Expected long haul tax increases.
Thread Starter
Expected long haul tax increases.
If the UK government ups long haul tax in the budget from £40 to £84, would this mean a reduction of long haul passengers, especially families and groups, from UK airports in favour of routes from Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris???
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi Serenity
Well, I live in the Southern Med and I have a few long haul trips coming up, in fact I am in the Middle East presently, I also fly business class.
So, if I fly via the UK I am further penalised for this luxury.
If I can choose a fare that is about £150 less than transiting via the UK, I feel pretty much obliged to take it from a professional standpoint, to get good value for my client.
From a personal perspective, I don't see why I should pay a premium for the cr*p experience that is transiting via London, so in order of preference I would choose, Zurich, Muenchen, Frankfurt, Roma, Milano, Amsterdam and Paris before London.
Is that a clear enough response?
Well, I live in the Southern Med and I have a few long haul trips coming up, in fact I am in the Middle East presently, I also fly business class.
So, if I fly via the UK I am further penalised for this luxury.
If I can choose a fare that is about £150 less than transiting via the UK, I feel pretty much obliged to take it from a professional standpoint, to get good value for my client.
From a personal perspective, I don't see why I should pay a premium for the cr*p experience that is transiting via London, so in order of preference I would choose, Zurich, Muenchen, Frankfurt, Roma, Milano, Amsterdam and Paris before London.
Is that a clear enough response?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by serenity
If the UK government ups long haul tax in the budget from £40 to £84, would this mean a reduction of long haul passengers, especially families and groups, from UK airports in favour of routes from Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris???
Firstly, anything that shifts passengers (and therefore aircraft movements) away from the UK is to be welcomed. And secondly, a dramatic drop in passenger numbers (and revenue) for BAA might just be the wake-up call that they need to upgrade Heathrow to a standard that equals its European competitors.
But before this thread deteriorates into a political debate, let's just see what the budget brings. I have read nothing that suggests that such a tax increase is likely.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, anything that shifts passengers (and therefore aircraft movements) away from the UK is to be welcomed.
But one has to question your motives for you initiating this silly question, then answering your own point! Come on, you're one of those weirdo, unreal 'greens' aren't you, trolling for a damn good 'green' discussion! Troll warning!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Others may rise to your rudeness, Rainboe, but I rise above it.
There is absolutely no similarity between my previous post and the supermarket example you give.
Almost the only people that benefit from transfer passengers through the UK are the airport operators; the passengers do not leave the airport and therefore add almost nothing to the wider economy. On the other hand, the increased number of aircraft movements adds to the environmental damage (and I include immediate damage such as noise and pollution as well as indeterminate long-term damage) in the vicinity of the airports. Why should we tolerate further environmental inconvenience merely to further enrich an incompetent (and foreign-owned) commercial organisation?
I honestly see no reason not to encourage passengers from the regions of the UK to transfer through Schiphol, Frankfurt or Dubai rather than Heathrow. It's not a matter of dogma but merely of economic and environmental sense. And why do we have to strive for the biggest, busiest airport? What's wrong with wanting smaller, less busy airports that offer a superior experience? Sometimes this whole forum reads like Spotters' Corner.
There is absolutely no similarity between my previous post and the supermarket example you give.
Almost the only people that benefit from transfer passengers through the UK are the airport operators; the passengers do not leave the airport and therefore add almost nothing to the wider economy. On the other hand, the increased number of aircraft movements adds to the environmental damage (and I include immediate damage such as noise and pollution as well as indeterminate long-term damage) in the vicinity of the airports. Why should we tolerate further environmental inconvenience merely to further enrich an incompetent (and foreign-owned) commercial organisation?
I honestly see no reason not to encourage passengers from the regions of the UK to transfer through Schiphol, Frankfurt or Dubai rather than Heathrow. It's not a matter of dogma but merely of economic and environmental sense. And why do we have to strive for the biggest, busiest airport? What's wrong with wanting smaller, less busy airports that offer a superior experience? Sometimes this whole forum reads like Spotters' Corner.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost the only people that benefit from transfer passengers through the UK are the airport operators; the passengers do not leave the airport and therefore add almost nothing to the wider economy.
I honestly see no reason not to encourage passengers from the regions of the UK to transfer through Schiphol, Frankfurt or Dubai rather than Heathrow. It's not a matter of dogma but merely of economic and environmental sense.
The trouble with this sort of tortured logic, is that if you actually succeed in killing the golden goose, the contraction has a knock on effect on general demand in an area. Still, I expect your ire at dinner parties could then turn to the incompetent government that has driven down the value of your house that is no longer in an area of such high demand.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that we have just emerged from one of the longest, coldest winters I can remember, I think we can dump global warming in a place where the sun don't shine, like up Gormless's gonga.
He has stated that matters green will come to the fore in the battle against the "Global recession" ....
....meaning they will tax anything that moves and anything that is nailed down.
Wednesday will make me a liar or a prophet.
He has stated that matters green will come to the fore in the battle against the "Global recession" ....
....meaning they will tax anything that moves and anything that is nailed down.
Wednesday will make me a liar or a prophet.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by avitor
Given that we have just emerged from one of the longest, coldest winters I can remember, I think we can dump global warming in a place where the sun don't shine, like up Gormless's gonga.
But that's besides the point. My argument is based purely on my own desire not to have more planes flying into, out of and over the UK than absolutely necessary. It's not really about climate change at all (because, to be honest, a few hundred more planes ain't going to make that much of a difference).
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you started with an 'innocent query' then, as an excuse to start a discussion purely so you can put across your stupid propaganda? You wee spotted straight away!
Bludger extraordinaire
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London/Frankfurt
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to get to the Continent in the first place, which costs money and more importantly, a great deal of time to allow for contingencies. So while I'm happy to use FRA as an intermediate stop (because the long-haul C flights are better priced there and I have reasons dropping in), it would be difficult to justify if you had no motive other than saving £44. per passenger.
It's another one of those 'oh, well' taxes that you can't avoid. It will be put to good use on buying plasma screens for the Government's core voters and other high-priority projects. It won't move flights offshore to an appreciable degree.
I liken this process to that of a ratchet, and doubt that the next government will have the testosterone to eliminate the revenue raised. Indirect taxes are less unpalatable than direct taxes to me, but it's complete suckage when both are increasing.
BOFH
It's another one of those 'oh, well' taxes that you can't avoid. It will be put to good use on buying plasma screens for the Government's core voters and other high-priority projects. It won't move flights offshore to an appreciable degree.
I liken this process to that of a ratchet, and doubt that the next government will have the testosterone to eliminate the revenue raised. Indirect taxes are less unpalatable than direct taxes to me, but it's complete suckage when both are increasing.
BOFH
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cameron, vexing that he is for riding that infernal pushbike, has vowed that any green tax will be offset by a reduction in other taxes.
I would prefer a reduction in the expenditure on nutty scientists myself.
I would prefer a reduction in the expenditure on nutty scientists myself.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Livin de island life
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends what is defined as a "tax". Does Cameron include the emissions trading costs on aviation? Bet he doesn't. These, as yet unquantified, extra charges come into effect on all flights into, out of and within the EU in 2011.
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Final 3 Greens et al
International journeys connecting through UK airports are not subject to APD so you're all wasting your breath arguing about it.
This is normal in the case of such taxes, governments are perfectly aware that to levy them on connecting flights would damage the competitiveness of their own airlines.
International journeys connecting through UK airports are not subject to APD so you're all wasting your breath arguing about it.
This is normal in the case of such taxes, governments are perfectly aware that to levy them on connecting flights would damage the competitiveness of their own airlines.
Warning Toxic!
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Disgusted of Tunbridge
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 4,011
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well so much for passenger duties increasing! Maybe a glimmer of common sense at last for this government! So how does it feel to know the government doesn't share your daft beliefs Michael SWS? Neither does most of the country except for a small loud vociferous bunch of vapour heads?
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Leeds
Posts: 702
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how does it feel to know the government doesn't share your daft beliefs Michael SWS?
Anybody who agrees with most of the sh*t, deception and outright lies that were all present and incorrect in today's budget must be spending too long up in the clouds.
But we already knew that about some of the regular gobshi*es on here.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you started with an 'innocent query' then, as an excuse to start a discussion purely so you can put across your stupid propaganda? You wee spotted straight away!