Higher Airfare costs anyone

[Escapee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6056620.stm

One of the most stupid quotes I have seen

"Passengers would be willing to accept higher fares, the report says"

That to me says, they will happily pay the extra cost, how the hell will that affect the reduction on plane emissions.

Surely that will only line the governments pockets further, the silly idea we seem to have about raising the cost of transport to cut emissions just doesn't add up for me.

[foreverwar]

The joy of opinion polls!

The answer you get usually depends on the question you ask, and what's been in the news recently

Here are two from the Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls...717302,00.html 22nd Feb 2006
Most Britons willing to pay green taxes to save the environment
Most British people would accept new taxes on goods and services that damage the environment, according to a Guardian/ICM poll which reveals a widespread willingness to make personal sacrifices to tackle the threat of climate change. Some 63% said they approved of a green tax to discourage behaviour that harms the environment, while 34% said they would not accept such price rises.

or

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/polls...511097,00.html 21st June 2005
However, today's poll shows a clear majority of voters - 61% - oppose an environmental tax on air travel and that many consumers are also reluctant to accept other painful changes such as road pricing.

or one by C4 around the same time as Guardian poll number 2
http://www.channel4.com/news/special...parasStartAt=2 6th June 2005
62% of people agreed with an increase in aviation tax.

Strange how the last two contradict each other - really validates the value of opinion polls, doesn't it?

[Stuart C]

Actually the report appears to be calling for a reduction in the number of flights. Raising fares would probably achieve this.

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Actually the report appears to be calling for a reduction in the number of flights. Raising fares would probably achieve this.

its an interesting point. the concern is not so much with current emission levels but future ones given the explosive growth of air travel. but raising fares whilst it may slow growth will also price some people out of the air; whilst that is the aim i guess it does of course mean the rich will be able to fly and the less well off wont.

whilst raising air taxes should be part of the strategy - i can see no logical case for aviation fuel being tax free - it cant be the whole strategy.

[TheDaddy]

Surely if it were cheaper to go by rail people wouldn't fly so much, how can it be three times more expensive to go from London to Glasgow by train than plane? I believe I am right in saying that is the short flights that do the most damage as well.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Actually the report appears to be calling for a reduction in the number of flights. Raising fares would probably achieve this.

"Passengers would be willing to accept higher fares, the report says"

So how does it achieve that then, whats the point of raising them if people are willing to accept higher fares. If they accept higher fares that surely means they will just pay the extra cost.

Does this help the environment or the governments pocket?

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Surely if it were cheaper to go by rail people wouldn't fly so much, how can it be three times more expensive to go from London to Glasgow by train than plane? I believe I am right in saying that is the short flights that do the most damage as well.

absolutely. the whole economics of transport is crazy. of course, though, as big growth area has ben in short hail flying to european destinations - the no frills airlines routes are almost exclvively within 2-3 hours flying time andnd the short breaks market is growing as a result. people might have been content to go to brighton, now it's barcelona. and thats where the environmental cost kicks in.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Escapee

So how does it achieve that then, whats the point of raising them if people are willing to accept higher fares. If they accept higher fares that surely means they will just pay the extra cost.

its ok, I see your point.
if people are happy to accept the increased fares, it means it won't put them off flying, so it won't reduce the number of flights.
if people weren't happy to accept the increased fares, fewer people would be prepared to fly, so you'd have a reduction of flights.


It's like the idea of road pricing, remember the 10p per mile figure that was banded about?
Designed to get people to reduce their car use and go for public transport instead?
Train companies responded that they'd have to put up prices to reduce the number of people using the train as they wouldn't be able to cope.

[hatedbythemail]

reminiscent too of the lib dems green tax proposals which if they work would presumably see tax revenues fall

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Actually the report appears to be calling for a reduction in the number of flights. Raising fares would probably achieve this.

I don't know... I'm just about to book a flight to Venice costing 49p.

Cheap at twice the price!

[foreverwar]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I don't know... I'm just about to book a flight to Venice costing 49p.

Cheap at twice the price!

You Earth-killer, you!

What about the little children?

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

You Earth-killer, you!

What about the little children?

Oh, don't worry, the kids (and wife) will be staying at home...

[hatedbythemail]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

You Earth-killer, you!

What about the little children?

yeah, wot a bast........ :-)

of course venice is among those cities suffering from global warming.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1985927.stm

pack ya wellies! ;-)