Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Congress Passes Anti EU ETS Legislation  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25767 posts, RR: 50
Posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5351 times:

The US House of Representatives following a unanimous vote in the US Senate, yesterday passed legislation which would provide exemptions for US air carriers from participating in EU ETS regulations.

The bipartisan legislation know as the Thune-McCaskill European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act, mandates the US DOT to determine within 30-days the negative impact of participation in any EU ETS scheme on U.S. consumers, carriers, and operators, along with the economic, energy and environmental security of the US to help determine if the participation prohibition would be in the "public interest".

The DOT itself has strongly objected on legal and policy grounds to EU ETS and was supportive of Congressional action.

The bill now heads to the President for signature.

Stories:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alpa-a...uds-u-house-passage-233300375.html
http://www.europolitics.info/externa...anti-eu-ets-bill-art345046-44.html

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
200 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5374 times:

Reading the stories and the bill, this is *not* an exemption at all - its the authority to prohibit US airlines from partaking in the ETS, which doesn't solve the issue at all but rather puts the airlines in an extremely difficult position.

Aside from the situation with the ETS being "suspended" for a year for external airlines this week, all this bill is doing is basically trying to use domestic law to trump foreign law in its own jurisdiction, and basically forces the airlines to consider stopping flying to Europe - if they can't take part in the ETS, and the EU don't grant a permanent exemption, then US airlines cannot fly there due to the threat of punitive action from their own government.


User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 822 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5364 times:

Perhaps the US-airlines continue flying to Europe and just pay whatever they have to pay for partaking in the ETS. It might be more economical for them to pay ETS fee and the "partaking in the ETS system fee" compared to parking a huge number of aircraft.

I would really like to see that happen, it would be another excellent example of politicians messing up a situation that is none of their business, in this case decisions of foreign politicians. If ETS is a good thing or not and if it is acceptable to extend it to the airline industry is total different discussion and not the business of any US-American politician, especially because the system is fair and everyone has to pay the same amount regarding the sector lengths.


Too bad the EU stopped ETS for international flights outside the EU airspace today to wait for ICAO to implement their new system. It would have been a funny situation if the first US airline had to pay for flying to Europe and paying the ETS fee. That would have made the "Thune-McCaskill European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act" a good source of income for the US government and would have reduced the number of flying passengers even more. Can you imagine the outcry from airlines and media? Good to know that the politicians are as stupid over there as on our side of the Atlantic.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25767 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5361 times:

Actually its semantics.

The bill once enacted by the DOT would provide US airlines a legal "exemption" from participating in EU ETS.

This is something the US airlines have been asking for, and gives them the legal cover to stand behind.

The DOT previously had said they would "vigorously oppose" the implementation of the ETS, and this Congressional action gives it the added legal authority.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 822 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

No, they still have to pay or they are not allowed to Europe. They are just lucky now, that ETS was suspended to wait for ICAO to act.

User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5358 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
The bill once enacted by the DOT would provide US airlines a legal "exemption" from participating in EU ETS.

US legal exemptions do not have any standing in foreign countries tho - the EU would simply allow them to run up debts and then threaten to seize assets as payment. There is no legal requirement for the EU to accept the DOT "exemption", as its in a completely different jurisdiction.

The only way in which US airlines can comply is by not flying to the EU.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

This only makes it clear that the US government will side with the US airlines if and when there is a dispute with the EU concerning ETS. But certainly it doesn't "exempt" the US airlines from complying with ETS...


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 offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25767 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5355 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 5):
US legal exemptions do not have any standing in foreign countries

Certainly, but like many home country regulations it allows US airlines to be first bound by US regulations which presumably based on final DOT findings will not allow US airlines to participate in European ETS scheme.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Certainly, but like many home country regulations it allows US airlines to be first bound by US regulations which presumably based on final DOT findings will not allow US airlines to participate in European ETS scheme.

Yes, but that has no legal standing in other countries - the only solution is to not fly to the country of issue.

This isn't the equivalent of a high school gym session, where a note from your parents will get you out of it - the only way to legally get out of it is to abstain from the jurisdiction altogether.


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined exactly 10 years ago today! , 4405 posts, RR: 19
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 2):
I would really like to see that happen, it would be another excellent example of politicians messing up a situation that is none of their business, in this case decisions of foreign politicians. If ETS is a good thing or not and if it is acceptable to extend it to the airline industry is total different discussion and not the business of any US-American politician, especially because the system is fair and everyone has to pay the same amount regarding the sector lengths.

I disagree, this is a good example of American politicians standing up for legitimate American economic interests. The Europeans tried to impose their misguided will upon the entire world with the ETS scheme, and those countries with the economic might and imperative to stand up to the EU on this issue -- such as the USA and China -- have done so.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25767 posts, RR: 50
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
Yes, but that has no legal standing in other countries

By definition, US regulations don't have a standing in other countries, and frankly that is the same argument that EU ETS cannot tax for activities outside EU borders.

This act however provides guidance for the US industry that they don't need to continue play this game with EU governments and the US government will have their backs.

The EU is certainly free to impose what rules it decides inside member countries and US would need to comply to do business, but the notion of the EU dictating or measuring carbon output over the US, Canada, India, China or other nations is a rather bizarre notion and the center of the dispute.
Whats next - will EU seek to regulate power plants, or other industrial emissions in the US?



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5354 times:

Maybe EU can get some income from all that road traffic in US too   I think EU went too far and got a bloodied nose, now they know the world is not to be provoked like that again.

User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
The bill once enacted by the DOT would provide US airlines a legal "exemption" from participating in EU ETS.

The US can't do anything to legally exempt anyone from complying with another country's laws when in (or over) that country. That's called Chutzpah -- which is par for the course for Congress of course; they do this stuff all the time.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5355 times:

So, if US airlines stopped flying to Europe..... Are the European airlines still allowed to fly to the US because of this Act?


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 822 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
So, if US airlines stopped flying to Europe..... Are the European airlines still allowed to fly to the US because of this Act?

Why not? There is now law against the European airlines flying into the US, even if they participate in the ETS program. There is only a law now forbidding the US airlines paying the ETS fee creating a dilemma situation for them.


I am really shocked here seeing how many US-Americans really think decisions of their government have any influence on European or any other foreign law. If the US airlines want to fly to Europe they can either pay the ETS fees or ground their aircraft. Good job by the politicians. Not.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5354 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 14):

If the US airlines are not allowed to fly to Europe because of this Act, then the European airlines flying to the U.S. should not be allowed either...........

Seems fair to me.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 822 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5353 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 15):
If the US airlines are not allowed to fly to Europe because of this Act, then the European airlines flying to the U.S. should not be allowed either...........

Seems fair to me.

But that is not what the law is saying. That would need another law, which would never pass the Congress as it would financially destroy all European and US airlines.

And to get it right, the passed act is not forbidding the US airlines to fly to Europe, it is forbidding them to pay the ETS fees. But if they want to land in the EU, they have to pay the fee. This is called dilemma situation. If the EU wouldn't have changed the ETS concept yesterday the US airlines would have payed the ETS fee and the charge for paying the ETS fee to the US government.


You should see the ETS fees as an environmental landing fee. We are not complaining about other landing fees, too. Or high landing fees on US airports in the middle of the night for noise abating reasons.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
By definition, US regulations don't have a standing in other countries, and frankly that is the same argument that EU ETS cannot tax for activities outside EU borders.

To do business in the EU, you are obliged to follow EU rules. The EU won't tax you if you never step foot in their jurisdiction, but once you do then you had better cover your obligations.

The fact that you took off, landed or otherwise did business in the EU is more than enough to give them legal authority to tax you for anything they wish.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5353 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 16):
But that is not what the law is saying.

Where did I say that? I never said it was saying that. I was stating an opinion. Again, an OPINION.

Quoting CARST (Reply 16):
That would need another law, which would never pass the Congress as it would financially destroy all European and US airlines.

You never know. Congress can pass laws however they like. And I'm sure they won't be afraid to pass a law on an OPINION that I had earlier. It wouldn't financially destroy anyone to death.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5355 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 18):

Such a law would destroy the US at the WTO.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
Such a law would destroy the US at the WTO.

I disagree. The WTO does not set laws for the USA. Only Congress can do that.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5356 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 20):

The WTO sets the rules for international trade. Congress has to abide by international treaties as per your constitution. You voluntarily entered the WTO.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5355 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 21):

We can argue about this all day long.... U.S. can and will protect itself against unreasonable regulations if it harms self interests at home. I believe the Boeing-Airbus WTO fight proved this.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5355 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 15):
If the US airlines are not allowed to fly to Europe because of this Act, then the European airlines flying to the U.S. should not be allowed either...........

Now that's mature.

The EU has passed a law that applies to any airline flying to or over the EU. Does that sound familiar to Americans? The US also has laws that apply to any airline flying to or through the US. If you don't want to comply with US law, then don't fly to or over the US. If you don't want to comply with EU law, then don't fly to or through EU countries.

To me, both parties here are acting like bullies. Does anyone remember Helms-Burton? That is an American law that attempted to force foreign companies to comply with US law on relations with Cuba. It was a huge dilemma for private companies that deal with Cuba. Many countries, Canada included, passed specific legislation making it illegal for their citizens to comply with Helms-Burton (which is what it looks like the US is trying to do here).

For a more recent (and far more threatening) example of this, look at FATCA -- the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act passed in 2010 and signed by Obama. That is forcing all foreign banks to spend billions in order to help the IRS catch US tax evaders -- and if the banks don't go along with this the US will try to impose all manner of sanctions and penalties on those foreign banks. It is by far the most egregious extra-territorial reach the US has ever attempted. Fortunately, a number of countries are demanding reciprocity -- which means that American banks will also have to spend billions to track down (insert name of country) tax cheats with US bank accounts. My guess is that will be the end of FATCA because the US won't tolerate the reciprocity.

Bottom line here folks -- both the US and the EU are over-reaching with this. With the passage of this DOT legislation, we are now officially in pot-kettle-black territory. It would be good for the world if they could all grow up a little and behave like adults.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5357 times:

US would win a trade war with EU, just saying, lets not get too carried away. The ETS scheme was a blunder and we had to eat cake. China and US ganging up on EU, we caved in.

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5673 posts, RR: 6
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6017 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 21):
The WTO sets the rules for international trade. Congress has to abide by international treaties as per your constitution. You voluntarily entered the WTO.

And Congress can just as easily leave the WTO and withdraw from the treaties that govern it.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 23):
To me, both parties here are acting like bullies.

Wow... so two governmental authorities standing up for their interests is bullying now?

The EU wanted to initiate the ETS to protect their environmental interests; everyone else boycotted it to protect their economic and other interests. How do governments protect their interests (without resorting to violence)? They pass laws.

Quoting Arrow (Reply 23):
It would be good for the world if they could all grow up a little and behave like adults.

So... the US should just shut up and do whatever the EU wants? That's kind of like saying the EU should shut up and do whatever the US wants.

It's quite telling though how you single out American legislation, and imply that those of us who are against ETS are for Helms-Burton and FATCA.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
US would win a trade war with EU, just saying, lets not get too carried away. The ETS scheme was a blunder and we had to eat cake.

  

And that's that. People complaining about how this was handled are reminded that wars have been started over lesser things.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5947 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 25):

If we start the count on lost business thanks to the ETS madness this sum would be scary for us europeans. EU has this superior attitude to the world, we know better what other nations and continets need or should believe in. It will come back and bite us in the rear until we learn  


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5673 posts, RR: 6
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6084 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 26):

If we start the count on lost business thanks to the ETS madness this sum would be scary for us europeans. EU has this superior attitude to the world, we know better what other nations and continets need or should believe in. It will come back and bite us in the rear until we learn

To be fair, America does have it's own megalomania issue...



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6055 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 19):
Such a law would destroy the US at the WTO.
Quoting moo (Reply 21):
The WTO sets the rules for international trade.

Air transportation is specifically exempted from the WTO's mandate and rules. The WTO has no jurisdiction.

Quoting CARST (Reply 16):
You should see the ETS fees as an environmental landing fee.

Except it's no such thing. It's calculated based on flight sector length, not landings.

Quoting moo (Reply 17):
The fact that you took off, landed or otherwise did business in the EU is more than enough to give them legal authority to tax you for anything they wish.

Not under international law.

Quoting CARST (Reply 2):
If ETS is a good thing or not and if it is acceptable to extend it to the airline industry is total different discussion and not the business of any US-American politician

You're missing the point. Sure, what is taxed within Europe is not within the jurisdiction of U.S. lawmakers. But ETS taxes emissions in the airspace of countries outside Europe and in international airspace, which is beyond the jurisdiction of E.U. lawmakers.

Quoting CARST (Reply 2):
Too bad the EU stopped ETS for international flights outside the EU airspace today to wait for ICAO to implement their new system.

They suspended it because they belatedly realized that EK are laughing all the way to the bank. EK flies much shorter sectors to DXB and then transfers pax onto untaxed sectors. European carriers are taxed on the entire international sector and pay much more than EK. ETS did EK a remarkable favour.

E.U. politicians should stick to regulating the acceptable curvature of a banana.

[Edited 2012-11-14 11:21:05]


Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5498 posts, RR: 7
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6025 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
China and US ganging up on EU, we caved in.

Wasn't Russia part of the gang, too?



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6030 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 28):
Air transportation is specifically exempted from the WTO's mandate and rules. The WTO has no jurisdiction.

That is exactly what I thought originally, but was afraid to post that not knowing of my info was correct or not.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6021 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 28):
E.U. politicians should stick to regulating the acceptable curvature of a banana.

I agree, but they have even regulated cucumbers, making this world a much safer and better place..


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 6023 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So, poitical pressure seems to have been sent across the pond...

"EU 'Suspends' ETS"
EU 'Suspends' ETS (by timboflier215 Nov 12 2012 in Civil Aviation)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20299388


User currently offlinespeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 6016 times:

Who would have thought the USA/China/Russia and other major emission producers would be against reducing emissions.. LoL.

And back on topic, it (the ETS) has not been "canned" but rather has been given to ICAO to deal with if I read into it right...
Time will tell how it pans out - but something has to be done about emissions control.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5984 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 22):
U.S. can and will protect itself against unreasonable regulations if it harms self interests at home

I am trying to puzzle through this, but I honestly don't see how this harms US interests. All companies doing business with the EU are equally affected. It's not like US companies are taxed but foreign competitors aren't.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 25):
And Congress can just as easily leave the WTO and withdraw from the treaties that govern it.

And just watch how fast the President will veto it. Not just this President, but any. It would be tantamount to commercial suicide for the USA. If it got to that then I have no doubt that the administration's attitude to the airlines would be suck it up, sure it's regrettable, but deal with it.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3217 posts, RR: 10
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5998 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 14):
Why not? There is now law against the European airlines flying into the US, even if they participate in the ETS program. There is only a law now forbidding the US airlines paying the ETS fee creating a dilemma situation for them.

In the real world, of course if either US aircraft started getting seized or US airlines banned from European flights, you'd very quickly see European flights denied US access. There is no way in hell washington would sit back and do nothing. Anybody who believes that is kidding themselves. The EU might wave a big stick, but after something like this it is effectively saying "go on, I dare you to try enforce it.... because if you do, we're ready to fight back and you have just as much if not more to lose" The EU has lot enough jobs as it is, I can't see them wanting transatlantic trade grinding to a halt. And if they started seizing US aircraft you betcha BA and LH aircraft would quickly be out of American skies. They wont let it get to that. Washington has just basically shown its readiness to stand by its own carriers. Just like the Chinese did.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5971 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
I honestly don't see how this harms US interests.

See above reply... #35 actually sums it up on how the U.S. will protect it's interests, no matter how silly it sounds.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

I'm not trying to debate the ETS either way, trying to stay objective, but is the ICAO really an enviornmental agency? I mean, I'm not implying that they are pro or "anti"-environment, but it just seems a little weird that an aviation agency would be involved in environmental matters, not matter how "worldly" they are


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineaeroblogger From India, joined Dec 2011, 1363 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5954 times:

India passed a similar law a few months ago.

The EU isn't going to settle this issue with trade wars - there is critical mass in the opposition, with India, China, Russia, and the US all opposing.



Airports 2012: IXE HYD DEL BLR BOM CCU KNU KTM BKK SIN ICN LAX BUR SFO PHX IAH ORD EWR PHL PVD BOS FRA MUC IST
User currently offlinemichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5953 times:

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 33):

Who would have thought the USA/China/Russia and other major emission producers would be against reducing emissions.. LoL.

I'm all for reducing emissions where it can be achieved cost effectively. Namely, land and sea transportation, and power generation, etc. I just don't see any readily available technology that reduces aircraft emissions on anything more than a smallish incremental level at significant cost. Largely due to the unique weight restrictions and energy density requirements of airplanes. Sorry, I just don't believe we should treat all emissions the same. There are areas where it can be reduced cost effectively, and ones where it cannot.

[Edited 2012-11-14 16:29:01]

User currently offlineqf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5963 times:

Let them (the US legislation) pass as many laws as they wish against the rest of the world... and (ha ha ha) against something (the ETS) which has been suspended and will sure soon enough will be replaced by a UN emmission scheme against which the nice new US law can't do much either... bit late, mate...  

User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3217 posts, RR: 10
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5970 times:

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 40):
Let them (the US legislation) pass as many laws as they wish against the rest of the world... and (ha ha ha) against something (the ETS) which has been suspended and will sure soon enough will be replaced by a UN emmission scheme against which the nice new US law can't do much either... bit late, mate...  

Not so fast. Remember what happened at Copenhagen, when we got China the EU, Russia, India and the US and every other man and his dog? That's right, nobody could agree on a bloody thing and the chinese made sure as hell they weren't going to be agreeing to anything that might slightly disadvantage them. The most the EU can do is put some kind of massive departure tax on outgoing flights. Oh but wait. That's right they're already doing that! This move by the EU stank of colonial arrogance. There was no effort at all made to attempt to negotiate with other countries in any kind of diplomatic manner. They just forgot outside their own backyard, they had no way to enforce this. They too like it or not had to work with other countries and some of them might not take it very well that they are being dictated to. Pure and Simple. It's not the first time this has happened. Russia made a mockery of it a few years ago when it shut off gas pipelines to Europe after similar attempts were made to dictate to Russia how things should work. History has a funny way of repeating itself. I predict this will be no different.


User currently offlineqf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5942 times:

I agree with you, Lufthansa, thatswhy i think its good that the ICAO is now looking into it, as something must be done anyway, and if this is the case (the ICAO scheme) then the mentioned law by the US is worthless...

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7381 posts, RR: 8
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting CARST (Reply 16):
And to get it right, the passed act is not forbidding the US airlines to fly to Europe, it is forbidding them to pay the ETS fees.

Which in effect has the same effect since if the airlines do not pay, their a/c and operations can be legally affected in the EU.
This is the first shot of a salvo, if USA airlines use this and refuse to fly to the EU is there anyone who believes that the Government of the USA will simply sit by and watch all TATL traffic going to non-USA carriers?
Everything will be on the table, including the new Open Skies which is already on rocky ground since the administration offered promises on discussing cabotage which they cannot deliver on, any debate on cabotage in the USA is a dead issue before it even starts.

At this stage I have no idea how this will play out, what I wish would happen is for the EU to lift their one year suspension and let fly, the sooner this trading scheme is faced head on the quicker clarity will be provided, kicking cans down the road is getting tiresome.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5673 posts, RR: 6
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5938 times:

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 33):
Who would have thought the USA/China/Russia and other major emission producers would be against reducing emissions.. LoL.


It's all about money, pure and simple. The EU wants to get at it, nobody wants to pay it.

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 33):

And back on topic, it (the ETS) has not been "canned" but rather has been given to ICAO to deal with if I read into it right...

Nope, it's been canned.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
I am trying to puzzle through this, but I honestly don't see how this harms US interests. All companies doing business with the EU are equally affected. It's not like US companies are taxed but foreign competitors aren't.

The point is not the relative harm, but the absolute harm. It doesn't matter if everyone is paying, because the US is paying too.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
It would be tantamount to commercial suicide for the USA.

Right... because the US doesn't provide anything to the outside world. Who needs the pesky Dollar, anyways?

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 40):
Let them (the US legislation) pass as many laws as they wish against the rest of the world.

  

All this "rest of the world" talk is ignorant and, frankly, offensive. I suppose China, Russia, and India don't count as the "rest of the world" either.

The EU is the ONLY agency calling for a program as broad as the ETS. And despite popular European belief, they do not control the UN or the world.

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 40):
and will sure soon enough will be replaced by a UN emmission scheme against which the nice new US law can't do much either

Nope, the US will just use its veto power to shut down the UN... if China and Russia don't do it first.

[Edited 2012-11-24 15:24:21 by MCIGuy]


"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6484 posts, RR: 54
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 33):
...it (the ETS) has not been "canned" but rather has been given to ICAO to deal with...

That's the same thing, canned or given to ICAO.

It's the EU way to put their failures under the rug - to leave it to another organization to which the issue doesn't belong. Then the EU can put ETS on the agenda at annual ICAO conferences for eternity and send armies or delegates to ICAO conferences at sunny places to talk ETS. While non-EU delegates take a break in the bar.

Don't worry. ETS outside the EU is dead. But some EU politicians just refuse to accept they made a bummer.

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 33):
... - but something has to be done about emissions control.

That's an entirely different thing. Emission control is about denying (some) people to fly. Or denying people to fly more than X miles/yr. Or to subsidise RR making more efficient engine. Or other such things. Like for instance "stealing" food out of the mouth of hungry third world citizens an make it into expensive biofuel (the way we do it on the road).

ETS is about tax. No more, no less.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineqf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5934 times:

and what about the ridiculous "rules" the US puts on the rest of the world, to correct myself: everyone outside the US, when it comes to financials (FATCA), data privacy etc??? ha ha ha

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5673 posts, RR: 6
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5922 times:

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 46):
and what about the ridiculous "rules" the US puts on the rest of the world, to correct myself: everyone outside the US, when it comes to financials (FATCA), data privacy etc??? ha ha ha

They're ridiculous... but that's not the point of the thread.

What is relevant (and hypocritical) is that you can support the EU unilaterally imposing conditions on the rest of the world, but complain when the US does it.

What about that?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinemohunk From United States of America, joined May 2007, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5925 times:

Just charge the European carriers landing in the US a fee to cover the cost of the US carriers going to/from Europe, and give the collected money to the US carriers to cover their cost. WOW, talk about trade war starting! How badly would the EU carriers tank covering that cost--$310,000,000 per year!

User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5907 times:

Quoting mohunk (Reply 48):
Just charge the European carriers landing in the US a fee to cover the cost of the US carriers going to/from Europe, and give the collected money to the US carriers to cover their cost.

I was just about to post that as well.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlinedfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5910 times:

Quoting mohunk (Reply 48):
Just charge the European carriers landing in the US a fee to cover the cost of the US carriers going to/from Europe, and give the collected money to the US carriers to cover their cost. WOW, talk about trade war starting! How badly would the EU carriers tank covering that cost--$310,000,000 per year!

I assume this would violate the bilaterals.

I'm surprised that this hasn't been brought up yet, but what's infuriating to me about ETS is that it violates the bilaterals the US has with various EU countries, but the EU decided that it was exempt from the bilateral commitments of its constituent countries so ETS is okay!


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 5911 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):
I'm not trying to debate the ETS either way, trying to stay objective, but is the ICAO really an enviornmental agency? I mean, I'm not implying that they are pro or "anti"-environment, but it just seems a little weird that an aviation agency would be involved in environmental matters, not matter how "worldly" they are

ICAO was assigned the task because aviation crosses borders. This was back in the late 90's. Then they sat on their asses doing nothing. EU brought up the issue several times and I think it was the 2008 meeting that basically said - go ahead, do what you want. So EU did and then here we are.

Quoting michman (Reply 39):
I'm all for reducing emissions where it can be achieved cost effectively. Namely, land and sea transportation, and power generation, etc. I just don't see any readily available technology that reduces aircraft emissions on anything more than a smallish incremental level at significant cost. Largely due to the unique weight restrictions and energy density requirements of airplanes. Sorry, I just don't believe we should treat all emissions the same. There are areas where it can be reduced cost effectively, and ones where it cannot.

That is why ETS is the clever form to handle this. It allows aviation to do their reductions in other industries where it is easier.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):
If you think this has ANYTHING to do with emissions, you're a fool.

It's all about money, pure and simple. The EU wants to get at it, nobody wants to pay it.

If this was about money EU have much easier, well established, ways to do it.

[Edited 2012-11-24 15:27:15 by MCIGuy]

User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5790 times:

EU could always put a CO2 tax on aviation fuel, the money that Eu's financial black hole needs would get its funds and its free to fill up inside of EU   But it would be hard to skip taking on fuel inside EU for most carriers?

ETS is about EU needing money, we are bankrupt, they wouldn´t give a rats about the environment, they move between Brussels and Strasbourg every 2nd week, how is that a good thing for the environment, talk about wasting fuel!


User currently offlinemichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 524 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5720 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 51):
That is why ETS is the clever form to handle this. It allows aviation to do their reductions in other industries where it is easier.

Well, the other issue is that fuel use (and thus the credit costs) is a huge component of running an airline (much more so than other forms of transportation). And then there is the issue that aviation drives huge amounts of secondary economic activity (tourism and business). This whole scheme just seems like shooting one-self in the foot.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5694 times:

Quoting dfambro (Reply 50):
Quoting mohunk (Reply 48):
Just charge the European carriers landing in the US a fee to cover the cost of the US carriers going to/from Europe, and give the collected money to the US carriers to cover their cost. WOW, talk about trade war starting! How badly would the EU carriers tank covering that cost--$310,000,000 per year!

I assume this would violate the bilaterals.

Not to mention the International Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). The European Court of Justice ruled that the E.U. could do this because it isn't a signatory to the Convention, even though the individual countries in the E.U. are signatories. Most international law experts regard the ruling as self-serving rubbish.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinespeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 5683 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 45):
Like for instance "stealing" food out of the mouth of hungry third world citizens an make it into

whoah! slow down there with the shame card. I am a third world citizen by birth right and spent 90% of my working life toiling at their benefit.

As far as 3rd world africa is concerned, they don't need anybody's handouts. They have every resource and more to make a life for themselves. Buying into their whining is plain silly. People insist on donating to africa to pay for their guilty conscience. They have plenty of arable land and know how (those they have not murdered or forced out). They choose to ruin it their style with their Mugabe type governments. There is no single resource that Zimbabwe lacks, yet they cannot make their own food. Shame.

So rice or some other stuff is used to produce ethanol - this is not food that is originating from africa, and it sure as hell hasn't been stolen from their corrupt criminal paws. Until you have lived in that place (not had lavish holidays), do not even consider pulling the 3rd world card.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):
If you think this has ANYTHING to do with emissions, you're a fool.

Easy does it with the fool talk. Nice to have known you too. When the top 3 emissions culprits attempt something to reduce their planet killing CO2, call me a fool. Til then, bye.



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineCARST From Germany, joined Jul 2006, 822 posts, RR: 2
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5656 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 47):

They're ridiculous... but that's not the point of the thread.

What is relevant (and hypocritical) is that you can support the EU unilaterally imposing conditions on the rest of the world, but complain when the US does it.

What about that?
Quoting mohunk (Reply 48):
Just charge the European carriers landing in the US a fee to cover the cost of the US carriers going to/from Europe, and give the collected money to the US carriers to cover their cost. WOW, talk about trade war starting! How badly would the EU carriers tank covering that cost--$310,000,000 per year!

Mohunk, Maverick, you should really read what the other people here are writing, they know much more of the topic compared to you guys, really no pun intended.

The ETS fees are not to be compared to import taxes imposed a buy a country to reduce the imports of another country. They are no political agenda against non-EU airlines. The ETS fees are getting paid by every airline, they are not only paid by non-EU airlines.

Regarding the topic of taxing airlines for something outside of the EU airspace. It is not that simple. The airlines pay for the flown sector length into any EU airport. And if some part of that sector was flown outside EU airspace, that does not matter.

Quoting cmf (Reply 51):
ICAO was assigned the task because aviation crosses borders. This was back in the late 90's. Then they sat on their asses doing nothing. EU brought up the issue several times and I think it was the 2008 meeting that basically said - go ahead, do what you want. So EU did and then here we are.

  

Quoting cmf (Reply 51):
That is why ETS is the clever form to handle this. It allows aviation to do their reductions in other industries where it is easier.

  

That really is the whole clever point of the ETS system most people don't get. Every industry is motivated to produce as few CO2 as possible. If they can't get lower at some point they just buy the emission certificates and are funding CO2 saving projects at another industry which has the technology ready to save that amount of CO2.

I really the opposite of a environmentalist or a NIMBY, I am all for an increase in air-traffic, infrastructure projects being build, etc., but you have to be an idiot or running around with closed eyes not to see what we are doing to our planet. I agree with everyone who is saying that the whole green/blue/ecology thing is a very huge industry a lot of people make good money with, but I also see the numbers, that the world together reached a new highest amount of CO2 emissions this year.

That China and Russia, two communist states, which leaders give a f#c# about their citizens don't like systems like ETS, because it could reduce air-traffic buy a very small margin, I get that. But that the USA gets in bed with these two nations that have nothing in common with this democratic and liberal country, that is something I don't get. US politicians should have the same foresight as our EU politicians regarding CO2 emissions.

If they are afraid of the jobs lost, because of ETS and other laws to reduce the emissions, they should also see what amount of jobs are created at companies that produce CO2 filters and other "green" technology. I bet there was no one working for RR, P&W and GE forty years ago to reduce CO2 emissions of aircraft engines and I am betting, too, there is more than one person working on this topic today.

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 55):

  


User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1827 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5649 times:

Where wold the EU ETS money end up? That would be the obvious question to ask, probably inside EU?! So Germany can build even more brain dead windmills?

EU ETS will not be accepted globally, stupid idea to force this on the world. It has cost EU a lot already.

Those who defend it probably vote for the left wing green parties etc.


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5651 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 57):
So Germany can build even more brain dead windmills?

Sorry, what's brain dead about the windmills? Spain currently generates almost 20% of its electricity from windmills. It is cheap and environmentally friendly. So what's exactly brain dead about it?



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 offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5627 times:

Quoting michman (Reply 53):
Well, the other issue is that fuel use (and thus the credit costs) is a huge component of running an airline

So is running a truck, ships, taxis, buses. Even for a lot of manufacturing fuel is a major part of expenses.

Quoting michman (Reply 53):
And then there is the issue that aviation drives huge amounts of secondary economic activity (tourism and business). This whole scheme just seems like shooting one-self in the foot.

Everything drives secondary activity.

The question isn't about if there are economic benefits or not. The question is about how long those benefits will last. Not dealing with emissions is like a fisherman taking all fish. It doesn't take long before only small fish can be found. And then no fish.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 54):
The European Court of Justice ruled that the E.U. could do this because it isn't a signatory to the Convention, even though the individual countries in the E.U. are signatories.

They did say EU is not a signatory but they did not say that is why ETS is kosher. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...ication/pdf/2011-12/cp110139en.pdf

"Finally, the Court responds to the assertion that the emissions trading scheme constitutes a tax, fee or charge on fuel in breach of the Open Skies Agreement. It holds that the directive does not infringe the obligation to exempt fuel from taxes, duties, fees and charges. In contrast to the defining feature of obligatory levies on the consumption of fuel, in the case of the scheme in question there is no direct and inseverable link between the quantity of fuel held or consumed by an aircraft and the pecuniary burden on the aircraft’s operator in the context of the emissions trading scheme’s operation."

"The Court concludes by stating that the uniform application of the scheme to all flights which depart from or arrive at a European airport is consistent with the provisions of the Open Skies Agreement designed to prohibit discriminatory treatment between American and European operators"

Quoting sweair (Reply 57):
Where wold the EU ETS money end up? That would be the obvious question to ask, probably inside EU?! So Germany can build even more brain dead windmills?

How can you still be ignorant about where the money goes?

As of today almost all money has gone to companies selling allowances they don't need. Going forward more allowances will be sold instead of given and that money is going to governments. They of course use it for all their programs and they include vast money spent on just these issues.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3217 posts, RR: 10
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5635 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 58):
Sorry, what's brain dead about the windmills? Spain currently generates almost 20% of its electricity from windmills. It is cheap and environmentally friendly. So what's exactly brain dead about it?

Ahhh, yes, a shining example of an economic success.

Look pure and simple this ETS has been applied to aviation not for practical but ideological reasons. The problem is however an aircraft is basically considered part of the state its registered in. Therefore, subject to that's states laws. If the EU proposed to limit it to flights within the EU it wouldn't have caused so many legal issues. But it wanted to take the big stick to what some see as unnecessary long haul flights (that's you, all you europeans making the choice to lay on thai or mexican beach resorts). That is the real mindset for including this. The green movement doesn't think you should fly long haul for leisure. Pure and simple. The problem is, if they increased the cost of the carriers they do have the legal right to do so for, those based in the EU, then they'd just be gifting all the traffic to the foreign carriers. This was coupled with an attitude of superiority. Countries that refused to support it were largely newly industrialising or new world. In other words, the colonies. And those cafe latte sipping Eurocrats have a duty after all to inform those savages in the new world what they are doing is ignorant, and they of course no better what is in their bests interests than those countries themselves.

Of course there solutions to the problems of the world have worked wonderfully. Europe has found a great way to reduce emissions. Un employ everybody then, if they're stuck at home broke they can't consume much so they won't produce too many emissions. That sounds harsh. But you have to remember when you are talking to the chinese, the Americans or the Russians, its the same people demanding this EU law over their sovereign property are the same people and organisations that are doing exactly that to their own people. And Some Europeans wonder why these bodies are not taking seriously outside the EU?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5620 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 60):
The problem is however an aircraft is basically considered part of the state its registered in.

The problem? I have not seen anyone else even suggest it is part of the problem.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 60):
The green movement doesn't think you should fly long haul for leisure

The green movements thinks you should travel responsibly. Only extremists takes it beyond that, on both sides.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 60):
In other words, the colonies

Ahh, there is that old argument again. None of the countries in as much they have been colonies have been so in a very long time. At least come up with serious arguments.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 60):
Un employ everybody then

Right, let me see you back that up.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 60):
But you have to remember when you are talking to the chinese, the Americans or the Russians

So everyone should stand in line for their superiority?


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5622 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 12):
The US can't do anything to legally exempt anyone from complying with another country's laws when in (or over) that country. That's called Chutzpah -- which is par for the course for Congress of course; they do this stuff all the time.

Unfortunately, congress obviously doesn' t see that they have no power outside the United States, and that the US is not the ruler of the world.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5625 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 60):
Ahhh, yes, a shining example of an economic success.

Uh? What do you mean? Yes, the wind energy generation in Spain has been considered an unmitigated, shining technological, environmental and economical success by every observer. Spain is now a leading country in electricity generation from wind, exporting the technology to countries like Germany, Japan, the UK, the US and Australia.



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 offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 63):
Uh? What do you mean? Yes, the wind energy generation in Spain has been considered an unmitigated, shining technological, environmental and economical success by every observer. Spain is now a leading country in electricity generation from wind, exporting the technology to countries like Germany, Japan, the UK, the US and Australia.

What does Don Quixote have to do with the legislation in the US congress? Just kidding. Windmills are an expensive alternative to that have not proven any thing in Canada except to bankrupt the farmers that put them on their lands. The health effects of those windmills are also in a serious study for the health affects of the wind mills on the neighbouring population.

I am not sure what this has to do with the emmisions of aircraft.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5605 times:

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 60):
The problem is however an aircraft is basically considered part of the state its registered in. Therefore, subject to that's states laws

For the first time I actually understand the opposition to this! Thanks for bringing this up... I was trying to look at it through an anti-big government/tax lens, which meant it made no sense at all since all companies are equally affected, so no-one looses out.

When you consider it as a sovereignty issue then I can start to see why other countries take issue with it. I think that Congress have much MUCH more important things to worry about, but at least I can now understand why they feel that they should get involved.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5599 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 64):
Windmills are an expensive alternative to that have not proven any thing in Canada except to bankrupt the farmers that put them on their lands.

Farmers? What do farmers have to do with large-scale electricity production from wind power?

Quoting brilondon (Reply 64):
The health effects of those windmills are also in a serious study for the health affects of the wind mills on the neighbouring population.

You are kidding, right?

Quoting brilondon (Reply 64):
I am not sure what this has to do with the emmisions of aircraft.

Nothing. I didn't bring it up.



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 offlinespeedbird128 From Pitcairn Islands, joined Oct 2003, 1648 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5608 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 64):
The health effects of those windmills

Yes, totally as deadly as CO2...



A306, A313, A319, A320, A321, A332, A343, A345, A346 A388, AC90, B06, B722, B732, B733, B735, B738, B744, B762, B772, B7
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3417 posts, RR: 4
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5604 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 1):
Aside from the situation with the ETS being "suspended" for a year for external airlines this week, all this bill is doing is basically trying to use domestic law to trump foreign law in its own jurisdiction,

lol, you are being quite funny since the ETS is quite illegal under international treaties signed by all the members of the EU. But the EU court decided that since the EU itself didn't sign anything that it can then make new laws that force its member nations to violate thier own international treaties.

My own personal thoughts are that the Governments around the world should suspend any involvement with the EU until the EU decides if its going to be bound by the treaties its members sign or not. After all under this judgement ANY EU law or ANY EU agency can do whatever it likes without regard to any obligations. So why should America, Russia, China, or anyone else act like the EU is an actual government when it quite clearly has judged itself not accountable to anyone but itself?

I suspect It would take less than a week for the EU to make a new law or court ruling that its members prior commitments to the international community and the international laws also apply to the EU if they had 0 trade. If all ships from EU nations, with EU origin cargo, or sailed from a EU port can't dock anywhere but the EU. If all airbuses outside of the EU are grounded. If no bank transfers can occur. If no pipelines move oil. If no boarder crossings are open. How long can the EU last without the rest of the world. Hell how long can europe last without america, russian, and china?

After all these are activities that are currently governed by international treaties the EU has claimed have no force on the EU.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5598 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 68):
lol, you are being quite funny since the ETS is quite illegal under international treaties signed by all the members of the EU.

So you say. But the only court who have looked at it says you're wrong. But of course you know better.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 68):
My own personal thoughts are that the Governments around the world should suspend any involvement with the EU until the EU decides if its going to be bound by the treaties its members sign or not.

Does this only apply to ETS or to all agreements by all nations? Assuming you're actually right that it isn't inline with agreements EU and the member nations have made.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 68):
If all ships from EU nations, with EU origin cargo, or sailed from a EU port can't dock anywhere but the EU. If all airbuses outside of the EU are grounded. If no bank transfers can occur. If no pipelines move oil. If no boarder crossings are open. How long can the EU last without the rest of the world. Hell how long can europe last without america, russian, and china?

You really think that would be a one lane road.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1019 posts, RR: 4
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5596 times:

The most amusing thing in this whole thread is the notion that US lawmakers will sit idly by if US carriers are banned from flying to the EU for not paying the ETS.

What makes anyone here think that the EU carriers will be allowed to fly to the US unhindered? If the US lawmakers are willing to back their airlines to this extent, they won't shy away from suspending bilaterals with EU countries. I wonder how LH and BA will feel about that.

The way I see it, the US has raised the stakes. They have adopted the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) approach to ETS, which is a nice way of saying that the whole ETS idea has taken a massive hit.

It will be fun though, if the only way to get from the US to EU by air involves only Asian and ME carriers.  


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5583 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 59):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 54):
The European Court of Justice ruled that the E.U. could do this because it isn't a signatory to the Convention, even though the individual countries in the E.U. are signatories.

They did say EU is not a signatory but they did not say that is why ETS is kosher. http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...ication/pdf/2011-12/cp110139en.pdf

"Finally, the Court responds to the assertion that the emissions trading scheme constitutes a tax, fee or charge on fuel in breach of the Open Skies Agreement.

That's a different issue. In the passage you cite, the Court ruled that ETS is not a breach of the the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement (a conclusion with which many legal scholars disagree). But with respect to the International Convention on Civil Aviation, which provides that jurisdictions may not make extra-territorial rules (i.e. rules that apply within another country's airspace or in international airspace), the Court ruled that it does not apply to the E.U. because it's not a signatory, even though the countries that make up the E.U. are signatories. It's a precedent that's going to come back and haunt the E.U., when other jurisdictions argue, based on this decision, that the E.U. cannot claim the benefits of treaties to which it is not a party, even though its constituent members are. For example, based on this decision, it could be argued that E.U. diplomatic representatives are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, because the E.U. is not a signatory. A very short-sighted and self-serving decision.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 62):
Unfortunately, congress obviously doesn' t see that they have no power outside the United States, and that the US is not the ruler of the world.

And exactly the same can be said of the E.U. with respect to ETS.


Anyway, the E.U. politicians/bureaucrats have finally woken up to the fact that they've shot their own enterprises. The primary beneficiaries of ETS are EK and, potentially, TK since they fly short sectors into / out of the E.U. and then transfer pax on to non-ETS sectors, while E.U. carriers have to pay ETS on the entire international sector. Dumb.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5673 posts, RR: 6
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 69):
So you say. But the only court who have looked at it says you're wrong. But of course you know better.

You're joking, right? A court that represents the EU, NOT it's member countries or anyone else, rules in favor of itself?

Yeah... we do know better.

Quoting ElPistolero (Reply 70):

It will be fun though, if the only way to get from the US to EU by air involves only Asian and ME carriers.

Or we can go back to the old way... by boat.

How's THAT for CO2 emissions?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5498 posts, RR: 7
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5561 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):

Or we can go back to the old way... by boat.

How's THAT for CO2 emissions?

Sail would be ok. Coal or oil? No ... sorry.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 5562 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 66):

Quoting brilondon (Reply 64):
Windmills are an expensive alternative to that have not proven any thing in Canada except to bankrupt the farmers that put them on their lands.

Farmers? What do farmers have to do with large-scale electricity production from wind power?

Quoting brilondon (Reply 64):
The health effects of those windmills are also in a serious study for the health affects of the wind mills on the neighbouring population.

You are kidding, right?

Quoting brilondon (Reply 64):
I am not sure what this has to do with the emmisions of aircraft.

Nothing. I didn't bring it up.

I will address each in reverse order.

a) emmisions of aircraft is what this thread was about.

b) No. In Ontario, the building of windmills has been stopped by the courts to study the health effects of these structures on the immediate population centres around the windmill sites.

c) The land for the windmills is leased from the farmers the windmills are built on. The agreement is that the government will pay the farmers 80 cents/ kilowatt hour for the electricity that they sell to the retail suppliers.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5559 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 74):
In Ontario, the building of windmills has been stopped by the courts to study the health effects of these structures on the immediate population centres around the windmill sites.

Good. Let's us know the findings when they are done, please... And people complain about the environmental freaks 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 offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5555 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 63):
Quoting UALWN (Reply 66):

The US has been building windmills for hundreds of years and was a pioneer in the early 1900s of power generating turbines.

Groups of windmills built together are called wind farms btw. And even in the US, there are studies on the health affects large wind turbines have on the population.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5542 times:

Actually, the emissions from aircraft are immaterial to this conversation. The topic is about that the USA's congress and passed bi-partisan legislation stop USA airlines from being subjected to an EU directive that is in contravention to established treaties.

The EU saw this coming, as well as the Indian, Chinese, and Russians also having or soon to be exempting themselves from this tortured "clever" illegal manouver and decided to bow out in as graceful manner as they could.

If the EU banned all these countries airlines, and those countries reciprocated to the EU airlines, then where would the EU's airlines be left to fly to?

It was a really stupid money grab at the start.

I personally think that the USA should start selling their own carbon credits to EU companies and 1/10th the cost per ton. After all, they are not really anything anyway....just paper BS for politicians to make money on.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5540 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 77):
USA's congress and passed bi-partisan legislation

To be honest, this probably needs a thread in-and-of itself   

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 77):
If the EU banned all these countries airlines, and those countries reciprocated to the EU airlines, then where would the EU's airlines be left to fly to?

Sure. Also global trade would come to a grinding halt, especially if sea traffic is closed as well. North America and Asia could trade with each other, but the EU economy is the largest in the world.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5544 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 78):

Actually, North America, South America, Asia, Africa, Non-EU Europe, Oceania....could all do much better without the EU than the EU could do without all of them with regards to air services. The EU can just go back to using only ships with sails, if that is what they wish to do. If the major nations refuse to pay this illegal international tax,, then the smaller nations will follow suit to avoid being put at a fiscal disadvantage.

The EU would splinter under the pressure in no time, that is why they have used this opportunity to back down from their high horse on this issue as gracefully as possible.


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5535 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 79):
North America, South America, Asia, Africa, Non-EU Europe, Oceania....could all do much better without the EU than the EU could do without all of them with regards to air services

I don't disagree, but cutting of the EU would still have a big impact on those areas. Sure, the EU would suffer more, but I still don't understand why this is worth a potential trade war.

Someone above described this as MAD. I think the Cold War terminology is appropriate. Even though the USA had better nuclear arms and a more established second-strike capability, and would therefore have inflicted greater harm on the USSR, it would still have been hit by several nukes. The same applies here.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 76):
The US has been building windmills for hundreds of years and was a pioneer in the early 1900s of power generating turbines.

Good for you. Yet, in 2011 only about 3% of the electricity consumed in the US was produced by wind (compared to ~16% in Spain).

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 76):
And even in the US, there are studies on the health affects large wind turbines have on the population.

Again, wake me up when the results are out...



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 offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5544 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 81):
Quoting flightsimer (Reply 76):
And even in the US, there are studies on the health affects large wind turbines have on the population.

Again, wake me up when the results are out...
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...7-2012/wind-power-s-health-hazards

While comedy, still true.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5541 times:

Quoting something (Reply 82):
While comedy, still true.

What's true? The comedy?



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 offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 83):
Quoting something (Reply 82):
While comedy, still true.

What's true? The comedy?

Did you watch the video in the link? It talks about ''wind turbine syndrome''.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5529 times:

Quoting something (Reply 84):
Did you watch the video in the link? It talks about ''wind turbine syndrome''.

Right. And it (deservedly) makes fun of it. It also talks about "solar panel syndrome"...



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 offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5525 times:

Quoting something (Reply 84):
Did you watch the video in the link? It talks about ''wind turbine syndrome''.

Right. And it (deservedly) makes fun of it. It also talks about "solar panel syndrome"...



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 offlineflightsimer From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 570 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Quoting UALWN (Reply 81):

Everything you have said about the US vs Spain in wind power is factually wrong. The US is the largest producer of wind power in the world, producing nearly three times the world wide percentage Spain does annually. Sure, Spain's wind power may account for 20% of you power usage, but Spain is only slightly larger than the state of California, so that's quite easy to do.

So again, to say that Spain is leading wind technology and sending it abroad to other countries that have already had said technology is factually wrong!

But like you said earlier, it has nothing to do with this thread.



Commercial Pilot- SEL, MEL, Instrument
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9556 posts, RR: 14
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 25):

It's quite telling though how you single out American legislation, and imply that those of us who are against ETS are for Helms-Burton and FATCA.

no kidding

Quoting sweair (Reply 26):
If we start the count on lost business thanks to the ETS madness this sum would be scary for us europeans. EU has this superior attitude to the world, we know better what other nations and continets need or should believe in. It will come back and bite us in the rear until we learn

        

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 28):
Air transportation is specifically exempted from the WTO's mandate and rules. The WTO has no jurisdiction.

finally. WTO has no say so. This isn't Boeing v airbus....

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 28):

You're missing the point. Sure, what is taxed within Europe is not within the jurisdiction of U.S. lawmakers. But ETS taxes emissions in the airspace of countries outside Europe and in international airspace, which is beyond the jurisdiction of E.U. lawmakers.

        

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 28):

They suspended it because they belatedly realized that EK are laughing all the way to the bank. EK flies much shorter sectors to DXB and then transfers pax onto untaxed sectors. European carriers are taxed on the entire international sector and pay much more than EK. ETS did EK a remarkable favour.

        

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 29):
Wasn't Russia part of the gang, too?

and India.....

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 33):
Who would have thought the USA/China/Russia and other major emission producers would be against reducing emissions.. LoL.

and who would have thought someone with a EU flag would be pointing the worlds problems at the US and China. See Americans can play the blame game too. I'm fairly good at it.   (maybe next time we can post and not act like a 5 year old while doing so?)

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 33):
Time will tell how it pans out - but something has to be done about emissions control.

and 1st thing is others countries shouldn't go around pushing their ideas on others. Like it or not China isn't going to agree with everything the EU agrees with....and the same can be said about every other country around the world. Trying to force your way into it, and very questionably at that, is just a quick way to piss folks off.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 34):
If it got to that then I have no doubt that the administration's attitude to the airlines would be suck it up, sure it's regrettable, but deal with it.

I don't think so. Again...it wouldn't get to this but i would expect the US government would find a way to "make it up"

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 35):
In the real world, of course if either US aircraft started getting seized or US airlines banned from European flights, you'd very quickly see European flights denied US access. There is no way in hell washington would sit back and do nothing

this. Your only kidding yourself if you think EU airlines would get to fly to the US while US airplanes are banned/seized in the EU. A law would be passed....and passed quick. (pretty hard to explain to voters why DL/US/UA/AA are laying off thousands because they can't fly to Europe yet BA/LH/KL/AF/etc have tons of flights a day to the US)

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 35):
Anybody who believes that is kidding themselves. The EU might wave a big stick, but after something like this it is effectively saying "go on, I dare you to try enforce it.... because if you do, we're ready to fight back and you have just as much if not more to lose"

        

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 35):
Washington has just basically shown its readiness to stand by its own carriers. Just like the Chinese did.

        
and india/Russia (and the IATA)

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 35):
They wont let it get to that.

no kidding. Everyone needs to chill. The day US planes(or Russian/Indian/etc aircraft) stop flying to the EU over ETS is the day i become CEO of Delta.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 37):

I'm not trying to debate the ETS either way, trying to stay objective, but is the ICAO really an enviornmental agency? I mean, I'm not implying that they are pro or "anti"-environment, but it just seems a little weird that an aviation agency would be involved in environmental matters, not matter how "worldly" they are

No....but it may be the only way something gets worked out....just don't expect much to happen.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 41):

        

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 42):
thatswhy i think its good that the ICAO is now looking into it,

and you expect something to really get done? They may end up bringing something out but it will be tiny compared to what ETS was. (cost wise that is)

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 44):
Right... because the US doesn't provide anything to the outside world. Who needs the pesky Dollar, anyways?

        

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 46):

so now we need to act like a 5 year old? Two wrongs don't make a right.....this would be part of the problem with the world now. "They did it so it just must mean we should toooooo!!!"
Quoting dfambro (Reply 50):
I assume this would violate the bilaterals.

It would violate the Chicago convention....but so does ETS.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 54):

Not to mention the International Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). The European Court of Justice ruled that the E.U. could do this because it isn't a signatory to the Convention, even though the individual countries in the E.U. are signatories. Most international law experts regard the ruling as self-serving rubbish.

        

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 78):

Sure. Also global trade would come to a grinding halt, especially if sea traffic is closed as well. North America and Asia could trade with each other, but the EU economy is the largest in the world.

but It would hurt the EU a heck of a lot more than it would China/India/US/Russia who would all be free to trade with each other. (and you also have to ask what kind of effect said trade war would have on oil.....)

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 80):

I don't disagree, but cutting of the EU would still have a big impact on those areas. Sure, the EU would suffer more, but I still don't understand why this is worth a potential trade war.

but again...it would never come to all of this. The EU would just pass it along just like they did. IMHO the EU was playing to see just what kind of reaction they would get. (and I also think the EU thinks this will light a fire under the ICAO)



yep.
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5501 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 88):
it would never come to all of this

I think we agree over this, I just wasn't phrasing it well.

I was a bit confused by some posters in this thread who made it sound like Cold War 2 was coming over the ETS



As an aside, does anyone know what the Australian Clean Energy Act (i.e. carbon tax) has on international aviation? I'm 95% certain that domestic flights are taxed, but I'm guessing that international ones aren't as there hasn't been any outcry?



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5510 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 87):
Sure, Spain's wind power may account for 20% of you power usage, but Spain is only slightly larger than the state of California, so that's quite easy to do.

So if Spain builds 1 windmill per square kilometer, then that's easy to do. The US doing the same, not so much?

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 88):
Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 29):
Wasn't Russia part of the gang, too?

and India.....

A group of countries I would also be proud to be named in one breath with.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 88):
and who would have thought someone with a EU flag would be pointing the worlds problems at the US and China. See Americans can play the blame game too. I'm fairly good at it.

You're actually terrible at it. The fact that the aforementioned countries are the biggest polluters is a fact. Not a sentiment.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlinegipsy From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5497 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 87):
Everything you have said about the US vs Spain in wind power is factually wrong. The US is the largest producer of wind power in the world, producing nearly three times the world wide percentage Spain does annually. Sure, Spain's wind power may account for 20% of you power usage, but Spain is only slightly larger than the state of California, so that's quite easy to do.

So again, to say that Spain is leading wind technology and sending it abroad to other countries that have already had said technology is factually wrong!

But like you said earlier, it has nothing to do with this thread.

The US even lags behind China.

As we are talking US/EU here please take the EU numbers. 2011: EU 89,5 GW - US 47 GW

In general the EU is far ahead of the US in renewal energy. This outburst over the ETS is somewhat childish a la bah eveil EU you no longer land in here if grabing our money to fund cucumber and banana sizes. It applies to all in contrary to an outright landing ban of just EU carriers.

I posted in another thread regarding the ETS and there I had some numbers for the US aviation taxes (quite high) which are not money grabbing?

Or if the US demands all the data of passengers or bank transactions because we can't take care of terrorists as good as the US can?

I present you then the argument that we care about the environment because the US doesn't care... counter that in light of the onesided US demands (And which the EU approved) reagrding the PNR...I'm excitedly waiting  


User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 87):
Everything you have said about the US vs Spain in wind power is factually wrong.

Really? Everything? Maybe you could be more specific.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 87):
The US is the largest producer of wind power in the world, producing nearly three times the world wide percentage Spain does annually. Sure, Spain's wind power may account for 20% of you power usage, but Spain is only slightly larger than the state of California, so that's quite easy to do.

OK. so Spain is about the size of California. Well, Spain's production of wind power is over 5 times larger than that of California. So maybe it's not so "easy" to do. Obviously, the absolute number of GW doesn't really matter. Relatively to its power needs, Spain produces over 5 times more power from wind than the US. And this is what matters.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 87):
So again, to say that Spain is leading wind technology and sending it abroad to other countries that have already had said technology is factually wrong!

I only said that Spain was a leader in this technology and that it exported it to several countries, including the US. Is that factually wrong? Let's see. Acciona Energy, based in Madrid, is the company with more GW of wind power installed in the world. It has half a dozen wind power plants in the US, together with a manufacturing plant of wind turbines in Iowa. Gamesa, based near Bilbao, also operates four wind power plants in the US, and has two manufacturing plants of wind turbines in Pennsylvania. There are several other companies. You get the idea. I hope.

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 87):
But like you said earlier, it has nothing to do with this thread.

At least we can agree on this.



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 offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5490 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 71):
That's a different issue. In the passage you cite, the Court ruled that ETS is not a breach of the the U.S.-E.U. Open Skies Agreement

You're right. I reduced the quote too much and thus the important parts got excluded.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 71):
. But with respect to the International Convention on Civil Aviation, which provides that jurisdictions may not make extra-territorial rules (i.e. rules that apply within another country's airspace or in international airspace), the Court ruled that it does not apply to the E.U. because it's not a signatory, even though the countries that make up the E.U. are signatories.

You're right as far as they did rule EU is not a signatory. But they clearly acknowledge the member states are and that it may affect EU law.

"Since the European Union is not therefore bound by the Chicago Convention, that convention cannot be relied upon as a benchmark against which the validity of Directive 2008/101 can be reviewed. The fact that all Member States of the European Union are Contracting Parties to the Chicago Convention can nevertheless have an effect on the interpretation of provisions of EU law; (50) this follows from the general principle of good faith, which also applies under international law and has found specific expression under EU law in Article 4(3) TEU. (51)
..
119. The fact that the European Union is not itself a Contracting Party to the Chicago Convention does not preclude it from being bound by the customary international law principle of sovereignty of States over their airspace which is codified in that convention, (116) because a principle of customary international law retains a separate existence alongside the international agreement in which it is codified. (117)"
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documen...t&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=565513

With that the entire argument that it is only because EU didn't sign the Chicago Convention is out.

So the question becomes why the Chicago convention doesn't apply.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 72):
You're joking, right? A court that represents the EU, NOT it's member countries or anyone else, rules in favor of itself?

But everyone objecting to EU is of course right. The logic you apply does not pass a smell test.

By the way. That inconsistent application of rules is why most of the suggestions here about not allowing EU airlines access is without doubt in direct violation of signed treaties. Even Baghdad Bob would give up finding a justification.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 77):
If the EU banned all these countries airlines, and those countries reciprocated to the EU airlines, then where would the EU's airlines be left to fly to?

You're argument is falling on that EU isn't banning anyone. This is no different from if an airline fail to pay dues.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 77):
It was a really stupid money grab at the start.

You guys keep making this claim but fail to provide evidence.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 79):
If the major nations refuse to pay this illegal international tax

It is not illegal, it is not international and it is not a tax. But apart from that you are right...

Quoting flightsimer (Reply 87):
Everything you have said about the US vs Spain in wind power is factually wrong. The US is the largest producer of wind power in the world, producing nearly three times the world wide percentage Spain does annually.

You're abusing statistics. You always need to understand the data. If not we should expect USA to use the same amount of energy as Luxembourg.

Quoting something (Reply 90):
You're actually terrible at it. The fact that the aforementioned countries are the biggest polluters is a fact. Not a sentiment.

  


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 93):

It is an illegal international tax, hence why the EU is dropping it now, very quietly with their tails between their legs. While you might admire their "clever" way of implementing it, that does not change it. It never passed the smell test.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5468 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 94):
It is an illegal international tax, hence why the EU is dropping it now,

Again, that is not what the court said.

When will you provide evidence, instead of statements, to support your claims?


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5467 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 95):

The EU court does not have international jurisdiction. Their tortured logic was self serving and laughable.

My proof is in the EU backing down.

I personally think that the USA should have agreed to abide by the ETS with the proviso that the USA would supply the credits to the USA airlines....and the USA could rebate these taxes directly back to the airlines, and let the EU hang their own airlines out to dry.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5472 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 96):
The EU court does not have international jurisdiction.

EU has jurisdiction where ETS is implemented. Unlike courts outside EU.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 96):
My proof is in the EU backing down.

Then you have, as I suspected, nothing.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 96):
I personally think that the USA should have agreed to abide by the ETS with the proviso that the USA would supply the credits to the USA airlines....and the USA could rebate these taxes directly back to the airlines, and let the EU hang their own airlines out to dry.

USA would supply the credits?? I like to see you explain the practicality of this proposal of yours  


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5739 posts, RR: 5
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5466 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 96):
My proof is in the EU backing down

Backing down is probably a confession that it was a poorly thought through policy, but it in no way recognises that the ETS was a "tax". Whether it is "illegal" or "international", well I'll leave that to the International Law experts, none of whom are likely to be posting on this website so I will take everything I read here with a very large pinch of salt. The bit which it definitely was not, though, is a tax.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5463 times:

Regarding the legality, didn't only the EU court rule on this? I am not accusing them of intentional bias, but I would think they'd think a bit differently than other courts around the world.

I've got nothing against the EU trying to implement the ETS... I think it's shady and won't do much for emissions (IMO) but I don't care what the EU does... but, I do see part of it as imposing fee/tax/whatever outside of their borders. A LAX-LHR flight would have ETS apply the whole way, over the US and over Canada. I can see how longer flight should equal more ETS but that doesn't change the fact that it's being applied over the airspace not in the EU. Without permission from the US or Canada, I see that as illegal.

Not arguing the merits of the ETS or whatever, I just see that as a legitimate problem. I know the EU courts ruled it ok but I disagree, and I think many other countries' courts do too. The EU can't just blow everyone else off. Many here are saying the EU is getting bullied around by everyone else... I think it is the EU that is pushing (illegally) ETS on everyone else



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5451 times:

As I said in another thread, possibly noble intentions ruined by amateur execution.

Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
EU has jurisdiction where ETS is implemented. Unlike courts outside EU.

Cmf, we have been through this before. What you suggests, essentially, is that EU has jurisdiction over the whole flight paths (which cover the WHOLE WORLD) of aircrafts, as long as they land or departs from an EU airport. I am sure you are an intelligent person, If you still cannot see why any self-respecting country would find this objectionable, then I don't think we will get anywhere with this discussion.
This is different from charging an varying rate bands of landing tax, because such a tax is fully and exclusively associated with landing, an activity solely completed in an EU airport where EU has full jurisdiction. This tax band is determined by the initiation and destination point and rightly has nothing to do with the process of flying itself. The EU should not have the ability to influence, by ETS, whether a LHR-PVG flight goes the shortest route possible, or it goes LHR-PEK-HKG-NKG-TAO-PVG.
This is also a different situation from import rules/criteria. Any country has the right to establish a set of standard/criteria that all imported goods must adhere to. However, these criteria only take effect after the goods reach the territory of this country, not at the point of shipping/manufacturing. Of course it is more convenient to adhere to these standards when shipped, but it is not legally required that such adherence occur when shipped. Some would say "what about the standards detailing manufacturing conditions". Well, I think you will find that generally the government of the country where manufacturing takes place is not against such standards. If this is not the case, then such standards are likely to be challenged and/or invalidated.

Quoting cmf (Reply 95):
Again, that is not what the court said.

EU does not live in a vacuum. This scheme requires the cooperation of other countries to succeed. So the EU had two choices. Either it can introduce the policy trying to minimise controversy and encourage cooperation, or it can introduced the policy in a confrontational manner. I think the events unfolded clearly demonstrated that they made the wrong choice. As to the court decision, I am sure it went a long way to silence the 30-odd countries opposing the scheme, to say nothing of the legal ingenuity and creativeness the ECJ managed to exhibit in its ruling  
Quoting cmf (Reply 97):
Then you have, as I suspected, nothing.

September 30, 2011 "We Won’t Back Down on Emissions"
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...ope-us-we-wont-back-down-emissions
February 8, 2012 "suspension out of question"
http://www.transportenvironment.org/...80%99-says-top-eu-climate-official
March 15, 2012 "If there is no global agreement we are not suspending our legislation"
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article...on-in-ets-will-go-ahead/73855.aspx

November 13, 2012: U turn
http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...-down-international-ets-suspension

My only question is: Did EU ever thought they had a chance to pull this off? If they did, they needs an XXXXXXL sized reality check. If they didn't, then why drag themselves through this public humiliation?

Quoting something (Reply 90):
The fact that the aforementioned countries are the biggest polluters is a fact.

But as far as aviation is concerned, not so clear. The emission by Chinese airlines covered under EU ETS, for example, would be much less than that of AF/LH/BA.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 101, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 5449 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 99):
I can see how longer flight should equal more ETS but that doesn't change the fact that it's being applied over the airspace not in the EU. Without permission from the US or Canada, I see that as illegal.

Why is ETS different from APD and other charges (e.g. duty) based on what happens outside the imposers territory?


User currently offlinegipsy From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5444 times:

(8) The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, which was approved
on behalf of the European Community by Council
Decision 2002/358/EC (2), requires developed countries
to pursue the limitation or reduction of emissions of
greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal
Protocol from aviation, working through the International
Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).

https://www.iata.org/whatwedo/environment/Documents/directive-1001-2008.pdf


The US didn't sign the Kyoto protocol afaik. So it is basically about countries wanting to do something and countries not wanting to do anything. If the EU just wanted money a tax could have been introduced. But some fail to understand that.

Btw were is the reciprocacy of the PNR? Pretty onesided in my mind. Just as one sided as the routings issue which is only an issue because many countries simply do not partake and therefore leave no other possibility. It is a nice theme for smokes and mirrors disguised as pseudologic criticism. The simple truth is that those objectors simply don't care about regulating CO² emmissions.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 103, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 5448 times:

Quoting gipsy (Reply 102):
The US didn't sign the Kyoto protocol afaik. So it is basically about countries wanting to do something and countries not wanting to do anything. If the EU just wanted money a tax could have been introduced. But some fail to understand that.

I believe Canada signed the Kyoto protocol under the previous government, but has since withdrawn from it citing that the world's largest polluters are not even held to the standards that were put forth and it has really done nothing to stem pollution. The present government of Canada will not be signing any agreement that does not include China, the US, or costs us billions of $'s to clean up the dirty air coming from the US.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 104, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5442 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 28):
Air transportation is specifically exempted from the WTO's mandate and rules. The WTO has no jurisdiction.

My apologies, that is correct. It would still open up additional action tho.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 28):
Not under international law.

And which international law is that? Considering no legal action is pending at the WTO or any other international body, and no claims of treaty violations have been raised, I'd love to know which international law is being broken...

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 99):
Without permission from the US or Canada, I see that as illegal.

Simply, they don't need permission from the US or Canada because they aren't collecting the duty from you within the US and Canada (and that is entirely different to including the portion of the flight over US and Canadian airspace).

Once you land your aircraft in EU jurisdiction, you pay the duty - the EU can levy that duty any which way they want, you are in their jurisdiction and subject to their rules.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 103):
citing that the world's largest polluters are not even held to the standards that were put forth

The "worlds largest polluters" when counted in a very specific way, as in by absolutes (China comes top of the list). When counted in saner ways, as in "per capita" China et al fall quite some way down the scale (China comes in at number 78 on the list).

Why is it that most of Chinas population isn't allowed to pollute anywhere near as much as your average westerner?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5442 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 100):
This is different from charging an varying rate bands of landing tax, because such a tax is fully and exclusively associated with landing, an activity solely completed in an EU airport where EU has full jurisdiction. This tax band is determined by the initiation and destination point and rightly has nothing to do with the process of flying itself.

No. Both are set by how far you travel. One is just more detailed.

Then there is the Indian APD where the rate can differ based on what you do in a foreign country.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 100):
these criteria only take effect after the goods reach the territory of this country

As with ETS.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 100):
I think the events unfolded clearly demonstrated that they made the wrong choice.

Must disagree. This is now a serious issue for ICAO.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 100):
to say nothing of the legal ingenuity and creativeness the ECJ managed to exhibit in its ruling

Why not provide examples. I'd say the most creative explanations are from objectors describing what ETS is and isn't.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 100):
My only question is: Did EU ever thought they had a chance to pull this off?

I'd say they are ahead. This is now taken as a serious issue by ICAO. As to all your links. I don't see anything in them supporting that suspending is a sign of "The EU court does not have international jurisdiction."


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 104):
And which international law is that? Considering no legal action is pending at the WTO or any other international body, and no claims of treaty violations have been raised, I'd love to know which international law is being broken...

The Chicago Convention on Aviation, which all the EU countries are signatories but the EU is not. This has been stated several times above.

Quoting moo (Reply 104):
Simply, they don't need permission from the US or Canada because they aren't collecting the duty from you within the US and Canada (and that is entirely different to including the portion of the flight over US and Canadian airspace).

The problem is that this is an extra-territorial duty with is specifically prohibited by the Chicago Convention. If the EU countries with to renounce their agreement to the Chicago Convention, they could do such and impose this tarrif. There would be ramifications to such a move however, as it would allow other countries to create special tax categories for EU airlines that would not apply to other countries.

The EU can and have imposed uniform banded departure taxes based on both flight lengths and classes of service. These are allowable under international agreements.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 103):
I believe Canada signed the Kyoto protocol under the previous government, but has since withdrawn from it citing that the world's largest polluters are not even held to the standards that were put forth and it has really done nothing to stem pollution. The present government of Canada will not be signing any agreement that does not include China, the US, or costs us billions of $'s to clean up the dirty air coming from the US.

Last I heard is that due to the economic downturn and risiing oil prices, the USA has actually met their Kyoto goals even though they are not signatories.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6726 posts, RR: 12
Reply 107, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 10):
Whats next - will EU seek to regulate power plants, or other industrial emissions in the US?

Probably. Not directly like this, but with environmental taxes that would impact products according to their carbon footprint (including transport). It wouldn't impact products made in the US too much as you have strict environmental regulations, however stuff made in China would be more impacted. Since many US companies (and EU ones) have plants in China... What would be interesting is that it would probably make some manufacturing go back to the US, thanks to an European tax.

Quoting sweair (Reply 26):
If we start the count on lost business thanks to the ETS madness this sum would be scary for us europeans. EU has this superior attitude to the world, we know better what other nations and continets need or should believe in. It will come back and bite us in the rear until we learn

Well we follow scientists' recommendations (or rather we try to do little things that go in the right direction, not nearly enough), while many US politicians deny science. I know in which camp I'd rather be.

Quoting sweair (Reply 24):
US would win a trade war with EU, just saying, lets not get too carried away.

I'm not sure what you mean. The EU is exporting significantly more to the US than the opposite. So if you mean ending trade would cost the EU more, then it's true. Then again a free trade agreement is in the works so there is no war in sight.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 108, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 106):
The problem is that this is an extra-territorial duty with is specifically prohibited by the Chicago Convention.

Its not extra-territorial though - the fee is levied in the territory. It isn't levied for flights that don't land in the territory.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 109, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5436 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 108):
Its not extra-territorial though - the fee is levied in the territory. It isn't levied for flights that don't land in the territory.

It is calculated according to sector length, including international airspace and non-E.U. airspace. Under the standard principles of international law, that makes it extra-territorial - levying a fee based on something that occurs in another jurisdiction. For example, NZ's LAX-LHR service spends less than 5% of the flight time in E.U. airspace, but the fee is levied on the entire sector.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 110, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 108):
Its not extra-territorial though - the fee is levied in the territory. It isn't levied for flights that don't land in the territory.

It is extra-territorial since it is based how a foreign company operates their business outside of the EU. The EU is allowed to base their landing and departure fees and taxes based on such things as per person, class of service, landing weights, and other non-discriminatory methods. They may NOT levy duties based on the fuel efficiency of a foreign carrier. This is not allowable under international treaties such as the Chicago Convention.

Why is this so difficult for some here to understand?

If the EU wants to tax on this basis, they need to either re-negotiate the Chicago Convention and other relevant aviation agreements with all the parties involved. Otherwise, they need to pull out of the Chicago Convention and other pertinent agreements and go back and amend their bi-lateral air service agreements with individual countries to cover the materials normally just agreed to as a part of the Chicago Convention and referenced in the bi-laterals.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 111, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 109):
It is calculated according to sector length, including international airspace and non-E.U. airspace. Under the standard principles of international law, that makes it extra-territorial - levying a fee based on something that occurs in another jurisdiction. For example, NZ's LAX-LHR service spends less than 5% of the flight time in E.U. airspace, but the fee is levied on the entire sector.

As is APD.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 110):
It is extra-territorial since it is based how a foreign company operates their business outside of the EU

No it is not. It is based on landing at an EU airport. Why is it so difficult for some here to understand?

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 110):
If the EU wants to tax on this basis, they need to either re-negotiate the Chicago Convention and other relevant aviation agreements with all the parties involved. Otherwise, they need to pull out of the Chicago Convention and other pertinent agreements and go back and amend their bi-lateral air service agreements with individual countries to cover the materials normally just agreed to as a part of the Chicago Convention and referenced in the bi-laterals.

No, they also have the option of finding a solution inside the signed agreements. Which is what they did.

Then of course some people who are against the idea of making airlines be responsible for their total affects misrepresent what EU did.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4020 posts, RR: 4
Reply 112, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 110):
It is extra-territorial since it is based how a foreign company operates their business outside of the EU.

No it isn't, you fly to the EU then you are not being taxed on how your business is being operated outside of the EU - the ETS does not apply to flights between Canada and the US.

Just because you want to claim that for some bizarre reason a tax cannot be levied on the full operation of the flight doesn't mean that that is true. The flight originates or terminates in the EU, it becomes valid under EU jurisdiction. Flights that do not touch EU land do not fall under EU jurisdiction, therefore are not charged under the ETS.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 110):
The EU is allowed to base their landing and departure fees and taxes based on such things as per person, class of service, landing weights, and other non-discriminatory methods.

And now are any of those things non-discriminatory? Flights also have noise ratings to land at certain airports outside certain times, is that discriminatory?

The EU is allowed to based their fees on whatever they wish.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 109):
It is calculated according to sector length, including international airspace and non-E.U. airspace. Under the standard principles of international law, that makes it extra-territorial - levying a fee based on something that occurs in another jurisdiction.

Unfortunately, I cannot find anything under "standard principles of international law" which back you up. Import taxes are levied in the same manner and can include such considerations as type of farming (I do recall the US heaping huge shrimp import duties on far east shrimp imports due to the way they were farmed...).


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 113, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5444 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 112):
Just because you want to claim that for some bizarre reason a tax cannot be levied on the full operation of the flight doesn't mean that that is true. The flight originates or terminates in the EU, it becomes valid under EU jurisdiction. Flights that do not touch EU land do not fall under EU jurisdiction, therefore are not charged under the ETS.

8 years as a prof in the Law Faculty at McGill (which is also home to the Institute of Air and Space Law) tells me that under accepted principles of international law, it is extra-territorial.

Quoting cmf (Reply 111):
No it is not. It is based on landing at an EU airport. Why is it so difficult for some here to understand?

It is triggered by landing at an E.U. airport, but it is calculated by flight sector, including that part of the flight that occurs in international and other countries' airspace. It is not calculated by landings.

Quoting moo (Reply 112):
The flight originates or terminates in the EU, it becomes valid under EU jurisdiction.

That's the same as saying if you set foot in Canada, we're going levy a tax on your income wherever you earned it. If you don't want to be taxed, don't visit Canada.

Quoting moo (Reply 112):
Unfortunately, I cannot find anything under "standard principles of international law" which back you up.

Google "extraterritoriality". Here's an example of the E.U. complaining about the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws http://www.eurunion.org/partner/summit/summit9712/extrater.htm. I believe it's commonly called hypocrisy.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinesomething From United Kingdom, joined May 2011, 1633 posts, RR: 21
Reply 114, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5437 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 110):
Why is this so difficult for some here to understand?

''The EU's legislation on aviation emissions is compatible with international law. On 21 December 2011, the European Court of Justice gave its judgment in a legal case brought by some US airlines and their trade association against the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS. The Court clearly upheld the legislation, stating that the extension of the EU ETS to aviation infringes neither the principle of territoriality, nor the sovereignty of third countries.

The Court also stated that the EU ETS does not constitute a tax, fee or charge on fuel, which could be in breach of the EU-US Air Transport Agreement. It concluded that the uniform application of the EU ETS to all flights which depart or arrive from the EU is consistent with provisions designed to prohibit discriminatory treatment between aircraft operators on nationality grounds also covered by this agreement.''

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm

Here you have a shortened version of the verdict

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...ication/pdf/2011-12/cp110139en.pdf

You can find all the legal documents pertaining to this case here

http://www.eraa.org/docman/cat_view/...-environment/289-emissions-trading


I believe the ''difficulty of understanding the legal problems'' is not with those in favor of the ETS.



..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 115, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 5433 times:

Well it seems that both sides believe they are truly right. I hope those in favor of ETS can at least respect the line of reasoning, even if they disagree.

These are the times when compromise should come into play. The EU just going ahead with the ETS is probably not the best option. The gripe with the ETS is well laid out, and doesn't compromise the entire ETS. Now look at the situation: countries are pissed with the EU and ETS is suspended for the time being, and some countries refuse to take part in ETS.

The EU can't just expect other countries, who truly believe the EU is violating the Chicago Convention, to just "accept" an illegal action (in their eyes.)

I hope we see more cooperation. Just pasting the link to the EU's court ruling egregiously ignores the the argument of other countries and their court systems (which are just as competent and have some say in this as well.)


I can think of a few compromises honestly. Could you split traffic into "EU to EU" and "EU to/from non-EU countries?" In the latter category, you can impose some sort of ETS that doesn't even come close to raising an extra-territoriality accusation. Much more sensible that just saying "our courts say we're right, don't care what your court says."

Quoting something (Reply 114):
I believe the ''difficulty of understanding the legal problems'' is not with those in favor of the ETS.

I have nothing against the ETS. I just see it as violating the Chicago Conventions. Two rights don't make a wrong, and people have been saying that ______ does the same thing. Then ______ is wrong and should be corrected I suppose. Whatever the case, I hope compromise results instead of the EU trying to push something and other countries completely going against the will of the EU



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 116, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5441 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 113):
8 years as a prof in the Law Faculty at McGill (which is also home to the Institute of Air and Space Law) tells me that under accepted principles of international law, it is extra-territorial.

The (multiple) Judges who came down with the ruling represent significantly more than that. Plus, they spent significant time on the issue and put their name behind an official document.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 113):
It is triggered by landing at an E.U. airport, but it is calculated by flight sector, including that part of the flight that occurs in international and other countries' airspace. It is not calculated by landings.

Read it in the context it was presented. APD isn't calculated by landings (takeoff) either.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 113):
I believe it's commonly called hypocrisy.

By whom? Seems to me the countries frequently doing it should not complain if others do it....

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
Well it seems that both sides believe they are truly right. I hope those in favor of ETS can at least respect the line of reasoning, even if they disagree.

I hope those objecting ETS can  
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
These are the times when compromise should come into play. The EU just going ahead with the ETS is probably not the best option. The gripe with the ETS is well laid out, and doesn't compromise the entire ETS. Now look at the situation: countries are pissed with the EU and ETS is suspended for the time being, and some countries refuse to take part in ETS.

The compromise is ICAO. This has all been about forcing ICAO to do the job they were tasks to do. To stop pushing it forward.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
The EU can't just expect other countries, who truly believe the EU is violating the Chicago Convention, to just "accept" an illegal action (in their eyes.)

They don't. But isn't it "interesting" that the the countries claiming there is violation have not initiated article 84 proceedings.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 117, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 5430 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 116):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
Well it seems that both sides believe they are truly right. I hope those in favor of ETS can at least respect the line of reasoning, even if they disagree.

I hope those objecting ETS can  

Of course, it goes both ways

Quoting cmf (Reply 116):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
These are the times when compromise should come into play. The EU just going ahead with the ETS is probably not the best option. The gripe with the ETS is well laid out, and doesn't compromise the entire ETS. Now look at the situation: countries are pissed with the EU and ETS is suspended for the time being, and some countries refuse to take part in ETS.

The compromise is ICAO. This has all been about forcing ICAO to do the job they were tasks to do. To stop pushing it forward.

Again, I'm not really convinced that this is the job of the ICAO (climate change.) I can see them trying to mediate and resolve this issue, and I'm not saying the ICAO is anti-climate or anything, but IDK I just don't see it as their job. Kinda like it's not the job of the Catholic Church to sell hamburgers

Quoting cmf (Reply 116):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 115):
The EU can't just expect other countries, who truly believe the EU is violating the Chicago Convention, to just "accept" an illegal action (in their eyes.)

They don't. But isn't it "interesting" that the the countries claiming there is violation have not initiated article 84 proceedings.

I don't know what that means. I find it interesting that the narrative of the EU seems to have changed. Maybe I wasn't paying attention well enough, but when the ETS first came out the EU was saying that the EU didn't sign the Chicago Convention (even though all its member countries did) so it didn't have to comply with the CC. Now THAT's is some BS if I ever saw any. The fact that they then switched gears and adopted a new one kinda makes me suspicious... usually when a side switches justifications they're only trying to win, not argue any facts. Look at the GOP and the Benghazi-gate incident... they keep on switching accusations around, trying to pin blame rather than get to the truth.

But then again, I didn't get a degree in the EU/ETS   I'm just trying to formulate my own opinion. I'm not even arguing whether the ETS is a stupid idea or not, I'm just not fully convinced it's legal, despite what the EU says and despite some other examples that appear to violate the CC



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 118, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5440 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 116):
But isn't it "interesting" that the the countries claiming there is violation have not initiated article 84 proceedings.

Ummm ... Article 84: "If any disagreement between two or more contracting States ....". Since the E.U. is not a contracting state, how exactly would they initiate proceedings?



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 119, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5438 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 117):
Again, I'm not really convinced that this is the job of the ICAO (climate change.)

Why not? What better organisation is there for this?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 117):
I don't know what that means. I find it interesting that the narrative of the EU seems to have changed. Maybe I wasn't paying attention well enough, but when the ETS first came out the EU was saying that the EU didn't sign the Chicago Convention (even though all its member countries did) so it didn't have to comply with the CC. Now THAT's is some BS if I ever saw any.

You got the objectors version of the ruling. ECJ was asked to provide answers to several questions. As normal they provide full answers with reasoning and that is why they stated that EU by itself wasn't a signatory. Then the objectors stopped reading.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 118):
Ummm ... Article 84: "If any disagreement between two or more contracting States ....". Since the E.U. is not a contracting state, how exactly would they initiate proceedings?

With eight years as a prof in the Law Faculty at McGill I expected you to know. Air Transport Association of America,
American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. airlines and United Airlines Inc. already managed to figure it out. I'm sure they will know how to do it again.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 120, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5431 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 119):
Why not? What better organisation is there for this?

A climate organization

Quoting cmf (Reply 119):
You got the objectors version of the ruling. ECJ was asked to provide answers to several questions. As normal they provide full answers with reasoning and that is why they stated that EU by itself wasn't a signatory. Then the objectors stopped reading.

Then what was their full answer?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 121, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5432 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 120):
A climate organization

Aviation stated they do not understand the special circumstances of international aviation and aviation already have an organisation to handle regulatory issues.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 120):
Then what was their full answer?

I linked it before but here it is again, http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?language=en&num=c-366/10


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 122, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5433 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 119):

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 118):
Ummm ... Article 84: "If any disagreement between two or more contracting States ....". Since the E.U. is not a contracting state, how exactly would they initiate proceedings?

With eight years as a prof in the Law Faculty at McGill I expected you to know. Air Transport Association of America,
American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. airlines and United Airlines Inc. already managed to figure it out. I'm sure they will know how to do it again.

I don't understand your answer. The parties to the Convention who have standing to initiate proceedings are "contracting States" (i.e. countries), not airlines. Which is why the airlines went to the ECJ, not the dispute procedure under the Convention.

Anyway, it's all moot. The shoe finally dropped and E.U. politicians/regulators realized that the major beneficiary of ETS is EK and their own carriers are at a fiscal disadvantage.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 123, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 122):
Which is why the airlines went to the ECJ, not the dispute procedure under the Convention.

They did not go to ECJ. I expected an eight year prof in the Law Faculty at McGill would know that.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 124, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5436 times:

Foreign airlines have to respect the USA's insane cabotage laws which impose pathetic service on all domestic passengers in the USA.

And US airlines similarly have to observe EU law for their EU operations.

That's the law of the land.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 125, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 5444 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 123):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 122):
Which is why the airlines went to the ECJ, not the dispute procedure under the Convention.

They did not go to ECJ. I expected an eight year prof in the Law Faculty at McGill would know that.

I know full well they went to the U.K. High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), which referred the case to the ECJ. In fact, I would have known that as a first-year law student. The case before the ECJ is nevertheless styled (quoting from the ECJ) "Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc., United Airlines Inc. v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. I would have known that, too, as a first-year law student, so long as I was able to read. Your response is a bit like saying Citizens United didn't go to the U.S. Supreme Court - they went to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Quoting cmf (Reply 116):
But isn't it "interesting" that the the countries claiming there is violation have not initiated article 84 proceedings.

Your nitpicking doesn't change my point that only states parties, not airlines, have the right to invoke the Chicago Convention dispute resolution process. Hence the airlines went to the courts. So it's not "interesting" in the slightest - they had no other forum to turn to.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 126, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 5425 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 125):
Your nitpicking doesn't change my point that only states parties, not airlines, have the right to invoke the Chicago Convention dispute resolution process. Hence the airlines went to the courts. So it's not "interesting" in the slightest - they had no other forum to turn to.

Are you really not aware of the process? Look how EU and USA have been fighting out the Boeing and Airbus WTO cases.

If you spent a minimal amount of time on the issue you brought up you would find that each airline is administrated by a member state. Thus you direct article 84 at that state. I'm sure the first year students would have solved that problem too.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 127, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5411 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 126):
Are you really not aware of the process? Look how EU and USA have been fighting out the Boeing and Airbus WTO cases.

If you spent a minimal amount of time on the issue you brought up you would find that each airline is administrated by a member state. Thus you direct article 84 at that state. I'm sure the first year students would have solved that problem too.

I'm very aware of the process. I've presented disputes before the WTO. The WTO process has nothing to do with Chicago Convention dispute resolution. In fact, civil aviation (NOT aircraft manufacturing/sales) is specifically exempted from WTO (as I've already mentioned, in a previous post). The fact that an airline is administered by a contracting state does NOT make the airline a party to the Convention (BASIC principle of international law).

First year students wouldn't have a problem with basic jurisdictional issues. Could I recommend a law school to you - or a basic text on international law?



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25653 posts, RR: 22
Reply 128, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 5344 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 124):
Foreign airlines have to respect the USA's insane cabotage laws which impose pathetic service on all domestic passengers in the USA.

Cabotage isn't unique to the U.S. Almost all countries prohibit cabotage. Only very few exceptions. The EU single market is one exception for EU-based carriers only, also Australia and New Zealand for carriers based in the two countries.

And if the U.S. did permit cabotage, do you really believe foreign carriers would rush in to operate U.S. domestic services? It wouldn't happen. Just look at the dozens of U.S. Open Skies agreements that permit unrestricted 5th freedom rights. How many carriers are using those rights? Almost none.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 129, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5316 times:

Qantas and Air NZ both discontinued HNL-LAX due to cabotage laws. If those laws were as liberal as they are in Australia and NZ the routes would continue and American passengers would be the beneficiaries.

If we respect US cabotage laws we must also respect EU environmental law. This is not a matter of Facebook "like" status, just an acknowledgment that the law of the land prevails.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9556 posts, RR: 14
Reply 130, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 5307 times:

Quoting something (Reply 90):
A group of countries I would also be proud to be named in one breath with.

Its better than letting a wanna be country try to tell the world what to do. Its so funny how people complain when the US does it....but if the EU does it.....sweet goodness we should all listen because they are all so clearly more intelligent than us.  
Quoting something (Reply 90):
You're actually terrible at it. The fact that the aforementioned countries are the biggest polluters is a fact. Not a sentiment.

So maybe i should come to the EU and I can be just like you. Know whos the problem and then try to force them to fix it with your, clearly, best idea.  



yep.
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3217 posts, RR: 10
Reply 131, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 5285 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 129):
If we respect US cabotage laws we must also respect EU environmental law. This is not a matter of Facebook "like" status, just an acknowledgment that the law of the land prevails.

I disagree. If there was a tag on flight within the EU and the EU said ETS must apply to that flight id say it would be more like the cabotage laws. But it has long been a principle of international aviation law that an aircraft type is considered the soil of the country its registered in. So, in effect this is like the importing example. You can't dictate the terms and conditions of how the factory in the manufacturing country works, but you can of course refuse to allow goods in that don't meet local standards. (eg - no good produced using child labour). What the EU could have done is levy an environmental tax on landing or departure or both on their soil based on flight length etc and they wouldn't have been outside their legal domain. But by enforcing what is effectively part of another country outside the EU to participate in a trading scheme, they are outside it. It would be no different to trying to attempt to force a factory in china to participate in the european ETS because they export to china. The EU could put up a tariff on the imports for environmental reasons, but it couldn't force the factory in china to partake.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 132, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 5256 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 127):
I'm very aware of the process. I've presented disputes before the WTO. The WTO process has nothing to do with Chicago Convention dispute resolution. In fact, civil aviation (NOT aircraft manufacturing/sales) is specifically exempted from WTO (as I've already mentioned, in a previous post). The fact that an airline is administered by a contracting state does NOT make the airline a party to the Convention (BASIC principle of international law).

So you have presented disputes in front of WTO but after stating that it must be states and not individual airlines invoking article 84 you do not see the similarity with how it was the states and not the individual companies bringing the subsidy cases in front of WTO?

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 127):
First year students wouldn't have a problem with basic jurisdictional issues. Could I recommend a law school to you - or a basic text on international law?

Suggest you take that class.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 131):
What the EU could have done is levy an environmental tax on landing or departure or both on their soil based on flight length etc and they wouldn't have been outside their legal domain.

That is how ETS works.


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 133, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week ago) and read 5181 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
No. Both are set by how far you travel. One is just more detailed.

Well, we are getting somewhere. At least you acknowledged there are some difference between the two.
Now I will argue that the devil is in the details.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
That is how ETS works.

No, there is an important difference. What ETS means is that EU jurisdiction applies on a foreign airplane while flying over non-EU airspace, as long as the said airplane eventually land in an EU airport. This is the detail that is unacceptable to many other countries. A landing tax does not have this problem. Indian passenger tax is one such example. The tax is paid before depart the airport and once a foreign aircraft leaves Indian airspace it is no longer bound by Indian laws. EU ETS requires airlines to calculate and report emission by foreign aircrafts on foreign non-EU airspace. This is the difference in detail.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
As with ETS.

I will recycle my old example. If EU one day requires all cars imported to contain three wheels only, there is nothing legal that stops manufacturer shipping cars with 4 wheels then take one out during the shipping process. ETS requires foreign airlines to be compliant before their aircraft reaching EU airspace. Now if other countries have no problems with this requirement, everything is OK. The thing is, many countries do have a problem and the EU should have foreseen such opposition.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
Must disagree. This is now a serious issue for ICAO.

So? ICAO will go nowhere if countries like US and China refuses to participate. I would argue by the bungled execution EU has antagonised many major countries, and have caused damage and created hurdles for a multilateral solution by unilaterally pursuing a immature plan.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
Why not provide examples.

Many posters have discussed this and I will not repeat. I will say this though, I'd love to see the US arguing against the legality of US aircrafts participating in EU ETS in its current form, for the whole length of the flight, even when over US airspace. I am willing to place a bet on the outcome, pity no one would bet with me.  
Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
I'd say they are ahead.

Are you serious? They just backed down in public in a fashion that only be described as humiliating, and you think they are ahead? When did Comical Ali start to post on A.net?

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
I don't see anything in them supporting that suspending is a sign of "The EU court does not have international jurisdiction."

It is an admission that the ECJ ruling is not worth the weight of the paper it is printed on because without the support of other countries this part of the ETS is as dead as dodo.


User currently offlineCerecl From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 740 posts, RR: 0
Reply 134, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week ago) and read 5182 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
No. Both are set by how far you travel. One is just more detailed.

Well, we are getting somewhere. At least you acknowledged there are some difference between the two.
Now I will argue that the devil is in the details.

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
That is how ETS works.

No, there is an important difference. What ETS means is that EU jurisdiction applies on a foreign airplane while flying over non-EU airspace, as long as the said airplane eventually land in an EU airport. This is the detail that is unacceptable to many other countries. A landing tax does not have this problem. Indian passenger tax is one such example. The tax is paid before depart the airport and once a foreign aircraft leaves Indian airspace it is no longer bound by Indian laws. EU ETS requires airlines to calculate and report emission by foreign aircrafts on foreign non-EU airspace. This is the difference in detail.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
As with ETS.

I will recycle my old example. If EU one day requires all cars imported to contain three wheels only, there is nothing legal that stops manufacturer shipping cars with 4 wheels then take one out during the shipping process. ETS requires foreign airlines to be compliant before their aircraft reaching EU airspace. Now if other countries have no problems with this requirement, everything is OK. The thing is, many countries do have a problem and the EU should have foreseen such opposition.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
Must disagree. This is now a serious issue for ICAO.

So? ICAO will go nowhere if countries like US and China refuse to participate. I would argue by the bungled execution EU has antagonised many major countries, and have caused damage and created hurdles for a multilateral solution by unilaterally pursuing a immature plan.

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
Why not provide examples.

Many posters have discussed this and I will not repeat. I will say this though, I'd love to see the US arguing against the legality of US aircrafts participating in EU ETS in its current form, for the whole length of the flight, even when over US airspace. I am willing to place a bet on the outcome, pity no one would bet with me.  
Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
I'd say they are ahead.

Are you serious? They just backed down in public in a fashion that only be described as humiliating, and you think they are ahead? When did Comical Ali start to post on A.net?

Quoting cmf (Reply 105):
I don't see anything in them supporting that suspending is a sign of "The EU court does not have international jurisdiction."

It is an admission that the ECJ ruling is not worth the weight of the paper it is printed on because without the support of other countries this part of the ETS is as dead as dodo.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 135, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5146 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 127):
I'm very aware of the process. I've presented disputes before the WTO. The WTO process has nothing to do with Chicago Convention dispute resolution. In fact, civil aviation (NOT aircraft manufacturing/sales) is specifically exempted from WTO (as I've already mentioned, in a previous post). The fact that an airline is administered by a contracting state does NOT make the airline a party to the Convention (BASIC principle of international law).

So you have presented disputes in front of WTO but after stating that it must be states and not individual airlines invoking article 84 you do not see the similarity with how it was the states and not the individual companies bringing the subsidy cases in front of WTO?

What's your point? Yes, the Boeing / Airbus subsidy issues were brought to the WTO by the E.U.. and the U.S. respectively. However, the E.U. is a WTO signatory. The E.U. is NOT a party to the Chicago Convention, so the U.S. couldn't initiate dispute proceedings against the E.U. under article 84. Hence the airlines began proceedings in a U.K. court. So what?



Quoting cmf (Reply 132):
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 127):
First year students wouldn't have a problem with basic jurisdictional issues. Could I recommend a law school to you - or a basic text on international law?

Suggest you take that class.

Done that. Have you?



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 136, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5074 times:

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 133):
Well, we are getting somewhere. At least you acknowledged there are some difference between the two.

One band, two bands, 10 bands or infinite bands, it is the same principle.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 133):
No, there is an important difference. What ETS means is that EU jurisdiction applies on a foreign airplane while flying over non-EU airspace, as long as the said airplane eventually land in an EU airport. This is the detail that is unacceptable to many other countries. A landing tax does not have this problem. Indian passenger tax is one such example. The tax is paid before depart the airport and once a foreign aircraft leaves Indian airspace it is no longer bound by Indian laws. EU ETS requires airlines to calculate and report emission by foreign aircrafts on foreign non-EU airspace. This is the difference in detail.

Indian passenger tax can differ depending on what country I fly to after landing. How is that not extrateritorial?

USA require reporting on foreign territory on flights to USA. IIRC even on flights just flying over USA.

Brasil require higher baggage limits on the part of the flight outside their territory.

USA require that an airline flying you from USA give you same baggage limits on all following flights on that ticket even if those flights do not include USA.

Again, ETS is inside what is already happening.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 133):
ETS requires foreign airlines to be compliant before their aircraft reaching EU airspace. Now if other countries have no problems with this requirement, everything is OK. The thing is, many countries do have a problem and the EU should have foreseen such opposition.

See above.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 134):
So? ICAO will go nowhere if countries like US and China refuse to participate. I would argue by the bungled execution EU has antagonised many major countries, and have caused damage and created hurdles for a multilateral solution by unilaterally pursuing a immature plan.

What you're stating is that everyone should bow to US and China. What EU did was to stop the stalling at ICAO. They made it very clear from the beginning that an ICAO solution was the preferred solution. That some countries decide to use it to be obstinate doesn't make anything worse when you're already at the worst possible situation.

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 134):
Many posters have discussed this and I will not repeat. I will say this though, I'd love to see the US arguing against the legality of US aircrafts participating in EU ETS in its current form, for the whole length of the flight, even when over US airspace. I am willing to place a bet on the outcome, pity no one would bet with me.

I have seen the many false claims the ruling is based on that EU did not sign the Chicago convention. That they get it wrong isn't the rulings fault. So what do you have?

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 134):
Are you serious? They just backed down in public in a fashion that only be described as humiliating, and you think they are ahead? When did Comical Ali start to post on A.net?

When you have nothing scream and make outlandish climes....

Quoting Cerecl (Reply 134):
It is an admission that the ECJ ruling is not worth the weight of the paper it is printed on because without the support of other countries this part of the ETS is as dead as dodo.

No it is not.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 135):
What's your point?

Have you already forgotten your claim? Here it is again:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 118):
Ummm ... Article 84: "If any disagreement between two or more contracting States ....". Since the E.U. is not a contracting state, how exactly would they initiate proceedings?

By initiating proceedings against the country they are assigned to of course. As demonstrated by the filing in UK of the first case.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 135):
Done that. Have you?

I'm not the one claiming my resume trumps multiple judges and I have no problem figuring out who to initiate an article 84 proceeding against.


User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 137, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5022 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 136):

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 135):
What's your point?

Have you already forgotten your claim? Here it is again:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 118):
Ummm ... Article 84: "If any disagreement between two or more contracting States ....". Since the E.U. is not a contracting state, how exactly would they initiate proceedings?

By initiating proceedings against the country they are assigned to of course. As demonstrated by the filing in UK of the first case.

The proceedings in the U.K. were initiated by airlines, not the U.S. And they were not article 84 proceedings.

This is becoming so circular that I'm getting dizzy.

1. Article 84 of the Chicago Convention sets up a dispute resolution process for matters arising from the Convention.
2. Proceedings under article 84 of the Chicago Convention can only be initiated by and brought against the contracting States. No other party (e.g. airlines) has standing.
3. The E.U. is not a signatory to the Convention, so the U.S. could not initiate article 84 proceedings against it.
4. Airlines brought an excess of jurisdiction case against the U.K. in U.K. courts. The case had nothing to do with the article 84 dispute resolution process. The U.S. was not (and could not be) a party to those proceedings.
5. The U.K. court referred the case to the European Court of Justice.

Quoting cmf (Reply 136):
I'm not the one claiming my resume trumps multiple judges

Nor am I. I did refer several times to "respected experts" in international law.



Empty vessels make the most noise.
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 138, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 136):

Yet I was the one who told you months ago that the EU would back down and why.

Now you try to claim that the EU is not backing down, and this is what they were hoping for all along.

Now let me make another prediction for you:

The ICAO will not adopt an alternative plan in the next 10 months, and the EU will still keep their international ETS plan "suspended" despite their pronouncements recently of reinstating it.

So far my predictions on this matter have been on target, while your assurances that the EU have every right to levy this tax scheme and that they will enforce it on foreign airlines has just gone up in smoke.

BTW, the ECJ suit was giving the EU a chance to clean up their own mess and save face without other countries calling them on the carpet...and they blew it. Now they have to walk the whole thing back polically.


User currently offlinejfidler From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 139, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4914 times:

I'm not sure I get the environmental purpose of ETS. Usually environmental "taxes" are there to encourage improvement or change of behavior.

But don't airlines already have a huge incentive to reduce emissions? The price of fuel is a major component of their costs anyway, so that would motivate them to find ways to reduce this. I remember reading about a US-based airline that has the pilots taxi to the gate using a single engine to save on fuel. That would make it seem to me that airlines are already focused on reducing fuel consumption.

I guess another argument is to get people to use transportation methods that result in less emissions, but is that really practical for travelers coming from North America or Asia?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 140, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 4718 times:

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 137):
This is becoming so circular that I'm getting dizzy.

Only because you're throwing various facts left and right. The question at hand is how to initiate article 84 proceedings where you claimed it can't be done because EU is not a signatory of the Chicago convention. The answer is as simple as initiating it against the member state(s) in charge of handling ETS. Simple as that.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 137):
Nor am I. I did refer several times to "respected experts" in international law.

You did state your title as support for your claims and you have not identified any of the "respected experts" or what they object to.

I refuse to provide my credentials because this isn't a thread about who has the most impressive credentials. It is about US Congress passing legislation prohibiting US airlines participating in EU ETS and the reasons for that. Provide support for your claims by liking actual law or opinion instead of stating that you have been a professor and have WTO experience. You know what will happen in WTO if that is how you support your case 
Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 138):
Yet I was the one who told you months ago that the EU would back down and why.

You got one. Good for you.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 138):
Now you try to claim that the EU is not backing down, and this is what they were hoping for all along.

But here you're wrong. I have not made either of those claims. I have stated that stepping down doesn't mean ETS was illegal. I have also stated that EU's stated goal always was to get a worldwide solution endorsed by ICAO. All this mean is that they think at this time it is better to postpone. Nothing more, nothing less. Just as the fact that no nation hasn't initiated article 84 proceedings doesn't mean that EU ETS is legal.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 138):
Now let me make another prediction for you:

The ICAO will not adopt an alternative plan in the next 10 months, and the EU will still keep their international ETS plan "suspended" despite their pronouncements recently of reinstating it.

Since it is more that 10 month to the next ICAO assembly I think your prediction is safe. How about showing off the skills you brag about and tell us the result after the assembly? What will the ICAO plan be at that time?

Quoting jfidler (Reply 139):
But don't airlines already have a huge incentive to reduce emissions? The price of fuel is a major component of their costs anyway, so that would motivate them to find ways to reduce this.

Airlines are incentivised to keep fuel costs per individual flights as low as possible. But it is countered by that they are even more incentivised to fly as many flights as they can possibly find customers for and as long as the revenue is more than the cost it really don't matter what the cost of fuel is.

Look at the figures published by IATA, http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_...fact_sheets/Pages/environment.aspx
Between 2010 and 2011 total CO2 emissions increased 3.5% despite flights being 1.7% more efficient. The reason, capacity grew 5.2% more than offsetting the efficiency gains.


User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 141, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4692 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 9):
The Europeans tried to impose their misguided will upon the entire world with the ETS scheme, and those countries with the economic might and imperative to stand up to the EU on this issue -- such as the USA and China -- have done so.

They have done well. What is needed is international consent over this issue and preventing US companies from complying with this unilateral EU measure is a sensible step towards bringing about international consent.


User currently offlineblueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 4069 posts, RR: 2
Reply 142, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 4635 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 71):
For example, based on this decision, it could be argued that E.U. diplomatic representatives are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention, because the E.U. is not a signatory.

EU delegations receive Convention-like protections through bilateral agreements between the EU and host countries, not from the Vienna Convention itself. There is nothing in the Vienna Convention that prevents signatory countries from unilaterally and willingly extending Convention-like protections to non-signatory entities. The day a host country decides they are no longer willing to extend such protections, the EU delegation packs up and goes home.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1898664

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 117):
Again, I'm not really convinced that this is the job of the ICAO (climate change.)

What, do you think, is the job of the ICAO then?
The ICAO sees its role as harmonizing issues that affect global aviation, even though many of these issues, such as fire protection standards or communication protocols, have their own pan-national bodies that could also step in and get the job done. The ICAO, which is members-run, believes however that it is best qualified because it can best understand how these issues relate to global aviation, so why not the environment?

For the period 2011-2013, the ICAO set itself three strategic objectives, one of which is "(f)oster harmonized and economically viable development of international civil aviation that does not unduly harm the environment."
http://www.icao.int/Pages/Strategic-Objectives.aspx
We can argue all day whether ETS is the correct approach, but, with respect, I think that the ship has sailed on whether or not the ICAO is the proper forum. The ICAO certainly seems to think it is.

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 113):
That's the same as saying if you set foot in Canada, we're going levy a tax on your income wherever you earned it. If you don't want to be taxed, don't visit Canada.

Or the same as saying that just because you are a citizen of country A, you will pay taxes to country A in certain circumstances even if you live in country B and never sets foot, physically or virtually, in country A. Yet that happens all the time, in the US and Mexico to take the two nearest examples.
Another example for you to ponder. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act applies to US citizens working overseas for US employers. Do you seriously believe that a US court would agree to suspend the act if a foreign government passed a law saying that Title VII doesn't apply to any employer within its boundaries?
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm - section (f)
And that isn't the only one either.
http://www.businessmanagementdaily.c...-us-employment-laws-apply-overseas

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 68):
My own personal thoughts are that the Governments around the world should suspend any involvement with the EU until the EU decides if its going to be bound by the treaties its members sign or not.

You can't be asking that unless you are willing to reciprocate. Several US states routinely ignore international treaties ratified by the Congress, such as the Vienna Convention cited above. Are you willing to ban them from any involvement with the rest of the world? Before you answer, consider that a yes means the end of all international flying at ORD and IAH, for instance.

[Edited 2012-11-22 19:25:04]


I've got $h*t to do
User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 143, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4513 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 140):

The results of the next ICAO meeting will be no change. There will be no agreement on any kind of international ETS.

And the EU will not reimpose the international aspect of ETS on foreign carriers.

And BTW, there is no reason for the USA or China or India or Russia to file an Article 84 motion. All they need to do is what they have done...not allow their airlines to pay. Let the EU or one of the EU member states file an Aritcle 84 motion to try to compel payment. A much more logical and efficient way to handle the situation...and what they actually did.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 144, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4490 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 143):
The results of the next ICAO meeting will be no change. There will be no agreement on any kind of international ETS.

And the EU will not reimpose the international aspect of ETS on foreign carriers.

Will there be something to control emissions? What about neutral growth after 2020, etc?

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 143):
And BTW, there is no reason for the USA or China or India or Russia to file an Article 84 motion

Why use agreed procedures....

[Edited 2012-11-23 06:25:18]

User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3594 posts, RR: 10
Reply 145, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4442 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
Why use agreed procedures....

EU is not a signatory to the Chicago Convention and there has been no monitary assessment yet by any EU nation on any foreign airline.

Quoting cmf (Reply 144):
Will there be something to control emissions? What about neutral growth after 2020, etc?

No, there will not be anything more than possibly some vague verbiage as to the intentions of countries to meet some "goals"... with no global ETS scheme.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 146, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4404 times:

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 145):
EU is not a signatory to the Chicago Convention and there has been no monitary assessment yet by any EU nation on any foreign airline.

That the fist allowances wasn't due until next year isn't important since the requirements have been in effect since the beginning of this year.

Also, that EU isn't an signatory isn't important. It is the member state that impose ETS that is important. With all member states having signed the Chicago convention that EU isn't a signatory is an objection without relevance.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 145):
No, there will not be anything more than possibly some vague verbiage as to the intentions of countries to meet some "goals"... with no global ETS scheme.

You keep saying ETS and I think you do so to be able to claim that just because it is called something different and doesn't function the same in every detail you will claim that you're right.

ICAO is talking about policy framework and MBM. What policy framework and/or MBM will be the ICAO policy after the 38th assembly?


User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 557 posts, RR: 0
Reply 147, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4310 times:

What a good idea! The US government should also ban its airlines from paying landing fees at foreign airports and from paying for fuel. Then the EU would have to let them land and refuel for free!

User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7381 posts, RR: 8
Reply 148, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 146):
Also, that EU isn't an signatory isn't important. It is the member state that impose ETS that is important. With all member states having signed the Chicago convention that EU isn't a signatory is an objection without relevance.

So the purpose of the UK referring the issue to the EU court which as you now state is irrelevant and supporters claiming that the ruling made by the irrelevant court makes the matter legal is..............

On the article 84 issue, you are saying that since private US registered and domiciled airlines bought the case to the UK court that they were defacto representatives of the US government thus this was an article 84 case under the ICAO resolutions?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 149, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4254 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 148):
So the purpose of the UK referring the issue to the EU court which as you now state is irrelevant and supporters claiming that the ruling made by the irrelevant court makes the matter legal is..............

On the article 84 issue, you are saying that since private US registered and domiciled airlines bought the case to the UK court that they were defacto representatives of the US government thus this was an article 84 case under the ICAO resolutions?

 Wow!

Amazing what you make out of a comment regarding who would be on the "EU" side in case of an article 84 hearing.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7381 posts, RR: 8
Reply 150, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4220 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 149):
Amazing what you make out of a comment regarding who would be on the "EU" side in case of an article 84 hearing.

How did we get to sides???????
I'm trying to follow the discussion especially in light of a law professor chiming in.

It has been stated by supporters yourself including that the ETS is legal because the EU court stated so, now you seem to be saying that the court is irrelevant, so why the stance on their ruling?

As for how the comment answers my article 84 question I'm lost, but I'll read some more and let this play out.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 151, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 150):
How did we get to sides???????

When Kaiarahi claimed that article 84 procedings can't be initiated because EU has not signed the Chicago convention, back in post 118.

Quoting par13del (Reply 150):
It has been stated by supporters yourself including that the ETS is legal because the EU court stated so, now you seem to be saying that the court is irrelevant, so why the stance on their ruling?

Never said the ECJ ruling is irrelevant. I have stated that to initiate article 84 proceedings over ETS it is irrelevant that EU hasn't signed the Chicago conventions. Because you direct them at the member nation enforcing them.

Quoting par13del (Reply 150):
As for how the comment answers my article 84 question I'm lost

Your article 84 question does not make sense. Article 84 is an ICAO process, not a European court process. Thus what happened in the European courts can't be an article 84 proceeding. I find the suggestion absurd.

I find the suggestion that US airlines are "defacto representatives of the US government" even stranger. Would love to understand how you came up with that idea.

The connection with the A4A's (then ATA) case against UK's Secretary of State for
Energy and Climate Change is that it demonstrates that you can direct the proceedings at the administrating member state instead of EU. That's it. Don't make it more.


User currently offlinesbworcs From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 848 posts, RR: 5
Reply 152, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4121 times:

Ok. I am confused. If APD is based on flight length (including areas outside EU) and is NOT extra terrestrial how is ETS which is based on flight sectors including areas outside EU classed as opposite.


The best way forwards is upwards!
User currently offlineKaiarahi From Canada, joined Jul 2009, 3033 posts, RR: 28
Reply 153, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 151):
When Kaiarahi claimed that article 84 procedings can't be initiated because EU has not signed the Chicago convention, back in post 118.

That's not what I said. I said that article 84 proceedings cannot be initiated against the E.U.

I just do not understand what you're saying. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of private international law, public international law, the legal regime applicable between the E.U. and its member states, the principle of extraterritoriality, jurisdiction, and the notion of "contracting parties. Frankly, I'm lost.



Empty vessels make the most noise.