The EU is attempting to regulate airlines inside and OUTSIDE their airspace. Carbon emissions emitted over China in route from Hong Kong to Frankfurt are covered in this "tax" or whatever you wish to call it. A United flight from San Francisco to Amsterdam is covered from the moment of takeoff to landing. How is that NOT interferring by the EU over aviation around the entire world?

Same as US security measures affect flights inside and outside of the US. The guy from Singapore, the one from London and the French one have to obey to that US policy and the EU itself, not having in place similar restrictive policies on e.g. the time they store passenger data and the sheer volume of it, had no trouble to accept that wish.

 

Flying from and to the US means following their security wishes. The higher standard sets the mark in that case. Folks that don't like it should avoid those flights and perhaps some actually do, if they can. And there are more than enough concerns about what that data can, and what not.

 

Communicating the tax issue as if some EU policy on saving the planet came up yesterday and was set in place without asking other countries on the next one is a bit misleading. They did approach not only the US on the matter since years and, from their statements, all that was received was a 'maybe later' and 'wait for the ICAO' which could mean to wait forever. Hence their move.

 

It is being resisted by the entire world. The difference is that the U.S. is taking a position that products its industry. The EU obviously isn't doing the same.

It's been resisted by other global players in a what looks like 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' way and I full agree with Rónán or

environment committee chairman Matthias Groote, who said.

"The US bill to allow their airlines to flaunt EU legislation is disrespectful and counterproductive,"

 

We may agree that, on the global view, there are conflicting interests at times when it comes to either saving some industry or the environment. I'm sure that most of us recall examples where the first thing won and only few, if any, where mother nature succeeded.

Although I still highly doubt that it's the environment they care about. That's just from knowing some of their former actions on that topic. Paint it green and people think it's for the environment. No offense to Rónán, flying green birds. ^_^

 

Ticket prices may go up and the only problem with the extra cost is that the industry fears a loss of passenger numbers. Well, the aviation industry always fears lower numbers, so the upset mood at that end isn't very surprising, same as the points on why this is so bad aren't new.

 

They promote some 77% fuel savings per passenger since the first jet planes just before Farnborough, but leave out that, within the same amount of time, the passenger numbers itself went 800% up. Think the environment is winning?

 

And I don't see anyone running an anti-American topic. I don't blame any player, but I sometimes hate the game.

Same as US security measures affect flights inside and outside of the US.

 

Those changes were made as a war measures act. The USA was attacked and launched a war on two fronts, joined by a number of allies. They created a security policy on flights in and out of the USA for security reasons. Foreign governments backed the USA on these changes (for example Canada purchasing increased security and equipment at its airports for flights into the USA). These changes were necessary not only for the USA, but many other western nations as well.

 

An environmental policy is a very different circumstance.

 

Folks that don't like it should avoid those flights and perhaps some actually do, if they can.

 

This is very true. People in Australia and New Zealand flying to the United Kingdom prefer to fly through Hong Kong instead of Los Angeles even though Los Angeles is a shorter flight. People would rather avoid Department of Homeland Security and travel through Hong Kong as it is more enjoyable.

 

This has a damaging effect on the US Economy when people avoid travel though the USA. Even Americans can understand this because I have never met an American that enjoys traveling through LAX

You could say that the EU policy is backed by 27 countries. Just saying.

 

Point is though, US said, "We need you guy to pay up a bit, but it'll make the world a better safer place" and everyone said, "Fine. We're flying to your country, so we'll follow your rules."

Did it work, maybe, who knows?

Did it hurt?

Well, I now sometimes get to take my shoes off going to work,

I can't take photo's of my workspace,

I can't take my kids to work without a mountain of paperwork,

You set of a metal detector and suddenly you have two men groping you down.

I can't take a nail clippers onto the flight deck, because, ya-know, that's how I as a pilot would bring down an airplane if I wanted....

That lovely milkshake my son made for me for after my lunch, yeh, that can stay in the car. Darn explosive milkshakes.

Talk with the people I'm flying? Not anymore, they might hijack the plane, by putting on my uniform and pretending to be me???

 

But, they wanted this, and we said fine, your country, your rules.

 

Ró.

An environmental policy is a very different circumstance.

Because it doesn't affect the planet? Sorry, I can't follow your thinking.

 

When looking into the details of those security measures (being effective or not), one will see the diversity of the planet coming to life as every country, even within the EU, acts differently. But what they all did (although I don't know the pressure behind it) was to accept and respect the US wish. And that's how we got here.

 

Storing data well beyond simple 'flying' questions for up to 15 years. You won't find anything like that in the EU, perhaps with the UK being the closest to it though.

 

And I don't see those measures coming without a critical reception, even within the US and still ongoing when it comes to their purpose and effectiveness. Still, the EU respected the governmental US policy which I think acts as a good example on how international relationships can work out.

<br />You could say that the EU policy is backed by 27 countries. Just saying.<br />

 

But is still only 11% of the world population. Easier for Brussels to have improved diplomacy with the other 89% of the world on policies like this if they want cooperation.

 

<br />Because it doesn't affect the planet? Sorry, I can't follow your thinking.<br />

 

War is a very reactionary response to a terrible situation that occurred. No one likes it but these changes were necessary at the time.

I saw your calculation on the amount of world population before, Matthew.

 

We could also calculate for land mass affected, for economical power, amount of warheads, water, average IQ and EQ and a lot of other things. We may always end up with somebody ruling the other one because there is 'more' or 'less' of them, just by picking the most favourable values. Still, we are not here because we regularly do that but because we take points on at least two levels, quantity and quality.

 

All countries own their sovereignty and that's all they demand, same as the US demands it on the case of the security measures for their flights or the views on global security. For instance, if the small republic of Malta came up with a good idea and also with some regulation for their tiny airspace (in and out) on environmental measures, I would respect it. You too I guess. :Peace:

 

If I couldn't respect it, I wouldn't fly there and perhaps head for some diplomatic interactions. Yes, that's how it goes.

Very true CoolP.

 

It really doesn't matter that Europe is 11% or the USA is actually only 4.5% of the world population. Positive Diplomacy goes a very long way in relations. If they are good ideas then yes, even a country like Malta can have a very positive influence on the world.

 

I like to think New Zealand does a great job considering we are a nation of only 4.4 million people. We do like to focus on things that have a very positive effect on the planet. We stood ground against the USA and France that used to detonate Nuclear Bombs in our backyard and we currently stand up to the Japanese who continue to fish for Whales just south of us. We may be little but we go to great lengths to protect our place in the world...

 

Cheers

First of all, I see this tax only a way to gain money.

 

From what I understand it is flights in and out of Europe and domestic flights in Europe. The USA would prefer to spend that tax on something like job creation in the USA for example instead of giving Carbon Tax to the EU as this would add up to billions of dollars over the years, and lead to a possible trade war.

 

I read following the link that this tax will affect with 3.1 billion of $ from 2012 to 2020. I don't think is too much for 8 years, and I don't think that a big country like USA can do so much concerning job creation with this money.

for the same reason I don't think it will affect the price of tickets, it may be an excuse to rise them.

 

Same here. I doubt that any environmental concerns drive this project, same as I doubt that any 'saved money' will be spend on job creations. That's not how I got to know politics.

 

That's what I think!

 

The EU has unilaterally created a "law" that did not collaborate or work with the ICAO. Instead, a "law" was created that attempts to regulate national industries outside the borders of the EU. Every country (or nearly every) country outside the EU refuses to pay a "tax" that the EU has no authority outside the EU to promulgate. Imagine the uproar if the US attempted to put a tax on gas consumption by businesses in the US with car fleets in the EU? What arrogance that the EU thinks they can be the sole arbiter of global Eco governance.

 

Any aircraft that lands in any airport pays a tax, but it doesn't have to land in that airport! If an airline doesn't want to pay, it won't come in europe!

the EU is not thinking to be the sole arbiter of Ecological governance, it's just attemting to make money. I had big examples of countries that decided to became the arbiter of political matters around the world in the latest years, but it's another story.

 

This is exactly how I see it as well. See what Greece thinks about a decline in their tourism revenue at the moment.

The USA has the right approach by passing a law banning companies from paying.

 

I don't think that american airlines will not be happy if they cannot fly to europe.

 

 

In my opinion, this is not a law against foreign airliners, but only a law designed to gain a bit more of money. It may be designed to brake the middle-east and oriental Airlines, that are growing up fast and taking pieces of EU market.

 

 

just my 2 cents, I'm glad to take part of this interestin discussion! :-)

Security at airports, have you guys tried LLBG, profiling is not a dirty word over there, about half an hour of questioning

by a security agent before you even get to the counter, better have your ducks in a row, stutterings is not allowed.

 

As Ro said, "Fine. We're flying to your country, so we'll follow your rules.", that's how I see it, what ever their reasons are.

<br />I read following the link that this tax will affect with 3.1 billion of $ from 2012 to 2020. I don't think is too much for 8 years, and I don't think that a big country like USA can do so much concerning job creation with this money.<br />for the same reason I don't think it will affect the price of tickets, it may be an excuse to rise them.<br />

 

That's what I found as well....About $3 billion by 2020.

 

My Job Creation comment is more based on my POV that the USA is doing a better job on Job Creation a the moment then other regions (even if they are falling short of some targets). I see this as a better priority as a strong economy will create extra money for green initiatives without tax increases.

 

<br />In my opinion, this is not a law against foreign airliners, but only a law designed to gain a bit more of money. It may be designed to brake the middle-east and oriental Airlines, that are growing up fast and taking pieces of EU market.<br />

 

It does create an income for the EU to create a green based industry, which is what they are most likely after. The Middle East Airlines have been problematic for more the just the EU, Even Canada has a dispute with United Arab Emirates at the moment over landing rights in Canada and UAE evicted the Canadian Armed Forces staging base for Afghanistan over Airline Routes. Middle East and Asian Airlines are hurting QANTAS as well...

It really doesn't matter that Europe is 11% or the USA is actually only 4.5% of the world population. Positive Diplomacy goes a very long way in relations. If they are good ideas then yes, even a country like Malta can have a very positive influence on the world.

 

I like to think New Zealand does a great job considering we are a nation of only 4.4 million people. We do like to focus on things that have a very positive effect on the planet. We stood ground against the USA and France that used to detonate Nuclear Bombs in our backyard and we currently stand up to the Japanese who continue to fish for Whales just south of us. We may be little but we go to great lengths to protect our place in the world...

Good post, Matthew. By the way, NZ represents another kind of green colour one can really love and adore.

 

On that current tax project, I wouldn't focus too much on it since those type of things account for a lot of side topics and often enough just act as a leverage. A very simplified analogy would be to let that tree near the fence grow larger, so that it grows into the areal of your neighbour. He may like to talk about this, even if he was short on talking time before.

 

So it isn't the tree, it's what it causes.

I have been reading more about RNP, PBN and FANS this week and it just seems to me that the Aviation Industry is the best resource for implementing green initiatives and not government bureaucracy or tax increases.

 

RNP has proven to have a significant fuel savings over traditional approaches, so the more this technology is rolled out the better. Aircraft Manufacturers and Engine Makers have done tremendous advances compared to the 1970's, and continue to do so with products like the 787, 737MAX and A320E....The Industry is doing a great job in my POV and continues to do more. So I don't see why any government needs to raise a tax for green initiatives. Their is currently a tax base to work with and a green industry must be financially sustainable to be successful.

 

The next thing I want to do is get RNP to work in FSX with my PMDG NGX so I will continue to study this system further....Pretty cool stuff

 

Cheers

The Industry is doing a great job in my POV and continues to do more. So I don't see why any government needs to raise a tax for green initiatives.

You would have to ask why the industry tries to save fuel. The answer may not necessarily involve any environmental concerns, but a lot of economical ones. So we may not be talking about pure goodwill.

 

Look at us, plus friends and family. The questions on whether to use the car or plane for anything being not absolutely necessary (emergencies, vital supplies, etc.) dramatically gained weight as the prices increased. And the industry is no different when it comes to the initiative on e.g. saving fuel. That's their main cost factor, still going up on the percentage in regard to the rest of operational costs of a fancy plane.

 

And, as sad as it may sound, no pro-environmental campaign, regardless of the popular names and good arguments involved, could ever achieve the 'awareness' some raised fuel costs and eco-taxes can. I'd love to state the opposite, that awareness arises from knowledge alone, but I can't.

 

By the way, I'm sharing your view on those new techs. Interesting stuff, including some wow moments.

 

You would have to ask why the industry tries to save fuel. The answer may not necessarily involve any environmental concerns, but a lot of economical ones. So we may not be talking about pure goodwill.

 

 

Absolutely correct....if there is a financial gain from environmental initiatives then absolutely it will happen. Simple equation

 

Less Fuel = Increased Profits + good for the environment.

 

Win Win

 

I believe a green industry can be made profitable in the private sector. Leave it up to the Governments then it will cost all of us in increased taxes, increased air fares etc, and will not have as much of an impact in the environment anyways. Governments are bad administrators.

 

Remember, this proposed tax will mean that it is us the flying public that will end up paying for it. Government tax the Airline and the Airline just passes those costs onto you and I.

EU doing it becuase they are broke that why lololol. Taxes on transportation result in higher prices for the working class.