How do you view the recently announced new ecotax?
Paul Chiambaretto - There are several problematic aspects to this ecotax. Starting with the amount, which seems quite arbitraryAnd above all, it does not depend on the type of aircraft. Whether you land a highly polluting 25-year-old aircraft or a brand new one that pollutes two or three times less, the amount of tax will be the same. Ultimately, therefore, there is no incentive for airlines to invest in a fleet that pollutes less. There is no bonus-malusAnd that's a shame. The only way for an airline to reduce its ecotax is to fly less! There is also a geographical problemThis is because the tax applies to all flights departing from France. French airlines are therefore being penalised the most, at a time when the French flag is shrinking by one point each year. We are penalising players who were already in a difficult situation. situation of weakness. The ecotax should therefore have been introduced at a global level, or at a regional level. at least on a European scale. What's more, a few weeks ago, the Minister for Transport explained that this approach would be negotiated at European level... This will therefore create distortions in favour of non-European and non-French players. I have the impression that the aim of this tax is not environmental but fiscal...
What do you think of the allocation of revenue from this ecotax?
P. C. - It also raises questions. I understood that it was going to finance other modes of transport, including the rail. Unfortunately, air transport is already used to paying for activities that are not its own. For example, the budget of the Agence Française de Développement via the Chirac tax. If the airlines had been told that this ecotax would finance R&D for air transportWith a kind of paternalistic state that forces them to save in order to invest in research, the pill could be easier to swallow. By taxing them as planned we reduce their R&D capacity and invest in a new fleet. Millions of euros taken away from Air France [the Group estimates the additional annual cost at more than 60 million euroseditor's note] that's millions that won't be going into R&D. This potentially makes air transport even more polluting.
Will travellers change their habits as a result?
Paul Chiambaretto - Given the margin per passenger and the amount of the tax, it will be passed on in full to the consumer. Travellers compare prices, and it should come as no surprise if they turn to long-haul low-cost airlines for example.
Would you have recommended a different taxation format?
P. C. - I was in favour of a tax with a double dividendas has already been done elsewhere. This generates a tax, but the tax revenue remains fixed. For example, creating a carbon tax of €5 per passenger, while at the same time lowering other taxes. This creates an incentive for airlines to work on carbon emissions, while preserving their competitiveness and therefore their ability to invest.
Did the Air Transport Conference foreshadow such a decision?
Paul Chiambaretto - When you read the report on the National Air Transport Strategy to 2025, published following the conference, it says in black and white that air transport pays too much tax. The government itself says so... At present, on a 100-euro ticket, airlines pay between 20 and 25% of taxes. To this must be added around thirty euros of licence fee. This leaves in fine a little over fifty euros to the airline, which then has to deal with its cost structure. The margin is therefore 4 euros per passenger for an airline like Air France, and 6 dollars on average for the airline industry as a whole. The creation of a new tax therefore also raises questions at this level. In addition, there was a kind of agreement between the French government and the airlines, which paid no tax on paraffin, and in return were almost entirely self-financing, to the tune of 80 to 85%, compared with 16 to 20% for the rail sector. For example, it is the air transport sector that finances airport security through fees. As soon as this tax exemption is abolished, air transport no longer has any real reason to finance these activities, which would normally be the responsibility of the State.
Reducing consumption is not a question of image, it's an economic necessity.
This ecotax seems to mean that the airline industry is not taking the necessary steps to reduce its carbon footprint...
P. C. - I think it's a pity that we are attacking one of the few self-regulating sectors, which is making technological and institutional efforts to reduce its environmental footprint. The aviation sector accounts for 2% of carbon emissions. According to the DGAC, over the last fifteen years or so, French air transport has increased by 55%, while the increase in carbon emissions has been limited to 14%. So carbon emissions per passenger have fallen by 25%. I don't know of many sectors that are currently able to show such unit reductions. The new aircraft, such as the A321 LRIn addition to the fuel savings achieved by the airline's new fuel-efficient engines, these limit fuel consumption to 2 to 3 litres per 100 km per passenger, the equivalent of a hybrid car. Fuel is a company's biggest expense. Reducing our consumption and therefore our carbon footprint is not just a question of image, it is an economic necessity if we are to be profitable.
Are air transport and sustainable development incompatible?
Paul Chiambaretto - I don't think so. The first step is to invest in R&D. There are also plenty of ways of reducing emissions, for example by optimising flight routes and air navigation. There's a lot of room for manoeuvre here, particularly for international flights.
Does the arrival of the ecotax make the abolition of domestic routes credible, when train journey times make them a real alternative?
P. C. - That would be a very, very bad idea. In some regions, the plane is essential to open up the region, and for many other towns, such as Montpellier or MarseilleAir and rail travel complement each other. The majority of air passengers on a Montpellier-Paris flight have connections, or are forced to make a return trip during the day. What's more, a plane ticket is sometimes cheaper than a train ticket for the same journey... This also raises questions about the attractiveness of these alternatives to air travel. What's more, if we decide to develop air-rail intermodality, with the first part of the journey by train on the domestic network, followed by departure by plane, we need to give ourselves the means to do so... Today, there are only around twenty cities that can offer such an option. This requires not only a good connection to Paris, but also, and above all, to the station at Roissy. Airlines are not reticent about the idea of intermodality, but they know that it doesn't work everywhere and for everything.
There is a tendency to pit planes and trains against each other, pigeonholing them into "polluting" and "non-polluting" boxes. Is it really that simple?
Paul Chiambaretto - No: if you look at it from a marginal point of view, an aeroplane, over a given distance, will indeed pollute much more than a train. But unlike an aeroplane, a train has to run on something... It requires infrastructure, the construction of which has generated carbon emissions, and even an enormous amount of carbon. If we take a 500 km TGV line, and smooth out the carbon emissions generated over fifty years, there would have to be between ten and twenty million passengers a year on this train line to compensate for the carbon emissions linked to its construction.
I'm not sure that in the end the traveller will come out a winner, or even the environment for that matter.
Does this mean that an airline like Air France needs to rethink its strategy, both domestically and globally?
P. C. - This issue will change a number of calculations within the airlines, which will have to make trade-offs. I'm not sure that in the end the passenger will be the winner, or even the environment for that matter...
What about electric aircraft, which are regularly mentioned as a possibility for experimentation?
Paul Chiambaretto - This is still a very long-term project. For the time being, models for two or four places can work, and prototypes for around ten places are being tested. But beyond that, we don't yet know what to do. The main problem is the weight of the batteries, which is linked to storage capacity. To have enough energy to carry out a domestic flight, the weight of the batteries would exceed the weight of the aircraft... What could be interesting, however, is to move on to electric taxiing phases on the tarmac... Admittedly, this seems marginal, but there are nearly 80 flights per minute in the world. The sum of many marginal factors gives a significant result. That's what IATA and ICAO are doing: identifying all the small measures that we have already mastered, in order to make progress. All this while working on bio-fuels, new generations of jet engines and composite materials to take things further.
