U.S. airlines cry foul over new EU rule(EU banned U.S aircraft climate change)

“The problem is that the EU will apply environmental taxes to flight operations outside their territorial space,”

Why did we toss tea into the boston harbor?

See through the ploy? Just another attempt to boost EU based carriers!

The Airbust A319, A320 and A330 are great aircraft for the first 4 to 6 years. After that they become an airline mechanics nightmare!

We may have Europe in the lead for a few years or so. See how long this lasts. Idiots.

“The whole thing is about punishing anybody who dares to use any form of fossil fuel to travel, do business, or just live,” said Mike Boyd,

Finally after all this time someone finally speaks up and tells the truth.

Looks more to me like they want "to unilaterally compel" us to buy their crappy airplanes.

Not at all! Airbuses are no more efficient than 757s and certainly a full 787.

I can't believe more people don't comment on this.

All airlines ... can exceed those limits, but they would have to pay for permits to do so. ...upwards of $4.5 billion a year to bring airlines into what’s known as the European Emissions Trading Scheme,

THEY DON'T CARE WHAT THE TOTAL EMISSIONS ARE.

"CREDITS" and "TRADING" are just new words for TAX...you can pollute as much as you want to PAY THEM FOR.

It's such a blatant in-our-face nonsense grab.

“The whole thing is about punishing anybody who dares to use any form of fossil fuel to travel, do business, or just live,”

Doesn't Obama say we rely too much on oil? So what's the problem? Let's develop solar, wind, and other green power for airplanes! We have a few years until 2012 to get it done!

What’s it going to take for the truth to prevail that there is no global warming and “green house gas” isn’t causing anything?

my guess is that it will take making public education a felony!

U.S. airlines cry foul over new EU rule
Regulation that places tough pollution standards on air carriers may spur legal action against the European Union.
By Shelley Emling

Cox International Correspondent

Saturday, November 08, 2008

London —- A new European Union rule imposing tougher pollution limits on U.S. airlines violates international law and will likely result in a legal challenge, U.S. government officials say.

All airlines flying in or out of the EU will have to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, a gas considered a major contributor to global warming, by 3 percent in 2012 and by 5 percent starting the next year. They can exceed those limits, but they would have to pay for permits to do so.

U.S. airlines are outraged, saying that complying with the rule will raise costs for their passengers and threaten their survival during a severe recession.

“The whole thing is about punishing anybody who dares to use any form of fossil fuel to travel, do business, or just live,” said Mike Boyd, an aviation industry consultant with the Boyd Group in Evergreen, Colo. “In this matter, the EU is nothing more than a PTA on steroids. Airlines are in for tough times.”

The top three U.S. international carriers —- Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines and Texas-based American Airlines and Continental Airlines —- say they’ve asked the Air Transport Association to speak on their behalf in this matter.

“Masquerading under the banner of supposedly ‘protecting’ the environment, these measures threaten to stifle the growth of the industry, compromise our environmental progress and, ultimately, raise prices for consumers, leaving them to take alternative, less safe, higher-emitting modes of transportation,” ATA President James May said.

He said the EU action violates the Chicago Convention of 1944 under which nations agreed to work cooperatively on aviation.

In a phone interview, Carl Burleson, director of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Environment and Energy, said the EU rule violates international law and reverses the progress being made with ongoing fuel-efficiency and environmental innovations.

He said if the EU fails to respond to a recent letter outlining the U.S. government’s opposition to the new rule, the matter likely would be brought before a global governing body.

“The problem is that the EU wants to unilaterally compel the United States and others into their system,” he said.

Burleson noted that in the late 1990s, the EU banned aircraft fitted with noise-reducing devices called hush kits. The United States complained to the International Civil Aviation Organization, a group affiliated with the United Nations, and eventually the EU withdrew its ban.

“The only difference in the current case is that there is much broader opposition to what the EU is doing this time around,” Burleson said.

Critics claim it would cost upwards of $4.5 billion a year to bring airlines into what’s known as the European Emissions Trading Scheme, part of a broader EU scheme to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020, from 1990 levels.

EU interior ministers who approved the measure last month say they are only looking out for the environment.

“The main objective of the new law is to reduce the impact of aviation on climate change, given the rapid growth of this sector,” they said in a statement.

Cait Weston, a spokesperson for the nonprofit Aviation Environment Federation in London, said in a statement that air travel is “a significant and rapidly growing source of dangerous greenhouse gas emissions.”

“With two-thirds of the emissions from flights that either take off from or land in Europe coming from intercontinental flights, it would have greatly reduced the effectiveness of the scheme if only European airlines had been covered,” Weston said.

Critics point out that aircraft currently produce only about 3 percent of all European greenhouse gas emissions, although the European Commission has said that rate could double by 2020.

“And while the EU has experienced rapid growth in emissions, the United States hasn’t,” Burleson said. “We don’t need any additional marketing incentives because we’re already done a pretty good job.”

Patrick Murphy, a principal of aviation consulting firm Gerchick Murphy Associates in Washington, also expects airlines to consider legal action.

“The problem is that the EU will apply environmental taxes to flight operations outside their territorial space,” he said. “For example, a flight from Los Angeles to London will be taxed for its entire trip length even though nearly all the flying is in U.S., Canadian, and international air space.”