I’m Portuguese. General aviation in Portugal has been a nightmare for many decades. It starts with intermittent controlled airspace and now ends with this policy.
As I say, Portugal is great for a two week holiday. Full stop.
Fernando wrote:
As I say, Portugal is great for a two week holiday. Full stop.
Provided you don’t fly there!
This tax, if true, is bonkers. It probably originated from wanting to hinder business jets – which is in the crosshairs of many ecologists and populists – but only really manages to harm “smaller” general aviation.
The biggest worry about this, assuming it ain’t scam and comes into being, is the high risk of spreading to other parts of EU. Many a politician is dreaming of getting rich and famous, and GA is such an easy target…
The CRI certificate could suddenly become fashionable.
Qalupalik wrote:
The CRI certificate could suddenly become fashionable.
Every time the military has an accident its reported by them as having occurred on a “routine training mission” I think the same argument could be made for most GA operations.
The new tax appears to be roughly the same as the fuel cost for many light aircraft. Since the fuel cost is itself probably half tax, that means that the tax paid to fly a given distance is roughly three times the actual direct cost. That would be completely dystopian, although I must say I like @etn’s “bonkers” description too.
We had such things before. More than 20 years ago there were “plans” of introducing a 7000 DM VFR charge in Germany for the purpose of covering costs for ATC service. Never went through…
For the few GA in Portugal – how much of bureaucracy would that mean for so little “value” (financial and environmental). (Some) politicians spread all sorts of bull***, apparently sometimes merely for the purpose to put themself in the spotlight.
That said it could be a threat anyway, so it might be appropriate for AOPA to interfere or at least investigate as early as possible. That’s what I pay for with my membership fee…
The problem is that there is no effective “AOPA” in Europe.
The German one does a little bit. They do good fly-ins to Mali Losinj 
The others are totally useless. AOPA US would never let this happen but they have 10x more pilots potentially paying dues than all of Europe. Actually paying, it is probably 100x more
It’s a real danger. In Portugal, GA is tiny and there is thus no representation. Look at what happened in Italy, and that is a bigger GA community (although nowadays mostly UL) and closer to home. Then Elba did something else, just for Elba.
And then Switzerland had a go
It reminds me of :
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
UdoR wrote:
You just have to finally understand the shining reasons beneath the surface. Go and meditate on this and light will come.
You got me thinking 
There is no fundamental right to fly, as there is no right to drive. Otherwise we wouldn’t have licenses.
And a possibility given by the law can be taken by law. So it is totally possible to forbid flying.
So our only chance is persuasion of a large-enough majority. But for now we are just becoming a scapegoat.
IMHO, the climate discussion is questioning many activities we took for granted.
This discussion is worthy a thread
Jujupilote wrote:
There is no fundamental right to fly, as there is no right to drive. Otherwise we wouldn’t have licenses.
Both fundamental rights and licensing vary a great deal depending on the country in which you live. In the US we have Federally issued pilot certificates (i.e. documenting competency, no license issued or necessary) for the exact reason that while aviation is interstate commerce and therefore a Federal responsibility the founders of the country understood the issues with government licenses and how they can enable the removal of basic rights and opportunities by law makers. In response it was made it very difficult for the Federal government to set up a licensing process for individuals. The intent was to ensure that the Federal government cannot restructure a class of licenses to arbitrarily remove e.g. the population’s basic right to leave the surface of the earth if we want to, as long as individuals prove their competency.
The compromise that allowed some level of government licensing and control was to make it generally a state government function, with the intent that if an individual does not like a given state’s policy he can vote with his feet by moving to a different state. That then reigns in the states if they want anybody to live there. Of course with driver’s licenses and some other things the states attempt to collaborate to remove the possibility for an individual to move freely outside of a given state’s licensing control… but I digress.
Jujupilote wrote:
MHO, the climate discussion is questioning many activities we took for granted.
The ‘climate’ issue is very clearly being used as a tool to consolidate power, confiscate individual’s money and remove individual freedom. This tax in Portugal is laughably crude and I’d guess it will likely be mitigated somehow, but it shows the hand of those with these anti-social objectives.
