Boom! Rachael Reeves....

[icowden]

Were those flights actually carrying passengers whose sole purpose was to get to to London?
I suspect they belong to operators based at Farnborough and position to one of the London airports to pick up people who've hired the aircraft.

From what I can gather from google, if you have come transcontinental from say the US to London and finished your business, you can then take an executive jet to Farnborough's luxury business hub before getting another executive jet from there into Europe or up North.

 

[Mark999]

The more cost effective method can not negate the environmental concerns. It really need to be stopped.

This talk of 'high value individuals' is nonsense. This is a group of people saying that their human rights are greater than the great unwashed as they tend to view the rest of us.

They can fark right off with those entitlements. It isn't wealth that's trickling down, it's their

If the tax is high enough, your method won't be cost-effective.
(and even before that stage, at least we're getting the Polluter to Pay. win-win!)

Comprendez?

Perhaps we shall see further increases, of a significant magnitude to make this method non cost effective.

 

[Psamathe]

When you book a flight on Google flights each flight includes a CO2 (per person) figure. If Reeves refuses to acknowledge the urgency to act over Climate Change and tax aviation fuel, maybe she could recognise to potential revenue from a flight tax based on the emissions per person (which I suspect would discourage less essential use of private jets).

And even though I'm a driver that still uses petrol, I'm very disappointed she's maintaining the fuel tax freeze. Made worse by a 50% increase in bus fare cap. What she's done is encourage increased car use when we should be discouraging it. Big hike in fuel tax needed and put the escalator back for automatic year on year increases (all of which will also impact me - but them the Climate Change impact will undoubtedly impact me more).

Ian