Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LH Speaks Out On EU ETS Plans... "POSSIBLE FIASCO"  
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7848 times:

I thought this was an interesting article on ATW on-line:

http://atwonline.com/eco-aviation/ne...eu-ets-danger-becoming-fiasco-0411

Seems the politicians might not have thought this one all the way through.

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinercair1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1323 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7341 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT

Quoting DLPMMM (Thread starter):
Seems the politicians might not have thought this one all the way through.


No - politicians enacting laws that they haven't thought through (or read?) How could that be.



rcair1
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9381 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6972 times:

Simple answer - politicians pushing irrational ideology that does not hold up to reality through the parliaments and leaving the industry and their own bureaucratic staff alone with the chaos they have created.

The whole matter needs to be postponed indefinately, thought over in detail again and then scrapped for good.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 710 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6903 times:

The plan just needs to be scrapped, once and for all. Otherwise there will a problem to the European airline industry, perhaps a fatal blow to their competitiveness.

User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6711 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 2):
The whole matter needs to be postponed indefinately, thought over in detail again and then scrapped for good.

thank you! we've been telling our own wackjob government the same thing here in Australia.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25392 posts, RR: 49
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6673 times:

Both US and Canadian airlines have pending suits against the EU ETS scheme and to block its implementation for foreign carriers.

Simply put, the ETS scheme tries to regulate activities which occur beyond its airspace and legal jurisdictional control plus it violates the established 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation on how activities of foreign business may be regulated.

Personally the EU should instead focus on and fast track its single sky concept and improve ATC efficiency which would create huge CO2 benefits itself.

Off course, I don't believe anyone sees the ETS scheme as a true environmental effort - its simply instead a huge billion+ €uro revenue scheme.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6639 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Off course, I don't believe anyone sees the ETS scheme as a true environmental effort - its simply instead a huge billion+ €uro revenue scheme.

bingo. and the banks are behind it because it is yet another commidity for them to bid the cost up of and extort us all with.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Simply put, the ETS scheme tries to regulate activities which occur beyond its airspace and legal jurisdictional control plus it violates the established 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation on how activities of foreign business may be regulated.

Of course. And then of course it risks trade wars. the US and Canada, can for example, put some kind of environmental tax on transatlantic flights and then 'refund' their own carriers the amount they would have paid to the EU... it invites a really big mess. More likely it wont be upheld.

Next problem Russia. Or anybody else just outside the EU. Maybe Turkey etc. You set up a hub just outside the EU (hmmm... could SAS switch all its long haul flights to Norway?) and for a short part of a long haul trip the tax is on it, but for the really long legs say for example, to asia, there is no tax.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9381 posts, RR: 29
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6306 times:

Unfortunately, Norway as well as Switzerland and Iceland have signed agreements with the EU, so they are a part of it and cannot serve as intermediary points to avoid this stupid tax.

But Turkey certainly would be in a great advantage, so would Russia, the Gulf, the USA. For all these, an isolated EU ETS would be a great boost for their avaition economics.

The only sane way to deal with this is to scrap the whole idea.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6222 times:

Kudos to LH for being politically incorrect and speaking out on a political taboo. I am not against globally coordinated initiatives to reduce emissions, such as proposed by IATA. But the EU stubbornly going it alone on this is a big mistake.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):

Simply put, the ETS scheme tries to regulate activities which occur beyond its airspace and legal jurisdictional control plus it violates the established 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation on how activities of foreign business may be regulated.

This is going to create a huge legal mess. The EU can tax internal flights all it wants, but intercontinental flights are out of their jurisdiction. I actually encourage other countries to take legal actions against the EU, since there is no way a solution will come from within the EU itself.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Personally the EU should instead focus on and fast track its single sky concept and improve ATC efficiency which would create huge CO2 benefits itself.

Agree, but this requires political will, coordination between various entities, and a lot of hard work. Isn't it much easier to just set up a new hidden tax scheme instead?

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 6):
Next problem Russia. Or anybody else just outside the EU. Maybe Turkey etc. You set up a hub just outside the EU (hmmm... could SAS switch all its long haul flights to Norway?) and for a short part of a long haul trip the tax is on it, but for the really long legs say for example, to asia, there is no tax.

And that's exactly what's going to happen. TK is already jumping with joy as it can funnel flights through IST with a cost advantage versus the EU airlines. It can also cause cargo or PAX transfer flights that don't have the EU as final destination to bypass the EU via longer routes, effectively emmitting more CO2 (but doing it outside the EU, where we don't care).

[Edited 2011-04-13 01:38:08]

User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6201 times:

Compared to this, the ticket tax is simple, can be calculated, and has the same effect.

The amount of CO2 produced is proportinal to the amount of fuel you need, so just tax the fuel. It is the dammed job of the politicians to warrant this is done with the same amount everywhere in the world. Why not give 1 ct per gallon crude just when pumped out of the earth to a fond to finance forest projects, wind parks, solar plants whatever?


User currently offlinerobso2 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2010, 218 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6128 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 5):
Off course, I don't believe anyone sees the ETS scheme as a true environmental effort - its simply instead a huge billion+ €uro revenue scheme


woah! a bit skeptical ?  
Quoting r2rho (Reply 8):
Kudos to LH for being politically incorrect and speaking out on a political taboo. I am not against globally coordinated initiatives to reduce emissions, such as proposed by IATA. But the EU stubbornly going it alone on this is a big mistake.

I know this will be reply will be unpopular but...
I could turn your point around and say Kudos to the EU for taking action on CO2 emissions by trying to implement a trading scheme. OK to date it hasn't functioned as efficiently as it should do but at least the EU is trying to take action on a problem that, unfortunately, airlines create a lot of. Perhaps they should coordinate with IATA though...



733/4/5/6/7/8/9, 319/20/21, 752, 744, 772, 332/3, 343/6, E70/90, AT43, AR85/1, D38, D10, M82
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5579 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6037 times:

Quoting robso2 (Reply 10):
Kudos to the EU for taking action on CO2 emissions by trying to implement a trading scheme. OK to date it hasn't functioned as efficiently as it should do but at least the EU is trying to take action on a problem that, unfortunately, airlines create a lot of

I agree in principle, BUT until the rest of the world gets on board (no time soon then...) trying to regulate flights which are not going between two European points is going to be at best a nightmare and at worse illegal.

Intra-EU flights are not an issue (apart from the usual 'should we tax carbon' debate), it's those that leave EU airspace that are. Quite frankly (and unfortunately) the only reasonable solution is to exempt flights that are leaving European airspace from the ETS.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 4):
thank you! we've been telling our own wackjob government the same thing here in Australia.

Without making this political, did you read the article??? This isn't a thread about whether or not there should be an ETS (the EU has had one since 2005) but rather whether international flights should be included. It is therefore a completely different debate to the one raging in Australia at the moment.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9381 posts, RR: 29
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 6027 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):
The amount of CO2 produced is proportinal to the amount of fuel you need, so just tax the fuel.

It would have the same effect as ETS, it would violate basically all the bilateral agreements EU countries have with third countries, it would not be enforcable in third countries, it would be a trade impediment for EU carriers. It would disenable them to invest into modern fleets as they could no longer afford new aircraft and as such, would have an adverse effect on the environment.

Air traffic is over taxed already with all kinds of departure taxes etc and it pays its way through route charges etc.. Despite that, the carriers have always invested in the most modern equipment and continue to do that in their own interest and at the same time help the environment.

Politicians should be as good as managers are in cutting costs and to make governments more efficient. Instead, they always take the easy way and increase taxes or create new ones like ETS and the money usually disappears in big black holes with little effect on anything.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4641 times:

Quoting robso2 (Reply 10):
at least the EU is trying to take action on a problem that, unfortunately, airlines create a lot of.

3% of total CO2 emissions. If European governments shifted one tenth of the political effort currently used to tax airlines towards reducing our massive dependency on oil, coal, gas, and the other elements responsible for the remaining 97% of emissions, we'd have solved the CO2 problem by now.

Quoting robso2 (Reply 10):
Kudos to the EU for taking action on CO2 emissions by trying to implement a trading scheme.

No problem (legally at least) if the EU wants to impose a scheme for European flights - we can debate about whether it makes sense or not, but that'll be our own European problem to worry about. But here we have the EU going beyond its jurisdiction.

Quoting robso2 (Reply 10):
Perhaps they should coordinate with IATA though...

IATA did make a proposal for last year's ICAO summit:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...er-global-emissions-framework.html

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2010-09-29-01.aspx

In the end, ICAO reached a more modest agreement, but agreement nevertheless, although concrete actions will have to wait until 2013.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...lcome%20ICAO%20Climate%20Agreement

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...duction-plan-heads-for-cancun.html

http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2010-10-08-01.aspx

These proposals were presented af the UNFCCC summit in Cancun, without reaching a concrete agreement.

A nice summary of the [bureaucratic] challenges being faced:
http://www.centreforaviation.com/new...search-of-a-global-consensus/page1

The EU would do well in using its influence in pushing and supporting these efforts rather than ignoring them.


User currently offlineBurkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4397 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4569 times:

Another idea, why not add a CO2 surplas, if needed, to the route charges? This way every airline would be free to pay or fly around Europe. Since the CO2 ( and other polution) of an aircraft that flies from Turkey to Iceland is produced over European countries, this can be argued to be a fair solution.

User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 4329 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 14):
Another idea, why not add a CO2 surplas, if needed, to the route charges? This way every airline would be free to pay or fly around Europe. Since the CO2 ( and other polution) of an aircraft that flies from Turkey to Iceland is produced over European countries, this can be argued to be a fair solution

That still doesnt solve the problem of somebody using Istanbul or Moscow as a hub and avoiding the charges for the longer flights. Emirates must be laughing their heads off at this one!


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3592 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 4216 times:

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 14):
Another idea, why not add a CO2 surplas, if needed, to the route charges? This way every airline would be free to pay or fly around Europe. Since the CO2 ( and other polution) of an aircraft that flies from Turkey to Iceland is produced over European countries, this can be argued to be a fair solution.

The EU could do that...but that is not their plan. They want to make every airline pay for every bit of CO2 produced everywhere in the world.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6661 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3586 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 12):
Quoting Burkhard (Reply 9):
The amount of CO2 produced is proportinal to the amount of fuel you need, so just tax the fuel.

It would have the same effect as ETS, it would violate basically all the bilateral agreements EU countries have with third countries, it would not be enforcable in third countries, it would be a trade impediment for EU carriers.

There are agreements about taxes on fuel ?

If the EU would impose taxes on fuel regardless of the destination (but of course, only on fuel provided in the EU), what would other countries realistically do ? After all, EU airlines would already be the ones suffering the most.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecorey07850 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2527 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3519 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 7):
Unfortunately, Norway as well as Switzerland and Iceland have signed agreements with the EU, so they are a part of it and cannot serve as intermediary points to avoid this stupid tax.

Actually after just going through the whole process for our flight department, Switzerland is not part of the ETS program (thankfully).

I'm just waiting for the lawsuits to file in to get rid of it once and for all.


User currently offlinediverdave From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 331 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 16):
The EU could do that...but that is not their plan. They want to make every airline pay for every bit of CO2 produced everywhere in the world.

Dare I ask where the revenue would be directed?  Wow!

David


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9381 posts, RR: 29
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 17):
There are agreements about taxes on fuel ?

It is usually part of the bilaterals. Third country carriers do not pay taxes on local revenue either and that is all regulated in the agreements about traffic rights. In plain words, the EU based carriers would be included in ETS and the third country carriers serving the same route not.

Quoting diverdave (Reply 19):
Dare I ask where the revenue would be directed? Wow!

into the big black hole where all the taxes go, does not matter if that goes to member states or the EU direct. Generally, taxes are never assigned to certain sepdning items The EU commission so far is dependend mainly on contributions from the member states, they have little "direct income". Duties on imports belong to that.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3165 times:

Quoting corey07850 (Reply 18):
Switzerland is not part of the ETS program (thankfully).

Currently no, but I'm afraid I have bad news for you

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedoc...docs/pressdata/en/envir/118632.pdf

Quoting diverdave (Reply 19):
Dare I ask where the revenue would be directed?

Typically, green taxes go to funding social security, reducing public deficit, bailing out banks, etc


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3213 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Quoting r2rho (Reply 21):
Typically, green taxes go to funding social security, reducing public deficit, bailing out banks, etc

While i have no doubt part of the taxes make their way there, what usually happens is taxes go into a treasury as revenue, and then are dished out seperately in the budget. There is nothing aligning taxation revenue with individual types of expenditure, although some politicians will attempt to spin it this way when they need to justify some sort of increase in tax. So a more accurate answer is a piece of absolutely everything the government has its tenticles in. Some good... some obviously a complete waste (regardless of what government you are talking about).


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 22):
So a more accurate answer is a piece of absolutely everything the government has its tenticles in. Some good... some obviously a complete waste (regardless of what government you are talking about).

Agree - I was just putting it in a humorous-sarcastic way  


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...
LH Changing Engine On A380 posted Wed Nov 10 2010 05:05:33 by aviationweek
Is LH Making Profit On DUS-FRA Route? posted Tue Nov 2 2010 15:04:47 by AlexA340B777
Pic: First Korean A380 Out On TLS Flight Line posted Wed Sep 29 2010 09:04:57 by iad787
KLM Holds Out On Ash Cloud Compensation posted Tue Aug 17 2010 02:35:15 by Pe@rson
LH A 340-330 On IAD-MUC Flight? posted Tue Jul 13 2010 10:29:41 by airsrpska
UA / LH / VS / Others On ORD-MAN posted Sat Jun 26 2010 17:17:43 by GlobalCabotage
ET409 - Al-Qaeda Operative Speaks Out posted Tue Mar 30 2010 04:02:44 by 757ops
Why Not UA, AA , LH Or DL On SCL-EZE posted Fri Dec 4 2009 14:05:11 by Eastern023
Porter Airlines Pilot Passes Out On Flight posted Sat Nov 14 2009 10:51:43 by Darthluke12694
Tony Tyler (CX CEO) On CX Fleet Plans, No A380 Yet posted Thu Jul 30 2009 23:18:13 by Lutfi