"Just stop oil"

robj20 said:
They wouldn't refuse completely only that he'd need to change his t-shirt.
Click to expand...
I believe (happy to be corrected) that the decision is with the Pilot, ultimately, as to who can board. If they think you might be a risk, in any way, they can just point blank refuse you entry.

Wearing a just stop oil t-shirt would be fair game to refuse entry for most pilots, I would assume :D Why would you take the risk?
 
jpaul said:
Aviation it is legit to demand why aviation fuel isn't taxed like petrol - disproportionate climate damage prerogative for the few ,
Click to expand...

It's subject to an international agreement for international flights but AFAIK it can be taxed domestically. I don't think the UK does so (we have some passenger duty for all flights) but the US does for domestic.

I think also there could be local taxes applied, I dunno if it's within the remit for say the Scottish government but US States can apply taxes where the US Federal Government isn't able to because of international agreements so maybe the devolved UK governments could too (if they have tax powers over that domain.)
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
I believe (happy to be corrected) that the decision is with the Pilot, ultimately, as to who can board. If they think you might be a risk, in any way, they can just point blank refuse you entry.

Wearing a just stop oil t-shirt would be fair game to refuse entry for most pilots, I would assume :D Why would you take the risk?
Click to expand...

Correct, the responsibility of the plane is the captains, its why they also carry out visual checks, run books etc etc.


The captain is the ultimate authority in the aircraft. They make critical decisions, oversee the entire flight, and are responsible for the safety of everyone on board. Pilots, on the other hand, may assist the captain, but they do not have the final decision-making authority or ultimate responsibility.
 
SupraWez said:
Correct, the responsibility of the plane is the captains, its why they also carry out visual checks, run books etc etc.


The captain is the ultimate authority in the aircraft. They make critical decisions, oversee the entire flight, and are responsible for the safety of everyone on board. Pilots, on the other hand, may assist the captain, but they do not have the final decision-making authority or ultimate responsibility.
Click to expand...
just so long as both the Captain and the co pilot dont eat the fish!.
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
and you can bet your bottom $ this would be exploited by wealthy people who want to travel that it was all for "work".
Click to expand...
yes you are right Davos - I doubt Buffet ski's ? for business travellers their companies can pay the employees carbon bill,
but, yes, I think JSO have more right to be stuck on the runways than roads (Starship lift off could be risky)

jpaul said:
aschwanden-feature-aschwanden-aviation-1.png

denver nyc 1700miles
Click to expand...
 
Like I said I highly doubt they flat out refuse boarding the attendant would ask them to change the t-shirt if that was the problem the captain would only be brought in if they refused. Then yes they'd flat out refuse at that point.
 
Malt_Vinegar said:
Well, that would make my life (and anyone else who flew often for work) a little more difficult :D... It would also mean that if I flew for work, I could not fly with my family for holiday?

Not to mention decimation of international trade.
Click to expand...
Never mind a little more difficult, it would make my job impossible. I absolutely have to fly more than twice a year for my work, sometimes more than twice a month. Our entire company would cease to exist without being able to fly more than twice a year for its employees :)
 
jpaul said:
Solar and on shore wind similar price, just need those dam batteries to accompany them at 4x the cost/mwh
Click to expand...

We have disused coal mine shafts all over the North East of England, some of them go down 1,000 metres. Maybe they could be converted into gravity batteries to store power from the wind turbines for periods when there is no wind. Gravity batteries are very efficient compared to chemical batteries and the deep holes already exist so there must be some cost savings.
 
bigmike20vt said:
it can be cheaper to fly from london to newcastle than it is to get the train....
Click to expand...

An Italian colleague of mine takes cheap flights to Germany and Italy regularly. He says he last-minute-books flights leaving at unsociable times like 3/4/5 AM (that have cancellations/unfilled seats) which sometimes only cost him £10. The train/bus to the airport costs him more than the 800 - 1,500 miles long flight!
 
Maple Leaf said:
An Italian colleague of mine takes cheap flights to Germany and Italy regularly. He says he last-minute-books flights leaving at unsociable times like 3/4/5 AM (that have cancellations/unfilled seats) which sometimes only cost him £10. The train/bus to the airport costs him more than the 800 - 1,500 miles long flight!
Click to expand...
to argue against my own position there is a good argument that if the plane is flying anyway then it makes sense to have a bum on a seat vs leaving it empty.

so it isnt totally black and white, however over all i think there should be a minimum fee for all flights which are tax and go to some green government initiative, and if that means more empty seats then so be it. i know there is an air tax but it is pretty negligible.
 
Tombstone said:
Never mind a little more difficult, it would make my job impossible. I absolutely have to fly more than twice a year for my work, sometimes more than twice a month. Our entire company would cease to exist without being able to fly more than twice a year for its employees :)
Click to expand...
indeed a cart blanche rule would never work.... and a woolly rule would be exploited so it is a none starter.

however (and i am not talking for your work specifically) but in general i think it is a fairly safe argument that there are a lot of totally unnessesary business trips, either for schmoozing possible clients or having face to face meetings which could be done over zoom or what ever.

I know our place has massively cut back on air travel abroad for their outreach and in some ways it has been a positive. a lot of our live training courses are now done over zoom and it means we can reach way more people in areas we otherwise would have ignored.

YMMY of course,
 
bigmike20vt said:
indeed a cart blanche rule would never work.... and a woolly rule would be exploited so it is a none starter.

however (and i am not talking for your work specifically) but in general i think it is a fairly safe argument that there are a lot of totally unnessesary business trips, either for schmoozing possible clients or having face to face meetings which could be done over zoom or what ever.

I know our place has massively cut back on air travel abroad for their outreach and in some ways it has been a positive. a lot of our live training courses are now done over zoom and it means we can reach way more people in areas we otherwise would have ignored.

YMMY of course,
Click to expand...
Yeah ours is a necessity due to the extremely high level of security involved. The organisations/governments that we work with operate at such a high level of security that absolutely no remote access to their sites or systems is allowed, which means that we must go to the locations. There's simply no alternative to being there physically.
 
To be fair, air travel only accounts for 2.5% of global emissions. It is also incredibly difficult to reduce.

Road transport is 15% and the technology to make it completely zero emission already exists. The question isn’t if, it’s how quickly the transition happens.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
To be fair, air travel only accounts for 2.5% of global emissions. It is also incredibly difficult to reduce.

Road transport is 15% and the technology to make it completely zero emission already exists. The question isn’t if, it’s how quickly the transition happens.
Click to expand...

So air travel alone accounts for multiple times more emission than the whole UK but that's OK, its only 2.5%?
 
SupraWez said:
So air travel alone accounts for multiple times more emission than the whole UK but that's OK, its only 2.5%?
Click to expand...
Sorry but your post isn’t even GD worthy but I’ll take the bait.

No. At no point did I ever say that. However I also live in the real world where I recognise aviation plays a huge role in the global economy.

Castrating it will only ever work as an act of self harm to the nations that take such measures. We need to global economy to work towards fixing the big issues where we actually have viable solutions.

If all we have left in 30 years time is aviation and global shipping which use fossil fuels, I think we can all give our selves a bit of a pat on the back, while not finished yet, it would still be a job well done.

Frankly I don’t think we will make that much progress in the next 30 years. All we can do is aim high and hope we don’t miss by too wide a margin.
 
Even if air travel only represents 1/6th of ground travel Carbon impact, money from correcting it's disproportionate fuel taxation could be used to improve vehicle ev infrastructure&deployment,

I thought ozone impact of air travel too (special engine oils is it) were also more damaging than ground vehicle travel, increasing radiation hitting earth (so climate damaging on other planes)


Roll on individual road pollution taxing too - my £400ved for a 220g car, hurts, when I've only been doing maybe 4K a year post covid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom