Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FR Cuts 414 Weekly Flights In Germany  
User currently offlinedowntown273 From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 302 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7603 times:

Hi all,

As per the Ryanair website: http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/berli...d-dusseldorf-weeze-travel-tax-cuts

"Ryanair regrets that the German Govt’s €8 tourist tax now makes Germany an uncompetitive tourist destination at a time when many other EU Govts (including Holland, Belgium, Greece and Spain) have scrapped tourist taxes altogether and/or reduced airport charges, in some cases to zero, in order to grow traffic and tourism. Even the Irish Govt last week recognised the damage done to Irish tourism and jobs and has slashed its failed €10 tourist tax to just €3."

Impact of Germany’s €8 tourist tax - Source: www.ryanair.com


Any chances Germany may scrap this tourist tax? The 414 weekly flights cut must free up around 7-8 Boeing 737-800s.

[Edited 2010-12-14 04:16:24]

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTobias2702 From Germany, joined Sep 2008, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7359 times:

Quoting downtown273 (Thread starter):
Any chances Germany may scrap this tourist tax?

That seems to be quite unlikely. The Federal Government won't do anything just because FR starts to panic. I may be slightly biased against Ryanair, but I just think the airline (at least up to a certain extent) needs a scapegoat for unsuccessful routes. Then again, if FR's business model cannot stand the additional tax, then it's just natural to retreat from certain markets, focussing on others. So no need to blame a government (which is not there to represent FR's interests).

Then, according to the table given above Ryanair claims that 1 million annual passengers would generate 1000 jobs in the city. I really would like to know where this calculation comes from. To me, this looks like razzle-dazzle.

Now, IMO the tax ain't so bad. If a country needs money, it's ok to encash luxury posts (and flights just operated for the merit of saving 8 Euros surely belong to this category). Important business flights just won't be affected. Don't forget that in Germany, jet fuel is exempted from the tax on mineral oils, and there is only a limited VAT on the tickets.

--Tobias--



PA, AF, UK, BA, AB, DL, LH, FR, BD, A3, EZY, DY //// A319/320/346, B733/735/73G/738/744/763, AT4, 146, CR2, DH4
User currently offlineSQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1451 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7256 times:

Let them go, won' t miss a single flight of them.
They would move out of SXF anyhow, latest when the BBI will be serviceable.
Most of the jobs now claimed to be lossed where been just created by subsides by the local Government, so in the end it might be cheaper the jobs get lost instead of inversting further in thos third class landing strips like Weeze.
I am not a friend of the new Tax but like to see the headwind for FR increasing all over europe.


User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting Tobias2702 (Reply 1):
but I just think the airline (at least up to a certain extent) needs a scapegoat for unsuccessful routes. Then again, if FR's business model cannot stand the additional tax, then it's just natural to retreat from certain markets, focussing on others. So no need to blame a government (which is not there to represent FR's interests).

Then, according to the table given above Ryanair claims that 1 million annual passengers would generate 1000 jobs in the city. I really would like to know where this calculation comes from. To me, this looks like razzle-dazzle.

Well, to be fair here, you can quite validly 'question' where the figures are arrived at in talking about jobs in Germany....... so, in which case, on what are you basing your comment on then that the airline "needs a scapegoat for unsuccessful routes"? Are you factually aware said routes are unsuccessful and, if so, where are you obtaining that from? Why do you opinionate the second part is "razzle-dazzle" but the first is not? I find it interesting that so many German members have consistently slammed the tax imposed, but yet suddenly it is viewed as Ryanair "need a scapegoat". No your governments is certainly not there to represent Ryanair's interests, but it certainly is there to represent German commerce interest.


User currently offlineTobias2702 From Germany, joined Sep 2008, 720 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7070 times:

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
so, in which case, on what are you basing your comment on then that the airline "needs a scapegoat for unsuccessful routes"? Are you factually aware said routes are unsuccessful and, if so, where are you obtaining that from?

I said I THINK Ryanair needs a scapegoat. To make it clearer, I wanted to express that I am under the IMPRESSION that Ryanair (based on previous news releases with a similar tone) might blame someone else for unprofitable routes. I don't have any facts, I've just expressed my opinion.

Quoting AirNZ (Reply 3):
No your governments is certainly not there to represent Ryanair's interests, but it certainly is there to represent German commerce interest.

Once again: A state needs to impose taxes. And in my opinion it's better to charge airline customers than goods that everyone needs for a living (by raising the VAT) or even cut the social spending. As I stated above, airlines are favored at other taxes. I cannot see any businesses retreating from Germany just because their employees' flights are a bit more expensive. Then again, if a company decided to restructure in order to need less flying, then that, too, would be favorable, even if the airlines might suffer. You cannot judge the economic power of a business (or even a whole country) by the number of flights operated.

--Tobias--

[Edited 2010-12-14 06:22:48]


PA, AF, UK, BA, AB, DL, LH, FR, BD, A3, EZY, DY //// A319/320/346, B733/735/73G/738/744/763, AT4, 146, CR2, DH4
User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 6954 times:

Quoting downtown273 (Thread starter):
Any chances Germany may scrap this tourist tax?

Yes. The tax is due to be evaluated in Summer 2011.

If the government comes to the conclusion that the tax cost them more in lost revenues than they earned from the tax, then it will be scrapped at that time (which is not unlikely, given the experiences other countries have had with flight taxes). Before that, it is very unlikely that the tax will be scrapped.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5712 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6872 times:

I love the O'Leary demagoguery... Ryanair claims in their own PR release, quoted above, that they axed PRG-HHN as a consequence of the German tax. I thought they already axed that route quite a while ago because PRG was "too expensive" (true reason was low demand, average LF of PRG-HHN was just 62%) when their discount on taxes for new routes expired and PRG refused to give them a special deal.

The carrier will end flights to Birmingham and Frankfurt July 1 and to Dublin and Stockholm in October.
Low-cost airline Ryanair caused a ripple April 27 when it announced it would pull out of Prague's Ruzyn%u011B Airport because of fees they consider too high, but industry insiders say such tactics are typical of airlines negotiating with airports.


http://www.praguepost.com/business/4...%E2%80%BA-over-passenger-fees.html

[Edited 2010-12-14 07:10:03]

User currently offlineoffloaded From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2009, 885 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6869 times:

As I have said before in other Ryanair threads, whenever FR cuts a route, a base, or a country, it is always someone or something else's fault. I do not know why they can never just say that certain routes just didn't work out for them. They tried and failed; no big deal. FR may just be finding that many travellers who were able to do "extra" weekend breaks or holidays thanks to cheap flights can't afford to do as many right now. A lot of business people still prefer main airports, and this is reflected in Easyjet's ongoing strategy, and indeed even MOL said they may look at such things things in the future.

Ultimately, love them or hate them, FR is a very successful company. Complaining about the German Govt tax, once again, gets publicity and people talking about FR, as we are doing now.



To no one will we sell, or deny, or delay, right or justice - Magna Carta, 1215
User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6699 times:

Some of these flights may indeed be scrapped due to previous low performance, and some may not. Demand is not inelastic (specially not FR's demand which is highly price-sensitive), so an increase of 8EUR per flight per pax (32EUR for a family of 4 traveling on holiday) will mean a certain decrease in demand. How much is something we can argue about, but it is likely that some marginally performing routes could now turn a loss or barely break even.

Quoting downtown273 (Thread starter):

Any chances Germany may scrap this tourist tax?

I have yet to see the day when any tax is scrapped - once a tax is imposed, it stays forever.

Quoting Tobias2702 (Reply 4):
A state needs to impose taxes. And in my opinion it's better to charge airline customers than goods that everyone needs for a living (by raising the VAT) or even cut the social spending.

Even better yet would be to fix the broken system that has held Germany in a structural budget deficit, increasing debt, and increasing taxes for the last 20 years.


User currently onlinekl911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5135 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6605 times:

To be honoust, i fly FR often, and never above 14.99 euro oneway. If higher i cant afford it. Like me, a lot of flyers will have to pay another 16 euro return, no way i'm gonna do that. let them open a base at EIN, if not i'll take Wizzair. I don't care much about destinations for a weekend trip.

User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9375 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (3 years 9 months 1 week ago) and read 6529 times:

Quoting Tobias2702 (Reply 4):
As I stated above, airlines are favored at other taxes. I cannot see any businesses retreating from Germany just because their employees' flights are a bit

Well, Ryanair just announced exactly that-. The other point is, where are airlines - better their customers - favored at other taxes? The airline industry in Germany alone pays 3,3 Billion € in user fees and taxes and by this fully pays for its infrastructure. That does not yet include the taxes and social contributions paid by the 800000 employees and the corporate taxes.

Germany is overtaxed and does not need any additional tax phantasies. Instead of dreaming up new taxes, politics should think about streamlining their operations. Billions oculd be saved that way.

The 3000 people made redundant by FR cuts, will cost , if they stay unemployed, € 15 K average per head. That is alone 45 Million. The business plans for politically wanted conversion projects like HHN and NRN will crumble, these companies will have added losses, plus the concessionaires will hjave less passengers they can sell their goods to, 1 Million less in HHN alone will be some impact on the business in that area, mainly Hotels. AB and LH will hjave less growth and less seats filled with low cost, which are 100% profit since these seats stay otherwise empty. Germanwings and Easy will reduce or relocate across the borders.

At best, the economic impact will void any gains from the passenger tax, in my opinion it will cost the state more than they will yield.



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6166 times:

Quoting kl911 (Reply 9):
If higher i cant afford it. Like me, a lot of flyers will have to pay another 16 euro return, no way i'm gonna do that.

Please don't take this personal, but I guess all the people who are not willing to book a flight because it is just 16€ more expensive, do not need to fly anyway.
Furthermore, those people in no way contribute to our economy by their travel activities, while they do have serious impact on the size of our environmental footprint. So making it less attractive for them to use airline transport isn't a bad thing at all, in my opinion.



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlineMPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 993 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5714 times:

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 11):
Furthermore, those people in no way contribute to our economy by their travel activities, while they do have serious impact on the size of our environmental footprint.



Those people would be tourists, and they do more for your economy than you will probably ever know. Tourists could give their economic benefit to other countries passing it up for a tax is counter productive.

I am all for taxes, governments need them to operate, but outside of taxing everyone equally on income taxes (by equally I don't mean everyone pays the same percent just that everyone has to pay), taxes should be used to deter actions that are not beneficial to the common good such as a tax on cigarettes not on something that provides an economic benefit like air travel. I heard a statistic that spending a dollar on transportation infrastructure is equal to providing almost 3 dollars in economic growth.



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineb707forever From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

I'm very confused. I was booked to return to NYC through FRA and a tax of $80 total was charged on my r/t ticket from NYC to Spain - I came via ZRH. I changed my returned to via the UK where I'll spend a weekend and had to pay an additional $173. I'm assuming because the passenger pays and not FR that makes a difference? I don't think I understand enough about this tax. Is it being placed on the passenger or FR?

If it's FR I can see their complaint, if it's the passenger it appears that the UK has far higher taxes than Germany and I don't understand the complaint.


User currently offlinePanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 9375 posts, RR: 29
Reply 14, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3665 times:

Quoting b707forever (Reply 13):
I don't think I understand enough about this tax. Is it being placed on the passenger or FR?

Whichever taxes a company pays are eventually paid by the customers, that includes corporate income tax. In your, better the passenger cases, taxes are handed down to the passengers immediately. Your example shows that the UK passenger taxes are even higher and certainly are driving passengers away. I haven't put a single mile on my BA Executive Club account this year, which is a pity, but......



E's passed on! That parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker!
User currently offlinedowntown273 From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 302 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 11):
I guess all the people who are not willing to book a flight because it is just 16%u20AC more expensive, do not need to fly anyway.

Who are you to tell someone they don't need to fly?

Quoting b707forever (Reply 13):
I changed my returned to via the UK where I'll spend a weekend and had to pay an additional $173

Maybe it wasn't all tax. It could have been fare differences and change fees included in those $173.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 9):
If higher i cant afford it. Like me, a lot of flyers will have to pay another 16 euro return, no way i'm gonna do that. let them open a base at EIN, if not i'll take Wizzair. I don't care much about destinations for a weekend trip.

I know what you mean. Most FR customers don't choose Ryanair for the convenience, but for the affordability. I choose to fly Ryanair because in my case it is very convenient for the routes and schedules I have to fly. But a huge number of people just go to the FR website and book a trip to anywhere they wouldn't visit otherwise.


User currently offliner2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2630 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2501 times:

Quoting b707forever (Reply 13):
I don't think I understand enough about this tax. Is it being placed on the passenger or FR?

It is placed on the airlines, therefore you may not see it as a separate tax listed under taxes & fees, but integrated in the fare, although it's not 100% clear. So, the airline has a choice of swallowing a loss of 8EUR per pax, passing on the full 8EUR to the pax, or an intermediate solution between the two. Given the thin margins with which airlines operate, I would expect at least some if not the whole tax to be passed on to customers.

Quoting b707forever (Reply 13):
UK has far higher taxes than Germany and I don't understand the complaint.

So, since other countries have introduced departure taxes, let's do the same, right? Following that reasoning we will end up with a patchwork of arbitrary departure taxes all over Europe, airlines being double-taxed and passengers being ripped off. And I'm afraid that is exactly what European politicians may end up doing.


User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting downtown273 (Reply 15):
Who are you to tell someone they don't need to fly

I don't, they do.

When someone chooses not to fly when the fare is raised with (only) 16€, presuming the wealth of the average person in Europe, he himself shows he doesn't need to fly. Otherwise he would pay the additional 16€.

I know lots of people flying with LCC's just because it is possible, for fun, let it be city trips, buying shoes, plane spotting, everything.
It is not as if all 50+ million pax that fly with FR every year would choose KL or LH or the likes when FR didn't exist.

I think it isn't a bad thing at all that those travellers are discouraged to fly.



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
User currently offlinethegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting BrouAviation (Reply 11):
Furthermore, those people in no way contribute to our economy by their travel activities, while they do have serious impact on the size of our environmental footprint. So making it less attractive for them to use airline transport isn't a bad thing at all, in my opinion.

Yes they contribute to the economy.....environmental footprint?    ......anyway....
taxes can overburden and stunt economic growth...
This "tourist tax" was tried in other countries and was counter productive...



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineBrouAviation From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 985 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (3 years 9 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 18):
Yes they contribute to the economy.....environmental footprint?    ......anyway....
taxes can overburden and stunt economic growth...

They can, but who says they will?
I know some people from certain countries don't give a **** about the environment, but in my opinion responsible use of our resources isn't a bad thing?

Quoting thegreatRDU (Reply 18):
This "tourist tax" was tried in other countries and was counter productive..

We'll see, this was never really proven, most lobbyist used the effects of the financial crisis, as if they were caused by the taxes. This can never be proven, the only thing we are sure of is that the airline industry did a damn fine job PR-wise to get the taxes removed.



Never ask somebody if he's a pilot. If he is, he will let you know soon enough!
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...
Domestic Flights In Germany By American Airlines posted Sun Sep 9 2001 20:08:57 by 22886
Varig Flights In The 90´s To NUE (germany)? posted Wed Sep 14 2005 00:52:54 by Avianca
AS Cuts Summer Flights In Bid To Improve Ontime posted Tue Jun 14 2005 13:35:31 by Squirrel83
Any New Germany-US-flights In Future? posted Mon Oct 16 2000 18:47:31 by MD 11
A Complete Online Source For Flights In Russia? posted Sat Apr 10 2010 15:14:15 by mozart
Iata Cuts 2010 Loss Forecast In Half posted Sat Mar 13 2010 03:43:30 by Jambrain
FR Seeks To Leave SXF In 2011 posted Fri Feb 26 2010 00:45:03 by Tobias2702
El Al Adding 4 Weekly Flights To CDG posted Tue Feb 23 2010 03:42:37 by EL-AL
Military Air Command Flights In The 1960's posted Tue Feb 16 2010 21:43:48 by Jackbr
707-320B/C On Domestic Flights In The 1960's posted Tue Feb 9 2010 00:18:24 by Jackbr