Is there any way this could impact plane manufacturers? Lighter planes would mean less pollution.
France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
241–250 of 578 posts
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#242> Want to do something about climate change? Start with yourself I really dislike this line of thinking. I don’t manufacture millions of tons of concrete or millions of single-use plastic shampoo bottles. Our current path is irreversible if drastic shifts in disposable consumerism don’t occur soon.
But it is us who are actually performing the "consumerism". It is us who buys tons of garbage and then throw it out. It is us who continue to buy gas guzzlers and wanting to live grossly inefficient lifestyles via living in suburbia, combined with us voting against mass transit. It is also us who vote in people who do not care about climate change. Ultimately, we are the ones who are willingly giving money to these c…
> But it is us who are actually performing the "consumerism". It is us who buys tons of garbage and then throw it out.
If only we could collectively incentivize more efficient lifestyles.
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#243The UK already taxes flights in a similar way. Whilst this does feel like progress, it would be much better to tax the fuel instead of the passengers. Virtually all other fuel is taxed, so it's strange that jet fuel is exempt. The problem with taxing passengers instead of fuel include: - it doesn't encourage improving the efficiency of planes - airlines can't fill their planes with really cheap seats, and empty seats…
> 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
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a perfect world it would be an hour between each stop: DC > Philadelphia > NYC > Boston
Let's add in the BWI airport too. And while we're at it add Baltimore too. But that's it!
The issue is the rest of the nation though.
Yes, it's obviously a winner for the North East. You guys can put as many cities as you like on the link list because you have the geography and the density.
Awesome!
Good for you.
What about everyone else?
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#245Is there any way this could impact plane manufacturers? Lighter planes would mean less pollution.
Would lighter planes mean less pollution? Shouldn't we look at per-customer emissions? There's clearly benefit to a 2 seater vs 1 seater, what about 30 seats vs 60 seats? I don't actually know the physics here, would be interesting to see that calculated.
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#246The UK already taxes flights in a similar way. Whilst this does feel like progress, it would be much better to tax the fuel instead of the passengers. Virtually all other fuel is taxed, so it's strange that jet fuel is exempt. The problem with taxing passengers instead of fuel include: - it doesn't encourage improving the efficiency of planes - airlines can't fill their planes with really cheap seats, and empty seats…
It's illegal to tax fuel for international flights. Domestic fuel is already taxed but the Chicago Convention in 1944 set the ground rules for the ICAO and international air travel.
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sin taxes are pigovian taxes? And if you're contending they're different I assume one is supposed to cut down use.
Ah yep, I had a typo there. Sin taxes are meant to cut down use indeed, unlike the pigovian ones.
I have a problem with that definition, pigovian taxes are obviously going to cut down use. So the choice of label seems to be a political one.
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#248I am actually surprised that short-distance flights aren't taxed more in Western Europe. The train infrastructure in France is world class and can get you from Paris (North-Central part of the country) to Marseille (Southeast), a distance of about 500 miles, in 3 hours. For Americans, this would be roughly equivalent to go from Boston to Washington D.C. (a trip that takes 7-10+ hours)
At least in Germany, taking the train is insanely expensive.
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are, it's just a long journey.
Well, I mean by the same logic also Lisboa and Washington DC are connected by land during some parts of the year.
I really don't think we are using the same logic, but if people want to argue that Europe and Africa are not physically connected by land, then I'm going to start claiming that England and Scotland aren't either, given the distance between Carlisle and Newcastle is less than from Port Said to Suez.
Re: France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Resources were placed on this earth for the advancement of humankind. I hate to be that guy, but [Citation Needed]. Otherwise, I agree with you what what essentially amounts to a primitivist approach is counterproductive.
You're right, those resources are really going to benefit all of catkind. My cat loves iron mines, favorite past time really.
The resources weren't placed anywhere for the benefit of anybody. They just...are.