lmsl1967 wrote:
lmsl196730-Jul-23 22:3717
-See you soon. C.Hopefully I will leave Sudan next thursday, for a few weeks of vacations. Meanwhile I will be flying to CR for some fix and BIR exams.
I Will be at LPSR next saturday morning for a shot free of tax flight. .
See you:
I hope it will all work out for you and that you´ll have a great airplane holiday with the family. Good luck on the BIR exams! I won´t be back in PT until 19Aug (latest). ALSO enjoy the tax free (will ADDITIONAL tax “free”) flight. ;-)
lmsl1967 wrote:
I was hopping that they would find a limit from which the tax would be applicable, the 5,700 Kg, it was not the case. Obvioulsy the specific mention of the UL opens the door for taxation to other than that, my interpretation follows the spirit of the Law. When we fly, we are maintaining proficiency.
Some of the flying “clubs” in Portugal are suggesting to fill the ICAO flight plan item no. 8 “TYPE OF FLIGHT” as “X” (OTHER) and in section “REMARK” adding “TRAINING FLIGHT” (not FLIGHT INSTRUCTION).
Not sure if the intention is to simply avoid filing item no. 8 as “G” (GENERAL AVIATION) and that way stay “under the radar” by claiming training or proficiency. If the intention/interpretation by the regulator is that only flights carrying paying passengers are to be subject to the subject carbon tax, I don´t see it should be necessary to use the above filing procedure.
Any thoughts?
Yeager wrote:
Any thoughts?
What a mess. I’m struggling with the fact that the regulator doesn’t end the amount of confusion caused by a law nobody understands. How hard is it for them to explain who pays what and in which circumstances?
In moments like this, I remember why I left Portugal :)
To be frank, lawmaking in most countries on the European mainland is pretty haphazard. Most just don’t have old enough legal systems where stuff gets shaken out properly.
Look at this interminable debate about the meaning of the words “operator” and “based in” etc. One cannot tell if that was drawn up down the pub, or whether EASA was advised by lawyers this will fail in a properly funded court challenge so they should treat it as FUD and see if it has a sufficiently corrosive effect on foreign registry GA. My money is on the latter, but this is a crap way of doing regulation.
Anything involving “today’s fashion” like “carbon taxes” is likely to be badly drawn up.
@peter your are right. Lawmakers aren’t necessarily the best writers. My wife/lawyer complains about it all the time.
But can you imagine the CAA going ahead with a piece of law that nobody actually understands and then gives the flying community the silent treatment? That’s what’s happening with this law in Portugal.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Is this tax supposed to be applied only to General Aviation? It would totally kill any CAT if applied there, e.g. for a 500 km flight, the tax would be more than €1000/pax. Or is the “coefficient” lower for CAT?
Bizjets already pay for CO2 emissions in the EU. For example, if a flight from Poznan to Faro used 2 tons of fuel, it was 6,3 tons of CO2. I had to buy 6,3 credits in the market at 70 EUR each (2022). The data on emissions was gathered by Eurocontrol. Here’s a small piece of the full year table.
Separate credits had to be bought for UK and CH emissions. NCC flights were charged same as CAT.
I am not sure what is the threshold to fall under this scheme. 2 tons? 5,7 tons? I also don’t understand how Portugal can charge for the same emissions if there already is a scheme in place.
loco wrote:
Bizjets already pay for CO2 emissions in the EU
Very interesting. Here is a document:
https://www.dehst.de/SharedDocs/downloads/EN/publications/Factsheet_Aviation.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6
“Principally, all flights taking off or landing in the European Economic Area (EEA) are covered. Exceptions exist for certain aircraft (less than 5,700 kg maxi-mum take-off weight), certain types of flights (e. g. rescue and research flights) and for operators with low total annual emissions (less than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 for commercial aircraft operators and less than 1,000 tonnes of CO2 for non-commercial aircraft operators).”
So I assume you did operate the Lear in an AOC which had more than 1 aircraft and thus combined emissions over 10.000t per year. Putting it into a separate AOC would probably have solved that issue at the cost of other problems ;-)
How do they know how much fuel you burnt ?
It seems crazy, police-state stuff. Next it will be your Robin, your car or your food.
Jujupilote wrote:
How do they know how much fuel you burnt ?
On a large turbine aircraft I think you have a rather good estimate on the consumption per flight hour. After all this is not down to the last liter. I think the airline industry can still be very happy with this deal. The cost per liter is still way lower than what we private operators pay in nearly all European countries with taxes and similar carbon offsets included in the fuel prices we pay.
Jujupilote wrote:
your car
That has already been implemented. I don’t know about France but in Croatia we pay for CO2 emissions when registering car every year. There’s a calculation based on engine power which results with yearly fee you have to pay.
