Expected long haul tax increases.

[Serenity]

If the UK government ups long haul tax in the budget from £40 to £84, would this mean a reduction of long haul passengers, especially families and groups, from UK airports in favour of routes from Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris???

:confused:

[Final 3 Greens]

Hi Serenity

Well, I live in the Southern Med and I have a few long haul trips coming up, in fact I am in the Middle East presently, I also fly business class.

So, if I fly via the UK I am further penalised for this luxury.

If I can choose a fare that is about £150 less than transiting via the UK, I feel pretty much obliged to take it from a professional standpoint, to get good value for my client.

From a personal perspective, I don't see why I should pay a premium for the cr*p experience that is transiting via London, so in order of preference I would choose, Zurich, Muenchen, Frankfurt, Roma, Milano, Amsterdam and Paris before London.

Is that a clear enough response?

[Michael SWS]

If the UK government ups long haul tax in the budget from £40 to £84, would this mean a reduction of long haul passengers, especially families and groups, from UK airports in favour of routes from Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris???I don't know. But it it did, would it be a bad thing?

Firstly, anything that shifts passengers (and therefore aircraft movements) away from the UK is to be welcomed. And secondly, a dramatic drop in passenger numbers (and revenue) for BAA might just be the wake-up call that they need to upgrade Heathrow to a standard that equals its European competitors.

But before this thread deteriorates into a political debate, let's just see what the budget brings. I have read nothing that suggests that such a tax increase is likely.

[Rainboe]

Firstly, anything that shifts passengers (and therefore aircraft movements) away from the UK is to be welcomed.
Very peculiar logic! Like Tesco saying 'anything that moves customers to Sainsbury is to be welcomed so we can give the remaining customers a better experience!' Like nonsense! Spouting rubbish like that will drive this country to poverty as jobs disappear and the UK becomes an impoverished backwater and international business locates elsewhere! Stupidity, but that is the course this government is taking with its daft, impractical 'green' initiatives.

But one has to question your motives for you initiating this silly question, then answering your own point! Come on, you're one of those weirdo, unreal 'greens' aren't you, trolling for a damn good 'green' discussion! Troll warning!

[Michael SWS]

Others may rise to your rudeness, Rainboe, but I rise above it.

There is absolutely no similarity between my previous post and the supermarket example you give.

Almost the only people that benefit from transfer passengers through the UK are the airport operators; the passengers do not leave the airport and therefore add almost nothing to the wider economy. On the other hand, the increased number of aircraft movements adds to the environmental damage (and I include immediate damage such as noise and pollution as well as indeterminate long-term damage) in the vicinity of the airports. Why should we tolerate further environmental inconvenience merely to further enrich an incompetent (and foreign-owned) commercial organisation?

I honestly see no reason not to encourage passengers from the regions of the UK to transfer through Schiphol, Frankfurt or Dubai rather than Heathrow. It's not a matter of dogma but merely of economic and environmental sense. And why do we have to strive for the biggest, busiest airport? What's wrong with wanting smaller, less busy airports that offer a superior experience? Sometimes this whole forum reads like Spotters' Corner.

[Bealzebub]

Almost the only people that benefit from transfer passengers through the UK are the airport operators; the passengers do not leave the airport and therefore add almost nothing to the wider economy.

Until that is you take a few steps backwards and see the slightly wider picture. Most transfer passengers are transiting the UK because either one or both of the relevant sectors are on UK carriers. That is UK busineses, who employ UK nationals and all of whom do contribute to the wider UK economy. Indeed many of the readers of these forums are directly involved in these busineses and are directly affected. Lufthansa, Air France, Swiss, Olympic, KLM, Iberia, et al do not hub through Heathrow, Gatwick, or any other UK airport, so their transist business will route through other European hubs.


I honestly see no reason not to encourage passengers from the regions of the UK to transfer through Schiphol, Frankfurt or Dubai rather than Heathrow. It's not a matter of dogma but merely of economic and environmental sense.

Anywhere as long as it is nowhere near the particular back yard you chose to plant yourself in then ? How does delivering customers into the central hubs of our competitors make economic sense? Unless you mean it makes great economic sense to them, in which case I expect they would be salivating at the thought.

The trouble with this sort of tortured logic, is that if you actually succeed in killing the golden goose, the contraction has a knock on effect on general demand in an area. Still, I expect your ire at dinner parties could then turn to the incompetent government that has driven down the value of your house that is no longer in an area of such high demand.

[Avitor]

Given that we have just emerged from one of the longest, coldest winters I can remember, I think we can dump global warming in a place where the sun don't shine, like up Gormless's gonga.

He has stated that matters green will come to the fore in the battle against the "Global recession" ....
....meaning they will tax anything that moves and anything that is nailed down.

Wednesday will make me a liar or a prophet. :bored:

[Michael SWS]

Given that we have just emerged from one of the longest, coldest winters I can remember, I think we can dump global warming in a place where the sun don't shine, like up Gormless's gonga.You think that climate change is defined only by how it affects Britain? And that a single cold winter completely disproves that the planet is warming up? (Not that the winter was that cold, anyway - other than a few days of snow in February.)

:ugh:

But that's besides the point. My argument is based purely on my own desire not to have more planes flying into, out of and over the UK than absolutely necessary. It's not really about climate change at all (because, to be honest, a few hundred more planes ain't going to make that much of a difference).

[Rainboe]

So you started with an 'innocent query' then, as an excuse to start a discussion purely so you can put across your stupid propaganda? You wee spotted straight away!

[BOFH]

You have to get to the Continent in the first place, which costs money and more importantly, a great deal of time to allow for contingencies. So while I'm happy to use FRA as an intermediate stop (because the long-haul C flights are better priced there and I have reasons dropping in), it would be difficult to justify if you had no motive other than saving £44. per passenger.

It's another one of those 'oh, well' taxes that you can't avoid. It will be put to good use on buying plasma screens for the Government's core voters and other high-priority projects. It won't move flights offshore to an appreciable degree.

I liken this process to that of a ratchet, and doubt that the next government will have the testosterone to eliminate the revenue raised. Indirect taxes are less unpalatable than direct taxes to me, but it's complete suckage when both are increasing.

BOFH

[Avitor]

Cameron, vexing that he is for riding that infernal pushbike, has vowed that any green tax will be offset by a reduction in other taxes.
I would prefer a reduction in the expenditure on nutty scientists myself.

[flyingfemme]

Depends what is defined as a "tax". Does Cameron include the emissions trading costs on aviation? Bet he doesn't. These, as yet unquantified, extra charges come into effect on all flights into, out of and within the EU in 2011.

[The SSK]

Final 3 Greens et al

International journeys connecting through UK airports are not subject to APD so you're all wasting your breath arguing about it.

This is normal in the case of such taxes, governments are perfectly aware that to levy them on connecting flights would damage the competitiveness of their own airlines.

[Rainboe]

Well so much for passenger duties increasing! Maybe a glimmer of common sense at last for this government! So how does it feel to know the government doesn't share your daft beliefs Michael SWS? Neither does most of the country except for a small loud vociferous bunch of vapour heads?

[harrogate]

So how does it feel to know the government doesn't share your daft beliefs Michael SWS?

I'd say it feels good. Really good.

Anybody who agrees with most of the sh*t, deception and outright lies that were all present and incorrect in today's budget must be spending too long up in the clouds.

But we already knew that about some of the regular gobshi*es on here.

[Michael SWS]

So you started with an 'innocent query' then, as an excuse to start a discussion purely so you can put across your stupid propaganda? You wee spotted straight away!You seem to be under the impression that I started this thread, rainboe. I suggest you read the thread more carefully.