5 ms·
> Virtually all other fuel is taxed, so it's strange that jet fuel is exempt. "Without any international agreement on taxing fuel, it is highly likely that mov
by rlpb 7y ago
> Virtually all other fuel is taxed, so it's strange that jet fuel is exempt.
"Without any international agreement on taxing fuel, it is highly likely that moves to impose
duty on international flights, either at a domestic or European level, would encourage
‘tankering’: carriers filling their aircraft as full as possible whenever they landed outside the
EU to avoid paying tax. Clearly this would be entirely counterproductive. Aircraft would be
travelling further than necessary to fill up in low-tax jurisdictions; in addition they would be
burning up more fuel when carrying the extra weight of a full fuel tank."
This document explains it pretty well: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00523.pdf http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN00523.pdf
- hokkos 7y agoYou can tax fuel burned inside european airspace instead of fuel at rest once arrived at the airport. Also : >EU countries can end the decades-long exemption and tax kerosene on flights between them, according to legal experts. This could either be done at EU level through a series of bilateral agreements or by agreement between individual countries, the independent legal analysis for green NGO federation Transport & Environment (T&E) finds. The old argument that foreign carriers’ operating within the EU – de facto a small number of flights – can’t be taxed can be overcome by introducing a de minimis threshold below which fuel burn would not be taxed. https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/taxing-aviation-fuel-europe https://www.transportenvironment.org/publications/taxing-avi...
- anticensor 7y ago> You can tax fuel burned inside european airspace instead of fuel at rest once arrived at the airport. That idea would work in trains; planes do not have tracks.
- kgwgk 7y agoPlanes are not on tracks but they have a position and they are either inside or outside a country's airspace.
- azernik 7y agoThey do have transponders, and EU airspace does have clearly defined boundaries.
- chronolitus 7y agohttps://www.flightradar24.com/ https://www.flightradar24.com/
- anticensor 7y agoIt tracks where the plane is, not where the fuel is burned. A few metres of difference, significant for border enforcement.
- ericd 7y agoIt seems like regulators could just tax planes based on how much fuel they leave with, regardless of the source?
- LanceH 7y agoA strong incentive to lift off with as little fuel as possible...
- SiempreViernes 7y agoMeh, it's not stronger than the cost savings incentive they already have, and minimum amounts allowed are regulated by international treaty anyway.
- LynxInLA 7y agoThat would incentivize planes to fly with as little fuel as possible. That could lead to some flights running out of fuel when unforeseen issues arise. No matter how you tax the fuel, there are going to be some perverse incentives.
- kingnothing 7y agoThey're already incentivized to do that to keep weight down to reduce running costs.
- freedrock87 7y agoICAO already regulates the reserve amount of fuel required to be carried. This isn't a valid argument
- teraflop 7y agoICAO sets a minimum amount of reserve fuel, not a maximum, so this is not a valid counter-argument.
- 7y ago
- pathseeker 7y agoIt is highly inefficient to make an additional landing to fuel up. The tax would have to be obscene to make the numbers work out for an airline to tanker.
- londons_explore 7y agoI don't think so. Even a 20% fuel tax in the EU would probably make a few EU neighbour states lay down extra long runways so a plane can land, fuel up, and takeoff again, all without opening the doors or maneuvering/reversing. They could probably do 5 minutes with practice. It would save $10k easily for a big plane.
- chopin 7y agoYou can make it time efficient, but not fuel efficient. As well approaching and departing procedures add to the time, so you spend at least 30min on it. Add the diversion and you lose even more time. This would make only sense for very long flights. Refueling with passengers on board has safety considerations as well.
- londons_explore 7y ago> but not fuel efficient. It's totally fuel efficient. You burn fuel coming down to land and taking off again, but you save more fuel by not having to carry the weight of fuel for your whole journey, but instead only enough fuel to get to the next stop off point. You could make it time efficient if you designed an airport specifically for this purpose. No passenger terminal. No steps/trucks. Drive in/drive out fuel fill stations. No delay to land or landing slots (since the airport can be built in the middle of nowhere with super cheap land it needn't be runway constrained).
- kalleboo 7y agoSome countries with high gasoline taxes situated next to countries with low gasoline taxes have anti-tankering laws for motorists (see Singapore vs Malaysia). That could be one solution.