Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Welcome to our forums

Switzerland to introduce a 500 CHF tax per private flight

This is like the Italian luxury tax of some years ago. You would get a parking bill in 4 figures after being on the ground for 30 days. This was gradually modified, eventually getting an exemption if the aircraft was AOGd and was being worked on by an Italian maintenance company Later it was abandoned.

Let’s hope that this mad proposal dies too.

We live in difficult times, dominated by virtue signalling.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

LetSnoopy wrote:

My feeling is nothing is gonna happen

The Swiss were able to ban car racing for 50 years. I don’t judge that decision, but it shows the ability to take non-standard steps.

I look at developed countries as a sign of what’ll be happening elsewhere later. In that context, this is bad news for all of us. Or good news for those that don’t like noise and smoke.

LPFR, Poland

Are you talking about this:

Then where does it say 500 CHF? It says the tax should be commensurate with the external effects on the climate, whatever that means, but how do you infer that it would apply to gliders?

Not to say that I am extremely disappointed that the members of all but one Swiss parties have voted for this idiocy. But where do you get these facts?

Rwy20 wrote:

Then where does it say 500 CHF?

Check out this:

Art. 38gquater Abs. 1
Die Privatflugabgabe beträgt 500 Franken.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

This is part of a CO2 legislation which, if passed, will change life in this country massively.

Isn’t that the intention?

Peter wrote:

dominated by virtue signalling

As I said in another thread, Virtue Signalling, like Godwin’s Law and Fake News are now tropes of the Right to ensure that nothing bad changes.

This may or may not be required, but shouldn’t we engage more with its intention and effect than just coming up with tropes?

EGKB Biggin Hill


when I translate the link of the previous mail in French (to understand the text) then in English for this mail, I admit that nothing is very clear in the end because the federal constitution or the international agreements seem to oppose it in part …. and it seems to me that there is mainly question of commercial air transport .

Is this text reported by RW20 which is the subject ?
But there is no doubt that the authorities of our European countries, to please their people, will have to at least pretend, if not more, to make decisions supposed to regulate global warming (at least its part in connection with industrialization). ) … and our poor general aviation is not a politically interesting socio-economic deposit.

The Federal Council is instructed to submit a draft of a decree of the Federal Assembly establishing a levy, fee or tax deduction in civil aviation, which takes into account the climate impact and transfers its follow-up costs to the passengers. Where international or national instruments with a similar purpose exist (eg emissions trading schemes or aviation taxes), the levy / fee / incentive tax should be agreed with them. The funds raised could be used, in whole or in part, for measures to improve environmental protection in air traffic and for climate protection measures.
Switzerland is not doing well in terms of climate protection in international comparison. An innovative and sustainable economy must play an exemplary role in this global problem. The CO2 emissions of traffic in Switzerland remain at the level of 1990. It is also very worrying that the emissions of air traffic continue to rise at high speed. If we want to leave an intact world for our children, we must take the helm and act swiftly on climate protection based on the polluter pays principle. Switzerland should continue to play a constructive and demanding role in achieving this goal at international level (eg Icao, UNFCCC, etc.) and must lead by example, as in the example of the CO2 levy on fuels or on the HVF has done
Aviation is privileged today: airlines do not pay fuel taxes on kerosene on international flights and passengers do not pay VAT for their tickets. In addition, airports have often been built using cheap or free government loans and privileges. Aviation not only benefits from indirect subsidies, but also benefits from a competitive advantage over other modes of transport such as night trains or long-distance buses.
The levy / fee / incentive tax should be based on the greenhouse effect of the corresponding flight, whereby appropriate categories can be formed based on the existing systems abroad.
Switzerland is doing well in an international comparison in terms of climate protection, especially with regard to CO2 emissions per capita. The International Civil Aviation Organization (Icao), along with Switzerland and the European states, have been working for a long time to minimize the climate impact of aviation. This is based on a four-pillar approach: technical measures to reduce aircraft fuel consumption, efficiency gains in aircraft operations, more direct flight route management and market-based measures. The way in which these measures are implemented in Switzerland is laid down in the Icao Action Plan for CO2 Reduction in Swiss Aviation. This regularly updated plan is part of the Federal Council’s Sustainable Development Strategy 2016-2019.
The aspect of privilege is relativized by a cross-comparison. The transnational nature of aviation and thus the more than 140 bilateral agreements between Switzerland and foreign states preclude the taxation of aviation fuels on international flights. At the same time, international rail and bus transport is exempt from VAT (Articles 41 to 43 of the VAT Regulation of 27 November 2009, SR 641.201). Furthermore, with few exceptions, no government funds are flowing into aviation, although scheduled air transport is recognized as part of public transport. Unlike other modes of transport, it does not benefit from subsidization by the public sector and largely bears its own internal costs.
As the Federal Council has already stated in earlier statements on similar initiatives (Motion Masshardt 13.3901, Postulate Lachenmeier-Thuringia 10.4006, Postulate Seiler Graf 17.3129 and Postulate Reynard 17.3080), a ticket delivery could bring undesirable economic and environmental consequences. The experience that traffic flows are being relocated abroad has led, for example, to the withdrawal of similar projects in the Netherlands and Denmark, and to a halving of the tax rate in Austria. At the moment, the UK is sticking to its environmental taxes, while France, Norway and Germany are sticking to their non-environmental charges. In addition, the Confederation may levy taxes only on the basis of an explicit basis in the Federal Constitution; there is no such basis for an air ticket tax.
As part of its climate policy, Switzerland has so far preferred the implementation of other internationally supported market-based measures. On 23 November 2017, for example, the Federal Council signed a bilateral agreement with the European Union which, as part of the linking of the emissions trading systems of Switzerland and the EU, also envisages the inclusion of aviation in the Swiss emissions trading system from 2020 onwards. In addition, as a member of the European Civil Aviation Conference (Ecac), Switzerland is supporting the launch of the Icao Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme (Corsia), which aims to substantially offset all CO2 emissions from international civil aviation above the 2020 level.
The creation of a constitutional basis for the introduction of a levy, fee or tax deduction in civil aviation is for the Federal Council from today’s perspective not in the foreground.
The Federal Council requests the rejection of the motion

LFPU, France

Vladimir wrote:

The Council of States of Switzerland has accepted a proposal to introduce a 500 CHF (~460 EUR) tax for each private flight in the country. If it passes also through the National Council and becomes a law, aviation in Switzerland is going to die very quickly.

Is this part of a larger package or does it only target avaiation? A flat rate tax which does not take into account actual CO2 emissions is obviously crazy and only “virtue-signalling”.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

tropes of the Right

Virtue signalling is rarely anything to do with the “right” wing in politics. Quite the opposite. Virtue signalling, along with most measures pretending to protect the environment, are firmly “left”. Social media is dominated by “left” virtue signalling.

A flat rate tax which does not take into account actual CO2 emissions is obviously crazy and only “virtue-signalling”.

Often, an aggressive proposition is made which nobody really thinks will be adopted, but it results in a compromise which is what the attacker wanted to start with. You get this in every walk of life. If you want to build a house you apply for a planning permission to build a skyscraper; this is refused but you may get the house If you want to do a €50 tax you go for €500. It’s like if the govt says they will cut off your legs and your balls, and leave you to sweat on it for a while, and then say they will only cut off your balls, you will have a big smile and post on every forum how nice and progressive this govt is (this is pretty well the path of EASA regulation since 2003)

I wonder whether this is the intention. Perhaps a €50 tax on every flight, airlines included.

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

This kind of stuff is contagious – how long before the French Parliament sees this as a Gilets Jaunes friendly way to score green points ?


Peter wrote:

Virtue signalling is rarely anything to do with the “right” wing in politics.

Clever fake news. It is the use of the expression that is the preserve of the Right.

EGKB Biggin Hill
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top