MANCHESTER 1
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to a German publication Iraqi Airlines are/have regained authority to fly to the UK Sweden and Germany with own aircraft and in fact an A320 YI-ASB operated BGW-MMX-LGW-ISU with scheduled flight number today.
Its my understanding that they were excluded because of mx record deficiencies with the 738 fleet so the use of a 32x seems logical.
Now whats the likeness of a return to Manchester soon ?
Its my understanding that they were excluded because of mx record deficiencies with the 738 fleet so the use of a 32x seems logical.
Now whats the likeness of a return to Manchester soon ?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Manchester
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2.8 million passengers in July per the Evening News
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are various economic scenarios in the next 12-18 months, post Brexerendum.
Top of Descent : throttles closed and we only go down from now on
Low Approach and Go-Around: a dip before climbing away again
Eco-cruise : we pull the throttles back a notch but raise the nose - slow down but maintain altitude.
Top of Descent : throttles closed and we only go down from now on
Low Approach and Go-Around: a dip before climbing away again
Eco-cruise : we pull the throttles back a notch but raise the nose - slow down but maintain altitude.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about petitioning Sir Humphrey to pay for digging up and relocating the complex web of essential utilities which is apparently preventing the much-needed expansion of MAN T3? Then I'm sure MAG would be happy to pay for the actual apron works itself from in-house resources. Surely an innovation enabling such a fundamentally beneficial strategic development is valuable to UK plc in the same context as comparable enabling works in the SE at LHR or LGW? If the forthcoming LHR/LGW decision does set a precedent of this sort, MAG should be ready to submit their own bid accordingly!
One problem, it's unlikely that there will be a decision to expand Heathrow, but there will be more dithering, procrastination, prevarication and indecisiveness.
This means that (1) a great deal of public money has been wasted on the airport commission, and (2) no precedent has been or will be set.
Maybe in this case Ringway should set the precedent rather than follow one.......
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if LGW gets the nod i assumed it would still get a hefty wedge of tax payers cash ! Addmittedly not on the scale of Heathrow which is truly off the scale but a sizeable amount nonetheless AND still 2 or 3 times the spend on anything we have seen in The North !
Why does the Government not see Manchester in the same light ?
Why does the Government not see Manchester in the same light ?
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagso, a bit of history. The Court was established in London and, from the Norman Conquest, anyone from the provinces who wanted to be seen as important either moved to or spent a great deal of time in London. Come forward six hundred years to the redevelopment of London after the Great Fire. The young, yet growing, banking system, the Royal Exchange, the coffee houses where men of intelligence from around the land met and grouped into disciplines which became some of the greatest scientific and philosophical societies in the world and the centre of government were all in the growing city. The rest of the country was still basically an agrarian almost peasant society dominated by great estates whose owners spent the best part of the year in London.
Over the next two hundred years, as the Industrial Revolution grew from small scale ideas and experimentation into the massive engine for change that it had become by 1860, the real generation of wealth had moved from London to the provinces. But that generation had to be seed funded so London banks, wealthy individuals and institutions provided the initial cash. Even when investment money was found locally, the proceeds and profits ended up in the London banking sector and, of course, any legislation was enacted by the London parliament. The end result was, and is, that power resides where the money resides and the bulk of the money headed south, aided by the "neccessity" of having a London Head Office from where the accounting was done and taxes paid,, even if that was just a room in a rented building.
In a sense the provinces, no matter what they have, or still do provide to the economy, are still regarded by the London power brokers as they were in the 1660s.
Over the next two hundred years, as the Industrial Revolution grew from small scale ideas and experimentation into the massive engine for change that it had become by 1860, the real generation of wealth had moved from London to the provinces. But that generation had to be seed funded so London banks, wealthy individuals and institutions provided the initial cash. Even when investment money was found locally, the proceeds and profits ended up in the London banking sector and, of course, any legislation was enacted by the London parliament. The end result was, and is, that power resides where the money resides and the bulk of the money headed south, aided by the "neccessity" of having a London Head Office from where the accounting was done and taxes paid,, even if that was just a room in a rented building.
In a sense the provinces, no matter what they have, or still do provide to the economy, are still regarded by the London power brokers as they were in the 1660s.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philbky - Excellent post. If there was a 'like' button on this forum I'm sure many would be hitting it. How often are we told - especially in discussions on PPRuNe - that the bulk of taxes are raised in London therefore they have a moral right to spend them there. That whole conundrum of businesses announcing national and international financial results from a London HQ address needs to be called out with reference to where the taxable profits are actually earned.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Philbky - Excellent post. If there was a 'like' button on this forum I'm sure many would be hitting it. How often are we told - especially in discussions on PPRuNe - that the bulk of taxes are raised in London therefore they have a moral right to spend them there. That whole conundrum of businesses announcing national and international financial results from a London HQ address needs to be called out with reference to where the taxable profits are actually earned.
In terms of GVA (which is workplace-based, not HQ based), London and the South East generate 37.5% of the national total compared to the north's 19%; in terms of more direct measures of taxation, London in its own right (£16bn in 2013) generates more business rates than the whole of the north (£12.5bn)...and the south east a further £10bn.
As I've said before if you want to change the situation you have to find a way to change the system and find different ways of measuring the value of investing in infrastructure outside of London..
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turtle Controller, I'm sorry if you have been bored by my little history lesson. You may be well aware of the facts, or maybe you couldn't care less. Either way there's no need to be so snotty.
AndrewH52, according to Revenue and Customs' July 2016 figures the average percentage of the tax take defined as Corporation Tax in the period 1980 to 2016 was 11%, 10% for the last ten years.
What you are ignoring, or perhaps are deliberately not acknowledging, is the way HMRC compiles its figures. All dues collected by government from companies are attributed to the geograhic location of the reporting office. Thus, for instance, Heinz at Kitt Green, Wigan, the biggest food factory in Europe, pays Corporation Tax, VAT, National Insurance contributions (employer and employee) any environmental taxes and business rates through the Hayes Head Office. Its factories in Worcester and Telford also pay through Hayes. Only the business rates are allocated to Wigan, Worcester and Telford.
The same goes for every company in the UK with a site, or sites, outside the Home Counties but with a Head Ofice within which reports and pays the company's tax liabilities. Government is well aware of the location of the generators of tax income but chooses to use the simplest method defining from where it receives its income, yet is happy to state that London has 16.7% of all VAT based businesses, without defining how many are reporting for sites around the UK
AndrewH52, according to Revenue and Customs' July 2016 figures the average percentage of the tax take defined as Corporation Tax in the period 1980 to 2016 was 11%, 10% for the last ten years.
What you are ignoring, or perhaps are deliberately not acknowledging, is the way HMRC compiles its figures. All dues collected by government from companies are attributed to the geograhic location of the reporting office. Thus, for instance, Heinz at Kitt Green, Wigan, the biggest food factory in Europe, pays Corporation Tax, VAT, National Insurance contributions (employer and employee) any environmental taxes and business rates through the Hayes Head Office. Its factories in Worcester and Telford also pay through Hayes. Only the business rates are allocated to Wigan, Worcester and Telford.
The same goes for every company in the UK with a site, or sites, outside the Home Counties but with a Head Ofice within which reports and pays the company's tax liabilities. Government is well aware of the location of the generators of tax income but chooses to use the simplest method defining from where it receives its income, yet is happy to state that London has 16.7% of all VAT based businesses, without defining how many are reporting for sites around the UK
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to ifs.org.uk.
HMRC approximate the division of onshore corporation tax revenue based on estimates of the location of profits. HMRC allocates individual companies’ profits to regions, largely based on the location of their employment,and aggregates this to get the share of profits in each location.
Calculating how much of a company’s profits are attributable to economic activity in different locations is conceptually and practically difficult and is the source of many problems in international corporate taxation.
Last edited by Trash 'n' Navs; 14th Aug 2016 at 22:08. Reason: adding the second excerpt
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Kerry Eire
Age: 76
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IFS may say that with regard to corporation tax and HMRC may try to approximate the value of the tax generated in the regions but, if they do, it is only a guesstimate and, as we know, they have the uptmost difficulty in assessing and obtaining the tax due from a number of high profile international companies which attribute figures to different locations to avoid tax.
Even if they do get the corporation tax figures to relate to regional economic activity, your second quote "calculating how much of a company’s profits are attributable to economic activity in different locations is conceptually and practically difficult and is the source of many problems in international corporate taxation" and my over 40 years in UK business management tells me they do not do this for the remainder of revenue through taxation such as VAT, PAYE and NI, as the cost in manpower, time and the value to the exchequer of such a breakdown is not worth the expenditure, so the bulk of revenue raised from corporate entities is attributed to the location of the reporting office.
Bar None, if you do not understand why the subject of this discussion is of the uptmost importance to the North of England and whichever airport you are close to, you need to spend some time educating yourself.
Even if they do get the corporation tax figures to relate to regional economic activity, your second quote "calculating how much of a company’s profits are attributable to economic activity in different locations is conceptually and practically difficult and is the source of many problems in international corporate taxation" and my over 40 years in UK business management tells me they do not do this for the remainder of revenue through taxation such as VAT, PAYE and NI, as the cost in manpower, time and the value to the exchequer of such a breakdown is not worth the expenditure, so the bulk of revenue raised from corporate entities is attributed to the location of the reporting office.
Bar None, if you do not understand why the subject of this discussion is of the uptmost importance to the North of England and whichever airport you are close to, you need to spend some time educating yourself.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry philbky, I thought you & Shed were talking about corporation tax. Which is why I pointed out your assertion was wrong.
As you say (& the IFS also say), the "cost in manpower, time and the value to the exchequer of such a breakdown is not worth the expenditure". But it cuts both ways as I live in the South but my tax office is in the North - so my tax contribution is allocated to the North.
On this point, keep in mind that many corporate entities announce their (taxable) profits from a London HQ address. But many of these profits are generated from economic activity in the UK regions and internationally. Is it appropriate for London to claim ownership of this tax revenue stream? It is very easy to spin the data.
my over 40 years in UK business management tells me they do not do this for the remainder of revenue through taxation such as VAT, PAYE and NI, as the cost in manpower, time and the value to the exchequer of such a breakdown is not worth the expenditure, so the bulk of revenue raised from corporate entities is attributed to the location of the reporting office.