Peter wrote:
What I was getting at is whether they voted for a genuine concern for the environment (which is actually a very complex picture) or whether it was a vote motivated by something else e.g. bizjet envy.
You mean the 49% who accepted it? I’d say quite a few out of genuine concern, some are genuine socialists who wish to change society. Biz jet envy I’d say was not on anyone’s mind here, however, airline travel was. So out of those 49% a sizable number was very much ok with restricting airline travel massively and if possible eliminate it. And quite some are literally scared enough of the doom and gloom of climate change to vote for anything helping to atone for their perceived sins.
Peter wrote:
Every country – Switzerland included, despite popular belief – has its share of “poor people” and if you present an issue the “right way” you can get them to vote whichever way.
I’d say we have lower, middle and upper income classes like everyone else. And I’d also say that a lot of Swiss are quite aware of their financial situation and what is tolerable and what not and they had a pretty clear picture what would happen. Don’t forget: We already have high fuel taxes and the last two hikes were introduced climate related already, people don’t easily forget this. Those who said yes: I’d say a large share of them simply said enough is enough, combined with the opinion that taxing things to death won’t help the environment but the loss of economic wellbeing might do the opposite. Greens will call this egoistic, I’d call it self-preservation.
Both sides operated with fear. That is normal. And some quite rightly feared for their livelyhood. Yet I think out of the 51 % No voters most simply looked at the issue, said this is not what we want and that is it. They reckognized it for what it was, a socialist redistribution scheme, so they binned it.
Well, a huge majority of the population cared enough about it to go to the ballot boxes. That definitly shows a different picture.
What I was getting at is whether they voted for a genuine concern for the environment (which is actually a very complex picture) or whether it was a vote motivated by something else e.g. bizjet envy. Every country – Switzerland included, despite popular belief – has its share of “poor people” and if you present an issue the “right way” you can get them to vote whichever way.
Peter wrote:
I very much doubt the average Joe Public in the street cares at all about CO2 etc.
Well, a huge majority of the population cared enough about it to go to the ballot boxes. That definitly shows a different picture.
And I do think much more than the 49% who voted for the law cares about the environment.
And obviously they do care very much what is being proposed to be done to them and what it would mean. In this case, a majority felt that the taxation orgy proposed to “regulate” CO2 output by taxing everything emitting CO2 to death would cause massive economical damage to them as well as to a lot of industries. They realized that simple things such as owning a car, going on a family vaccation or heating your house would become unaffordable. With a major attack on the oil price via artificial increase of price, the middle and lower incomes would be fleeced to the point where they exactly can NOT improve their houses or cars to newer technologies but would most likely in the medium term loose both.
Improving technology and spreading it out to people needs lots of cash. To take away the cash from the people will cause the opposite. Hence the people decided to stop this red-green taxation attack on their purses.
Looking at where Switzerland stands, people are very well capable of their own decisions. Teslas and other electric cars are a common picture nowadays, so are hybrids. People do invest in insulation of their houses and change oil burners for thermopumps when the technical need exists. There is no need to tax those who can’t afford to do this into poverty, it would cause the opposite effect. If the state wishes to give incentives, it should be in the form of either subsidies to people who want to invest but are not financially capable (this is being done on a cantonal level i.e. for insulation of houses) or in relaxation of building permit standards (i.e. to make it harder for neighbours and others to stop you from getting planning permission for insulations, solar heatings e.t.c.) and similar things. Incentives should show people what is in it for them, not punish those who are anyway on the lower end of society.
For me, this law was a pivotal decision point whether I could stay in this country or have to consider emigration after retirement. I could neither have kept my house, nor afford to drive and certainly not to fly with the new fuel and heating taxes as well as other punishments the law had. We would have been severely restricted in visiting our relatives in Bulgaria with the flying taxes which would most probably have caused connections to be scrubbed and, for our 3 head family, to increase ticket prices to double of what we pay now. It would have certainly meant that keeping flying would be impossible. This way, I can now thing about how to modernize slowly but surely by insulating and eventually going away from my oil heating. If my 30 year old car eventually will need replacement, I may well go electric if an affordable 2nd hand car becomes available, who knows. Had I had to give all the money I can put aside for such things to the state so they can redistribute it into climate fonds and other obscure redistribution schemes, that would have been totally impossible.
We dodged a major bullet yesterday not only by rejecting this but also by rejecting 2 more initiatives which would have finished off our farmers. So I think yesterday was a good day.
Gulfstream owners can also breathe a sigh of relief 😅. But nonetheless, it’s good that such symbolic politics get rejected. I have little hope that will change after this rejection though, people will keep using aviation as a scapegoat to project their bad conscience and use it as enemy image, even if a complete halt of all aviation in Switzerland would do nothing to halt climate change.
I very much doubt the average Joe Public in the street cares at all about CO2 etc. There are other issues which are much more divisive, like the one we know about 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
there is still hope that the whole law will be killed by the population. Chances for that are not too bad as the law would also allow a massive tax in automotive fuels and heating oil, making life for every citizen much more expensive.
We are very carefully starting to breathe again. It looks like the CO2 legislation has been rejected with approximately 51% of the public vote.
Nevertheless, this leaves a deeply divided country yet again. At least for the moment, those with lower and middle class income may breathe a sigh of relief today.
Just one more thing that comes to my mind: you have to be within +/- 15 minutes of your slot time VFR. IFR you have to call clearance delivery in a 5 minute window.
speed wrote:
Hi,I’m planning to visit LSZH during July. What charges should I expect?
I will be landing and having lunch with a friend. Then we will be back to LFLI.
Any tips for handling and how to get in and out of the airport?
You can expect around 30CHF for landing fees depending on noise class, MTOW etc. (C172 1089kg MTOW noise class D 32.35CHF)
and 65CHF for handling fees via MFGZ which is the cheapest at LSZH (https://mfgz.ch/de/general-aviation-handling-zurich-airport-kloten-en/ and https://mfgzallink-live-d35e265fc77f4052ae81e7-5a2c15b.aldryn-media.com/filer_public/fe/81/fe815473-4b00-4f7b-bc79-63639d23d62a/price-list-handling2020.pdf). Additionally there is a passenger fee of 18.65CHF per passenger. IFR there might be some approach charges by Skyguide. There are security checks going to the apron and your handler will take you to and from the airplane.
You need a slot (VFR and IFR) which can only be arranged via telephone earliest the day before. The slot office opens at 0600UTC (08:00 LT) in the morning so be sure to call around that time, depending on when you want to go slots can be gone soon (number is limited, cf. AIP). Telephone number is: 0041 43 816 46 37
Here are the times for slots in the summer https://www.zurich-airport.com/~/media/flughafenzh/dokumente/business_und_partner/flugbetrieb/overview_airport_slots_summer_actype_20190918_en.pdf
Note that currently some restrictions regarding slot times are lifted (see NOTAM) however the number of total amount of slot has not changed.
VFR you also need to do an online course (Web based training – slot office might ask for WBT): https://elearning.zurich-airport.com/login
ATC flight plans are mandatory and times have to match your slot time and you have to put “RMK/Handling mfg” in field 18.
Feel free to PM me if you have more questions.
Hi,
I’m planning to visit LSZH during July. What charges should I expect?
I will be landing and having lunch with a friend. Then we will be back to LFLI.
Any tips for handling and how to get in and out of the airport?
