Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New EU Tax! Up To £50 Per Passenger Per Flight!  
User currently offlineTeahan From Ireland, joined Nov 1999, 5446 posts, RR: 58
Posted (14 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 2740 times:


I know this isn't totally on topic, however it still will have a big effect of future developements in air travel.

Today’s British Times had what I consider to be really outrageous news. The EU is looking into introducing an environmental tax within the next 18 months. The tax would be around €10 per passenger per flight hour! It would be introduced to encourage more reasonable flying and hence eliminate unnecessary trips by passengers who buy very cheap tickets from low-cost airlines

****quote from The Times.co.uk***

AIR passengers face having to pay an environmental charge of up to £50 a ticket under a European plan to force airlines to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The charge could be imposed on all airlines within two years, adding £50 to the cost of flying from London to California, £35 to flights to New York and between £5 and £10 to flights within Europe.

Holidaymakers and budget airline passengers would be most affected by the levy, which the aviation industry denounced last night as a “tax on holidays”. Virgin Atlantic said airlines would have no choice but to pass the charge on to passengers.

Air travel is the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions: the average jet pumps just under one tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for each passenger it carries from London to New York. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change has calculated that aviation causes 3.5 per cent of man-made global warming and has predicted that this could rise to 15 per cent by 2050.

Britain is one of several EU countries that support a charge. The Government’s Green Paper, The Future of Aviation, states that the absence of a tax on kerosene is an anomaly and introducing one would “place environmental costs on the polluter”.

Until now, airlines have escaped paying tax on fuel consumption or emissions, arguing that they could simply fly to another country with no tax and fill up there. Only Norway imposes a carbon dioxide tax on domestic flights.

But the European Commission is now preparing to recommend a European-wide charging system both to encourage airlines to buy more fuel-efficient aircraft and to deter people from flying.

Another option would be for a revenue neutral scheme under which the worst polluting airlines would pay a charge that would be used to reward the least polluting ones. But Ron Wit, co-author of an environmental report that will go to the Commission this month, said that such a scheme would have far less impact on emissions.

Mr Wit, of the Dutch consultants CE Delft, said the Commission was likely to produce recommendations in the second half of this year and if they were accepted by ministers from member states, legislation could be introduced after about 18 months.

He added: “Of course there would be a reduction in the number of people who want to fly. Setting the level will be a political choice but compared with a few years ago the airlines are more aware of their environmental problems and they accept that aviation is contributing to climate change.”

The charge would be collected by Eurocontrol, which manages European airspace and charges airlines a fee for each flight.

CE Delft has explored various options for how the money could be spent. It could simply be passed on to member states or placed in an international climate change fund working to mitigate the impact of rising sea levels and extreme weather patterns.
The airlines argue that the £1 billion passengers pay each year in departure tax is roughly equal to the environmental damage arising from flights.
Greener by Design, a lobby group established to oppose any fuel charge, said that such a tax would damage people’s freedom to fly. “This is nothing other than a holiday tax and poor people and those who pay fares out of their own pocket would suffer most.”

Tim Johnson, of the Aviation Environment Federation coalition of green groups, said the charge would deter people from making non-essential trips: “Offering flights to Dublin for £8 return is creating demand that wouldn’t be there if the price was more realistic.”


Errrr hello, yes I do appreciate that aviation is a big polluter, but come on, is this not going too far? When I read it first earlier today in the paper edition, the first thing that crossed through my mind was that it was thought up by classic airlines as a away of defending themselves from the low-cost airlines. Okay, I better stop being so suspicious. But still, €30 on a €5000 Concorde ticket hardly has the same effect as €15 on a €30 easyJet ticket.

Opinions? Time to start writing to our local politicians?


Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13756 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

How immature. As if a tax is going to stop people flying. I do not think you my €uropean friends. (I am pro €uropean.)

However, if €urope is going to use the tax for research into reducing pollutions, I'm all for it. Our €ngines should reduce their €missions as much as is €nvisagbly possible.

€urope! €uro! €ngland!

Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineLj From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4813 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (14 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

If it means that their will be a ban on airport tax (including the socalled "security tax") I wellcome the idea. If not, it's just another way to squezz more money out of passengers than they already do (and I must say that airport/security/fuel or any other flying related tax have skyrocketed recently)


User currently offlineTeahan From Ireland, joined Nov 1999, 5446 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (14 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 2659 times:


Lj, It is more tax. You will still pay the airport tax and so on!

Singapore_Air, yes I do believe in defending the environment but I do think this is simply going too far!

BTW, if this comes true, I wonder what effect it will have on the Boeing Sonic Cruiser. Environmental thinking would greatly favour the A380.


Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (14 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Would this tax only be charged to airlines in the Euro area, or for all flights to and from Europe?

It seems suspiciously like just one more way to squeeze yet ANOTHER tax out of travellers to fund yet ANOTHER nameless Euro bureaucracy.

Since it treats all airplanes as the same, what will be the incentive to come up with less polluting engines?

User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 3104 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (14 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 2648 times:

You better count on it that this is going to happen. EU has been talking [or better, whispering] on this for ages now.
In a way air travel is very much a subsidised form of transport, since jet fuel tax is nowhere near automotive fuel tax. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is going to be corrected in lets say 5-10 years from now.
However, charging a fixed tax per kilometer is not really smart. If you want to charge flying, you should do it in such a way that it actually makes sense. You want to encourage airliners to take on cleaner aircraft, encourage the industrie to come up with even better environmental frienlier aircraft/engines. This certainly won't be achieved by charging to the kilometer regardless of the type of aircraft. IE a good ole smoker [707, DC8 etc] pays as much tax as a 777 if it flies the same length...very stupid indeed!


Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineRacko From Germany, joined Nov 2001, 4887 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 2622 times:

if the tax would be depended on the aircraft used, i welcome it.

That would also be a better way to force airlines to buy modern planes, than just banning old planes imho.

Aviation is great, but we have to think of the enviroment, too.

User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

Yes, quite irritating as I fly very regularly on no-frills flights-but who knows, it may be necessary.

Whilst the data currently available overwhelmingly appears to suggest that 'Global Warming' does seem to be occuring, the question is what is it being caused by? Are we just approaching another peak in the cyclical long-term pattern of climate change, and is human activity merely speeding this process up?

Who knows, I guess the EU is adopting a 'better safe than sorry' philosophy, I just wonder whether such actions will actually make any difference to a naturally variable climate which humans don't seem to be able to control anyway.


User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 2562 times:

This sounds like a good idea, although the numbers seem quite high. Also, as some writers noted here the tax should depend on how much emissions the flight is actually generating (which plane, engines and fuel). Otherwise there is no incentive to use eco-friendlier equipment and fuels.

User currently offlineTeahan From Ireland, joined Nov 1999, 5446 posts, RR: 58
Reply 9, posted (14 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 2513 times:


So you actually find this tax okay???? Do you realise that this tax will only make people use their cars more (hardly helping the environment) In all fairness, this tax hurts the leisure traveller, not the business traveller who has to pay for their ticket themselves!!!!


Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 1 hour ago) and read 2475 times:


I think it's a healthy initiative to push the airlines to use more enronmentally responsible planes and fuels.

Car fuel is already taxed very hard in the EU, so the present tax-free status of airlines is effectively a subsidy to air transport. If the prices of flights go up, then people will probably opt to use trains more. Trains run on electricity that is generated with nuclear power, or fossil fuels in power plants that have effective emissions-controls. So, overall I think that a tax like this would help guide consumers and businesses to behaviour that will burden the environment less.

A tax like this might also speed up the development of airplanes running on other fuels.

User currently offlineILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (14 years 2 months ago) and read 2457 times:

I am pro environment but there is a certain border when it just becomes rediculous. This would mean that the taxes on a r/t ticket SFO-LHR would be in about the 150-165 euro range. Thats far to high.

User currently offlineILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (14 years 2 months ago) and read 2453 times:

for a ticket this summer SFO-LHR the taxes are 111.60 USD... (thats w/o this proposed tax) hell with the tax it would be abour 160 USD in taxes. Considering the ticket is 480 thats like 1/3 or the ticket price.

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (14 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

Nothing weird. European governments are totally controlled by the treehuggers. There are already huge environmental taxes on airtravel (in fact, on all travel).
The Dutch government imposed a €20 tax PER LEG on all trips independent of duration only last month, on top of the €50 or so they already imposed last year.

I wish I were flying
User currently offlineLapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 1685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (14 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2431 times:

How are you going to use your car to drive from London to New York, drive across the blue country?!?!

Seriously though, in yesterdays Daily Mail, it said that one idea of the tax was to deter people from flying. How stupid is that idea?

User currently offlineBBADXB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (14 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

I would support this initiative if it applied to all airlines operating out of / into / over EU skies, AND if it taxed 'heavily' on the older polluting airliners and less on newer more environment-friendly jets.

On the other hand, I believe it will cripple small airlines operating into airports with already high taxes / 'service charges'.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Emirates In Negotiations For Up To 50 787-10 posted Tue Mar 28 2006 07:27:35 by Terryb99
Qantas May Buy Up To 50 Aircraft posted Wed Oct 17 2001 00:31:34 by Mr.BA
Vasp Close To Order Up To 50 Embraer Jets! posted Sun Jan 21 2001 02:28:08 by Copacabana
5 US Majors To Charge $3.50 Per Segment To TAs posted Sat Sep 2 2006 19:45:08 by FlyingTexan
Up To 2010 Flights Increase 4% Per Year In Italy posted Wed Mar 3 2004 19:11:33 by Paxromana
Ozjet To Add PER Next Month posted Wed Feb 8 2006 05:34:29 by 777ER
Air Zimbabwe Bleeding Close To $1M Per Month posted Fri Jan 27 2006 19:57:48 by ETStar
THAIs A345s To MXP 3 X Per Week! posted Thu Dec 29 2005 19:06:19 by Dennys
New US-Mexico Agreement: Up To Three Airlines! posted Tue Dec 13 2005 04:36:05 by SFOMEX
New Bill Would Open DAL To 50 States Immediately posted Tue Jul 19 2005 02:03:35 by KarlB737