11 ms·

Finally. It's really frustrating to see how heavily subsidized airlines, plane fuel and airports are and how big of a tax breaks they get when they come to a ci

by dewey 7y ago

Finally. It's really frustrating to see how heavily subsidized airlines, plane fuel and airports are and how big of a tax breaks they get when they come to a city. At the same time people are shamed for buying salad in a plastic bag when the big lever is somewhere completely different. Had the same thought yesterday when I saw: https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1148317244893597696 https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1148317244893597696

rayiner 7y ago
Aviation accounts for just 2% of global carbon emissions: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/18177118/airlines-climate-change-emissions-travel https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/1817711.... The plastics industry will burn through 14% of remaining carbon budget: https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/05/15/plastics-industry-climate-change-emissions-oceans-ciel-report https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/05/15/plastics-industry-clim...
- tmalsburg2 7y ago
  Aviation hurts the climate in multiple ways of which CO2 emissions are just one. Vapor trails apparently contribute even more to anthropogenic climate change. Overall the contribution of aviation is estimated to be 5%.
- marcosdumay 7y ago
  Those are 2 very different measures. You can't compare them.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Aviation is a small factor globally because almost nobody can afford to fly. For a typical westerner like me, a transatlantic flight per year roughly doubles my carbon footprint. Similarly, meat is a really big factor globally, because most people can afford to eat some meat, but for a westerner it makes up a much smaller (but still signifacent...) fraction of the pie because I use so much energy compared to a villager in India.
hourislate 7y ago
>Finally. It's really frustrating to see how heavily subsidized airlines, plane fuel and airports are and how big of a tax breaks they get when they come to a city. I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer. I was always under the impression that airports in France were economic drivers of prosperity considering tourism makes up about 77 billion euro of economic impact to the GDP France. Hope it works out for them...
- alkonaut 7y ago
  > I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer. That's not an unfortunate consequence, that's the idea.
- zulln 7y ago
  > I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer. Well, yeah, but what is the problem with that? The price increase thus decreasing the demand of flights, achieving the goal.
  - hourislate 7y ago
    > Well, yeah, but what is the problem with that? Because Airlines seem to be the intended target and not the tourist. I would imagine they would have instituted an airport fee if the tourist was the target. >The price increase thus decreasing the demand of flights, achieving the goal. This could cause a drop in tourist dollars but maybe that's the goal. It seems Europe in general is wary of tourists. Spain has gone so far as to discourage tourism to Barcelona by restricting any new hotels or tourist accommodations. France may be following their lead and taxing Airlines instead, creating less across the whole country instead of a particular city.
    - Sharlin 7y ago
      That’s silly, bordering on ridiculous. The goal is to reduce emissions. That will obviously have economical consequences. Hell, that’s the whole reason we are in this mess, because doing the right thing costs more than the alternative!
wayoutthere 7y ago
The whole passenger air travel industry (airlines, aircraft manufacturers, airports, etc) is subsidized because they’re not profitable on their own. But a robust and affordable air travel network is a capability the business world needs to operate our economy. Boeing and Airbus are two of the most heavily subsidized companies in the world, and the airlines themselves aren’t far behind. They’re both high-risk, low-margin businesses.
- dewey 7y ago
  I don't have a source for that but I'd say if the airlines etc wouldn't be so subsidized there would be higher focus on developing better engines, electric planes or other technologies than in the current state where losses will just be covered by the tax payer. They wouldn't just stop operating and the "business world" would most likely not collapse. I've talked to a bunch of people that get flown around by their company for 2h meetings at airports within Germany every day. If these wouldn't happen and would be done via video conferencing or other means that would be an improvement. Business will find a way to make it work.
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    This is exactly what has happened — the 787 is the result, and is hugely popular with airlines. But the operational life of a big jet is measured in decades, and there are plenty of 50-year-old airframes in regular operation today.
    - somecontext 7y ago
      For some context in case anyone is curious: putting together information from various websites suggests that the following is the oldest plane in commercial service today. https://m.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/737/5Y-CGV-Zone-Four/bAMQCBP1 https://m.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/737/5Y-CGV-Zone-... It is a Boeing 737-200 and it has been in service for 43.7 years.
      - TylerE 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rsj_hn 7y ago
International Air Travel is one of the most heavily taxed, if not the most heavily taxed, activity. It's not unusual for the taxes to exceed the ticket price. Here I just looked on kayak for a flight from SFO to Berlin. Here is the price breakdown: Ticket price USD 465.00 Taxes, Fees and charges USD 540.52 --------- International/Domestic Surcharge USD 350.00 APHIS User Fee USD 3.96 Immigration User Fee USD 7.00 Customs User Fee USD 5.77 United States International Departure Tax USD 18.60 United States International Arrival Tax USD 18.60 Passenger Civil Aviation Security Service Fee USD 5.60 Air Transport Tax USD 46.58 German Aviation Security Charge 19.15 Passenger Service Charge - Intl USD 23.95 Passenger Service Charge - Dom. USD 36.81 Passenger Facility Charge USD 4.50 Total price USD 1,005.52
- dewey 7y ago
  Take-off and landing account for a lot more pollution than a flight in cruising altitude on long trips. That's why we usually talk about the problematic domestic flights where trains are an alternative. There's not really a good alternative for long haul flights. Flights within Europe are not that heavily taxed, otherwise I wouldn't be able to fly Berlin - Brussels for 9 Euros.
  - rsj_hn 7y ago
    Yes, the huge taxes are generally for international flights, and I think part of the reason is that, as you say, there aren't a lot of options for those flights so they have a captive market and are thus better able to bear those taxes. If you start with punitive taxes on domestic flights in the EU, it will disproportionately hit the airline industry there. As with many things, the game with taxes is how to make the incidence of the tax fall more on the consumer and less on the producer. If you can accomplish that, then the tax is more likely to get through because unfortunately we don't have consumer lobbyists anywhere as strong as the business lobbyists.
    - briandear 7y ago
      Taxes always fall on the consumer. Businesses don’t pay tax. https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/NW_11_29_1971.pdf https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collection...
complexmango 7y ago
You get less of what you tax, and more of what you subsidize. I guess the French want fewer people visiting their country?
- cardiffspaceman 7y ago
  If the fee is paid on flights leaving French airports, then it follows that France wants people to go to France but not leave. I don't think the policy has anything to do with tourism.
- cheerlessbog 7y ago
  > I guess the French want fewer people visiting their country? I do not see any evidence that this is their goal. They would consider it an unfortunate side effect of a necessary environmental policy.
briandear 7y ago
I don’t pay expensive excise taxes, passenger service fees or “security” fees when I’ve taken a train. Yet air travel is taxed to hell and back. I get it, anti-air is the cause du jour, but until there is a train from SFO to Paris that wouldn’t take 20 days, it makes no sense to tax air travel so heavily. Air travel has had the biggest impact on connecting the world than almost any other tech aside from the internet. I would be tar and feathered among a certain crowd for saying this, but I love air travel and if it causes the temperature to rise .25 degrees over the next 50 years, so be it. Airplanes represent freedom. Taxing mobility is taxing freedom itself. Take a train from Marseille to Berlin and then one might appreciate how important air travel is. It’s trendy to oppose air travel but it’s like being opposed to ocean pollution and subsequently banning toddlers from peeing in the water at the beach. If the entire world went to nuclear power tomorrow, the climate impact of air travel wouldn’t even be a rounding error. Power generation is the biggest contributor to pollution. Airplanes are barely a few percentage points and airplanes in France have such an infinitesimal influence on world climate that the whole exercise is a joke and smacks of self-congratulatory virtue signaling more than any actual solution. Remember the politics here: the cheminots in France have extraordinary power: they can shut down the country on a whim — anything that harms air travel directly benefits one of the most powerful unions in France.

by dewey 7y ago

rayiner 7y ago

Aviation accounts for just 2% of global carbon emissions: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/18177118/airlines-climate-change-emissions-travel https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/1/11/1817711.... The plastics industry will burn through 14% of remaining carbon budget: https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/05/15/plastics-industry-climate-change-emissions-oceans-ciel-report https://www.desmogblog.com/2019/05/15/plastics-industry-clim...

tmalsburg2 7y ago
Aviation hurts the climate in multiple ways of which CO2 emissions are just one. Vapor trails apparently contribute even more to anthropogenic climate change. Overall the contribution of aviation is estimated to be 5%.
marcosdumay 7y ago
Those are 2 very different measures. You can't compare them.
adrianN 7y ago
Aviation is a small factor globally because almost nobody can afford to fly. For a typical westerner like me, a transatlantic flight per year roughly doubles my carbon footprint. Similarly, meat is a really big factor globally, because most people can afford to eat some meat, but for a westerner it makes up a much smaller (but still signifacent...) fraction of the pie because I use so much energy compared to a villager in India.

hourislate 7y ago

>Finally. It's really frustrating to see how heavily subsidized airlines, plane fuel and airports are and how big of a tax breaks they get when they come to a city. I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer. I was always under the impression that airports in France were economic drivers of prosperity considering tourism makes up about 77 billion euro of economic impact to the GDP France. Hope it works out for them...

alkonaut 7y ago
> I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer. That's not an unfortunate consequence, that's the idea.
zulln 7y ago
> I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer. Well, yeah, but what is the problem with that? The price increase thus decreasing the demand of flights, achieving the goal.
- hourislate 7y ago
  > Well, yeah, but what is the problem with that? Because Airlines seem to be the intended target and not the tourist. I would imagine they would have instituted an airport fee if the tourist was the target. >The price increase thus decreasing the demand of flights, achieving the goal. This could cause a drop in tourist dollars but maybe that's the goal. It seems Europe in general is wary of tourists. Spain has gone so far as to discourage tourism to Barcelona by restricting any new hotels or tourist accommodations. France may be following their lead and taxing Airlines instead, creating less across the whole country instead of a particular city.
  - Sharlin 7y ago
    That’s silly, bordering on ridiculous. The goal is to reduce emissions. That will obviously have economical consequences. Hell, that’s the whole reason we are in this mess, because doing the right thing costs more than the alternative!

wayoutthere 7y ago

The whole passenger air travel industry (airlines, aircraft manufacturers, airports, etc) is subsidized because they’re not profitable on their own. But a robust and affordable air travel network is a capability the business world needs to operate our economy. Boeing and Airbus are two of the most heavily subsidized companies in the world, and the airlines themselves aren’t far behind. They’re both high-risk, low-margin businesses.

dewey 7y ago
I don't have a source for that but I'd say if the airlines etc wouldn't be so subsidized there would be higher focus on developing better engines, electric planes or other technologies than in the current state where losses will just be covered by the tax payer. They wouldn't just stop operating and the "business world" would most likely not collapse. I've talked to a bunch of people that get flown around by their company for 2h meetings at airports within Germany every day. If these wouldn't happen and would be done via video conferencing or other means that would be an improvement. Business will find a way to make it work.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  This is exactly what has happened — the 787 is the result, and is hugely popular with airlines. But the operational life of a big jet is measured in decades, and there are plenty of 50-year-old airframes in regular operation today.
  - somecontext 7y ago
    For some context in case anyone is curious: putting together information from various websites suggests that the following is the oldest plane in commercial service today. https://m.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/737/5Y-CGV-Zone-Four/bAMQCBP1 https://m.planespotters.net/airframe/Boeing/737/5Y-CGV-Zone-... It is a Boeing 737-200 and it has been in service for 43.7 years.
    - TylerE 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rsj_hn 7y ago

International Air Travel is one of the most heavily taxed, if not the most heavily taxed, activity. It's not unusual for the taxes to exceed the ticket price. Here I just looked on kayak for a flight from SFO to Berlin. Here is the price breakdown: Ticket price USD 465.00 Taxes, Fees and charges USD 540.52 --------- International/Domestic Surcharge USD 350.00 APHIS User Fee USD 3.96 Immigration User Fee USD 7.00 Customs User Fee USD 5.77 United States International Departure Tax USD 18.60 United States International Arrival Tax USD 18.60 Passenger Civil Aviation Security Service Fee USD 5.60 Air Transport Tax USD 46.58 German Aviation Security Charge 19.15 Passenger Service Charge - Intl USD 23.95 Passenger Service Charge - Dom. USD 36.81 Passenger Facility Charge USD 4.50 Total price USD 1,005.52

dewey 7y ago
Take-off and landing account for a lot more pollution than a flight in cruising altitude on long trips. That's why we usually talk about the problematic domestic flights where trains are an alternative. There's not really a good alternative for long haul flights. Flights within Europe are not that heavily taxed, otherwise I wouldn't be able to fly Berlin - Brussels for 9 Euros.
- rsj_hn 7y ago
  Yes, the huge taxes are generally for international flights, and I think part of the reason is that, as you say, there aren't a lot of options for those flights so they have a captive market and are thus better able to bear those taxes. If you start with punitive taxes on domestic flights in the EU, it will disproportionately hit the airline industry there. As with many things, the game with taxes is how to make the incidence of the tax fall more on the consumer and less on the producer. If you can accomplish that, then the tax is more likely to get through because unfortunately we don't have consumer lobbyists anywhere as strong as the business lobbyists.
  - briandear 7y ago
    Taxes always fall on the consumer. Businesses don’t pay tax. https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/NW_11_29_1971.pdf https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collection...

complexmango 7y ago

You get less of what you tax, and more of what you subsidize. I guess the French want fewer people visiting their country?

cardiffspaceman 7y ago
If the fee is paid on flights leaving French airports, then it follows that France wants people to go to France but not leave. I don't think the policy has anything to do with tourism.
cheerlessbog 7y ago
> I guess the French want fewer people visiting their country? I do not see any evidence that this is their goal. They would consider it an unfortunate side effect of a necessary environmental policy.

briandear 7y ago

I don’t pay expensive excise taxes, passenger service fees or “security” fees when I’ve taken a train. Yet air travel is taxed to hell and back. I get it, anti-air is the cause du jour, but until there is a train from SFO to Paris that wouldn’t take 20 days, it makes no sense to tax air travel so heavily. Air travel has had the biggest impact on connecting the world than almost any other tech aside from the internet. I would be tar and feathered among a certain crowd for saying this, but I love air travel and if it causes the temperature to rise .25 degrees over the next 50 years, so be it. Airplanes represent freedom. Taxing mobility is taxing freedom itself. Take a train from Marseille to Berlin and then one might appreciate how important air travel is. It’s trendy to oppose air travel but it’s like being opposed to ocean pollution and subsequently banning toddlers from peeing in the water at the beach. If the entire world went to nuclear power tomorrow, the climate impact of air travel wouldn’t even be a rounding error. Power generation is the biggest contributor to pollution. Airplanes are barely a few percentage points and airplanes in France have such an infinitesimal influence on world climate that the whole exercise is a joke and smacks of self-congratulatory virtue signaling more than any actual solution. Remember the politics here: the cheminots in France have extraordinary power: they can shut down the country on a whim — anything that harms air travel directly benefits one of the most powerful unions in France.