End of UK APD? G'day "Plane Tax"

[serfty]

BBC News - Full Text: Conservative-Lib Dem deal

Fears over replacement for Air Passenger Duty - Cheapflights.co.uk

Fears over replacement for Air Passenger Duty

Post by Martin Rivers on Wednesday 12 May, 2010 in Featured Post, Industry Insider

Britain's controversial Air Passenger Duty (APD) will be replaced by a new taxation system, the coalition government has announced.

An agreement hammered out between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties makes clear their commitment to a new and potentially more-punitive tax system.

APD has been criticised because it charges individual passengers rather planes, meaning airlines that operate fuel-inefficient, half-empty flights actually make the lowest contributions.

"The parties agree that a switch should be made to a per-plane, rather than per-passenger duty," the new coalition agreement states.

However, the travel industry will be waiting with bated breath to see how its new system is fleshed out, with critics noting that the Lib Dems favour higher taxes for passengers. ...

I am thinking this will have an impact on fares as I cannot see how airlines could reasonably separate it out in the

.

As to the level, the Lib-Dems were quoted as raising twice as much as the APD; how this works with the coalition remains to be seen.

Also note the cancellation of the 3rd runway at LHR.

Here's an excerpt of the relevant Lib-Dems pre-election publication:

Replacing Air Passenger Duty with a per plane tax

Air Passenger Duty (APD) is charged on passengers flying from a United Kingdom airport. By replacing the APD with an ‘Aviation Duty’ which would be levied on planes as opposed to passengers we would provide an incentive for airlines to fill seats and to discourage them from running empty flights as well as ensuring that cargo flights are brought within the scope of the duty since they currently are not covered by the existing regulations.

Introduction of a levy on domestic flights

This levy is aimed to discourage travellers from choosing air travel over land travel for routes in which the latter is readily available. In order to ensure that travel from the extremes of the country are not unfairly penalised by geographical distance the domestic duty would only apply to flights to and from destinations for which rail travel could not be provided in less than 6 hours. ...

 

[Mal]

re: End of UK APD? G'day "Plane Tax"

I am thinking this will have an impact on fares as I cannot see how airlines could reasonably separate it out in the

.

I agree. Actually, it could be advantageous to flyers (esp. those on FF tickets) as it will be harder to implement as a +++.

Abandoning the 3rd runway plans at Heathrow is a bit disappointing. Heathrow is already a horrible mess air traffic wise at times (eg sometimes circling for 30+ mins while you wait your turn). There have been plenty of other options put forward, including high speed trains to EDI/GLA/NCL etc and the removal of a lot of domestic flights, but not having a 3rd runway prevents future expansion. Does make some people quite happy though!

 

[Dave Noble]

re: End of UK APD? G'day "Plane Tax"

A tax on planes rather than the current one could get rid of the differential taxes for economy and premium cabins

It could also , seemingly, reverse the current situation where taxes are lower on shorthaul flights ( typically smaller aeroplanes ) than long haul ones

Dave

 

[samh004]

re: End of UK APD? G'day "Plane Tax"

Also note the cancellation of the 3rd runway at LHR.

Hate the Tories.

 

[Dave Noble]

re: End of UK APD? G'day "Plane Tax"

Hate the Tories.

There are other airports in the area such as Gatwick... If they build a 3rd runway then there'll be whines for a 6th terminal and then a 4th runway .....

use larger aeroplanes and reduce some frequencies and can increase passenger numbers. There is a limit to how far Heathrow makes sense to develop.

Dave

 

[anat0l]

re: End of UK APD? G'day "Plane Tax"

There are other airports in the area such as Gatwick... If they build a 3rd runway then there'll be whines for a 6th terminal and then a 4th runway .....

use larger aeroplanes and reduce some frequencies and can increase passenger numbers. There is a limit to how far Heathrow makes sense to develop.

That's easier said than done, unless Heathrow were to say increase prices of slots such that only those who are really prepared to stick with Heathrow will do so. There will certainly be a lot of airlines that will cry foul at that proposal unless it is also mandated by regulation (where the government will actively say, "swallow it or hit the road").

Not to mention that there are other airports in LON but they are also within the same chaotic airspace and also at some mentionable capacity (albeit Heathrow is the notable example).

 

[Dave Noble]

re: End of UK APD? G'day "Plane Tax"

Not to mention that there are other airports in LON but they are also within the same chaotic airspace and also at some mentionable capacity (albeit Heathrow is the notable example).

If the airspace is that chaotic then there would be no good reason to extend Heathrow yet again. If there is air capacity then spread the loads over Gatwick and Stansted.

Perhaps even work a decent train connection between the airports to make inter airport connections easy

 

[samh004]

Perhaps even work a decent train connection between the airports to make inter airport connections easy

Sure, because that’ll be really easy and quick to build, and each area that the link passes through wont demand to have a station on the new line

 

[Dave Noble]

Sure, because that’ll be really easy and quick to build, and each area that the link passes through wont demand to have a station on the new line

There are already lines into Heathrow and into Gatwick plus trains do go from Reading across to Gatwick already Integrating into the network would not seem to be an impossible task

Building a 3rd runway would not be quick

 

[ejb]

Hate the Tories.

You love Gordon Brown



I do think however that a new runway would lead to a new terminal which then needs another runway and forever we go on.

Planning now for other airport use will enable infrastructure to be put in place before LHR becomes completely jammed.

ejb

 

[samh004]

You love Gordon Brown

My family is heavily labour, as my granddad was General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers back in the Thatcher years

I do however agree with Jeremy Clarkson that Gordon Brown is “a one-eyed Scottish idiot”.

I do think however that a new runway would lead to a new terminal which then needs another runway and forever we go on.

Planning now for other airport use will enable infrastructure to be put in place before LHR becomes completely jammed.

ejb

They should just build a brand new airport far away and connect it with an extremely high speed rail link. Maybe a Maglev. Then again, they might not have the money for that

 

[anat0l]

They should just build a brand new airport far away and connect it with an extremely high speed rail link. Maybe a Maglev. Then again, they might not have the money for that

Like Hell that'll happen.

Of course, in ol' London town they thought Heathrow was far away. Then, after a while, it wasn't.

Melbourne and Tullamarine are headed for the same kind of disaster. Sydney and Mascot are already in that kind of rut with no way out. (At least not with the decision-making incompetency possessed by our governments.)

Too bad they're not next to the coast, of which perhaps reclaiming an island (a la Osaka-Kansai) might be an idea (albeit very environmentally damaging). Not sure where you can set up an airport in merry ol' England far enough away from "everything" (and even then, there will be several claims that one cannot build there because it will be destroying someone's amenity or utility).

 

[samh004]

I think the problem is you build an airport, and slowly people build houses closer and closer to the airport, and then you try to expand the airport and they suddenly complain about noise, even though the airport was there first.

If anyone is going to build a new airport, it needs to have a wide area around it that simply can’t be used for residential so there’s no worry of noise and other issues in the future.

HKIA was also reclaimed land.

 

[simongr]

There isnt any spare land in the UK really. Too many people on too small an island...

 

[anat0l]

Too many people on too small an island...

Well they're sure as hell not sending any more here! We made a mistake ~200 years ago, we're not doing it again...


Seriously back on topic, well of course there's not much room to move. So the solution is stop developing land in the UK, cease airport growth and encourage people to fly/train in from other countries, instead?

 

[NM]

There isnt any spare land in the UK really. Too many people on too small an island...

Maybe not much spare land near London, but plenty of unused land in some parts of the UK. But not all that practical to build a major airport on the Isle of Skye - except for those of us that like a tiddle of Talisker .