bavair From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 104 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 4300 times:
I haven't seen this anywhere, please delete if its been previously posted.
The state of Bavaria has initiated a motion within the Bundesrat (roughly equivalent to the Upper House in the US) to abolish the controversial aviation tax. Several other states have backed this motion. They have now requested for the government to pass a law to abolish this tax which has been costing airlines between 7.5-42 Euros per passenger which sums up to quite a significant burden.
I think this would definitely be a step in the right direction to help Lufthansa and Air Berlin get back on their feet. I think the tax has really placed these two in particular at an unfair disadvantage. What do you think?
LOWS From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 981 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4074 times:
Quoting bavair (Thread starter): I think this would definitely be a step in the right direction to help Lufthansa and Air Berlin get back on their feet. I think the tax has really placed these two in particular at an unfair disadvantage. What do you think?
Why does the tax adversely effect LH and AB? Don't EK/EY et al. all have to pay it too?
Byrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2140 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4054 times:
Besides the UK, which other EU countries have a departure/arrival tax? Hopefully this will put some pressure on the UK.
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
bavair From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1072 times:
Quoting LOWS (Reply 3): Quoting bavair (Thread starter):
I think this would definitely be a step in the right direction to help Lufthansa and Air Berlin get back on their feet. I think the tax has really placed these two in particular at an unfair disadvantage. What do you think?
Why does the tax adversely effect LH and AB? Don't EK/EY et al. all have to pay it too?
Please correct me if I'm wrong but from what I understand: For example, for Long Haul flights, LH and AB would have to pay 42 Euros per passenger, while the likes of BA and KL would only pay 7 Euros since they are operating a short haul flight from Germany before transferring to a long haul flight outside of Germany. At the same time, if a passenger is travelling from the US to India for example, LH would have to pay the tax while any airline that has its hub outside of Germany wouldn't have to. This means that in the end LH is facing an additional cost , potentially pushing business to the likes of EK.
LondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1196 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 994 times:
I thought these taxes were not payable by transit passengers. Certainly that is the case in the UK where our APD is not payable when passengers are in transit and holding a through ticket. For example, a passenger flying AMS-LHR-JFK would not pay APD and neither would someone flying IST-LHR-HKG.
APD is only payable if the passenger breaks his or her journey in London.
PanHAM From Germany, joined May 2005, 7750 posts, RR: 26 Reply 10, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 989 times:
That is what politicians do not understand, that the business is not focused on Germany but through the hub system world wide.
Same with the ETS , all this can only be introduced on a world wide scale and even then, certain countries would find a way to compensate.
While here we have to go and follow the rules, i.e. political institutions, the main competetion is in countries where the owner of the airline also owns the country, runs the airports and the licensing board.
Quokkas From Australia, joined Jan 2012, 1355 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 901 times:
When countries like Germany introduced these taxes Emirates argued against them partly because they didn't take into account differences between aircraft fuel use efficiencies and emission levels but also because ultimately they impose additional costs on passengers.
While Emirates might benefit in that they are taking passengers as far as DXB, compared to LH who would face higher taxes as they fly further going East (quite apart from domestic routes), they were still disadvantaged compared to TK. But EK have argued that for every 10% increase in fares there is a fall of 15% in passengers flying.
Those figures may be elastic, but I doubt that EK wants to simply have a larger slice of a smaller cake. To fill all their aircraft a larger cake needs to be baked. Punitive taxes on airlines don't help.
“Not to laugh, not to cry, not to hate, but understand.” Spinoza
r2rho From Germany, joined Feb 2007, 2245 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 807 times:
I'll believe it when it happens, but it is a good thing that there is finally a political debate about this unilaterally and arbitrarily imposed tax. It is a pity that with all the ideological/religious debate around ETS, these taxes which currently have a higher effective impact have not gotten much public attention.
Even more than the airlines, this tax has been really killing smaller regional airports in Germany, most of them having lost passengers in the past years. Among the German airlines, AB having more p2p and less hub operations, is more affected than LH, but LH in turn is made less competitive than other hub operators. German domestic flights are particularly hit because the tax is applied twice (once per departure).
Quoting LondonCity (Reply 9): I thought these taxes were not payable by transit passengers. Certainly that is the case in the UK where our APD is not payable when passengers are in transit and holding a through ticket.
The whole setup is rather confusing, but my interpretation (and LH booking website) is that JFK-FRA-SIN indeed does not pay tax, but HAM-FRA-SIN pays 42EUR. HAM-CDG-SIN pays 8EUR (for the HAM-CDG sector)
Quoting incitatus (Reply 1): If the tax is abolished the UAE will be really disappointed.
LondonCity From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1196 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 707 times:
Quoting r2rho (Reply 12): The whole setup is rather confusing, but my interpretation (and LH booking website) is that JFK-FRA-SIN indeed does not pay tax, but HAM-FRA-SIN pays 42EUR. HAM-CDG-SIN pays 8EUR (for the HAM-CDG sector)
Thank you for the explanation. It does seem silly that a domestic passenger (from a German airport) who transfers at a German hub must pay more tax than he or she would if using a foreign hub.
In the UK, as I noted above, the APD rate is based on the traveller's final destination. So if I fly LHR-FRA-SIN then I must pay the same APD as if I fly LHR-SIN.
The reason for this is simple. If the UK government charged the APD to the transfer point then many people would not book direct long-haul flights from the UK because APD is very costly.
For example, the APD for a business class ticket from LHR to FRA is GBP26. The APD for LHR-SIN or LHR-FRA-SIN for business class is a GBP184.
Sponsor Message: 
From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 104 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3777 posts, 
From Serbia, joined Aug 2009, 2579 posts, 
From Austria, joined Oct 2011, 981 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2140 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 99 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Sep 2007, 4039 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2008, 1196 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
