Should private jet flights be banned?

[D6975]

It won't be a problem for much longer. Fossil fuels as a whole are nearing exhaustion. It won't be much longer before their scarcity will drive costs through the roof.

 

[Enthusiast]

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?

It might be. Unfortunately additional tax revenue (especially in the UK) simply gives the government of the day more of other people's money to waste. The UK is experiencing some of the highest levels of taxation in recent years - and arguably some of the lowest standards of public services in those same years. Someone wealthy enough to run a private jet will not be phased by a bit of tax added to the fuel (or whatever). They will simply pay up (ironically allowing them to offset the additional expense against their tax bill), the additional revenue will be wasted and they will continue their "damaging activity." Taxation - especially when levied upon the wealthy - is not the universal panacea some believe it to be.

 

[edwin_m]

It might be. Unfortunately additional tax revenue (especially in the UK) simply gives the government of the day more of other people's money to waste. The UK is experiencing some of the highest levels of taxation in recent years - and arguably some of the lowest standards of public services in those same years. Someone wealthy enough to run a private jet will not be phased by a bit of tax added to the fuel (or whatever). They will simply pay up (ironically allowing them to offset the additional expense against their tax bill), the additional revenue will be wasted and they will continue their "damaging activity." Taxation - especially when levied upon the wealthy - is not the universal panacea some believe it to be.

I don't think the inability of our current government to spend money wisely is a reason to disagree with taxation in principle.

 

[Enthusiast]

I don't think the inability of our current government to spend money wisely is a reason to disagree with taxation in principle.

I did say "the government of the day." I'm by no means restricting my comments to the current government. But the remark I reacted to was that taxation is justified so as "to reimburse society to some extent." If the revenue does not produce improvements to "society" (and it almost certainly wouldn't - it would simply be lost in the noise) then the justification is lost.

But apart from that, my main point is that adding a few £££s to the cost of fuel for a private jet flight will have no influence on the preponderance of such flights. If the aim is to reduce them, taxation will not work. It's rather like trying to curb journeys made by Bentleys and Rollers by increasing the price of fuel for them. You could double it and it would make no difference whatsoever. The only strategy to meet that aim is to ban them. I cannot see any government - either here or elsewhere - doing that.

 

[Skymonster]

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?

Thankfully was in the context of other countries not likely to apply tax on jet fuel - which makes it virtually impossible to apply locally. And thankfully those other countries wont allow it to happen, because left to its own devices the UK government might just be stupid enough to try it. And thankfully because taxing jet fuel would make flying more expensive for everyone, which isn’t a desirable effect.

 

[edwin_m]

I did say "the government of the day." I'm by no means restricting my comments to the current government. But the remark I reacted to was that taxation is justified so as "to reimburse society to some extent." If the revenue does not produce improvements to "society" (and it almost certainly wouldn't - it would simply be lost in the noise) then the justification is lost.

But apart from that, my main point is that adding a few £££s to the cost of fuel for a private jet flight will have no influence on the preponderance of such flights. If the aim is to reduce them, taxation will not work. It's rather like trying to curb journeys made by Bentleys and Rollers by increasing the price of fuel for them. You could double it and it would make no difference whatsoever. The only strategy to meet that aim is to ban them. I cannot see any government - either here or elsewhere - doing that.

There could still be some shift at the margin, where people are in two minds about using a private jet or some alternative and the cost might tip them towards the latter.

But even if it makes no difference whatever to the amount of private jet travel, an extra tax could go towards paying for the environmental downsides of increased aircraft use, which at present are either left unaddressed or paid for by the general taxpayer.

Thankfully was in the context of other countries not likely to apply tax on jet fuel - which makes it virtually impossible to apply locally. And thankfully those other countries wont allow it to happen, because left to its own devices the UK government might just be stupid enough to try it. And thankfully because taxing jet fuel would make flying more expensive for everyone, which isn’t a desirable effect.

So basically you are saying that air travel is an unalloyed good thing? I don't accept that premise due to the environmental downsides, and because extra tax would help incentivise the industry towards more radical options such as electric aircraft or integrating legs by high-speed train into their flight schedules. An alternative would be some sort of frequent flyer tax, which could perhaps be structured to allow everyone a certain amount of personal flying per year ,while hitting those who use more or businesses that fly their employees around a lot. If that happened then any such exemption shuldn't apply to private jets.

 

[Skymonster]

So basically you are saying that air travel is an unalloyed good thing?

Yes

extra tax would help incentivise the industry towards more radical options such as electric aircraft or integrating legs by high-speed train

Yeah right. We all know extra tax would simply go to the treasury to fund lunatic schemes unrelated to travel or into carp like overseas aid that won’t benefit the UK.

And as I already said, the UK rail industry had an almost perfect opportunity to integrate with long haul air, but totally blew it when it was decided that routing HS2 via Heathrow would slow down overall journey times too much (and this from a project that is now claimed to be more about capacity than speed). All it needed was HS2 to go via Heathrow and the rail and airline industries to accept liability for passengers being delayed and it would have been a great opportunity to get shut of many domestic flights (and use the freed up capacity for more long haul without building new runways) - but san I said, the Railway blew it big time and HS2 is now a white elephant currently heading from somewhere west of London only to Birmingham.

 

[The Ham]

Yes


Yeah right. We all know extra tax would simply go to the treasury to fund lunatic schemes unrelated to travel or into carp like overseas aid that won’t benefit the UK.

And as I already said, the UK rail industry had an almost perfect opportunity to integrate with long haul air, but totally blew it when it was decided that routing HS2 via Heathrow would slow down overall journey times too much (and this from a project that is now claimed to be more about capacity than speed). All it needed was HS2 to go via Heathrow and the rail and airline industries to accept liability for passengers being delayed and it would have been a great opportunity to get shut of many domestic flights (and use the freed up capacity for more long haul without building new runways) - but san I said, the Railway blew it big time and HS2 is now a white elephant currently heading from somewhere west of London only to Birmingham.

I would argue that no mode of travel is an unalloyed good thing, with the possible exception of walking with no conflict with other nodes of travel.

Regardless of what you're thoughts on global warming are, any mode of travel requires resources. Those resources have limits on their availability, and so there should be (even if there's not a need to worry about that actual resource running out at current rates of use for a thousand years) a question as to if that's the best use of resources.

In addition, whilst tourism (which flying does increase significantly) does often provide advantages to countries it also often provides complications - for example putting pressure of water due to the tourists using far more water than local people. That's before you consider things like that tourism can lead to more demand for sex workers (which is rarely a good thing).

Whilst on a personal level it is often good, that's only one small part.

Now obviously banning all flying would be bad, having zero restrictions on flying would also be bad (for example allowing airports to have flights 24/7 and not needing to have a pilot's licence to fly).

The point is there's a balance to be had and it sits somewhere between the two. General consensus is that it should be a bit more towards the banning everything end (still a very long way away from that extreme) than it currently is, rather than moving any further towards the allow anything.

Obviously some will want to go further than others, it's just a case of where is it likely to end up. Something to restrict private jets is likely but an outright ban isn't.

On the other point, governments are always going to be seen to spend money badly. If you don't like something any money they spend will be seen as bad.

For example, if you only travel by helicopter then spending on roads is wasteful and shouldn't happen.

Just one small point, HS2 had always been about capacity, if you don't believe me StopHS2 have a letter on their website from February 2009:

http://stophs2.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/20090213_letter_to_lord_adonis_re_objectives_for_hs2.pdf

Objectives for HS2, London to West Midlands
My understanding is that the objectives for the new line, subject to what I say below about the environment, are as follows, broadly in order of priority:
Passenger capacity: this is the driving consideration, including capacity released on classic lines.
Speed: the new line should be sufficiently high speed to optimise journey time benefits balanced with operational energy costs and achievement of maximum capacity. It is likely to be designed to at least the maximum speed
for HS1. It should also have the ability to maintain high average speed, which will mean avoiding any permanent speed restrictions (e.g. sharp bends) which also impact on energy consumption and effective capacity, managing the approaches to cities (especially if shared with classic lines) and avoiding intermediate stops.

Capacity is mentioned as the driving consideration and even under speed it takes about "achievement of maximum capacity".

Of course the fiddling with HS2 by the government isn't giving us the best outcome, however it could still deliver many of the benefits of reduced flights even not going via Heathrow. For example there's no fights between Birmingham and London (when there used to be), so it's possible for rail to take on and shut down routes if it provides a good level of service.

 

[edwin_m]

Yeah right. We all know extra tax would simply go to the treasury to fund lunatic schemes unrelated to travel or into carp like overseas aid that won’t benefit the UK.

The incentivisation and disincivisation point I was making applies however the government spends the resulting revenue. The very fact of something being taxed encourages people to do or use it less.