we will have a policy enforced, with a schedule to meet.



Red, orange and yellow...with a big crown!
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 17
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10568 times:



Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 17):
I say good. It's about time that the USA pulled all of our military personnel out of the EU.

Europe is more than capable of defending itself.

Would you give the EU control of the early warning missile surveillance systems currently operated by the US armed forces in Europe as part of the North American strategic defense system or would you dismantle this element of North American defense and take it home with your troops?


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3589 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10542 times:



Quoting VV701 (Reply 20):
Would you give the EU control of the early warning missile surveillance systems currently operated by the US armed forces in Europe as part of the North American strategic defense system or would you dismantle this element of North American defense and take it home with your troops?

The EU can have control of it as far as I am concerned. I don't see that as a big problem.


User currently offlinePacNWjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 959 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10542 times:



Quoting StarAlliance38 (Reply 9):
Very interesting. Is there a link to the complete list?

Well, as quoted in the original post, "Nearly 4,000 commercial airlines, business jet operators and air forces from around the world will have to join the European Union greenhouse gas emissions trading plan by 2012 or be penalize when flying to the continent," so I assume that included in that list of 4,000 is every operator of aircraft in the world. At 4,000, it would simply be easier to list the operators of aircraft that are not on the list. I assume that number would somewhere around zero.


User currently offlineCaribillo From Spain, joined Jul 2006, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10530 times:



Quoting SandroZRH (Reply 13):
Ah and despite them flying their "efficient fleet" to ie ZRH twice daily half empty just to dump capacity into the market to try to force their competitors out like that just cause they have the financial backing to do so, they still shouldn't be on the list, right?

Good point!!!
The increase of the efficiency is not only on the manufacturers side, but along the whole industry.

But while the increment of the efficiency on the planes could became a reduction of the airfares, the increment of efficiency reducing the capacity would have the reversal effect.



Red, orange and yellow...with a big crown!
User currently offlineSimairlinenet From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 911 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 10473 times:

I'll try to explain it as best I can. I am overseeing the process for a major airline.

The EU has had an emissions trading scheme in place for a few years, mostly covering power sources, industry, etc. Companies must pay for their emissions above a certain level which declines over time. Now the EU is opting to include aviation in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

All aviation companies that plan to serve the EU (including EU territories overseas) must file a plan by August 31 on how they plan to monitor their emissions. Failure to do so would deny them free credits, worth millions of dollars/euros per year.

Companies must pay for all emissions for flights to/from/within the EU, for the entirety of the flight segment. So, a flight from the U.S. to Europe must pay for ALL emissions of the flight, not just that over EU airspace. Flights transiting EU airspace, e.g., U.S.-Middle East, do not apply. There are various exemptions for public service obligations, training flights, flights for non-EU heads of state, etc.

The industry's take is that this is illegal because it violates the Chicago Convention by taxing activities not over EU airspace.

Each operator is administered by a member state. For EU operators, it's the country that manages their Air Operator Certificate. For non-EU operators, it's the country that had the most estimated to/from emissions during 2004-2006.

What happens to the money? Each country receives it from the operators starting in 2013 (for 2012 emissions), and is supposed to direct it to environmental projects of their choice, whether aviation-related or not. Based on recent environmental conferences, it's suspected that most will go to projects in developing countries.

Each airline will receive carbon credits, provided they submit a plan by the end of the month and have it approved. Credits are assigned in the following manner:
1) Determine all eligible aviation emissions for 2004-2006.
2) Multiply by 97% for 2012, 95% for 2013-2020. This is the emissions cap.
3) Multiply by 85%. This is the cake of free allowances that will be distributed.
3) Determine each operator's share of revenue tonne-kilometers in 2010. This share will be multiplied by the cake and doled out to each operator.
Going above the free allowances means an operator must buy allowances from someone else, either another aviation operator or another industry.

All clear? I'll try to answer more questions. Amazing that this is a huge deal, yet people here are relatively uninformed about it.

Links for you:
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme
EU ETS: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/aviation_en.htm
List of companies: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/clim...ion/liste_exploitants_aeronefs.pdf
FAQ from IATA: http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/emissions-europe-faq.htm


25 Caribillo : Cristal clear. Thanks.
26 Spokemd : How does Skybus manage to get on this list???
27 Simairlinenet : Because Skybus took deliveries of Airbus equipment from Hamburg. It doesn't matter that they no longer exist--the list was developed using 2004-2006
28 DLPMMM : . Sleezebag politicians out to steal money under false pretenses. It sounds like your airline will buckle under to this extortion. This could lead to
29 Aviateur : WRONG. Just WRONG. Civil aviation accounts for only about 4 percent of fossil fuel emissions. That's the argument you ought to be working with. Your
30 Aviateur : What are you * talking * about? Have you spent even five minutes researching the science?
31 76794p : Did anynone notice that they spelt QF Quantas.
32 Par13del : Well since the EU does not believe in a defense shield this is just a way to increase pressure to have it dismantled, besides, how much is it really
33 Simairlinenet : So the European airline argument is that this policy is unfair to European airlines and leads to not just competitive distortions, but carbon leakage
34 Kellmark : So how do you explain the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age that followed it? Both were before the industrial revolution, and human popu
35 Scrumpy492003 : This whole argument and the taxes etc. is just plain old POLITICS. Numerous Scientific Data exists now to say that this is a load of Bull, and the onl
36 Yellowstone : You're missing one key line in his description... The allowances are given out for free. If you need more, you don't buy them from the government, yo
37 Flying Belgian : F****g GREEN WASHING when you hold us... FB.
38 GBan : So how do you explain the difference in speed of change?
39 Silentbob : But the allowances are less than what has been used in the past and wouldn't even allow the airlines to have time to replace less efficient aircraft
40 ZKEOJ : It always amazes me that there are still so many people running around believing this! I suppose it can be a bit tougher to be less environmentally d
41 Caribillo : As RyanairGuru said, never mind if you agree or not. Never mind if you believe in global warming or not. The only thing that matters is that the law
42 Falcon790 : My friend, I suggest you do some real non-biased research and not follow the mainstream media so much. From your point of view, I'm sure its almost i
43 Caribillo : As per your statement, I believe that your advice should be to live as that law doesn't exist because we don't like it. Or would you prefer to riot f
44 Oneworld77 : Spot on!! As someone formally in the airline field and now in Climate Change/CSR field, this is totally the argument to take. Aviation emits the same
45 Birdbrainz : I hope the moderators will allow me to stray away from aviation a bit: Junk science is really the right term here. Most rational people would be quit
46 Caribillo : They are not the beginning of any pain. So many industries are already under a similar directive (power plants, chemical industries, automotive,...).
47 DLPMMM : Then why does the proposed law go so far as to delineate how the respective EU government should spend the receipts from this legislation? (as pointe
48 Caribillo : That is protectionism. Very outdated because it has been prove as a non effective measure. That is very recent in history terms. Wrong. A & B will tr
49 DFWEagle : It’s not like that at all. If foreign carriers don’t want to pay the tax, then they don’t need to do business there. If a company goes abroad t
50 Simairlinenet : This would be even more illegal, not to mention hypocritical, under the Chicago Convention, the very argument that the U.S. and non-EU nations are ad
51 Airbazar : Agree 100% The Airlines have known about this for a long long time. They've been fighting it and hoping it doesn't pass but ultimately they will lose
52 Par13del : And thats fine, since the EU and its citizens are putting these measure in place to make the quality of their life better, the debate of whether this
53 Kalvado : It's really hard to do good science without being able to stage experiments and have different experimental systems to compare. One small problem tha
54 N62NA : Not wanting to start a war here with my good friends in the EU, but, this kind of thinking is quite disheartening to read. Don't you guys have any me
55 StarAlliance38 : When scanning through the list, how come a Philippine airline is in violation in Bulgaria? And how is there a Spirit 2 in Germany based in the US?
56 Simairlinenet : [Edited 2009-08-23 07:15:59]
57 Jonjonnl : Edit: I'll start a new thread on non-aviation where we can discuss climate change and perhaps I can try to answer any questions you may have to the be
58 YULWinterSkies : Amazing indeed. Although one could debate forever on the consequences on CO2 and other GHG emissions on global weather patterns (ie, climate), one ca
59 AirNZ : So you mean a subsidy then eh? Whilst I have no thoughts either way on the actual matter I think, by your post, it's necessary to point something out
60 Mayor : That doesn't mean they have to like them. I'd be willing to bet that the airlines in the EU aren't exactly overjoyed with this scheme, either.
61 Post contains links ManuCH : Please keep this thread on topic with its title. To discuss global warming in general, there's a new thread in Non-Aviation: Is Climate Change Based O
62 SpeedyGonzales : About time! Airlines have enjoyed the subsidy in form of tax-free jetfuel all too long. Ground transport will finally compete with air on an equal foo
63 Par13del : If the EU was only trying to implement this tax for portions of flight within the EU zone that would be fine, but apparently they are trying to pass
64 Mayor : Tax free??? Maybe in the EU but certainly not in the U.S.
65 Mayor : How so? Maybe if you only consider the amount of fuel used for the number of passengers or pounds of cargo hauled, but there is one other considerati
66 Decoder : Bottom line: Current rate of consumption and polluting of the environment is unsustainable. Bringing things down to a sustainable level will increase
67 DLPMMM : I have no problem with the EU making any law they want. I never said that the EU cannot make what ever law they want. If the EU wants to invent a new
68 Birdbrainz : Yes, the name changed as the past couple of years have actually shown very slight global cooling. Uh oh! (Don't believe me? Go look at the GISS data.
69 Simairlinenet : The tax also applies to EU airlines. Unilaterally taxing only foreign airlines is illegal, and has been since 1944.
70 PPVRA : It's funny how Governments insist on owning major transport infrastructure and passing laws to subsidize them while then turning around and passing so
71 DLPMMM : But taxing foreign airlines on activities outside the EU is also illegal, is it not? That is why I think a specific retaliatory tax would be in order
72 Post contains links Birdbrainz : For the record, I'd love to see this topic moved off of A.net, but before it does, here's a very good summary of how much of the climate change (aka,
73 R2rho : I tend to side with IATA here. ETS is ok, but it has to be global. You can't impose such a scheme on a global industry at a regional level. It's easy
74 KC135TopBoom : Listed are the USN, IDF and Russian Air Forces. The EU does not have the authority to make military forces aircraft comply with these rules. That is b
75 Racko : It only applies to flights to and from the EU, not company-wide. I don't see a difference to a landing fee.
76 DLPMMM : But they are basing the tax on the foreign companies' total world-wide operations and those world-wide carbon emissions, not individual flights to th
77 DeltaMD90 : "Damn Americans and their damn pollution..." Damn Europeans and their damn taxes! As many point out, it is junk science! Where I live we keep hitting
78 AvroArrow : Perhaps this could be a major opportunity for European countries who are not in the EU to capitalize on the lower cost of flying there and then taking
79 FlyLKU : Remember, these are politicians. But then they know what is best for you. Higher costs will mean job losses. There is a proportion of the population
80 Post contains links DLPMMM : And so does junk science and politicians. If there is no global warming or "climate change" problem, then there is no funding for these researchers.
81 Simairlinenet : No, this is not correct. Only flights to/from/within the EU are covered under the ETS. Yes, it will cover the entirety of the flight, but only those
82 Par13del : Being technical how can the EU charge you for a flight originating in your own country? If you fly through their air space to Africa there is no char
83 DLPMMM : But are they not basing the amount of the tax according to the overall CO2 efficiency of the airline's enitre fleet, not just the particluar aircraft
84 Simairlinenet : No. Please see my post, reply 24, which explains the allowance and payment structure. Fuel efficiency does not directly come into play--only the abso
85 DLPMMM : In essence (assuming an airline's fleet is static) the EU is imposing a tax on 16% of a USA airlines flights to the EU plus any additional service to
86 Prebennorholm : While EU will get a new tax, then there will also be countries benefiting from this. To name a few: Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, Morocco, Iceland. Bu
87 Simairlinenet : Some background: some think that the EU is doing this to force the creation of a global aviation emissions scheme. By doing nothing, the process woul
88 Post contains links United1 : DL, AA, CO for starters.... Here is the full list.... http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...uri=OJ:L:2009:219:0001:0094:EN:PDF
89 DLPMMM : With all the new taxes coming on line here in the USA, I don't think the USA Senate will even consider, much less approve of any new treaties for suc
90 Prebennorholm : Wrong. It only affects "outside countries" when they fly in and out of the EU. Therefore long distance flights will be moved from the EU to neighbor
91 Commavia : No it doesn't. All it does is put E.U. carriers at a competitive disadvantage relative to their counterparts from other airlines, and further burden
92 Racko : As long as they impose it on everybody, including US airlines, this is perfectly fine and absolutely within the rights of the United States.
93 Simairlinenet : To clarify, this is the industry's interpretation (not identical to mine). But, it has worked--the industry is calling for ICAO (which is part of the
94 Prebennorholm : That's tactics. If only the issue can be put at rest at ICAO, then nothing will happen during the next few decades.
95 Commavia : Please define "worked" and "the industry." If by "worked," you mean that a few E.U. airlines have jumped onboard for such a global carbon tax system
96 Simairlinenet : More than just a few EU airlines. It is now the official position of IATA, AEA, ATA, and the AAPA. A global solution would take years to work out (i.
97 DLPMMM : Wouldn't this still require a treaty by the executive branches of the governments involved and ratification by the appropriate legislative bodies? I
98 Simairlinenet : We'll see what happens in Denmark in December... The expected delay is why ATA in particular is happy to push for the global option over the EU optio
99 Prebennorholm : Just the other day the Danish government canceled advance booking of 20,000 "hotel nights" due to decreased international interest in the Copenhagen
100 TSS : I'm not sure how European emission standards for cars are set up, but in the US the auto emission regulations were never a measure of efficiency, sim
101 Simairlinenet : You bring up an interesting problem. In fact, the EPA is just starting to look at aircraft/engine emissions standards with input from the FAA and ind
102 VV701 : On page L219/9 under 'Germany' you will find this entry: "[Code] 4484. [Airline} Delta Air Lines. [Country] United States" On pages L219/75 (under 'U
103 Post contains links DLPMMM : Apparently alot of airlines are doing the filing under protest, including some EU carriers (LH). Here's a link to an ATW article this morning: http://
104 Acabgd : This is really a load of bull****. Come on, as Aviateur nicely mentioned: There's so much other pollution that whatever you do about airline travel w
105 ZRH : Once again an utter bureaucratic nonsense by EU authorities.
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...
Airlines That Cant Take One Final Blow? posted Tue Jun 30 2009 10:53:50 by 7324ever
Airlines That Might Defer / Cancel 787 Orders posted Wed Jun 24 2009 03:20:15 by Keesje
Airlines That Stopped MSY Service After Katrina posted Mon Apr 27 2009 06:08:56 by Bmacleod
Airlines That Play Music On Take Off And Landing posted Tue Mar 3 2009 03:22:35 by Raffik
Airlines That Operate Competitive Aircraft posted Mon Jan 26 2009 08:02:33 by AA777223
Are There Any Airlines That Are Doing OK? posted Wed Dec 3 2008 20:00:55 by CXA330300
Airlines That No Longer Serve The U.S. posted Mon Nov 10 2008 20:47:10 by Ovrpowrd727
Any Airlines That Fly To Antarctica? posted Sun Oct 5 2008 17:10:33 by Bbinn333
Any US Airlines That Offer Health Insurance For PT posted Thu Oct 2 2008 18:33:21 by Malaysia
Airlines That Regret Phasing The 757-200 Out. posted Tue Sep 16 2008 15:42:55 by KLAM