Aviation fuel tax - Why Oh Why Not???

[Cobbles]

"Often, there are credible subsitutes to flying. There are trains and boats... of course, you could just 'not fly'!!"

Edinburgh-Rosyth-overnight ferry to Bruges-Amsterdam: elapsed time - 24 hours cost around £150 (not including food etc.)

Edinburgh-Amsterdam by air: elapsed time 90 minutes cost around £75

How is rail + ferry a credible alternative - twice as expensive and 16 times longer?

Glasgow-Bristol (train) 7 hours £131
Glasgow-Bristol (plane) 90 minutes £80

How is rail a credible alternative - almost twice as expensive and nearly 5 times longer?

 

[the B]

1) When you tax plane fuel to a healthy level, it gets a lot more expensive. That is the first and most fundamental point here.

2) Bear in mind, the prices you are quoting are suspect.

Train journeys do get vastly cheaper if you book in advance, much like plane journeys and I have a funny feeling those prices for planes aren't last minute while the train ones are.

3) As for the elapsed time, I think you're being misleading at best to ignore the time it takes to travel to and from airports as well as the associated cost.

4) You are forgetting the relative ease of rail travel. It is more regular and more reliable (because planes are that unreliable more than anything).

 

[pembrokestephen]

How else can anyone definitively state exactly when the climate has been warmer or colder and therefore whether there is any rate of change. It's all very well gathering estimates (which may be out by heaven knows how many degrees either way) from indicators such as paleoclimatology but I always thought that science should be based on evidence, not theories built on other theories.

I don't think we can definitively state exactly whether or not climate change is necessarily related to fossil fuel burning.

The only way we'll ever find out for sure is to keep on burning them fossil fuels and see what happens.

Is that a risk you want to take?

 

[pembrokestephen]

Speaking of remedial arithmetic, you never enlightened us - what proportion of the world's total CO2 emissions does EU Aviation CO2 represent - a virtually unmeasurable proportion or a completely unmeasurable proportion?

Speaking of remedial arithmetic, are we going to see any acknowledgement from you that, whichever way you cut it, your claim of aviation contributing 0.000001% (give or take an order of magnitude) is wildly off the actual numbers?

 

[pembrokestephen]

All travel is not equal, a business class fare from Edinburgh to Heathrow is cheaper than a first class rail ticket for the same journey and that's including the 30 odd quid slapped on the air fare as airport tax.

That's because the rail network, like every other fuel user, has to pay duty on the diesel it uses to power its trains, or has to buy electricity at commercial (and carbon-taxed) rates from the Grid.

Aircraft, on the other hand, are effectively subsidised by being allowed to be powered by fuel ON WHICH NO DUTY OR TAX IS PAYABLE WHATSOEVER.

Is this really such a hard concept to get your head around?[/QUOTE]

 

[pembrokestephen]

My degree was in a rather more practical discipline.

And there was me, never realising until now that you could actually DO a degree in Applied Fuckwittery.

Well, well, well...

 

[kyser_soze]

Firstly, flying often has no credible substitute (ever tried overland travel from Edinburgh to Amsterdam or Wick to the Shetlands?),

Coach and ferry. Unless you work in a physically time critical industry or profession the 'need' for flying anywhere inland in the UK and EU, given modern communication technology, is a fallacy.

 

[laptop]

DO a degree in Applied Fuckwittery.

Aren't they on sale in Landrover showrooms?

 

[paolo]

Glasgow-Bristol (train) 7 hours £131
Glasgow-Bristol (plane) 90 minutes £80

How is rail a credible alternative - almost twice as expensive and nearly 5 times longer?

Hmm... more selective 'facts', overlaid with fiction.

Try some more typical routes and try including the total time for an air journey (check in, security clearance, baggage reclaim).

London to Edinburgh is only marginally slower by train.
London to Paris is (alot) faster by train.
London to Brussels is (alot) faster by train.

It really does depend on the route, so the "trian is always slower" idea is utter nonsense.

 

[the B]

Better yet, Top Gear showed that driving is faster than flying

(and Clarkson in the Veyron was actually moving as slowly as the Land Rover with his film crew)

 

[Cobbles]

Better yet, Top Gear showed that driving is faster than flying

(and Clarkson in the Veyron was actually moving as slowly as the Land Rover with his film crew)

A good point - I hadn't factored fun into the equation. Who wants to sit on a train full of proles when you can drive instead?

Mind you, it still loses on time and cost (the bit in the UK where fuel tax is ludicrously punitive) and in general terms, single engine Cessnas aren't used by many scheduled services.

 

[the B]

I'd rather people drive than fly. On cost, I reckon it works out cheaper when you consider that fuel in a plane would probably be taxed at the same rate as petrol, if not higher.

 

[obanite]

Exactly, an intergovernmental clambake, driven by the joy of something new to tax, estimates some figures. and the BBC's transport correspondent takes those figures as utter gospel. In the same article, the industry estimates that emissions can be reduced by 50% through new technology and that is howled down as inaccurate. Now that's balanced journalism.

Why would the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization be "driven by the joy of something new to tax"?

 

[Cobbles]

Speaking of remedial arithmetic, are we going to see any acknowledgement from you that, whichever way you cut it, your claim of aviation contributing 0.000001% (give or take an order of magnitude) is wildly off the actual numbers?

That's my "estimate"......

 

[Cobbles]

Why would the United Nations and the World Meteorological Organization be "driven by the joy of something new to tax"?

From the website:

"The IPCC meets approximately once a year at the plenary level of government representatives. The
sessions are attended by hundreds of officials and experts from relevant ministries, agencies and
research institutions from member countries and from participating organisations. All major decisions
are taken by the Panel in plenary session such as on IPCC’s principles, procedures and structure, mandate
of working groups and task forces, workplan and budget. The Panel decides whether to prepare
a new report, its scope and outline, and it accepts reports. It elects also the IPCC Chair and the Bureau."

Decision making as to what it does comes from Governments.

 

[Cobbles]

I'd rather people drive than fly. On cost, I reckon it works out cheaper when you consider that fuel in a plane would probably be taxed at the same rate as petrol, if not higher.

Lets see, on average you usually get 70-11- passenfgers on a plane. Divide mileage by a Veyron's consumption (15MPG@100MPH??) and multiply that by a pan European fuel cost average of 70p/Litre - cheaper????????

 

[obanite]

IF (it's only an estimate - remember) Aviation contributes 3% of the World's CO2 emissions, how much of a reduction will a £34 levy (as suggested by the BBC article) achieve? It's hardly going to impact on a decision as to whether or not to buy a Transatlantic fare and even if it doubles the cost of a budget carrier jaunt from Cardiff to Dublin, it's still not going to reduce that volume of traffic by a significant degree.

London to Dublin with Ryanair - 14p, £15 inc. taxes. An extra £34 would decrease the number of flights, and it's a move in the right direction, similar to the recent decision to introduce a sliding scale road tax based on engine capacity. You can't solve environmental issues totally in one go and you have to work to achieve concensus, e.g. with people like you who refuse to admit there's any problem whatsoever.

Also remember that it's the short distance flights that are the most fuel-inefficient... if I remember right, flights within the UK reach cruising altitude for like 20% of the flight time, plus of course we currently have a huge number of people taking advantage of the budget carriers where they previously didn't.

[Just found some figures: short-haul flights produce 0.29 kg CO2 per passenger mile; long-haul produce 0.18]

As most flights in Europe are much shorter (and less frequent) than US internal flights and as the threshold will discourage such a trivial proportion of travellers, the whole exercise would be, in environmental terms, utterly futile.

Its only benefit will be to the exchequers of the countries that adopt it. Without any guarantees from the adopting governments that the funds will be spent on any form of greenness, the environmental impact of that tax revenue will be unmeasurable.

Unwarranted pessimism. Fixing something requires admitting there's a problem and taking first steps to rectify it, as opposed to burying your head in the sand.

 

[kyser_soze]

Also worth pointing out: the budget carriers generally don't have the most up to date (or even new) aircraft/engines etc, which also contributes to their potential to pollute...

 

[obanite]

From my personal experience

A few years back I flew with Easyjet from London to Glasgow to see a friend from uni for the weekend, then flew back on Sunday evening.

Going, the plane was delayed by about 2 hours. I also had to get to Luton airport which added to the journey time.

Coming back, the plane was again delayed by about an hour, causing me to miss the last train back into the city from Luton. I had to catch a taxi back, which cost if I remember about £70 and took something like another hour.

Vowing never to repeat that experience again, next time I went to see him I took the train up the East Coast main line. Of course, the train is much slower though, right?

The ECML is one of the fastest railway lines in the UK, with most of the line rated at 125 mph (200 km/h). The InterCity 225 trains which serve the line would be capable of 225 km/h (140 mph) in normal service if the signalling were to be upgraded to handle the increased speed. They have operated at speeds of up to 260 km/h in test runs.

Guess what? I had a hassle free journey coming and going that cost less net, and took less time too.


Of course this is just one experience and YMMV (excuse the pun )

 

[Cobbles]

"London to Dublin with Ryanair - 14p, £15 inc. taxes. An extra £34 would decrease the number of flights"

Nonsense - if you're heading for Dublin for a Stag week-end, that's about ten pints. In any event, if that's the aim, you're hardly going to spend hours on a train just to get to a ferry port so that you can spend 2 hours hanging over the rail with the same in return but hungover - half the week-end has disappeared before you even upend a Guinness.

I have had some deals (e.g. Leeds-Dublin and back the same day booked in advance - less than 80 quid) but like many people, I don't have the luxury of booking weeks in advance and travelling off-peak.

Like the vast majority of folk in the UK, I also don't have easy access to the Chunnel so that the only real option is air travel.

I wouldn't feel so bad if we were to include Green taxes on ludicrous stuff like "line caught Mauritian Tilapia" and year round Mange tout flown in specially to fuel cosy chats about environmentalism - "Jocasta and I have just bought a Prius to nip round to Waitrose in so that we can shop for exotic air freighted delicacies with a clear conscience".

Folk who want cheap air travel are slaughtering the planet whilst those who prattle about environmentalism without reading the "country of origin" label are saving it???????

NB I would never accuse anyone on this board of such cant and hypocrisy

 

[obanite]

"London to Dublin with Ryanair - 14p, £15 inc. taxes. An extra £34 would decrease the number of flights"

Nonsense - if you're heading for Dublin for a Stag week-end, that's about ten pints. In any event, if that's the aim, you're hardly going to spend hours on a train just to get to a ferry port so that you can spend 2 hours hanging over the rail with the same in return but hungover - half the week-end has disappeared before you even upend a Guinness.

Just had this exact same argument with my sister. My argument is that:

- We're not trying to stop people using cheap air travel, we're trying to reduce it
- People's income stays the same; price of travel goes up; ergo on average use of travel goes down... it's economics, sure some people will prioritise if they really want to get stoned to their eyeballs in Amsterdam, but others will have blown the £30 on fags or nights out the week before their mates go to book it

I wouldn't feel so bad if we were to include Green taxes on ludicrous stuff like "line caught Mauritian Tilapia" and year round Mange tout flown in specially to fuel cosy chats about environmentalism - "Jocasta and I have just bought a Prius to nip round to Waitrose in so that we can shop for exotic air freighted delicacies with a clear conscience".

Folk who want cheap air travel are slaughtering the planet whilst those who prattle about environmentalism without reading the "country of origin" label are saving it???????

Hypocrisy is shite, no argument there, but that's a bit of a straw man argument imho.

 

[laptop]

sure some people will prioritise if they really want to get stoned to their eyeballs in Amsterdam

The train is the only way to come back from the 'Dam. Airports when stoned are .

Yes, there's baggage X-raying and two passport checks at Brussel Zuid - but it's a small relaxed operation and I almost feel I know the people who work there now

 

[Cobbles]

From my personal experience

A few years back I flew with Easyjet from London to Glasgow to see a friend from uni for the weekend, then flew back on Sunday evening.

Going, the plane was delayed by about 2 hours. I also had to get to Luton airport which added to the journey time.

Coming back, the plane was again delayed by about an hour, causing me to miss the last train back into the city from Luton. I had to catch a taxi back, which cost if I remember about £70 and took something like another hour.

Vowing never to repeat that experience again, next time I went to see him I took the train up the East Coast main line. Of course, the train is much slower though, right?



Guess what? I had a hassle free journey coming and going that cost less net, and took less time too.


Of course this is just one experience and YMMV (excuse the pun )

I usually run to 2/3 internal UK flights plus one 100 mile+ train journey per week.

My experience of air travel (and the costs) may therefore be limited.

In my experience, one of the worst travel experiences in the UK is the GNER London-Leeds service.

On average it's usually 30 minutes late. that's on a 2 hour journey.

Sure, I've had delayed flights - usually on days when the weather has also brought the roads and rail to their knees.

If we ever gat back to the heady days of inter-city 125's running consistently at that speed, then rail services would perhaps compete over distances between 125-200 miles (if they can reduce their prices for peak-time no-booking in advance fares).

Britain is a long narrow country. rail works for commuting - air travel is the only alternative for most of us who have to travel further than the Shires.

 

[paolo]

You can fly London to Leeds quicker than taking a 2.5 hr train?

Assuming you're not making this up I'd be interested to know how. I assume you live near an airport?

(I used to do a Friday after work run flying London-Edinburgh and I could only beat the train by an hour)

 

[the B]

Lets see, on average you usually get 70-11- passenfgers on a plane. Divide mileage by a Veyron's consumption (15MPG@100MPH??) and multiply that by a pan European fuel cost average of 70p/Litre - cheaper????????

Because everyone is really going to drive a Veyron. Obviously.

 

[Cobbles]

You can fly London to Leeds quicker than taking a 2.5 hr train?

Assuming you're not making this up I'd be interested to know how. I assume you live near an airport?

(I used to do a Friday after work run flying London-Edinburgh and I could only beat the train by an hour)

Leeds has decent air connections to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Southampton and Heathrow.With e-ticketing, there's no need to get to the airport more than half an hour before the flight and most of these flights are between 45 mins. and an hour. The airport is much asier to get to than the rail station ( it's a pity taxis aren't allowed to use the bus lanes in Leeds) - this is pretty much the same for Edinburgh where Waverley is in the centre of the rabid District Council's car-hate exclusion zone.

Flying - Home-Edin. airport - 12-20 mins. (by car - otherwise I'd have to use 3 buses and take over an hour) + 30 mins. at airport + 1 hour flight + 45mins. transit (Heathrow Express +tube or Gatwick Express + tube) - total less than 3 hours.

Train - taxi to station 20 mins. (otherwise 2 buses and an extra 45 minutes) - train 4 hours 45 minutes + transit from KingsX to City 40 mins - 5 and a half hours.

No contest - using the train, the earliest departue is 05:50 so you can't schedule a 9:00 meeting unless you travel the night before and stay in a hotel (extra towels + sheets to wash).

If you want to travel more than 150 miles in the UK, the plane is the most useful form of public transport. It has no viable alternatives in terms of time and cost

 

[obanite]

the rabid District Council's car-hate exclusion zone.

Are you capable of posting without resorting to loaded rhetoric? You sound like you have serious issues with everything and anything green.

If you want to travel more than 150 miles in the UK, the plane is the most useful form of public transport. It has no viable alternatives in terms of time and cost

Proves the point that we need to slap some substantial taxes on aviation fuel so regular short haul air travel is a less viable option for people. Cheers.

 

[Cobbles]

Proves the point that we need to slap some substantial taxes on aviation fuel so regular short haul air travel is a less viable option for people. Cheers.

That's the problem with the whole green agenda - it's always based on totally negative proposals - "we'll whack on a load of taxes to make short haul travel more costly but we're not going to provide any viable alternative"

How are people north of Watford supposed to travel to Europe? via the Channel tunnel? That's fine if you live within, say, half an hour of Waterloo or Ashford but what about the rest of us?

 

[pembrokestephen]

That's the problem with the whole green agenda - it's always based on totally negative proposals - "we'll whack on a load of taxes to make short haul travel more costly but we're not going to provide any viable alternative"

I don't think you can conflate a single comment made on here with the "whole green agenda", and if your view of the "whole green agenda" is merely that it's all about taxing things, then you're criticising that agenda from a position of near-total ignorance.

How are people north of Watford supposed to travel to Europe? via the Channel tunnel? That's fine if you live within, say, half an hour of Waterloo or Ashford but what about the rest of us?

I don't think anyone's suggesting that air travel be banned. If you live north of Watford, and want to fly to Europe, I don't see why you shouldn't be expected to pay accordingly for the privilege.

Can you explain why you consider it equitable that air travel, and air travel alone, should be able to operate using tax-free fuel, while every other form of transport is required to pay duties and taxes on the fuel they use? Can you say "level playing field"?

 

[Giles]

I don't think you can conflate a single comment made on here with the "whole green agenda", and if your view of the "whole green agenda" is merely that it's all about taxing things, then you're criticising that agenda from a position of near-total ignorance.


I don't think anyone's suggesting that air travel be banned. If you live north of Watford, and want to fly to Europe, I don't see why you shouldn't be expected to pay accordingly for the privilege.

Can you explain why you consider it equitable that air travel, and air travel alone, should be able to operate using tax-free fuel, while every other form of transport is required to pay duties and taxes on the fuel they use? Can you say "level playing field"?

I think it's fair enough that jet fuel isn't taxed. Planes use loads, so if it was taxed at anything like the same rate as road fuel, I wouldn't be able to afford so many holidays.

Giles..