Regulations & Safety
EU Considers 10 Year Tax Holiday for Aviation and Shipping Fuels
The EU debates a decade-long exemption from energy taxes on aviation and shipping fuels, balancing climate goals with economic pressures.
The European Union (EU) is currently debating a significant policy proposal: a 10-year exemption from energy taxes on aviation and shipping fuels. This draft plan, revealed by Reuters and widely reported, would delay taxation until 2035, extending long-standing fuel tax exemptions for two of the most carbon-intensive transport sectors. The move is part of an ongoing negotiation over the revision of the Energy Taxation Directive, and it reflects the persistent struggle to balance the EU’s ambitious climate goals with economic and competitive realities.
This proposal is emerging at a time when the EU is under increasing pressure to align its fiscal policies with its climate commitments, particularly under the European Green Deal. However, strong lobbying from industry groups, especially airlines and shipping operators, as well as concerns from member states heavily dependent on tourism and maritime trade, such as Greece, Malta, Cyprus, and others, have complicated the push for reform. The result is a compromise that could see billions in potential tax revenue forgone, even as the EU seeks to lead on climate action at the global stage.
Understanding the implications of this proposed tax holiday requires a look at the historical context of EU energy taxation, the technical and political challenges of implementation, economic impacts, and the broader climate policy landscape.
The EU’s Energy Taxation Directive, first adopted in 2003, established minimum excise rates for energy products across member states. Notably, it included mandatory exemptions for aviation and shipping fuels, reflecting international norms and the competitive, cross-border nature of these industries. The rationale was to avoid distorting competition and to honor international agreements like the Chicago Convention, which discourages fuel taxation on international flights.
For years, these exemptions have been criticized as fossil fuel subsidies, inconsistent with the EU’s evolving climate objectives. The Commission’s 2021 proposal to revise the directive was aimed at modernizing this framework, phasing out fossil fuel exemptions, and incentivizing cleaner alternatives. However, the need for unanimous consent among member states has repeatedly stalled reform efforts, illustrating the institutional barriers to ambitious climate policy in the EU.
The current debate is not just about fiscal policy, but about the EU’s credibility as a climate leader and its willingness to address emissions from all sectors, including those with powerful industry lobbies and strong economic interests.
International treaties and organizations shape the EU’s room for maneuver. The Chicago Convention (1944) and associated bilateral agreements have traditionally limited the ability of states to tax aviation fuel for international flights. For shipping, the highly mobile nature of vessels and the practice of “tankering,” refueling outside the EU to avoid taxes, further complicate unilateral action.
Despite these constraints, legal analysis suggests that the EU has more flexibility than often assumed, especially for intra-EU flights and voyages. Still, any move to tax fuels in these sectors must be carefully designed to avoid violating international obligations and to prevent competitive disadvantages for EU operators. Efforts to revise the Energy Taxation Directive are therefore entangled with both international law and domestic politics, making progress slow and contentious.
“The requirement for unanimous approval in EU tax policy creates a dynamic where the most reluctant member states effectively set the ceiling for ambition.”
The draft proposal under consideration would delay the introduction of energy taxes on aviation and shipping fuels until 2035, with only minor exceptions for small aircraft (up to 19 seats) and certain private boats, which may face taxes earlier. This timeline pushes meaningful reform well beyond the EU’s 2030 climate targets, raising concerns about the bloc’s ability to meet its emissions reduction commitments.
Industry groups, particularly airlines, have argued that sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) remain two to five times more expensive than conventional kerosene. They claim that immediate taxation would burden the industry without accelerating the transition to cleaner alternatives, as these remain limited in supply and cost-prohibitive. Shipping operators make similar arguments about renewable marine fuels. The compromise is thus framed as a necessary transition period, allowing time for technological development and market adaptation.
The technical framework would gradually phase in minimum tax rates for conventional fuels, while offering continued exemptions for sustainable alternatives and electricity. For example, the minimum tax on jet fuel would rise from zero to €10.75 per gigajoule by 2033, while sustainable fuels would remain exempt for a decade. Maritime fuels would follow a similar structure, with flexibility for member states to extend taxes to international voyages.
Maintaining tax exemptions for aviation and shipping has significant fiscal implications. According to Transport & Environment, European governments lost €34.2 billion in aviation tax revenue in 2022 alone, a figure projected to rise to €47.1 billion by 2025 if exemptions persist. This foregone revenue could otherwise fund green infrastructure, such as high-speed rail, or support the broader energy transition.
The distribution of these losses is uneven: the UK and France would have each gained billions in 2022, with airlines like Air France and Lufthansa among the largest beneficiaries of the current tax gap. Shipping and fishing exemptions add further to the fiscal cost, with the EU fishing fleet alone receiving up to €1.5 billion in fuel tax rebates annually.
Environmental organizations and financial experts argue that these subsidies are economically inefficient and socially unjust, as ordinary citizens pay fuel taxes while airlines and shipping companies do not. They also warn that continued exemptions contradict the EU’s stated climate objectives, undermining both credibility and effectiveness.
“Subsidizing economic activity that destroys citizens’ future is unwise, financial markets may notice before voters.” — Mike Clark, Institute and Faculty of Actuaries
The proposal has exposed deep divisions among EU member states. Countries with large tourism sectors or significant maritime trade, such as Greece, Malta, Cyprus, and others, have pushed for extended exemptions, fearing negative impacts on their economies. Island nations, in particular, argue that aviation is essential for connectivity and economic survival. Conversely, some Northern European countries, including Denmark and Ireland, favor more ambitious environmental measures but may accept the compromise to avoid indefinite deadlock. The need for unanimous consent gives considerable leverage to the most reluctant states, making substantial reform difficult.
The aviation and shipping industries have lobbied intensively against immediate taxation, citing international competition and the risk of “carbon leakage,” where emissions shift to jurisdictions with weaker regulations. Environmental NGOs, meanwhile, argue that the delay undermines climate action and perpetuates unfair subsidies for polluting sectors.
Implementing fuel taxation in aviation and shipping is technically complex. For aviation, the challenge lies in avoiding double taxation with the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), coordinating with bilateral air service agreements, and ensuring that taxes do not disproportionately disadvantage EU carriers. The ETS is already phasing out free allocations for aviation, moving to full auctioning by 2026, but critics argue this is not enough to drive rapid decarbonization.
Shipping presents additional hurdles. The global mobility of vessels allows operators to avoid higher-tax jurisdictions by refueling elsewhere, a practice known as “tankering.” The EU has responded by expanding the ETS to cover maritime transport, but fuel taxation would need to be carefully coordinated to avoid gaps, overlaps, or unintended consequences.
Another challenge is the certification and administration of sustainable fuels, which would be taxed differently depending on their environmental performance. This requires robust systems to verify fuel types and prevent fraud, as well as regular updates to reflect technological advances.
The proposed delay in fuel taxation raises serious questions about the EU’s ability to meet its 2030 climate targets. Aviation and shipping are among the fastest-growing sources of emissions, and delaying effective carbon pricing for another decade risks locking in high-carbon infrastructure and behaviors.
Experts and environmental groups argue that maintaining subsidies for these sectors sends the wrong signal to the market and undermines social equity, as other sectors and individuals are expected to bear the costs of climate action. The EU’s leadership in international climate diplomacy could also be weakened if it is seen as unwilling to tackle emissions from all sectors.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of the EU’s climate policy will depend on whether delayed implementation of fuel taxation is matched by rapid progress in alternative fuels, technological innovation, and international regulatory coordination. The risk is that the delay becomes a permanent feature, rather than a temporary transition. “Delaying fuel taxation until 2035 effectively removes a key policy tool for addressing transport emissions during the critical decade when the most substantial reductions must occur.”
The EU’s consideration of a 10-year tax holiday for aviation and shipping fuels highlights the persistent tension between climate ambition and economic pragmatism. While the compromise may facilitate agreement among member states, it risks undermining the bloc’s 2030 climate targets and credibility as a global climate leader. The substantial revenue losses from continued exemptions also represent missed opportunities to fund sustainable infrastructure and the green transition.
The ultimate success of this approach will depend on whether the delay is used productively to accelerate the development and deployment of sustainable fuels and technologies, and whether the EU can eventually implement robust carbon pricing across all sectors. Without decisive action, the risk remains that the EU’s climate ambitions will be compromised by short-term economic interests and institutional inertia.
Q: Why is the EU considering a 10-year tax holiday for aviation and shipping fuels? Q: How much revenue is the EU potentially losing due to these fuel tax exemptions? Q: What are the main challenges to implementing fuel taxes in aviation and shipping? Q: Will this delay affect the EU’s climate goals? Q: Which countries are most opposed to immediate taxation?
EU Considers Decade-Long Tax Holiday for Aviation and Shipping Fuels Amid Climate Policy Tensions
Historical Context and Background of EU Energy Taxation
International Agreements and Legal Constraints
The 10-Year Tax Holiday Proposal: Details and Rationale
Economic Impact and Revenue Losses
Stakeholder Positions and Political Dynamics
Technical and Implementation Challenges
Climate Policy Implications and Broader Context
Conclusion
FAQ
A: The EU is considering this delay due to industry lobbying, concerns from tourism- and maritime-dependent member states, and the high cost and limited supply of alternative fuels. The compromise is framed as a transition period to allow for technological development.
A: Estimates from Transport & Environment suggest that €34.2 billion was lost in aviation tax revenue in 2022 alone, with projections of up to €47.1 billion by 2025 if exemptions continue. Shipping and fishing exemptions add further to these losses.
A: Challenges include international legal constraints, risk of competitive disadvantage, technical issues with verifying sustainable fuels, and the need to coordinate with the EU Emissions Trading System and international agreements.
A: Delaying fuel taxation until 2035 could make it harder for the EU to meet its 2030 emissions reduction targets, as aviation and shipping are among the fastest-growing sources of greenhouse gases.
A: Countries with significant tourism and maritime industries, such as Greece, Malta, Cyprus, and others, have been the strongest opponents of immediate fuel taxation.
Photo Credit: AI Generated
Regulations & Safety
Stolen Cessna 172 Crashes into Hangar at Van Nuys Airport
A stolen Cessna 172 crashed into a hangar at Van Nuys Airport. Suspect arrested; FAA and FBI investigate security breach at busy general aviation airport.
This article summarizes reporting by NBC Los Angeles and Jonathan Lloyd.
A security breach at Van Nuys Airports (VNY) early Thursday morning resulted in the theft and subsequent crash of a single-engine aircraft. According to reporting by NBC Los Angeles, a suspect broke into a flight school facility and attempted to commandeer a Cessna 172 before crashing the plane into a nearby hangar building. Authorities have confirmed that the aircraft never successfully became airborne.
Law enforcement officials, including the Los Angeles Airport Police (LAXPD) and the FBI, responded immediately to the scene. The suspect was taken into custody without incident, and no injuries were reported on the ground or in the aircraft. The incident has prompted a federal investigation into the security protocols at one of the world’s busiest general aviation airports.
The incident began in the pre-dawn hours of December 18, 2025. According to a timeline compiled from reports by NBC4 and KTLA, the suspect trespassed onto the airport grounds around 4:00 AM. The individual targeted a flight training facility located near the 7900 block of Balboa Boulevard, an area densely populated with Commercial-Aircraft academies and hangars.
After gaining access to the flight school, the suspect boarded a white single-engine Cessna 172. Around 5:00 AM, the suspect attempted to operate the aircraft. NBC Los Angeles reports that the plane was stolen directly from the flight school’s ramp.
“A small plane crashed in a building at Van Nuys Airport after it was stolen from a flight school, officials tell NBC4 Investigates.”
— NBC Los Angeles
While the suspect managed to start the engine and begin taxiing, they lost control of the aircraft before reaching a runway. The plane surged forward and impacted a hangar nose-first. Aerial video footage broadcast by KTLA showed the aircraft’s nose embedded in the metal siding of the structure, leaving a distinct hole in the exterior wall. The propeller and nose cone sustained significant damage, rendering the aircraft inoperable.
Following the crash, LAXPD officers arrested the suspect at the scene. CBS Los Angeles and other local outlets have identified the individual as 37-year-old Ceffareno Michael Logan. He was booked on suspicion of burglary and theft of an aircraft. According to verified reports from Patch and NTD News, bail for Logan has been set at $150,000. As of the latest updates, authorities have not disclosed a motive for the theft, nor have they confirmed whether the suspect possessed any prior flight training or a pilot’s license. The swift arrival of law enforcement prevented any further attempts to move the aircraft or flee the scene.
The investigation has expanded beyond local police to include federal agencies. Both the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are on-site to assist LAXPD. Their inquiry will likely focus on how the suspect breached the perimeter and accessed the aircraft keys or ignition system.
Crews were observed later in the morning extracting the damaged Cessna from the hangar wall and towing it back to the flight academy’s facility. Despite the dramatic nature of the event, airport operations at Van Nuys were not significantly disrupted, as the crash was contained within the flight school’s specific ramp area.
While commercial airports operate under the strict passenger screening protocols of the TSA, general aviation (GA) airports like Van Nuys face different security challenges. VNY is a massive facility with multiple access points for Private-Jets businesses, hangars, and flight schools. This incident highlights the vulnerability of “insider” areas where aircraft are parked.
Although rare, the theft of aircraft is a known risk in the aviation industry. In 2018, a ground service agent stole a Q400 turboprop from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, a tragedy that ended in a fatal crash. Fortunately, in this instance at Van Nuys, the suspect failed to achieve flight, preventing a potentially catastrophic outcome over the densely populated San Fernando Valley. We anticipate this event will trigger a review of after-hours key storage and perimeter security standards for flight schools operating at VNY.
Stolen Cessna 172 Crashes into Hangar at Van Nuys Airport
Timeline of the Theft and Crash
The Break-in and Attempted Taxi
Suspect and Legal Proceedings
Investigation and Aftermath
AirPro News Analysis: General Aviation Security
Sources
Photo Credit: KTLA5
Regulations & Safety
US Government Admits Liability in 2025 Washington DC Mid-Air Collision
The U.S. government admits fault in the 2025 mid-air collision near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport that killed 67, citing FAA and Army errors.
This article summarizes reporting by AP News.
In a significant legal development following the deadliest United States aviation accident since 2001, the U.S. government has formally admitted liability for the mid-air collision that claimed 67 lives earlier this year. According to court filings submitted in December 2025, the Department of Justice acknowledged that negligence by both Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic controllers and U.S. Army pilots caused the tragedy.
The crash, which occurred on January 29, 2025, involved American Eagle Flight 5342 and a U.S. Army Black Hawk helicopter operating near Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA). As reported by AP News, the government’s admission comes in response to a lawsuit filed by the family of a victim, signaling a potential shift in how the remaining legal battles regarding the disaster will proceed.
The lawsuit, filed by the family of passenger Casey Crafton, alleges that failures in communication and protocol led directly to the catastrophe. In a move that legal experts describe as unusually swift for complex aviation litigation, the government did not contest its role in the accident.
In the filing, the government stated that it:
“owed a duty of care to plaintiffs, which it breached.”
, U.S. Department of Justice filing, via AP News
By admitting liability, the government effectively removes the need for a trial to determine fault regarding its own agents (the FAA and the Army). The legal focus will likely shift toward determining the amount of damages owed to the families of the 64 people on the regional jet and the three crew members on the helicopter.
The collision occurred at night while the American Eagle CRJ700, operated by PSA Airlines, was on approach to DCA from Wichita, Kansas. The Black Hawk helicopter was conducting a training mission involving night vision goggles. Investigations cited by AP News and preliminary NTSB data highlight two primary causes for the disaster: air traffic control errors and pilot deviations. According to the reports, the FAA controller at DCA utilized “visual separation” procedures, asking the helicopter pilots if they had the incoming jet in sight. Once the pilots confirmed they did, the controller transferred the responsibility for maintaining safe distance to the helicopter crew. Following the incident, the FAA has reportedly restricted the use of visual separation for helicopters operating in this congested airspace.
The government’s admission also encompasses errors made by the Army flight crew. Investigators found that the helicopter was flying significantly higher than permitted for its specific route. While the limit for “Route 4” was 200 feet, the Black Hawk was operating between 278 and 300 feet, approximately 78 feet above the ceiling for that corridor.
Furthermore, technical discrepancies were noted in the helicopter’s equipment. The investigation revealed that the barometric altimeter may have displayed an altitude 80 to 100 feet lower than the aircraft’s actual position, potentially misleading the pilots. The use of night vision goggles was also cited as a factor that may have limited the crew’s peripheral vision and depth perception.
The speed at which the U.S. government admitted liability, less than a year after the incident, is notable. In many aviation disasters involving state actors, litigation can drag on for years over jurisdictional and immunity claims. We assess that this early admission is likely a strategic decision to limit the scope of discovery. By conceding fault now, the government may prevent a prolonged public trial that would expose granular, potentially sensitive details regarding military training operations and air traffic control systemic vulnerabilities in the nation’s capital.
While the government has accepted its share of the blame, the legal battle continues for the private carriers involved. American Airlines and its regional subsidiary, PSA Airlines, are also named defendants in the lawsuit. Both airlines have filed motions to dismiss the complaints against them, arguing that the sole responsibility lies with the government entities that controlled the airspace and the military aircraft.
Attorneys for the victims’ families, however, argue that the airlines failed to mitigate known risks associated with flying into the highly congested airspace around Washington, D.C. The outcome of these motions will determine whether the airlines must also pay damages or if the U.S. taxpayers will bear the full financial burden of the settlements.
When is the final NTSB report expected? What safety changes have been made since the crash? How many people died in the accident?
US Government Admits Liability in Fatal Collision Between American Eagle Jet and Army Helicopter
Government Concedes Negligence in Court Filing
Operational Failures Behind the Crash
FAA Controller Errors
Army Pilot Deviations
AirPro News Analysis
Ongoing Legal Disputes with Airlines
Frequently Asked Questions
The National Transportation Safety Board is expected to release its final report on the probable cause of the accident in early 2026.
The FAA has permanently closed the specific helicopter route (Route 4) involved in the crash. Additionally, regulators have prohibited the simultaneous use of certain runways at DCA during urgent helicopter missions and restricted visual separation procedures for helicopters.
The crash resulted in 67 total fatalities: 60 passengers and 4 crew members on the regional jet, and 3 crew members on the Army helicopter.
Sources
Photo Credit: NBC News
Regulations & Safety
Why Proper Maintenance of Aircraft Wheel Bearings Is Critical for Safety
Airbus technical data shows aircraft wheel bearing failures result mainly from maintenance errors. Proper torque, cleaning, and lubrication are essential for safety.
This article is based on technical guidance and safety publications from Airbus and additional industry safety reports.
Aircraft wheel bearings are among the most stressed components in aviation. Despite supporting loads of up to 500 tons and enduring temperature shifts from sub-zero cruising altitudes to the intense heat of braking, they remain largely hidden from view. According to a technical safety publication by Airbus, the failure of these components is rarely due to design flaws but is almost exclusively the result of improper maintenance.
At AirPro News, we have reviewed the latest guidance from Airbus’s “Safety First” initiative, alongside broader industry data, to understand why these small components continue to pose significant risks to flight safety. The consensus across manufacturers and regulators is clear: strict adherence to maintenance protocols is the only barrier against catastrophic failure.
The primary cause of bearing failure, as identified by Airbus and industry data, is maintenance error. Specifically, the issues revolve around incorrect torque application, contamination, and inadequate lubrication. Aircraft use “tapered roller bearings” designed to handle both the weight of the aircraft (radial loads) and side-to-side movement (axial loads). When these bearings are mistreated, the consequences are severe.
One of the most critical and frequently misunderstood aspects of wheel installation is the torque procedure. According to Airbus technical guidelines, a specific “double-torque” method is required to ensure the bearings are seated correctly without being overtightened.
The process generally involves three distinct steps:
The risk lies in the details. If a technician skips rotating the wheel during the initial torque application, the rollers may not align, leading to a false torque reading. This can result in loose bearings that vibrate and wear prematurely, or tight bearings that overheat and seize.
The failure of a wheel bearing is not merely a maintenance inconvenience; it is a direct threat to the structural integrity of the aircraft. When a bearing seizes, it can generate enough friction to weld components together or shear axles, leading to wheel separation.
In one notable case study highlighted by Airbus, an A330 aircraft lost a wheel during takeoff. The investigation revealed that a seized bearing destroyed the axle nut, allowing the wheel to eject from the landing gear. This is not an isolated event. Data from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) underscores the prevalence of this issue. “A study revealed 67 occurrences of nosewheel bearing failures on A319/A320/A321 aircraft worldwide between 1989 and 2004.”
— TSB Canada Data
While the Airbus “Safety First” article focuses on their fleet, the physics of bearing failure applies universally. Reports from the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) detail an incident involving a Boeing 737-800 where a seized bearing generated sufficient heat to compromise the chrome plating and base metal of the axle, causing it to fracture.
Similarly, an investigation into an Embraer EMB-145 (registration G-EMBP) found that moisture contamination due to improper seal installation led to severe overheating and subsequent axle failure. These incidents confirm that regardless of the airframe manufacturer, the root causes, contamination and torque errors, remain consistent.
To mitigate these risks, manufacturers and technical organizations like Timken have established “gold standard” maintenance manuals. The following practices are considered non-negotiable for airworthiness:
The Human Factor in Maintenance
While the technical steps are well-documented, we believe the persistence of these failures points to a human factors challenge. Wheel bearings are “hidden” components; unlike a tire that shows visible tread wear, a bearing often looks pristine until the moment it fails catastrophically. This lack of visual feedback places an immense burden on the maintenance process itself.
In high-pressure line maintenance environments, the requirement to rotate a wheel while torquing it, a process that relies on “feel” and patience, can be a trap for technicians rushing to clear an aircraft for departure. The data suggests that safety in this domain relies less on new technology and more on a disciplined adherence to the basics: cleaning, inspecting, and respecting the torque procedure.
Regulators continue to monitor these risks closely. The FAA has previously issued Airworthiness Directives, such as AD 2012-10-09 for Cessna 560XL aircraft, following reports of brake failure linked to loose bearing components. Furthermore, the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam) frequently issues alerts reminding operators that “grease is not just grease,” warning that using unapproved substitutes constitutes a violation of FAR Part 43.
Whether operating a General Aviation aircraft or a commercial airliner, the message from the industry is uniform: take care of the wheel bearings, and they will carry the load.
The Hidden Danger in the Gear: Why Wheel Bearing Maintenance Cannot Be Rushed
The Mechanics of Failure
The “Double-Torque” Procedure
Real-World Consequences
Airbus and TSB Canada Data
Cross-Fleet Vulnerabilities
Industry Best Practices
AirPro News Analysis
Regulatory Context
Sources
Photo Credit: Airbus
-
Commercial Aviation6 days agoVietnam Grounds 28 Aircraft Amid Pratt & Whitney Engine Shortage
-
Business Aviation3 days agoGreg Biffle and Family Die in North Carolina Plane Crash
-
Defense & Military4 days agoFinland Unveils First F-35A Lightning II under HX Fighter Program
-
Business Aviation2 days agoBombardier Global 8000 Gains FAA Certification as Fastest Business Jet
-
Technology & Innovation17 hours agoJoby Aviation and Metropolis Develop 25 US Vertiports for eVTOL Launch