Originally Posted by
Wexflyer
No, but all first, or acually or even higher class planes did exist, specifically Concorde, where passengers paid the lower (economy) APD!
OK, I was not familiar with any all-first configs. So now I understand why the tax was written the way it is and doesn't attempt to define the flight accommodations or what qualifies for different rates.
I made four OW Concorde flights on BA and one on AF - whose costs could only be justified by the time factor. I'm a pretty big guy with broad shoulders and I've been more comfortable in 2x2 seated flights in Economy. The only Concorde flights I really enjoyed was my last after its demise was announced. It was a wedding anniversary RT seated next to my wife, who wanted to have flown it.
But now that you bring this up, I go back to my original feelings about "loophole". I consider it applicable to something that was not anticipated. Obviously there were known one-class flights with varying degrees of luxury (or lack thereof) - ranging from cattle car steerage to flat-beds w/Krug and Beluga caviar. As I earlier surmised, it would have been very difficult to draft a law setting forth the accommodation standards for the two levels of tax.
In any event, my wife and I will be in and out of STN the first week in Dec - but we won't be on AA; and thus due to the 'loophole' will pay the Exchequer only the 'reduced' fee. Also, due to the fare "sale" (that AA
didn't match), I will have quite a few $2 Quid to drop at Tesco for the Xmas goodies I can't buy in New York. Finally, I will stop by Harrods Food Court to see if I missed anything.
It wouldn't be December without a trip to what I consider to be the 'Mother Country'. Only there can I find the foods that were lost ...... [I seem to have gone completely OT ... so I'll quit ]