ksguenov

That is odd, because the only reason I arranged the flights as separate tickets was because they were much cheaper that way. So, was it that the flights themselves were much more expensive on the combined ticket itinerary so that even though I was paying extra tax on the separate ticket itinerary, it ended up being cheaper?

Dave Noble

Yup. As separate itineraries, the fare happened to be lower by an amount more than the taxes, but with the risks of having separate bookings

Dave

B747-437B

Let me take a crack at this question since I actually deal with HMRC on APD issues for my airline.

HMRC requires the airline to self-report their passenger figures for APD purposes by the 20th day of the following month. The APD forms allow deductions for Operational Upgrades, Staff on Duty, Inbound Connections and Inadmissable passengers to be claimed.

A number of airlines have abused the "estimated connecting traffic" method in the past and those who claim using this method have been subject to audits recently, so most airlines tend to over-report when given a choice.

My airline has a relatively modest operation in the UK, so we actually can go through individual flights and manually tabulate inbound connections for the purpose of APD deductions (well, we actually outsource this job for �300/month but thats another story!). I highly doubt AA does this, which means that they are stuck with reporting on the basis of an accounting report that probably tabulates the number of transit tickets that qualify.

The airline is indeed able to claim APD deductions though for flights made on seperate itineraries (which is the root of a number of the dodgy "estimated connecting traffic" claims over the last few months), but virtually none of them will pass the ��� saved to the passenger!

SST

Thanks for this insight; it confirms my suspicion--- while the airline COULD exempt me from paying, they just plain won't. Most of the posters above commented on my question from the perspective of AA, with a few royal shots at HM Government. In fact, as is many times the case, the government's fees are in fact rationally-based (no need to pay for inspections, customs and entry if you transit and never leave airside to enjoy the UK, and it is a simple matter of being able to support their deductions.... they need merely declare the two tickets "linked", since my itinerary qualifies), but the airline bureaucracy just doesn't care, or sees it as too much trouble, and in any case doesn't educate the staff as to the real rules. It's the stuff of class-action lawsuits, especially as AA represents it as unchangable, beyond their control, and practically unpatriotic for asking....

Wonder if there's any litigators out there who want to take a shot? (not serious, of course, but "Danger-Danger-Will-Robinson: The bean counters and bureaucracy don't always end up 'saving' the company money......"---- the tempting of this type of lawsuit is a major, stupid screwup....)

brp

Actually, that's not true. Several commented from the viewpoint of the actual UK documents (I would suggest going back to read through the thread). Not to disagree with B747-437B, who seems well-informed on this...the official documents would seem to imply that the fee should be charged if not on the same ticket. Notable, Dave Noble also seems very well-versed on this. I would welcome comments from B747-437B on how this point could be avoided legally, if the airline chose to do so.

Cheers.

SST

You're right, BRP, and as you were writing this, I was editing my comment. See above.

brp

I still think that Dave Noble is correct. From the actual document:

where they are in separate booklets:

* each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction or
* there is a summary of the flights constituting the passengers journey including the flights in question.

Although the flights may meet all the other criteria for determining whether two flights are connected, they will only qualify for the exemption if the connection is evidenced on the ticket or a flight summary.

I don't believe that "linking" of the separate itineraries meets these criteria. There is no summary that describes the journey...there are two separate summaries, but not a conjoined summary. I would love for it to be so, but it would be a very, very generous interpretation of the rules to allow that.

Cheers.

SST

Seems a small matter of putting a comment in the record, though, noting the connection itinerary (which they sold me) doesn't it? Sure, they could also put some boilerplate disclaimer announcing that any change of routing would trigger a recalculation of the tax, but from the perspective of the customer, since our UK friends have levied such a substantial tax on First and Biz passengers, and since the tax is REALLY paid by the, ahem, customer, you'd think that the airline would consider this a courtesy to their client rather than an unreasonable imposition on AA.

Literally, when I called up and asked about it (there's a reasonable incentive here to do so), I was essentially told to shove off.

B747-437B

Let me try to clarify what I meant in my original comments and why airlines are reluctant to do anything to help pax on APD claims.

There is a provision in the statute for "estimated connecting traffic" in lieu of actual data. What some airlines *cough*Ryanair*cough* have been doing is taking the total number of pax on a route (eg. London to Rome) and then using the % total of connecting traffic (which includes a big chunk of legacy carrier traffic) to "estimate" their connections.

So if BA has 100 pax LHR-FCO and 50% of them are connecting over LHR, Ryanair would use the same 50% estimate of connecting traffic for their STN-CIA service. HMRC was losing major ��� over this baloney and have started to crack down bigtime - and airlines simply don't want to go through an HMRC audit of APD figures. I know one airline who is being audited and HMRC are requesting to see the paper boarding pass stubs collected going back SIX YEARS!!!!

Given a situation that isn't straightforward, airlines will usually choose to collect and remit to HMRC the relevant APD - rather than run the risk of an audit.

oiRRio

Interesting debate with good technical points from Dave and others and practical points from B747-437B.

My experience with AA was that they did deduct the APD when I told them that I had a connecting flight into the same city but a different airport. However it should be noted that AA initiated the call asking for approx �30 extra APD from me on a previously ticketed award but ended with them crediting me approx �30 for taxes previously paid. But then I'm a nice guy.

SST

Well, I was pretty polite with AA, and got them to put the whole itinerary in one six-digit code, but in the end, they keep insisting that since SFO-LGW is an award ticket and London-Tunis is revenue, it's "like two different tickets", and everything has to be paid at each end, despite the 3 hour connection at Gatwick on the return.

I don't buy this; I have "one journey" on "one PNR" which is "noted" and "to be read in conjunction" and I don't think it's relevant whether the airline comped me some particular segments of it. AA simply isn't equipped to deal with this. But it's not worth pursuing this further: I had the agent call the International Tariff desk, and they confirmed that "nothing could be done", so there's some lessons learned here:

1) Don't mix paid and free tickets (especially if your plans may change), just keep them separate, except be sure the check-in counter knows where your luggage is supposed to end up. Live with the taxes. Live with the change fees for each ticket.

2) If the taxes are exorbitant, simply don't fly there, or "through there". Too bad for the OneWorld alliance: London ($208 taxes) is the biggest connection point to augment AA's incomplete network. I'm going to have to consider this in the future. Brussels is still only about $57 in taxes for a r/t in Business. This adds up when you're traveling in a group.

3) Since the airlines themselves don't want to set up the systems to exempt you from the fees, even when they CAN if they route you on their own or partner routes where it's one record, they're not doing all they can with loyalty: It's one tiny, supplementary factor in why EasyJet et. al. are making a killing (besides low prices). This may also account for why Easy and Ryanair are increasing their flights originating outside the UK.

Dave Noble

They are 2 independant bookings. Neither booking is dependant upon the other and they are separate tickets and so the agents are correct

A conjunction ticket is a ticket which cannot be used in isolation. e.g. QF OZpasses in Australia are only valid in conjunction with an international ticket which must be referenced on the pass.

Dave

Prospero

SST, wouldn't the simplest lesson be just do the homework, price up single ticket against separate ticket combinations; direct versus multi-stop routings etc. If a stop over in London isn't part of the plan, feel free to use it as a connection point and avoid the APD altogether.

brp

The problem is when one wants to combine a paid and an award ticket, as I believe SST is attempting. I have done this on several occasions as I can use eVIPs to upgrade from US-LON. Then I can get a BA J award to my final destination. This allows me to fly in J all the way without having to pay the transcon J (can't buy transcon Y and onward J on the same purchase, AFAIK). Don't even have to pay BA J for intra-Europe. Not terribly expensive, but more than an award, even with the daft APD

Cheers.

san2yul

I say avoid UK.. Go to France or Italy instead - food and wine is so much better there anyway...