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.
That’s always the excuse they make. But it’s highly flawed. You can tax the planes that land in your country. They can’t evade landing in your country, and they don’t get to decide where people want to go.
Either they are complete hypocrites or they are the most useless idiots when it comes to finding solutions.
I think the issue is solvable for continental flights, but it becomes really difficult for international flights. At least not unless you get others to also support it, for which many sadly wont have any incentive.
Want to tax the whole distance rather than just the portion flown within the airspace you control (which will be minimized as much as possible)? Airlines will split up long distance flights by utilizing airport hubs just outside your jurisdiction. Giving those a major advantage and moving a substantial business away.
Combat this by taxing on an airline level? Airlines will just split into two entities, one serving europe and the other the rest of the world. Again leading to a loss for your economy. And at least for long international distances there is no alternative to flying.
Sweden just taxes you upon landing. Sure some airlines left and some only fly short connect flights. But those are not easy fixes especially if all of EU was doing this.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s always the excuse they make. But it’s highly flawed. You can tax the planes that land in your country. They can’t evade landing in your country, and they don’t get to decide where people want to go.
Either they are complete hypocrites or they are the most useless idiots when it comes to finding solutions.
I would add a third option there: the aviation lobby is too strong, sufficiently suppressing the urge to find solutions. ;)
I think the issue is solvable for continental flights, but it becomes really difficult for international flights. At least not unless you get others to also support it, for which many sadly wont have any incentive.
Want to tax the whole distance rather than just the portion flown within the airspace you control (which will be minimized as much as possible)? Airlines will split up long distance flights by utilizing airport hubs just outside your jurisdiction. Giving those a major advantage and moving a substantial business away.
Combat this by taxing on an airline level? Airlines will just split into two entities, one serving europe and the other the rest of the world. Again leading to a loss for your economy. And at least for long international distances there is no alternative to flying.
Sweden just taxes you upon landing. Sure some airlines left and some only fly short connect flights. But those are not easy fixes especially if all of EU was doing this.
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.
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.
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.
Introduce tariffs on kerosene remaining in landing planes and used during the flight. Problem solved.