callum9999

You irrefutably do not try your best, that is such an absurd statement for someone who seemingly takes five holidays a year in premium cabins that I'm struggling to see how it's anything other than a bold faced lie? You cannot genuinely believe that, surely?

Note that I also do not try my best, despite trying harder than almost everyone here, so I do not criticise that aspect - it would make me a hypocrite.

It's also a rather stark contrast to the previous post of yours where you angrily told a 16 year old girl afraid for her future to "bugger off".

In that case, why on Earth do you recycle anything? Why do you vote in elections? There doesn't appear to be any consistency in your argument. Not to mention, the entire point of suggestions like a FF tax are to force millions of people to act - you're not the only person in the world being asked to do anything. People love to say "the corporations" are doing this as well, but who are they doing it for? You. How are they getting the money to do this? From you.

hfly

Nest she will push to try and ban the manufacture of cement...............you know the industry that contributes THIRTY PERCENT of carbon emissions worldwide 4-15% greater than the entire GLOBAL airline industry. How about all livestock production? How about all power plants? I mean I saw the wonderful Guardian article, "48 percent of UK citizens did not fly last year", the seemingly mandatory "1% of UK citizens account for 20% of flights!!??!?!?!?"

All of course based on a big 15,000 sample of people, and ignoring that in an ideal world, half of all passengers originate from the other end of the route. This 1% takes 20% of the flights is totally logical. Just look at any FF program. The ultra top tier has x, the top tier has roughly 10x, the next level 5 times that and the level after that a further 5 times that and basic members something like 10 times that. So if the BAEC has 5000 Premiers/GGL's, there are 40,000 GC's, 250k silvers, and about 1.2 million Bronze. You have about another 10 million Blue members. So if one were to say that a Blue member may have no flight in a year (and makes up perhaps 88% of members), a Bronze member might have 4 flights a Silver member 12 flights, a Gold member 24 flights and GGL/Premiere 48 flights and up. This is not an exact science, but does roughly translate to the same thing and is reflected by most FF programs (many of which are more straightforward in this respect as status is only based on miles rather than revenue as that is somewhat what TP's are about).

The UK already DOES IN FACT have these taxes. APD is insane and the highest in the world. Does anyone believe that if they double or triple the taxes that it will really reduce flying? Does anyone believe that it in anyway will help the planet or that money will be used in any way shape or form to help global warming? What I see flawed in all this is all the "angst" it creates, and the fact that while your average middle class British, or French or German or American person will wonder whether they should drive less or fly less or whatever, I can assure you that there is barely anyone in India or China, Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mexico, etc etc, that is experiencing the same angst.

sodaisei

Good, can you spell in Spanish or Japanese? I feel more comfortable using those.

callum9999

There is so much wrong with this post...

1. I can't say I know her views on concrete, but she is indeed against livestock and polluting power stations.

2. A 15,000 sample of a population is generally incredibly accurate. Why else do you think they take samples?

3. I don't quite understand your rant against being told about a tiny percentage taking most of the flights in the UK when you yourself described it as being "logical"? Are you objecting to the idea that "the elite" shouldn't be allowed to pollute more than the rest of us?

4. The UK does not have this tax and yes, I think it's fairly obvious that if APD was tripled then flying would reduce.

5. What a staggering piece of ignorance. Those people in the third world aren't experiencing the same level of angst because they aren't polluting anywhere near as much as you are, nor do most of them have the option of "flying less" because they can barely afford to fly anyway. I'm struggling to accept that you're so wrapped up in your own privilege that you don't even realise that most of the world could only dream of having such a life.

tigertanaka

Good link, I was looking for something similar recently and struggled to find such a site.

Perhaps we could take some pointers from the way company cars are taxed if we looking at ways that the tax system could drive behavioural change. 18 years ago, when I first got a company car (a Vectra SRi belching out a mighty 212g of CO2/km), the company car tax payable was a factor of the list price of the car and my annual business mileage. However since 2002, the system has been based on a factor of the list price and the CO2 emissions of the car with the thresholds gradually being tweaked over the years to "encourage" drivers to choose cars with lower emissions. This has clearly had an effect on my car choice as the CO2 emissions on my cars have gone from 212 (the Vectra) > 152 > 134 > 119 > 103 (re-evaluated at 121 after the emissions scandal) > 112 (current car). It would be cost prohibitive for the majority of company car drivers to choose a high emitting car today due to the tax bill they will incur.

Now, if APD followed a similar system and the tax due was dependent on the actual emissions of the aircraft scheduled on the route, it would encourage airlines to fly newer, more efficient planes on their UK routes. Either customers would see a price advantage in picking the airline with less polluting planes or the airline would be able to charge more for their newer aircraft, knowing that the end customer price would come down as there would be less APD to pay than their competitors operating planes with higher emissions.

A 747-400 emits 2,875g CO2 on LHR-JFK whereas the A350-1000 only produces 2,139g for the same route - 25% less. It is simply not realistic to reduce UK demand for air travel by 25% but we can still drive down emissions by encouraging airlines to fly (or passengers to choose) more efficient aircraft.

Sam Bee

I know I mentioned it on previous comment, but am genuinely interested.

Would you vastly reduce your flying if instead of a tax on frequent flying, BAEC moved to a revenue based scheme?

There are unnecessary flights taken excessively in the pursuit of Tier Points every day empowered by the knowledge of those on this board - and dedicated threads focussed on the cheapest way to get your last remaining TP's or 4 dedicated BA flights (it's not a criticism, it's a fact )

It would upset a huge amount of people on here, and also make a lot of people on here happy. No need to change the numbers of cards given out - a simple formula i.e. top 0.05% of revenue spenders with BA get Premier, 2% Gold, 10% Silver, 15% Bronze (or whatever it is). BA genuinely reaching out to their top customers, and decreasing unnecessary flights. Surely a win / win for BA AND the climate? (And yes a big loss for most of you, but you game the system..!)

hfly

Callum. You spend much time in China? They fly a hell of a lot more than the average Brit, and in the major cities have as many cars of not more, they also pollute more than the average Brit, pretty much by any metric that you might choose to use to use for comparison.

As for flying percentages, I do believe that the numbers are overstated by a factor of 2,however I also believe.... So what?! Yes a city banker flies much more than someone who is unemployed (or whatever examples one would choose) the city banker also ALREADY pays exponentially more in APD taxes, not only because of volume of flying but also because he likely is flying in a higher class of service. APD is already is an environmental tax, is already being raised, and has already shown two things, 1) That such taxes do nothing to reduce overall air travel, and 2) that such tax money is NOT in any way used for the purposes intended. So thank you in your post for demonstrating the exact same middle class self flagellation that logic flaws that I spoke about.

T8191

If I'm reading this correctly, then our travel this year represents 37,622 CO₂, with a representative compensation requirement of €1,405. APD paid appears to be €2,276. I am thus in credit.

callum9999

According to who? Because a cursory glance at statistics seems to show that China flies around 3x the number of people per year as the UK whereas it has almost 20x the population. The only stats I can see on car use also show that the UK has 471 cars per 1000 people and China has 179. They pollute marginally more than the average Brit (and significantly less than many other countries, like the US) - but as that completely ignores the fact that they are doing a huge proportion of our manufacturing, it's pretty clear that the UK is actually responsible for more. The other countries you listed for no apparent reason (Bangladesh!?!) all pollute significantly less than the UK - though as people pushing for action want ALL countries to cut back, that's not particularly relevant anyway.

Why on Earth should I care what you "believe" about statistics? You've already demonstrated you lack even a basic grasp on what's actually happening.

Which is still a very different thing to the taxes being proposed - that they would ratchet up in price the more you do it. If you genuinely think taxes have no affect on the number of people flying then they're obviously only a minor inconvenience, so you shouldn't have any issues with them.

I'm not Middle Class and I'm struggling to see any flaws in my logic?

dougzz

Shifting our (British) manufacturing to another country and then suggesting they pollute too much is somewhat hypocritical.

dougzz

You can say you don't care and intend to fly anyway, but I think it's denial to pretend this is not having consequences. We both know APD is not about emmissions reduction, it's a tax. Just like the London congestion charge, you dress a new tax up as something else, and recently that something else has been green credentials. Since it's only paid on leaving the UK you need to factor something for all those Jersey starts, and all the returns into the UK.

I'm a hypocrite as I do elaborate routings for TP. I'm not in any position to judge, just passing an observation. I do however need to think long and hard before booking another indirect flight. The Greta kid is just pointing out what we're all really aware of on some level.

alvinlwh

As I said before, a developing country aspiring to become a developed country, it is really hard for us to sit in the Western world with all our morden amens and condemn them. Views on the ground is different there, I had seen it first hand.

Bohinjska Bistrica

The issue with these taxes is that they all just go into "the kitty" and aren't assigned specifically. If all UK APD were to be focused on decarbonising and reducing emissions (e.g. removing diesel black cabs and diesel buses as a starter in favour of electric or gas power).it could make a big difference. What is to say that some sort of additional aviation tax won't just do the same? After all, there are many other worthwhile things to spend it on, particularly the NHS which never seems to have enough money.

Another aspect here is BA's pricing mode in respect of indirect routings. I'm looking at flying to MIA in J next year (2 adults and an infant). Pricing for our dates works out between £1500-2000 cheaper to start from ARN instead of LHR. APD is only a part of that, but even still is actually incentivising people to take indirect routings financially. I'm not a status passenger so the TPs aren't too much of a concern, but that is a hell of a saving notwithstanding the positioning flights and a hotel.

callum9999

It would be incredibly simple to ring-fence all money generated by that tax to be used for environmental protection only. Though even if it wasn't, if it's set high enough to discourage flying then it would be doing it's job regardless, and the social justice element of the people responsible for more emissions being forced to contribute more to society to compensate for that is also worthwhile.

A good way to stop that would be to levy APD on all flights that depart the UK, regardless of whether it's a connection or not. I'm not sure if there's an international legal issue preventing that though, or if they made the stopover exemption to try and protect LHRs hub status. Which is also an important dimension to this - if the UK takes it too far without international cooperation, it could result in a big decline in UK flights with a corresponding increase in flights to France, Germany, the Netherlands etc. I think it's clear that climate change is important enough to warrant a hit to economic growth - but if it just moves the emissions somewhere else instead then that's obviously not a productive thing to do.

alvinlwh

Your analysis of China is incorrect, a guess that you are not Chinese? (Sorry if I guessed wrong) Well, I am (but not from China) and can understand their mentality, upbringing, etc. (NOTE: Again, I have to stress that I am not from China, so my personal views are somewhat different from theirs)

The Chinese people always strive to "go higher" than the previous generation, this message is "drilled into" every child. The farming class will "push" their children to "do better" in the cities and not to stay and do a "low class" job like farming, for example. The reason they do this is to have more earning power, and therefore purchasing power, for modern stuff.

I remember 30 or so years ago, when I visited China with my grandmother, her family will "request" her to bring a motorcycle back with her, a Honda CB100 if I remembered correctly. They had bicycles get around like everyone else, but want "something better". Also with money remitted, they build bigger houses with aircon, flushing toilets, etc... They have no desire to cook with off cuts of wood or plant waste, they want the "easy life" with gas cooking. They want on demand hot water. Having all these modern cons makes them the "king of the village" so to speak, a title that everyone in China desires. That was 30 years ago, my grandparents had since died and I have zero contact with these distant relatives, but what I last heard, they are now into cars not motorbikes.

Even 30 years ago, they "admire" my grandparents, for moving to a better place which allows her to have children that can afford to put her on a plane (flying 30 years ago is far more expensive than today). To be able to do the same was their aspiration, and looking at the boom in aviation in China and the opening of PKX yesterday, my guess is that they are achieving that.

So while your current figure of 471 v 179 cars maybe true, today, China is already a boom market for cars, with companies like VW, etc setting up factories there to meet local demand. I will not be surprised that their car ownership will overtake UK in the next 10 or so years as almost everyone there desires to have a car, and more and more people are being able to afford to do so everyday. (no one "desire" a bicycle out there, trust me) Also, their per person CO2 emissions numbers seems small, because they still have a large rural base population to "dilute" the pollution. However, there is wave after wave of movement out of the poorer rural community into the richer urban areas, I expect to see their per person pollution to skyrocket.

So back to your logic, UK is responsible for more pollution, at the moment, but according to the charts, they are falling. Whereas China has lower pollution now, it will only increase greatly in the next few years due to them wanting to move to a "better life".

You (or anyone else) can try to "educate" China, but it will not work anytime soon as such values are instill into a China Chinese person's mind since birth. Like it or not, this is the real "inconvenient truth" on the ground out there. Easy for us to talk when sitting in a first world western country without a good understanding of what life is out in the third world.

Which goes by to my original saying, "You (or Greta) may have your dreams, someone else have a different dream from you.". It is really funny that you (or her) is expecting someone else gives up their dreams for your (or her) dream.