Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Brown Doubles Passenger Duty  
User currently offlinePlanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2985 times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6213682.stm

Quote:
Taxes on flights from the UK will double, Chancellor Gordon Brown has announced, in most cases a rise to £10.
But long-haul flights beyond the European Economic Area will see taxes increase to as much as £80.


19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3550 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2924 times:

I normally see a figure for taxes when I buy a ticket, but there are a number of things that make it hard to break down:

One is airlines describing airport handling charges as taxes (which they surely are not)

And secondly its not usually itemised into Uk taxes, and destination taxes.

I have however visited a number of countrys who extract a departure tax in cash as you leave

The point I'm heading towards is:

How much do other governments tax passengers ?

Are these UK taxes unreasonable in comparison ?

UK transport is traditionally taxed via fuel duty, this however is not possible with many short range flights as airlines would simply fly in with full tanks.


User currently offlinePlanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 2889 times:

I understand aviation fuel is tax free (at the moment, there were calls to tax it.)

The Government instead, takes money in the form of a tax per passenger carried.

However, this budget, they are claiming its to cut down CO2 emissions. If this is the case, how will an increase in the tax stop people flying? Ususally an airline ticket (the fare to the airline) is priced up and then tax is added on. Im sure people dont really pay attention to how much this figure is by that point and just pay it.

If the money is going to the Government, more than likley its going into the same funds as everything else, and wasted like the at the present time. Surely it would be beneficial to put these taxes into a fund that is used for the research into other fuels, especially renewable and those that are less pollutive. This in my opinion would be of a greater benefit than buying another Jaguar for Prescott.

The departure tax I have experienced at other (foreign) airports, are not taxes per se, from the Government but rather airport regeneration fees for the redevelopment of the airport.


User currently offlineCaptainsimon From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

I think this is the start of the so called "green tax" I'm sure the rest of europe will soon follow.

User currently offlineSilverfox From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1058 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2649 times:

This is just another of theat useless labour Govt robbing people. Like the extra money WILL stop the hole in the ozone layer

B Liar and Brown and that fat ugly obnoxious useless piece of Lard prescott. What a bunch of hypocrites, make that last Tory Govt lok like choirboys

Blair said id Britain reduced ouer output iyt woved have amarked effect?????

UK pumps out 2%

I must get 100 people to start punching him (queue starts behind me) and then ask 2 to stop. Then enquire if he noticed any difference

God, he is an Arsehole

And on an aviation theme

Whats the difference between a 747-400 and an 800?


User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2000 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2617 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If this actually goes through, it will put BA at a tremendous disadvantage in competing for transit business. LHR already has the highest taxes and user fees of any airport in Europe. This move, if it goes through, will ultimately result in the loss of significant group business to points beyond the UK from the USA.


It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13074 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2589 times:

Raising the taxes, to the proposed levels will hurt the already declining tourism of Americans and even others to or via the UK/LHR. They may lose more in valuable business travel and tourism spending that they gain via this tax on top of already very high taxes and post-base fare fees the UK has.

User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Glad I went into the oil business after all.

As a Pingu tax, this seems fairly reasonable. But, the idea behind levying Pingu taxes is that other areas of the economy see reductions. Tax reductions? From El Gordo? Hah! The idea is to shift the tax burden onto external costs of economic activity, such as that from pollution. The Tories and the LibDems are saying that they will follow something along those line.

As Diane Abbott and Andrew Neil pointed out, the government came into power promising not to raise taxes. I think the British electorate has been sold the Brooklyn Bridge.


User currently offlineSapphireLHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2432 times:

Reading the BBC web site with reference to this tax, unless I'm reading it wrong, if travelling within the EU it is only on classes above economy that the tax will increase from £10 to £20 !!

User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2419 times:

Quoting Planesailing (Reply 2):
they are claiming its to cut down CO2 emissions

Well the UK is responsible for (at the most) 2% of the world's CO2 emission. So the tax will cut down emissions worldwide? China is responsible for over 10% of the world's CO2 emissions, and are they having to pay tax too? Do Brown and Bliar think we are so naive to believe their claim for one second? It is just another tax, disguised as a world-saving feat. There have been hundreds of tax increases, often disguised so people are unaware of them, since Bliar came to power.

Quoting Silverfox (Reply 4):
B Liar and Brown and that fat ugly obnoxious useless piece of Lard prescott. What a bunch of hypocrites, make that last Tory Govt look like choirboys

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

Come back Margaret Thatcher - all is forgiven. I know she is reported as going slightly senile, but even if she is, she still has far more intelligence than the entire Bliar Goverment combined.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineDstc47 From Ireland, joined Sep 1999, 1471 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2387 times:

Ireland abolished a £5 national tax on Air Travel, to coincide with the abolition of intra-european duty free in 1999, so Ireland imposes no national "taxes " on air travel. There are no local taxes on air travel either in Ireland, unlike certain US locations who finance their ballparks, by charging mainly the non user traveller to fund venues they neither use or see. A few of the smaller regional airports impose a departing passenger facility, which has no legal status.

Any charges appearing on your tickets in relation to travel to / from Ireland and described as "taxes" are airport related charges or foreign travel taxes.


User currently offlinePlanesailing From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 816 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2366 times:

Theres my answer then. If I want to travel long haul, head off to Ireland first. That means I only pay £10 on the London-Ireland sector, which would leave me with with possibly £70 in my pocket!

User currently offlineBMED From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2004, 860 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2346 times:

Does this mean we will start to see an increase in the use of train between cities in the UK.


Living the jetset life! No better way to be
User currently offlineJonty From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 3 weeks ago) and read 2343 times:

If they really want to put this tax to use, they should make it that all of the money raised by this tax should go into a fund that is used for research into cleaner fuels!
With this, road tolls and every other tax we pay, soon enough we wont be able to leave the country, or at least Europe - maybe that's their plan - if we can't leave we have to spend what little money we have left in the UK!!!


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting BMED (Reply 13):
Does this mean we will start to see an increase in the use of train between cities in the UK.

Unlikely. The UK rail system is already almost grid-locked, as it was designed for rail traffic in the Victorian Days rather than modern days. Already the Gatwick Express might be axed so that more services can be accommodated to take some of the over-crowding on commuter trains. And guess what? Why the Government is also planning to tax rail fares for peak periods, not to mention that the same Government failed to ensure enough money was redirected to bring the rail system up to present day demands and standards.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2965 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2294 times:

Just another reason for me to avoid connecting throuhg LHR, LGW or MAN...


Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineDanny From Poland, joined Apr 2002, 3509 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2267 times:

Quoting Captainsimon (Reply 3):
think this is the start of the so called "green tax" I'm sure the rest of europe will soon follow.

The rest of Europe will not follow this mad "taxing everything" policy (maybe France or Sweden but majority will not).

Brown has a long record of raising taxes and introducing new taxes. The whole "green" thing is just handy justification for it.

Let's face it - damaging Arline industry in UK will not solve global warming problem. Until USA, India and China comes on board it is fighting windmills.

For now we will have yet another reason to fly via Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt instead of London.


User currently offlineDiatom From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2191 times:

A few observations:

Quoting PA110 (Reply 5):
This is just another of that useless labour Govt robbing people. Like the extra money WILL stop the hole in the ozone layer

The Ozone hole is caused by CFCs. CO2 from aircraft emissions is a greenhouse gas and adds to the greenhouse effect which causes global warming. Which in turn leads to climate change which might include sea level rise and all the rest of the panicky stuff you read in the papers.

Quoting PA110 (Reply 5):
God, he is an Arsehole

Indeed, Blair, Brown, Prescott, Clarke, Mandelson, Jowell, Kelly to name but a few. Half of them have been sacked because they screwed up. Shambolic shower.

Quoting PA110 (Reply 5):
UK pumps out 2%

Quite. As a % we are very small and the BBC reported this morning that aviation is only 1.6 % of global emissions. There are currently bigger fish to fry than aviation. As a scientist it is my considered opinion that the "Green Tax" is a convenient revenue generator and vote winner ("we care about the environment"), nothing more.

Quoting Jonty (Reply 13):
Does this mean we will start to see an increase in the use of train between cities in the UK.

If only, but no. The Eddinton report a few days ago did not recommend spending on high speed rail lines. The French put us to shame with their TGV and frankly if you want to get people out of the air and on to a train, better high speed rail links are a must.

A bit off topic, but a serious green move would involve getting more hybrid cars on the road by making them more affordable - not making conventional cars more expensive. Providing a decent public transport alternative. Nuclear power is also a must - wind power simply cant deliver for a variety of reasons.

 old 


User currently offlineGlom From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2815 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2146 times:

Quoting Diatom (Reply 17):
A bit off topic, but a serious green move would involve getting more hybrid cars on the road by making them more affordable - not making conventional cars more expensive. Providing a decent public transport alternative. Nuclear power is also a must - wind power simply cant deliver for a variety of reasons.

I am completely with you on the last bit. On the first bit, I'm more reserved. There is some debate over the lifecycle costs of hybrids. Some studies suggest that when construction and disposal costs are included, an SUV produces less GHGs than a hybrid, even though the operation of the vehicles give the opposite, due to longer estimated lifetimes and less need for manufacture and disposal of polluting batteries.

There could of course be a load of figure fiddling going on, but more clarity is needed first.


User currently offlineBwaflyer From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 689 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2092 times:

Quoting Ushermittwoch (Reply 15):
Just another reason for me to avoid connecting throuhg LHR, LGW or MAN...

Air passenger duty is not levied on transfer passengers arriving and departing within 24 hours.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Passenger Duty In Uk Frozen posted Wed Mar 16 2005 15:04:00 by Orion737
Story From Years Ago: Passenger Not Guilty posted Sun Dec 17 2006 03:59:28 by September11
UK Air Passenger Duty - Pay Extra At Check-in?! posted Wed Dec 13 2006 00:09:05 by Demoose
Judge Says Arrested Ryanair Passenger Owed Apology posted Fri Dec 8 2006 13:10:09 by Door5Right
Longest B-1900 Passenger Flight posted Mon Dec 4 2006 17:53:48 by Flyguy595
When Will The 747 Be Out Of Passenger Service? posted Sat Dec 2 2006 02:17:47 by Scalebuilder
Madrid Barajas Duty Free Security posted Sat Dec 2 2006 00:33:47 by B707Stu
LAX Doubles Rent For Airlines. posted Tue Nov 21 2006 18:12:03 by Laxintl
Passenger Rights In Switzerland - Same As EU posted Wed Nov 15 2006 14:24:21 by ZRH
German Reporters Build Bomb W. Duty Free Purchases posted Mon Nov 13 2006 21:57:34 by Birdwatching