Chinese airlines have been banned from complying with the European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), and are also banned from raising air fares or adding new charges to cover the cost of the scheme.

The Civil Aviation Administration of China issued a directive, authorized by the State Council, to notify all domestic airlines of the ban. A statement on the State Council’s website said: “Without the approval of relevant government departments all airlines in China are prohibited from participating in the EU’s emissions trading scheme.”

It added: “China will consider adopting necessary measures to protect the interests of Chinese individuals and companies, pending developments.”

China is not alone in its opposition to the scheme, the US, Russia and India are also against it; with the US Congress expected to pass a bill to formally oppose the scheme in the next few weeks.

It is estimated that Chinese airlines would have to pay 800 million yuan ($125 million) this year towards the scheme. This figure could be up to four times higher by 2020 as Chinese flights to and from Europe increase.

However, the EU ambassador to China, Markus Ederer, said that with free credits taken into account, the added cost per passenger on a flight from Beijing to Brussels would be only 17.5 yuan or 1.9 euros.

“I leave it to you to make a judgment on whether this is too much for saving the Earth, combating climate change and making headway together,” he said.

Meanwhile, some foreign airlines have started to include the cost in their air fares. US carrier Delta has added a $6 surcharge for return flights between the US and Europe, and Germany’s Lufthansa indicated it would raise its fuel surcharge.

There are also some analysts which say that Chinese airlines may actually pay the tax so as to avoid damaging business in Europe and to keep flight routes open.

There is growing opposition to the European Commission’s Emission’s Trading Scheme (ETS), which came into force at the beginning of the year.

China has already threatened legal action and declared it will not cooperate with the scheme. The most recent opposition has come from India, who has warned retaliatory measures are being considered. A meeting between delegates from the countries against the ETS is to be held in either New Delhi or Moscow in the near future, the result of which could affect flights to hundreds of destinations.

Chris Goater, a spokesman for the International Air Transport Association (IATA), said: “Retaliatory measures have been mentioned, and they must be avoided. It could result in a patchwork of different taxes on aviation, with airlines being taxed by two or three different governments. Airlines already have incredibly thin profit margins, so they could certainly result in higher air fares.”

The cost of the tax is being passed onto customers, as this month, Ryanair introduced a fee of 21p (€0.25) per person per flight to cover the cost of the ETS. A spokesperson for the airline, Stephen McNamara, warned that if other airlines hold off doing this, then they will be forced to raise their prices sharply when they finally do, which will impact more so on customers.

Lufthansa said it expects the scheme to cost it around £109 million this year, and has increased its fuel surcharge on European and long-haul flights by £2.50 and £8.40 respectively.

Flights have become much more expensive already with the introduction of the Air Passenger Duty Tax, billed as an environmental tax when it was introduced in 1994. There are calls for this to be lowered to offset the new ETS.

What do you think about the ETS? Please leave comments in the box below.

US domestic flights are to appear more expensive from tomorrow as airlines are forced to include all mandatory taxes, fees and charges in advertised fares.

Most fixed charges will be around £14 for a non-stop domestic flight, doubling on a one-stop flight. The new rules mean that a truer price will be shown on advertisements.

Passengers will also be allowed to cancel their reservation within 24 hours if they make their booking at least a week before departure,  without incurring a charge.

A lawsuit is pending in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia as some airlines challenge the US Department of Transport over their decision.

President Obama has announced plans to streamline the visa process for some nationalities to visit the US.

He made the announcement at Walt Disney World in Florida, stating that those from China and Brazil should have a faster visa processes to encourage them to visit the US and boost tourism.

He said: “I want America to be the top tourist destination in the world. The more folks who visit America, the more Americans we get back to work. It is that simple.”

He also called for Commerce and Interior departments to develop a national tourism strategy which will highlight America’s national parks, and cultural and historic sites.

“The steps the president took today are significant and will boost travel to and within the United States,” said Roger Dow, president of the US Travel Association.

Last week there was a battle between Jet2.com and new start up airline JetXtra.com as Jet2 issued a solicitor’s letter to the other airline to warn that it would take legal action if JetXtra did not drop its name by last Thursday at 4pm. Jet2′s reasoning for this action is that it believes that members of the public might mistakenly believe that both companies were the same or related in some way because of the similarity in their names.

JetXtra was to launch flights from its Humberside Airport base to Palma and Malaga in June. Jet2 is based at Leeds Bradford Airport, 78 miles away.

JetXtra director Daniel Reilly said: “It is absolutely absurd that Jet2, a well known and generally respected airline is attempting to disrupt our services, I cannot believe they would resort to such dirty tactics to stop a new company which poses no threat to them from entering the market, especially at a time when our country is desperately in need of enterprise and job creation.

“The only similarity between our companies is the word ‘jet’, our logos and websites are completely different and Jet2 operate from Leeds Bradford Airport, serving and targeting a different market to that of jetXtra.com.”

In a twist to the situation, JetXtra has been ordered by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to stop selling flights to prevent the sale of unlicensed tickets. JetXtra had advertised that flights were covered under its partner company, CCT’s Atol. CTT holds a licence to carry just 620 passengers in the year to September and only 150 this summer, when JetXtra hopes to carry 9,000 passengers.

A CAA spokesman confirmed the reasons for stopping sales: “CTT sought permission to trade with JetXtra.com. We have not yet approved that and until we do it cannot sell holidays. We would not allow a company to sell seats it does not have a licence for.” The spokesman confirmed: “This has nothing to do with Jet2.”

However, JetXtra claimed on its website that they had stopped sales because of Jet2′s letter: “JetXtra.com have been told by the CAA . . . that until a decision is made by Jet2.com in relation to any legal proceedings, the JetXtra.com trading name will not be allowed on to the Atol licence of CTT Group.”

JetXtra’s director Daniel Reilly said: “Any customer who has already booked should not be concerned as this decision to temporarily halt trading will not affect their booking or financial protection offered under the CTT Group Atol.”

We’re all told that there is an obesity crisis and that we should lose weight for the good of our health. Now, according to some controversial comments made by a former Qantas group chief economist, our weight could cost us more as heavier people should pay more to fly on planes.

Tony Webber, now managing director of Webber Quantitative Consulting and Associate Professor at the University of Sydney Business School, said that although there are many factors which contribute towards fuel burnt by planes, the most important is the weight of the aircraft, so the heavier people on the plane are the more fuel will be burnt, thus raising the airlines costs significantly.

He made the comments in Business Day in Fairfax newspapers, adding that airlines will have to raise airfares to recover the additional costs, which should not be lumbered ”on those who are shedding a few kilos or keeping their weight stable”.

Between 1926 and 2008, the average weight of an Aussie female adult increased from 59 kilograms to 71 kilos and the average weight of an Aussie male adult increased from 72 to 85 kilos, according to Webber.

On a route like Sydney to London via Singapore, he said the extra passenger kilos meant around 3.72 extra barrels of jetfuel per flight is burnt, “which at current prices cost about $472″.

“This tally may not seem like a lot of money but when you add it up over all flights for a year the extra cost can all but wipe out an airline’s profits, such is the thinness of margins these days particularly on international routes.”

His comments may be contraversial, but he did concede that although he believes it to be a good idea to charge larger passengers more, that implementing it by needing to weigh each passenger at check-in, may not be quite so easy.

“As the obesity crisis worsens, however, and the price of jet fuel continues to spiral upward, such user-pay charge may be something the airlines can’t ignore for too much longer,” he said.

What do you think to these suggestions? If this were to be implemented, would it be a form of discrimination? Would being weighed at check-in be an unjust embarrassment?

The European Union ruled that all airlines flying to and from Europe will have to pay a new emissions tax which started on 1st January this year. However, this has caused concern from international airlines not based in the EU, and China’s biggest airlines are the first to declare that they will not pay the tax, with the United States and Russia also strongly opposed to it.

The China Air Transport Association (CATA) told the BBC that its members would not cooperate with the Emissions Trading Scheme and pay the tax. CATA represents airlines including air China, China Southern Airlines, China Eastern and Hainan Airlines. If they don’t comply they could be fined or even banned from flying to EU countries.

China is considering retaliatory measures against EU airlines if any of its airlines are forced to pay the tax.

This seems like an almost impossible situation, how do you think this should be resolved? Should non-EU airlines be charged the tax or should the EU change their decision in order to save retaliation against our own airlines?

Happy New Year to all our readers! Before we move on to this year’s news, here’s a round up of some of the biggest stories we covered on this blog in 2011, it certainly was an eventful year!

January started with the troubled BMI threatening to withdraw its Heathrow – Glasgow route after passenger charges at Heathrow were raised (this was confirmed a month later). Ryanair returned to Manchester with four new routes. And the political troubles in Egypt disrupted flights.

Spiraling conflict in Egypt caused complete cancellation of routes to popular holiday destinations in February. Meanwhile, Which? launched a super complaint on airline card fee charges,the cost of Qantas’ engine troubles were revealed, and airlines flying from the UK finally started to show clearer air fares.

March brought faster flight times under a deal signed by traffic controllers. But by far the biggest news of the month was the huge tsunami which hit Japan and led to re-routing of flights to avoid possible radiation risk, and advice to leave Tokyo.

A Skyscanner survey found Spain back in favour for British holidaymakers in April.

In May Belfast Airport started to charge for going for a cigarette break, and the ongoing battle between Unite and British Airways was finally settled!

More natural disasters happened in June with violent aftershocks in Christchurch, New Zealand and volcanic eruptions in Chile.

The News of the World phone-hacking scandal broke in July with airlines withdrawing their advertisements as a result.

In August research revealed the use of smartphones were ruining people’s holidays.

The Rugby World Cup was held in New Zealand in September, where Wales’ hopes were dashed.

The first biofuel passenger flight took place in October, however green campaigners claimed it wasn’t as environmentally friendly as everyone thought.

Europe announced a ban on body scanners at airports in November, but the UK decided to go against the decision.

Finally, December saw 150mph winds hit parts of Scotland, which is where we are now at the start of 2012 as tremendous winds continue to batter the UK once more.

So, what travel news is in store for 2012? Keep up to date here!

The European Court of Justice has ruled that all airlines flying to and from Europe with have to pay for any carbon dioxide emissions above an agreed limit as part of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

This controversial decision to include non-EU airlines in the ETS has been strongly opposed by economic powers worldwide. They say that the control of emissions should be left to the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

The ETS will start on 1st January 2012 and function under a credit system. Airlines will be given credits to cover most of their emissions, but they must buy more to cover any further output.

European airlines fear a retaliation from other countries which may include other taxes being imposed on them. The US said it goes against the EU-US open-skies agreement. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said America would respond with “appropriate action” if the scheme went ahead.

However, Europe’s highest court insisted that the ETS did not infringe on the sovereignty of other nations, as it only applied to carriers when they were operating within the EU.

IAG (parent to British Airways) has reached a binding agreement with Lufhansa to buy BMI, despite a competitive counter-bid from Virgin Atlantic earlier this month.

The agreed price is £172.5 million and will be completed in the first quarter of 2012. The deal could mean job losses in order to restructure the ailing business.

BA chief executive Willie Walsh said: “‘Unfortunately, this will mean some job losses but we will secure a significant number of high quality jobs here in the UK and create similar new jobs in the future.”

The takeover is still subject to clearance by competition authorities as IAG will stand to gain an additional 56 daily slot pairs at Heathrow, a prospect Virgin Atlantic vows to fight.

A spokesperson for Virgin Atlantic said: “We will be asking the competition authorities to stop this deal and to protect the many millions of passengers on routes where BA and BMI currently compete. With Heathrow sewn up BA can use its monopoly power to force up prices at the expense of the consumer.”

But Walsh insisted the deal was good news for the UK and for consumers: “Using the slot portfolio more efficiently provides the option to launch new long haul routes to key trading nations while supporting our broad domestic and short haul network.

“This deal is good news for the UK as we will maintain a comprehensive domestic schedule including Belfast. Our plans to expand our longhaul network would guarantee growth by making Britain better able to compete on a global scale. It will also help maximise Heathrow’s position as a world class hub airport.”