HEATHROW
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not even going to start to explain the stupidity of this idea, the politicians involved are beyond stupid. Tax rise at Heathrow and Gatwick 'will force flyers to use provincial airports' | World news | The Observer 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with this bit;
"According to the Department for Transport's economic modelling, increasing the duty by 50% on flights out of Heathrow would see the number of passengers flying from the airport fall by around 22%",
It is this bit that is wrong;
"with travellers switching to other airports in the south-east and the Midlands. The analysis suggests passenger numbers at Stansted, would increase by 20% and by 25% at Luton by 2020."
Travellers will certainly switch, but they will switch to places with the requisite HUB CAPACITY e.g. AMS, CDG or FRA, not LTN or STN!
"According to the Department for Transport's economic modelling, increasing the duty by 50% on flights out of Heathrow would see the number of passengers flying from the airport fall by around 22%",
It is this bit that is wrong;
"with travellers switching to other airports in the south-east and the Midlands. The analysis suggests passenger numbers at Stansted, would increase by 20% and by 25% at Luton by 2020."
Travellers will certainly switch, but they will switch to places with the requisite HUB CAPACITY e.g. AMS, CDG or FRA, not LTN or STN!
Last edited by Libertine Winno; 3rd Jan 2013 at 13:44. Reason: Spelling error
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And how would they get to AMS, FRA or CDG? Maybe from Luton, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc. Or maybe it would encourage airlines that have dithered over routes from the regions to acyaully consider those direct links now.
Last edited by pwalhx; 3rd Jan 2013 at 15:49.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But how exactly is forcing every UK pax to transfer via a European hub instead of our own beneficial in any way to the UK?!
It never ceases to amaze me how keen some of our politicians are to get rid of one of the world's busiest & most profitable airports from right on our doorstep!
It never ceases to amaze me how keen some of our politicians are to get rid of one of the world's busiest & most profitable airports from right on our doorstep!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The premise that everyone in the U.K. wants to fly via Heathrow to use a British carrier to benefit the U.K. economy is flawed. Have you also considered that overseas visitors flying via these European hubs to airports outside of the South East may also boost the British economy. Does inward tourism to the regions not get a boost by direct flights in to those regions.
It is a two way street, and I know it is a hackneyed argument to some, but then I am a care worn Northerner and am past caring about such sensibilities, so I will repeat that not everyone wants to fly from London some of us prefer to use our local airports and if foreign carriers rather than British carriers allow us to do so then thank you to those airlines.
Maybe the reason it has just been published that LHR is 4th and MAN 8th in Etihad's top 10 routes or that MAN has more flights from the MEB3 than some European hubs tells a story that many agree with me.
It is a two way street, and I know it is a hackneyed argument to some, but then I am a care worn Northerner and am past caring about such sensibilities, so I will repeat that not everyone wants to fly from London some of us prefer to use our local airports and if foreign carriers rather than British carriers allow us to do so then thank you to those airlines.
Maybe the reason it has just been published that LHR is 4th and MAN 8th in Etihad's top 10 routes or that MAN has more flights from the MEB3 than some European hubs tells a story that many agree with me.
Last edited by pwalhx; 3rd Jan 2013 at 19:29.
I think all will agree that Heathrow is pretty much full - at least until a new runway is built. Unless LHR's major carriers deploy large numbers of widebodies on European shorthaul, the number of pax passing through LHR is not going to grow significantly before 2020
Therefore, encourage the air travel market to deploy some more capacity to UK regional airports. Connectivity to the world helps trade and improves the UK economy. Perhaps people travelling from Oxford to Munich could be encourahed to use Birmingham rather than Heathrow, saving Heathrow space for someone in London for whom Birmingham is a non starter ?
This idea is all about introducing a greater degree of economic price rationing so that space at Heathrow is used by those who value it most. If Heathrow had R3 this idea would never have been published
Therefore, encourage the air travel market to deploy some more capacity to UK regional airports. Connectivity to the world helps trade and improves the UK economy. Perhaps people travelling from Oxford to Munich could be encourahed to use Birmingham rather than Heathrow, saving Heathrow space for someone in London for whom Birmingham is a non starter ?
This idea is all about introducing a greater degree of economic price rationing so that space at Heathrow is used by those who value it most. If Heathrow had R3 this idea would never have been published
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Distributing flights around the regions would be incredibly beneficial, I agree. However, the major flaw in that plan is that there is nothing stopping them doing that now,given that none are anywhere near capacity...and yet, all the airlines want to be at LHR.
Why? Because of hub connectivity. A large proportion of pax at LHR are transfer pax (as we know) and make routes viable that otherwise wouldn't be. This is the reason hub airports exist, and why all thr airlines all want to be at LHR, even though it would be cheaper to operate from elsewhere
Why? Because of hub connectivity. A large proportion of pax at LHR are transfer pax (as we know) and make routes viable that otherwise wouldn't be. This is the reason hub airports exist, and why all thr airlines all want to be at LHR, even though it would be cheaper to operate from elsewhere
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the simplest sense, it genuinely frightens me that the people who are supposed to be running the country don't seem to understand the basics of how a market economy actually works. All they ever seem to come out with is mucking about with taxation....
Interesting that the paper originates from HMRC and not from the DfT:
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/research/report188.pdf
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/research/report188.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is good reason to believe that reducing APD or even removing it would entice airlines to operate regional routes. I understand that Dublin got the nod over Manchester for some transatlantic traffic for example because of APD.
Heathrow will always be the focus of air traffic for the U.K. and I have no problem with that however there should be a middle ground that encourages more people to fly from the regions and at the same time allowing continued growth of LHR as 'the' hub.
However I don't think doubling APD from London is the answer, reducing it elsewhere is, however that's not what the government want as it looses them valuable revenue and there is the real problem it's too valuable a revenue stream for the government. They do not have the wit or intellect to realise that this tax is actually damaging not just a valuable industry in the airline business but tourism as well. Taken overall one wonders whether the revenue from APD brings more than that which is lost in both the tourism and airline industries. I suspect we could all make a reasoned guess on that.
Heathrow will always be the focus of air traffic for the U.K. and I have no problem with that however there should be a middle ground that encourages more people to fly from the regions and at the same time allowing continued growth of LHR as 'the' hub.
However I don't think doubling APD from London is the answer, reducing it elsewhere is, however that's not what the government want as it looses them valuable revenue and there is the real problem it's too valuable a revenue stream for the government. They do not have the wit or intellect to realise that this tax is actually damaging not just a valuable industry in the airline business but tourism as well. Taken overall one wonders whether the revenue from APD brings more than that which is lost in both the tourism and airline industries. I suspect we could all make a reasoned guess on that.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@pwalhx
Exactly what I was about to say! Why do we always go with the stick and never the carrot in this country?! Increase tax on things we don't like (LHR, cars, alcohol etc) rather than decrease them on the alternatives we do like! Or, Heaven forbid, invest in the thing we want people to do, thus making it a viable alternative?!
Exactly what I was about to say! Why do we always go with the stick and never the carrot in this country?! Increase tax on things we don't like (LHR, cars, alcohol etc) rather than decrease them on the alternatives we do like! Or, Heaven forbid, invest in the thing we want people to do, thus making it a viable alternative?!
The Govt is talking about raising APD at Heathrow rather than decreasing it elsewhere because the Govt is still spending far more than it receives in tax revenue. Or to put it another way, the country is still broke and the Govt needs to pay for the current economic mess. You've all seen what happened to Greece in the last few years.
The debate about increasing or decreasing public spending is a separate issue for another forum, but for the time being, with Heathrow being far more in demand than current runway capacity and partly regarded as the airport for the wealthier sections of society, the Chancellor is is no mood to decrease taxes from those who are perceived to be able to afford to pay.
The debate about increasing or decreasing public spending is a separate issue for another forum, but for the time being, with Heathrow being far more in demand than current runway capacity and partly regarded as the airport for the wealthier sections of society, the Chancellor is is no mood to decrease taxes from those who are perceived to be able to afford to pay.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure people are arguing for a DEcrease at LHR, but rather against an INcrease. It would be more beneficial to decrease taxes at other airports which, if coupled with the airport owners discounting landing fees, seems a much better way of encouraging any airlines to use regional airports for marginal routes instead of LHR.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HMRC and APD
Quote: "Interesting that the paper originates from HMRC and not from the DfT:"
Perhaps those aviation industry experts, HMRC, should not worry about taxes that others collect for them, such as income tax PAYE (employers), VAT (retailers) and APD (airlines), and concentrate instead on eliminating tax evasion.
Quote: "Chancellor is is no mood to decrease taxes from those who are perceived to be able to afford to pay."
Not always:
(1) 50% income tax rate reduced to 45%
(2) no APD for pax on private/business jets
Quote: "I'm not sure people are arguing for a DEcrease at LHR, but rather against an INcrease. It would be more beneficial to decrease taxes at other airports which, if coupled with the airport owners discounting landing fees, seems a much better way of encouraging any airlines to use regional airports for marginal routes instead of LHR"
People, certainly those in the industry who know about these things, ARE indeed arguing for a reduction in, or ending of, APD!
Decreasing APD at airports other than LHR will not address the lack of hub capacity there. That should be patently obvious.
Perhaps those aviation industry experts, HMRC, should not worry about taxes that others collect for them, such as income tax PAYE (employers), VAT (retailers) and APD (airlines), and concentrate instead on eliminating tax evasion.
Quote: "Chancellor is is no mood to decrease taxes from those who are perceived to be able to afford to pay."
Not always:
(1) 50% income tax rate reduced to 45%
(2) no APD for pax on private/business jets
Quote: "I'm not sure people are arguing for a DEcrease at LHR, but rather against an INcrease. It would be more beneficial to decrease taxes at other airports which, if coupled with the airport owners discounting landing fees, seems a much better way of encouraging any airlines to use regional airports for marginal routes instead of LHR"
People, certainly those in the industry who know about these things, ARE indeed arguing for a reduction in, or ending of, APD!
Decreasing APD at airports other than LHR will not address the lack of hub capacity there. That should be patently obvious.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 4th Jan 2013 at 09:49.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By decreasing APD at airports outside the South East the aim would be to encourage more people and airlines to operate from the regions, and there is evidence to support the fact APD had discouraged some operators. This would therefore reduce the pressure on Heathrow.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is what I was arguing was a far better option than increasing APD at LHR i.e. carrot for the regions, rather than stick for LHR.
Of course if the aviation industry had its own way then the Government would agree to 4 runways at LHR and abolish APD all together, on the premsie that the associated increase in business and GDP would more than cover the loss in APD. But then that would presume we have a right wing laissez-faire government, rather than the leftist social one we apparently do.
Of course if the aviation industry had its own way then the Government would agree to 4 runways at LHR and abolish APD all together, on the premsie that the associated increase in business and GDP would more than cover the loss in APD. But then that would presume we have a right wing laissez-faire government, rather than the leftist social one we apparently do.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: North, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually a third runway at heathrow to start with and reduction of APD in the regions would be a good start.
However, on the subject of lack of capacity at LHR, is there a lack of capacity or could the capacity be better distrubted, for example I believe I asked this question before without answer, do BA/AA need to operate the number of flights daily that they do between LHR/NYC. If they are all operating with a high LF then fine, but if they are not surely they can consolidate and or introduce larger aircraft such as the soon to arrive A380 and release slots for say Chinese services.
However, on the subject of lack of capacity at LHR, is there a lack of capacity or could the capacity be better distrubted, for example I believe I asked this question before without answer, do BA/AA need to operate the number of flights daily that they do between LHR/NYC. If they are all operating with a high LF then fine, but if they are not surely they can consolidate and or introduce larger aircraft such as the soon to arrive A380 and release slots for say Chinese services.
do BA/AA need to operate the number of flights daily that they do between LHR/NYC. If they are all operating with a high LF then fine, but if they are not surely they can consolidate and or introduce larger aircraft such as the soon to arrive A380 and release slots for say Chinese services.
How many senior financiers, politicians, entertainment personalities, corporate leaders, or other high-yield pax travel per day to these places mentioned, compared to New York ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as pointed out in today's Times you won't get a lot o people traveling to/from China until we remove or relax the visa requirements - its much more expensive to get a UK visa than just about anywhere else in the EU
I'm sure that is a bigger incentive to UK-China trade than a few flights into LHR
I'm sure that is a bigger incentive to UK-China trade than a few flights into LHR