Easyjets Response To H.M Governments White Paper

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by The Equalizer, Dec 16, 2003.

  1. easyJet hails Aviation White Paper as step in the right direction
    easyJet has welcomed the UK Government's decision to provide for a second
    runway at London Stansted Airport, announced today by Alistair Darling,
    Secretary of State for Transport.

    It is encouraging that the Government has put forward a far-sighted agenda
    which strikes the right balance between enabling the sustainable growth of
    UK aviation and meeting the industry's environmental responsibilities.
    easyJet congratulated the Government for paving the way towards an aviation
    emissions trading scheme, which will provide the most efficient incentives
    for the industry to ultimately reduce its environmental impact.

    easyJet also congratulated the Government for its recognition that Air
    Passenger Duty (APD) is an inappropriate way of mitigating the environmental
    impact of aviation. However, easyJet believes now is the time for the
    Government to address the distortions in the current APD regime. The airline
    has long argued that APD, like almost all other taxes, should be related to
    the fare paid, rather than the current flat rate (£5 per passenger for
    flights to the UK and continental European destinations), which
    discriminates against airlines offering low-fares and provides no incentive
    for the aviation industry to take steps to reduce its environmental impact.
    We are encouraged that the Secretary of State has committed to introduce
    differential charges to reward airlines that operate the cleanest and
    quietest aircraft.

    Ray Webster, easyJet Chief Executive, said:

    "Of all the places where a new runway could have gone in the near-term in
    the South East of England, Stansted is the most obvious choice. It is the
    airport that has been identified for long-term expansion and will avoid the
    constraints particular to Heathrow Airport.

    "Providing the funding of the new infrastructure comes from those who are
    going to use it, without cross-subsidisation from other users or airports,
    this should be welcomed by all parts of the industry.

    "The Government is right not to expand Heathrow at this current time. Rather
    than laying concrete, the Government should be doing everything it can to
    eliminate the 40% of all Heathrow slots that are used for connecting
    short-haul to long-haul services.

    "Customers are already voting with their feet and moving away from Heathrow
    for short-haul point-to-point travel in favour of low-cost airlines at more
    efficient airports. Beyond that, the European Commission is currently
    negotiating 'open skies' agreements with a number of countries which should
    result in a growth in the number of long-haul point-to-point services and a
    reduction in wasteful and unnecessary connecting services.

    "This could result in a dramatic change in how Heathrow is used over the
    coming years. In due course, it may become apparent that additional runways
    are not actually needed."

    On the issue of changes to the tax regime of the industry, Ray said:

    "In our view, instead of having a blanket rate, APD should be proportional
    to the fare paid by the passenger. This would be a first step towards making
    APD a more efficient tax - for some passengers, this should mean a decrease
    in the amount of tax paid for a particular journey. I just don't think we
    should be penalised for offering our customers great fares.

    "It should also be noted that, at the current flat rate of £5, APD already
    represents a tax rate of over 110% on the fuel used on easyJet's domestic
    air journeys - no other form of transport, including cars, pays that
    proportion of tax on its fuel.

    "easyJet has long argued that APD should also be hypothecated to make it a
    real environmental tax. This would be along the lines of the polluter-pays
    principle whereby dirtier carriers are penalised whilst providing incentives
    for the cleaner and quieter ones. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that more
    can be done to improve the industry's environmental performance. Going
    forward, easyJet wholeheartedly supports any concrete moves towards
    facilitating an emissions trading scheme for the industry. This is something
    we have called for and will continue to push at the UK and EU level. easyJet
    has always been prepared to pay for its environmental costs. We already
    operate one of the youngest and most modern fleet in the world. This,
    coupled with our high passenger loads, means that our noise and fuel
    emissions levels are significantly better than most airlines."
     
    The Equalizer, Dec 16, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. OOOPS WRONG NEWSGROUP
    SORRY

    "The Equalizer" <> wrote in message
    news:EYEDb.1469$9.net...
    > easyJet hails Aviation White Paper as step in the right direction
    > easyJet has welcomed the UK Government's decision to provide for a second
    > runway at London Stansted Airport, announced today by Alistair Darling,
    > Secretary of State for Transport.
    >
    > It is encouraging that the Government has put forward a far-sighted agenda
    > which strikes the right balance between enabling the sustainable growth of
    > UK aviation and meeting the industry's environmental responsibilities.
    > easyJet congratulated the Government for paving the way towards an

    aviation
    > emissions trading scheme, which will provide the most efficient incentives
    > for the industry to ultimately reduce its environmental impact.
    >
    > easyJet also congratulated the Government for its recognition that Air
    > Passenger Duty (APD) is an inappropriate way of mitigating the

    environmental
    > impact of aviation. However, easyJet believes now is the time for the
    > Government to address the distortions in the current APD regime. The

    airline
    > has long argued that APD, like almost all other taxes, should be related

    to
    > the fare paid, rather than the current flat rate (£5 per passenger for
    > flights to the UK and continental European destinations), which
    > discriminates against airlines offering low-fares and provides no

    incentive
    > for the aviation industry to take steps to reduce its environmental

    impact.
    > We are encouraged that the Secretary of State has committed to introduce
    > differential charges to reward airlines that operate the cleanest and
    > quietest aircraft.
    >
    > Ray Webster, easyJet Chief Executive, said:
    >
    > "Of all the places where a new runway could have gone in the near-term in
    > the South East of England, Stansted is the most obvious choice. It is the
    > airport that has been identified for long-term expansion and will avoid

    the
    > constraints particular to Heathrow Airport.
    >
    > "Providing the funding of the new infrastructure comes from those who are
    > going to use it, without cross-subsidisation from other users or airports,
    > this should be welcomed by all parts of the industry.
    >
    > "The Government is right not to expand Heathrow at this current time.

    Rather
    > than laying concrete, the Government should be doing everything it can to
    > eliminate the 40% of all Heathrow slots that are used for connecting
    > short-haul to long-haul services.
    >
    > "Customers are already voting with their feet and moving away from

    Heathrow
    > for short-haul point-to-point travel in favour of low-cost airlines at

    more
    > efficient airports. Beyond that, the European Commission is currently
    > negotiating 'open skies' agreements with a number of countries which

    should
    > result in a growth in the number of long-haul point-to-point services and

    a
    > reduction in wasteful and unnecessary connecting services.
    >
    > "This could result in a dramatic change in how Heathrow is used over the
    > coming years. In due course, it may become apparent that additional

    runways
    > are not actually needed."
    >
    > On the issue of changes to the tax regime of the industry, Ray said:
    >
    > "In our view, instead of having a blanket rate, APD should be proportional
    > to the fare paid by the passenger. This would be a first step towards

    making
    > APD a more efficient tax - for some passengers, this should mean a

    decrease
    > in the amount of tax paid for a particular journey. I just don't think we
    > should be penalised for offering our customers great fares.
    >
    > "It should also be noted that, at the current flat rate of £5, APD already
    > represents a tax rate of over 110% on the fuel used on easyJet's domestic
    > air journeys - no other form of transport, including cars, pays that
    > proportion of tax on its fuel.
    >
    > "easyJet has long argued that APD should also be hypothecated to make it a
    > real environmental tax. This would be along the lines of the polluter-pays
    > principle whereby dirtier carriers are penalised whilst providing

    incentives
    > for the cleaner and quieter ones. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that more
    > can be done to improve the industry's environmental performance. Going
    > forward, easyJet wholeheartedly supports any concrete moves towards
    > facilitating an emissions trading scheme for the industry. This is

    something
    > we have called for and will continue to push at the UK and EU level.

    easyJet
    > has always been prepared to pay for its environmental costs. We already
    > operate one of the youngest and most modern fleet in the world. This,
    > coupled with our high passenger loads, means that our noise and fuel
    > emissions levels are significantly better than most airlines."
    >
     
    The Equalizer, Dec 16, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. LnkWizard

    OT: Paper PC for Paper MCSE

    LnkWizard, Apr 2, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    686
  2. Gloria Goitre

    Your generosity is the target of Governments

    Gloria Goitre, Jan 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    360
    John Holmes
    Jan 27, 2005
  3. nobody nowhere

    Permajet paper and ink to replace Epson paper and ink?

    nobody nowhere, Aug 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,122
    Rafe B.
    Aug 31, 2003
  4. Alexco

    Photo paper - is IBM paper ok?

    Alexco, Oct 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    600
    Rafe B.
    Oct 6, 2003
  5. Mutlley
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    487
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Nov 22, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page