25 replies to this topic

[waldo]

What about them?

it looks like you flew right over my post!

lil' buddy... I'm reading that, presuming North American airlines choose to directly pass the costs onto passengers, it would amount to approximately an additional "few dollars" per airline ticket. Certainly less than the $5.50 tariff the U.S. is applying to Canadians entering the U.S. by air/sea.

I trust you will offer similar vitriolic outrage at this U.S. $5.50 cross-border travel fee.

[GostHacked]

What about them?

Setting aside your deliberate obtuseness and 'What's obtuse'?? schtick. Can you explain how carbon restrictions played a part in airlines going under in the past, if it has at all?

[GostHacked]

The latter. Fuel is an airline's second largest cost, almost as much as labour. Airlines have been trying all sorts of things in order to reduce consumption for years. Good for Airbus and Boeing though, fuel efficiency is the biggest single reason airlines buy new aircraft, regardless of the EU and its mega bureaucracy that has to administer this program.

So it really does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. It's all about money.

[Wilber]

with tight profit margins, the extra ETS costs, (although described as 'minor' compared to the cost of jet fuel) might be enough for an airline to adjust it's load practices/scheduling on certain routes... which, collectively, could affect allowance/offset requirements. Would the year-upon-year additional cost be enough to affect a purchase decision favouring a more efficient plane design... maybe not.

They already do this stuff, have been for years, it's a matter of survival. This just takes more money from their bottom line and makes them less able to upgrade. This is just another nail in the coffin of an already badly stressed industry. Why do you think governments are legislating to have the airlines advertise the full cost of a ticket? They don't want people to know how much of the cost is due to government taxes and fees. They want the airlines to take all the flack for higher fares.

[Wilber]

So it really does nothing to reduce carbon emissions. It's all about money.

The only way they can really reduce carbon emissions is to reduce flying and one should always follow the money.

[waldo]

They already do this stuff, have been for years, it's a matter of survival. This just takes more money from their bottom line and makes them less able to upgrade. This is just another nail in the coffin of an already badly stressed industry. Why do you think governments are legislating to have the airlines advertise the full cost of a ticket? They don't want people to know how much of the cost is due to government taxes and fees. They want the airlines to take all the flack for higher fares.

I've flown a ton for work... including long-haul overseas. It's not unusual to fly with half-empty planes, if that. A lot of scheduling simply reflects upon matching other airline offerings... strictly competition influenced.

[Shady]

Setting aside your deliberate obtuseness and 'What's obtuse'?? schtick. Can you explain how carbon restrictions played a part in airlines going under in the past, if it has at all?

I didn't say that it did. This is brand new regulation. Which definitely will impact business, and will probably lead to less airline passengers, and therefore, layoffs, and possibly bankruptcy for already struggling airlines. What does that have to do with the past?

[waldo]

This is brand new regulation. Which definitely will impact business, and will probably lead to less airline passengers, and therefore, layoffs, and possibly bankruptcy for already struggling airlines.

would an additional 'few dollars' per ticket make the difference as to whether a business would fly it's employees to the EU... or whether a couple would fly to a EU vacation/travel destination?

what about the recent U.S. $5.50 tax on entry via air/sea... does this fit your same over-the-top, "less passengers, layoffs and bankruptcy" attachment?

[Wilber]

I've flown a ton for work... including long-haul overseas. It's not unusual to fly with half-empty planes, if that. A lot of scheduling simply reflects upon matching other airline offerings... strictly competition influenced.

It's already competition influenced. Frequency is a big part of competition, particularly for business travel. The only way government could have a real influence is to dictate which airlines fly and when.

[waldo]

It's already competition influenced. Frequency is a big part of competition, particularly for business travel. The only way government could have a real influence is to dictate which airlines fly and when.

what I'm suggesting, as a possibility, is that the tighter margin might influence an airline to ultimately forgo a particular flight/schedule that it's already losing money on... one that its only flying because it's competition is flying on the same route/schedule.

[Wilber]

what I'm suggesting, as a possibility, is that the tighter margin might influence an airline to ultimately forgo a particular flight/schedule that it's already losing money on... one that its only flying because it's competition is flying on the same route/schedule.

What I am saying is that if you don't offer the same frequency for your highest yielding passengers (business) as your competition, they will fly with someone else. Just because one particular flight is not profitable, doesn't mean the whole route is not profitable.

Edited by Wilber, 22 December 2011 - 03:20 PM.