Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Airlines slam proposals to ban air mile programs and tax frequent flyers
In a report published Thursday by Imperial College London for the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), academics proposed several measures that governments should implement to reduce the impact aviation was having on the environment. (www.cnbc.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
As an American citizen who is interested in the success of my country's industries, particularly aviation, I STRONGLY encourage the UK government to embrace and adopt the committee's suggestions as soon as possible.
Let’s all give the government more money to save the planet :)
Not sure whether this climate change thing was a scam from the get go or if opportunistic people saw a way to empty the pockets of the morons suffering with “climate anxiety” (lol) by taxing them and selling electric crap (which in a lot of countries is fed by coal plants or windmills that alter the rain patterns and kill birds). God only knows what they’ll do when the demand for electricity sky rockets due to the increased number of electric cars and their sources fail to meet it.
Also, why those experts never talk about reforesting Europe which is the champion when it comes to destroying it’s native vegetation? Nope, let’s just increase taxes to save the planet! This reminds me of the whole Amazon drama where idiotic europeans claimed Brazil wasn’t preserving it’s forests (even though that’s not the case at all) yet forgot Brazil has at least 60% of it’s native vegetation remaining while estimates for the whole Europe are around 13%.
Not sure whether this climate change thing was a scam from the get go or if opportunistic people saw a way to empty the pockets of the morons suffering with “climate anxiety” (lol) by taxing them and selling electric crap (which in a lot of countries is fed by coal plants or windmills that alter the rain patterns and kill birds). God only knows what they’ll do when the demand for electricity sky rockets due to the increased number of electric cars and their sources fail to meet it.
Also, why those experts never talk about reforesting Europe which is the champion when it comes to destroying it’s native vegetation? Nope, let’s just increase taxes to save the planet! This reminds me of the whole Amazon drama where idiotic europeans claimed Brazil wasn’t preserving it’s forests (even though that’s not the case at all) yet forgot Brazil has at least 60% of it’s native vegetation remaining while estimates for the whole Europe are around 13%.
i am appalled that my alma mater would publish such poor science. they should consider the following FACTS,
The world population has grown from 1.75B in 1920 to 3.61B in 1970 to 7.4B today, a staggering doubling every 50 yrs. Carbon dioxide levels were 305ppm in 1920, 325ppm in 1970 and 415ppm in 2019.
The average person generates the heat equivalent of a 100w light bulb, continuously.
So what are the conclusions???
The world population has grown from 1.75B in 1920 to 3.61B in 1970 to 7.4B today, a staggering doubling every 50 yrs. Carbon dioxide levels were 305ppm in 1920, 325ppm in 1970 and 415ppm in 2019.
The average person generates the heat equivalent of a 100w light bulb, continuously.
So what are the conclusions???
Resist!!
I doubt that the sort of people who recklessly and impulsively decide on a whim to take a cheap flight to indulge in a Lads Weekend in some notorious Baltic Party Town, with total disregard for the catastrophic contribution they are causing to the future of the planet, are likely to say "Wot, no Air Miles!, OK, we won't go."
Meanwhile, the family who take one or two flights a year, for a well earned holiday, to broaden their horizons and encounter other cultures, or occasionally visit relatives or friends who live overseas, won't even notice the lack of Air Miles, they never earn enough to gain any benefit because the few Miles they do earn expire before they accumulate enough to actually redeem any reward.
As for the true Frequent Flyers, who do collect their Miles and gain the attendant benefits, they would most likely travel because thy have to 'be there' to do their job. Their flights are paid by those they work for, and The Firm would not pay for the flight if there was a cheaper or more suitable alternative, such as some kind of tele-presence, or hiring someone local with the same skills and expertise.
BTW I suspect the majority of these folk actually fly at the back of the bus, so the little perks they enjoy from their Miles are small recompense for trials and misery they endure on their way to work. Losing their Miles would not be enough to make them quit the job, just ensure they arrive a bit grumpy.
The idea of taxing frequent flyers is fraught with compromise or contradictions.
A UK Sales manager who has to fly to company HQ in Dusseldorf once a month flies about 500Km each way. Someone flying to Sydney to visit a son or daughter covers 17,000Km each way. Their return trip is only a little less than the same mileage than the Managers flights for nearly 3 years.
Where do you set the threshold for a Frequent Flyer Tax, in number of Flights per Year, or Miles Covered.
However much you penalise the frequent flyers The Firm will just suck up the cost of the flights it considers essential and pass it on to consumers or end users.
Other items of possible concern with a Frequent Flyer Tax arise when considering how you track this, I could imagine that there may be Data Protection and privacy issues that might arise. The UK Government may be able to extract the numbers pertaining to every passenger departing and arriving in the UK, but how would they track those passengers flights beyond their borders.
A situation might arise where instead of taking a direct Long Haul flight to Singapore and incurring that Tax penalty, a traveller may fly there Via Paris so they are only Taxed by the UK on the first Short Haul sector to France.
And what of the Anti-Competitive Pricing aspect of this. If two individuals booking the same Flight at the same time are charged significantly different prices, just because of who they are and their previous flight history, there would be outrage.
OK, I realise that there are already examples that occasionally come to light where customers of airlines, and other industries and services, discover they may be charged differently for the same product, often in these cases some Regulator is invoked, or even laws passed to overcome the inequity. Now they are proposing to institutionalise this same thing.
Personally I don't think these proposals would make any significant difference to the behaviour or choices made by the flying public, it would just piss off those that noticed, before they shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.
All it would do is cause another minuscule increase in the overall cost of living for all, as the cost to business is passed on to the consumer.
Meanwhile, the family who take one or two flights a year, for a well earned holiday, to broaden their horizons and encounter other cultures, or occasionally visit relatives or friends who live overseas, won't even notice the lack of Air Miles, they never earn enough to gain any benefit because the few Miles they do earn expire before they accumulate enough to actually redeem any reward.
As for the true Frequent Flyers, who do collect their Miles and gain the attendant benefits, they would most likely travel because thy have to 'be there' to do their job. Their flights are paid by those they work for, and The Firm would not pay for the flight if there was a cheaper or more suitable alternative, such as some kind of tele-presence, or hiring someone local with the same skills and expertise.
BTW I suspect the majority of these folk actually fly at the back of the bus, so the little perks they enjoy from their Miles are small recompense for trials and misery they endure on their way to work. Losing their Miles would not be enough to make them quit the job, just ensure they arrive a bit grumpy.
The idea of taxing frequent flyers is fraught with compromise or contradictions.
A UK Sales manager who has to fly to company HQ in Dusseldorf once a month flies about 500Km each way. Someone flying to Sydney to visit a son or daughter covers 17,000Km each way. Their return trip is only a little less than the same mileage than the Managers flights for nearly 3 years.
Where do you set the threshold for a Frequent Flyer Tax, in number of Flights per Year, or Miles Covered.
However much you penalise the frequent flyers The Firm will just suck up the cost of the flights it considers essential and pass it on to consumers or end users.
Other items of possible concern with a Frequent Flyer Tax arise when considering how you track this, I could imagine that there may be Data Protection and privacy issues that might arise. The UK Government may be able to extract the numbers pertaining to every passenger departing and arriving in the UK, but how would they track those passengers flights beyond their borders.
A situation might arise where instead of taking a direct Long Haul flight to Singapore and incurring that Tax penalty, a traveller may fly there Via Paris so they are only Taxed by the UK on the first Short Haul sector to France.
And what of the Anti-Competitive Pricing aspect of this. If two individuals booking the same Flight at the same time are charged significantly different prices, just because of who they are and their previous flight history, there would be outrage.
OK, I realise that there are already examples that occasionally come to light where customers of airlines, and other industries and services, discover they may be charged differently for the same product, often in these cases some Regulator is invoked, or even laws passed to overcome the inequity. Now they are proposing to institutionalise this same thing.
Personally I don't think these proposals would make any significant difference to the behaviour or choices made by the flying public, it would just piss off those that noticed, before they shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.
All it would do is cause another minuscule increase in the overall cost of living for all, as the cost to business is passed on to the consumer.
“Catastrophic contribution” - yeah, just like the polar caps melted completely in 2014, right? Our life style is so catastrophic that our life expectancy also keeps going up and all of the people who talked about “global warming” caused catastrophes were completely wrong.
Oh but what do I know, let’s just give more money to the government in order to save the planet while they are surprisingly uninterested in reforestation even though Europe destroyed about 87% of it’s native vegetation - and fixing that would be darn cheap.
In the mean time let’s just not question their narrative, make our lives shittier and pay them more money to save the future generations from the climate change boogeymen.
Side note: our planet is already doomed and it will end at some point when the sun expands before it dies - if nothing else happens before then such as an asteroid, another ice age and so on. If you are worried about the future generations, quit having kids - or at least have your kids not have kids.
Oh but what do I know, let’s just give more money to the government in order to save the planet while they are surprisingly uninterested in reforestation even though Europe destroyed about 87% of it’s native vegetation - and fixing that would be darn cheap.
In the mean time let’s just not question their narrative, make our lives shittier and pay them more money to save the future generations from the climate change boogeymen.
Side note: our planet is already doomed and it will end at some point when the sun expands before it dies - if nothing else happens before then such as an asteroid, another ice age and so on. If you are worried about the future generations, quit having kids - or at least have your kids not have kids.
Sadly text does not always carry 'tone of voice'
In my opening paragraph there was intended to be more than a hint of sarcasm, holding a mirror to the perpetrators of this nonsense who would charge anyone seeking just a little enjoyment abroad to be personally responsible for the imminent death of the planet.
Me, I fly about 50,000 miles a year at 35,000ft, for work, and I don't feel too bad about it in the grand scheme of things, maybe I should...
Also I fly about 30-50hrs a year as a PPL turning dinosaurs into noise for the fun of it.
The airfield I fly from is just that, a field, with lots of grass and trees happily slurping up much more CO2, I believe, than the little aeroplanes that live there spew out.
In my opening paragraph there was intended to be more than a hint of sarcasm, holding a mirror to the perpetrators of this nonsense who would charge anyone seeking just a little enjoyment abroad to be personally responsible for the imminent death of the planet.
Me, I fly about 50,000 miles a year at 35,000ft, for work, and I don't feel too bad about it in the grand scheme of things, maybe I should...
Also I fly about 30-50hrs a year as a PPL turning dinosaurs into noise for the fun of it.
The airfield I fly from is just that, a field, with lots of grass and trees happily slurping up much more CO2, I believe, than the little aeroplanes that live there spew out.
Do these people undertand the number of people they would put out of work? We are talking millions globally. Do they realize that other countries may not buy into it and keep flying aircraft, even if just in their little corner of the world?