Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[steve6367]

no tax on their fuel either not even VAT - even trains pay tax on fuel

CO₂ dumped at altitude has about double the global warming impact of CO₂ at ground level I believe.

Stop reading the Daily Mail... you'll give yourself an ulcer. Commercial fuel is cheap because it's bought in vast quantities, duty remains the same. It is then written of as a legitimate expense. Which is nice

that's just the usual dangleberries .. type "tax on airline fuel" into google .

or http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/commentanalysis/ethicaleconomics/taxhavensinthesky.aspx :

"If global aviation emissions were a country, it would be ranked 7th in the list of global carbon emitters, between the UK and Japan. Yet aviation is the only means of transportation that doesn’t pay a penny of tax on the fuel it burns. This is an unfair advantage that airlines have over trains, coaches and cars, making it the fastest growing form of transport while also being the most carbon intensive. "

It's a good job that article looks at the whole picture carefully and fairly 

[TheBoy]

I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?

[Kevin Wood]

I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?

By a very long way they do. IIRC, Concorde used to do about 30 MPG per passenger.

[Andy H]

I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?

Per passenger per mile

The thing about air travel is that a lot of people can travel a long way in a short period of time so the fuel used per journey is significant even though the fuel used per passenger per mile looks good.

[zirk]

Coming home from Bangkok on Tuesday I had a window seat on the second leg from Dubai, and flying across Germany where the skies were busy, I noticed that all of the other planes were belching out trails of dirty black smoke. 

So a couple of questions for the aviationists here. 

A) Are there any sort of emissions standards/regulations for aeroplanes?

B) Why do these emissions look like a trail of fluffy white cloud at ground level, yet at 40,000 ft it's a trail of dirty exhaust smoke?

 

TIA! 

Are you sure it wasn't a trick of the light, ie more of the trail showing a shadow?, sometimes with the right height, Sun position, angle etc, this can happen.

[omega2018]

I would question the motives of such a piece The implication being that airlines contribute nothing...

classic pivot .  so do you accept now that commercial aircraft pay no tax at all on their fuel?

[Rods2]

I would question the motives of such a piece The implication being that airlines contribute nothing...

classic pivot .  so do you accept now that commercial aircraft pay no tax at all on their fuel?

One of the reasons kerosene was picked as jet engine fuel. Other engines don't use it, so a tax free regime was easy to implement.

Of course the tree-huggers got the government to put their flight duty on flying.

If you want a good objective website on the latest lies dubious figures supporting the global warming scam then the award winning blog https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com takes a lot of beating. Their mission is reporting objective science and facts. The world is going to cool by about 1degC over the next 10 years and will do so for about 40 years (about 2 long sun cycles) where we are approaching a new Maunder Minimum.

Headline reported world warming figures are all based of incomplete earth based temperatures which are then 'adjusted'. The much more accurate satellite ones which cover all of the globe are never used by the tree huggers, as they show virtually no temperature rises (last year was 0.02degC higher than the last peak in 1998) and that would never do for the tax subsidies that the tree-huggers rely on.

[TheBoy]

I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?

Per passenger per mile

The thing about air travel is that a lot of people can travel a long way in a short period of time so the fuel used per journey is significant even though the fuel used per passenger per mile looks good.

So, lets pretend I was a tree hugging do-gooder.

If I wanted to drive with Mrs TB down to the south of France, along with my holiday buddy Abbo and his missus, who would use their own sports car made of wood...   ...would I be kinder to the environment by flying as opposed to driving a 14yr old 3.2l Omega?


Not that I care, as I would always take the car, as everything about dealing with British airports is nothing more than a tedious waste of time, as everything, from carparks, check-in, security, boarding, refreshments is run and staffed by first class morons.  Which puts me in a bloody bad mood long before you even have to deal with being squashed and cooped up on a poxy plane for hours, with the little "darlings" behind kicking your seat constantly - and any attempt to punch them is met with distain by the parents who can't control them - and the fat idiot in front trying to recline his seat as far as it will go, so he can put his head on your lap.

Yeah, bloody brilliant start to any holiday.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Coming home from Bangkok on Tuesday I had a window seat on the second leg from Dubai, and flying across Germany where the skies were busy, I noticed that all of the other planes were belching out trails of dirty black smoke. 

So a couple of questions for the aviationists here. 

A) Are there any sort of emissions standards/regulations for aeroplanes?

B) Why do these emissions look like a trail of fluffy white cloud at ground level, yet at 40,000 ft it's a trail of dirty exhaust smoke?

 

TIA! 

Are you sure it wasn't a trick of the light, ie more of the trail showing a shadow?, sometimes with the right height, Sun position, angle etc, this can happen.

Don't think so as all the planes I saw whether they were above or below were trailing black smoke.    We overtook a Thompson's plane of some kind and the first sign of this jet was the black smoke along side us. 

[Doctor Gollum]

In that case it was an optical illusion as the only aircraft Thomson would have over that way would be a Dreamliner, and theirs are all near as damn it new

[omega2018]

I thought modern jets used less fuel than average family cars, per passenger?

Per passenger per mile

The thing about air travel is that a lot of people can travel a long way in a short period of time so the fuel used per journey is significant even though the fuel used per passenger per mile looks good.

So, lets pretend I was a tree hugging do-gooder.

If I wanted to drive with Mrs TB down to the south of France, along with my holiday buddy Abbo and his missus, who would use their own sports car made of wood...   ...would I be kinder to the environment by flying as opposed to driving a 14yr old 3.2l Omega?

That's similar to looking at the safety figures - yes flying appears safer than driving but airlines quote it in terms of deaths per 100 mil miles however people don't live their lives in miles they live it in time eg hours, years. Planes travel about 20 faster than cars so if you spend an hour in a plane you cover 20 times the miles you would in a car. 

multiply the deaths per 100 mil miles for planes by 20 to get the actual likelihood of dying on a plane compared to a car, for equal periods of living/travelling time.

[omega2018]

Don't think so as all the planes I saw whether they were above or below were trailing black smoke.    We overtook a Thompson's plane of some kind and the first sign of this jet was the black smoke along side us. 

here's a video of the effect https://youtu.be/BZXsyx-xtcY?t=60

do any of these account for it? http://contrailscience.com/contrails-dark-lines-chemtrails/

see here too https://www.metabunk.org/black-exhaust-contrail-or-chemtrail.t5917/

[Doctor Gollum]

Apparently the earth is flat... as demonstrated by great circle flight routes

[Bigron]

Thanks for the link, "Rods2" and for the calm perspective.I agree that it's Government funding that colours the uttering of the huggers and green brigate, who cook up all sorts of specious "statistics" to prove their fallacious output, in order that government (any Government, any colour) can justify its swingeing taxation levels, especially on motorists. The more guilty they make us feel, the less we complain about their extortion!
Carbon dioxide is NOT the enemy, it's our friend. Let's imagine if we drastically reduced CO2, or - horror upon horrors - eliminated it altogether. That would be the end of life on Earth.
Why? No CO2 = no plantlife, so we die. Eat meat instead of vegetables? Animals eat vegetation: no vegetation = no animals.
Even if CO2 levels were a threat and responsible for global warming - and as you idicated, Rod, the Earth is actually cooling slightly - all forms of transport, our beloved Omegas and everything else put together only account for less that 0.02% of Global CO2.....the rest comes from us - we breathe it out. Plants take it in and return oxygen by way of symbiotic trade-in.
As people are by far the major source of CO2, would the Forum like to suggest people that we could terminate in order to save the Planet?   

Ron

[Doctor Gollum]

The Boy has a not insubstantial list to be getting on with