[FDOS_UK]

BTMEEditor – 05/06/2016 12:43 BST

The problem with anecdotal evidence (and I include my experiences in this category), is that 20 minutes either side of your experience, it may be a very different experience.

I’m pleased your entry was painless.

[Tony-UK]

BTMEEditor – 05/06/2016 12:43 BST
This thread relates to T5 and the experience of going from international to domestic, am pleased for you and other customers using T3 if it is a less painful experience…

[Uncledude]

And how many UK Domestic flights depart from T3…ZERO

I dont want to see an Immigration officer to enter my own Country I just want a couple of E-Gates moved a few feet so that Regional Connecting EU Passengers can be handled as Quickly and Easy as London arriving EU Passengers. Its not Rocket Science. Then I will make the connection that BA calculates for you. Instead of having to wait for another Domestic flights hours later because of lack of basic intelligence and infrastructure.

[IanFromHKG]

I wonder how much profit the Government makes from air travel? With the APD rates now being charged, I can only assume it is quite hefty. My actual face-time (to use a terrible American expression) with Government-funded personnel when arriving in or leaving the UK amounts to what on average – five minutes? Probably far less. But let’s be generous and say ten. On the basis of staff being paid (and receiving other benefits of), say 30k p.a. (I am working on the basis of the salary figure quoted above of 21-26k pa) and working 48 hours per week with four weeks holiday, they get about 13 pounds an hour. Let’s go on and assume that for each front-line member of staff there are three behind the scenes (I hope to God that’s a generous assumption) – so a staffing cost of 52 pounds an hour of which I receive the benefit of one-sixth (ten minutes), or 8.67. The equipment doesn’t seem to be replaced too often so let’s say – plucking a number at random just because it’s convenient – 33 pence of equipment cost per screening. I can’t imagine they are paying for space at the airports (or am I wrong? – no doubt someone on this forum will know).

So even with what I believe are generous assumptions, the Government is spending 9 pounds and receiving… between 13 pounds and 438 pounds.

Even if I underestimated my figures by a significant percentage, they should still be in profit even on the passengers paying the lowest duty – and that doesn’t account for the other taxes they receive from airlines.

I grant you that transit passengers may not pay APD. I don’t know how to account for that in my assumptions. And these are all, of course, assumptions, and I would welcome comments from anyone with information to refute them (in either direction). However, I strongly suspect that the UK Government is well in pocket overall – and could afford to provide a better service for the money it receives.

[MrMichael]

Ian, let’s suppose your assumption is correct (I expect it is), the principle of taxation in the UK is that everyone contributes, it is not a pay as you go scheme. Taxation has to pay for defense, education and the huge myriad of other public services that residents and visitors to the uk use and need. So yes, I suspect like you that airports in general make a positive contribution to the balance sheet, I do not see that as fundamentally wrong. I too think UK APD is too high, but ultimately if the government were to scrap it then either more cuts would have to be made to public services or the burden of tax would have to be shifted. Other than interested parties such as Airlines and regular passengers, I do not think there is any great amount of political or public pressure to change APD, unlike VAT on women’s sanitary items duty on petrol and Income tax.

[AnthonyDunn]

@ UncleDude – 05/06/2016 21:35 BST

Your suggestion is so eminently sensible and rational that …have you had the presence of mind to suggest it to the Border Agency? As most machine bureaucracies suffer inordinately from “group think”, it is entirely possible that they have not considered such a blindingly obvious possibility!

Perhaps we should start a concerted campaign so that, each time we each of us pass through T5, we insist upon seeing the Border Agency manager in charge to make the point that it is utterly ludicrous to hold up domestic passengers and those transiting immediately onto domestic services.

[IanFromHKG]

All very valid points, MrMichael. I don’t think I said or suggested at any point that the profit HMG makes from APD is “fundamentally wrong” – merely that (IMHO) the airport services which HMG provides could be better funded without making those services loss-making.

I completely accept that different taxation sources go to the general public purse. However, it is hard (at least to me) to separate the idea that a user-pays tax, (such as road vehicle licences or APD) should be wholly dissociated from the cost to HMG of providing the necessary infrastructure. What that means is that a user of one part of the infrastructure is taxed excessively in order to contribute to general expenditure.

This thread has made me think (and do a little research) about whether APD could be reduced. The contribution to public finance might not be as great on a per capita basis, I grant you. However, let’s look at this from a different perspective. Given that one of HMG’s stated aims for the APD is to reduce carbon emissions (per the budget statements), I think anyone can concede that it is a dismal failure in that respect. The number of posts on here about ex-EU flights, where a portion of the saving is due to the differential APD charged for short-haul flights (positioning to the EU) as opposed to long-haul (point-to-point) flights makes me wonder whether APD is really a deterrent to people flying (thereby reducing emissions), or an incentive for them to fly more. I am inclined to think the latter. Perhaps if HMG had the courage of its convictions it would rethink APD entirely in order to reduce the temptation for people to take entirely unnecessary flights in order to access lower fares? In the process, they could perhaps reduce the amount of security, immigration and other HMG-funded personnel at airports or even (heaven forfend!) retain them and provide a smoother experience for travellers. It might even give a boost to UK carriers at the cost of the continental competitors (AF, KLM, LH)?

It is interesting to note that there are even suggestions and analyses (from luminaries as exalted as PwC, no less) indicating that abolition of APD would boost the economy. When you put it in that context, the poor value for money received by the average airport user is even more stark.

None of these points detract from your post, I hasten to add – I completely agree with everything you say. However, I do think that a sensible government (ha!) would rethink the purpose of, and benefits from, APD and could do better in what should be their ultimate mission – to make life easier and safer for its citizens.

[MrMichael]

Ian, your on the money. In the sector I work in parking charges (local authority, on street charges)are put up and up and up, contrary (in my opinion) to law on the basis that it promotes sustainable transport and therefore increases air quality. It is a sham, it is done because the public sector needs the money, just like APD supposedly decreases demand for air travel and contributes to air quality. We all know it won’t work, just as putting more tax on my Pall Mall will not make me give up, peer pressure might, taxation won’t.

Would reducing APD create more travel, well it could, but surely that is tantamount to admitting the whole thing was nothing more than a tax raising exercise in the first place. If one is indeed of the view that reducing or scrapping APD would increase travel to from the UK then in fact it is saying the principles behind APD (reducing demand for air travel) is working.

[MarcusGB]

I have solved the LHR problem buy flying via Schiphol.
Fed up with the constant incompetence at LHR and the excessive charges for Government taxes.
I also fail to see ho our Country can operate a Border, when no one gets checked leaving the country. We simply do not know who has left or where they are.

i have come in mornings, afternoons even 9pm at night to T4, and there have been such queues. It is not acceptable, so i put my money and my custom elsewhere.
Amsterdam Schiphol offers a separate floor now for Fast Track Security and Immigration, for all terminals, departing, and arriving. I never wait more than 5 minutes for full body scanners for Security. Even at Peak times, 10 minutes for gates or the Excellent Immigration Police services, split between the Civil and Military Police (who wear Black).

I simply do not use LHR for long haul and more, and connect via LCY.
Add the fiasco of the Governments cowardly conduct in not choosing an airport solution or expansion. We then we have to wait longer than it takes other Countries to build a whole Airport, for one runway. I have given up on LHR, nothing will change there, and British “”Management” is some of the most in-efficient around the world. The day to day Management of LHR, Immigration, the low skilled and rude Security staff, and no border checks leaving the UK, makes us a laughing stock around The World

[FDOS_UK]

MarcusGB – 08/06/2016 21:07 BST

I used to think the same way as you, about the lack of monitoring outbound pax – but this changed just over a year ago.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/exit-checks-on-passengers-leaving-the-uk/exit-checks-fact-sheet

And for once, it has been implemented in a way that causes little, if any, impact on our journeys.

I still don’t like using Heathrow, but credit where credit is due.

[Tony-UK]

MarcusGB – 08/06/2016 21:07 BST

Sadly this is the option that many are taking (from personal experience, many colleagues/friends in the NW will no longer consider using LHR (I suspect the same applies to all regions outside the South East??)). Just imagine if LHR had the capacity and resolved the issues in T5, and BA offered passengers in the regions an incentive to use them e.g. offering chauffeur pickups and a decent lounge, there must be a business case there?

[FDOS_UK]

Tony

I did ask a BA senior manager the same (just imagine) question, a few years ago. The response was that it would be too expensive.

It struck me at the time that this was a negative and uncommercial response. Very few large companies will tolerate large scale attack in their home markets and most would find a way to compete, either through disruptive innovation or some other way of undermining their competitor’s offers.

That BA is content to cede large swathes of the country to other carriers, is informative.

[MarcusGB]

All credit to KLM for having kept a steady flow and good reputation in the UK, for many years transferring many to their Worldwide flights. In Europe all their flights appear full, and they have a firm following from Scandanavia, down to Portugal and Spain, over to Hungary for those travelling in to board their Intercontinental flights.

Schiphol’s 20 months for 20 years ahead refurbishment is to be launched 1st July i have been told, so this adds to their solid base.
I am not sure if LH or Swiss have retained a similar use from the UK, as it has been some years since i flew with them. But our choices are considerably less now, and probably the UAE Carriers have this business for good.

I think Air France are on a path to self-destruction, and thought KLM / AF of the same group, very pleased they kept different brands. With more strikes imminent, The Senior Managers will impose a strategy now, and many of AF European flights will be converted to low cost “Hop”, or Transavia. This will indeed affect those transferring in for their long haul flights eventually. Many more jobs will go, and routes with no profit axed.

Thanks for the info for the Border controls in the UK Fdos, but i fail to see how they are remotely as effective, having a paper policy compared to passing by an immigration Officer. I recall how disciplined yet professional the Immigration Officers work at Schiphol, those include Military Police. Nothing replaces the physical check of you, and the examination of the passport, and it is very thoroughly done there, alongside profiling and lists to flag people up.
The number of false documents used to get in and out of the UK is huge many as EU country issued id cards, passports, driving licences. I know several Senior Police Officers, and they reckon 95% of people get through. We cannot even deport most with a serious Criminal record, as the EU dictates their human rights may be affected!
The UK is a pushover, and LHR sums it all up.

I also prefer the discipline and professionalism of the Military or Immigration Police in many countries, rather than wet and often rude Civilian Immigration staff. There is a greater sense of hierachy, accountability, enforcement, and supervision according to rank, and far better teamwork.

[AnthonyDunn]

@FDOS_UK – 09/06/2016 07:14 BST

VMTs the link to the Home Office webpage on the API system: most informative. BTW, the effectiveness of the system was demonstrated on the new ITV1 series on Heathrow (which is world’s apart and far superior to the patronising dross delivered by the BBC a year or so ago) in which someone attempting to skip the country was picked up by the Plod whilst attempting to board a EK flight. The information was provided via the API system.

And regarding “That BA is content to cede large swathes of the country to other carriers, is informative”, I think the latter word should read as “incredible” – in the literal sense!

[Tony-UK]

“Informative” and “incredible”, my my, we are giving BA the benefit of the doubt and being restrained. I would perhaps have expressed it in stronger terms but I enjoy being part of this forum…

[Author]

Posts