No VAT or fuel tax is madness
I knew about the lack of a kerosene tax for flights but no VAT on international flights is just downright nuts to me.
Bread, Tampons, and books are more highly taxed than (most international) flights. Talk about distorted markets.
Why is this still a thing… this should be the top issue on all political agendas
Now I don’t agree with it (in fact, I am strongly opposed to the tax exemption), but the reasoning is that this way you create an ‘even playing field’ for aviators all across the globe. In other words: it’s doesn’t become more attractive to tank in Arab Gulf states, making their airlines out-compete European airlines.
That’s always the excuse they make. But it’s highly flawed. You can tax the planes that land in your country. They can’t evade landing in your country, and they don’t get to decide where people want to go.
Either they are complete hypocrites or they are the most useless idiots when it comes to finding solutions.
I would add a third option there: the aviation lobby is too strong, sufficiently suppressing the urge to find solutions. ;)
I think the issue is solvable for continental flights, but it becomes really difficult for international flights. At least not unless you get others to also support it, for which many sadly wont have any incentive.
Want to tax the whole distance rather than just the portion flown within the airspace you control (which will be minimized as much as possible)? Airlines will split up long distance flights by utilizing airport hubs just outside your jurisdiction. Giving those a major advantage and moving a substantial business away.
Combat this by taxing on an airline level? Airlines will just split into two entities, one serving europe and the other the rest of the world. Again leading to a loss for your economy. And at least for long international distances there is no alternative to flying.
I’ve heard this reason being mentioned, but I’m not really convinced by it. If this is of concern, you can tax the combustion of fuel on flights going in or out of the country, instead of taxing the sale of the fuel.
You mean a CO^2 ^tax? Yes please!
But this could be said about every industry, right? Oh, if we would be not be taxed, we would be more competitive worldwide.
Indeed, but aviation is slightly more mobile than say steel production. It’s a bad excuse nonetheless, if you ask me!
It’s really not. It’s the most immobile industry there is. They literally have to land in the places where people want to go to, they can’t just produce their “goods” anywhere and ship them.
It’s not like the plane has much of an option where to tank. Planes don’t tank more than needed for any flight. I struggle to comprehend this point
Well I definitely see Ryanair making detours to, say, Algiers to tank cheaply.
Planes don’t tank more than needed for any flight.
That is just an objectivly wrong statement.
Fueling doesn’t happend instandly and the whole process (inluding new fuel calculations, calling the Fuel-Crew, driving up and attaching/detatching the tanker, signing off paperwork, etc) can take up to an hour, without a single drop of fuel being filled into the tanks.
Planes often fly multiple short hops, well below they maximum possible range (e.g. between the Hawaiian Islands). If the pilots calculate, that they can stay below there landing weight, then they might opt to take fuel for multiple flights. Burning a few hundred kilos more fuel costs less than having a full crew twiddling there thumbs & letting ground personal run around for an hour.
Introduce tariffs on kerosene remaining in landing planes and used during the flight. Problem solved.
I wouldn’t say madness. But it is certainly very unfair to the rail industry. They should both be exempt or neither.
I know a lot of people are big fans of trains, but I’m not taking a train from Madrid to Copenhagen for business. It’s not gonna happen. Madrid->Paris maybe. They’re opening a new line that’ll cover the distance in 5 hours.
But within countries trains are absolutely the way to go. At least here in Spain Even if you are on the train longer than the plane, there is no security-state bullshit to deal with at the stations and the experience is much nicer.
And you don’t have to show up to the train station that long before your scheduled departure compared to flights. Train stations are also centrally located for most people compared to airports. My thinking has been that if it’s around 5-7 hrs by train, the flight will be faster but the time you spend waiting for the flight makes the time you spend pretty much equal out.
I agree! The time it takes to go from my home to the airport, then going through check in, security check, etc, is around the same as just doing the whole thing by train. And I can take a longer nap on the train, always a plus.
Cries in German’s Deutsche Bahn.
I take the long distance train a lot, over 20 times a year a lot. These are informed tears.
Because fuel and oil are still not CO² taxed as they should.
I gather aviation fuel isn’t taxed at all
Airline companies are basically organized crime.
The best and most elegant solution.
The article presents some good suggestions. It’s pretty bonkers that taking the train across borders in Europe is more difficult and expensive than a plane
the [air transport] industry’s importance to the economy and tourism sector
That won’t age well
They often aren’t. But where I live there is no train. The closest train station is a 4 hour bus ride from my town and it’s only connected to the neighbouring country’s rail network.
Because some EU states let trains directly compete with flights regionally or between bordering states
Italy does this and the train won. It’s a good example of how the train can win.
Cuz trains suck?
In that case shouldn’t the trains be cheaper?
Well no. They’re inefficient. Think of the maintence, its ridiculous, even with modern electric trains.
Airplanes, of course, require no maintenance at all.
They do, but trains are surprisingly bad.
Planes get all sorts of checks done based on hours of flight and we’re talking various levels starting at every-50h for certain things and going all the way to full engine overhauls every few tens of thousands of hours of flight (actual value depends on the engine).
Even shitty-shit amateur prop planes are incredibly maintenance intensive and it’s worse for commercial aviation.
The amount of maintenance done for trains is nowhere comparable to that and the reason is pretty obvious: a mechanical or structural failure in a plane in use has a very high likelihood of killing everybody in it, whilst for a train, it’s only some kind of failures in some subsystems in highspeed trains that might cause accidents with that many dead.
“Assertive laughable ignorance” doesn’t even begin to describe the quality of your posts on this subject.
As to be expected from someone whose handle is literally “Throwaway”
“inefficient”, yet consume much less energy than planes for the same route. You seem to be using a very odd definition of efficiency!
The reason planes are cheaper is governments subsidize them. Don’t collect proper taxes on fuel and sales taxes. Trains don’t get the same treatment. Trains are actually more effecient, physics is a real thing. It takes a ton more fuel to keep a plane in the air. The only way it’s less efficient is if you are comparing a near empty train to a full plain.
