Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
India To Urge Airlines To Opt Out Of EU Carbon Sch  
User currently offlinecoolum From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4054 times:

As a follow on from the China post - China 'blocks Airbus Deals' In EU Carbon Levy Spat (by gytr31 Mar 8 2012 in Civil Aviation)

As expected, it now seems India is gearing up it's own retaliation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...-eu-emission-idUSBRE82J0D320120320

I definitely think its going to get a lot worse, before the situation is resolved amicably.


Coolum
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3588 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3944 times:

I agree with you, it is likely to get much uglier.

I wonder if Russia, like India, might also prohibit overflight rights if the EU persists?


User currently offlinecoolum From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3609 times:

India has now made things official.

This was probably inevitable.

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/busin...s-from-paying-eu-carbon-tax/506698



Coolum
User currently offlineju068 From Serbia, joined Aug 2009, 2579 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3563 times:

I guess that when it comes to destroying EU's competitiveness there is no match for Brussels.
It is really good to see that India and China are together when it comes to this scam.


User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1113 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

Quoting coolum (Reply 2):
India has now made things official.

So two countries representing 40% of the world's population are not complying. Kudos to them. My own little country did not dare to impose a similar ban, but if the momentum begins to spread, who knows.

I suppose the Indians have little to loose. Banned from flying to Europe? Might as well, given their financial situation. Countering it by banning EU carriers into India would be an interesting event to watch.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31660 posts, RR: 56
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3248 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 4):
Countering it by banning EU carriers into India would be an interesting event to watch.

As Usual Economics will determine policy  



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Russia, the Middle East, US, and Canada need to join in on this developing global protest of ETS. But I don't see the US joining until after the Presidential election in November.

User currently offlinesbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 834 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3194 times:

I understand people's anger at the ETS but cannot fathom why it seems ok for certain countires (read USA) to imporse worldwide fees on airlines (9/11 security fee) demand informaiton (passenger manifest etc) and that is deemed OK.

When it comes down to it BOTH are just ways of increasing government coffers or am I missing something?



The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2113 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3156 times:

Quoting sbworcs (Reply 7):
I understand people's anger at the ETS but cannot fathom why it seems ok for certain countires (read USA) to imporse worldwide fees on airlines (9/11 security fee) demand informaiton (passenger manifest etc) and that is deemed OK.

When it comes down to it BOTH are just ways of increasing government coffers or am I missing something?

It is not that there is a fee, it is the way that it is implemented that is upsetting everyone, as they see it as an attack on sovereignty. The ETS is based on distance flown and includes distance in which the aircraft is not in EU airspace. Other nations see that as taxing the airline in another country's airspace, hence the argument on attack on sovereignty. If the fee was based on just how long the aircraft was in EU airspace, or just a flat increase in departure taxes, there would be much less of an uproar among the international community (although EU carriers understandably would not be happy).

The 9/11 security fee is just a usage fee, like landing or airspace fees, and applies equally to everyone no matter where they are flying too. Countries also have the right to have have their own entrance requirements, hence the information that the US demands is generally (begrudgingly) accepted.


User currently offlinejayeshrulz From India, joined Apr 2007, 1027 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2886 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 8):
The 9/11 security fee is just a usage fee,

This might sound naive, but what is this fee about? Using the security at the airport?



Keep flying, because the sky is no limit!
User currently offlineRaptor1090 From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2011, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 4):

I suppose the Indians have little to loose. Banned from flying to Europe? Might as well, given their financial situation. Countering it by banning EU carriers into India would be an interesting event to watch.

Well the Mid-East carriers would benefit from that. :P
Emirates anyways seems to be the de-facto airline of India.


User currently offlineAirIndia From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1631 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting Raptor1090 (Reply 10):
Well the Mid-East carriers would benefit from that. :P
Emirates anyways seems to be the de-facto airline of India.

EK stands to gain nothing unless the bilaterals are revised. Perhaps a ban on EU carriers will be a good yardstick to push for more rights.

Anyways Ajit Singh has told EK that for 6 months the indian carriers will be asked to utilise their capacity to DXB and post tha any further discussion on expansion might happen.
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/e...-indian-aviation-pie/1/179015.html


User currently offlineRaptor1090 From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2011, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2575 times:

Quoting AirIndia (Reply 11):
EK stands to gain nothing unless the bilaterals are revised. Perhaps a ban on EU carriers will be a good yardstick to push for more rights.

Higher LFs maybe? Just an extra 5-10% load would make a huge difference in net income.


User currently offline4tet From Spain, joined Sep 2007, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

This tax is useless, it won't really help to reduce emissions.

Again the UE bureucrats is screwing things... I could understand this, if all this money went to offset carbon emissions, invested directly in renewable energies or 'setting up' new forests...but who knows where this money will go... THAT IS THE PROBLEM!


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Quoting 4tet (Reply 13):
This tax is useless, it won't really help to reduce emissions.

Again the UE bureucrats is screwing things... I could understand this, if all this money went to offset carbon emissions, invested directly in renewable energies or 'setting up' new forests...but who knows where this money will go... THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

It's not a tax, it's a hard limit on carbon emissions. The total number is set, and one airline can then buy more credits from another airline, or another business, if they need more. If they need less, they can sell the remainder off. So that's where the money goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading

New forests or renewable energies have nothing to do with it.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2449 times:

Quoting 4tet (Reply 13):
I could understand this, if all this money went to offset carbon emissions, invested directly in renewable energies or 'setting up' new forests...but who knows where this money will go... THAT IS THE PROBLEM!

But that is exactly what the revenues generated are being used for.

Quote:

Use auction revenues to adapt to climate change in the EU and reduce emissions in developing countries
MEPs want to channel the ETS auction revenues - which, according to Commission estimates could amount to around EUR €50 billion annually by 2020 - to pay for climate change protection measures. They say that at least 50 % (as opposed to the 20% proposed by the Commission) of these revenues should be paid into a dedicated international fund, which invests in projects in developing countries to help, for example, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to reverse deforestation. The remaining auction revenues should also be used to fund climate change projects inside the EU, say MEPs, thus helping Member States to adapt to climate change or to fund research and development.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...M-PRESS&reference=20081006IPR38798



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinelijnden From Netherlands, joined Apr 2003, 561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi Rara,

How can you say it is not a tax?
There is money to be paid (=tax) and yes, the EU is the one that will reach out and grabs all the proceeds.
This whole green trading thing is nothing else than a scam based upon direct and indirect taxes.



Be kind to animals!
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2412 times:

Quoting lijnden (Reply 16):

Hi Rara,

How can you say it is not a tax?

Hair splitting. There are several different legal and economic definitions of the term ''tax''.

For all of you who have a genuine interest in finding out a bit more about the background and how the ETS works, I'd like to recommend the following link

http://www.sandbag.org.uk/site_media...oads/Sandbag_Aviation_Briefing.pdf

For those who just ''feel'' that the ETS is wrong, nothing to see here, moving on.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1947 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

The EU's idea is great in theory, terrible in practice. Imposing taxes ultra vires is generally casus belli for an escalating trade war.

Why can't the EU simply impose the scheme on its own airlines domestically and impose some kind of fee scheme for transiting airlines? The current proposal smacks of a revenue grab, with the vague excuse that should other countries choose to impose their own taxes, the EU will cede their share. So in other words, "Till you tax your airlines, we'll tax them." Yeah, that's not likely to get other governments excited.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3588 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

Quoting something (Reply 17):
For those who just ''feel'' that the ETS is wrong, nothing to see here, moving on.

For those of you who just "feel" that the ETS is right, nothing to see here, just move along.

Quoting something (Reply 17):
Hair splitting. There are several different legal and economic definitions of the term ''tax''.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...and raising 50 billion euros is not a tax...you are really funny, you seem to be able to contort your logic to fit any possible shape.

The problem with ETS on international aviation has nothing to do with either climate change or taxes, it is because it is in direct contravention with the international treaties and agreements signed by the EU member nations.

If the EU countries do not want to follow along with their agreements, they should renounce the agreements. They are tryint to have their cake and eat it too.


User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2048 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2340 times:

Quoting YTZ (Reply 18):

Why can't the EU simply impose the scheme on its own airlines domestically and impose some kind of fee scheme for transiting airlines? The current proposal smacks of a revenue grab, with the vague excuse that should other countries choose to impose their own taxes, the EU will cede their share. So in other words, "Till you tax your airlines, we'll tax them." Yeah, that's not likely to get other governments excited.

How would it be any better if "some kind of fee" was levied on non-EU airlines, as you suggest? Do you think all the people who now shout " OMG it's a tax, it's a tax" would then go "oh, it's just a fee, so that's okay"?

Also, non-EU airlines would likely complain that while EU airlines can avoid buying credits by becoming more efficient, the "fee-paying" airlines wouldn't be able to, even if they did become more efficient.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineCricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2966 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2280 times:

Our government grew balls? Who would have thunk it?

But seriously good on them, because ETS is quite an imperialist tax scheme and stinks frankly of something they would have done a century ago. Given the perilous condition of the Eurozone economy, it shouldn't be too difficult to get the folks there to change their minds!



A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
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...
Fedex To Start Service Out Of OXC? posted Mon Sep 13 2010 15:05:53 by boeing71234567
JetBlue To Begin Flying Out Of LAX posted Wed Jan 28 2009 19:12:05 by Platinumfoota
NW Metal To DL Metal Out Of ATL posted Tue Dec 2 2008 06:00:15 by MSYtristar
LH To Operate 6 A319's Out Of Milan posted Thu Sep 11 2008 06:05:08 by Beaucaire
Skybus To Double Flights Out Of PGD On 1/15/2008 posted Sat Dec 29 2007 12:12:16 by KarlB737
What Is The Largest A/C To Fly In/out Of DCA? posted Wed May 9 2007 03:33:51 by 777fan
JetBlue To Go P2P Out Of SLC? posted Wed Apr 25 2007 01:42:05 by FCYTravis
Air Paradise To Be Resurrected Out Of DPS posted Sun Nov 5 2006 08:02:08 by Jimyvr
TransStates Ordered To Keep Flying Out Of COU posted Sun Apr 23 2006 18:17:44 by KarlB737
Californian Woman To Build House Out Of 747 posted Thu Apr 20 2006 16:26:57 by Cloudyapple