Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
EU 'Suspends' ETS  
User currently offlinetimboflier215 From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 1336 posts, RR: 1
Posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks ago) and read 1184 times:

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I haven't seen a topic on it.

Apparently, the EU has 'suspended' the ETS for one year, according to the linked BBC article.

Seems the political pressure paid off - will this pave the way for further A380 orders from China do we think? Are the various air rights disputes likely to be resolved? Is a one year suspension enough of a concession?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20299388

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25166 posts, RR: 48
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

There was a story about this last week.

Basically things are placed on hold until September 2013 awaiting ICAO draft measure which could be adopted by the UN general assembly next year.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19215 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

Seems it's only for "foreign" airlines. Per Flightglobal: "operators for flights within the EU will still be required to fulfil their obligations, as previously instructed."

Also:

The European Union is willing to exclude intercontinental flights from the bloc's Emissions Trading System (ETS) until October 2013 as a "gesture of good faith" to help finding a global solution.

Connie Hedegaard, EU commissioner for climate action, has recommended that the union's 27 member states "stop the clock" for flights to and from locations outside the EU until after the next general assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in October 2013.

If no global solution can be found during the one-year timeframe, however, the EU ETS would "automatically" apply again for the respective flights.

Airbus welcomed the EU's proposal. Fabrice Brégier, the airframer's chief executive, says that the "positive cooperation" between ICAO and the European Commission is a "real chance to make progress on a worldwide agreement on aviation CO2 emissions".

[Edited 2012-11-12 08:54:20]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

It only applies for Intercontinental flights.

Flights within the EU will still have to comply with ETS.


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12436 posts, RR: 37
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):
If no global solution can be found during the one-year timeframe, however, the EU ETS would "automatically" apply again for the respective flights.

And if they try to pull that one again, sanctions would immediately be applied. I think intercontinental ETS is as good as dead now; China, the US, Russia and other countries (how well the EU unites the world - against them!) would communicate their intention in no uncertain terms to apply serious sanctions and limits, possibly also blocks on Airbus sales. Unless their seriously inept or stupid, they won't go down this road again.

Thank goodness the EU has finally landed on Planet Reality.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

I'm surprised. I thought ETS would have died before it began, but after lasting so long, I thought it was here to stay...


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineaznmadsci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3662 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1189 times:

Quoting clydenairways (Reply 3):
It only applies for Intercontinental flights.

Flights within the EU will still have to comply with ETS.

So does this effect LA, SQ, and a few other airlines that do 5th freedom flights within the EU?



The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8319 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1189 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):
Thank goodness the EU has finally landed on Planet Reality.

And I'm am waiting to see fares drop since the biggest complaint from airlines was that they had to raise fares and thta would cause them to lose passengers. I won't hold my breath on that one.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3971 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A nice move that allows everyone to come away with their head high.

The EU claims it is getting what it wanted all along, an ICAO-level solution (to be fair, they did ask for one for years), and if it is indeed within sight, it would be stupid to dump more oil on the fire now.

Opponents can claim they killed the ETS as far as it relates to long-distance flights, despite very strong resolve from the EU.

So everyone walks away happy.



I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineJU068 From Vanuatu, joined Aug 2009, 2609 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1187 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I guess Turkish Airlines is the biggest winner here.

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8319 posts, RR: 10
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 1186 times:

Quoting JU068 (Reply 9):
I guess Turkish Airlines is the biggest winner here.

Or loser, depending on how you look at it. Of the large European carriers, they would not have been subjected to ETS since they are not in the EU, and if you believe the industry, would have had a financial advantage over the competition (i.e. AF, LH, BA). Also IST would have been a prefered hub over other EU hubs. Again, if you believe the industry.


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1186 times:

Quoting timboflier215 (Thread starter):
Seems the political pressure paid off

No. It was stated explicitly that the reason for the temporary suspension are ''encouraging developments at ICAO''. This doesn't mean ''no more ets'', it means ''ets for everyone''. It stands to reason that whatever it is ICAO will be implementing will be a lot softer on the airlines than the current ETS, but something is going to happen. And if it doesn't, then ETS is back in its original form.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinePlane Holland From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1186 times:

Quoting kaitak (Reply 4):

Thank goodness the EU has finally landed on Planet Reality.


Really, do you think they did? The EU is all about taxing the hell out of everyone. Being Dutch I know all about it.. This was a stupid plan, being about saving the environment, reducing co2 etc.. In the end none of that money is spent on a better climate, it all goes to Brussels.


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting Plane Holland (Reply 12):
In the end none of that money is spent on a better climate, it all goes to Brussels.

Care to substantiate such claims?



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

To all those who think ETS is dead, I think you're wrong.. If ICAO comes up with an own solution, the EU got what it wanted all along. But that's a big if. Presumably there won't be any solution at ICAO levels and ETS will be back next year - then the whole things starts all over.

If the Chinese are smart, they'll order some A380 bait now, just to say "see how much money you can make if you play along nicely"?



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2618 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

This is a more sensible approach - we suspend intercontinental ETS (not willingly of course, but due to all the pressure), and put more pressure on finding an ICAO solution - if you manage to agree at ICAO level, we'll drop it at EU level. But intercontinental ETS is not over, this is just a new chapter in the political game.

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9330 posts, RR: 29
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 14):
To all those who think ETS is dead, I think you're wrong.. If ICAO comes up with an own solution, the EU got what it wanted all along.

basically you are roight, but when ICAO has a solution, that solution must be discussed and ratified by all countries before it becomes effective.

One can bet the life income that this will never happen within a year. China and the USA will not change theoir views and if at all, the outcome will be a scaled down version oif what the EU intended. This kind of modern indulgence trade is viewed differently by countries outside the EU and that is good.

The only bitter pill is, that this taxation is carried on inside the EU and feeder flights to hubs are still affected, whereas some carriers who serve their outside the EU hubs are still at a huge advantage.

Looks like the EU commission does not want to understand how aviation works.



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, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1187 times:

Quoting timboflier215 (Thread starter):
will this pave the way for further A380 orders from China do we think
Quoting Rara (Reply 14):
If the Chinese are smart, they'll order some A380 bait now

TBH, this is unlikely. CZ is still finding it challenging to operate A380s, CA and MU both have large 77W/748i orders. I think Airbus orders from China will be predominantly narrowbodies with a modest number of A330s and maybe A350s.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
the outcome will be a scaled down version oif what the EU intended.

As I said a few times before, I am puzzled by what EU wanted to achieve with the ETS when applied to aviation. I am all for progress on pollution reduction and I applaud the initiative although I personally doubt environmental concern is major driving force. However, the execution of this ETS was so naive it almost makes one think "are they serious?". It is hard to believe that those who come up with the specific terms of the ETS actually thought had any chance of implementing the policy without countries like China and the US going up in arms.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9330 posts, RR: 29
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 17):
As I said a few times before, I am puzzled by what EU wanted to achieve with the ETS when applied to aviation

There are million of people running around in Europe who believe that avisation is one of the biggest climate killers. That's hysteria brought upon by politicians who need an issue they can ride on winning them elections.

That airlines who have to pay that and possible cannot hand down the full costs to the passengers due to competition (another item these politicians do not understand because many never really worked outside their field) leads to such matters. Modern indulgence trade 500 years after Martin Luther. Money rippd off and going into black holes. Even well managed carriers are struggling these days, the money would better be invested in modern aircraft.

We may not hear it from Brussels, but I think the fact that China threatened to cancel large Airbus orders is direct connected to the "temporary" withdrawal. Which is half hearted only since we still have to pay this non-sense on European flights.



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 offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 16):
China and the USA will not change theoir views and if at all, the outcome will be a scaled down version oif what the EU intended.

Apparently the US has been one of the driving factors behind this re-negotiation. Possibly because they've had the most to lose and know full well that anything ICAO draws up will be cheaper than ETS.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 17):
It is hard to believe that those who come up with the specific terms of the ETS actually thought had any chance of implementing the policy without countries like China and the US going up in arms.

Europe is a very rich continent and that's why people here can lavishly afford ideologies. Will be interesting to see for how much longer.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7148 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1184 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):
says that the "positive cooperation" between ICAO and the European Commission is a "real chance to make progress on a worldwide agreement on aviation CO2 emissions".[

I thought the EU bought in the ETS because they could not get ICAO on their side and stated that the change was needed immediately to protect the European climate from further damage, I may have read wrong.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
And I'm am waiting to see fares drop since the biggest complaint from airlines was that they had to raise fares and thta would cause them to lose passengers.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
I won't hold my breath on that one.

Agree, holding your breath will kill you, I held mine when oil fell and the surcharge stayed on longer than I could 
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
There are million of people running around in Europe who believe that avisation is one of the biggest climate killers.

If the number is that high who is complaining about the cost you mention below?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
Which is half hearted only since we still have to pay this non-sense on European flights.
Quoting something (Reply 19):
Apparently the US has been one of the driving factors behind this re-negotiation. Possibly because they've had the most to lose

How so, I was under the impression that the majority of pax flying TATL was being done on non-USA carriers with superior service and new and efficient wide body a/c.


User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1184 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 20):
Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
Which is half hearted only since we still have to pay this non-sense on European flights.
Quoting something (Reply 19):
Apparently the US has been one of the driving factors behind this re-negotiation. Possibly because they've had the most to lose

How so, I was under the impression that the majority of pax flying TATL was being done on non-USA carriers with superior service and new and efficient wide body a/c.

Out of all the non EU countries that'd be affected by the ETS, the US carriers have by far the largest presence in Europe. They have more flights to Europe than Chinese or Indian airlines for example.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7148 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1184 times:

Quoting something (Reply 21):
Out of all the non EU countries that'd be affected by the ETS, the US carriers have by far the largest presence in Europe. They have more flights to Europe than Chinese or Indian airlines for example.

Ok, so you are looking at number of airlines per country, fine. I am under the impression that the market will bear the brunt, no airline will pax this tax, the pax will and since it is going to the government.
Since the tyax applies equally to carriers from both sides what is primary is who takes the bulk of the pax, they will be the first to determine whether it has an effect on pax numbers.


User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1184 times:

Having recently priced airfare to Europe from the USA, it amazed me that FARE was 380, and the TAXES were around 600 dollars. What happened to "USD 3 Departure Tax?"


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1183 times:

Quoting something (Reply 19):
Europe is a very rich continent and that's why people here can lavishly afford ideologies. Will be interesting to see for how much longer.

European economy is still threatening to drag the whole world down, isn't now the worst time for such a project? Greece, Spain etc are having massive problems.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 18):
I think the fact that China threatened to cancel large Airbus orders is direct connected to the "temporary" withdrawal.

  
The execution of this policy is riddled with almost comical flaws.
If the scheme is really aimed at reducing pollution, why not set up a fund that directly supports clean/renewable energy, improving energy efficiency etc., rather than letting the income flow into the "general" fund?
Why attract unnecessary sovereignty controversy by insisting on taxing the whole trip over territory that EU has no jurisdiction over (The ECJ ruling on this issue is so unbecoming I am even going to comment on it)? Why not simply charge a tax (they can even have rate A for intra-Europe flight and rate B for intercontinental flight)?
Why adopt the "grandfather principle" so that historical big polluters are rewarded with higher quota?
Why adopt an aggressive attitude and refuse to budge an inch while countries like China hold all the cards?
It seems to me EU wanted to grab some cash while establishing itself as the leader of environmental protection. However, it picked the wrong fight at the wrong time.


User currently offlineEI564 From Ireland, joined May 2007, 373 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1255 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 24):
If the scheme is really aimed at reducing pollution, why not set up a fund that directly supports clean/renewable energy, improving energy efficiency etc., rather than letting the income flow into the "general" fund?
Why attract unnecessary sovereignty controversy by insisting on taxing the whole trip over territory that EU has no jurisdiction over (The ECJ ruling on this issue is so unbecoming I am even going to comment on it)? Why not simply charge a tax (they can even have rate A for intra-Europe flight and rate B for intercontinental flight)?
Why adopt the "grandfather principle" so that historical big polluters are rewarded with higher quota?
Why adopt an aggressive attitude and refuse to budge an inch while countries like China hold all the cards?
It seems to me EU wanted to grab some cash while establishing itself as the leader of environmental protection. However, it picked the wrong fight at the wrong time.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what ETS is doing.

1) The income doesn't go into a general fund. Or at least, not the majority of it (as far as I know). Industries sell allowances if they have managed to reduce their emissions.
2) If the fee is to be in anyway effective, it has to apply for the full length of the trip. Otherwise, you aren't going to have to pay anything for the most substantial part of your journey (if you are flying long haul). The fact that they have postponed the introduction of this doesn't change that fact.
3) A number of countries already have a tax based on length of journey (although normally there is only a limited number of bands). That hasn't caused such upset in China, Russia etc.
4) The biggest emitters had to be awarded the biggest quotas. How else could they do it? An airline with a 10% market share, surely deserves 10 times more of the quota than an airline that has a 1% market share?
5) They did budge an inch when they got some traction from ICAO.

I'm sure the EU could have done this better but their is a definite logic to what they did do.


User currently offlineRickNRoll From Afghanistan, joined Jan 2012, 813 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1246 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
And I'm am waiting to see fares drop since the biggest complaint from airlines was that they had to raise fares and thta would cause them to lose passengers. I won't hold my breath on that one.

The impact on fares is minimal, and it is the result of policies to mediate a climate problem that has been discovered as teh result of scientific research. Removing the ETS is just self defeating and flying in the face of globally accepted scientific research.


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 728 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1271 times:

Quoting EI564 (Reply 25):
The income doesn't go into a general fund.

Not what Scott Hamilton seems to believe.
http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2012...now-but-says-it-didnt-really-cave/
Happy to be proven wrong though.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 25):
If the fee is to be in anyway effective, it has to apply for the full length of the trip. Otherwise, you aren't going to have to pay anything for the most substantial part of your journey (if you are flying long haul).

I don't disagree in principle. However, until the world exist without borders, the EU should have no say over what an US plane is doing over US territory.
Let's say the EU wants to curb illegal drug supply. A very effective way is to remove/destroy drug production in certain other countries. However, to do that the EU will have to obtain cooperation from the law enforcement agencies of these countries. Similar situation here.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 25):
A number of countries already have a tax based on length of journey (although normally there is only a limited number of bands)

Neither should it. You will notice I actually advocated for such a tax. The major difference is that such tax is only dependent on the start/destination of the flight. To put it into perspective, compare two hypothetical flights A and B both from FRA to PEK. Flight A goes via the normal route while Flight B regularly spends 3 hours doing 360 over Chinese territory. With the tax the charge will be the same, with the current scheme the charge will be different. However, it shouldn't be since what the plane does over Chinese territory is a matter between the Chinese regulatory authority and the airline. The EU has no right to exert any influence over this section of the flight if the plane does not belong to an EU airline.


Quoting EI564 (Reply 25):
The biggest emitters had to be awarded the biggest quotas. How else could they do it? An airline with a 10% market share, surely deserves 10 times more of the quota than an airline that has a 1% market share?

As I proposed in another thread. No quota, you emit you pay. After all, an airline with a 10% market share emits 10 times more than an airline that has a 1% market share. However, this will never fly because AF/LH etc will be up in arms.

Quoting EI564 (Reply 25):
I'm sure the EU could have done this better but their is a definite logic to what they did do

I am not so sure, I think they tried to have the cake and eat it too. In the end, they have to beat a rather ignominious retreat, an entirely predictable outcome. In fact, I am a little surprised they managed to hang on for so long.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 28, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1249 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 24):
The execution of this policy is riddled with almost comical flaws.

At least when you look at it like the devil reads the bible.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 24):
If the scheme is really aimed at reducing pollution, why not set up a fund that directly supports clean/renewable energy, improving energy efficiency etc., rather than letting the income flow into the "general" fund?

If? How can you have any doubt? It sets a cap. Each year the cap is lowered. It means the companies included in ETS must lower their emissions or pay someone to do it in their place.

That money is going in to a general fund is a red herring. Simple fact is that earmarked money is very inefficient. Reality is that enormous amounts of money are set aside for those tasks already. So not only is it not how reduction is achieved but the tasks you suggest is already covered.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 24):
Why attract unnecessary sovereignty controversy by insisting on taxing the whole trip over territory that EU has no jurisdiction over (The ECJ ruling on this issue is so unbecoming I am even going to comment on it)? Why not simply charge a tax (they can even have rate A for intra-Europe flight and rate B for intercontinental flight)?

It isn't unnecessary. It is what it took to make "head in the sand countries" to stop stalling ICAO from doing it's mandated job.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 24):
Why adopt the "grandfather principle" so that historical big polluters are rewarded with higher quota?

Because it is the right thing to do.

If they had done as you suggest we would no doubt have a lot of objectors instead complaining about not having a grandfather principle. Put simply, it is needed to smooth the transition. It is also why the cap is lowered each year instead of set at the level it needs to be year 1.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 24):
Why adopt an aggressive attitude and refuse to budge an inch while countries like China hold all the cards?

Major fallacy: China does not hold all cards.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 24):
It seems to me EU wanted to grab some cash while establishing itself as the leader of environmental protection. However, it picked the wrong fight at the wrong time.

They are not grabbing cash. With very few exemptions credits have not generated government revenue up till now and much more money is spent on environmental issues than is coming in. So please support the money grab statement with numbers.

But you are right about the timing. It should have happened some 20 years ago.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7148 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1244 times:

Quoting EI564 (Reply 25):
2) If the fee is to be in anyway effective, it has to apply for the full length of the trip. Otherwise, you aren't going to have to pay anything for the most substantial part of your journey (if you are flying long haul)

Which to a large degree is illogical, unless one is looking at moving the world towards a colony system again.
If the majority of the long haul trip is outside of EU jurisdiction why must the EU collect a fee on that portion of the trip to make the fee effective, what is the fee actually about, punishment or collecting as much funds as possible?
Is it a case os saying that since you must come to Europe we will collect a fee on the entire trip?

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 27):
However, until the world exist without borders, the EU should have no say over what an US plane is doing over US territory.
Quoting Cerecl (Reply 27):
Let's say the EU wants to curb illegal drug supply. A very effective way is to remove/destroy drug production in certain other countries. However, to do that the EU will have to obtain cooperation from the law enforcement agencies of these countries. Similar situation here.

The EU does not agree with the Death Penalty so any extradiction to the USA of a murder suspect must be done against the wishes of the American people and their government, the EU has that power since the suspect is under their control.
A cleric is free in England now because their legal system say the suspect will not get a fair trial in the Middle East, I need to research more to see if the court is also mandating that the trial be held in the UK, just letting the suspect live free with no date for his trial seems weird.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3928 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1244 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 27):
The EU has no right to exert any influence over this section of the flight if the plane does not belong to an EU airline.

If the airline does business in the EU, the EU has every right to do whatever it wants until that airline ceases to to business within the EU, within the bounds of international treaties.

Same reason the US gets to fine British Airways $300Million for price fixing, $250,000 for fare advertising issues and Royal Jordanian Airlines, EgyptAir, and Royal Air Maroc various large sums for non-compliance of passenger protection rules - they all operated to and from the US.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9330 posts, RR: 29
Reply 31, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1243 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 30):
If the airline does business in the EU, the EU has every right to do whatever it wants until that airline ceases to to business within the EU, within the bounds of international treaties.

The problem with that opinion is, that traffic rights are subject to reciprocal agreements, which, among many items, gives the foreign carrier immunity from taxation.

Technically, the airline does not do business in the EU (that would be cabotage) but from and to the EU.

Kerosine is not taxed for many good reasons, instead overfölight, ATC and weather, short, all way costs are paid by the airlines. That is mutually agreed and done so world wide. However, an ETS taxation is exactly what the swystem wanted to avoid from start, because it would not give equal opportunities.

This is demonstrated by China and the USA, passing legislation that prohobits their carriers from paying that tax.

Quoting moo (Reply 30):
Same reason the US gets to fine British Airways $300Million for price fixing,


That's a completely different can of worms. The carriers should have fought that in the courts, because an airfreight rate is made up of the rate charge, a security fee and a fuel surcharge. The latter 2 might be equal, that does not need fixing, the home carrier raises the fuel surcharge according to the oil market in the morning and the others follow suit at leisure. But at the end of the day the three components make up the total rate and the summary is different and competetive.

The other example, with the technical malfunctions, no coparison either as carriers must operate to the highest safety standards. This is the sovereign right of any country to enforce these rules.

Collecting taxes outside the countries border however cannot be a sovereign right because the sovereignty ends at national borders.



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 offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3928 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1242 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 31):
The problem with that opinion is, that traffic rights are subject to reciprocal agreements, which, among many items, gives the foreign carrier immunity from taxation.

Except it doesn't give them immunity at all - APD, local sales taxes etc etc all feature.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 31):
Technically, the airline does not do business in the EU (that would be cabotage) but from and to the EU.

Any airline that takes payment from an EU citizen and then provides them a service originating from, terminating inside of or wholly within the EU does business within the EU.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 31):
Collecting taxes outside the countries border however cannot be a sovereign right because the sovereignty ends at national borders.

But the taxation isn't being collected outside of any EU border. Many countries (including the US) levy taxes on profit made outside of their borders, this is little different.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 31):
This is demonstrated by China and the USA, passing legislation that prohobits their carriers from paying that tax.

And the airlines will have to suffer the problem of being between a rock and a hard place if one or the other doesn't relent - prohibiting them from paying the tax doesn't make them immune from the tax.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 33, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1243 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
Which to a large degree is illogical, unless one is looking at moving the world towards a colony system again.

There is nothing suggesting a colony system.

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
what is the fee actually about, punishment or collecting as much funds as possible?

Sorry to say but how can you be this ignorant after all information provided about ETS? It is about reducing emissions. It is not about punishment. It is not about collecting fees.

Quoting par13del (Reply 29):
Is it a case os saying that since you must come to Europe we will collect a fee on the entire trip?

It is a case of acknowledging that flight length is an important part of how much emissions are emitted.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 31):
Technically, the airline does not do business in the EU (that would be cabotage) but from and to the EU.

Technically ETS is about using an European airport.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 31):
This is demonstrated by China and the USA, passing legislation that prohobits their carriers from paying that tax.

By that logic the EU countries passing legislation demonstrate it does.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 31):
Collecting taxes outside the countries border however cannot be a sovereign right because the sovereignty ends at national borders

Which is why they are not collecting taxes outside their borders. Why flights overflying EU are no affected. Only planes landing in EU is affected.

However, don't forget that many countries do collect on things happening outside their territory.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9330 posts, RR: 29
Reply 34, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1244 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 32):
Except it doesn't give them immunity at all - APD, local sales taxes etc etc all feature.

Which is handed down to the passengers. Sales Tax (VAT) for instance is not levied on air fares in Europe. Not even on domestic parts of international traffic. A pax from HAM to FRA travelling domestic pays 19% VAT on the fare, a pax changing to an international flight pays zero

Quoting moo (Reply 32):
Any airline that takes payment from an EU citizen and then provides them a service originating from, terminating inside of or wholly within the EU does business within the EU.

We are talking about third country tragffic here, since the ETS is not abolished for intra European fights. Airlines flying from a EU country to a third country do not do business within the EU

Quoting moo (Reply 32):
But the taxation isn't being collected outside of any EU border. Many countries (including the US) levy taxes on profit made outside of their borders, this is little different.

The product is produced wholly outside the EU , hence no taxation. International airports are border points.

Quoting moo (Reply 32):
And the airlines will have to suffer the problem of being between a rock and a hard place if one or the other doesn't relent - prohibiting them from paying the tax doesn't make them immune from the tax.

and if a country wants it's home carrier getting crushed, with all the consequences that has for the domestic economy, they only need to introduce a stupid tax...



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 offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3928 posts, RR: 4
Reply 35, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1240 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):
Which is handed down to the passengers.

All taxes are ultimately handed down to passengers - its still up to the airlines to collect them.

With regard to the APD, the liability for it lies with the operator of the aircraft, *not* the passenger.

Quote:

1. Air passenger duty

This is due on take off from a UK airport of a chargeable aircraft. The liability of the tax lies with the operator of the aircraft and the amount due (subject to exemptions) is based on the number of chargeable passengers on board at the time of take off.
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/freedom/outbound-flights.htm

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):
Airlines flying from a EU country to a third country do not do business within the EU

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the whole "selling to EU citizens and picking them up or dropping them off at an EU airport" constituted "doing business within the EU". I must admit I can't possibly see how I got that wrong...

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 34):
The product is produced wholly outside the EU , hence no taxation.

This banana was "produced wholly outside the EU" and yet it still has import taxes and other taxation on it...

Any flight which originates within or lands within the EU is not "produced wholly outside of the EU".


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9330 posts, RR: 29
Reply 36, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1233 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 35):
All taxes are ultimately handed down to passengers - its still up to the airlines to collect them.

you mistake the passenger "taxes" which are airport fees and all kind of BS with profit or sales taxes, of which foreign carriers are excempt. Based on reciprocal agreements ratified.

Quoting moo (Reply 35):

This banana was "produced wholly outside the EU" and yet it still has import taxes and other taxation on it.

comparing apples and bananas. Bananas are imported and possibly subject to a quota. Import duty and VAT is charged to bananas when imported and ultimately paid by the buyer / consumer..

The product "ton or passenger kilometer" is a service produced outside Germany or the EU or Australia or whichever country and therefore not taxable.



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 offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 37, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 36):
The product "ton or passenger kilometer" is a service produced outside Germany or the EU or Australia or whichever country and therefore not taxable.

Since ETS isn't a tax that isn't a problem.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7148 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1229 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
It is about reducing emissions.

Ah, so one can expect all the technology exported to third world countries from the EU which create pollution to either cease or to have prices raised by additional taxes, or are we only concerned with air pollution?

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
It is a case of acknowledging that flight length is an important part of how much emissions are emitted.

So the EU is using its clout to ensure that the people in other countries over whom these a/c fly and are polluting the environment will get some protection, I thought you said colony is not involved, not only is the EU looking out for me but they are going to ensure that my carriers pay to protect me according to the EU dictates.

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
Technically ETS is about using an European airport.

I thought it was about what you listed above and below.

Quoting cmf (Reply 33):
It is a case of acknowledging that flight length is an important part of how much emissions are emitted.

As it relates to all the other threads on the ETS, I never accepted it and so far, a number of governments have not.
I had hoped that the EU would just go ahead and implement and not do this suspension, if they believe in it and think they are justified, go right ahead, let the chips fall where they may, if as they claim they have been pushing the world to do something and they did nothing, what has changed to warrant a suspension, I do not see any countires or carriers voicing support, so what is the souce of the optimism that all other countries are lining up to get onboard?


User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2168 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

In my humble opinion, this is a face-saving move. It seems as though the EU has realized that A) they're overstepping their jurisdiction (ie taxing outside of their borders) and B) this will ultimately cause more headaches than benefits reaped. I may be wrong, but I will be immensely surprised if the issue of ETS BEYOND European Union borders does not go away quietly.

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1212 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 38):
Ah, so one can expect all the technology exported to third world countries from the EU which create pollution to either cease or to have prices raised by additional taxes, or are we only concerned with air pollution?

???

Quoting par13del (Reply 38):
So the EU is using its clout to ensure that the people in other countries over whom these a/c fly and are polluting the environment will get some protection, I thought you said colony is not involved, not only is the EU looking out for me but they are going to ensure that my carriers pay to protect me according to the EU dictates.

This only affect flight going to or from EU. Fly over EU all you want but don't land and the flight isn't included in ETS. Still do not understand how you think that has anything to do with colonies?

Quoting par13del (Reply 38):
I thought it was about what you listed above and below.

Use a EU airport and you're included. That is the technicality that defines if the flight is included or not. Don't try to twist words.

Quoting par13del (Reply 38):
As it relates to all the other threads on the ETS, I never accepted it and so far, a number of governments have not.

And others have. Even some of the countries objecting to it impose fees in similar manner.

Quoting par13del (Reply 38):
I had hoped that the EU would just go ahead and implement and not do this suspension

I wish they had made it start 2014 so ICAO had their meeting set to handle the issue. With it starting 2012 I wish they had kept it up.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9330 posts, RR: 29
Reply 41, posted (1 year 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1202 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 37):
Since ETS isn't a tax that isn't a problem.

in a world where ., since ages the term "duty free" is abused, this is pure rhethorical. Whatever it is called, tax, duty excise etc., the effect is the same, a mandatory cash drain enforced with penalties if not paid voluntarily.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
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 A380 Rights To Shanghai Denied Due EU ETS posted Wed Mar 21 2012 07:18:37 by clydenairways
USA Vs. EU ETS posted Sun Jan 8 2012 10:22:15 by AeroBlogger
China Vs EU ETS Update posted Thu Jan 5 2012 01:25:30 by ChazPilot
EZJet Suspends All Operations posted Sat Nov 10 2012 17:33:23 by A340crew
Largest Airport For Intra-EU Passenger Traffic posted Mon Oct 29 2012 10:41:14 by factsonly
IB/I2 Suspends AMS, ARN, TXL posted Mon Oct 29 2012 08:36:02 by SCQ83
G4 Suspends IDA-OAK posted Tue Oct 23 2012 04:19:56 by ridgid727
EU Bans Syrian Air Aircraft posted Wed Oct 17 2012 16:21:58 by LAXintl
LH Shifts EU Non-Hub Flying To "New" Germanwings posted Thu Oct 11 2012 04:27:04 by r2rho
Strategic (EU) Just Went Belly Up... posted Thu Oct 11 2012 01:11:02 by DutchBoeing