rickp
regular
Reged: 10/11/2002
Posts: 5204
|
|
Aviation has always been a bit strange in that if flying overseas, they could claim the duty back - but we couldn't on marine diesel (or petrol). If the duty is going to be increased to road duty, then shouldn't we be able to claim the duty back for an overseas trip?
Rick
|
Nickcf
regular
Reged: 13/04/2004
Posts: 439
Loc: Kent
|
|
Quote:
Aviation has always been a bit strange in that if flying overseas, they could claim the duty back - but we couldn't on marine diesel (or petrol). If the duty is going to be increased to road duty, then shouldn't we be able to claim the duty back for an overseas trip?
Rick
You can but only if you travel far enough. see the previous thread
http://www.ybw.com/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/1597078/an/0/page/0#1597078
|
rickp
regular
Reged: 10/11/2002
Posts: 5204
|
|
And yet for aircraft, a trip to Le Touquet is sufficient? 
Rick
|
Nickcf
regular
Reged: 13/04/2004
Posts: 439
Loc: Kent
|
|
but don't forget that the Channel Islands is still a duty free location. Red will still be available after Nov 2008 for leisure boats. I paid 35p/litre there this year (June)
|
rickp
regular
Reged: 10/11/2002
Posts: 5204
|
|
Which island? In Guernsey last Easter it was more expensive than the UK (though that was from Marine Works and Beaucette - not from the tanker).
Rick
|
Nickcf
regular
Reged: 13/04/2004
Posts: 439
Loc: Kent
|
|
Tanker from St Sampsons
|
MASH
regular
Reged: 08/03/2004
Posts: 364
Loc: UK
|
|
Could it be that our "leaders" in Whitehall suspect that red is widely used in taxable applications (surely no one would do that...) but AVGAS is useless for anything but aircraft, and therefore cannot be "diverted" to other uses.
To the dull wit of the Whitehall bureautwat this might well suggest that AVGAS is "harmless" as no tax revenue is being lost, but as red is being widely misused than an attempt to claw back some of the "missing" revenue must be made.
To the poster who stated that aircraft use much more fuel than boats, Oh dear, where do I start? Pal, most light aircraft have one engine of less than 150HP and thus burn (1 GAL/20BHP/Hr as a rule of thumb) roughly 5 GPH at cruise power. Guess what, bigger ones use more! There are relatively few light aircraft in the twin 350Hp category - common as hell in boats...
BTW, aviators never use the slightly snide description "private" appended to any aircraft, any more than they would so refer to your private boats... or cars, or houses, or lawnmowers... What constitutes a Public aircraft? RAF?
Remember, flying is totally safe, all accidents occur at ground level.
|
Clifford_Pope
regular
Reged: 28/10/2005
Posts: 715
Loc: Pembrokeshire
|
|
It's surely a quite straightforward distinction:
Public transport = bus or train that anyone can get on, private transport = car for personal use
Public company = one with tradeable shares that anyone can buy, private company = one with non-quoted restricted share ownership.
So I image public plane = scheduled air flight, private plane = one just for you.
I could go on:
Public boat (more likely ferry, or hire boat) = one available to anyone , private boat = just you and me.
Public house = pub where anyone can drink, private house = mine.
|
MASH
regular
Reged: 08/03/2004
Posts: 364
Loc: UK
|
|
So why are aircraft so often described as "private" when cars, boats and houses are not? It implies a distinction in the mind of the speaker.
An airliner is not public, it is as privately owned as your boat, just available for hire.
A corporation bus (if any still exist) is public. An RAF Tornado is publically owned, though not publically available. Many "private" aircraft are publically available for hire via a flying club, so why the distinction?
T'ain't logical!
|
Andrew_Fanner
regular
Reged: 13/03/2002
Posts: 5319
Loc: Hampshire
|
|
>>>
T'ain't logical!
>>>
Its socialist politics, when did logic enter into it?
--------------------
Two beers please, my friend is paying.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
