Sub 2t generate the same amount of paperwork as plus 2t don’t they? I receive my €0 bill every month by post, with about 5 pages of random bureaucratic info.
That illustrates my point about the cost of maintaining an accurate database of billable planes 
There are people with +2T who are billed and get c**p service as well
Sure, but the numbers are probably miniscule, since the virtual demise of the twin piston charter business.
I think the best strategy for small GA in a meeting of big commercial operators about route charges is to remain silent. That could be one topic where everyone present could get behind and the result probably wouldn’t be pretty.
Its how you look at it :-), green deal or not ?
My point is that, in life, you generally pay for the services you receive and it’s an anomaly that sub 2T for some reason is exempt. I have never seen a good argument, though there might be some merit to Peter’s third argument, that light GA is prone to go VFR in IMC conditions.
So when you’re getting an unfair advantage, let the sleeping dog lie rather than trying to expand it :-)
I don’t see what greenery has to do with anything? The ATC service is the same, no?
mmgreve wrote:
My point is that, in life, you generally pay for the services you receive and it’s an anomaly that sub 2T for some reason is exempt. I have never seen a good argument, though there might be some merit to Peter’s third argument, that light GA is prone to go VFR in IMC conditions.
Under the current formulas, Eurocontrol charges are proportional to the square root of MTOW for route charges and MTOW to the power of 0.7 for terminal charges, whereas one can assume the usage value provided by an aircraft to its operator to be more or less proportional to MTOW. Accordingly, without the 2-tonne exemption, the charges are disproportionately high for the lighter aircraft.
mmgreve wrote:
My point is that, in life, you generally pay for the services you receive and it’s an anomaly that sub 2T for some reason is exempt. I have never seen a good argument, though there might be some merit to Peter’s third argument, that light GA is prone to go VFR in IMC conditions.
Don’t forget that unlike the turbine operators, sub 2T piston engined planes are paying a LOT more tax on fuel, and in return basically get nothing.
Perhaps the charging scheme should be avgas burner = no charge, due to the duty and VAT they already pay.
Perhaps the charging scheme should be avgas burner = no charge, due to the duty and VAT they already pay.
Nice proposal but Eurocontrol couldn’t care less for it mineral oil tax and VAT are state income while airway route charges go to Eurocontrol (shared with national ATC) and terminal charges I guess go directly to national ATC.
If you look at this table at exemptions you will see that it is more complicated than just a sub 2T exemption and includes VFR flights in most countries. If the VFR exemption was withdrawen or reshaped it could be disastrous for much private light GA.
When I used to operate a Parisjet, domestic flights in France were also exempt which made an early refuel at Cherbourg or Deauville worthwhile, is that still the case?
alioth wrote:
Don’t forget that unlike the turbine operators, sub 2T piston engined planes are paying a LOT more tax on fuel
Sadly, thats not the case, Avtur fuel duty is paid to HMRC as part of the Avtur Fuel Duty Return at 59.75p litre / or risk a substantial fine by ignoring it.
quatrelle wrote:
Sadly, thats not the case, Avtur fuel duty is paid to HMRC as part of the Avtur Fuel Duty Return at 59.75p litre / or risk a substantial fine by ignoring it.
The HMRC isn’t the only tax authority in Europe. This is EuroGA, after all…
Also the 59.75p/l duty on jet fuel in itself doesn’t mean that AVGAS isn’t more heavily taxed even in the UK.
