Should private jet flights be banned?

[matacaster]

Yes, I believe they are far less friendly to the environment. When I hear the BBC have correspondents in countries yet fly an expert roving reporter out so he can say it's a fire etc which any Muppet could say.

 

[edwin_m]

Not sure they could be banned, but the case for taxing them much more heavily is even stronger than that for commercial flights.

 

[lachlan]

Yes they should, on the grounds of being incredibly wasteful and unnecessary (use commercial airlines instead). However I’m not sure how they could be banned in practise. Also, are you sure BBC reporters are using private keys?

 

[jon0844]

Are private jets significantly worse than a full-size plane (in terms of CO2 per passenger)? Often they're relatively small, light and not bogged down with loads of baggage.

 

[jackot]

Are private jets significantly worse than a full-size plane (in terms of CO2 per passenger)? Often they're relatively small, light and not bogged down with loads of baggage.

Yes, they do tend to have a far greater CO2 footprint per pax. Average statistics from memory lie somewhere between 5-15 times more polluting than a commercial airliner, but this obviously varies depending on how many passengers it is carrying and the type of aircraft, as well as what you are comparing it against.

For example, if looking at the fuel burn and thus emissions for an aircraft whilst in cruise (not a perfect indicator by any means but a good indicator of the general gist) an A320 will burn around 2500kg/hr at cruise carrying 180+ pax, whilst a Cessna Citation private jet will get through around 800kg/hr whilst only seating 10.

 

[The Ham]

Yes, they do tend to have a far greater CO2 footprint per pax. Average statistics from memory lie somewhere between 5-15 times more polluting than a commercial airliner, but this obviously varies depending on how many passengers it is carrying and the type of aircraft, as well as what you are comparing it against.

For example, if looking at the fuel burn and thus emissions for an aircraft whilst in cruise (not a perfect indicator by any means but a good indicator of the general gist) an A320 will burn around 2500kg/hr at cruise carrying 180+ pax, whilst a Cessna Citation private jet will get through around 800kg/hr whilst only seating 10.

To put that into perspective the A320 could carry 32 passengers and still (just) be better than the private jet if it was full (which I would guess is fairly rare).

 

[SynthD]

This is one of the more drastic changes. It would negatively affect high level business and culture. Just tax it, design a tax without loopholes for once.

 

[The exile]

This is one of the more drastic changes. It would negatively affect high level business and culture. Just tax it, design a tax without loopholes for once.

Yes - permit every country in the world to levy an “overflight tax” on planes crossing their airspace. For once there would be little incentive not to tax!

 

[edwin_m]

Yes - permit every country in the world to levy an “overflight tax” on planes crossing their airspace. For once there would be little incentive not to tax!

Wouldn't some countries try to undercut their neighbours to encourage more flights through their own airspace, in the hope of raking in more revenue? That might actually increase emissions, if operators took a less direct route to avoid high-cost countries.

Even more so than aircraft fuel taxes, this sort of tax would require an international agreement to charge the same rate (probably proportionate to distance rather than a flat fee) at least for everyone in a particular region.

 

[12LDA28C]

Yes, I believe they are far less friendly to the environment. When I hear the BBC have correspondents in countries yet fly an expert roving reporter out so he can say it's a fire etc which any Muppet could say.

Less friendly than what? Commercial airline flights? DB using 66s instead of AC traction? India building new coal-fired power stations? Surely there are more concerning issues than a few private jet flights. Personally, I couldn't care less.

 

[The Ham]

Less friendly than what? Commercial airline flights? DB using 66s instead of AC traction? India building new coal-fired power stations? Surely there are more concerning issues than a few private jet flights. Personally, I couldn't care less.

Although it's not really about what's worse, all those things need to be dealt with to reduce our carbon emissions.

The reason why private jets are seen as so bad is because even fairly limited use had a significant impact.

At the time of a recent report if someone flew in a private jet for 4 hours they would produce the same emissions as the average European (including the UK) for an entire year.

If we were to look at those most likely to use a private jet there's a good chance they'll rack that time up and so have double the emissions of their peers (especially when you consider the empty, repositioning, flights which are a common feature of private jets).

As to freight using diesel locos over electric traction, whilst that would be better. It's still better to use diesel rail freight over road travel.

 

[jackot]

Surely there are more concerning issues than a few private jet flights. Personally, I couldn't care less.

Although it's not really about what's worse, all those things need to be dealt with to reduce our carbon emissions.

The reason why private jets are seen as so bad is because even fairly limited use had a significant impact.

In total, all of Europes private jet flights over the last 3 years have emitted somewhere close to as much CO2 as an airline the size of easyJet does in 1 year. Arguably then it is not a case of private jet flights being ridiculously polluting as a whole, but it is certainly a large contributor in the aviation industry itself.

 

[mpthomson]

Yes, I believe they are far less friendly to the environment. When I hear the BBC have correspondents in countries yet fly an expert roving reporter out so he can say it's a fire etc which any Muppet could say.

BBC journalists almost always use commercial flights, it's very rare that it's anything other than that or the RAF (if it's a war zone) on a pre-existing flight.

 

[The Ham]

BBC journalists almost always use commercial flights, it's very rare that it's anything other than that or the RAF (if it's a war zone) on a pre-existing flight.

Also, why single out the BBC?

Flying reporters to where things are happening is something that a lot of news channels will do.

As such, why day the BBC and not also mention Channel 4 news, ITN, Sky News or any of the foreign news channels who would also send people.

It should also be noted that sometimes news organisations will share resources - for example sometimes in North America the BBC will use CBS:

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2017/07/17/bbc-changes-us-news-partner/

As such the presence of a BBC news reporter could actually see content being created for at least two news networks.

 

[mpthomson]

Also, why single out the BBC?

Flying reporters to where things are happening is something that a lot of news channels will do.

As such, why day the BBC and not also mention Channel 4 news, ITN, Sky News or any of the foreign news channels who would also send people.

It should also be noted that sometimes news organisations will share resources - for example sometimes in North America the BBC will use CBS:

https://www.digitaltveurope.com/2017/07/17/bbc-changes-us-news-partner/

As such the presence of a BBC news reporter could actually see content being created for at least two news networks.

Because that's what the post I quoted mentioned specifically. Other journalists travel the same way.

 

[AlterEgo]

Are private jets significantly worse than a full-size plane (in terms of CO2 per passenger)? Often they're relatively small, light and not bogged down with loads of baggage.

Yes and they often deposit their emissions at a higher and more harmful altitude than regular airliners. A G650 can make it up to 51,000 feet and will typically cruise in the upper 40s.

 

[ExRes]

How would people be able to attend global environmental conferences if they couldn't fly by private jets?

 

[Speed43125]

Wouldn't some countries try to undercut their neighbours to encourage more flights through their own airspace, in the hope of raking in more revenue? That might actually increase emissions, if operators took a less direct route to avoid high-cost countries.

Even more so than aircraft fuel taxes, this sort of tax would require an international agreement to charge the same rate (probably proportionate to distance rather than a flat fee) at least for everyone in a particular region.

That is already happening. All the time. For American carriers, for instance, its often preferred to avoid Canadian airspace which is relatively expensive. Algorithms exist to work out the cheapest routings for transatlantic flights, which particularly from the US West Coast might stay further south than the most direct route, even if that induces greater fuel burn.

And plenty of flights, particularly to more remote airports, carry more fuel than required for the outward leg, as fuel in Jersey for instance, is going to cost more than at Heathrow.

On a bit of tangent, the DB ICE TDs famously always refuelled in Denmark, as fuel for rail is taxed in Germany.

 

[dangie]

How would people be able to attend global environmental conferences if they couldn't fly by private jets?

Exactly, and by contributing to environmental pollution they are thus keeping themselves in a job

 

[edwin_m]

A private jet also appears to have created an unreasonable amount of litter in western Russia recently.

 

[Skymonster]

No of course not - for the same reasons that private cars should not be banned.

 

[lachlan]

No of course not - for the same reasons that private cars should not be banned.

Slight difference between the environmental impact of a car vs the environmental impact of a private jet

 

[Skymonster]

Slight difference between the environmental impact of a car vs the environmental impact of a private jet

You’re absolutely right - there are so few private jets around as to make little difference, while there are so many private cars around that banning them all could have a massive impact.

 

[Tetchytyke]

No of course not - for the same reasons that private cars should not be banned.

The two things are completely different.

I wouldn’t *ban* private jets, but the APD should have plenty of zeroes on the end of it and be charged on arrivals as well as departures. Aviation fuel used in private jets should be fully taxed in the way fuel in private cars is. Other countries can do what they want, but it’s about making it punitively expensive to use them in the UK.

Private jets are hugely damaging, and the private aviation market is big and getting bigger.

And it’s not as though the alternative is riding a tuk-tuk to where you’re going. The first class and business class offering on commercial airlines is excellent, Singapore Airlines’ suites are pretty much the definition of luxury.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Yes - permit every country in the world to levy an “overflight tax” on planes crossing their airspace. For once there would be little incentive not to tax!

They already do! Overflight fees are sometimes a significant cost, ATC fees likewise. I seem to remember that UK ATC fees are among the highest in Europe, for instance.

 

[lachlan]

You’re absolutely right - there are so few private jets around as to make little difference, while there are so many private cars around that banning them all could have a massive impact.

However, even I would acknowledge cars have a social benefit to a lot of people (and I am fairly anti-car) whereas private jets benefit very few.

 

[Lucan]

Aviation fuel used in private jets should be fully taxed in the way fuel in private cars is.

It isn't?! Why not? Private jets are largely a vanity thing, a status symbol among the super-rich.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It isn't?! Why not? Private jets are largely a vanity thing, a status symbol among the super-rich.

Jet fuel is fully rebated. There are limited circumstances- pleasure flying entirely within the UK- where it will attract VAT, but there is no duty on jet fuel.

 

[Skymonster]

It isn't?! Why not? Private jets are largely a vanity thing, a status symbol among the super-rich.

Jet fuel isn’t taxed as a result of long-standing international treaty. Its pointless trying to tax jet fuel here in the UK alone, unless there is a similar global agreement to do so (which thankfully some other countries will never go for). That’s because airlines - and private jet operators - will simply tanker in fuel in their aircraft from abroad. And carrying unnecessary excess fuel beyond that required for the next journey increases emissions through the extra weight being carried.

 

[edwin_m]

Jet fuel isn’t taxed as a result of long-standing international treaty. Its pointless trying to tax jet fuel here in the UK alone, unless there is a similar global agreement to do so (which thankfully some other countries will never go for). That’s because airlines - and private jet operators - will simply tanker in fuel in their aircraft from abroad. And carrying unnecessary excess fuel beyond that required for the next journey increases emissions through the extra weight being carried.

Why "thankfully"? Isn't it morally right that a damaging activity carried out by privileged people does at least reimburse society to some extent for its consequences?