Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
bennett123 wrote:FluidFlow
Perhaps people should have a choice.
Just read your post again, they do have a choice already.
BlueTrue wrote:Those of you who think that the loss of Flybe would be serious for Belfast should have a look at the Easyjet network out of Belfast. Have you? Every major route covered.
OA260 wrote:BlueTrue wrote:Those of you who think that the loss of Flybe would be serious for Belfast should have a look at the Easyjet network out of Belfast. Have you? Every major route covered.
14 routes out of BHD would be a huge loss. I guess you have little knowledge about the reality on the ground in NI and why both BFS and BHD are successful airports despite being so close together. Unless EZY are going to take over all 14 routes out of BHD then I find it hard to see your point.
TC957 wrote:Yup - great news ! The UK govt has pledged in it's election manifesto to improve regional connectivity and if Flybe went best that would have been a huge blow to those ambitions, so it's sensible an agreement was reached. Hopefully we'll know more details in due course.
jomur wrote:It appears that the owners will put in more money, should have been doing this in the first place and the Government will "have a look at APD". So basically put more money in yourself and we may do something or go bust... No Government money spent. If Flybe have been allowed to defer APD money then all the other airlines will now try and claim.the same.
Turnhouse1 wrote:A better solution on APD would be to exempt certain domestic flights were rail is not a suitable alternative. In addition to the current Highlands and Islands exemption.
Flights between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
.
leghorn wrote:Willie Walsh says it is blatant misuse of public funds.
leghorn wrote:Willie Walsh says it is blatant misuse of public funds.
Bhoy wrote:leghorn wrote:https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/ecj-rules-against-aer-lingus-and-ryanair-in-16m-travel-tax-case-1.2913971
As long as UK is in EU this rule on APD applies.
But exemptions already exist for flights ex-the Scottish Highlands and Islands, as well as long haul ex- Belfast?
OA260 wrote:Turnhouse1 wrote:A better solution on APD would be to exempt certain domestic flights were rail is not a suitable alternative. In addition to the current Highlands and Islands exemption.
Flights between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
.
NI-GB flights should certainly be exempt. Hopefully now that the leaders in NI have stopped throwing their toys out of the pram and are back doing what they get paid for they might raise this a bit harder with Westminster.
RyanairGuru wrote:It would probably be more cost effective to provide PSO funding to an airline like Loganiar or Stobart (presumably under the EI banner) to support routes to BHD, Channel Islands, ABZ, NQY etc if there is a legitimate public interest in maintaining those routes.
Arion640 wrote:OA260 wrote:Turnhouse1 wrote:A better solution on APD would be to exempt certain domestic flights were rail is not a suitable alternative. In addition to the current Highlands and Islands exemption.
Flights between Northern Ireland and Great Britain
.
NI-GB flights should certainly be exempt. Hopefully now that the leaders in NI have stopped throwing their toys out of the pram and are back doing what they get paid for they might raise this a bit harder with Westminster.
The whole of the UK should be exempt. Would boost air passenger numbers massively.
FluidFlow wrote:BDKLEZ wrote:I get that, the problem is more, where do you get the passengers from for this Routes. Apart from NI, that is on a different island, you have the business traffic but will it increase? Do you think there will be a massive boost in leisure traffic from removing the tax? Leisure in the UK goes abroad. BA might be able to lower prices of connecting tickets from UK-LON-RoW but they might not even. So in my opinion it will not be a boost to UK aviation from a passenger point of view but for the airlines to become profitable or make more profit.
Fares might not even go down, as right now domestic UK travel seems to be not sustainable so ticket prices will stay but the airlines will be able to make profit.
Well leisure traffic will stay with TUI, Jet2 Holidays & usual charters etc. A reduction in APD will offer these operators a free marketing opportunity to promote somewhat discounted overall cost. leisure traffic, normally being families and/or groups of folks travelling together.
It states it is only domestic traffic that gets a reduction/cancellatoin in APD so how will this traffic become cheaper when the folks fly abroad?Business traffic will not be affected as business still need to be done. The idea of video conferencing instead of going somewhere for a meeting has for a long time already been a smart option. But any reduction in APD will surely promote an increase of interest in travelling for business once more.
At the end of the day, APD is a tax like VAT and not a cost, it can and then be written off by business and as such will ultimately not have any effect on business travel. The company takes the initial expense and the clever folks in Finance sort out the finer details.
Regarding passengers and where they come from, as I said earlier the route network needs to be reviewed. But the pax will still come from where they always came from.
So at the end it will come down to the point if UK leisure pax is willing to travel inside the UK with an aircraft and if said travel is beneficial over individual traffic (using their cars).
TC957 wrote:Yup - great news ! The UK govt has pledged in it's election manifesto to improve regional connectivity and if Flybe went best that would have been a huge blow to those ambitions, so it's sensible an agreement was reached. Hopefully we'll know more details in due course.
Staralexi wrote:How long before we see an application for an injunction to stop this weird deal to save an airline that seems to be in desperate trouble?
Jetty wrote:Bhoy wrote:leghorn wrote:https://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/ecj-rules-against-aer-lingus-and-ryanair-in-16m-travel-tax-case-1.2913971
As long as UK is in EU this rule on APD applies.
But exemptions already exist for flights ex-the Scottish Highlands and Islands, as well as long haul ex- Belfast?
That’s something different and no domestic exception: flights to Highlands and Islands from outside the UK are exempt as well. The UK can add to the list of exceptions for rational reasons, but they can’t make a blanket exception for all domestic flights as long as they are in the EU. A distance based rule might make sense but that would inevitably include flights to i.e. AMS as well.
User001 wrote:Well IAG has just raised an objection according to the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51117885
leghorn wrote:Willie Walsh says it is blatant misuse of public funds.
pdp wrote:User001 wrote:Well IAG has just raised an objection according to the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51117885
That seems to be WW saying "it's not fair" rather than a formal objection. He can't really do too much as BA really only serves major airports and seems to ignore the regional airports that FlyBE seems to love.
User001 wrote:Well IAG has just raised an objection according to the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51117885
JannEejit wrote:BA have no interest in regional services, they sold BA Connect to Flybe after all. Or should the term "offloaded" be more appropriate ?
JannEejit wrote:pdp wrote:User001 wrote:Well IAG has just raised an objection according to the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51117885
That seems to be WW saying "it's not fair" rather than a formal objection. He can't really do too much as BA really only serves major airports and seems to ignore the regional airports that FlyBE seems to love.
BA have no interest in regional services, they sold BA Connect to Flybe after all. Or should the term "offloaded" be more appropriate ? BA might do well to consider that in certain geographic areas of the UK flying is more necessity than luxury. Yeah sure it all comes down to business and shareholders these days but perhaps we could consider who actually stands to lose the most if inter-regional connectivity is not supported to make it viable. Maybe a nationalised regional airline is required but what the heck do I know ?
User001 wrote:Well IAG has just raised an objection according to the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51117885
BBC wrote:It is understood Flybe could be given up to three months' breathing space to pay about £100m worth of duty.
skipness1E wrote:Is that it? Four core brands? *FOUR*? It's APD that's killing the domestic industry as well as compeition from state subsidised rail. For the good saving flybe will so, we can afford it, so long as the management that got them there are not part of the long term future.
Danhill1905 wrote:Why aren’t Virgin Atlantic and the various consortiums picking up the bill? Surely they knew the financial state of Flybe before the takeover?
tobsw wrote:APD is paid for each transported passenger.
pdp wrote:BBC are reporting that IAG have gone to the EU wrt the deal between Flybe and the government: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/topics/cewrlqm4wz5t/flybe
Two questions from this really:
1. Does the government's intervention constitute a commercial approach (which is allowed), or plain-old bailout?
pdp wrote:...
2. Does IAG *really* want Flybe to go bankrupt, or is this some other game?
phollingsworth wrote:Danhill1905 wrote:Why aren’t Virgin Atlantic and the various consortiums picking up the bill? Surely they knew the financial state of Flybe before the takeover?
They 'knew' what they were getting into at the time. However, that does not mean that today corresponds well to the prediction in Jan 2019 of where Flybe would be in Jan 2020. Some areas may have degraded substantially in that time. "Promises" might have been made to some parties that never cam to fruition. Debt renegotiation may not have gone to plan.
Phosphorus wrote:pdp wrote:...
2. Does IAG *really* want Flybe to go bankrupt, or is this some other game?
Well, IAG playing "chicken" with Virgin&Co is feasible hypothesis.
FlyBe continuing to fly is not too much worry for IAG.
Virgin getting FlyBe to continue to fly, with taxpayers and others footing the bill -- and with a risk that APD is getting more or less indefinitely waived for FlyBe -- that is a lot of worry for IAG. It's a thin end of the wedge.
So, driving headlong into it, and calling things like they are -- if consortium backing FlyBe says that FlyBe is critical to UK's connectivity, and needs to continue flying -- they have to pony up the cash, not get the taxpayers. That means, among other things, Virgin paying up.
sandyb123 wrote:Northern Ireland to mainland Uk is tricky but doesn't have the noose of APD.