In Japan it is customary, almost mandatory, that a letter start with a reflection on the weather. It will then segue from that to the topic at hand. Forgive me a serious breach of Japanese social norms: frankly, the less said about the weather this summer the better. You risked freezing, incinerating and drowning, sometimes in the same week. It would have been a good year to stay home, except that was the last thing we wanted to do, or wanted others to do. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nonetheless, the decision to think that That Was The Week That Was could take a lazy six weeks to recharge and recuperate turned out to be brave \u2013 brave, that is, you will understand, in the sense of foolish. For a summer when nothing happens in Europe, a lot happened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It started on Bastille Day \u2013 no self-respecting European is at work on that day \u2013 when the Commission released its \u2018Fit for 55\u2019<\/a> package. It shows just how far apart the Commission, and in particular the Climate Change Directorate, is with the real world that they thought that a clever title. I defy anyone, anyone, who on reading that title did not think it was a bizarre health campaign \u2013 Fit for 55 what? Lengths of the pool? Laps of the oval? Kilometres? Kilos? A rework of the distance the Proclaimers would walk<\/a>? No, once disabused of that fanciful notion, you might think it obviously a reference to 2055! Oh no it was not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No, in what must be the most obscure title in Commission history \u2013 a competitive field \u2013 it was a reference to reducing our carbon emissions by 55%. Ah, obviously. By 2030. Ah, again; only this time ah, what? When? How much? Who thought this up?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rather than worry about the name, as worrisome as it is, the industry got itself back from the beach and into overdrive to point out that 2050 is the right timeframe. Indeed, 2050, the industry was quick to point out was our Destination<\/a>. And we do not like taxes. Taxes were also a part, a big part, of the Fit for 55 package when it came to aviation. That did not go down well. Nor did the suggestion of a carbon border adjustment mechanism so that competitors which flew into Europe had to pay an uplift to match the prices European airlines had to face. <\/p>\n\n\n\n You might think that a no-brainer for the European airlines. You might think that, but you would be wrong. If you thought that, it is clear that the holiday spirit lingers long in your body. Because such a move, even if it seems to make even the field on which the airlines compete would leave us that most horrible of all things \u2013 oh yes, an unlevel playing field! Dramatic music; spooky lighting; a scream somewhere off-screen. A tax would do that too, of course, and so the airline industry came out full throttle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n IATA assumed its now usual \u2018Willie Walsh as sage\u2019 position: this will be counter-productive<\/a> and clearly shows that the industry (or our DG anyway) knows much, much better… You may think that harsh, but it exactly the position taken when it comes to suggestions of slot rule changes<\/a>, and of international border restrictions<\/a>, to go back only into these six weeks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also right to praise the airport association ACI which took a moment to tell its regulators that they were wrong<\/a>, in that their Fit for 55 roadmap simply failed to align with the airline industry\u2019s plans. How very stupid the Commission is! Everyone is out of step except the aviation industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Fit for 55 plan safely seen off the agenda, at least according to the aviation industry, it was Beach Time, and so with only skeleton staff left to cover eventualities, finally, the industry thought, they could take a break. The problem with leaving it to a skeleton staff is that sometimes, old bones get rattled. The pick of them was this press release<\/a> from IATA noting that the EU travel pass was now recognised by IATA. How very magnanimous of the airline industry to acknowledge that it even existed, or that it was legally based, or that it was the only mandatory pass for travel within Europe. A week later, once more experienced skeletons took over a new release<\/a> was forthcoming, pushing the EU travel pass as the global standard. <\/p>\n\n\n\n August was certainly quieter, a new ICAO Secretary General, greeted by a nasty article<\/a> from a right-wing think tank in the US, with as much vitriol as you might expect, lots more on tax and why airlines should be exempt and state aid<\/a>. More state aid<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Things are heating up now \u2013 like the climate, Greta Thunburg may remind us<\/a>, prompting the Italian Minister for Ecological Transition Roberto Cingolani to note<\/a> that frankly, he prefers the climate crisis… And on that note, it is a good time to get off the beach, and back into a smart set of upper clothes, for the Zoom meetings beckon.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Japan it is customary, almost mandatory, that a letter start with a reflection on the weather. It will then segue from that to the topic at hand. Forgive me a serious breach of Japanese social norms: frankly, the less said about the weather this summer the better. You risked freezing, incinerating and drowning, sometimes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1185"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1185\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1186,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1185\/revisions\/1186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.aviationadvocacy.aero\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}