EUROCONTROL Stakeholder Forum on the evolution of the European air navigation charges model

quatrelle wrote:

alioth wrote: Don’t forget that unlike the turbine operators, sub 2T piston engined planes are paying a LOT more tax on fuel

Sadly, thats not the case, Avtur fuel duty is paid to HMRC as part of the Avtur Fuel Duty Return at 59.75p litre / or risk a substantial fine by ignoring it.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fuel-duty-payment-of-duty-on-aviation-turbine-fuel-used-for-private-pleasure-flying-ho105

Sorry @quatrelle, you’ve missed the point here – most of the big (turbine) aircraft are operated by AoC holders and they are exempt from paying that Jet fuel Duty.
I’d say that if the choice was you pay either fuel duty OR enroute charges, many would choose enroute charges. :)
But, most private light twins are AVGAS 2T+ aircraft, which means they pay both. And they are NOT getting that enroute service in the UK, just have to pay for it.

arj1 wrote:

Sorry @quatrelle, you’ve missed the point here

I dont agree, the point Alioth appeared to be making was that ‘turbine operators are paying a lot less tax on fuel compared to Avgas users’ which in the case of a private turbine operator is not the case. I cant tell you about AOC holders, but would not an AOC operator flying a piston engine aircraft commercially be able to claim back the fuel duty?

I think that the high price of Avgas is often down to big mark ups by the suppliers and not the amount of fuel duty which I understand (in the UK !) to be around 38p litre opposed to around 58p litre for Avtur.

Aircraft over 2T have always paid IFR charges, thats the way its always been, maybe not fair?

quatrelle wrote:

arj1 wrote: Sorry quatrelle, you’ve missed the point here

I dont agree, the point Alioth appeared to be making was that ‘turbine operators are paying a lot less tax on fuel compared to Avgas users’ which in the case of a private turbine operator is not the case. I cant tell you about AOC holders, but would not an AOC operator flying a piston engine aircraft commercially be able to claim back the fuel duty?

I think that the high price of Avgas is often down to big mark ups by the suppliers and not the amount of fuel duty which I understand (in the UK !) to be around 38p litre opposed to around 58p litre for Avtur.

Aircraft over 2T have always paid IFR charges, thats the way its always been, maybe not fair?

@quatrelle, sorry, let’s ask @Alioth about the point he was trying to make.
My point was about the taxes – small planes are usually for please and have to pay all the taxes and bigger planes are usually AoC and don’t have to pay those.

And about 2T – that is the EASA limit. Again, as I pointed earlier I think it would be fair to use 6000lbs = 2721kg, as the a/c above that limit are much more expensive to maintain and operate anyway. RVSM is another limit as well as being AoC on a revenue (non-positioning) flight – those are usually paid a fortune per hour by their clients, so extra 100eur would not make that much difference…

Althouth, as I also mentioned previously, I’m personnaly OK with paying the enroute charges as longer as it is not a tax but a SERVICE charge, meaning getting a service. And that is NOT the case in the UK for many routes on a typical sub-2T small a/c (non-pressurised, non-deiced and no oxygen). Even for a pressurised a/c above 2T (those paying the charge) it is bad – they are often just dumped out of the CAS and while they are penalised with disproportionally higher prices (it is in the formula – service charge is based on the square root of MTOM so if MTOW is 9 times higher, the enroute charge will increase 3 times), they are treated nothing like CAT or just a slightly bigger jet but like a nuisance.

Does anyone have any idea how much it would cost Eurocontrol to up the limit to 2721kg or even 5.6 tonnes? An Aviasport article some years ago hinted that it was IAOPA that pushed for 2 tonnes rather than the higher figure in the early discussions with stakeholders when Eurocontrol was being set up.

To avoid discussions why the MTOW limit should specifically be X kg, I’d suggest an entirely different approach: grant exemption to unpressurised aircraft.

grant exemption to unpressurised aircraft.

I see the “drill hole in airframe STC” coming soon