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

[Chester1]

Whilst the argument I can't fly more than one so you can't drive more than once may sound reasonable there's a few issues with it.

If I drive 610 miles that's the same as one return flight to Paris, however the rest of my family travel for just the emissions of one person flying. Therefore based on personal emission levels we could make that trip for each of us rather than us each make that flight.

That's before high altitude emissions have a larger impact than those at ground level - partly due to the water vapour emissions which also impact climate change.

I can assure you that my kids are made to walk to school (even when it's raining) and we put our washing outside as much as possible (we do have a tumble dryer but don't want to use it without good reason - having a family does make trying to dry all our washing within our house rather difficult and would likely require us to use for heating far more and probably would be worse than using the tumble dryer the limited amount of time that we do).

Between my wife and I travel the same (or less) number of average miles by car as two people's total travel (13,000 miles), however that means that as a family we've still got our children's milage to cover the walking/cycling that we do.

However our driving distance includes those above average numbers of "holidays" that we take to see family - which means that if individually we were permitted a return flight to Paris we could actually go on holiday again - so thanks for that.

I'd be quite happy to have a personal carbon budget which I could trade my households under use with those who wanted to use more. I reason that I could do rather nicely or of such a scheme - I do however fear that you may well find it rather expensive.

IF there were limits on the number of flights an individual could do without paying an extra amount, I would suggest a value of 8 flights (so 4 return trips). Then it would increase the APD by a factor of 1.5 for every 2 additional trips you make (applied to the cheapest rate first). Except for flights where there was a train option which took under 4 hours where APD would be triple the starting rate (£19.50 for a domestic flight rather than £6.50).

For way of justification for the 8 flights; that would allow for every single air passenger on flights at UK airports to be half of the UK residents. Even though quite a few of those will be people with other nationalities, so clearly anyone flying now than that is way above the national average.

By applying the doubling to the lowest rates, people (even if they couldn't claim back the extra APD from their company) could still do a decent long haul flight to see family even if they did a lot of business travel.

For someone doing 20 flights a year (2.5 times the number of flights before APD starts to rise) the extra cost could be as little as £810 (all domestic flights in economy) but could be as high as £5,034 (all ultra long haul in premium cabins).

Before anyone thinks that's a lot, it should be considered just how much that individual would be paying in air fares to undertake 10 return trips in business or first class. As it could easily be £2,500 for each return trip, which could put the ticket prices paid at £25,000, meaning an effective tax rate of 21%.

Very few people would be flying for work ultra long haul more frequently than once every 5 weeks and if they are costs would start to track up fairly quickly (24 flights would put the upper tax at an extra £13,177).

Arguably businesses shouldn't be relying on one person that much, or if does then there'll be a significant risk to that company if that person no longer worked for the organisation and it's questionable as to whether that business should carry on operating in that manner.

Yes, of course, business will start to look at making short hops and then connecting to the long haul destination from there, but no more than normal for the first 8 flights and unless the connections are reasonable maybe not even for the next few flights (12 flights would max out at £350 extra).

It's fairly unlikely that individuals would travel to (say) Australia more than twice in one year, and fairly few would travel to Europe more than four times. Even then eight trips to Europe would cost them an extra £213, so whilst it may stop them from going (say) every month, it still would be quite a few times in a year.

Over time it could well be that the APD rises and/or the number of flights without an extra charge reduce to nudge people towards fewer flights, however that's how I'd suggest that it would run IF such a proposal were to come forwards. As it would be a fairly reasonable balance between don't something and doing nothing.

The frequent flyer levy along with banning point to point ticket sales for journeys with acceptable train journey times are good ideas. I like them in principle but fear they are they would be "the thin end of the wedge." This thread demonstrates there are people who want to ban all non electric flying as soon as possible.

 

[philosopher]

Stena Line are looking to take over the Dublin to Liverpool route. I can see this working well in a 2040/2050 future. 22:30 departure from Dublin arriving at 06:30 in Birkenhead. Then take a 07:30 train from Liverpool arriving in London at a little after 9am post HS2 completion. It would work well enough today. The only difference is the train currently arrives in London at 10.

I’m not so sure such an option would be popular with foot passengers as it would either involve an uncomfortable night sleeping on a chair in one of the ship’s lounges or a fairly expensive cabin. Also at Birkenhead, you would to get a bus, taxi or Merseyrail to Liverpool Lime street, which is not that convenient.

Realistically, I can only see most people switching away from flying from Dublin to London if an Irish Sea rail tunnel is built and there are direct trains taking you from Dublin to London in three or four hours.

Ferries to and from Great Britain I suspect will remain predominately used by those who want to take their car on holiday.

 

[The Ham]

The frequent flyer levy along with banning point to point ticket sales for journeys with acceptable train journey times are good ideas. I like them in principle but fear they are they would be "the thin end of the wedge." This thread demonstrates there are people who want to ban all non electric flying as soon as possible.

The issue is, we either (and I'd like to hear the justification for this) let anyone fly as much as they like (up to and maybe beyond 100 times a year) and accept that emissions from flying will increase (either in real terms or at least as a percentage of global emissions - 2% now could become 10% if it doesn't increase in real terms yet we cut our other emissions by 80%) or we do something which may be seen as the the thin edge of the wedge but stimulates faster development of lower emission aircraft so that any numerical growth is balanced by lower emissions ideally to mean that total emissions are reduced.

Of course the other question which could be asked, how much further are you willing to cut your other emissions so that those who fly 8+ times a year can continue to do so?

I suspect that the answer wouldn't be that favourable.

Of course the more restrictive any rules are the more people or will upset and so the backlash against it will be greater.

It's why these sorts of things rarely turn out to be the thin edge of the wedge, as when things are pushed further either a) the backlash is so great those who try to bring it in back down b) the world moves on with a new technology which means that people are impacted less than they feared would be the case 5 years earlier.

It's why the "thin edge of the wedge" defence is often not that strong.

 

[Bald Rick]

I bumped into a guy at a Tesla charging site over the summer and got chatting. He's a test pilot and said he was involved in test flying a testbed fitted with some new battery technology that is a huge step forward. He claimed not to be able to talk too much about it but seemed very confident that electric aircraft will become practical before too long.

that could be a mate of mine. An ex test pilot, involved in electric planes. (He has a Tesla and an i-Pace).

Reckons commercial service with 6-8 seaters is 3-4 years away. Limited use obviously, but likely in the islands of Scotland.

 

[johncrossley]

Britain is in a particularly awkward situation with tens of millions of people living on an island. Ireland is in an even worse location and doesn't even have a rail link off it but at least it doesn't have a huge population. If there were electric planes on short but popular routes such as between GB and Ireland and between GB and Amsterdam that would suit a lot of people who would prefer to avoid conventional air travel but feel the alternatives at the moment are too time consuming.

 

[trebor79]

that could be a mate of mine. An ex test pilot, involved in electric planes. (He has a Tesla and an i-Pace).

Reckons commercial service with 6-8 seaters is 3-4 years away. Limited use obviously, but likely in the islands of Scotland.

If your mates wife is a bit of a stunner and his father owns a hotel in Yorkshire, it probably was him.

 

[The Ham]

If your mates wife is a bit of a stunner and his father owns a hotel in Yorkshire, it probably was him.

Are you trying to get @Bald Rick into trouble?

 

[nw1]

Just come onto this thread, I certainly don't think we should have outright bans on flying as soon as possible, as some people are apparently claiming. That seems fundamentalist and authoritarian extremism, completely impracticable and completely unreasonable, and at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum to extreme right-wing Toryism.

People rely on flying in many cases. It's one thing cutting down flying on routes like London to Glasgow or London to Paris where there is a viable land-based alternative (this should be done with carrot-based approaches such as subsidised train travel) but: London to south-eastern Europe? Or, even more so: Europe to the USA? Europe to Asia? Asia to the USA? Or even anywhere outside the island of Ireland to Dublin?

It does seem to be symptomatic of the 2020s that extreme authoritarian approaches are increasingly seen as viable solutions to problems. Flying is not the only contribution to CO2 emissions, would those advocating blanket bans on flying also advocate blanket bans on other CO2-producing activity which contributes to the economy? I suspect not; it's just fashionable to "pick on" flying.

Also, any cause - and dealing with climate change is one example - will not be helped if extremists jump on board. We need a measured, middle-of-the-road approach.

What we need to do is improve land-based public transport where possible. At the moment the prevalent political mood of the 2020s (what I'd call economically-conservative puritan authoritarianism) seems to discourage all forms of travel. It's "flying is bad, driving is bad, and we have to make cuts to public transport because it doesn't bring in enough revenue". Doesn't work. If you're going to make people feel bad about driving or flying, you've got to have a viable rail and bus network! So rather than authoritarian bans on flying, why not develop a Europe-wide high-speed rail network which the UK is part of? Why not fix the UK domestic rail and bus networks to make them attractive? Oh, and join Schengen to minimise the bureaucracy involved in the UK being part of such a rail network (but we can't have that, can we? )

 

[trebor79]

I've often thought that the solution to flying it to give everyone some virtual vouchers. When you fly you pay for your ticket in the usual way and also have to submit your vouchers.
If you need more you can buy them from those that don't need their quota.
Over time, issue less vouchers.

The poorest who tend not to fly much anyway get some income from the jet setting business types, and as vouchers become more expensive, alternatives get more attractive, gain market share and hence get improved to meet demand.

 

[philosopher]

Just come onto this thread, I certainly don't think we should have outright bans on flying as soon as possible, as some people are apparently claiming. That seems fundamentalist and authoritarian extremism, completely impracticable and completely unreasonable, and at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum to extreme right-wing Toryism.

People rely on flying in many cases. It's one thing cutting down flying on routes like London to Glasgow or London to Paris where there is a viable land-based alternative (this should be done with carrot-based approaches such as subsidised train travel) but: London to south-eastern Europe? Or, even more so: Europe to the USA? Europe to Asia? Asia to the USA? Or even anywhere outside the island of Ireland to Dublin?

It does seem to be symptomatic of the 2020s that extreme authoritarian approaches are increasingly seen as viable solutions to problems. Flying is not the only contribution to CO2 emissions, would those advocating blanket bans on flying also advocate blanket bans on other CO2-producing activity which contributes to the economy? I suspect not; it's just fashionable to "pick on" flying.

Also, any cause - and dealing with climate change is one example - will not be helped if extremists jump on board. We need a measured, middle-of-the-road approach.

What we need to do is improve land-based public transport where possible. At the moment the prevalent political mood of the 2020s (what I'd call economically-conservative puritan authoritarianism) seems to discourage all forms of travel. It's "flying is bad, driving is bad, and we have to make cuts to public transport because it doesn't bring in enough revenue". Doesn't work. If you're going to make people feel bad about driving or flying, you've got to have a viable rail and bus network! So rather than authoritarian bans on flying, why not develop a Europe-wide high-speed rail network which the UK is part of? Why not fix the UK domestic rail and bus networks to make them attractive? Oh, and join Schengen to minimise the bureaucracy involved in the UK being part of such a rail network (but we can't have that, can we? )

I definitely agree about avoiding authoritarian solutions to climate change, which is something I have noticed has become more popular recently. Up until 2020 there seemed to be a consensus that technological solutions were the best way to deal with climate change, however since 2020, it has become increasing popular to advocate authoritarian solutions to climate change. The ‘all travel is bad’ thing which I never heard being advocated before 2020, seems to be direct reaction to many people finding the period when travel was banned or discouraged during Covid quite pleasant (e.g not have to commute, an excuse not to visit the in-laws, etc). It does not however mean that everyone wants to avoid travel. The very negative reaction in many parts of society to the 15-minute city concept I think is proof of this.

While I can’t see electric aircraft ever being used on transatlantic flights, I do think that in the not too distant future they could be used on flights of a few hundred miles where rail is unlikely to be competitive, such as from London to Dublin. A combination of sustainable aviation fuels and better fuel efficiency should reduce emissions for medium and long haul aircraft.

With regards to rail, the UK joining Schengen would I suspect almost overnight make direct trains from London to Frankfurt and perhaps sleeper trains to Berlin and the south of France viable.

 

[The Ham]

I've often thought that the solution to flying it to give everyone some virtual vouchers. When you fly you pay for your ticket in the usual way and also have to submit your vouchers.
If you need more you can buy them from those that don't need their quota.
Over time, issue less vouchers.

The poorest who tend not to fly much anyway get some income from the jet setting business types, and as vouchers become more expensive, alternatives get more attractive, gain market share and hence get improved to meet demand.

The same could be done with carbon credits, as then you can choose what they are used for.

For example my grandparents used to go abroad when it was likely to be very cold, by reducing their carbon from their home under such a scheme they could use those for their flight to somewhere warmer.

Likewise others might forgo a second car which is used for the school run to allow them to have a summer holiday as well as go skiing and a Christmas break.

By limiting it to only flying you run the risk of "permitting" lots of high carbon activities, for example someone who makes a lot of long distance car journeys would also be able to live in a poorly insulated house and fly just as much as anyone else.

It's likely that such carbon credits would be limited to things which are directly related to fuel (such as travel or heating homes), however with business also included then the cost of the credits would also impact the cost of stuff.

The risk though is that it could result in outsourcing production of stuff, as the cost of doing so within the UK would increase. Unless you looked at the import travel costs being counted (however that could make overseas sales on the likes of eBay and Amazon fairly complex, as the Royal Mail wouldn't want to deliver anything as they don't get paid to deliver overseas post, but would they be liable for the carbon emissions for its transport).

Also such schemes are likely to be difficult to administer (unlike something like APD, which would be much simpler).

Of course, given I've got a family and we rarely fly we'll likely do quite nicely out of such a scheme (assuming children also get vouchers as well as adults).

 

[nw1]

I definitely agree about avoiding authoritarian solutions to climate change, which is something I have noticed has become more popular recently. Up until 2020 there seemed to be a consensus that technological solutions were the best way to deal with climate change, however since 2020, it has become increasing popular to advocate authoritarian solutions to climate change. The ‘all travel is bad’ thing which I never heard being advocated before 2020, seems to be direct reaction to many people finding the period when travel was banned or discouraged during Covid quite pleasant (e.g not have to commute, an excuse not to visit the in-laws, etc). It does not however mean that everyone wants to avoid travel. The very negative reaction in many parts of society to the 15-minute city concept I think is proof of this.

I do think there is a possible air of "we accepted restrictions during lockdown, we can accept them in other situations, too" about 2020s political attitudes, and perhaps suggestions of flying bans is one of these. I definitely agree we should focus on technology. Progress in the past was generally made through technology, and not authoritarianism: should it be any different with climate change?

While I can’t see electric aircraft ever being used on transatlantic flights, I do think that in the not too distant future they could be used on flights of a few hundred miles where rail is unlikely to be competitive, such as from London to Dublin. A combination of sustainable aviation fuels and better fuel efficiency should reduce emissions for medium and long haul aircraft.

I don't know enough about electric aircraft, but the focus should be on developing the technology, but not restricting the use of fossil fuel-based aircraft while the technology is in development. As I said above, focus on the technology, not on imposing restrictions on behaviour.

With regards to rail, the UK joining Schengen would I suspect almost overnight make direct trains from London to Frankfurt and perhaps sleeper trains to Berlin and the south of France viable.

Indeed, but of course currently extremely politically unfashionable in the UK. If there is a sense of urgency in preferring high-speed rail for intra-European travel in the long-term (won't happen this decade) things could change, I guess.

More likely, though, public pressure will prevent any bans on flying to destinations not easily reachable by rail.

 

[Chester1]

The issue is, we either (and I'd like to hear the justification for this) let anyone fly as much as they like (up to and maybe beyond 100 times a year) and accept that emissions from flying will increase (either in real terms or at least as a percentage of global emissions - 2% now could become 10% if it doesn't increase in real terms yet we cut our other emissions by 80%) or we do something which may be seen as the the thin edge of the wedge but stimulates faster development of lower emission aircraft so that any numerical growth is balanced by lower emissions ideally to mean that total emissions are reduced.

Of course the other question which could be asked, how much further are you willing to cut your other emissions so that those who fly 8+ times a year can continue to do so?

I suspect that the answer wouldn't be that favourable.

Of course the more restrictive any rules are the more people or will upset and so the backlash against it will be greater.

It's why these sorts of things rarely turn out to be the thin edge of the wedge, as when things are pushed further either a) the backlash is so great those who try to bring it in back down b) the world moves on with a new technology which means that people are impacted less than they feared would be the case 5 years earlier.

It's why the "thin edge of the wedge" defence is often not that strong.

I see your point but when environmentalists basically say people who live abroad need to discuss with their spouse and decide which family they see again, then you can see why I fear its the thin end of the wedge. On a completely rational level a frequent flyer tax is an excellent idea but there are a lot of fanatics who will just move on to the next policy until there is no medium or short haul flights at all.

that could be a mate of mine. An ex test pilot, involved in electric planes. (He has a Tesla and an i-Pace).

Reckons commercial service with 6-8 seaters is 3-4 years away. Limited use obviously, but likely in the islands of Scotland.

There is at least one electric plane in production due to be delivered to first customer in 2027. Its a nine seater.

I do think there is a possible air of "we accepted restrictions during lockdown, we can accept them in other situations, too" about 2020s political attitudes, and perhaps suggestions of flying bans is one of these. I definitely agree we should focus on technology. Progress in the past was generally made through technology, and not authoritarianism: should it be any different with climate change?

I don't know enough about electric aircraft, but the focus should be on developing the technology, but not restricting the use of fossil fuel-based aircraft while the technology is in development. As I said above, focus on the technology, not on imposing restrictions on behaviour.


Indeed, but of course currently extremely politically unfashionable in the UK. If there is a sense of urgency in preferring high-speed rail for intra-European travel in the long-term (won't happen this decade) things could change, I guess.

More likely, though, public pressure will prevent any bans on flying to destinations not easily reachable by rail.

There is a market for the bit I highlighted in bold. I have said before that decarbonisation has supporters who treat it like a substitute religion. They are to be blunt, people who lack a sense of purpose in their lives and have enough money to make carbon their primary concern in almost every decision they make. There were a lot of boring couples that loved the lockdowns, were amongst the first to advocate for them and were blind to the damage inflicted on lives of people in different situations. Banning flying sounds a great idea if you don't venture past our near neighbours and your family lives in UK or you are not close to them. Whats more exciting than "saving the world"?

 

[Ediswan]

There is at least one electric plane in production due to be delivered to first customer in 2027. Its a nine seater.

What aircraft ? Which customer ?

 

[eldomtom2]

And there in that last sentence we have it folks - a climate change protagonist has just effectively implied that reducing the emissions his lifestyles causes is not that important, and we should just eliminate emissions from his pet-hate target (in this case aviation). What’s the strapline of that well-known ad: every little helps. Well clearly not in johnnydoe’s mind!

The argument of johnnydoe clearly is that every little helps, and thus it is not very helpful to attack those who have cut major emissions sources out of their life for not cutting every single emissions source out of their life.

Its impossible to see how world economies could survive without commercial aviation. The business itself is worth hundreds of billions a year, with tourists spending similar amounts abroad. If that gets curtailed what happens to those countries that lose the tourists, and indeed all those people employed by the aviation and wider tourist industries? Its a question that I've yet to see answered by activists, but one politicians and voters around the world will start to ask if any such decimation started to occur. And I suspect there will start to be a lot of pushback when they start to calculate the cost to their economies & livelihoods, probably resulting in a pushback on all those arbitrary targets set on emissions.

And have you calculated the costs caused by climate change and compared them to the costs of reducing aviation?

I suppose 250mph makes sense on non stop runs on a full high speed line to Glasgow.

I wonder if maglev technology will be what we replace high speed lines with in 50 years or so, especially on longer international trips

We'll have to see how the Chuo Shinkansen turns out...

I am not advocating three times a year, I am arguing that people with families are going to prioritise seeing their family over environmental concerns. Returning to the situation you described would still allow meaningful connections with family. Other members are advocating for total ban on non electric flying and therefore a return to era whereby UK to Australia or East Asia was six weeks on a ship. That would return us to people having sort of wakes to say good bye to family before they emigrated knowing they would never see most family members again. With the left's enthusiasm for immigration its utterly bizarre. Lets have net migration of hundreds of thousands of people per year and then make it close to impossible to see family members outside of Europe...

Why are you insistent on diverting the conversation towards those with more extreme views?

 

[AlterEgo]

IF there were limits on the number of flights an individual could do without paying an extra amount, I would suggest a value of 8 flights (so 4 return trips). Then it would increase the APD by a factor of 1.5 for every 2 additional trips you make (applied to the cheapest rate first). Except for flights where there was a train option which took under 4 hours where APD would be triple the starting rate (£19.50 for a domestic flight rather than £6.50).

How would you propose to enforce that? Say, I’m on BA.com booking a flight. How will the government know it’s me flying and what my allowance is, and will you extend this to non-citizens? If so, how?

 

[Bantamzen]

And have you calculated the costs caused by climate change and compared them to the costs of reducing aviation?

Nope, because that is impossible as there is no data for that. However what we can calculate is how much it would cost to kill off civilian air travel. And we are taking hundreds of billions of dollars, and hundreds of millions of jobs.

Have you considered what you would tell people that their way to be able to put food on the table has been taken away, so that you could feel better about yourself?

 

[eldomtom2]

Nope, because that is impossible as there is no data for that.

What, precisely, are you claiming there is "no data" for?

 

[The Ham]

I do think there is a possible air of "we accepted restrictions during lockdown, we can accept them in other situations, too" about 2020s political attitudes, and perhaps suggestions of flying bans is one of these. I definitely agree we should focus on technology. Progress in the past was generally made through technology, and not authoritarianism: should it be any different with climate change?

I don't know enough about electric aircraft, but the focus should be on developing the technology, but not restricting the use of fossil fuel-based aircraft while the technology is in development. As I said above, focus on the technology, not on imposing restrictions on behaviour.


Indeed, but of course currently extremely politically unfashionable in the UK. If there is a sense of urgency in preferring high-speed rail for intra-European travel in the long-term (won't happen this decade) things could change, I guess.

More likely, though, public pressure will prevent any bans on flying to destinations not easily reachable by rail.

Whilst technology is going to play a part, it is likely that there would need to be something to nudge people towards opting to use it,

How would you propose to enforce that? Say, I’m on BA.com booking a flight. How will the government know it’s me flying and what my allowance is, and will you extend this to non-citizens? If so, how?

Other than for domestic air travel you are required to have a passport for travel (even domestic flights require identification), it shouldn't be hard to link such identification documents to your travel patterns and therefore the tax you are due to pay.

As for overseas visitors, they sometimes need some form of visa, however again they need a passport.

There maybe loopholes, such as those with dual nationality, however these should be possible to close.as it should be possible to identify both passports as belonging to one person.

The reality is that for most people (bearing in mind that total air passengers using UK airports in each quarter is about the same as the UK population) would be taking less than 4 flights a year. Therefore the tracking required for 8+ flights wouldn't be all that complex as you're likely taking about a fairly small subset of the population.

Unless your talking about a lot of ultra long distance travel in business class or first class, the extra costs would be limited and so probably aren't worth the extra effort to avoid. For example flights 9+10 when there's been one domestic return trip would each add £3.25 in tax, whilst flights 11+12 would each add £8.12(5) leaving a total extra cost of £22.75 if you made 4 extra flights over the base allowance of 8.

Obviously for short haul trips it would be higher, however it'll still be £45.50. As such not really worth the effort of trying to skip paying it.

Of course there's likely to be some form of punishment for non payment (in the same way that there is for failure to keep the DVLA updated with your details.

Normally such small payments aren't worth the governments effort, however the airlines would manage it for them on a system which they are connecting data on you anyway.

 

[Chester1]

What aircraft ? Which customer ?

Eviation Alice. DHL and Cape Air appear to be the two big(ish) establised companies that have ordered and some small airlines trying to upscale. The prototype flew for the first time a year go. If they can deliver what they have promised then there will be an avalanche of orders for subsidised services e.g. those to the Scottish Islands. Ordering them would be a good way of regional governments showing green credentials.

The argument of johnnydoe clearly is that every little helps, and thus it is not very helpful to attack those who have cut major emissions sources out of their life for not cutting every single emissions source out of their life.

And have you calculated the costs caused by climate change and compared them to the costs of reducing aviation?

We'll have to see how the Chuo Shinkansen turns out...

Why are you insistent on diverting the conversation towards those with more extreme views?

The thread title is electric planes or flight bans and people have advocated banning all non electric flights in this thread. They are the reason I am wary of other policies

 

[AlterEgo]

Other than for domestic air travel you are required to have a passport for travel (even domestic flights require identification), it shouldn't be hard to link such identification documents to your travel patterns and therefore the tax you are due to pay.

It's actually very hard to do that. Passports and NI numbers have no link at all. And what about domestic travel - arguably the least necessary of all carbon emissions?

As for overseas visitors, they sometimes need some form of visa, however again they need a passport.

There maybe loopholes, such as those with dual nationality, however these should be possible to close.as it should be possible to identify both passports as belonging to one person.

"Should be possible" how? How are you going to link a South African passport or an Irish one with a National Insurance number? How will you tax people who don't have a NI number, or who don't even become liable to pay tax here because they aren't legally resident, yet travel in and out all the time? If people fly for work, and their employer buys the ticket, do they, personally, become liable for the tax burden, or not?

The reality is that for most people (bearing in mind that total air passengers using UK airports in each quarter is about the same as the UK population) would be taking less than 4 flights a year. Therefore the tracking required for 8+ flights wouldn't be all that complex as you're likely taking about a fairly small subset of the population.

The big question is why you want to have some sort of tax free allowance at great expense and upheaval to the system, when you could just put APD up? We don't get a "sensible use" allowance on petrol, or alcohol, or cigarettes, so why should anyone get a randomly selected 8 flights a year? "Buy a plane ticket, pay the tax" is the easiest and most sensible way of achieving the goals you want.

Unless your talking about a lot of ultra long distance travel in business class or first class, the extra costs would be limited and so probably aren't worth the extra effort to avoid. For example flights 9+10 when there's been one domestic return trip would each add £3.25 in tax, whilst flights 11+12 would each add £8.12(5) leaving a total extra cost of £22.75 if you made 4 extra flights over the base allowance of 8.

Obviously for short haul trips it would be higher, however it'll still be £45.50. As such not really worth the effort of trying to skip paying it.

Put APD up! Why do you want a cumbersome regime to have this allowance when you say yourself the extra costs aren't even that high? We aren't talking about gold smuggling here.

Of course there's likely to be some form of punishment for non payment (in the same way that there is for failure to keep the DVLA updated with your details.

Yeah when was the last time you heard of the DVLA punishing someone for that?

Normally such small payments aren't worth the governments effort, however the airlines would manage it for them on a system which they are connecting data on you anyway.

The airlines are going to have access to my NI number are they? And how about foreigners? How is KLM going to know when I buy a ticket that I am the same person that flew with Loganair 8 months ago? The airlines do not have this sort of data to hand and they never will. It is not possible to do what you want and not even desirable when the obvious option of putting APD up is staring everyone in the face.

 

[eldomtom2]

The thread title is electric planes or flight bans and people have advocated banning all non electric flights in this thread. They are the reason I am wary of other policies

I'm sorry, it's hardly logical to reject all methods of reducing aviation just because a few people want to ban all aviation.

 

[AHBD]

I’m not so sure such an option would be popular with foot passengers as it would either involve an uncomfortable night sleeping on a chair in one of the ship’s lounges or a fairly expensive cabin. Also at Birkenhead, you would to get a bus, taxi or Merseyrail to Liverpool Lime street, which is not that convenient.

Realistically, I can only see most people switching away from flying from Dublin to London if an Irish Sea rail tunnel is built and there are direct trains taking you from Dublin to London in three or four hours.

Ferries to and from Great Britain I suspect will remain predominately used by those who want to take their car on holiday.

a cabin is the civilised way and reasonable compared to a hotel?. The stena courtesy bus goes to Birkenhead Hamilton Square(or used to?) where you can get the merseyrail train to lime st but the OPs suggested 1 hour connection time looks brave to me, the ship might dock at 630 but you have to get off it and through the terminal. In the other direction you currently need to find your own way to Belfast.

 

[Bald Rick]

If your mates wife is a bit of a stunner and his father owns a hotel in Yorkshire, it probably was him.

Depends on your definition of stunner. I won’t offer an opinion

but no, his Dad doesn’t have a hotel in Yorkshire, but he loves his trains.

Are you trying to get @Bald Rick into trouble?

 

[Skymonster]

I'm sorry, it's hardly logical to reject all methods of reducing aviation just because a few people want to ban all aviation.

It’s hardly logical to focus just on aviation - especially among those who are really passionate about the climate change issue - when there are many other emissions-producing behaviours which, if they were also reduced or eliminated, would also contribute to their “cause”. But of course many campaigners focus
on aviation because they see it as convenient low-hanging fruit and something they personally can do without - and is therefore something everyone should do without.

The argument of johnnydoe clearly is that every little helps, and thus it is not very helpful to attack those who have cut major emissions sources out of their life for not cutting every single emissions source out of their life.

I was pointing out a typical approach of plenty of campaigners. They are happy to evangelise about ridding themselves of things they don’t need in their lives and to campaign aggressively for everyone else to do the same, while it turns out that they are unwilling to completely dedicate themselves to their cause and eliminate as many emissions-producing behaviours as possible.

Another example is those who campaign for renewables, but don’t want giant windmills erecting all over the place because they spoil views, or because birds crash into them. Who cares about views or birds if renewables are so important? But plenty of activists seem to want things both ways (whatever cause they are championing). They campaign for changes in activities or behaviours they are willing to make or accept in their own lives (changes that others might be less inclined to accept), while they fail to dedicate themselves totally to the cause by eliminating or changing all the behaviours that it could be argued contribute to their cause.

Its impossible to see how world economies could survive without commercial aviation. The business itself is worth hundreds of billions a year, with tourists spending similar amounts abroad. If that gets curtailed what happens to those countries that lose the tourists, and indeed all those people employed by the aviation and wider tourist industries? Its a question that I've yet to see answered by activists, but one politicians and voters around the world will start to ask if any such decimation started to occur.

Another very valid point which, as Bantamzen says, the climate evangelists fail to address. Many of them clearly believe that any sacrifice is justified in the pursuit of their cause, no matter what other consequences arise. I happen to believe that the severe adverse economic ramifications that would result from significant curtailment in aviation means throwing aviation under the climate-change bus simply cannot be justified.

We should however make attempts to reduce emissions in ANY AND ALL human activities, in parallel. But enforced changes - changes other than those that are voluntary on the part of individuals - should come come only when there are alternatives available that don’t cause economic or other (e.g. emotional) hardships. So to that end we should indeed be working towards cutting aviation emissions by developing viable aviation solutions that produce fewer emissions. Until then the status quo needs to remain. We need to address such issues (if they are worth addressing, which I doubt as I don’t believe we can actually stop the tide) through technological development and progress - not through hitting consumers with the big stick called taxation, nor by regression in human activity and reduced economic prosperity. The alternatives and restrictions some campaign for are just not worth it.

 

[Bantamzen]

What, precisely, are you claiming there is "no data" for?

There is no data for the costs caused by climate change, because we do not know what any future impact man-made climate change will be. However we can calculate the cost of shutting down an entire industry will have directly and even indirectly. And its a lot. So would you care to share your proposals on how to deal with millions, maybe even tens or hundreds of millions of people losing their livelihoods as a result of shutting down a mode of transport?

 

[johnnydoe]

I’m not so sure such an option would be popular with foot passengers as it would either involve an uncomfortable night sleeping on a chair in one of the ship’s lounges or a fairly expensive cabin. Also at Birkenhead, you would to get a bus, taxi or Merseyrail to Liverpool Lime street, which is not that convenient.

Realistically, I can only see most people switching away from flying from Dublin to London if an Irish Sea rail tunnel is built and there are direct trains taking you from Dublin to London in three or four hours.

Ferries to and from Great Britain I suspect will remain predominately used by those who want to take their car on holiday.

I can't see anything much happening by 2030. By 2040 things may be different. By 2050 it's almost going to be inevitable.

Spain is on borrowed time with it's water issues. You can't keep tapping sources that are not being replenished. If Spain doesn't have enough water for crops that's a big chunk of European food production that we rely on, gone.

No one is willingly going to dramatically cut flights. I just can't see them having a choice by 2040/2050. The effects will be too serious. To most people global warming is still far off. We really haven't had to deal with the everyday effects in Europe. We've only had extreme events that have only lasted weeks at most.

Everything changes though when this becomes your everyday reality.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Sep 2023 ==

It’s hardly logical to focus just on aviation - especially among those who are really passionate about the climate change issue - when there are many other emissions-producing behaviours which, if they were also reduced or eliminated, would also contribute to their “cause”. But of course many campaigners focus
on aviation because they see it as convenient low-hanging fruit and something they personally can do without - and is therefore something everyone should do without.


I was pointing out a typical approach of plenty of campaigners. They are happy to evangelise about ridding themselves of things they don’t need in their lives and to campaign aggressively for everyone else to do the same, while it turns out that they are unwilling to completely dedicate themselves to their cause and eliminate as many emissions-producing behaviours as possible.

Another example is those who campaign for renewables, but don’t want giant windmills erecting all over the place because they spoil views, or because birds crash into them. Who cares about views or birds if renewables are so important? But plenty of activists seem to want things both ways (whatever cause they are championing). They campaign for changes in activities or behaviours they are willing to make or accept in their own lives (changes that others might be less inclined to accept), while they fail to dedicate themselves totally to the cause by eliminating or changing all the behaviours that it could be argued contribute to their cause.


Another very valid point which, as Bantamzen says, the climate evangelists fail to address. Many of them clearly believe that any sacrifice is justified in the pursuit of their cause, no matter what other consequences arise. I happen to believe that the severe adverse economic ramifications that would result from significant curtailment in aviation means throwing aviation under the climate-change bus simply cannot be justified.

We should however make attempts to reduce emissions in ANY AND ALL human activities, in parallel. But enforced changes - changes other than those that are voluntary on the part of individuals - should come come only when there are alternatives available that don’t cause economic or other (e.g. emotional) hardships. So to that end we should indeed be working towards cutting aviation emissions by developing viable aviation solutions that produce fewer emissions. Until then the status quo needs to remain. We need to address such issues (if they are worth addressing, which I doubt as I don’t believe we can actually stop the tide) through technological development and progress - not through hitting consumers with the big stick called taxation, nor by regression in human activity and reduced economic prosperity. The alternatives and restrictions some campaign for are just not worth it.

You're consistent with your strawman arguments, I'll give you that.

Taken to it's ultimate conclusion your argument leads only to environmentalists committing suicide, as then they won't be emitting any CO2.

As for the birds, give me a break. No one ever gives a **** about birds when roughly 50% of them are killed by cats and dogs.

The next major bird killer is the window. Are we going to live in a windowless world where every building has boarded up windows, a world without cars, buses, lorries or trains? No ships or planes either. But when a fraction of a percent are killed by wind turbines suddenly they start caring about birds.

 

[trebor79]

The airlines are going to have access to my NI number are they? And how about foreigners? How is KLM going to know when I buy a ticket that I am the same person that flew with Loganair 8 months ago? The airlines do not have this sort of data to hand and they never will. It is not possible to do what you want and not even desirable when the obvious option of putting APD up is staring everyone in the face.

It's almost trivial. You just have a central database that holds these details and make it illegal for airlines to sell you a ticket without referring to said database and ensuring you have the credits to cover the journey.
Same as they aren't allowed to transport you if you don't have a visa, ESTA etc.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's almost trivial. You just have a central database that holds these details and make it illegal for airlines to sell you a ticket without referring to said database and ensuring you have the credits to cover the journey.
Same as they aren't allowed to transport you if you don't have a visa, ESTA etc.

How are they going to check foreigners' credits? It's not trivial at all, which is why no scheme like it exists, anywhere.

Visas and ESTAs are linked to the passport in a database, not the person. You can certainly propose that each passport has carbon credits, but not a person.

There is no way that airlines are going to be able to selectively apply APD in this way, and it is not even desirable. If you want or need to fly, you should pay taxes on that behaviour. There is no reason to get 8 free hits a year. Why create a massive database like this? Nobody would suggest doing this with petrol purchases.

 

[eldomtom2]

There is no data for the costs caused by climate change, because we do not know what any future impact man-made climate change will be.

I'm sorry, this is just balderdash.