Flatcapdriver

Look, I have no issue with increasing taxation on aviation but it is not a cure all for current energy costs and most people labour under the misapprehension that there is no form of taxation on aviation fuel which is incorrect. This debate is not about the environmental impact, it is simply about the higher than normal energy costs and what drives them. Aviation fuels do not force the cost of gas upwards, in fact it has very little impact on domestic pricing as the mechanisms by which they are fixed are far more sophisticated than that. I have been in various parts of the gas market for the last twelve odd years so I have got half an idea of what is factual and what is not but what is clear (highlighted by various posts in this thread) is that the general public have very little understanding of what is going on and are following the least line of resistance - by blaming someone or something else. That is the worst type of NIMBYISM.

The social benefits produced by the aviation industry that I was referring to have nothing to do with air travel. I was referring to the thousands of people employed by the industry and the subsequent income tax that is generated, the revenue contributions generated via corporation tax that companies such as British Airways, Virgin and Easyjet pay to the Inland Revenue annually, not to mention the additional hundreds of thousands of jobs created in ancillary industries. That is social benefit, not going on some jolly to Hong Kong.

If you want to start a debate about the relative environmental impacts of various forms of transport, then start another thread and I'll happily indulge you but so far (with the exception of imlach) no-one has understood that in order to reduce energy prices, we have to first reduce our consumption. I've yet to see anyone prove how increased taxation of any fuel has led to a decrease in consumption and consequently prices - just look at how we have increased the use of diesel and petrol despite taxation levels that have consistently exceeded inflation. It just doesn't work.

_RIP_

I'm not switching anything (pardon the pun ). All I've ever said is that before my kids need to wear duffel coats in bed that other measures need to be taken, including those you already mentioned. I dont see why those that pollute like the airline industry should be exempt, or should pay less than anyone else. If you pollute, pay your way is my argument, simple.

_RIP_

That makes you look really hard m8. Another wannabe forum daddy? Get back to me when your ***** finally drop and you can actually spell the word argument.

Flatcapdriver

How many times do I have to explain to you that the aviation industry does pay it's way? If you take pollution as a mechanism for taxation, then given your reluctance to reduce your consumption then logically you and your wife are going to need two jobs each in order to offset your increased tax burden.

There is no magic solution here but until people understand that they have to reduce their consumption, then energy costs are only going one way and that is up. There is nothing evangelical or earth motherish about that concept, it's simply up to individuals to play their part.

_RIP_

I'm not reluctant. It will become a necessity out of simple household economics and I will pollute less, unlike those flying to spain for 1p plus airport tax.

Flatcapdriver

Finally. He understands. Airport tax = a tax on aviation.



And household economics. A double understanding. Why did it have to take three pages though?

farmer1

Im not trying to be hard mate. Its just some people would like to discuss the actual topic.

Fine one to pick faults, with the grammar and spelling in your posts.

If you would like to discuss this further feel free to PM me.

_RIP_

The taxation hardly offsets the 1p flight and pollution/fuel costs.

_RIP_

Listen 'mate', you come in to this thread having contributed zero yourself, then tell me to **** off! PM you? wtf?

Flatcapdriver

Why are you so obsessed with taxation levels of aviation fuel? The cost of the ticket is irrelevant to this subject because it is a function of marketing, not environmental or taxation levels.

For the record:

AVGAS - the type of fuel used in GA up to some turboprops is taxed at 28.1ppl or thereabouts plus VAT which reflects the quantities used in comparision to road fuels. The last time I paid for some it was around £1.28 per litre.

JET A1 - depending on the uplift the VAT element varies from 5% (similar to heating fuel rates) up to 15% but I can't remember the quantities but assuming hedging is not involved, then it's around 35 - 60ppl.

On top of that there is airport tax (I can't remember how much this is) which may or may not have a VAT element to it but given that comparitive amounts which I gave earlier, aviation fuel more than pays it's way.

Any future projections as to the environmental impact of aviation is pure guesswork and only takes into account current technology. The Olympus engines that powered Concorde were state of the art in their day and, taking out the thrust requirements, cannot even begin to compete with modern fuel efficient turbine technology. Who knows how efficient they will be in the future? Just like modern developments in IC technology I doubt we'll recognise future aviation power plants compared to today's units.

_RIP_

I'm not obsessed. Good grief, you do tend to exaggerate my particular interest here. All I've ever said is that before those with children and pensioners need cut back, others should set their own house in order. Why are you so obsessed with letting them off the hook? And your analogy about the air industry paying their way through employment, tourism etc can be applied to cars, busses, trains and other transport industries in general, those that pay the full whack of course. My m8 recently flew to Italy for £30 return including all taxes. I pay more in fuel taxes each week as do most others. VAT on fuel for heating your home is a scandal; it's an essential life threatening issue here.

_RIP_

OK forget anything else, I'll let my obvious obsession with frivolous air travel continue. Climate scientists have concluded that improvements in aircraft and engine technology and in air traffic management will not offset the projected growth in aircraft emissions. That means that, in order to reduce the growth in aircraft greenhouse gas emissions, we will have to slow the growth of air travel. Makes sense to me.

Flatcapdriver

I've explained it so many times, it's getting repetitive. The aviation industry consumes far less fuel compared to vehicles, domestic heating or power generation and yet you want to increase taxation levels because of what? Is it because you refuse to acknowledge that you also have to take responsibility for your own actions (reduce your own consumption levels) or because you're jealous of people who can afford air travel?

I am not obsessed with 'letting the aviation industry off the hook' as I have steadfastly maintained that an increase in taxation is probably a good idea but it's like taxing the rich. It seems a good idea to the working classes but the reality is that the net effect is negligible because of the relatively small numbers of the people involved. The same applies to the aviation industry.

Have you reduced your consumption of domestic mains gas as a result of the introduction of VAT? Have you reduced your petrol consumption as a direct result of increasing duty levels? No, of course not because like the rest of the population you don't want to. Ergo, increasing taxation on energy/fuels only creates more revenue for the Exchequer but does nothing to reduce consumption. Look at the effect the CCL had. Nada, absolutely no reduction in industry's energy consumption. VAT on home fuel. Again, no reduction in consumption. The fuel escalator. Nix, nowt, nothing. Consumers merely consumed more petrol and diesel.

Taxation doesn't work as a deterrent to increased consumption so whilst you attempt to shift the blame towards the airline industry, levying an increased duty will not cut down on airline travel.

Now that you're shifting your argument to the environmental element, the IPCC has a long history of poor predictive analysis and their vision for the aviation industry is as flawed as their work on HC technology in the refrigeration industry. They got that wrong and the technology is considerably simpler than that of modern aircraft.

Whilst there is no doubt that the industry is a fairly hefty polluter, they cannot predict where technology is going to take modern aircraft. They didn't predict the effect that Swanwick had on fuel costs (a positive effect by the way) nor can they predict what effect Eurocontrol will have on traffic management and the subsequent effect on fuel consumption.

Notwithstanding those two issues, they simply cannot predict how efficient future aero engines will become and you only have to look at how the Trent series has evolved to realise the startling pace of technology within the industry. How far is Scram jet technology away? We simply don't know, so instead of copying and pasting reports that support your continuously evolving argument, why can't you accept (if we are now going down the environmental route) that, as you have done with aviation fuel taxation, you are wrong?

_RIP_

OK, you've convinced me

Just to say thanks actually, your replies are very informative.

speedking

Would airliners really fill up abroad? Surely the limit of long distance flying is the one-way fuel capacity of the plane. Putting in an extra refuelling stop in Holland on the way to India would cost more than the increase in fuel cost if tax was set at the right level. Further balanced by the cost on short haul flights of lugging around twice as much fuel as you currently have to.

Would domestic flight aircraft nip over to Ireland to fill up before returning to their UK routes, I don't think so. It's like truck drivers filling up with diesel in Europe, must be a drop in the ocean compared to the additional tax take.

I believe that its a lackof political will. Surely if the UK leads other nations will soon follow?

Flatcapdriver

The UK doesn't have a monopoly of Avtur you know. An aircraft could be re-positioning or flying different sectors so is not reliant on uplifting fuel at it's home base so it would be quite easy for them to use bunkering facilities wherever there is cheaper fuel.

Why should the UK lead what is an ill conceived plan when British airspace is already amongst the most expensive in the world and increasing the tax hike without co-operation from other countries would only further erode the comptetitveness of the industry in the UK.

Brit_in_Japan

I didn't mean to drag the thread off topic, let's leave the impact of transportation on the environment for another time. For what it's worth I agree with you about what it would need for there to be a reduction in wholesale gas prices. Any idea what % of UK natural gas consumption is currently devoted to electricity generation? I've sure that's not helping the household energy bills right now.

I still take issue with you about social benefit though. People tend to have a finite amount of money to spend on recreation. If they didn't spend it on cheap overseas flights and holidays then they would spend it closer to home which would create jobs in the UK which would go back to the chancellor via taxes and VAT.

And you can't talk about the social benefit of air travel without also taking into account the social cost of increased noise pollution, increased traffic to/from airports etc. Maybe we should leave that to another thread too eh?

Flatcapdriver

You didn't read my reply at all, did you? Try the second paragraph again and read what I wrote without misinterpreting it.