GATWICK
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAN-LGW was always cheap and half empty the many times I flew it, it fed nothing at LGW and no one picked it up when it was dropped. Not likely to return.
In later years it seemed to serve as a cabin crew shuttle but the B737-400 was too big for the necessary frequency and Gatwick are Hell bent on driving out anything smaller than the B737 for their future long haul A380 hub aspirations. Ask flybe...
In later years it seemed to serve as a cabin crew shuttle but the B737-400 was too big for the necessary frequency and Gatwick are Hell bent on driving out anything smaller than the B737 for their future long haul A380 hub aspirations. Ask flybe...
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 7th Mar 2014 at 09:31.
The UK will never scrap it as it's a money maker and traffic to/from UK airports is increasing so they would be mad to scrap it,
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It all depend on the type of transfer we are talking about racedo; foreign passengers transferring international - domestic will certainly pay APD on the return flight.
It all depend on the type of transfer we are talking about racedo; foreign passengers transferring international - domestic will certainly pay APD on the return flight.
Billions spent on new runway so more international connecting passengers who pay nothing while those who live in the country will pay more......
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was those who live in the country that voted in generations of numpties who over spent, under delivered and didn't save money. We are in a bad place because of who we voted in, repeatedly.
We will have to pay more, our children may be poorer and there remains the possibility our grandkids will be on a sound footing financially if we take the pain. Or more likely there will be political cowardice and more fannying around at the edges, Cameron is already talking if tax cuts which we can ill afford as we are still borrwing money just to keep BAU. APD is a necessary evil, I think it ought to be axed, however that money absolutely needs to come from somewhere.
We will have to pay more, our children may be poorer and there remains the possibility our grandkids will be on a sound footing financially if we take the pain. Or more likely there will be political cowardice and more fannying around at the edges, Cameron is already talking if tax cuts which we can ill afford as we are still borrwing money just to keep BAU. APD is a necessary evil, I think it ought to be axed, however that money absolutely needs to come from somewhere.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will have to pay more, our children may be poorer and there remains the possibility our grandkids will be on a sound footing financially if we take the pain. Or more likely there will be political cowardice and more fannying around at the edges, Cameron is already talking if tax cuts which we can ill afford as we are still borrwing money just to keep BAU. APD is a necessary evil, I think it ought to be axed, however that money absolutely needs to come from somewhere.
The money needs to come from somewhere, duty on fixed-odds betting machines in bookmakers shops may be a suitable alternative for a start off. That would rake in billions.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you need to read the quote first before I continue with a comment to racedo's latest.
The first line in the quote tell us quite clear the APD money goes to the UK government, and since the UK government doesn't own Heathrow the APD money will not end up there.
Now to my second point. Without a lot the feed in to LHR, a large part of the BA network would have been a money looser and had to be dropped. Less flights gives less pilots and cabin crew, but less flights would also mean less jobs in shops, restaurants, catering, ground handling and so on. I guess unemployment money is a rather heavy burden for the tax payers.
So to the last point - international - international transfer passengers don't pay anything is the allegation. Well, they do pay charges for using the airport and since they stay for a time at the airport they also buy something in the shops, eat in a restaurant/lounge, do their nails, have a drink in a bar and god knows what - they spend money and generate British jobs. All this generate income to the airport company and it's used to build a new runway. A new runway may lead to higher charges, but then again the transfer passengers have to pay their share too, not only "those who live in the country".
Air Passenger Duty - Statement by David Scowsill, WTTC President & CEO
Air Passenger Duty (APD) is a tax imposed by the UK government on all passengers flying out of the UK. Although a number of countries impose a similar tax, the UK’s APD is substantially higher – with the current rates meaning that a family of four flying to Malaga will pay £52 extra on the price of their tickets. This rises to £260 for the same family to fly to Florida and £368 to fly to Australia.
Evidence from the airline industry and some long haul destinations suggests that APD is having a detrimental effect on Travel & Tourism around the world as well as the economy of the UK. In early 2012, WTTC undertook research to understand the economic impact of APD on the UK’s GDP and employment. The research indicated that the impact is significant and that removing Air Passenger Duty would result in an additional 91,000 British jobs being created and £4.2 billion added to the economy in 12 months.
Air Passenger Duty (APD) is a tax imposed by the UK government on all passengers flying out of the UK. Although a number of countries impose a similar tax, the UK’s APD is substantially higher – with the current rates meaning that a family of four flying to Malaga will pay £52 extra on the price of their tickets. This rises to £260 for the same family to fly to Florida and £368 to fly to Australia.
Evidence from the airline industry and some long haul destinations suggests that APD is having a detrimental effect on Travel & Tourism around the world as well as the economy of the UK. In early 2012, WTTC undertook research to understand the economic impact of APD on the UK’s GDP and employment. The research indicated that the impact is significant and that removing Air Passenger Duty would result in an additional 91,000 British jobs being created and £4.2 billion added to the economy in 12 months.
Now to my second point. Without a lot the feed in to LHR, a large part of the BA network would have been a money looser and had to be dropped. Less flights gives less pilots and cabin crew, but less flights would also mean less jobs in shops, restaurants, catering, ground handling and so on. I guess unemployment money is a rather heavy burden for the tax payers.
So to the last point - international - international transfer passengers don't pay anything is the allegation. Well, they do pay charges for using the airport and since they stay for a time at the airport they also buy something in the shops, eat in a restaurant/lounge, do their nails, have a drink in a bar and god knows what - they spend money and generate British jobs. All this generate income to the airport company and it's used to build a new runway. A new runway may lead to higher charges, but then again the transfer passengers have to pay their share too, not only "those who live in the country".
So to the last point - international - international transfer passengers don't pay anything is the allegation. Well, they do pay charges for using the airport and since they stay for a time at the airport they also buy something in the shops, eat in a restaurant/lounge, do their nails, have a drink in a bar and god knows what - they spend money and generate British jobs. All this generate income to the airport company and it's used to build a new runway. A new runway may lead to higher charges, but then again the transfer passengers have to pay their share too, not only "those who live in the country".
As for generating British jobs...........er think you may not know it but majority of new jobs are taken by immigrants while those on the dole happily sit and do nothing.
Transfer passengers will still pay bugger all and it will be the people originating in UK that pay more APD and charges to get less.
Why spend billions on a new runway on the basis that some people MAY spend a few pounds in retail at Heathrow.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know who WTTC are and haven't read their report, but with all these dodgy employment and GDP sums you need to ask--- what is the net effect on jobs and GDP of abolishing one tax, APD in this case, and raising the same public revenue another way. You always get a big number if you don't fund the tax break, whatever it is.
On Racedo's point, the answer may be very different depending on whether the runway is being funded by air travellers or by taxpayers. That is not yet clear.
On Racedo's point, the answer may be very different depending on whether the runway is being funded by air travellers or by taxpayers. That is not yet clear.
I don't know who WTTC are
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was those who live in the country that voted in generations of numpties who over spent, under delivered and didn't save money. We are in a bad place because of who we voted in, repeatedly.
As they're all the same, turnouts are going down, people vote with their feet, or armchairs, it's the "none of the above" syndrome. Who can blame them, although a presence at a polling station and a very large proportion of blank or defaced ballot papers would make the case better.
On Racedo's point, the answer may be very different depending on whether the runway is being funded by air travellers or by taxpayers. That is not yet clear.
Air Passenger Duty - Statement by David Scowsill, WTTC President & CEO
Air Passenger Duty (APD) is a tax imposed by the UK government on all passengers flying out of the UK.
Air Passenger Duty (APD) is a tax imposed by the UK government on all passengers flying out of the UK.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London Under EGLL(LHR) 27R ILS
Age: 31
Posts: 500
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really annoys me when people/residents do this - there's NO big change except modern/capable aircraft flying P-RNAV reducing the noise swathe inside the current noise preferential routings.
New Gatwick flightpath trials are 'destroying' Sussex village life (From The Argus)
New Gatwick flightpath trials are 'destroying' Sussex village life (From The Argus)
there's NO big change except modern/capable aircraft flying P-RNAV reducing the noise swathe inside the current noise preferential routings.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really annoys me when people/residents do this - there's NO big change except modern/capable aircraft flying P-RNAV reducing the noise swathe inside the current noise preferential routings.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "NATS Private" document at
http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/ctt...300114key4.pdf
seems to show that the BOGNA SID has been shifted quite a bit to get to ADNID.
It doesn't seem appropriate to do this without some consultation - or has the "proportionate consultation" approved by CAA for trials been so minimal that no-one locally had heard of it ?
Francis Maude has got on the case :
Francis Maude: Noise misery foreshadows second runway - West Sussex County Times
http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/ctt...300114key4.pdf
seems to show that the BOGNA SID has been shifted quite a bit to get to ADNID.
It doesn't seem appropriate to do this without some consultation - or has the "proportionate consultation" approved by CAA for trials been so minimal that no-one locally had heard of it ?
Francis Maude has got on the case :
Francis Maude: Noise misery foreshadows second runway - West Sussex County Times
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "NATS Private" document at
http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/ctt...300114key4.pdf
seems to show that the BOGNA SID has been shifted quite a bit to get to ADNID.
It doesn't seem appropriate to do this without some consultation - or has the "proportionate consultation" approved by CAA for trials been so minimal that no-one locally had heard of it ?
Francis Maude has got on the case :
Francis Maude: Noise misery foreshadows second runway - West Sussex County Times
http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/ds/ctt...300114key4.pdf
seems to show that the BOGNA SID has been shifted quite a bit to get to ADNID.
It doesn't seem appropriate to do this without some consultation - or has the "proportionate consultation" approved by CAA for trials been so minimal that no-one locally had heard of it ?
Francis Maude has got on the case :
Francis Maude: Noise misery foreshadows second runway - West Sussex County Times
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
compensation for noise
Apparently, Gatwick owners are offering to pay £1000/year to residents disturbed by noise if the airport expands.
£1000/year...anyone know for how many years? Can't be for ever, can it?
£1000/year...anyone know for how many years? Can't be for ever, can it?
£1000/year...anyone know for how many years?
£4m pa for the foreseeable future would be a pretty good investment from Gatwick's point of view, if it smoothed the way towards getting their second runway.