- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Because fuel and oil are still not CO² taxed as they should.
The best and most elegant solution.
No VAT or fuel tax is madness
I knew about the lack of a kerosene tax for flights but no VAT on international flights is just downright nuts to me.
Bread, Tampons, and books are more highly taxed than (most international) flights. Talk about distorted markets.
Why is this still a thing… this should be the top issue on all political agendas
Now I don’t agree with it (in fact, I am strongly opposed to the tax exemption), but the reasoning is that this way you create an ‘even playing field’ for aviators all across the globe. In other words: it’s doesn’t become more attractive to tank in Arab Gulf states, making their airlines out-compete European airlines.
I’ve heard this reason being mentioned, but I’m not really convinced by it. If this is of concern, you can tax the combustion of fuel on flights going in or out of the country, instead of taxing the sale of the fuel.
You mean a CO^2 ^tax? Yes please!
But this could be said about every industry, right? Oh, if we would be not be taxed, we would be more competitive worldwide.
Indeed, but aviation is slightly more mobile than say steel production. It’s a bad excuse nonetheless, if you ask me!
It’s really not. It’s the most immobile industry there is. They literally have to land in the places where people want to go to, they can’t just produce their “goods” anywhere and ship them.
Introduce tariffs on kerosene remaining in landing planes and used during the flight. Problem solved.
It’s not like the plane has much of an option where to tank. Planes don’t tank more than needed for any flight. I struggle to comprehend this point
Well I definitely see Ryanair making detours to, say, Algiers to tank cheaply.
Planes don’t tank more than needed for any flight.
That is just an objectivly wrong statement.
Fueling doesn’t happend instandly and the whole process (inluding new fuel calculations, calling the Fuel-Crew, driving up and attaching/detatching the tanker, signing off paperwork, etc) can take up to an hour, without a single drop of fuel being filled into the tanks.
Planes often fly multiple short hops, well below they maximum possible range (e.g. between the Hawaiian Islands). If the pilots calculate, that they can stay below there landing weight, then they might opt to take fuel for multiple flights. Burning a few hundred kilos more fuel costs less than having a full crew twiddling there thumbs & letting ground personal run around for an hour.
The article presents some good suggestions. It’s pretty bonkers that taking the train across borders in Europe is more difficult and expensive than a plane
the [air transport] industry’s importance to the economy and tourism sector
That won’t age well
They often aren’t. But where I live there is no train. The closest train station is a 4 hour bus ride from my town and it’s only connected to the neighbouring country’s rail network.
Because some EU states let trains directly compete with flights regionally or between bordering states
Italy does this and the train won. It’s a good example of how the train can win.
Cuz trains suck?
