471–480 of 578 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in Germany, taking the train is insanely expensive.
If you buy the ticket at the wrong time yes. If you take it more often and use a BahnCard it’s not too bad either and definitely not “insanely”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the route from paris to algiers by car: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Paris,+France/Algiers+%D9%85... Not to mention for most of the world's immigrants (indian/asian) this is not even an option.
So we shouldn't do anything to curb co2 emissions and flying because 1 group of people will find it slightly more expensive/ more awkward to go home? (I say home, if they're economic migrants they're going home? But then they aren't French voters so on some level should they get a say? On the other hand if they're 'settled' migrants that call France home, they aren't going 'home' so on some level it's a summer holida…
We should act rationally, not implement random measures without forethought. I mention immigrants because international flights are disproportionately affected by this, and i think making it more difficult for them to see their family is inhumane. We don't see what is the projected effect of this law. They could have started with domestic flights or flights to places where rail travel is available instead. It would help to evaluate the effect of the measure more directly too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And, ironically, the same people that want these subsidies argue for less government oversight because the "market will sort itself out."
Sorry but i have never heard a small government person think there should be airplane subsidies in my life.
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)
It's really hypocrite of the government to shame people of flying while they've been destroying the train infrastructure all these years.
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…
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
I guess the French want fewer people visiting their country?
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 comparison, Paris-Marseilles is about a 1hr20 flight. Maybe comparable given airport hassle these days, but that is on what is perhaps the best route in Europe for showing what trains can do. I doubt cost comes in to most train-flight comparisons and I'm not sure what the point of the tax would be if not to change behaviour.
For comparison, the fastest train takes 3:15.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
affordable air travel network is a capability the business world needs to operate our economy Is it? Why? Frequent air travel is super recent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
International Air Travel is one of the most heavily taxed, if not the most heavily taxed, activity. It's not unusual for the taxes to exceed the ticket price. Here I just looked on kayak for a flight from SFO to Berlin. Here is the price breakdown: Ticket price USD 465.00 Taxes, Fees and charges USD 540.52 --------- International/Domestic Surcharge USD 350.00 APHIS User Fee USD 3.96 Immigration User Fee USD 7.00 Cust…
The taxes here amount to 8,33% of the total ticket price. The rest are actual charges that airports/government services levy for work done, as well as the famed fuel surcharge (usually recently noted as international/domestic surcharge) that airlines use as an wildcard addendum to the base fare of the ticket.