chflyer wrote:
A couple additional details:
- The commission president (Green party!!) said that the effort to collect the tax would be disproportionate in view of the mostly small cost of such flights
- Criteria would be aircraft weight. Aircraft under 5.7t would not be subject to the tax
While I am glad for you all, that of course is a rubbish argument. A bit like the enroute Eurocontrol fees. These days the cost of recovery is trivial. It seems like a political excuse to let light GA off in order ease the passage of the rules.
that of course is a rubbish argument. A bit like the enroute Eurocontrol fees.
It depends on how the charge could be circumvented.
VFR? Transponder off? Fly from a farm strip? Buy a UL (for 200k if necessary)? People aren’t stupid, and if there is a 500 tax on a flight they will do just about anything to get around it. I know a guy who lost his medical and who got himself airborne pretty quick, for a few hundred k. No, I am not giving any more clues but for sure he’s not the only one. And many Swiss aren’t exactly poor.
The Eurocontrol fees is a poor example because everybody knows how to circumvent them in piston GA: fly VFR, in IMC as required. Works well in a de-iced aircraft, and the procedure has been amply documented by a famous member of the GA community who flies twins 
It can even be done without turning off the transponder. It isn’t a UK only thing; it is done all over Europe (by those with capable hardware and who know how to game the system). For example, Germans call it “IVFR”.
People who fly > 2T aircraft, particularly types which cannot be practically flown low level VFR, tend to be unhappy about those under 2T getting off without paying; that’s been pretty normal on social media for the whole time I have been flying 
With a VAT rate of 8% rather than about 20% in the EU, an income tax rate of 12% to 21.5%
It actually hurt reading this
But then ask for the price of a steak in the Swiss restaurant. You can end up at 100 CHF per person without going into a very fancy place. Same for Taxi, housing, groceries, hangars, avgas/jet etc.
Peter wrote:
People who fly > 2T aircraft, particularly types which cannot be practically flown low level VFR, tend to be unhappy about those under 2T getting off without paying; that’s been pretty normal on social media for the whole time I have been flying
That is simplistic. I wish no-one had to pay but the argument that VFR or small aircraft aren’t worth charging is simply incorrect. If they choose to charge them, they can easily.
JasonC wrote:
If they choose to charge them, they can easily.
Don’t give them ideas. Just don’t…..
The technology for charging non Mode S non ADS-B traffic doesn’t exist. This was discussed massively in the early days of the Mode S proposals. All you could do is an annual fee. But, hey, this already exists – it’s called ARC renewal
But then ask for the price of a steak in the Swiss restaurant. You can end up at 100 CHF per person without going into a very fancy place. Same for Taxi, housing, groceries, hangars, avgas/jet etc.
Sure, but I think the companies which move their tax residence to Switzerland are doing it for the low corporation tax, and they take the money back out again. They are not involved with retail economics there.
Peter wrote:
But, hey, this already exists – it’s called ARC renewal
I’m pretty sure the ARC renewal fee isn’t used to pay for to AIS/ATS services.
I think @JasonC is probably correct, rubbish argument or not. Given the demonstrated devastating impact of the charge, not only on GA participants but also on all airfields in Switzerlands except the international ones, it is likely an attempt to save face being confronted by a significant opposition and perhaps realization of the real consequences.
The key takeaway of the report, regardless of the reasoning behind, is that at least GA <5t has a good chance of being exempted. We’ll see what happens to those >5t, as I’m sure there are commercial interests pushing against that too, not to mention the response of airlines to the broader per pax tax.
@Peter, quite a few of the avoidance techniques you mention don’t apply to Switzerland for a number of reasons:
- there are no “farm strips”
- VFR in IMC in Switzerland is really dumb, given the topography … think Darwin principle
- ULMs are banned in Switzerland
What would likely happen if the law as originally proposed were passed would be the death of GA in Switzerland, including closing of all airfields other than Zurich and Geneva (and perhaps Samedan). Anyone who wanted to fly would move their aircraft outside the country and the rest would just give it up.
chflyer wrote:
I’m sure there are commercial interests pushing against that too, not to mention the response of airlines to the broader per pax tax.
But what do you suggest should happen? As it is commercial aviation has major tax benefits compared to other modes of transportation due to fuel not being taxed (and there are good practical reasons why it should not be). In some countries even non-commercial aviation has fuel tax benefits (e.g. in Sweden there is never any VAT on aviation fuel, although for non-commercial use there is a fuel tax).
Until and unless we get aircraft with engines that can use renewable fuel sources, commercial aviation has to be reduced. (Note that I did not say that it should go away — I certainly don’t think that.)
Peter wrote:
The technology for charging non Mode S non ADS-B traffic doesn’t exist. This was discussed massively in the early days of the Mode S proposals. All you could do is an annual fee. But, hey, this already exists – it’s called ARC renewal
It exists in Estonia :) – most of the time I fly in controlled airspace (VFR) I get some bill afterwards (roughly 5EUR per 100km) for Terminal Navigation charge..
