G8 wants tax on airline tickets to help world poor

"Lennart Petersen" wrote in message
...

"George Max" skrev i meddelandet
...
On 13 Jun 2005 09:54:47 -0700, wrote:



Part of the problem is that air travel is far more heavily subsidized
than trains. If flight and train prices reflected the real costs to
government and the environment, then trains would be much more
competitive pricewise, if not actually cheaper than the planes over
short distances.

What do you mean air travel is subsidized?
-----------
No tax on fuel.
Which is a huge issue especially in W Europe where taxes and duties on fuel
make up most of the price. (up to 70-80%?)
Not exactly a subsidy to be fair, but a massive cost advantage to airlines.
Is aviation fuel tax free for domestic flights too or just international?

Also the price of the airplanes tends to be subsidised indirectly,
especially Boeing and Airbus, watch the big fights between Washington and
Brussels on this issue.

RAK wrote:
"Lennart Petersen" wrote in message
...

"George Max" skrev i meddelandet
...
On 13 Jun 2005 09:54:47 -0700, wrote:



Part of the problem is that air travel is far more heavily subsidized
than trains. If flight and train prices reflected the real costs to
government and the environment, then trains would be much more
competitive pricewise, if not actually cheaper than the planes over
short distances.

What do you mean air travel is subsidized?
-----------
No tax on fuel.
Which is a huge issue especially in W Europe where taxes and duties on fuel
make up most of the price. (up to 70-80%?)
Not exactly a subsidy to be fair, but a massive cost advantage to airlines.
Is aviation fuel tax free for domestic flights too or just international?

Also the price of the airplanes tends to be subsidised indirectly,
especially Boeing and Airbus, watch the big fights between Washington and
Brussels on this issue.

I expect these G8 people dont actually have to pay for their own
airline tickets.

that the Iraq 'Food for Oil' UN program was corrupt in its
management and also generally worthless in doing what the
program said would be accomplished.

Please read the real UN reports instead of listening to US media
such as CNN or FOX before passing such judgements.

You believe that the UN would publish an _unbiased_ report about their
own aid program? But that the US media is unable to offer an impartial
evaluation? That sounds a bit naive to me; and I have no faith or
trust in the popular media.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 15:33:28 +0100, Hilary
wrote:

"make a gesture towards fighting climate change."

Air travel is a huge contributor to global warming, and it would make a
very significant difference in carbon emissions if short-distance
flights were largely replaced by high-speed trains. Most European
countries shouldn't even have domestic flights.

If the UK *had* high-speed trains people would be more willing to use
them.

How so? People are mostly interested in cost and convenience, the
convenience of an extra 30 minutes off of London to Manchester aren't
that useful given the fact you don't have your car with you at the
other end. The distances are long enough in the central part of the
UK to make high speed trains worthwhile, and given that the Cost of
producing the high speed trains would be immense (disruption on
existing lines, compulsory purchase of land, rerouting of roads, new
bridges etc.) then the cost of the train service would make it even
more uneconomic.

Jim.

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On 14 Jun 2005 08:34:00 -0700, wrote:

I expect these G8 people dont actually have to pay for their own
airline tickets.

Like some people here.

Who are you talking about ?

"Miss L. Toe" wrote:


"Martin" wrote in message
.. .
On 14 Jun 2005 08:34:00 -0700, wrote:

I expect these G8 people dont actually have to pay for their own
airline tickets.

Like some people here.

Who are you talking about ?

Gaston for one.

Kristian

Nolo Contendre wrote:
You believe that the UN would publish an _unbiased_ report about their
own aid program? But that the US media is unable to offer an impartial
evaluation? That sounds a bit naive to me; and I have no faith or
trust in the popular media.


The UN published, uncensored, the Paul Volker reports the day they were
made available. They also had a whole slew of monthly/regular reports
about the Oil For Food programme as it was going on. And had the Bush
regime read those reports, they would have been much better prepared for
the aftermath of their invasion.

A regime which gratuitously blasts the UN without reading its full
reports on the work that has and is being done is not honest.

Americans are blinded by the fact that these attacks against the UN come
from rabid right wing republicans supported by the US media outlets such
as CNN and FOX who just love to blame the world'd problems on the UN
instead of blaming heir own government's mistakes.

These rabid politicians accused without trial some UK politician who had
been outspoken against the invasion of Iraq. They pretend to have found
some paperwork in Iraq showing that Iraq had given him vouchers for oil.
And to the media, the conclusion was immediate; the guy had profited
from OFF.

But in reality, not only did they not have any proof that any
transaction had gone on, but if the USA media had really done the job
they are supposed to be doing, they would have gone to the UN and looked
up the records and found that the UK politican had not made requests to
be an authorised oil buyer.

Iraq chose to whom it would sell oil. But those persons still had to be
approved by the UN and there was paperwork to be done before a
transaction could take place. Remember that in tersm of OFF, Iraq didn't
see any money since the money went to a bank account held by the UN. So
, assuming Galloway had bought the oil from Iraq, he would have had to
send a big fat check to the UN, and then, when he sold his oil to large
companies such as Shell, Exxon etc, he would have gotten a bigger check
from them. Beforehand, have gotten officially accredited by the UN OFF
folks. And there is no record of that. Yet, the USA media just blindly
spread the rabid republican politicians' accusations as facts to the
american public.

Assuming Galloway did get an oil allotment, it doesn't mean that he made
any use of it. It is like getting FF upgrade stickers that apply only
when you travel in Y class and you never travel in Y and thus those
upgrades just expire and you never make use of them. And there is no
proof that he got an allotment. It could have been as simple as Hussein
instructing his people that since this guy treated Iraq with respect,
should he ever ask for a oil allotment, he could get one. Of course,
you'd expect the rabid republicans in the USA to slant this into the UN
being totally corrupt and accusing people left and right.

The the last months of OFF, it is true that Hussein expected personnal
kickbacks in exchange for those vouchers. Two checks would be made, one
to the UN for the oil, and one to Hussein for the kickback. The check to
the UN would still be recordsed and duly processed and the UN would not
be involved in the kickbacks. It was up to the security council to order
Hussein to stop asking for kickbacks, and the USA did nothing to stop it.

If the UK *had* high-speed trains people would be more willing to use
them.


Not long after the Channel tunnel opened, some railway in the UK ordered
new cars with sleeping cars etc to provide overnight service from north
of england to europe.

Then came Ryannair, Easyjet etc (and its sibblings). This brand new
railway infrastructure was never used because there was no way the rail
company could compete against the low cost air carriers.

Via Rust in Canada bought those never used railway cars for next to
nothing and put it to use on what is left of its castrated network in Canada.


The big question is whether the low cost carriers in europe are really
sustainable and whether they end up taking adavantage of subsidies
(airport infrastructrure etc).

Consider BAA which wants to add a runway to Stanstead (or is it Lutton
?) and has/had plans to just slightly raise the passenger charges at all
London airports to pay for the runway that would benefit only the low
cost carriers. BA and Virgin were not keen on seeing their ticket prices
go up to subsidize their low cost competitors.

Question now becomes whether the low cost carriers can afford to pay for
that extra runway on their own. If not, then perhaps they are not
sustainable enterprises in the long term. Consider the brou-ha-ha with
Ryannair getting subsidies from a Belgian airport and those subsidies
were ruled illegal. If you need subsidies from an airport to operate to
that city, is that truly a sustainable service ?

nobody schrieb:

If the UK *had* high-speed trains people would be more willing to use
them.

Not long after the Channel tunnel opened, some railway in the UK ordered
new cars with sleeping cars etc to provide overnight service from north
of england to europe.

Then came Ryannair, Easyjet etc (and its sibblings). This brand new
railway infrastructure was never used because there was no way the rail
company could compete against the low cost air carriers.

Do you call cars 'infrastructure'?

Regards, ULF

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 14:56:01 -0400, nobody wrote:

Consider BAA which wants to add a runway to Stanstead (or is it Lutton
?) and has/had plans to just slightly raise the passenger charges at all
London airports to pay for the runway that would benefit only the low
cost carriers. BA and Virgin were not keen on seeing their ticket prices
go up to subsidize their low cost competitors.

I don't think RyanAir oe EasyJet were impressed either by any of the
proposed passenger charge raises. The BAA monopoly is a problem, but
it's not a government subsidy, it's a government sponsored monopoly.
Of course the monopoly will abuse its position, if STN/LHR/LGW all
operated by the same company is the problem, not how it chooses its
charges.

Jim.