431–440 of 578 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
affordable air travel network is a capability the business world needs to operate our economy Is it? Why? Frequent air travel is super recent.
Internet is even more recent, does it make even less necessary to operate out economy?
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…
I don't really understand what the purpose of this tax is. There's no alternative to burning fuel by energy density on an airline, so why go after flights? What do they expect them to do? If you're taxing petrol cars you'd expect electric cars to become more economically viable. Either way I disagree with carbon taxes. They're regressive, and ignore the fact that regular people are being badly hurt by them whereas th…
> They're regressive, and ignore the fact that regular people are being badly hurt by them whereas the rich won't even feel it. how many people actually need to fly outside of traveling for work? in America, a high tax on gasoline would actually be devastating to the livelihood of a lot of poor citizens. being priced out of frequent air travel doesn't sound like a massive hardship.
During the last 2 years I was doing this flight pretty much twice a week. It was the only way I could spend time with my kid, but still keep my job and work to support him.
I also travel for work longer distances (NY, San Francisco and all over Europe) once or twice a month (which I try to match with my trips to see my son).
Lets instead tax all the iPhone Xr and Pixel whatevers. Laptops as well. They all contribute to the shitty environment (rare materials, plastics, shipping, polluting assembling them).
This is the problem I see with pretty much every cause.
> I don't see why X or Y is needed (because I don't needed it), so everyone else is selfish and ruining the environment, but what they think is essential (new shiny gadgets, brand clothes done by kids in Asia, etc) are always forgotten.
The 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…
> - airlines can't fill their planes with really cheap seats, and empty seats seem like a ridiculous waste This has never been true. There is no money in Economy. Almost never has been. Airlines make money off premium cabins and business travellers who book flights a couple of days in advance. Example LHR to LAX return. https://i.imgur.com/SCjndu8.png Fare: £50 One flexible First class return on the exact same flight…
Interesting, but why do they do it then? Wouldn't be better to use all that space for more first/ business class seats?
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
>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. I suppose the Airlines will just pass along any new taxes to the traveling consumer. I was always under the impression that airports in France were economic drivers of prosperity considering tourism makes up about 77 billion euro of economic impact to the…
That's not an unfortunate consequence, that's the idea.
The 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…
Good points. Just another tax that will be passed straight down to the consumer. Wonder why no wage growth for 10+ years? Will do nothing for the enviroment. "Better not go on that holiday because of the enviroment "
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Internet is even more recent, does it make even less necessary to operate out economy?
Not sure it's what you meant, but the internet does make air travel less necessary to operate the economy.
The world changes. I travel all over the world for business. Contracts that I couldn't do without that travel. Just because 50 years ago I wouldn't be able to do it, doesn't mean it isn't necessary now. (Same as internet, just because 50 years ago you didn't need, or have, the internet, doesn't mean nowadays is an integral part of business)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 counterp…
You 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 &…
That idea would work in trains; planes do not have tracks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like regulators could just tax planes based on how much fuel they leave with, regardless of the source?
A strong incentive to lift off with as little fuel as possible...
I 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)
> For Americans, this would be roughly equivalent to go from Boston to Washington D.C. (a trip that takes 7-10+ hours) Half of which is stops... I would love Amtrak to start a service that is just BOS NYC WAS.
Btw, does anybody know what is the marginal energy cost of a single car added to a train running at constant speed?