UK Airport Tax

[Basil]

Just booked LHR-JFK-LHR.
TAX portion of total fares as follows:
LHR JFK Adult £76.30
JFK LHR Adult £9.10

Just what are the Brits spending the extra £67.20 ($130) tax money on?

Mods, please move to R&N if considered appropriate :ok:

[PAXboy]

I would hazard a guess that - it depends upon which carrier you travel as to how much 'tax' you pay.

There was an interesting thread about this topic only a couple of weeks ago with someone contributing a short history of departure taxes in the UK. Sorry but I'm too tired to look for it now.

[Hartington]

You are paying not only GB departure taxes but US arrival taxes. They levy for the use of their immigration, port health etc.

[Basil]

Hartington,
Good point.
AFAIK it now looks like:
LHR-JFK UK Tax: £59.70 US Tax: £16.66
JFK-LHR US Tax: £9.10

Totals: UK: £59.70 US: £25.76

Any advance?

Being pax is a bit of a PITA - it's much better being crew; no fare, no hotel bill and a small financial contribution towards necessary crew bonding - as I've explained to my wife.

[Katamarino]

I tend to think that the discrepancy is down to the UK authorities being bad, bad people...

[Michael SWS]

The United Kingdom's Air Passenger Duty ("departure tax") is quite straightforward.

For economy class travel, the duty is £10 short-haul (domestic and European) and £40 long-haul (everywhere else). For travel in premium classes, the rate is doubled, i.e. £20 short-haul and £80 long-haul.

It's a tax, pure and simple - a revenue-raising exercise. There is no need to justify it or explain what the money is spent on.

Any charges over and above the APD are applied by the airline itself (e.g. security surcharge, fuel surcharge or Ryanair's wheelchair surcharge) and/or the airport operator.

[Michael SWS]

I tend to think that the discrepancy is down to the UK authorities being bad, bad people...The Dutch government has just introduced similar departure taxes of its own - €11.25 (£8.90) for short-haul and €45 (£35.50) for long haul. What does that say about them?

[Katamarino]

The Dutch government has just introduced similar departure taxes of its own - €11.25 (£8.90) for short-haul and €45 (£35.50) for long haul. What does that say about them?

Actually, I tend to think the Dutch government are even worse. A case in point: they tax diesel and lpg cars at a significantly higher rate than the less efficient, more polluting petrol versions. A clear case of 'we want your money, and we are willing to encourage more environmental damage to get it'.

At least the UK, while having 'green' taxes that are nothing to do with helping the environment (apart from discouraging the activity, one could say), aren't actively taxing against the environmentally friendly option :)

[Capot]

At the risk of being repetitious, and it was covered a short while ago in another thread, the only part of the so-called "airport tax" that is a tax is the Goverment's APD, well-described above.

The rest is simply the airport's charges to the airline related to passenger traffic; ie the more passengers the more the airline pays, plus any other charges the airline cares to add.

The airlines started calling these charges "airport taxes" and adding them to the price about 15-20 years ago, so as to be able to appear to charge the same fares but get more revenue, and they blamed the airports for "adding" these charges, whcih had been charged, in fact, since the 1950's.

Then the low-costs started separating out other costs they incur in running an air transport business and charging them separately under the totally false name of "airport taxes".

Among the most blatant additional charges are

Booking Fees
Credit Card Fees
Wheelchair Fees
Baggage Fees,
Early Boarding Fees

etc etc etc.

This is what creates the excessive charges, which should, of course simply be quoted and charged as part of the ticket price, as used to happen until the "airport tax" trick became so popular.

[James 1077]

The airlines started calling these charges "airport taxes"
I think that the justification for this is that, at the time, the airports were generally state owned businesses. Therefore any charge levied by the airport was a charge levied by the state and therefore is a tax.

In some places (France for example) the state still decides on the charges at each airport and these need to be paid to the state - which means that they are a tax. Sometimes charges are paid to the airport and then passed straight on to the givernment (security charges are an example of this) - this is still therefore a tax as it is a payment to the government for services.

And most airlines now classify these as "Taxes and Charges" or something similar so that the tax amount is mixed in with fuel surcharges, wheelchair levies, APD etc.

The main thing is not to worry yourself with how your fare is displayed but to look at the overall price that you haev paid.

[Capot]

James

You are being very kind to the airlines; "justification" is not the word I would use!

The Passenger Load Supplement, for example, was never and still isn't a "Tax" under any definition. It's simply a variable charge by an airport for the use of its expensive facilities, without which the airline could not operate.

Calling it a "Tax" merely concealed the fact that the airlines started adding these charges to the quoted fare, instead of paying them from within the quoted fare as they had done since the 1950s, as a means of increasing their revenues by about 20%.

This happened at about the same time as all the regional airports started being sold into private hands by their local authority owners, in the late 1980s and early 1990s.( In the UK only what are now the BAA airports were ever state-owned until that damned woman sold them; aside from military ones, of course.)

So the notion that their charges could be called a tax because the airports were state-owned is misguided for several reasons.

The reason that some airlines grudgingly add the words "and charges" to the word "taxes" is because calling any of these charges a "tax" was always a lie, and they were forced to admit it. Even now, they try to give the impression that most of it is some kind of unavoidable tax. It's not. A lot of it goes straight through to restore the airline's bottom line to health. See Ryanair accounts as an example.

[Hartington]

The airlines (at least those operating in the IATA environment) refer to "Taxes, Fees and Charges (T/F/C)". There have always been government imposed taxes - for instance the American "Transportation Tax" which, over the years has varied between 8 and 10% of the fare. Some countries (Germany and Italy spring to mind) charge VAT on air fares.

When the EU was about to stop duty free sales the airlines became worried that the airports would lose shopping revenue and that they would recoup that by charging the airlines more. As others have noted, airlines have always paid airports for the use of facilities. The airlines would have had little choice (they said) but to pass on the increase in the form of higher fares. The airlines therefore chose to show that airport fee as a separate T/F/C. In reality shopping levels didn't really change so the fees remained (roughly) the same. Airlines negotiate their own fees with each airport.

However, the flood gate had been opened and we now find ourself in the situation where all sorts of things end up as a T/F/C.

If you want to know all the codes and what they mean see http://www.geo.at/reiseinfos/doks/list_of_tax_codes.pdf In the case of the OP you need to look at the codes applied by the UK, US and then look at the "Miscellaneous Codes" at the very end of the list. Worth noting the YQ and YR are often used for fuel and insurance charges. OA might be used if an airline charges you to make the booking over the phone or even via certain distribution channels (read travel agency, GDS) and OB if they impose a fee for paying with a card.

[groundhand]

Is any of this relevant?

If you want to travel you look at the TOTAL cost of the fare, make your decision and decide to travel or not.

Who gets what of the pie will differ on just about every airline on every destination.

How long will it be before some carrier breaks down the costs even further? Why not airport coaching, aircraft loading, aircraft maintenance, pushback, taxy fuel differentials, toilet servicing, crew uniform, office stationery, senior management bonuses etc etc. All costs, all irrrelevant to the passenger.

The only thing that is relevant is the total cost so why get worried about who is getting what of the fare you pay?

[PAXboy]

groundhand makes a good point but I think that the reason we notice these charges and ask about them is down to the fact that the billing structure is new.

Some of us have been paxing for [pause to count ...] 42 years :uhoh: and had become used to the all-in charge so the new system can seem strange and irritating. I'm sure that those who have been paxing for (say) five years will consider the current way of doing things as normal, as indeed it is.

BUT the biggest source of irritation is that there is no standard schedule of charges, eventhough the charges are supposed to be standard! The fact that carriers blatantly expand T/F/C to include whatever they can get away with strikes a bad note. I understand that carriers will add in what it can and have no argument with that - but they should add that into their basic fee. Inflating 'tax' makes cross-comparison more difficult (which is what they want) and leaves you with a feeling of being ripped off. Simple example, some months ago I was looking at BA and they had the word 'insurance' there. We all know that BA will be paying significant amounts of insurance across all of it's business [can you insurance against the CEO making a staggering b@@ls up?] and so calculate that along with paying for the a/c and buildings. They probably put 'insurance' in so that we will think it is related to 'the war on Terror' :hmm: and they have got another Fiver. Again - no problem but it is disingenuous to add it in this way.

Whilst some folks relish change, overall, humans are creatures of habit. My thanks to Hartington for the link to the codes list.

[Michael SWS]

But, PAXboy, almost every booking site shows you the total fare from the outset. Certainly, every website I use to book air tickets (opodo, travelocity, expedia and BA) does. And that's the only thing you should be looking at - how much you are paying to take that flight. The breakdown of taxes, charges and fees is completely irrelevant.

I don't know why you're singling out BA's insurance surcharge, because that is already included in the fare they display on screen. It is not added on afterwards.

The charges that passengers can rightly be angry about are those levied by low-cost airlines in addition to the fare - check-in fee, luggage fee, priority boarding fee, rip-off credit card fees and all the rest. Yes, we know about them and you could argue that an intending passenger should read all the terms and conditions before booking, but your average no frills passenger is not going to understand the complexities of today's airline business model.

[Seat62K]

Michael SWS,
Whilst I agree with much of what you've written above, I do think that airport check-in and hold baggage fees are different. Providing airport check-in facilities adds to an airline's costs, as does loading/unloading baggage (not to mention the fuel used in carrying luggage). By "unpackaging" these, passengers pay only for what they use. The same applies to food and drink onboard. In a pevious post I argued that low cost airlines' hold luggage charges are not dissimilar to the excess baggage charges of all airlines. Should they be abolished and all passengers' fares increased to cover the additional costs of those who travel with excess baggage? I don't think many would answer in the affirmative (only, I suspect, travellers with huge amounts of baggage who wouldn't mind others subsidising them)!

[newswatcher]

Flight LHR-ORD-LHR, out 30/8 back 06/09.

AA flight on AA site - fare £331, extras £88.80
BA flight on BA site - fare £170, extras £249.50

BA extras includes fuel surcharge of about £150. So add that to fare and take it off extras.

AA fare £331, BA fare £320.

AA extras £88.80, BA extras c£100.

Not a great difference!

[PAXboy]

Michael SWSAnd that's the only thing you should be looking at - how much you are paying to take that flight. The breakdown of taxes, charges and fees is completely irrelevant.I agree that the bottom line of cost is all that is of relevance. That is the final, absolute and last bottom line - and there is no quibble with that. I have simply voiced my irritation but nothing more.

I don't know why you're singling out BA's insurance surcharge, because that is already included in the fare they display on screen. It is not added on afterwards.I agree but it is itemised and so they bring it to our attention. From the BA site a few moments ago on a trial booking from their system, this message is accessible:
Insurance & security surcharge

British Airways has a passenger surcharge on all flights for insurance and security. This surcharge applies, as detailed below, to all passengers including children and infants on both international and domestic flights.

For tickets originating in UK: Surcharge per person per BA sector or equivalent £2.50

By telling us that they have added Insurance, they are trying to justify their costs and, actually, all they need to do is - just tell me the cost! If they single out £2.50 of 'insurance and security', I wonder what else they will move into that bucket next week. They are pretending that this £2.50 is nothing to do with them and that I must not be cross with them for charging so much.

What I am saying is that I want the seller to tell me the cost in one single figure. Nothing more added or taken away. I accept, of course, that those days are long gone and everyone will put up whatever low figure they can get away with and I must then go through a booking up to the moment of confirmation - in order to find out what it will cost. Irritating!!

This is superbly illustrated by newswatcher's comparison. BA like to pretend that their fares are low and just hope that, once into the booking sequence, the potential pax will stay with them. That is their decision on how to do business. Personally, I find it irritating!

As an afterthought, when BA & AA do merge, they are going to have to agree on whose pricing strategy to use!

[Michael SWS]

What I am saying is that I want the seller to tell me the cost in one single figure. Nothing more added or taken away.And that is exactly what almost all airlines do, including BA.

When you buy a flight on BA's website the fares displayed are the total cost of each flight, including all taxes, fees and charges. Nothing is added on between that point and finally paying for it, but a breakdown of the taxes, fees and charges included in the fare is available via a simple link if you wish to see one.

I still fail to see your point.

[VAFFPAX]

But the sad fact is that you will never have that. Why? Because it's a commercial disadvantage to give you one price when other airlines break theirs down.

Granted, overall, the customer experience of a single charge is better, but when you had FR and EZY running ads that used to hide the extra charges in the small print (which we never read), the commercial disadvantage was clearly there.

Here's an example:

- BA charges you a price of £145 for a flight LHR-TXL rtn. It includes everything.
- FR charges you a price of £40 for a flight STN-SXF rtn. It does NOT include: checkin charge, hold baggage and excess luggage charge (at 23 kilo), airport fees and taxes. Those are mentioned in the small print.

As a normal pax from down the pub, which one would you plump for? FR of course. It's cheaper. Or at least looks like it.

Nevermind the fact that when it comes to booking, you have to pay £16 for checkin, £15 for hold baggage (at 15 kilo), £60 in taxes, and then, at the airport, end up shelling out another £30 per sector for your 6 kilos you are over the Ryanair limit.

So, as a result, BA and others go and break down their supplemental charges in a similar way to what FR have to (since small print is no longer allowed):

BA flight LHR-TXL rtn: £80 (+ £65 taxes)
FR flight STN-SXF rtn: £40 (+ £60 taxes) *
* not including £31 for misc. fees and £60 for excess luggage

The flights now look a LOT more competitive, and, if you're a seasoned traveller, you'll more likely add the usual £91 on the Ryanair price and realise that for your specific situation, BA IS the cheaper way to fly (by 40 or so quid).

I base this on real-life experience.

S.

[Ozzy]

Booked a Club World ticket BOS-LHR roundtrip for November using my frequent flier miles. So, free ticket and the taxes were $550. WTF? On what is that amount based?

Ozzy

[James 1077]

Booked a Club World ticket BOS-LHR roundtrip for November using my frequent flier miles. So, free ticket and the taxes were $550. WTF? On what is that amount based?


This is why the fuel surcharge isn't included in the flight price - which it should be as it is a simple cost of flying. But by not including it people spending their points will have to pay it in addition to their "free" ticket.

The other big cost is UK APD which comes up to about $160.

I generally use my points to upgrade as it ends up being a better use of them and often doesn't cost all that much extra in actual money!

[WHBM]

The whole concept of a item called "Taxes, Fees and Charges" is so many (including posters here) interpret it as "Taxes ...." because they don't absorb the whole overlong, and anyway inaccurate, description. And thus these nowadays vast amounts are seen as something standardised (because taxes are presumed to be standard across all airlines).

So, fare £100 + "taxes" of £200. Well, you won't get a fare much lower than £100, and the taxes will be the same. Let's book.

I come across the same in misleading road safety statistics, which nowadays commonly refer to KSI, or "Killed and seriously injured". Written like that so if you say a road had 10 KSI last year it gets interpreted as "10 Killed ....", ie very bad. In fact, just like taxes and fees, it has been subjected to statistical creep as well, as hospitals do not analyse injuries publically as to whether they are serious or not, so everybody taken to hospital, even if sent straight away again, now gets counted to hype up the figure.

It's also like airlines arriving "on time" as far as the statisics are concerned yet they are sufficiently late for you to miss your valid connection. Playing with figues.

[fyrefli]

Granted, overall, the customer experience of a single charge is better, but when you had FR and EZY running ads that used to hide the extra charges in the small print (which we never read), the commercial disadvantage was clearly there.

Here's an example:

- BA charges you a price of £145 for a flight LHR-TXL rtn. It includes everything.
- FR charges you a price of £40 for a flight STN-SXF rtn. It does NOT include: checkin charge, hold baggage and excess luggage charge (at 23 kilo), airport fees and taxes. Those are mentioned in the small print.

As a normal pax from down the pub, which one would you plump for? FR of course. It's cheaper. Or at least looks like it.

Well, personally I'd read the information properly and make an informed decision ;) To anyone who doesn't, tough. It's like most of the crap on Watchdog - if it looks too good to be true, it almost certainly *is*!

It's like when I used to work for BT and the cable companies (who all scuttled back off to the US with their profits, leaving us with just one competitor for BT again, surprise, surprise) used to quote their prices ex VAT and people fell for it. Some, give them their due, would change their minds when you pointed it out but most were just too pig-headed (or actually stood to gain by switching, although the proportion to whom that applied was surprisingly small).

"You pays your money..."

[VAFFPAX]

Oh the classic VAT excluded switcheroo gets people every time. I know. :-)

S.

[Globaliser]

This is why the fuel surcharge isn't included in the flight price - which it should be as it is a simple cost of flying. But by not including it people spending their points will have to pay it in addition to their "free" ticket.

The other big cost is UK APD which comes up to about $160."Free" flights have never been such, because there have always been some "taxes, fees and charges" to pay. Getting an award ticket is really just getting a 100% discount on the base fare. It was always like this, and it still is exactly this now. The difference is that the TFC have become so significant.

I have never believed that this structure (including fuel surcharges on top of the base fare, rather than as part of it) was aimed at the small proportion of passengers who fly on award tickets. The bigger impact is on those who fly on corporate (or other percentage) discounts. They still have their 50% or 75% or whatever taken off the base fare, but they pay 100% of the fuel surcharge. Exactly the same for those of us who fly BA using the 10% shareholders discount - it's 10% off the base fare, and it has always been.

[Seat62K]

Untrue. I remember when I used to fly a lot on KLM and Northwest I was able to redeem "Flying Dutchman" miles at absolutely no cost. This was, admittedly, before the introduction of APD in the UK. The flights were totally free.

[Capot]

The other big cost is UK APD which comes up to about $160.

Please see the excellent post below; the $160 APD is only for premium long-haul travel, to get it into perspective.

The United Kingdom's Air Passenger Duty ("departure tax") is quite straightforward.

For economy class travel, the duty is £10 short-haul (domestic and European) and £40 long-haul (everywhere else). For travel in premium classes, the rate is doubled, i.e. £20 short-haul and £80 long-haul.

It's a tax, pure and simple - a revenue-raising exercise. There is no need to justify it or explain what the money is spent on.

Any charges over and above the APD are applied by the airline itself (e.g. security surcharge, fuel surcharge or Ryanair's wheelchair surcharge) and/or the airport operator.