France to tax flights from its airports, airline shares fall

Post by cardiffspaceman » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 12:55 AM UTC

complexmango wrote: post #476

dewey wrote: post #167

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

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

Post by Iv » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 1:02 AM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #367

dewey wrote: post #167

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

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-mar…

Post by eanzenberg » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 1:17 AM UTC

makerofspoons wrote: post #383

eanzenberg wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much? A few degrees warmer here or there, and a few feet increase in sea level? And that's in ~100 years.

Mass famine, economic collapse, war, and ultimately the collapse of industrial civilization: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-...

Post by dehrmann » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 1:20 AM UTC

isolli wrote: post #205

ceejayoz wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a citation on that? https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-clim... says "Longer flights are more efficient overall, as cruising requires less fuel." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/06/aviation... also states "short flights tend to be more harmful to the climate per mile travelled than long-haul flights are (because they have more empty seats, and because taking off and la…

Thanks, it is indeed a bit more complicated than I first thought! There is a sweet spot: "Above a certain distance it becomes more fuel-efficient to make a halfway stop to refuel, despite the energy losses in descent and climb." [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Fligh... Interesting tidbit (from the same): Very long non-stop passenger flights suffer from the weight penalty of the extra fu…

Post by adrianratnapala » Wed, Jul 10, 2019, 1:30 AM UTC

wayoutthere wrote: post #367

dewey wrote: post #167

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

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-mar…