chile lowers airport fees

Chile related Travel issues, where to go and not to go, what it cost, and anything else to get you there and back in ALL OF CHILE.
Post Reply
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16465
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Frutillar, Chile
Contact:

chile lowers airport fees

Post by admin » Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:25 pm

About time

https://www.df.cl/noticias/empresas/act ... 15652.html

The airlines have complained about the super high fees at the airports for years.

My wife and i fly a lot. Like once a week or more, typicaly santiago / puerto montt. In recent years with the drop in ticket prices, the airport fees seem to bite more relative to the costs of the tickets.
Spencer Global Chile: Legal, relocation, and Investment assistance in Chile.
For more information visit: https://www.spencerglobal.com

From USA and outside Chile dial 1-917-727-5985 (U.S.), in Chile dial 65 2 42 1024 or by cell 747 97974.

Britkid
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: Talagante area, Chile
Contact:

Re: chile lowers airport fees

Post by Britkid » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:46 pm

Chile needs more taxation in order to provide good health, education, police etc for everyone, not less. Reducing airport taxes is also a pro-business, pro-rich people move since it's basically a tax cut for the rich and businesses in disguise. Still, really small deal at the end of the day.

Since our current amount of flights is incompatible with emissions reductions needed on climate change, and since green planes are not an option at present, a reduction in flights, perhaps a large one, is the only sensible way to act ethically and meet climate change targets and keep the world's extra heat increase under 2C to avoid catastrophic climate change.

I'd therefore suggest we all fly less and that governments add a very large taxation to airplanes and use that taxation to do public good and invest in things like electric car network and other things good for the environment. As I've said before, the taxes need to be huge, like doubling the price of the flight, in order to a) have a significant impact on reducing demand and b) ensure that the "good" that can be achived by taxation beats the "bad" of the flight.

If any of you fly regularly (especially long haul), and don't pay carbon offsets, and haven't specifically reduced your number of flights as a direct reaction to climate change, then I'd argue that your behaviour is worth re-considering at this point.

By my own calculations, each 20 or 30 long haul flights kill 1 person from climate change. The margin for error on that estimate is huge, but that doesn't change the ethics of it since it could just as well be much worse as much better. But since the people dying are dying far away and not really seen, it's easier to ignore. So to understand the ethics of it imagine that for every 20 or 30 long haul flights one person would die right in front of you. Say every 20th or 30th flight the pilot drops down dead or a baggage handler is crushed under the plane and dies. Or say as you came in for land an innocent civilian that had strayed on to the runway would be crushed to death on landing, visibly in front of everyone. Say this was totally unavoidable. Would we still be as comfortable about flying? Wouldn't the media be all over it and constantly questioning it?

An airport the size of Santiago, and all the flights going out of it, might be say killing about one person every day. Is that acceptable collateral damage to move such a large number of people about, given the benefits of flying? Large airports, like for example Heathrow in the UK, JFK in New York, or Singapore, Dubai etc are killing multiple people per day. Imagine if the people dying were actual workers in the airport and they were dragged out and left dead by the front door, a few per day, for everyone to see as they walked into the airport. Would we feel as comfortable about flying? It's much easier when the dead people are farmers in the Sahel that are suffering from drought and you'll never know who killed who.

20 or 30 long haul flights per 1 dead is based on the total emissions of everyone on the flight. If you look at it in terms of impact per individual you would have to take about 10,000 long haul flights to kill 1 person. However the super rich, if taking very regular first class flights or private jet travel (both of which have higher emissions) might perhaps rack up enough emissions over their life to kill one person each.

The other factor of course is that in addition to deaths, further suffering will be caused to people that don't die, and that my calculations only cover human deaths, but the animal deaths could be greater.

To some extent I'm throwing stones out of my glass house here, since I am going to California for holiday in a couple of weeks and I've taken a lot of flights over the years. However over the years I've started to reduce the flights and offset the ones I do take.

Going to Santiago for business is not a huge deal unless you do it super regularly. It's more long haul that is damaging.
In 2014/2015 I blogged about my life in Chile. http://web.archive.org/web/201601121940 ... age_id=268

Britkid
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: Talagante area, Chile
Contact:

Re: chile lowers airport fees

Post by Britkid » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:59 pm

admin wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 12:25 pm

My wife and i fly a lot. Like once a week or more, typicaly santiago / puerto montt.
If you fly to Santiago once a week from Puerto Montt....I just did a quick back of the envelope calculation, the carbon footprint of that is around 11.5 tonnes CO2e. 50 return flights to Santiago by the way is about the same same as say 3 return flights to Japan or China.

Just your weekly flights alone are about double the entire annual carbon footprint of the average Chilean from everything, never mind just flights. Your carbon footprint from your flights alone is also about the same as the entire annual carbon footprint for an expat living in Chile, or a Western European, or someone in the US living in a liberal city.

(Note: there may be an argument that your business flights should be excluded from your own personal carbon footprint and allocated to your clients, but this is possibly more of an accounting argument that an ethical one.)

You are simply not running a sustainable business. Don't complain the next time we have fires all summer. It's people like you that are causing it.

Could you consider cutting your flights down to once a month or once a fortnight? Do some business meetings by teleconference? Increase the prices for customers in Santiago or just only go when the profits are huge? Better schedule to go for a few days at a time?

I realize it's not polite to question your personal decisions and get involved this way, but look at what is happning this summer. Europe, Japan, California all are literally on fire. Polite activism has failed spectacularly.
In 2014/2015 I blogged about my life in Chile. http://web.archive.org/web/201601121940 ... age_id=268

User avatar
eeuunikkeiexpat
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 7240
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:38 am
Location: Megalith of unknown origin near my digs, south V Region coast

Re: chile lowers airport fees

Post by eeuunikkeiexpat » Wed Aug 29, 2018 10:24 pm

WTF? 4 friggin' dollars ain't much of a change. Damn, I'm fine with paying that if the airport authorities would crack down on the taxi touts and such. I had more benefit from my 7000 peso toilet paper compensation.
Generally, just a SPAM KILLER. You are on your own in this forum. My personal mission here is done.

BUT when necessary, by way of ridicule and truth revelation we shalt do war.

--eeuunikkeiexpat

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16465
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Frutillar, Chile
Contact:

Re: chile lowers airport fees

Post by admin » Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:50 pm

Britkid wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:46 pm
Chile needs more taxation in order to provide good health, education, police etc for everyone, not less. Reducing airport taxes is also a pro-business, pro-rich people move since it's basically a tax cut for the rich and businesses in disguise. Still, really small deal at the end of the day.

Since our current amount of flights is incompatible with emissions reductions needed on climate change, and since green planes are not an option at present, a reduction in flights, perhaps a large one, is the only sensible way to act ethically and meet climate change targets and keep the world's extra heat increase under 2C to avoid catastrophic climate change.

I'd therefore suggest we all fly less and that governments add a very large taxation to airplanes and use that taxation to do public good and invest in things like electric car network and other things good for the environment. As I've said before, the taxes need to be huge, like doubling the price of the flight, in order to a) have a significant impact on reducing demand and b) ensure that the "good" that can be achived by taxation beats the "bad" of the flight.

If any of you fly regularly (especially long haul), and don't pay carbon offsets, and haven't specifically reduced your number of flights as a direct reaction to climate change, then I'd argue that your behaviour is worth re-considering at this point.

By my own calculations, each 20 or 30 long haul flights kill 1 person from climate change. The margin for error on that estimate is huge, but that doesn't change the ethics of it since it could just as well be much worse as much better. But since the people dying are dying far away and not really seen, it's easier to ignore. So to understand the ethics of it imagine that for every 20 or 30 long haul flights one person would die right in front of you. Say every 20th or 30th flight the pilot drops down dead or a baggage handler is crushed under the plane and dies. Or say as you came in for land an innocent civilian that had strayed on to the runway would be crushed to death on landing, visibly in front of everyone. Say this was totally unavoidable. Would we still be as comfortable about flying? Wouldn't the media be all over it and constantly questioning it?

An airport the size of Santiago, and all the flights going out of it, might be say killing about one person every day. Is that acceptable collateral damage to move such a large number of people about, given the benefits of flying? Large airports, like for example Heathrow in the UK, JFK in New York, or Singapore, Dubai etc are killing multiple people per day. Imagine if the people dying were actual workers in the airport and they were dragged out and left dead by the front door, a few per day, for everyone to see as they walked into the airport. Would we feel as comfortable about flying? It's much easier when the dead people are farmers in the Sahel that are suffering from drought and you'll never know who killed who.

20 or 30 long haul flights per 1 dead is based on the total emissions of everyone on the flight. If you look at it in terms of impact per individual you would have to take about 10,000 long haul flights to kill 1 person. However the super rich, if taking very regular first class flights or private jet travel (both of which have higher emissions) might perhaps rack up enough emissions over their life to kill one person each.

The other factor of course is that in addition to deaths, further suffering will be caused to people that don't die, and that my calculations only cover human deaths, but the animal deaths could be greater.

To some extent I'm throwing stones out of my glass house here, since I am going to California for holiday in a couple of weeks and I've taken a lot of flights over the years. However over the years I've started to reduce the flights and offset the ones I do take.

Going to Santiago for business is not a huge deal unless you do it super regularly. It's more long haul that is damaging.
So, we are rich elitest murders for getting on a plane?
Spencer Global Chile: Legal, relocation, and Investment assistance in Chile.
For more information visit: https://www.spencerglobal.com

From USA and outside Chile dial 1-917-727-5985 (U.S.), in Chile dial 65 2 42 1024 or by cell 747 97974.

picalena
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:59 pm
Location: la novena

Re: chile lowers airport fees

Post by picalena » Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:31 pm

Now do the back of the envelope calculation on how many are now dead from carbon climate change whatever due to the Haitian immigration to Chile that is definitely NOT a crisis. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Cheers,
pl
A woodsman was once asked, “What would you do if you had just five minutes to chop down a tree?” He answered, “I would spend the first two and a half minutes sharpening my axe.” - Dubious source on the internet

thisisreallycomplicated
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1843
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:25 pm
Location: Coquimbo

Re: chile lowers airport fees

Post by thisisreallycomplicated » Fri Aug 31, 2018 12:16 am

Britkid wrote:
Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:46 pm
Chile needs more taxation in order to provide good health, education, police etc for everyone, not less.
Yes, all kids from Britain should have to pay more taxes
“Now it’s conspiracy – they’ve made that something that should not even be entertained for a minute, that powerful people might get together and have a plan. Doesn’t happen, you’re a kook, you’re a conspiracy buff!” – George Carlin

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 16465
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Frutillar, Chile
Contact:

Re: chile lowers airport fees

Post by admin » Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:23 am

I sleep just fine at night. Our 'carbon foot print' is plenty small.

When we get on airplane, it is typicaly so someone else does not have to. Often many people. My wife flew this week to sign a property deal in vina, so client did not have to make at least three flights from the other side of the world.

We have hundreds, if not thousands, of hectors of old growth trees in the patagonia that will never see a chainsaw because our clients simply wanted to buy trees. Everytime we do that, even just asking to buy property with old growth trees, the trees next door go up in value 10 or 20%. To the point the campo guys can not afford to cut them down anymore. They got the message those trees are what is going pay for their retirment. If they cut the trees, their property value crashes.

Guess what? Most of it is owned by foreigners that never got an airplane to even see it, let alone buy it.

The last time we had a dispute with douglas thompkin's pumiln park, we were hagling with his lawyers over who got to over pay for the right NOT to cut down the trees on the disputed property. They were kind enophe to let our client over pay for those trees. They had plenty of trees of their own to look after.

But, I'lll be sure to tell the executives from the Audubon society next time they have us get on a plane to buy property, for some bird no one has seen in decades, that we can't due to our 'carbon foot print'. Perhaps i'll tell them it is more carbon "neutral" to just shoot that endangered bird.
Spencer Global Chile: Legal, relocation, and Investment assistance in Chile.
For more information visit: https://www.spencerglobal.com

From USA and outside Chile dial 1-917-727-5985 (U.S.), in Chile dial 65 2 42 1024 or by cell 747 97974.

Britkid
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1519
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: Talagante area, Chile
Contact:

Re: chile lowers airport fees

Post by Britkid » Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:11 pm

Thanks a lot for reading what I wrote and taking the trouble to respond.

Yes it's sometimes true that the pros and cons of these things have to be weighed up and some flights will do more good than bad.
In 2014/2015 I blogged about my life in Chile. http://web.archive.org/web/201601121940 ... age_id=268

Post Reply