Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
China Vs EU ETS Update  
User currently offlineChazPilot From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 80 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7187 times:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16421117

I know this isn't the first thread on this matter, but I think given today's official statement by Beijing it warrents a fresh one.

What say you, A-Netters?

146 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinehsvflier From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7143 times:

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out......this is becoming much larger than aviation. But what does Europe have to leverage??? Looks like the order books in Seattle will remain full of chinese customers for a long time.


Flown DL, UA, CO, WN, LH, TZ, WO, AA, US, LO, HA, PX, NW, KE, AB, QR, LX, EE, 5Y
User currently offlineMillwallSean From Singapore, joined Apr 2008, 1238 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7104 times:

Quoting hsvflier (Reply 1):
. But what does Europe have to leverage???

Being Chinas largest exportmarket must mean they have some levarage...



No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12408 posts, RR: 37
Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7103 times:

I think it's a very important point of principle; Brussels has attempted to impose this unilaterally and there is no provisions in any of its bilaterals to do this. If they were to let the EU away with this, it would set a very unsatisfactory precedent in international affairs. The EU needs to recognise that it simply cannot act in this manner and if it will not accept this, then it will have to be taught - the hard way.

if China, India, the US, possibly Russia and a few others stand firm on this, to the extent that flights are stopped, how long will the EU hold out, given its economic crisis. Also, given that the EU is looking to China for help with the Eurozone crisis, this is an additional bargaining chip for China.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7099 times:

Quoting hsvflier (Reply 1):
But what does Europe have to leverage???

Huh...not much these days.

It's because we're broke we're taxing everything to oblivion !

At least the UK chancellor had the decency to admit green taxes on aviation are just to swell government coffers.

Civil aviation is bloated, it's too cheap to fly, there's too much competition/capacity and the LCC's make flying viable for trips where flying shouldn't really be an option.

Stag nights and hen do's....please.

The industry is a sitting duck.

Fewer flights and bigger more fuel efficient aircraft....that's what is needed.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11413 posts, RR: 62
Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7088 times:

Again - this entire thing really all boils down to how far everyone else is willing to push this.

I don't care how altruistic and environment-loving the EU claims it is. If the rest of the world presented one unified front against this EU carbon tax - if the U.S./China/India rescinded all landing rights, Russia cut overflight rights, and Emirates cancelled all remaining A380 orders - the EU would back down in about 2.5 seconds.

The only question is whether or not the rest of the world is really going to stand up to it.


User currently offlinemikey72 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2009, 1780 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7069 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
and Emirates cancelled all remaining A380 orders

Well they could play that card on any issue involving the EU.

German flight rights spring to mind.



Flying is like sex - I've never had all I wanted but occasionally I've had all I can stand.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7046 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
and Emirates cancelled all remaining A380 orders -

That would be dumb, considering that they have a lot to gain from the EU's tax, ridiculous as it is. They would have a serious decision to make whether to fight the tax or exploit it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2056 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6987 times:

I don't understand why China or the U.S. are against ETS. Perhaps someone can explain it to me?

As I wrote in the locked thread:

The plan is that all flights originating or arriving in the EU will be part of the trading, right? In other words, an airline has to acquire enough carbon credits for its total EU operations.

Why then do non-EU countries oppose this? If anything, it puts their airlines at a strategical advantage over EU airlines. EU airlines will have to cover 100% of their operations with carbon credits, while non-EU airlines will only have to do so for a much smaller percentage of their flights. For instance, LH from FRA to HKG will acquire the full amount of credits, while EK will only cover the FRA-DXB part, not the DXB-HKG part, which will make their product cheaper than LH's, everything else being equal. In this example, CX will have to pay the same as LH, because they fly direct, but never more (and they still can connect passengers out of HKG without carbon credits).

So in total, if any party is to suffer from the scheme, it's the EU itself, not the non-EU countries. The only reason for non-EU countries to oppose this, that I can think of, is that they're afraid the additional costs for a ticket will significantly diminish the market as a whole. I simply don't see that. I don't know the demand flexibility for intercontinental flights, but I doubt that a couple of Euros will bring demand down noticeably. Within Europe, that may be a different story, but that is again an intra-European issue. In short, I don't find a good explanation for the strong opposition from China, the US etc.

Can anybody help me out here?



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6954 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
Why then do non-EU countries oppose this?

The biggest thing is that the EU ETS tax is levied on the whole flights, not just the part in the EU. The extra-territorial nature of the scheme is what irks a lot of people.

And it means that there is incentive to not fly directly to the EU. In other words, a SIN-DXB-LHR routing pays less tax than SIN-LHR, so as long as this tax stands I don't want to hear any more whining from European airlines that the Middle Eastern airlines are strangling them. Regulation has a cost.

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
So in total, if any party is to suffer from the scheme, it's the EU itself,

Well, yes, which is part of why this whole thing is dumb.

Quoting Rara (Reply 8):
I don't find a good explanation for the strong opposition from China, the US etc.

Because their airlines are getting taxed for the majority of the flight which is not over the EU. It's like if you came to America and had to keep paying German VAT essentially.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6837 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
Again - this entire thing really all boils down to how far everyone else is willing to push this.

  
And I predict a compromise to be reached well before any flight to Europe has to be stopped. Europe needs all the friends it can make. Apparently the ETS will not come into effect until March (although in theory it started on the first day of 2012), plenty of time.


User currently offlineracko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4856 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 6795 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
It's like if you came to America and had to keep paying German VAT essentially.

It's like if you flew to the US and had to obey US safety regulations for the whole flight.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2056 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6747 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

The biggest thing is that the EU ETS tax is levied on the whole flights, not just the part in the EU. The extra-territorial nature of the scheme is what irks a lot of people.

Anything else would really be silly. Emissions are produced because EU citizens or visitors to the EU fly to one place to another. What relevance does the flight's exact routing have?

Let's imagine for a moment that only the part over EU airspace would be subject to ETS. What would be different?
- It would still incur costs for airlines, both EU and non-EU. Fewer carbon credits would be set off by more scarcity and higher prices.
- EU and non-EU airlines would still be affected in the same way.
- It would create a huge bureaucratic effort to track and report every single flightpath.
- It would create all sorts of confusion and unfair effects. A flight from LA to London would require more credits than a flight from New York to Vienna. Where is the sense in that?

Altogether, switching from the extra-territorial method to a territorial one would make zero difference in the important areas and do more bad than good overall. So if people are "irked" by it, as you say, what would the alternative be.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

And it means that there is incentive to not fly directly to the EU. In other words, a SIN-DXB-LHR routing pays less tax than SIN-LHR, so as long as this tax stands I don't want to hear any more whining from European airlines that the Middle Eastern airlines are strangling them. Regulation has a cost.

Yes, and we're willing to carry it. What concern is it to America and China?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

Well, yes, which is part of why this whole thing is dumb.

Alright, but again, why do America and China oppose it then? To save us from ourselves? Hard to imagine.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):

Because their airlines are getting taxed for the majority of the flight which is not over the EU. It's like if you came to America and had to keep paying German VAT essentially.

Well I do! I pay taxes for my flight to America. The taxes don't "end" at the EU border. They're paid all the way to my destination. The part of the flight over the Atlantic isn't magically tax-free.

Sorry, but I still don't get it.   I understand why someone would think that ETS is not a good idea in general. But seeing that non-EU airlines aren't disadvantaged in any way, I don't understand why their governments would get all dramatic over it.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinetayser From Australia, joined Mar 2008, 1125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6741 times:

Europeans have a flair for research and big government - let them do it, pay the tax and shut up - because at the end of the day, the money which will flow into European research institutes will eventually lead to new industries and technologies financed and exploited on a grander scale by the anglo-asian world eventually.

Swings and roundabouts.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9156 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6712 times:

Fact is, the Chinese government instructed the Chinese carriers to ignore ETS. They will simply not pay.

That starts the procedure, the carriers will be fined, they will eventually be banned from laning et European airports because they niether pay ETS nor fines. The Chinese will retaliate and ban European carriers from Chinese Airports, eventually overflying as well, which will hurt the Europeans only on their way to Korea and Japan. Chinese carriers don't care too much about overflying Europe if the cannot operate here anyhow.

All that for the simple fact that the EU commission as well as the EU high court ignored the existing bi-laterals.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
The biggest thing is that the EU ETS tax is levied on the whole flights, not just the part in the EU. The extra-territorial nature of the scheme is what irks a lot of people.

That is exactly why Kerosine is not taxed at all as extra - territorial taxation does not work. Whatever happens outside the jurisdiction of a country is not taxed. That goes for ocean rates, even the haulage from shippers door to the port is not subject to VAT.



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 offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 726 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6694 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
I don't understand why their governments would get all dramatic over it.

Because airlines or their customers will need to pay and governments should stand up for their industries/citizens. People complain when they have to pay more, it is natural. Watch the EU doing exactly the same thing if China/US/Japan/any other country big enough to make a difference institutes a new tax/charge on all car manufacturers. Surely you don't think BMW/RR/Mercedes/SAAB/Audi etc. will take it lying down?


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2056 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6626 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 15):

Because airlines or their customers will need to pay and governments should stand up for their industries/citizens. People complain when they have to pay more, it is natural. Watch the EU doing exactly the same thing if China/US/Japan/any other country big enough to make a difference institutes a new tax/charge on all car manufacturers. Surely you don't think BMW/RR/Mercedes/SAAB/Audi etc. will take it lying down?

Yes they will need to pay, but their competitors will pay relatively more! And the additional costs are not high enough to bring total demand down. So non-EU airlines, unless I don't understand something, will face no disadvantage, if anything they will be a slight advantage. If BMW were told, all cars will cost the customer 10 Euros more, but Asian cars will be 15 Euros more, I don't think they'll send the German government into a rage about it to be honest.


I keep on looking for a "hidden reason", a rational reason for people to oppose ETS, but from I read and what you guys tell me, there seems to be nothing behind it. Just very mediocre analytics in the Chinese and American adminstrations appearantly. But I will keep looking and if find out something, I'll post it here.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinewdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 961 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6479 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 16):

Because all it is is an extra non necessary tax applied to an industry that has a very small environmental impact globally.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15715 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

Quoting racko (Reply 11):
It's like if you flew to the US and had to obey US safety regulations for the whole flight.

Not exactly. Any nation can require certain standards for safety and security for airlines to fly there. And they can demand certain safety standards of airlines registered in that country that must be followed on all flights. The ETS is as if the FAA were to fine a foreign airline for safety violations on a flight that did not originate in, overfly, or land in the US.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
What relevance does the flight's exact routing have?

The EU is levying a tax on a flight outside its jurisdiction. The EU is taxing emissions that may be taking place on another continent.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
- EU and non-EU airlines would still be affected in the same way.

They are not affected equally now. EU airlines are at a disadvantage.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
A flight from LA to London would require more credits than a flight from New York to Vienna. Where is the sense in that?

It makes perfect sense. The EU can tax flights over their territory, so if you overfly more of the EU you pay more to the EU. Paying the EU emissions tax for carbon spewed over Canada or where ever just makes no sense.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
Alright, but again, why do America and China oppose it then?

Because the EU is levying a tax on foreign airlines for the portion of the flight over foreign territory. It's a pretty plain violation of sovereignty.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
Well I do! I pay taxes for my flight to America.

The ETS is as if you had to keep paying European gas taxes when you fill up in America.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
I understand why someone would think that ETS is not a good idea in general.

I don't. It sounds like something cooked up by Enron.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
I don't understand why their governments would get all dramatic over it.

It's an affront to their sovereignty.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6445 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 3):
The EU needs to recognise that it simply cannot act in this manner and if it will not accept this, then it will have to be taught - the hard way.

That is really cute.

It seems like most people think this is an unprecedented event. Following the news regularly helps understanding the dynamic of international relations and especially China is very predictable.

This is a lot of hot air and the EU will and should give them a middle finger about this. Do you have any idea how many shenanigans China has pulled on Europe just last year, like granting LH daily A380 flights into PEK, only to revoke them days before the service started. Boycotting Norway for honoring a Chinese political prisoner with the nobel prize.

You people need to read the news more often. Europe and China have had a hate-love relationship for the longest time. We can't live with them, we can't live without 'em (or don't want to, more like).

Giving credence to China's threats reveals not more but a significant information gap on the author's part.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1413 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6418 times:

The green tax is just an additional tax to increase their revenue in the name of environment. Not a single penny goes out to any environment cause, just to bridge their deficits. Why then this sham of carbon credits etc? Just label it as "we are flat broke, need more money so this tax" and move on  

Why should passengers pay just for connecting through Europe? Many Indians fly to US through Europe, and we are taxed for flying on EU airlines! When middle-east airlines are poaching passengers from EU airlines, this dumb move will just accelerate the losses for EU airlines even more. And airlines from India which carry passengers through Europe too will suffer.


User currently offlinePezySPU From Croatia, joined Dec 2011, 283 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6412 times:

Quoting wdleiser (Reply 17):
Because all it is is an extra non necessary tax applied to an industry that has a very small environmental impact globally.

And very, very thin profit margins.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):

Quoting Rara (Reply 12):
I don't understand why their governments would get all dramatic over it.

It's an affront to their sovereignty.

  


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8685 posts, RR: 43
Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6398 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
The ETS is as if the FAA were to fine a foreign airline for safety violations on a flight that did not originate in, overfly, or land in the US.

Considering that the ETS applies only to those flights that do take off or land in the EU or overfly it, one has to wonder how you arrived at that comparison.

By the way, EU Allowances are currently so cheap that they'll hardly make a difference in any airline's financial results:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=PNXCSPT2:IND

[Edited 2012-01-05 07:29:14]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2752 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6339 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 5):
if the U.S./China/India rescinded all landing rights, Russia cut overflight rights, and Emirates cancelled all remaining A380 orders - the EU would back down in about 2.5 seconds.

Either that, or the EU would retaliated by rescinding all landing rights to US/China/India/UAE airlines.

Quoting wdleiser (Reply 17):
Because all it is is an extra non necessary tax applied to an industry that has a very small environmental impact globally.

The credit system is applied to all industries, and it is proportional to the environmental impact. For some reason, the airline industry has been exempted for 7 years. Not any longer.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18):
The ETS is as if the FAA were to fine a foreign airline for safety violations on a flight that did not originate in, overfly, or land in the US.

Sorry but the comparison is flawed, because the ETS is not levied on flights that do not originate, overfly or land in the EU.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11413 posts, RR: 62
Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 6304 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 23):
Either that, or the EU would retaliated by rescinding all landing rights to US/China/India/UAE airlines.

Right, and like it said, that would be over in about 2.5 seconds. The EU - particularly as weak and vulnerable as it is (economically and institutionally) these days - needs the global market way more than the global market needs Europe. The EU would retaliate, it would escalate into a trade war, and the EU would quickly lose that war.

There is no question - at least to me - that the EU would lose. The only question is whether or not the U.S., China, Russia, India, etc. will push it that far.


25 UALWN : Really? How do you know that? Yeah, the US, instead, is swimming in money and is politically united behind its president...
26 Post contains images Rara : ... then again, you could say that about any industry out there. This would be correct if carbon dioxide had a local effect only. It doesn't, it has
27 mikey72 : Let's face it..the transatlantic regions are all up to their eyeballs in debt. Saying that though the EU is still the largest economy on the planet.
28 commavia : Because the EU is negotiating from a position of weakness. Europe's economies are generally doing quite poorly, and Europe's airlines are already bei
29 aloges : What you read in here is nothing but a tempest in a teacup, tantrums thrown by people who take delight at a possible war - even if it's "only" a trad
30 mikey72 : Which network told you that ? Would you like to fly over here and tell certain people that ? I''ll pay. (First Class, suite at the Paris Ritz) We are
31 BMI727 : None of that makes it okay to violate sovereignty. Why don't the Europeans try to pass some environmental regulations for Mexican or Chinese factorie
32 Post contains images commavia : I don't need to tell anybody. The reality has been on display for all to see in recent months. Europe is hardly united, and it is hardly one economy.
33 Post contains images aloges : The purpose of a flight from the US to an EU country is to get people to that EU country. All of the CO2 emitted, over Canada or elsewhere, is emitte
34 mikey72 : Spain, Italy, Portugal and even France are staring into a precipice. We are untited and one economy in the sense that if one goes under we will all f
35 commavia : Okay, but that still doesn't make it legal. Just as the EU - whether its affected by global carbon emissions or not - cannot tax or regulate the carb
36 mikey72 : Oh not Dubai again. It would be nice to imagine that in the future the 'vast' majority if not all people flying between New York and Mumbai will do s
37 commavia : It was merely an example to describe why I believe this tax - and others like it - will harm European carriers. (And, alas, it appears that many Euro
38 ScottB : Sure, they're cheap today. What about some day in the future when they could add hundreds of euros to the cost of a ticket? Only the nose is under th
39 mham001 : Most of the remarks here have missed the mark. It has more to do with whether treaties signed by sovereign nations can be ignored by a larger body. T
40 mikey72 : Lol - yeah I know what you mean. I'm just not sure what we can do about it. UK flyers get taxed up the ying yang as it is.
41 UALWN : Have you already forgotten the latest showdowns between Congress and Obama, which have put the US on the brink of default, and which have not really
42 aloges : How so? The Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled that it is legal. Do you possess higher legal qualifications than those judges? It can i
43 BMI727 : Yes it is, but until that flight crosses into EU airspace how it gets there is completely out of the EU's jurisdiction.
44 Post contains images huaiwei : It is quite ironic to read that comment, especially from someone based in the United Kingdom. What you have just described can happen (and has repeat
45 Post contains links aloges : Please calculate how much a single EUA would have to cost for that to happen. Do you really believe that EU politicians want to destroy the union's e
46 aloges : How exactly does a small and avoidable fee that only applies to flights into or out of EU territory limit the sovereignty of any nation? I should hop
47 UALWN : Actually, that's not quite true. Ask the airlines in the EU's black list, TAAG, for instance. And, as I'm sure you're aware of, TATL flights inbound
48 BMI727 : The US and any other country can set a list of requirements for passengers to enter the country. There is nothing wrong with requiring certain inform
49 mham001 : But fails to mention the horrific numbers from other EU countries. All that means little though, it is the confidence investors have in buying that d
50 BMI727 : That's not exercising control outside the EU airspace. All it does is say that they cannot enter EU airspace because they do not meet standards. The
51 commavia : Again - you're comparing politics with institutional existence. The legislative and executive branches are fighting for power. That's nothing new - t
52 Post contains images aloges : But, you see, that is different. Nobody can explain why and how, but it is and It Shall Become Truth Through Repetition. ...but the EU cannot set a l
53 Post contains links and images aloges : For the life of me, I cannot imagine how you got that out of my statement. Would you please explain? So the neutrality of judges is in question just
54 BMI727 : They can - that's exactly what the blacklist is. But they are specifically taxing flight outside the EU. If they only taxed the part of the flight in
55 NUAir : For Europe it does make sense to have a carbon trading for airlines. If trains, cars, buses and alternative forms of competing transport are faced wit
56 Post contains images mandala499 : On the "global effect" excuse... I wonder how Europeans would react to if say, the US, decides to place a similar scheme for flights to/from/within t
57 flyguy89 : All the more laughable because ETS rewards/encourages the higher emission SIN-DXB-LHR routing and punishes/discourages the more "green" non-stop SIN-
58 BMI727 : To be fair, that isn't necessarily higher emissions or higher cost than making a stop.
59 flyguy89 : Sure it is, it's double the take off thrust and subsequent fuel usage, an indirect routing, double the paperwork, double the crew, double the food/in
60 BMI727 : Except that all of that difference and then some may be made up by burning fuel to carry fuel. And burning fuel to carry the fuel that you have to bu
61 flyguy89 : I'm sure that definitely narrows the difference emissions-wise to an extent, but it's doubtful that two long-haul flights emit less CO2 than one ultr
62 Post contains images Rara : Alright, that makes some sense. Not sure I'd go along with that reasoning, but thank you for supplying another perspective on the matter. If the oppo
63 Post contains images aloges : I shall immediately write to my elected representatives and complain about the illegal, unfair and quite frankly inhumane taxation of those parts of
64 cmf : No. There are already provisions for that. As soon as a region have a method for reducing emissions in accordance with the Kyoto agreement levels tha
65 UALWN : It's not a tax. In any case it is forcing airlines wishing to fly to the EU to do something (avail themselves of emission credits), just like the US
66 BMI727 : Except that they are getting paid while working for a German entity. And I bet that you don't have to pay US income tax if you come here on a busines
67 Viscount724 : That's ICAO's responsibility, not IATA's which can only lobby for a solution. I'm sure the EU would have preferred a global solution from ICAO but th
68 aloges : Airlines flying to/from/within the EU get paid for the entirety of such trips because they fly here. So it follows that the entirety of their flights
69 BMI727 : Then what right at all does the EU have to sell or regulate pollution rights outside of their EU?
70 Post contains images Lufthansa : Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner The basic problem is this. Of course the chinese would be pissed off that Europe thinks it can tax a chinese aircraf
71 Post contains links mffoda : For those of you who think that EU airlines are OK with ETS... (From ATW) "Lufthansa (LH) will hire 200 flight attendants as temporary workers and has
72 Lufthansa : Basically all the EU really can do is impose some kind of landing/overfly/or movement fee. Given international conventions and laws that is basically
73 aloges : Which flights that operate fully outside the EU are included in the EU ETS? Will they be more open to something that petunias their sovereignty? A bi
74 BMI727 : They are making the airlines buy credits for the portion of the flight not over the EU too. Thus, it is extra-territorial and the EU overreaching in
75 commavia : Actually, that is precisely how the system was designed to work. The framers of the consitution intentionally divided powers among various branches -
76 aloges : You have posted that numerous times and numerous replies have pointed out that national (or similar) regulations regularly apply outside national (or
77 commavia : I realize the concept of national sovereignty is sort of fuzzy in Europe these days, but the above is frankly ridiculous - that defies the most basic
78 BMI727 : Because they are wrong. It's one thing for the EU to set minimum standards for carriers and cargo entering the EU. It's quite another for them to reg
79 Lufthansa : No the location is relevant because there is the requirement to impose some kind of "penalty". it is the power to impose that on a non - EU registere
80 Cerecl : All true, but you made the assumption that dealings between industries/countries are entirely rational and based on nothing but hard numbers. To me,
81 Post contains images aloges : You must be joking. This entire discussion is circling around semantics and now they're suddenly meaningless because the fact that the ETS isn't a ta
82 blueflyer : In other news, something's going on in China that the communist party doesn't want its people to pay attention to, so... ETS bad! It's like if you mov
83 Post contains images Cerecl : I will be very surprised if more than 5% of Chinese actually read this piece of news. A great diversion tactic, no doubt.
84 Post contains images mandala499 : Flight routes are different every day, and the enroute nav charges follow the different routes everyday, and are charged based on weight classes of t
85 Lufthansa : Of course and that is only natural if that is your objective. I think it misses the point. This isn't about if you agree with an ETS or not an ETS. T
86 cmf : I hear what you're saying but try to look at it from the EU view for a moment and you may reach a different conclusion. If not you should be able to
87 huaiwei : Numerous posts have already directly answered this question, so do read them for your own enlightenment. If that is still beyond comprehension, lets
88 Post contains links something : http://www.eex.com/en/Market%20Data/...t/spot-eua-chart/2012-01-02/0/1/1y Real time prices for ETS certificates. LH based their calculation on €30 p
89 Lufthansa : It's falling to bits because the market for them globally is having the bottom fall out of it. Durban was basically a failure, what was looking appea
90 something : ??? The price falls because you can't use a 2011 certificate in 2012, therefore prices decrease in value. That's the only reason.
91 JoeCanuck : Let's make one thing clear...again. The EU chairman of transportation has said publically that the scheme does nothing to reduce carbon emissions and
92 something : Because you are making these ridiculous statements up? There are infinite links that explain to you - and everybody else - whereto the revenues are b
93 JoeCanuck : I have shown you the quotes and the statement from the chairman twice. I could do it a third time but why bother? Am I ashamed that Canada quit the c
94 UALWN : But I wasn't talking about entry requirements. The US requires LH, for instance, to send out detailed passenger information while the plane is still
95 UALWN : See below.
96 something : They're lauded? By whom? Aren't they ''kind of''' attacked on all fronts by Europe by forcing them to comply with the ETS or to stay the F out? I am
97 Post contains links something : By the way.. if you want to knock the ETS, this would be an actually valuable corroboration of your sentiment. It's German, only, but it's a remarkabl
98 Post contains images BMI727 : Yes it is. And that is a completely stupid argument since the ability for a nation to require certain conditions to be met for entry is long establis
99 something : We leave that to the Texans. Because my cousin is a lawyer and her dad what in the US would be a D.A. They elucidated to me why applying this scheme
100 BMI727 : And because you do not respect the sovereignty of other nations in the least. It goes beyond that. If it were that simple, just a tax people pay to g
101 Post contains links something : This is not a legal issue. Neutral, objective courts have examined the case and found it to be in full compliance with all existing trade conventions
102 BMI727 : What they determined is that the EU can implement this without violating the Chicago convention since the EU did not sign the agreement although memb
103 UALWN : But the US is going well beyond that by requiring personal details of anybody in a plane sitting in Europe before the plane leaves European soil, not
104 BMI727 : Because such details need to be known before the plane enters the US so it can be denied entry if necessary. The US asserts its right to not allow en
105 Post contains images mikey72 : This may sound stupid (knowing me) but what difference will it make ? We'll all pay 3 bucks extra and all the crap will still get pumped out into the
106 something : If you read the verdict of the EU court you will see that this has nothing to do with it. The ETS doesn't discriminate against corporations or differ
107 BMI727 : I guess the EU believes that stepping on the toes of other countries' sovereignty is legal then. And frankly, it's just as wrong. But when you're dea
108 mikey72 : Anyone that's flown as much as I have will at some point have wandered to the rear of a 747 and looked aft out of the windows in doors 5 to witness th
109 cmf : It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it is still a lie. They only enforce a limit inside their territory. Anyone can fly as much as they l
110 BMI727 : Except for the little detail that it isn't. It's a charge based on emissions made completely outside the EU. There is no way that they can get around
111 mikey72 : It's a load of bullsh*t that will never work..it's totally unworkable.
112 UALWN : They don't need to be known at all. Passengers can be screened at the border, as every other country in the world does.
113 Post contains images flyguy89 : ...and no matter how many times you try to rationalize this to yourself, the fact is that the EU is charging airlines for something they did outside
114 aerokiwi : You know what's cute? The disproportionate impact of the ozone depletion on southern hemisphere countries, particularly New Zealand and Australia, fr
115 aerokiwi : You asked - the reasons were explained. Feigning incredulity isn't going to progress things.
116 cmf : But there is no depletion of the southern hemisphere, at least not from Freon. It is just science fiction, way to uncertain to justify action, absolu
117 aerokiwi : The giant ozone hole above my head would suggest otherwise. Regardless, the point was the dangerous precedent set by extra-territorial punitive taxat
118 Post contains images mandala499 : Well, it's not an EU issue, it's an international issue. Why should I pay YOUR scheme for things I don't use over your territory? Can someone show me
119 mikey72 : In the past nations had the pitiful but still valid excuse of 'ignorance' with regard to the harm they were inflicting upon the planet. Present develo
120 Post contains links and images cmf : I thought the second paragraph would make it clear I was sarcastic. Of course there is a big giant hole causeing plenty of problems. But just as effe
121 Post contains images Rara : Quite the opposite. I demonstrated why non-EU airlines shouldn't be particularly concerned about ETS, and my reasoning was confirmed by other posters
122 windy95 : The industry is already doing that themselves. It saves huge amounts of money using less energy. They do not need some green tax to push them along.
123 cmf : Show how that reduces the total amount of CO2 pumped in to the air each year, remember total.
124 Post contains links and images something : It's not and no pushback will ensue. If oil is infinite, why does it cost money then? Contrails have a much worse effect on the temperature than gree
125 BMI727 : Definitely take the car. So the Chinese and Americans are mad over nothing then? It's really a shame that we even have to discuss whether levying a t
126 something : And I say the future of air travel is unicorn-back-riding. Problem solved.
127 Post contains images mandala499 : MANY THANKS for that ! I guess the next step in the test is, when someone else apply a similar scheme... everyone would still complain, but, if that
128 coolfish1103 : They should just ban or make a surcharge for all flights to EU that operates aircraft with inefficient fuel usage. The smaller the aircraft is, the he
129 BMI727 : How can you profess to be so knowledgeable about such matters but then demonstrate yourself to have so little understanding of how oil depletion will
130 flyguy89 : Well the only real solution to this is decreasing the amount of flying being done which I don't believe in. Perhaps I'm biased because I love flying
131 cmf : Aviation is the second biggest sector in EU ETS.
132 Rara : Is that really so? We know that aviation's share of CO2 emissions is about 3% to 6%, but is its share of GDP really higher than that? I have no idea,
133 UALWN : Sorry, what's the global warming scam? Please, do pass the news to the hordes of American turists who invade Barcelona on their way to their Mediterr
134 Post contains links something : And that doesn't even account for the effects that contrails have on global warming. There's a very interesting study conducted over the three days a
135 Post contains links flyguy89 : The air transport industry has a global economic impact of 3.5 trillion dollars or 7.5% of GDP, generating over 32 million jobs globally. And as thes
136 Rara : From your own source (page 5): Per the IPCC, aviation contributed about 3.5% of global climate change in 2005 (http://www.grida.no/publications/other
137 flyguy89 : I don't know where you found that, but right on page 4 it states: "Aviation’s global economic impact (direct, indirect, induced and catalytic) is e
138 cmf : It also says "direct, indirect, induced and catalytic" to get to those numbers. If you look at employment numbers it says "The air transport industry
139 flyguy89 : No, you're not thinking this through, they're factoring sectors related to and dependent on aviation, so the jobs they're counting would NOT still ex
140 cmf : Seriously. 17.1 million tourist jobs would disappear. Of course not. People will still go on vacations. They will just do it closer to where they res
141 Post contains links Pu : Incorrect! The national debt of the US is around 62%. The US debt held by the public is found here and does not include intragovernmental holdings, w
142 UALWN : The outstanding national debt of the US is over 90% of GDP. And yes, that includes intragovernmental holdings, as it does for European countries. Oth
143 flyguy89 : It's still not an apt comparison, the US has a single federal constitution that very clearly details the delegated and concurrent powers of the state
144 Rara : However that may be, it's not relevant, because you would then also have to include the emissions from these "catalytic effects". The IPCC numbers ar
145 UALWN : He was talking about economy, not constitutional balance of power between federal government and the states. But, in any case, in the case of Europe,
146 flyguy89 : Yes I know and it's still not an apt comparison as an important factor when it comes to a unified economy is stability. I don't think anyone particul
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...
EU Blacklist Update Published posted Wed Jul 4 2007 13:25:40 by BuyantUkhaa
Connection In MUC? Schengen Vs EU posted Tue Sep 26 2006 02:51:32 by BDL2DCA
US LCCs Vs. EU LCC's Why The Difference? posted Wed May 11 2005 15:43:42 by N1120A
A Vs B Fleets US Vs EU posted Sat Feb 19 2005 21:40:16 by Geoffm
Air China Vs. China Airlines posted Mon Oct 11 2004 05:32:55 by Mike77
USA's LCCs Vs. EU's LCCs posted Thu Mar 18 2004 02:46:14 by Graham697
Taiwan Vs China Vs Boeing posted Tue Aug 19 2003 15:14:21 by Stboao
US Vs EU Medium Haul Flights posted Wed Apr 12 2000 18:26:42 by Sndp
Key West Delta Vs. AirTran Update posted Sun Jun 6 2010 08:33:01 by JBAirwaysFan
China Eastern And Shanghai Air Update posted Sun Jul 12 2009 20:08:03 by AA1818
China International Airlines Routes Update posted Sat Jan 17 2009 20:06:34 by YVR1968
EU Blacklist Update Published posted Wed Jul 4 2007 13:25:40 by BuyantUkhaa
Connection In MUC? Schengen Vs EU posted Tue Sep 26 2006 02:51:32 by BDL2DCA
US LCCs Vs. EU LCC's Why The Difference? posted Wed May 11 2005 15:43:42 by N1120A
A Vs B Fleets US Vs EU posted Sat Feb 19 2005 21:40:16 by Geoffm
Air China Vs. China Airlines posted Mon Oct 11 2004 05:32:55 by Mike77
USA's LCCs Vs. EU's LCCs posted Thu Mar 18 2004 02:46:14 by Graham697
Taiwan Vs China Vs Boeing posted Tue Aug 19 2003 15:14:21 by Stboao
US Vs EU Medium Haul Flights posted Wed Apr 12 2000 18:26:42 by Sndp