German Green party candidate for chancellor want to ban short haul and implement tax

Interflug74 · Sun May 16, 2021 1:16 pm

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/greune ... n-101.html

Only in german. Why is it always the german taxpayer, who had to suffer? Any thoughts on how airlines will react to this?

seansasLCY · Sun May 16, 2021 1:26 pm

This is increasingly popular the world over. The Greens in many countries are proposing additional flight taxes, bans and restrictions.

People often support them until the realise it will affect them too. When they realise the twice a year trip to Spain is now twice as expensive they will complain.

MIflyer12 · Sun May 16, 2021 2:16 pm

It doesn't sound so much like banning LCC flights as taxing LCC flights.

It is unfair that taxpayers' money is used to subsidize kerosene for planes, while long-distance train journeys are expensive, especially at peak times. "If you travel as a family by train, you should pay less than for the short distance by plane," says Baerbock.

Even cheap prices such as Mallorca flights for 29 euros will no longer be offered under Baerbock's leadership. "Everyone can go on vacation wherever they want. But climate-friendly taxation of flights would stop such dumping prices," said Baerbock.

Now, the LCC headline price isn't so much relevant as the avg paid + optional services price, but I would really like to hear her explain why trains are more expensive than air when trains are so much more energy-efficient per passenger km.

(I'm relying on Google's German to English translation and I understand some nuance can be lost.)

mxaxai · Sun May 16, 2021 4:01 pm

What she said originally:

BAMS: Aber Flugreisen werden teurer?

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: Ja, ich finde es nicht fair, dass mit unser aller Steuergeld das Kerosin subventioniert wird, während Fernfahrten mit der Bahn gerade zu Stoßzeiten teuer sind. Wer als Familie mit dem Zug reist, sollte doch weniger zahlen als für die Kurzstrecke im Flugzeug. Und ja, Kurzstreckenflüge sollte es perspektivisch nicht mehr geben.

BAMS: Für 29 Euro nach Mallorca darf es dann auch nicht mehr geben?

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: Jeder kann Urlaub machen, wo er will. Aber eine klimagerechte Besteuerung von Flügen würde solche Dumpingpreise stoppen. Übrigens fliegt kaum eine Familie für 29 Euro nach Mallorca. In Ferienzeiten liegen die Ticketpreise deutlich drüber. Die Schnäppchen gibt es für Wochenendkurztrips, da sitzt wohl kaum die Familie mit zwei schulpflichtigen Kindern im Flieger.

BAMS: But air travel is becoming more expensive?

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: Yes, I don't think it's fair that we all pay taxes to subsidize kerosene while long-distance rail travel is expensive, especially at peak times. Surely people who travel by train as a family should pay less than for short-haul air travel. And yes, there should be no more short-haul flights [at some point] in the future.

BAMS: So there should be no more flights to Mallorca for 29 euros?

ANNALENA BAERBOCK: Everyone can go on vacation wherever they want. But a fair taxation of flights according to their climate impact would stop such price dumping. By the way, hardly any families fly to Mallorca for 29 euros. During vacation periods, ticket prices are much higher. The bargains are for short weekend trips, where barely any families with two school-age children are on the plane.

https://www.gruene.de/artikel/ich-trete ... hen-andere [German, translated with some help from DeepL]

This sounds a lot less strict than the title suggests.

masi1157 · Sun May 16, 2021 4:52 pm

seansasLCY wrote:
People often support them until the realise it will affect them too. When they realise the twice a year trip to Spain is now twice as expensive they will complain.

Oh, is it that easy? In my experience it is not. Many people, me included, support that although they are very well aware that they would have to pay more for their flying. In my case it is "normally" (without corona) even a lot more than 2 flight to Spain per year.

Gruß, masi1157

wedgetail737 · Sun May 16, 2021 4:59 pm

Isn't France already doing this?

448205 · Sun May 16, 2021 5:16 pm

seansasLCY wrote:
This is increasingly popular the world over. The Greens in many countries are proposing additional flight taxes, bans and restrictions.

People often support them until the realise it will affect them too. When they realise the twice a year trip to Spain is now twice as expensive they will complain.

The world over? Not at all.

In Western Europe? Yes.

Noshow · Sun May 16, 2021 5:21 pm

From my point of view low-cost airlines are the most efficient way to fly:

-they use young, most efficient, clean and most quiet fleets
-they serve only routes that fill their aircraft. If some route doesn't work they close it. They don't serve capital routes, traditional routes or anything that is not profitable
-they have high load factors, using aircraft in the most efficient way
-they use the most efficient flight profiles like continuous descent approaches and optimized loading to save trim drag
-they don't have fancy first class seats or showers that waste space and weight for nothing
-they have no frequent flyer programs that lead to mileage runs
-they are profitable

Why should this clearly most efficient way to fly be forbidden so only the rich can fly in the future?

Vicenza · Sun May 16, 2021 5:28 pm

Noshow wrote:
From my point of view low-cost airlines are the most efficient way to fly:

-they use young, most efficient, clean and most quiet fleets
-they serve only routes that fill their aircraft. If some route doesn't work they close it. They don't serve capital routes, traditional routes or anything that is not profitable
-they have high load factors, using aircraft in the most efficient way
-they use the most efficient flight profiles like continuous descent approaches and optimized loading to save trim drag
-they don't have fancy first class seats or showers that waste space and weight for nothing
-they have no frequent flyer programs that lead to mileage runs
-they are profitable

Why should this clearly most efficient way to fly be forbidden so only the rich can fly in the future?

If you actually read what was said, as opposed to the incorrect, but sensationalist (for effect (?), title nothing is being forbidden.

MIflyer12 · Sun May 16, 2021 5:33 pm

Noshow wrote:
From my point of view low-cost airlines are the most efficient way to fly:

-they use young, most efficient, clean and most quiet fleets

They still use 5x the energy per passenger km, and it's going to be a lot harder to decarbonize air travel than train travel (as the French have substantially done). There are multiple measures of efficiency.

oldJoe · Sun May 16, 2021 5:47 pm

Strange lady !
At the request of the "Welt" to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for recording all business trips, the answer came:
The employees of the federal ministries and their subordinate administration made 229,116 domestic flights in the past year ( 2020 ) !!!
And a further inquiry to the ministries also showed that several of them had increased the number of business trips by plane within Germany in the first few months of this year ( 2021 ) !
And guess who had the most business trips: The Greens !

NameOmitted · Sun May 16, 2021 7:01 pm

As to how airlines will adapt, I suspect that can be somewhat resolved by looking at the market for 747 domestic models.

oldJoe · Sun May 16, 2021 8:15 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
As to how airlines will adapt, I suspect that can be somewhat resolved by looking at the market for 747 domestic models.

If you look at this an A380 in full economy with 850 ( certified ) pax is the better solution ?

oldJoe · Sun May 16, 2021 8:16 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
As to how airlines will adapt, I suspect that can be somewhat resolved by looking at the market for 747 domestic models.

If you look at this an A380 in full economy with 850 ( certified ) pax is the better solution ?

ZaphodHarkonnen · Sun May 16, 2021 8:44 pm

Honestly, taxing the fuel usage to try and account for the damage CO2 does, is a sensible and efficient way to incentivise change. Yes it will mean fewer people will travel by air for a while. But it will also incentivise people to travel via other methods that output less greenhouse gases. Airlines will adapt and game the system as they always have. Things like this would encourage even more investment in things like battery electric for short haul or even biofuels to reduce the tax burden.

As much as it pains us as avgeeks, this is on the whole a good idea.

oldJoe · Sun May 16, 2021 8:45 pm

Noshow wrote:
From my point of view low-cost airlines are the most efficient way to fly:

-they use young, most efficient, clean and most quiet fleets
-they serve only routes that fill their aircraft. If some route doesn't work they close it. They don't serve capital routes, traditional routes or anything that is not profitable
-they have high load factors, using aircraft in the most efficient way
-they use the most efficient flight profiles like continuous descent approaches and optimized loading to save trim drag
-they don't have fancy first class seats or showers that waste space and weight for nothing
-they have no frequent flyer programs that lead to mileage runs
-they are profitable

Why should this clearly most efficient way to fly be forbidden so only the rich can fly in the future?

Why you arer so called efficient airlines need money to pay out to do the trip ? I can afford a ticket on LH or their group members and if you can`t sorry for you

GalaxyFlyer · Sun May 16, 2021 8:47 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
Honestly, taxing the fuel usage to try and account for the damage CO2 does, is a sensible and efficient way to incentivise change. Yes it will mean fewer people will travel by air for a while. But it will also incentivise people to travel via other methods that output less greenhouse gases. Airlines will adapt and game the system as they always have. Things like this would encourage even more investment in things like battery electric for short haul or even biofuels to reduce the tax burden.

As much as it pains us as avgeeks, this is on the whole a good idea.

Much depends on what the tax collector does with money and I’m not optimistic politicians will spend it wisely.

mjoelnir · Sun May 16, 2021 9:17 pm

There is one misunderstanding, Annalena Baerbock is not talking about forbidding certain airlines, but making flying more expensive regardless what airline we are talking about.
Regarding banning short haul, that mirrors what France is doing.
Regarding rail air comparison. Rail does actually pay more of the cost it's creates. There would be one easy remedy for making rail less expensive, cut taxation like VAT.

Ziyulu · Sun May 16, 2021 9:22 pm

Banning LCC flights would be banning Lufthansa since their European flights are basically LCC style.

teachpdx · Sun May 16, 2021 9:36 pm

LCC flights are generally the most efficient flights per passenger km, carrying more passengers and less baggage and galley weight. Seems counterintuitive to punish the ‘greenest’ flights.

mxaxai · Sun May 16, 2021 9:38 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Much depends on what the tax collector does with money and I’m not optimistic politicians will spend it wisely.

One idea is to distribute all income from environment-related taxes equally among all citizens. So those who pollute much will end up with a net negative, while other have more money than before. To give people a financial incentive to make environmentally friendly choices.

We'll see what happens in the future.

mxaxai · Sun May 16, 2021 9:44 pm

Ziyulu wrote:
Banning LCC flights would be banning Lufthansa since their European flights are basically LCC style.

It's not about LCCs per se, it's about tickets that are sold below cost. Also, jet fuel is one of the few products that is still tax free. New regulations would affect all carriers alike (if only for the simple reason that there is no legal definition of a LCC).

Vicenza · Sun May 16, 2021 9:44 pm

ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:
.
As much as it pains us as avgeeks, this is on the whole a good idea.

Yes, and I would agree. Admittedly it won't affect me as I don't fly within Germany but I certainly see the validity in the argument of why should German taxpayers subsidise aviation fuel? If the want it, then pay for it. Yes, that cost will be passed on to the traveller, but so be it and, again, if they want to fly, then pay it.
As I say, this specifically does not affect me, but I'll say exactly the same in my own, or any other country.

jetfan · Sun May 16, 2021 10:19 pm

Noshow wrote:
From my point of view low-cost airlines are the most efficient way to fly:

-they use young, most efficient, clean and most quiet fleets
-they serve only routes that fill their aircraft. If some route doesn't work they close it. They don't serve capital routes, traditional routes or anything that is not profitable
-they have high load factors, using aircraft in the most efficient way
-they use the most efficient flight profiles like continuous descent approaches and optimized loading to save trim drag
-they don't have fancy first class seats or showers that waste space and weight for nothing
-they have no frequent flyer programs that lead to mileage runs
-they are profitable

Why should this clearly most efficient way to fly be forbidden so only the rich can fly in the future?

But they induce traffic, making people travel which otherwise wouldn‘t have traveled at all. In the early 2000s when LCC fought price wars, it wasn‘t that uncommon for people to fly to Mallorca just for one or two party nights. This has improved since the number of LCCs decreased, but still it is not uncommon for wealthy retirees to have a second home somewhere in the sun and travel frequently.

ZaphodHarkonnen · Sun May 16, 2021 10:35 pm

jetfan wrote:
Noshow wrote:
From my point of view low-cost airlines are the most efficient way to fly:

-they use young, most efficient, clean and most quiet fleets
-they serve only routes that fill their aircraft. If some route doesn't work they close it. They don't serve capital routes, traditional routes or anything that is not profitable
-they have high load factors, using aircraft in the most efficient way
-they use the most efficient flight profiles like continuous descent approaches and optimized loading to save trim drag
-they don't have fancy first class seats or showers that waste space and weight for nothing
-they have no frequent flyer programs that lead to mileage runs
-they are profitable

Why should this clearly most efficient way to fly be forbidden so only the rich can fly in the future?

But they induce traffic, making people travel which otherwise wouldn‘t have traveled at all. In the early 2000s when LCC fought price wars, it wasn‘t that uncommon for people to fly to Mallorca just for one or two party nights. This has improved since the number of LCCs decreased, but still it is not uncommon for wealthy retirees to have a second home somewhere in the sun and travel frequently.

Yup, exactly the same behaviour you see when new roads are built. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand for those not familiar with the concept.

Aliqiout · Sun May 16, 2021 10:48 pm

oldJoe wrote:
Strange lady !
At the request of the "Welt" to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for recording all business trips, the answer came:
The employees of the federal ministries and their subordinate administration made 229,116 domestic flights in the past year ( 2020 ) !!!
And a further inquiry to the ministries also showed that several of them had increased the number of business trips by plane within Germany in the first few months of this year ( 2021 ) !
And guess who had the most business trips: The Greens !

Are you trying to distract us from discusing the policy by bringing up the travel habits of German politicians? Presumably there would be no exemption for green party politicians in the new law.

Aliqiout · Sun May 16, 2021 10:50 pm

teachpdx wrote:
LCC flights are generally the most efficient flights per passenger km, carrying more passengers and less baggage and galley weight. Seems counterintuitive to punish the ‘greenest’ flights.

Again, the thread title is wildly misleading. LCC are not being treated any differently than HCC are.

DLPMMM · Sun May 16, 2021 11:07 pm

This is all about nothing. Just political posturing by the candidate in order to garner press coverage and solidify standing with the radical base of the Green Party.

The Green candidate will not be chancellor.

Even if the German Greens got their wish, the laws of unintended consequences would prevail. German travelers would just take a car/train to the nearest non-German airport and fly where they like if it is less expensive/more convenient.

A tempest in a teapot.

william · Sun May 16, 2021 11:10 pm

Good bye Easyjet......The $79 Berlin-Frankfurt fare was lower than famed ICE and faster too.

davidjohnson6 · Sun May 16, 2021 11:20 pm

The Greens will not win the German elections, these policies are not going to be implemented in the next 6 months... but the ideas will not go away. Europe has listened to Greta... the pandemic and waiting for Trump to lose power just delayed the response. Expect some modest level of tax on flights within a few years in multiple EU countries, and for that tax to steadily increase as time goes on. Many highly competent civil servants and lawyers will be tasked with finding a way to make a tax legal and beyond court challenge
Look at how attitudes to tobacco have changed since the 1950s as a comparison

As a.netters, we may not like it, but the political landscape in Europe is against us. Those who fly once or twice per year (or even not at all) which accounts for a very large number of voters, are interested in the environment and approve of a tax on those who fly the most

I live in a city with a large number of flights from Easyjet and Ryanair. When I tell my mother how much I fly with LCCs, even she tells me I should be paying more for the pollution I cause

VSMUT · Sun May 16, 2021 11:37 pm

Noshow wrote:
From my point of view low-cost airlines are the most efficient way to fly:

-they use young, most efficient, clean and most quiet fleets
-they serve only routes that fill their aircraft. If some route doesn't work they close it. They don't serve capital routes, traditional routes or anything that is not profitable
-they have high load factors, using aircraft in the most efficient way
-they use the most efficient flight profiles like continuous descent approaches and optimized loading to save trim drag
-they don't have fancy first class seats or showers that waste space and weight for nothing
-they have no frequent flyer programs that lead to mileage runs
-they are profitable

Why should this clearly most efficient way to fly be forbidden so only the rich can fly in the future?

teachpdx wrote:
LCC flights are generally the most efficient flights per passenger km, carrying more passengers and less baggage and galley weight. Seems counterintuitive to punish the ‘greenest’ flights.

They may be the most efficient, but they also incentivize people to fly 10 times as much.

Probably also keep in mind that European legacy airlines almost all have full-economy setups now, and unlike the LCCs, the legacy airlines also carry cargo. Flying with full as opposed to empty holds sways the calculation in the completely opposite direction.

Canuck600 · Sun May 16, 2021 11:54 pm

If they raise fuel taxes in Germany all the airlines have to do is start fueling outside of Germany when they can, the government will see their fuel tax revenue drop.

davidjohnson6 · Mon May 17, 2021 12:00 am

Tankering fuel on a regular basis costs money - you have to burn fuel to carry extra weight
Furthermore, if many countries in the EU increase tax on aviation, tankering to avoid tax ceases to be possible. It's not just Germany that is listening to these ideas

ABpositive · Mon May 17, 2021 2:22 am

Looking at the article, the point is not so much to tax LCC or aviation industry specifically. It is the generous subsidies that fossil fuel is receiving which is driving profitability of LCC. Even though fossil fuel related industry is one of the most mature, profitable and established, it still receives the lion-share of subsidies in most economies.

oldJoe · Mon May 17, 2021 3:58 am

Aliqiout wrote:
oldJoe wrote:
Strange lady !
At the request of the "Welt" to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, which is responsible for recording all business trips, the answer came:
The employees of the federal ministries and their subordinate administration made 229,116 domestic flights in the past year ( 2020 ) !!!
And a further inquiry to the ministries also showed that several of them had increased the number of business trips by plane within Germany in the first few months of this year ( 2021 ) !
And guess who had the most business trips: The Greens !

Are you trying to distract us from discusing the policy by bringing up the travel habits of German politicians? Presumably there would be no exemption for green party politicians in the new law.

I'm not distracting from anything at all. Who pays the politicians' flights? Yes, the German taxpayer and I have been one of them for more than 40 years !
The new law would not burden a politician, only the taxpayer. Aviation has a share of 3% in emissions and I ask myself why this woman does not devote herself to the major polluters?

tommy1808 · Mon May 17, 2021 4:50 am

masi1157 wrote:
seansasLCY wrote:
People often support them until the realise it will affect them too. When they realise the twice a year trip to Spain is now twice as expensive they will complain.

Oh, is it that easy? In my experience it is not. Many people, me included, support that although they are very well aware that they would have to pay more for their flying. In my case it is "normally" (without corona) even a lot more than 2 flight to Spain per year.

lets see... the Greens would like the CO2 price to be 60 EUR/ton, that would be 20,- EUR for a return flight DUS-PMI on a A321neo to some 30,- EUR on an A319/737-700.

Yup, people will absolutely revolt ...... :bigthumbsup:

And since some of the money from the CO2 pricing goes into reducing the price of electricity, the rest goes into all sorts of climate related projects, the flying public gets some of it back via their electricity bill.

best regards
Thomas

oldJoe · Mon May 17, 2021 5:35 am

tommy1808 wrote:
masi1157 wrote:
seansasLCY wrote:
People often support them until the realise it will affect them too. When they realise the twice a year trip to Spain is now twice as expensive they will complain.

Oh, is it that easy? In my experience it is not. Many people, me included, support that although they are very well aware that they would have to pay more for their flying. In my case it is "normally" (without corona) even a lot more than 2 flight to Spain per year.

lets see... the Greens would like the CO2 price to be 60 EUR/ton, that would be 20,- EUR for a return flight DUS-PMI on a A321neo to some 30,- EUR on an A319/737-700.

Yup, people will absolutely revolt ......

And since some of the money from the CO2 pricing goes into reducing the price of electricity, the rest goes into all sorts of climate related projects, the flying public gets some of it back via their electricity bill.

best regards
Thomas

In all respect are you believe at all the "via their electricity bill" ??? I live in the southwest and I pay for green electricity, which in fact comes from a nuclear power plant in the neighboring country ! Anyone who thinks that the price of electricity will fall is a dreamer in my opinion.
Aviation is used to generate more income. And who pays that, right the taxpayer !!!

tommy1808 · Mon May 17, 2021 5:49 am

oldJoe wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
masi1157 wrote:
Oh, is it that easy? In my experience it is not. Many people, me included, support that although they are very well aware that they would have to pay more for their flying. In my case it is "normally" (without corona) even a lot more than 2 flight to Spain per year.

lets see... the Greens would like the CO2 price to be 60 EUR/ton, that would be 20,- EUR for a return flight DUS-PMI on a A321neo to some 30,- EUR on an A319/737-700.

Yup, people will absolutely revolt ......

And since some of the money from the CO2 pricing goes into reducing the price of electricity, the rest goes into all sorts of climate related projects, the flying public gets some of it back via their electricity bill.

best regards
Thomas

In all respect are you believe at all the "via their electricity bill" ???

Since that is the law that is absolutely what will happen.

I live in the southwest and I pay for green electricity, which in fact comes from a nuclear power plant in the neighboring country !

That is not how a power grid works.

Best regards
Thomas

PSA727 · Mon May 17, 2021 6:08 am

Canuck600 wrote:
If they raise fuel taxes in Germany all the airlines have to do is start fueling outside of Germany when they can, the government will see their fuel tax revenue drop.

Actually, all of these LCCs will just shift their operations across the borders of Germany into the nearest airports in Poland and the Czech Republic, Belgium or even Luxembourg. The German government will lose that additional tax revenue. How much is it for short haul flight departures out of Germany, 8 EUR? (I think it's 45 EUR to the U.S.). In addition to the German airports losing that fee revenue to help maintain their airports. There will be zero benefit added to help fight climate change, as Germans will now be driving in their cars to get to those airports. Moreover, the foreign tourists who were using these LCC flights to Germany for their vacations will now be looking at other places to spend their holidays. Thus, impacting the German tourist industry.

All this woman's position statement did was to remind people why the Green Party should never be running a government or managing an economy.

irishpower · Mon May 17, 2021 6:16 am

When you consider that only 2.5% of CO2 emissions come from aviation, you see how utterly stupid this legislation is.

oldJoe · Mon May 17, 2021 6:20 am

tommy1808 wrote:
oldJoe wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:

lets see... the Greens would like the CO2 price to be 60 EUR/ton, that would be 20,- EUR for a return flight DUS-PMI on a A321neo to some 30,- EUR on an A319/737-700.

Yup, people will absolutely revolt ......

And since some of the money from the CO2 pricing goes into reducing the price of electricity, the rest goes into all sorts of climate related projects, the flying public gets some of it back via their electricity bill.

best regards
Thomas

In all respect are you believe at all the "via their electricity bill" ???

Since that is the law that is absolutely what will happen.

I live in the southwest and I pay for green electricity, which in fact comes from a nuclear power plant in the neighboring country !

That is not how a power grid works.

Best regards
Thomas

My neighbor and close friend works for my electricity supplier and I wouldn't portray him as a liar for fact !
He knows more than you and I together

tommy1808 · Mon May 17, 2021 6:22 am

PSA727 wrote:
as Germans will now be driving in their cars to get to those airports..

...and pay the same CO2 Charge on their fuel to get to the airport, to board a flight that also pays a CO2 charge?

Moreover, the foreign tourists who were using these LCC flights to Germany for their vacations will now be looking at other places to spend their holidays. Thus, impacting the German tourist industry.

No one will be missing the kind of tourist that changes travel plans to a different destination over a 20 EUR charge on the ticket, and the notion of driving a couple of hours to get away from such charge is flat out ridiculous.

best regards
Thomas

FluidFlow · Mon May 17, 2021 6:24 am

It is so interesting to see how many people lack the ability to read and understand.

You can be for or against the taxation on jet fuel but it is still important to understand that she is not banning anything. No one will lose his toy, it will just be more expensive if she gets elected. That is all. Cant be to hard to get.

Blerg · Mon May 17, 2021 6:30 am

These statements are reckless. Aviation has done so much to reduce pollution and this is something politicians keep on ignoring. Why? Because there is a lot of money to be made in taxing this particular business. If they want to tax short-haul LCC flights does that also include Eurowings that flies from Germany to nearby destinations and even provides feed for LH hubs?

If Greens want to reduce emissions why not force Lufthansa to downsize by reducing the number of flights that purely depend on transfer passengers? Same with airlines that have so many flights to FRA for the same reason (particularly Star Alliance carriers).

If they are allowed to tax short-haul LCC flights then believe me they will not stop there. Next will come long-haul flights and so on. In the end, as many have pointed out, it's the German economy that will suffer by losing out in terms of competitiveness.

FluidFlow · Mon May 17, 2021 6:33 am

Blerg wrote:
These statements are reckless. Aviation has done so much to reduce pollution and this is something politicians keep on ignoring. Why? Because there is a lot of money to be made in taxing this particular business. If they want to tax short-haul LCC flights does that also include Eurowings that flies from Germany to nearby destinations and even provides feed for LH hubs?

If Greens want to reduce emissions why not force Lufthansa to downsize by reducing the number of flights that purely depend on transfer passengers? Same with airlines that have so many flights to FRA for the same reason (particularly Star Alliance carriers).

If they are allowed to tax short-haul LCC flights then believe me they will not stop there. Next will come long-haul flights and so on. In the end, as many have pointed out, it's the German economy that will suffer by losing out in terms of competitiveness.

They are not allowed to tax short haul LCC flights. The EU does not allow that.

They are allowed to tax all the short haul flights no matter of airline. Discriminatory tax is prohibited, the tax has to be generally applied.

So please someone has to change the title because no one seems to read the actual statement and all the posts in this thread talk about bans and special measures against LCCs what is just wrong.

oldJoe · Mon May 17, 2021 6:35 am

PSA727 wrote:
Canuck600 wrote:
If they raise fuel taxes in Germany all the airlines have to do is start fueling outside of Germany when they can, the government will see their fuel tax revenue drop.

Actually, all of these LCCs will just shift their operations across the borders of Germany into the nearest airports in Poland and the Czech Republic, Belgium or even Luxembourg. The German government will lose that additional tax revenue. How much is it for short haul flight departures out of Germany, 8 EUR? (I think it's 45 EUR to the U.S.). In addition to the German airports losing that fee revenue to help maintain their airports. There will be zero benefit added to help fight climate change, as Germans will now be driving in their cars to get to those airports. Moreover, the foreign tourists who were using these LCC flights to Germany for their vacations will now be looking at other places to spend their holidays. Thus, impacting the German tourist industry.

All this woman's position statement did was to remind people why the Green Party should never be running a government or managing an economy.

I couldn't put it in better words than you at all.

Blerg · Mon May 17, 2021 6:37 am

FluidFlow wrote:
Blerg wrote:
These statements are reckless. Aviation has done so much to reduce pollution and this is something politicians keep on ignoring. Why? Because there is a lot of money to be made in taxing this particular business. If they want to tax short-haul LCC flights does that also include Eurowings that flies from Germany to nearby destinations and even provides feed for LH hubs?

If Greens want to reduce emissions why not force Lufthansa to downsize by reducing the number of flights that purely depend on transfer passengers? Same with airlines that have so many flights to FRA for the same reason (particularly Star Alliance carriers).

If they are allowed to tax short-haul LCC flights then believe me they will not stop there. Next will come long-haul flights and so on. In the end, as many have pointed out, it's the German economy that will suffer by losing out in terms of competitiveness.

They are not allowed to tax short haul LCC flights. The EU does not allow that.

They are allowed to tax all the short haul flights no matter of airline. Discriminatory tax is prohibited, the tax has to be generally applied.

So please someone has to change the title because no one seems to read the actual statement and all the posts in this thread talk about bans and special measures against LCCs what is just wrong.

Can you blame people for immediately assuming the worst when Greens are in question? They seem to be worst enemy of civil aviation these days.

seahawk · Mon May 17, 2021 6:38 am

Long overdue and still to little to reduce the CO2 emissions as needed. Germany needs to reduce flying much more aggressively.

tommy1808 · Mon May 17, 2021 6:40 am

FluidFlow wrote:
You can be for or against the taxation on jet fuel but it is still important to understand that she is not banning anything. No one will lose his toy, it will just be more expensive if she gets elected. That is all. Cant be to hard to get.

and it will get more expensive anyways, since there is the EU Emission trade scheme even if Germany did nothing.

FluidFlow wrote:
Blerg wrote:
These statements are reckless. Aviation has done so much to reduce pollution and this is something politicians keep on ignoring. Why? Because there is a lot of money to be made in taxing this particular business. If they want to tax short-haul LCC flights does that also include Eurowings that flies from Germany to nearby destinations and even provides feed for LH hubs?

If Greens want to reduce emissions why not force Lufthansa to downsize by reducing the number of flights that purely depend on transfer passengers? Same with airlines that have so many flights to FRA for the same reason (particularly Star Alliance carriers).

If they are allowed to tax short-haul LCC flights then believe me they will not stop there. Next will come long-haul flights and so on. In the end, as many have pointed out, it's the German economy that will suffer by losing out in terms of competitiveness.

They are not allowed to tax short haul LCC flights. The EU does not allow that.
.

plus it is not a tax, and won´t be going into the general budget.

Blerg wrote:
it's the German economy that will suffer by losing out in terms of competitiveness.

yeah.. just like the Swedish economy that go absolutely trashed by the CO2 tax they had for the last 30 years ......

best regards
Thomas

PSA727 · Mon May 17, 2021 6:40 am

tommy1808 wrote:

...and pay the same CO2 Charge on their fuel to get to the airport, to board a flight that also pays a CO2 charge?

How can the German government implement a CO2 tax on jet fuel in Poland?

No one will be missing the kind of tourist that changes travel plans to a different destination over a 20 EUR charge on the ticket, and the notion of driving a couple of hours to get away from such charge is flat out ridiculous.

Didn't the growth at Weeze airport in NRW mostly come from Dutch passengers after their government added additional tax onto tickets ex-NL?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net