28th August 2011 at 12:14 #467892
Anonymous28th August 2011 at 12:14 #467893
I’ve just come across this article which states that the dreaded and pointless Air Passenger Duty could be increased by up to 25% because there are less people flying, thus leaving a ‘black hole’ in government finances.
APD was supposed to be for environmental reasons as it would reduce demand for air travel. Surely it must be working if projected revenue from it is down, but now we see the true reason – simple increased taxation, on an already grossly overtaxed country. What other possible reason could there be for a proposed increase this large?28th August 2011 at 13:18 #467894
Fewer people flying, not less.
I was under the impression APD was being phased out, the goal being to eventually replace it with a “per plane” scheme.
Is that the same as the European Emissions Trading (ETS) scheme?
George Osborne postponed the increase in April 2011, so I suppose this would be the increase which had been planned by Labour coming back to bite us just prior to the Olympics; let’s hope they defer again.28th August 2011 at 14:14 #467895
The APD would be a little easier to understand and even appreciate, if the amounts being charged were understandable.
An amount is added to each ticket (yes, we can see it under a “heading”) but there is no way of understanding or challenging this amount. It differs from airport to airport, route to route. Does anyone actually have any idea for the basis of the calculations for all the added amounts to tickets. More importantly, is their any proof that the money is being used for purpose intended!?.28th August 2011 at 14:23 #467896
VK, no this is a new increase on top of what has already been proposed and deferred. Also, the EU emissions trading proposals are simply another tax, so yet another reason to leave!
Martyn, APD is now calculated in bands based on the distance from London to the capital city of the destination. This of course leads to SAN and LAX etc being charged at the same rate as IAD. Also a flight to HKG or SIN gets charged more than a flight to DXB, so providing an unfair advantage to EK and the other Gulf carriers when competing on the kangaroo route.
Any class above economy gets charged double, so is particularly unfair on Premium Economy.
This unfair and unjust tax makes no sense at all and should be totally scrapped ASAP. It is just another revenue raising measure, as proved by the proposed increase.28th August 2011 at 14:30 #467897
Does this mean that a flight for example
LHR – JFK – LHR OR
JFK – LHR – LHR
should have the same additions?
Is it clear how the money is actually being used?28th August 2011 at 14:33 #467898
Martyn, both of those examples have one flight from LHR, so one charge applies; it does not matter which way round, both UK travellers and foreign visitors get equally shafted.
The money is simply absorbed by the State!28th August 2011 at 15:00 #467899
I remember reading that the coallition wished to replace UKAPD with per plane but it was advised that to do so was against European Union law at present. I also remember there was talk about removing the exmption for private planes but I think that escaped as well. With the current administration and its view on commercial aviation and its role in the economy I would expect a large increase in UKAPD in the next budget.
My understanding is currently UKAPD is only paid by travellers beginning a leg from the UK and consequently business and tourist travel to and from third party countries flying through UK enjoy the security services without paying UKAPD.28th August 2011 at 15:09 #467900
@Bucksnet – I know the charges apply irresepctive of which way round, but the question was are the charges the same? When I last checked I couldnt get the figure to match in £ and $.28th August 2011 at 15:13 #467901
Martyn, I buy some tickets in Uk and some in US. The fees are broadly the same, the difference being explained by exchange rate. (as fees are only ex UK and so tickets issued in US convert the UKL fee into USD).
A thought intrigues me. It has been often said a ticket AMS-LHR-JFK say is cheaper than LHR-JFK. As a result airlines try to stop people using part tickets. Question, if you buy a ticket AMS-LHR-JFK and do not use the AMS-LHR part (ignoring the fact the airline will get upset) are you liable for UKAPD if the ticket is a straight through connection?28th August 2011 at 15:28 #467902
if you do not use the ams-lhr sector they will cancel the whole ticket, you will not be able to board in lhr.
you would be classed as a no-show and have to buy a whole new ticket and put the old one in for a refund if the ticket rules allow for a refund on a no-show28th August 2011 at 15:35 #467903
Martyn, the exchange rate applied explains the difference as Rich states.
APD is not charged on tickets connecting thru the UK if the time here is less than 24 hours, so this explains in part why these fares can be cheaper.28th August 2011 at 15:38 #467904
Craig, I was not postulating it as a workable solution, rather wondering what the legal liability for UKAPD would be. As we know there are workable solutions to gain routing fare advantages but this is not an appropriate place to discuss details.28th August 2011 at 15:53 #467905
sorry rich, i must have misunderstood you, i am unaware of ANY workarounds for not using the FIRST sector of an ex europe fare and starting from the second sector, so therefore i was dismissing the issue of UKAPD as in that scenario in my mind in was a non starter.28th August 2011 at 15:56 #467906
Starting a long haul flight from Europe avoids the APD; you would only pay a small amount of APD on a flight from the UK to Europe to ‘start’ your trip. You can forget about the return when you land at LHR.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.