Air Passenger Duty and new transatlantic business class airlines

[WHBM]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the new Air Passenger Duty rates from 1 Feb are double for all premium cabins, defined as all classes of service except the lowest.

The new business class carriers (Maxjet, Eos, Silverjet) only have one class of service.

So do you pay a (significantly) lower rate of APD with them compared to the established multi-class carriers ? Is this a competitive advantage they have ? And what if the majors chose to run an aircraft with one premium class only, like Concorde used to be ?

[TwinAisle]

Yes, good isn't it?

The regulations state as you rightly note that "premium" cabins get the higher tax imposed. "Premium" being defined as a differentiated service over and above the basic product in service and fare terms.

And since they only have the "basic" product, they get the lower taxes imposed.

Example - BA, LHR-JFK, 9th Feb - Economy taxes £102, WTP taxes £142, Club taxes £142, First taxes £142.

MaxJet, same day, taxes £64.40.... of which the APD is £40. Ie, that nice Gordon's new lowest rate for a non-European destination.

From HMRC's website - The reduced rates apply where the passengers are carried in the lowest class of travel on any flight.

Another genius move from the Idiot Brown!

TA

[Crowe]

Twas the same for Concorde I believe.

[Navy_Adversary]

My flight in the zoo tomorrow from LHR-BKK-LHR has taxes of £139:mad:
when I went in November it was £108, so an increase of £31.

This is due to GB and also the Thais have jumped on the bandwagon.
I used to pay 500 baht departure tax, this has now been incorporated in the ticket price, 10 quid equalling 700 baht.

I fly Eva air and it would be interesting to see a breakdown of where the £139goes, probably nearer £180 up front.

[BEagle]

I'm incensed that the Greedy Gordon has yet again introduced another stealth tax. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with global carbon, or whatever the huggy-fluffy greenies call it - it's pure opportunistic ransom of air travellers by Noo Labia.

Still, I supose they've got to get the money from somewere now that they can't get people to pay for knighthoods and peerages any more.

How long until we turf this slimy bunch out of office?

[pacer142]

When I was in Thailand last month I'm sure I read that the 500 Baht charge was being *removed* in favour of an increased 700 Baht charge on the ticket price as from 1st Feb.

[PAXboy]

This is on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6320197.stm BBC today and contains comments from pax at various aerodromes. This was from BHX:

Jeevan Kaur, 17, from Kettering, was flying to Amritsar in northern India. She said she has flown to India about once a year since she was a child. She said she appreciated the environmental impact of this but thought the cost should be paid by the airline, not the passenger. "The flights are expensive as it is, you should just have to pay upfront once.
That is one way of looking at it but the govt wanted the pax to know what they were paying. In her next statement, she reveals that she has not understood:
"My flight has been delayed by eight hours, which I won't get any money back for, so why should I pay an extra £40 to the airline?"I dare say that the Chancellor will be pleased that she does not know she is paying a tax! :rolleyes:

[ZFT]

Pacer142,

You are correct (I've deleted my post so as not to confuse further).