Top EU court rules against North American airlines in fee dispute

[olp1fan]

So we can either not fly into Europe which would pretty much kill the EU or charge double the money to everyone from the E.U countries flying into the country..but this whole thing should please the brainless earth worshipers because just like Kyoto it is a money grab and not a solution to save the earth

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-news/top-eu-court-rules-against-north-american-airlines-in-fee-dispute/article2279479/

Europe’s highest court gave unreserved backing on Wednesday to an EU law charging airlines for carbon emissions on flights to and from Europe, a decision likely to escalate tension with trading partners, especially the United States.

The court ruled against a group of U.S. and Canadian airlines that had challenged a law requiring that all airlines flying to and from European Union airports will have to buy permits under the EU’s emissions trading scheme from Jan. 1. The initial cost is expected to be minimal but would rise to an estimated €9-billion ($12.1-billion) by the end of 2020.

[Shady]

This is great. Another environmental extremist attack on the economy.

This is what will happen. People will fly less. Airlines employees will lose jobs. And some Airlines will go out of business.

Just another example of the no-growth, flat-earth environmental extremists and their continued attack on economies around the world. Looking out for the common man.

[Scotty]

So we can either not fly into Europe which would pretty much kill the EU or charge double the money to everyone from the E.U countries flying into the country..but this whole thing should please the brainless earth worshipers because just like Kyoto it is a money grab and not a solution to save the earth

Tax every EU based airline that flies over Canada - and that's almost all of them taking the Newfoundland route. Make sure we make more than they make from us. Enough to reimburse our airlines and pay for the administration of the new tariff.

[olp1fan]

Tax every EU based airline that flies over Canada - and that's almost all of them taking the Newfoundland route. Make sure we make more than they make from us. Enough to reimburse our airlines and pay for the administration of the new tariff.

No worries, Hillary Clinton is about to retaliate apparently, after she does the Euroweenies will change their mind

Last week, U.S. transport chief Ray LaHood and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton wrote to the EU commission reiterating Washington's objections on "legal and policy grounds," and said the U.S. would respond with "appropriate action." They did not elaborate.

http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/63147--eu-court-upholds-carbon-trade-plan-for-aviation

Edited December 22, 2011 by olp1fan

[waldo]

This is great. Another environmental extremist attack on the economy.

This is what will happen. People will fly less. Airlines employees will lose jobs. And some Airlines will go out of business.

Just another example of the no-growth, flat-earth environmental extremists and their continued attack on economies around the world. Looking out for the common man.

lil' buddy... I'm reading that, presuming North American airlines choose to directly pass the costs onto passengers, it would amount to approximately an additional "few dollars" per airline ticket. Certainly less than the $5.50 tariff the U.S. is applying to Canadians entering the U.S. by air/sea.

I trust you will offer similar vitriolic outrage at this U.S. $5.50 cross-border travel fee.

likewise olp... following your "Enviro freaks rejoice, the rest of us moan" OP title, does the U.S. cross-border travel fee cause you to... moan... louder?

Edited December 22, 2011 by waldo

[waldo]

further details on the cost for airlines joining the EU ETS:

The cost for airlines of joining the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) in 2012 will be approximately €1.1 billion using a carbon price of €12 per tonne*, or a total of €10.4 billion between now and the end of 2020, according to analysis released today by Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, the leading provider of market intelligence, news, analysis, forecasting and advisory services for the energy and environmental markets and RDC Aviation, the leading independent consultancy in aviation data modeling.

The European Commission is expected to issue 176 million allowances to airlines for free for the year 2012, worth approximately €2.1 billion at today’s carbon price*. Airlines are forecast to need to buy a further 88 million allowances, worth €1.1 billion.

[GostHacked]

This is great. Another environmental extremist attack on the economy.

This is what will happen. People will fly less. Airlines employees will lose jobs. And some Airlines will go out of business.

Just another example of the no-growth, flat-earth environmental extremists and their continued attack on economies around the world. Looking out for the common man.

So what about the airlines that went under in the past?

[olp1fan]

lil' buddy... I'm reading that, presuming North American airlines choose to directly pass the costs onto passengers, it would amount to approximately an additional "few dollars" per airline ticket. Certainly less than the $5.50 tariff the U.S. is applying to Canadians entering the U.S. by air/sea.

I trust you will offer similar vitriolic outrage at this U.S. $5.50 cross-border travel fee.

likewise olp... following your "Enviro freaks rejoice, the rest of us moan" OP title, does the U.S. cross-border travel fee cause you to... moan... louder?

It seems like these lil add ons will end up costing a lot of money in the end doesnt it

[GostHacked]

further details on the cost for airlines joining the EU ETS:

So does charging airlines for carbon emissions actually address the problem of carbon emissions? Or is it a situation, of if you can pay, you can pollute?

[waldo]

It seems like these lil add ons will end up costing a lot of money in the end doesnt it

presuming to trickle-down to the passenger level, as I said, I've read suggestion that the additional cost will amount to approximately 'a few dollars' per passenger ticket. But you didn't answer the question...

likewise olp... following your "Enviro freaks rejoice, the rest of us moan" OP title, does the U.S. cross-border travel fee cause you to... moan... louder?

[waldo]

So does charging airlines for carbon emissions actually address the problem of carbon emissions? Or is it a situation, of if you can pay, you can pollute?

one level of address reflects directly on allowance disbursements/requirements... "long-haul carriers and those airlines with more efficient aircraft and higher load factors tend to receive more than the average"; another, as stated, is to "make full use of their quota to import Kyoto offsets". Oh wait... what's that... didn't Canada pull out of Kyoto...

[olp1fan]

presuming to trickle-down to the passenger level, as I said, I've read suggestion that the additional cost will amount to approximately 'a few dollars' per passenger ticket. But you didn't answer the question...

a few dollars matters..to people with a lot of money it won't but the average person is not rich and airplane tickets are too much as it is

as for your question yes I am pissed at the 5 dollar 50 cent fee too

but what can ya do other than not fly..which isn't a choice most times

Edited December 22, 2011 by olp1fan

[Shady]

So what about the airlines that went under in the past?

What about them?

[Wilber]

So does charging airlines for carbon emissions actually address the problem of carbon emissions? Or is it a situation, of if you can pay, you can pollute?

The latter. Fuel is an airline's second largest cost, almost as much as labour. Airlines have been trying all sorts of things in order to reduce consumption for years. Good for Airbus and Boeing though, fuel efficiency is the biggest single reason airlines buy new aircraft, regardless of the EU and its mega bureaucracy that has to administer this program.

[waldo]

The latter. Fuel is an airline's second largest cost, almost as much as labour. Airlines have been trying all sorts of things in order to reduce consumption for years. Good for Airbus and Boeing though, fuel efficiency is the biggest single reason airlines buy new aircraft, regardless of the EU and its mega bureaucracy that has to administer this program.

with tight profit margins, the extra ETS costs, (although described as 'minor' compared to the cost of jet fuel) might be enough for an airline to adjust it's load practices/scheduling on certain routes... which, collectively, could affect allowance/offset requirements. Would the year-upon-year additional cost be enough to affect a purchase decision favouring a more efficient plane design... maybe not.

[waldo]

What about them?

it looks like you flew right over my post!

lil' buddy... I'm reading that, presuming North American airlines choose to directly pass the costs onto passengers, it would amount to approximately an additional "few dollars" per airline ticket. Certainly

less than the $5.50 tariff the U.S. is applying to Canadians entering the U.S. by air/sea.

I trust you will offer similar vitriolic outrage at this U.S. $5.50 cross-border travel fee.

[GostHacked]

What about them?

Setting aside your deliberate obtuseness and 'What's obtuse'?? schtick. Can you explain how carbon restrictions played a part in airlines going under in the past, if it has at all?

[GostHacked]

The latter. Fuel is an airline's second largest cost, almost as much as labour. Airlines have been trying all sorts of things in order to reduce consumption for years. Good for Airbus and Boeing though, fuel efficiency is the biggest single reason airlines buy new aircraft, regardless of the EU and its mega bureaucracy that has to administer this program.

So it really does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. It's all about money.

[Wilber]

with tight profit margins, the extra ETS costs, (although described as 'minor' compared to the cost of jet fuel) might be enough for an airline to adjust it's load practices/scheduling on certain routes... which, collectively, could affect allowance/offset requirements. Would the year-upon-year additional cost be enough to affect a purchase decision favouring a more efficient plane design... maybe not.

They already do this stuff, have been for years, it's a matter of survival. This just takes more money from their bottom line and makes them less able to upgrade. This is just another nail in the coffin of an already badly stressed industry. Why do you think governments are legislating to have the airlines advertise the full cost of a ticket? They don't want people to know how much of the cost is due to government taxes and fees. They want the airlines to take all the flack for higher fares.

[Wilber]

So it really does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. It's all about money.

The only way they can really reduce carbon emissions is to reduce flying and one should always follow the money.

[waldo]

They already do this stuff, have been for years, it's a matter of survival. This just takes more money from their bottom line and makes them less able to upgrade. This is just another nail in the coffin of an already badly stressed industry. Why do you think governments are legislating to have the airlines advertise the full cost of a ticket? They don't want people to know how much of the cost is due to government taxes and fees. They want the airlines to take all the flack for higher fares.

I've flown a ton for work... including long-haul overseas. It's not unusual to fly with half-empty planes, if that. A lot of scheduling simply reflects upon matching other airline offerings... strictly competition influenced.

[Shady]

Setting aside your deliberate obtuseness and 'What's obtuse'?? schtick. Can you explain how carbon restrictions played a part in airlines going under in the past, if it has at all?

I didn't say that it did. This is brand new regulation. Which definitely will impact business, and will probably lead to less airline passengers, and therefore, layoffs, and possibly bankruptcy for already struggling airlines. What does that have to do with the past?

[waldo]

This is brand new regulation. Which definitely will impact business, and will probably lead to less airline passengers, and therefore, layoffs, and possibly bankruptcy for already struggling airlines.

would an additional 'few dollars' per ticket make the difference as to whether a business would fly it's employees to the EU... or whether a couple would fly to a EU vacation/travel destination?

what about the recent U.S. $5.50 tax on entry via air/sea... does this fit your same over-the-top, "less passengers, layoffs and bankruptcy" attachment?

[Wilber]

I've flown a ton for work... including long-haul overseas. It's not unusual to fly with half-empty planes, if that. A lot of scheduling simply reflects upon matching other airline offerings... strictly competition influenced.

It's already competition influenced. Frequency is a big part of competition, particularly for business travel. The only way government could have a real influence is to dictate which airlines fly and when.

[waldo]

It's already competition influenced. Frequency is a big part of competition, particularly for business travel. The only way government could have a real influence is to dictate which airlines fly and when.

what I'm suggesting, as a possibility, is that the tighter margin might influence an airline to ultimately forgo a particular flight/schedule that it's already losing money on... one that its only flying because it's competition is flying on the same route/schedule.