Yet Another Unfair Levy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: London
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet Another Unfair Levy
Following the collapse of EUjet there are suggestions in today's papers of a new levy to be charged on every UK passenger to provide a fund to compensate those who lose money following an airline collapse.
The majority of UK airlines are reasonably well run and soundly financed but there are also those who charge unrealistically low fares and teeter on the brink of profit and loss.
It seems very unfair to expect passengers who are paying a small premium to travel on the better run carriers to have to fork out to protect those who book with "Shoestring Airlines" to get the lowest possible fare.
Would it not be better to insist that each airline is either bonded by depositing a cash sum or by taking out an insurance policy to cover compensation in the event of their collapse. This would have to be reflected in their ticket price, but it would avoid having the rest of the industry subsidising those who seem determined to slash terms and conditions to offer even lower prices and destabilise the whole industry in the process.
The majority of UK airlines are reasonably well run and soundly financed but there are also those who charge unrealistically low fares and teeter on the brink of profit and loss.
It seems very unfair to expect passengers who are paying a small premium to travel on the better run carriers to have to fork out to protect those who book with "Shoestring Airlines" to get the lowest possible fare.
Would it not be better to insist that each airline is either bonded by depositing a cash sum or by taking out an insurance policy to cover compensation in the event of their collapse. This would have to be reflected in their ticket price, but it would avoid having the rest of the industry subsidising those who seem determined to slash terms and conditions to offer even lower prices and destabilise the whole industry in the process.
Last edited by Seat1APlease; 28th Jul 2005 at 09:58.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sussex, UK
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This levy is what Tour Opertors in the UK have already been funding for many years, an ATOL.
The mockery of the whole thing is that if these EuJet passengers were overseas with a UK based tour operator the ATOL fund would have provided funds to repatriate them.
This is the first failure of a "low cost carrier" and highlights the risk to the public, the government is currently looking at a revised ATOL scheme which would mean Tour Operators and airlines all paying a levy of something in the region of £1 or £2 per passenger, this would resolve the currently unfair system whereby a low cost carrier doesnt need the ATOL.
OA
The mockery of the whole thing is that if these EuJet passengers were overseas with a UK based tour operator the ATOL fund would have provided funds to repatriate them.
This is the first failure of a "low cost carrier" and highlights the risk to the public, the government is currently looking at a revised ATOL scheme which would mean Tour Operators and airlines all paying a levy of something in the region of £1 or £2 per passenger, this would resolve the currently unfair system whereby a low cost carrier doesnt need the ATOL.
OA
In the UK Tiny Computers (also trading as Time Computers), a high street computer retailer, went out of business on the same day as EUJet.
There seems to be no call at all in the press for all computer sales to have a new levy added to them to fund those who have lost deposits or downpayments, or other aspects. So why does aviation constantly get picked off for yet another levy, the bulk of which will doubtless be skimmed off by those "administering" the scheme.
It is true that when there is any aviation bankruptcy the bulk of those affected seem not to be business or even regular travellers, but those only interested in getting transport at the absolute minimum price. Like that ever since Court Line days.
There seems to be no call at all in the press for all computer sales to have a new levy added to them to fund those who have lost deposits or downpayments, or other aspects. So why does aviation constantly get picked off for yet another levy, the bulk of which will doubtless be skimmed off by those "administering" the scheme.
It is true that when there is any aviation bankruptcy the bulk of those affected seem not to be business or even regular travellers, but those only interested in getting transport at the absolute minimum price. Like that ever since Court Line days.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many people actually lost money though, since most people are paying by CC over the phone or online and will get refunds from the CC company?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: somewhere near LTN
Age: 50
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So long as they paid by credit card and the transaction value was a min of £100 then they have protection that way.
No protection if they used a debit card.
cheers
FF
No protection if they used a debit card.
cheers
FF
This idea has been rumbling on for a while now, and the EU Jet debacle has brought it back to the fore.
I agree that if you're going to levy the airline industry, then why not bonds for MFI, PC World, Harrods etc etc. All sectors of industry dealing with Joe Public are capable of collapse, and with the price of airtickets these days, the exposure risk when buying furniture or electronics is far greater.
Another thing puzzles me. Sure, you could impose a bonding requirement on a British registered airline, but Ryanair are Irish, and would therefore be exempt, as would Germanwings, Air Berling, Sky Europe, and the rest of them.
It would surely have to be minimum an EU piece of legislation - and we all know how much Britain detests them!
I agree that if you're going to levy the airline industry, then why not bonds for MFI, PC World, Harrods etc etc. All sectors of industry dealing with Joe Public are capable of collapse, and with the price of airtickets these days, the exposure risk when buying furniture or electronics is far greater.
Another thing puzzles me. Sure, you could impose a bonding requirement on a British registered airline, but Ryanair are Irish, and would therefore be exempt, as would Germanwings, Air Berling, Sky Europe, and the rest of them.
It would surely have to be minimum an EU piece of legislation - and we all know how much Britain detests them!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: London,Bucharest...wherever...
Posts: 1,014
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to point out that EUJET was actually an Irish company and an Irish airline regulated by the Irish authorities but with largest operating base in the UK - allowed to inhabit (base/operate) on our shores by the EU (sadly, just like Ryanair at STN and PIK) and not just an EU carrier operating into UK like Air Berlin or Sky Europe - so just how does this (like Ryanair) fit into the scheme of things for this fund?
So UK pax (and airlines) are to be charged to cover the apparent differences in interpretation (inadequecies) of other EU states to effectively invoke Economic Regulation and supervision on their carriers 'camping out' in the UK (great...!)
So UK pax (and airlines) are to be charged to cover the apparent differences in interpretation (inadequecies) of other EU states to effectively invoke Economic Regulation and supervision on their carriers 'camping out' in the UK (great...!)
