The future of flying - Electric planes or bans on flying?

[Krokodil]

I haven't looked too far back but:

So one person talked of reductions but didn't say how large or small those might be. The other quoted post is a little extremist and I don't consider it representative of any widespread views.

The Paris -London air market has steadily reduced as Eurostar has been sped up. HS2 would have done the same for London - Scottish Central Belt. Those are reductions, would you oppose those?

The French have introduced a rule where you cannot offer a flight where a train service exists that manages the journey in less than 2 1/2 hours. There are a few too many loopholes for my liking, but would you oppose such a measure being adopted elsewhere?

Would you oppose taxing kerosene, just as you pay duty on petrol? (we'll leave the question of bunkering to one side here, we'll assume for this scenario that it was a pan-European tax)

Would you oppose a frequent flier levy? Taxing those who travel most often.

 

[miklcct]

So one person talked of reductions but didn't say how large or small those might be. The other quoted post is a little extremist and I don't consider it representative of any widespread views.

The Paris -London air market has steadily reduced as Eurostar has been sped up. HS2 would have done the same for London - Scottish Central Belt. Those are reductions, would you oppose those?

The French have introduced a rule where you cannot offer a flight where a train service exists that manages the journey in less than 2 1/2 hours. There are a few too many loopholes for my liking, but would you oppose such a measure being adopted elsewhere?

Would you oppose taxing kerosene, just as you pay duty on petrol? (we'll leave the question of bunkering to one side here, we'll assume for this scenario that it was a pan-European tax)

Would you oppose a frequent flier levy? Taxing those who travel most often.

The only measure listed above that I will support is to tax kerosene, like to tax petrol, because it is fair to everyone no matter he flies 10 times or 1 time per year, no matter he is rich or poor. It is the fairest way to tax the externality of aviation.

I will only support a frequent flier levy on air routes where surface transport is a viable alternative.

 

[Enthusiast]

The Paris -London air market has steadily reduced as Eurostar has been sped up. HS2 would have done the same for London - Scottish Central Belt. Those are reductions, would you oppose those?

Yes.

The French have introduced a rule where you cannot offer a flight where a train service exists that manages the journey in less than 2 1/2 hours. There are a few too many loopholes for my liking, but would you oppose such a measure being adopted elsewhere?

I don't know enough about elsewhere (and don't particularly care too much) but I would object to them in the UK.

Would you oppose taxing kerosene, just as you pay duty on petrol? (we'll leave the question of bunkering to one side here, we'll assume for this scenario that it was a pan-European tax)

Yes. It would impose additional costs on all air travellers and would perhaps be prohibitive for those least able to afford it. Those who could afford it would continue to fly so the restriction would fall heaviest on the poorest.

Would you oppose a frequent flier levy? Taxing those who travel most often.

Yes.

In summary I am opposed to any measures that would restrict air travel. Few countries outside Europe are likely to adopt such measures and this would leave European travellers at a disadvantage compared to those elsewhere. I am fundamentally opposed to any measures which increase taxation. Any revenue raised will not be spent on the problem it is supposedly raised to address and will simply be wasted, lost in the noise. As well as that, it would cause considerable harm to many sectors of the global economy and would cause inconvenience and disappointment to large numbers of people. But most of all, it would make little or no difference to any climate problems that may exist either now or in the future.

 

[eldomtom2]

Yes.

Sorry, you oppose improving rail services that compete with airlines?

 

[Enthusiast]

Sorry, you oppose improving rail services that compete with airlines?

I would oppose it if it was deliberately made difficult or more expensive in order that those who wanted to travel by air were discouraged from doing so (e.g. on the premise "There's a railway service now. You don't need to fly any more, so we've whacked a hefty tax on the flight to help you make up your mind).

Many people prefer to travel by air rather than rail even for comparatively short journeys. I've travelled to Paris by both air and Eurostar and for various reasons air suits me better. In the time it takes me to get to St Pancras I can almost be in Paris. That probably applies to many people, especially those who are not within reasonable striking distance of London and who would travel from regional airports. If the government or private investors want to build railways that will get such people from where they live to the Continent in a reasonable time, then if their service is attractive people will use it. But they should not be compelled to do so by excessive taxation. In any case that's most unlikely because we cannot even build a single trunk route from London to the North of England. So, for the foreseeable future it looks like short haul flights to the Continent will be here for some time yet. Unless there is a government brave enough to tax them out of reach for all but the rich.

 

[JamesT]

I would oppose it if it was deliberately made difficult or more expensive in order that those who wanted to travel by air were discouraged from doing so (e.g. on the premise "There's a railway service now. You don't need to fly any more, so we've whacked a hefty tax on the flight to help you make up your mind).

Many people prefer to travel by air rather than rail even for comparatively short journeys. I've travelled to Paris by both air and Eurostar and for various reasons air suits me better. In the time it takes me to get to St Pancras I can almost be in Paris. That probably applies to many people, especially those who are not within reasonable striking distance of London and who would travel from regional airports. If the government or private investors want to build railways that will get such people from where they live to the Continent in a reasonable time, then if their service is attractive people will use it. But they should not be compelled to do so by excessive taxation. In any case that's most unlikely because we cannot even build a single trunk route from London to the North of England. So, for the foreseeable future it looks like short haul flights to the Continent will be here for some time yet. Unless there is a government brave enough to tax them out of reach for all but the rich.

As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been any additional taxes on London to Paris flights to prevent their use, it’s been a simple commercial decision by the airlines as their customers have switched to the tunnel.

 

[Enthusiast]

As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been any additional taxes on London to Paris flights to prevent their use,

No, there hasn't. I was talking about the notion that there might (or should) be.

 

[eldomtom2]

No, there hasn't. I was talking about the notion that there might (or should) be.

I'm sorry, you responded "yes" to a question asking if you oppose the reductions to air traffic HSR has caused.

 

[The Ham]

my opinion only, but I will eat my sombrero if 999 people out of 1000 think that there should be any limitations on air travel.

There's quite a lot of limitations already in place (such as limits on night time flights), arguably if there's going to be unlimited flights this could be removed - it's just how far you think that the "unlimited" goes in its definition

Yes. It would impose additional costs on all air travellers and would perhaps be prohibitive for those least able to afford it. Those who could afford it would continue to fly so the restriction would fall heaviest on the poorest.

It depends on how you add those extra costs - for example if there was no extra charge for the first 3 return flights and then it ramped up from there, then it's not going to impact the poorest very much (in that the poorest are unlikely to fly as much as 3 return flights each).

 

[Enthusiast]

I'm sorry, you responded "yes" to a question asking if you oppose the reductions to air traffic HSR has caused.

The question I answered made no mention of increased taxes on air travel. I was firstly asked whether I opposed the introduction of HS rail routes which compete with air travel. I said I would if the strategy involved increased taxes on air travel to "encourage" travellers to change their habits.

It was then pointed out (for a reason that is unclear) that there have been no tax changes to air travel between London and Paris. The introduction of a practical rail route from London to Paris has caused some people wishing to make that journey switch from air to rail. Nothing wrong with that. No tax changes were involved and I never suggested there were.

 

[eldomtom2]

Are you familiar with the concept of externalities?

 

[Enthusiast]

Yes thanks.

 

[eldomtom2]

You appear to oppose the concept of people having to pay the externalities of their flights.

 

[Enthusiast]

Yes, I think you're right.

 

[eldomtom2]

Do you think that is fair?

 

[Krokodil]

The question I answered made no mention of increased taxes on air travel. I was firstly asked whether I opposed the introduction of HS rail routes which compete with air travel. I said I would if the strategy involved increased taxes on air travel to "encourage" travellers to change their habits.

You didn't say that at all, you just said "yes" without qualification.

 

[Enthusiast]

Well now I've qualified it, so we're all clear.

 

[AlterEgo]

The question I answered made no mention of increased taxes on air travel. I was firstly asked whether I opposed the introduction of HS rail routes which compete with air travel. I said I would if the strategy involved increased taxes on air travel to "encourage" travellers to change their habits.

It was then pointed out (for a reason that is unclear) that there have been no tax changes to air travel between London and Paris. The introduction of a practical rail route from London to Paris has caused some people wishing to make that journey switch from air to rail. Nothing wrong with that. No tax changes were involved and I never suggested there were.

There have most certainly been increases in Air Passenger Duty since the tunnel opened!

 

[Krokodil]

There have most certainly been increases in Air Passenger Duty since the tunnel opened!

Band A has been frozen for a decade. It's not exactly at a punitive rate.