Airline Price increase

[nighteyes]

I weigh 7 and a half so I should travel even cheaper than you!
Its a fair point I have wondered about that in the past.

Quoting Bizarre Atheist from 20:12, 10th Feb 2007
Insensitive un-PC post warning:

I weigh 10 and a half stone.

If luggage allowance is measured by weight and therefore fuel consumption, why can't I fly cheaper than my fat friends?

[hr]

http://www.race2paris.co.uk
http://standrews.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2204763785

[hr]

i didnt say i was consistant, just right!

[Frank]

Because people who weigh around 17 don't want to be discriminated against?

Alternatively, we could just loose some weight...I vote for chopping off a leg...

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[bunny]

Quoting flarewearer from 15:44, 9th Feb 2007
Got a problem with an airline? Don't fly with them then! An airline isn't a benevolent public transport provider, it's a money making private enterprise and of course they are going to screw you for every penny they can. They answer to their shareholders (and perhaps, their baggage handlers) and not the oft suffering passenger. If you really must fly so often, then you just have to cough up. It isn't a right, it's a priviledge.


I'm sorry Flamewearer, but I don't agree with this at all. Many students have to fly because their families live in other countries and they are doing all that is possible to "cough up" as you say, to pay the flights as it is to be able to see their families. It isn't a question of WANTING necessarily to fly and travel by plane, but a must because they want to go home! It isn't a choice is some cases - it is a necessity.

[hr]

[The Bitter Historian]

Er, this sounds awful, but what forces students to study abroad, Bunny? The expense of travelling should be factored in to the way in which every student travels, and airline flights are included.

Of course, people shouldn't be discouraged from studying abroad, but it should be remembered that choosing to live and study abroad can bring a hefty price when it comes to visiting families. You choose to live abroad; you choose to visit your family when you do. It's harsh, but it's true. I'm sympathetic, but only to a certain extent.

[hr]

http://bitterhistorian.blogspot.com

Life. St Andrews. Budgeting. Some history. Mostly bitterness.

[Humphrey]

Why is this crap being dragged out on a university message board?

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376
Exclusive to The Sinnner, and all other forums.

Because alumni are also allowed on this board so that we can impart our worldly knowledge to those at an earlier stage in life. You twat.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Humphrey]

Quoting MrGreedy from 17:22, 10th Feb 2007

Quoting Humphrey from 09:26, 10th Feb 2007
I put it to you that, having sold you soul to satan and joined the public sector you have adopted its habits.

[etc.]

Therefore you have a moral duty to come visit me in London and pay me the extra £40 quid I’m going to have to unjustly shell out on my long haul flight this summer.

Mr Clarke, I put it to you that at the time of writing this post you should have been working to please your Zionist overlords instead of rising to my bait...

WRT hypothecation, the following link has a few points I'd take issue with but provides a pretty decent overview of the problems:
http://voting.taktix.org/2007/01/04/hypothecation-not-a-hypothesis-on-vacation-but-about-as-much-use/

As for the public purse and my overinflated salary, well I guess I'm bang to rights on that one (although naturally I'd argue that I'm very good value for it). Maybe we can discuss it while sampling my ever-growing whisky collection whenever you get the chance to come up and visit?

P.S.
The football was cancelled so my offer still stands for whenever it gets rearranged.

I understand that the treasury doesn’t like Hypothecation because it reduces the efficiency of the tax system (i.e creates extra work for pen pushers in the civil service) but I don’t see that the usual arguments apply in this case.

1. There are many examples of successful hypothecated taxes, for example the the Climate Change Levy has been used to fund a cut in National Insurance Contributions, as well as a scheme for energy efficiency investment. On the non-eco front I could also mention the hypothecated TV licence fee (classified as a tax), or the US Gasoline tax which is dedicated to the funding of transportation infrastructure.

2. Hypothecation is important for the credibility of eco-taxes because it provides the only certain way for an eco-tax to yield a substantial certain environmental benefit. Without hypothecation air passenger duty is merely another stealth tax. It has no effect on consumer behaviour, it does not reward greener airlines, it provides the stick but no carrot. If the revenue raised isn’t ring fenced then what is the point of it?.

3. The point of eco-taxes, surely, is that revenues should be expected to decrease; it may be better for the Treasury not to become habituated to the extra revenue yield if it is likely only to get smaller.

4. Air travel is set to expand globally. This is an inevitability. The only way to reduce emissions is to fund research into greener aircraft and fuels. 3 people taking a trip to Blackpool instead of a flight to Aia Nappa because they cant afford the extra £20 is going to make precisely fuck all difference.

5. The government is taxing air tickets to discourage people from flying at the same time as building new airports, expanding existing runways and creating thousands of jobs in the aviation industry. That is like the government putting taxes on cigarettes whilst simultaneously building tobacco plantations.

Anyway, I have already decided how I am going to make amends for my flight to the US to see the in-laws this summer. I am going to order one of those self-flagellation kits from Opus Dei and spend the majority of my transatlantic jaunt stripped to the waist and belabouring myself with it as atonement for my carbon footprint.


[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Jono]

Quoting humphrey from 11:43, 11th Feb 2007

Why is this crap being dragged out on a university message board?

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376
Exclusive to The Sinnner, and all other forums.

Because alumni are also allowed on this board so that we can impart our worldly knowledge to those at an earlier stage in life. You twat.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

Oh I wholeheartedly apologise. I'll be avidly looking forward to your follow-ups on how to drag personal vendettas into inappropriate places.



[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376
Exclusive to The Sinnner, and all other forums.

[Humphrey]

Quoting jono from 12:20, 11th Feb 2007

Quoting humphrey from 11:43, 11th Feb 2007

Why is this crap being dragged out on a university message board?

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376
Exclusive to The Sinnner, and all other forums.

Because alumni are also allowed on this board so that we can impart our worldly knowledge to those at an earlier stage in life. You twat.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

Oh I wholeheartedly apologise. I'll be avidly looking forward to your follow-ups on how to drag personal vendettas into inappropriate places.



[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37105376
Exclusive to The Sinnner, and all other forums.

Oh sorry. If by 'crap' you meant personal vendettas then there is no personal vendetta here. Mr greedy is a mate of mine and the only vendetta I have against him is that he supports Norwich City, however since i'm the worst Ipswich Supporter in the world i'm willing to let that slide.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[flarewearer]

Quoting bunny from 16:38, 9th Feb 2007

I'm sorry Flamewearer, but I don't agree with this at all. Many students have to fly because their families live in other countries and they are doing all that is possible to "cough up" as you say, to pay the flights as it is to be able to see their families. It isn't a question of WANTING necessarily to fly and travel by plane, but a must because they want to go home! It isn't a choice is some cases - it is a necessity.

[hr]

You don't HAVE to go to university in a different country. That most certainly IS a priveledge available to only a select few. If you are going to choose to study 1,000s of miles from home, you should at least factor in the cost of getting to-and-fro if you want to return to the motherland frequently.

[hr]

[BeccaLydia]

Quoting flarewearer from 00:49, 12th Feb 2007

Quoting bunny from 16:38, 9th Feb 2007

I'm sorry Flamewearer, but I don't agree with this at all. Many students have to fly because their families live in other countries and they are doing all that is possible to "cough up" as you say, to pay the flights as it is to be able to see their families. It isn't a question of WANTING necessarily to fly and travel by plane, but a must because they want to go home! It isn't a choice is some cases - it is a necessity.

[hr]

You don't HAVE to go to university in a different country. That most certainly IS a priveledge available to only a select few. If you are going to choose to study 1,000s of miles from home, you should at least factor in the cost of getting to-and-fro if you want to return to the motherland frequently.

[hr]

What about those of us whose parents move abroad during our study here? You cannot always control your situations, meaning that flights are often necessary. Also, people will have factored in the travelling costs of studying abroad, but before all the taxes were raised, and they are significant (or will be if certain people have their way), therefore throwing all our well-planned budgets off entirely.

[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100244

[The Bitter Historian]

Fuel cost affects everyone but those living at home, though, and they are a distinct minority in this university. My train tickets have gone up by about a tenner for a so-called 'cheap return' since I started university less than eighteen months ago. Petrol is abhorrently expensive and will only get worse. Even the bus is getting more and more pricey.

Life sucks if you're a student on a limited budget, bluntly. If you choose to study away from home, then there are consequences of that. I don't wish to be blunt, but the answer 'go home less' springs to mind. It's tough, but so is life.

Why not look for alternative methods to get home? I realise that's not such an option for those who are from the States, South-East Asia, Australia, but I have no synpathy for people flying home within Britain. Even for getting to Ireland or Europe, there's plenty of ferries and the train after that for a lot of destinations...

[hr]

http://bitterhistorian.blogspot.com

Life. St Andrews. Budgeting. Some history. Mostly bitterness.

[The Bitter Historian]

Sorry, double post.

[flarewearer]

Quoting BeccaLydia from 01:10, 12th Feb 2007

What about those of us whose parents move abroad during our study here?

Sux2beu then

[hr]

[Gubbins]

Quoting The Bitter Historian from 10:30, 12th Feb 2007
Why not look for alternative methods to get home? I realise that's not such an option for those who are from the States, South-East Asia, Australia, but I have no synpathy for people flying home within Britain. Even for getting to Ireland or Europe, there's plenty of ferries and the train after that for a lot of destinations...

Alternative methods of transport to many parts of Europe and even to some more remote parts of the UK are, presently, not a viable option for many.

Like BeccaLydia, my parents moved overseas during my days at St Andrews - to Portugal as it happens. At the moment, my journey home takes around 20-24 hours, door-to-door. The alternative would be to travel to get the ferry from Southampton to Bilbao, then travel from there. This would take around 60 hours and cost several times as much. Some people may be able to afford that time, but most cannot.

Flying is also the only viable option for many living on the Western and Northern Isles, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, simply because of the fact that the ferry can be unreliable in bad weather, or they can't afford the time either.

Flying is simply the most cost- and time-effective method of transport for medium and long distances. To decrease the number of national passenger miles will take a significant upgrade to the speed and capacity of the rail system, which will not happen for at least another ten years.

To tax flying is then to tax transport. The majority people still travel because they have to, rather than because they want to. If this is indeed a "green tax", chances are the efforts put in to implement it would be better spent on reducing the escalating emissions from East Asia.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[flarewearer]

Quoting Gubbins from 19:01, 12th Feb 2007

To tax flying is then to tax transport.

Flying is already subsidised to the tune of aviation fuel not being taxed.

The majority people still travel because they have to, rather than because they want to.

I'd wager that a great majority of people fly to go for their holidays, which in my book is because they want to, not because they have to.

[hr]

[Gubbins]

Quoting flarewearer from 19:36, 12th Feb 2007
Flying is already subsidised to the tune of aviation fuel not being taxed.

Then why not tax the fuel, rather than the passenger? Obviously, this will have a knock-on effect for the customer. After all, it's fuel usage that matters, not how many people are flying! Besides, it's not a subsidy - it's a lack of taxation, in the same way that red diesel for agricultural use isn't taxed.

I'd wager that a great majority of people fly to go for their holidays, which in my book is because they want to, not because they have to.

Based on my own experience of talking to a significant number of people in airports and aeroplanes, I'd disagree. I had a short look into this, and there's a report published by Airbus that shows approx. 50% of people fly for leisure, 25% fly to visit friends or family and 25% fly for business and other reasons.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[MrGreedy]

Quoting humphrey from 11:44, 11th Feb 2007

2. Hypothecation is important for the credibility of eco-taxes because it provides the only certain way for an eco-tax to yield a substantial certain environmental benefit. Without hypothecation air passenger duty is merely another stealth tax. It has no effect on consumer behaviour, it does not reward greener airlines, it provides the stick but no carrot. If the revenue raised isn’t ring fenced then what is the point of it?.

Bingo! Have a gold star. Trouble is, it's a lot easier to see your money having an effect when it's paying for the content on your shiny new TV than when it's mitigating the effects of some carbon dioxide being emitted which may or may not lead to it getting a bit warmer and flooding your house in thirty years [see also temporal effects in merit and demerit goods]. The failure to effectively make this argument is exactly why the road pricing petition has blown up into the papers - the pricing structure proposed is economically pretty sound but the perception is that it's just an extra stealth tax so it's doomed to be torpedoed by the Daily Mail.

As an imperfect solution to the airlines issue, taxing aviation fuel has a lot going for it. Sadly the rub is that there's bugger all a government can do unilaterally because the planes will just fill up elsewhere.

As for dragging irrelevant crap onto the message board, fair cop. However a) chill the heck out b) you don't have to read it c) it's not exactly a Three Kings update is it?

[flarewearer]

Quoting Gubbins from 20:53, 12th Feb 2007

Then why not tax the fuel, rather than the passenger? Obviously, this will have a knock-on effect for the customer. After all, it's fuel usage that matters, not how many people are flying! Besides, it's not a subsidy - it's a lack of taxation, in the same way that red diesel for agricultural use isn't taxed.

Because unlike tractors, aircraft can hop into the next country to fill up in a low tax or no tax regime. You'd still be taxing the passenger anyway, as airlines would simply pass the cost on to the customer. Personally, I'm in agreement with you along the lines taxing aviation fuel, I just don't see it being workable.

My point earlier is that, for domestic travel certainly, people *do* choose to fly, as the alternatives (as pointed out before) can be time consuming and greatly more expensive. They don't *need* to fly, but they choose to do so for conveniences sake. But until the Government (because I can't see private finance doing it) coughs up to finance some form of national high-speed transport system (i.e. rail), I am sceptical that much can be done to encourage people off their £29 piss-up weekends to Dublin.

edit - yes, I know you couldn't get a train to dublin anyway, but you get my point...

[hr]

[Gubbins]

Quoting flarewearer from 07:13, 13th Feb 2007
Because unlike tractors, aircraft can hop into the next country to fill up in a low tax or no tax regime. You'd still be taxing the passenger anyway, as airlines would simply pass the cost on to the customer. Personally, I'm in agreement with you along the lines taxing aviation fuel, I just don't see it being workable.

Although I'm no expert on this, I'd wager that most aircraft only carry the fuel they need for their flight, plus legal safety overheads. Thus, they'd be taxed when they fill up before departure.

But to take your point, what we'd then need to push for is, say, an EU-wide tax. Certainly that's where most of the cheap flights go to anyway. They're unlikely to fly a route via Switzerland or somewhere just to avoid the tax - it wouldn't be worth it. As for trans-continental flights, there isn't really an alternative for people on these routes anyway, so should we expect them to pay tax too?

My point earlier is that, for domestic travel certainly, people *do* choose to fly, as the alternatives (as pointed out before) can be time consuming and greatly more expensive. They don't *need* to fly, but they choose to do so for conveniences sake. But until the Government (because I can't see private finance doing it) coughs up to finance some form of national high-speed transport system (i.e. rail), I am sceptical that much can be done to encourage people off their £29 piss-up weekends to Dublin.

edit - yes, I know you couldn't get a train to dublin anyway, but you get my point...

Ok, many don't need to. Many do because there's no suitable alternative, though: people who live in Scotland and commute to London, people with jobs in more than one place. I've only once taken an internal UK flight, and that was from Edinburgh for an interview in Southampton - that was so that I only missed one day of classes. I think we're at least in agreement that we need a much better rail system to reduce the fraction of flights contributing to the internal UK transport network.

[hr]

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

[orudge]

Quoting Gubbins from 19:01, 12th Feb 2007
Like BeccaLydia, my parents moved overseas during my days at St Andrews - to Portugal as it happens. At the moment, my journey home takes around 20-24 hours, door-to-door. The alternative would be to travel to get the ferry from Southampton to Bilbao, then travel from there. This would take around 60 hours and cost several times as much. Some people may be able to afford that time, but most cannot.

Well, there's also the train. London to Lisbon can be done in 24 hours by train - tack on a few more hours to get down to London, and it's really not too much more. 30 hours at most, not 60. (See http://www.seat61.com/Portugal.htm). Much of Europe isn't as far away as people think without an airplane.

My own situation is that my Dad moved away to Brazil last year. There are very few "cheap flights" there, so basically, I simply don't get to see him all that often. I spent a month out there last summer, and hope to spend Christmas there this year. Other than that, it's hard luck, really.

Flying is also the only viable option for many living on the Western and Northern Isles, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, simply because of the fact that the ferry can be unreliable in bad weather, or they can't afford the time either.

Well, I can't comment on the Western isles, etc, but for the Northern Isles, specifically Orkney, the ferry is almost certainly more reliable than the plane... it takes a long longer, granted, but it's cheaper, and less likely to be cancelled due to inclement weather.

Flying is simply the most cost- and time-effective method of transport for medium and long distances. To decrease the number of national passenger miles will take a significant upgrade to the speed and capacity of the rail system, which will not happen for at least another ten years.

I would agree here - while much of the European rail network is very fast and efficient, our own rail network is not exactly great. It's a lot better than it was 10 years ago, but it still has many problems, and isn't ideal for everyone.

...but then again, that is only my opinion.

And, in many ways, likewise. For the record, I personally tend to fly for pleasure. Within the UK though, I'll generally take the train.

[hr]

http://www.owenrudge.net/
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37103734