Jul 18, 2014, 8:16 am
Last edit by: Prospero
(Link) to “United Kingdom Air Passenger Duty (APD) Charged UK Departing Passengers”
Link to html full APD tax law
APD rates as of 01 Apr 2020:
Band A (0 to 2,000 miles) £13 Reduced, £26 Standard
Band B (anything over 2,000 miles): Reduced £80, Standard £176
Infants and children
“Children below the age of 2 years who are not allocated a separate seat before boarding the aircraft are not chargeable passengers. If a seat is purchased for the infant then APD is chargeable.
From 1 May 2015, children who are under the age of 12 years on the date of the flight, and in the lowest class of travel, are not chargeable passengers. Children 12 years and over, or travelling in any other class, are chargeable passengers and APD is due.
From 1 March 2016 children who are under the age of 16 years on the date of the flight, and in the lowest class of travel, are not chargeable passengers. Children 16 years and over, or travelling in any other class, are chargeable passengers and APD is due.”
General notes:
distances calculated between national capitals - e.g. HNL calculated as WAS.
Link to Source: U.K. Excise Notice 550: Air Passenger Duty
APD is due when passengers pay to upgrade any stage of their journey
N.B. Arriving at a UK airport will not incur APD. Connections with less than 24 hours will generally not require APD*; you may have to have the rate desk intervene if you are not on a through ticket. As noted, "band distance" is calculated Capital to Capital.
APD is not charged on flights originating in the Scottish Highlands (INV) or Islands. APD is not payable on direct, Band B, flights departing Northern Ireland.
* Connecting flights exemption (UK APD regulation)
“The connected flights must be detailed on the same ticket or conjunction tickets to qualify for the exemption. Tickets can only be regarded as conjunction tickets if:
a. they are in one booklet, or
b. where they are in separate booklets:
each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
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.”
AA (c/o JonNYC, post #219):
septix by JonNYCme, on Flickr
Link to html full APD tax law
APD rates as of 01 Apr 2020:
Band A (0 to 2,000 miles) £13 Reduced, £26 Standard
Band B (anything over 2,000 miles): Reduced £80, Standard £176
Infants and children
“Children below the age of 2 years who are not allocated a separate seat before boarding the aircraft are not chargeable passengers. If a seat is purchased for the infant then APD is chargeable.
From 1 May 2015, children who are under the age of 12 years on the date of the flight, and in the lowest class of travel, are not chargeable passengers. Children 12 years and over, or travelling in any other class, are chargeable passengers and APD is due.
From 1 March 2016 children who are under the age of 16 years on the date of the flight, and in the lowest class of travel, are not chargeable passengers. Children 16 years and over, or travelling in any other class, are chargeable passengers and APD is due.”
General notes:
distances calculated between national capitals - e.g. HNL calculated as WAS.
Link to Source: U.K. Excise Notice 550: Air Passenger Duty
APD is due when passengers pay to upgrade any stage of their journey
N.B. Arriving at a UK airport will not incur APD. Connections with less than 24 hours will generally not require APD*; you may have to have the rate desk intervene if you are not on a through ticket. As noted, "band distance" is calculated Capital to Capital.
APD is not charged on flights originating in the Scottish Highlands (INV) or Islands. APD is not payable on direct, Band B, flights departing Northern Ireland.
* Connecting flights exemption (UK APD regulation)
“The connected flights must be detailed on the same ticket or conjunction tickets to qualify for the exemption. Tickets can only be regarded as conjunction tickets if:
a. they are in one booklet, or
b. where they are in separate booklets:
each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
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.”
AA (c/o JonNYC, post #219):
septix by JonNYCme, on Flickr
UK APD / Air Passenger Duty charged for UK departures (Master Thread)
Dec 29, 2015, 7:25 pm
#106
Join Date: May 2012
Programs: Marriott Titanium (Lifetime Platinum), AA Platinum Pro
Posts: 310
And you're very explicitly ignoring the very obvious definition of ONE INSTANCE of a "conjunction ticket":
"each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
there is a summary of the flights constituting the passengers journey including the flights in question"
But it's fine. You can believe whatever you wish to believe.
I find it quite ignorant of you to say that the AA agents are ignoring the regulation, but you can do whatever you wish.
I have many flights worth of refunds happily processed to my credit card and several conversations with the Fares dept to confirm that they are, indeed, following the regulation. Again, I really wasn't asking for your input on the rules.
I won't comment further. Cheers.
"each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
there is a summary of the flights constituting the passengers journey including the flights in question"
But it's fine. You can believe whatever you wish to believe.
I find it quite ignorant of you to say that the AA agents are ignoring the regulation, but you can do whatever you wish.
I have many flights worth of refunds happily processed to my credit card and several conversations with the Fares dept to confirm that they are, indeed, following the regulation. Again, I really wasn't asking for your input on the rules.
I won't comment further. Cheers.
Dec 29, 2015, 7:27 pm
#107
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,605
And you're very explicitly ignoring the very obvious definition of ONE INSTANCE of a "conjunction ticket":
"each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
there is a summary of the flights constituting the passengers journey including the flights in question"
"each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
there is a summary of the flights constituting the passengers journey including the flights in question"
It has to both be a conjunction ticket AND be evidenced in one of the 2 mnanners specifed
Dec 29, 2015, 7:48 pm
#108
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,588
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)
This is a further restriction in what is needed to evidence that it is a conjunction ticket. That is NOT the definition of a conjunction ticket
It has to both be a conjunction ticket AND be evidenced in one of the 2 mnanners specifed
"It's like déjà vu, all over again."
-- Y. Berra
You and I have had this debate before. HMRC defines conjunction tickets differently (and more liberally) than IATA does. HMRC is free to do so, and travelers -- and airlines -- are free to take advantage of that liberality.
Your interpretation that the tickets themselves must indicate that they are connected and that connection must be indicated in a summary is belied by this language, which follows HMRC's definition of "conjunction tickets": "Although the flights may meet all the other criteria for determining whether 2 flights are connected, they will only qualify for the exemption if the connection is evidenced on the ticket or a flight summary." (Emphasis added.) It is thus apparent that a summary is an acceptable alternative to the tickets themselves being marked "conjunction tickets"; if it were otherwise, there would be no point in even mentioning a "summary."
Moreover, I would be very surprised if AA would refrain from collecting the APD in these situations unless it felt confident that it, in fact, did not owe APD for the in-transit passenger to HMRC.
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
And you're very explicitly ignoring the very obvious definition of ONE INSTANCE of a "conjunction ticket":
"each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
there is a summary of the flights constituting the passengers journey including the flights in question"
"each refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
there is a summary of the flights constituting the passengers journey including the flights in question"
It has to both be a conjunction ticket AND be evidenced in one of the 2 mnanners specifed
-- Y. Berra
You and I have had this debate before. HMRC defines conjunction tickets differently (and more liberally) than IATA does. HMRC is free to do so, and travelers -- and airlines -- are free to take advantage of that liberality.
Your interpretation that the tickets themselves must indicate that they are connected and that connection must be indicated in a summary is belied by this language, which follows HMRC's definition of "conjunction tickets": "Although the flights may meet all the other criteria for determining whether 2 flights are connected, they will only qualify for the exemption if the connection is evidenced on the ticket or a flight summary." (Emphasis added.) It is thus apparent that a summary is an acceptable alternative to the tickets themselves being marked "conjunction tickets"; if it were otherwise, there would be no point in even mentioning a "summary."
Moreover, I would be very surprised if AA would refrain from collecting the APD in these situations unless it felt confident that it, in fact, did not owe APD for the in-transit passenger to HMRC.
Dec 29, 2015, 8:54 pm
#109
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,605
evidence that HMRC regards it differently?
It isnt at all that a summary in itself will do. The whole description is that (a) must be a conjuntion ticket and either (i) evidenced on ticket or (ii) on a flight summary. That "or" doesn't create a definition of conjunction ticket
I am not aware of other airlines refunding APD in this situation and it would be down to EY to decide not to charge it
It isnt at all that a summary in itself will do. The whole description is that (a) must be a conjuntion ticket and either (i) evidenced on ticket or (ii) on a flight summary. That "or" doesn't create a definition of conjunction ticket
I am not aware of other airlines refunding APD in this situation and it would be down to EY to decide not to charge it
Dec 29, 2015, 9:43 pm
#110
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,588
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)
The most convincing evidence for me is that AA -- which employs lots of lawyers and is not known for its largesse -- is willing not to collect the APD in situations involving connections on separate tickets. The responsibility to pay APD, when it is due, is the carrier's, regardless of whether the carrier has collected it from the passenger. Why would AA not collect the APD from the passenger unless it were sure that the APD was not due to HMRC?
The more complicated argument involves principles of statutory construction, in particular the principle that a statute shall not be interpreted in such a way as to render any portion of it superfluous or meaningless. Under your interpretation, the language about "a summary" would be meaningless if two tickets, in order to constitute "conjunction tickets," had to reference each other and be marked as "conjunction" tickets (the IATA definition). But if that were the HMRC definition, then a "summary" would be neither necessary nor sufficient for the tickets to be considered "conjunction tickets." And thus the "summary" language in the statute would be meaningless.
Originally Posted by Dave Noble
evidence that HMRC regards it differently?
It isnt at all that a summary in itself will do. The whole description is that (a) must be a conjuntion ticket and either (i) evidenced on ticket or (ii) on a flight summary. That "or" doesn't create a definition of conjunction ticket
I am not aware of other airlines refunding APD in this situation and it would be down to EY to decide not to charge it
It isnt at all that a summary in itself will do. The whole description is that (a) must be a conjuntion ticket and either (i) evidenced on ticket or (ii) on a flight summary. That "or" doesn't create a definition of conjunction ticket
I am not aware of other airlines refunding APD in this situation and it would be down to EY to decide not to charge it
The more complicated argument involves principles of statutory construction, in particular the principle that a statute shall not be interpreted in such a way as to render any portion of it superfluous or meaningless. Under your interpretation, the language about "a summary" would be meaningless if two tickets, in order to constitute "conjunction tickets," had to reference each other and be marked as "conjunction" tickets (the IATA definition). But if that were the HMRC definition, then a "summary" would be neither necessary nor sufficient for the tickets to be considered "conjunction tickets." And thus the "summary" language in the statute would be meaningless.
Dec 29, 2015, 11:50 pm
#111
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry: BlackBerry8530/5.0.0.1030 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/417)
The most convincing evidence for me is that AA -- which employs lots of lawyers and is not known for its largesse -- is willing not to collect the APD in situations involving connections on separate tickets. The responsibility to pay APD, when it is due, is the carrier's, regardless of whether the carrier has collected it from the passenger. Why would AA not collect the APD from the passenger unless it were sure that the APD was not due to HMRC?
The more complicated argument involves principles of statutory construction, in particular the principle that a statute shall not be interpreted in such a way as to render any portion of it superfluous or meaningless. Under your interpretation, the language about "a summary" would be meaningless if two tickets, in order to constitute "conjunction tickets," had to reference each other and be marked as "conjunction" tickets (the IATA definition). But if that were the HMRC definition, then a "summary" would be neither necessary nor sufficient for the tickets to be considered "conjunction tickets." And thus the "summary" language in the statute would be meaningless.
The most convincing evidence for me is that AA -- which employs lots of lawyers and is not known for its largesse -- is willing not to collect the APD in situations involving connections on separate tickets. The responsibility to pay APD, when it is due, is the carrier's, regardless of whether the carrier has collected it from the passenger. Why would AA not collect the APD from the passenger unless it were sure that the APD was not due to HMRC?
The more complicated argument involves principles of statutory construction, in particular the principle that a statute shall not be interpreted in such a way as to render any portion of it superfluous or meaningless. Under your interpretation, the language about "a summary" would be meaningless if two tickets, in order to constitute "conjunction tickets," had to reference each other and be marked as "conjunction" tickets (the IATA definition). But if that were the HMRC definition, then a "summary" would be neither necessary nor sufficient for the tickets to be considered "conjunction tickets." And thus the "summary" language in the statute would be meaningless.
I sincerely doubt AA will volunteer to pay my APD if it's due.
Dec 30, 2015, 6:45 am
#112
Join Date: May 2012
Programs: Marriott Titanium (Lifetime Platinum), AA Platinum Pro
Posts: 310
Lol. AA paying for something that they don't need to.......haha... Oh yeah, they're a US based airline. Of course they wouldn't!
To the guy that's relentlessly arguing that we are in the wrong, would it really kill you to consider that your limited knowledge (non-omniscience) could be incomplete? Not a personal attack by any means, but given the evidence and examples at hand... Maybe instead of acting like you wrote the law..... (Monkey covering his mouth emoji)
All in good jest.
I think it's safe to say none of us here represent the people who govern/enforce this in the UK, so we could all be wrong to some extent, and probably are missing something.
I did a bit of digging, however, and while not the exact situation, the exemption of taxes from a connection of less than 24 hours, but regarding two separate PNRs / itineraries is apparently a very common practice in the world of employee travel. For leisure, that is.
Airline employees, as I have read, are responsible for the exact same taxes as revenue pax are on flights originating in London, including the premium cabin taxes should they be seated as such; however, if they present an incoming boarding pass that shows their arrival into the country within 24 hours of the scheduled departure time, they are exempt from the taxes. Regardless of the airline, type of ticket, etc. it just has to be a ticket of completed travel that shows the scheduled time of arrival into the country.
I don't know the specifics of how it is documented, of course, but this would explain why the AA agents in LHR are quite aware of this practice, as I assume many employees use LHR as an onward hub to Europe noting the amount of flights that fly into LHR (also lack of flights to other cities on AA metal), and equally why many phone agents /other agents that don't deal with this regularly would be out of the loop regarding the same issue.
Just some food for thought.
Last edited by joeypore; Dec 30, 2015 at 6:48 am Reason: Typing on an iPad
)
Jan 5, 2016, 6:29 am
#114
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MCO/FLL
Programs: AA-gold(MM); Marriott-Lifetime Titanium Elite; Hilton-Gold;
Posts: 503
I was thinking of putting the kids on my flights too, but award travel. Using UA miles (VIE-MIA) would be 30,000 miles + $86 per ticket. Then I looked at AA BUD-LHR-MIA and its only 20,000 miles pp, but they want $276. each. geez.
Jan 5, 2016, 7:25 am
#115
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
How? If you're connecting via LHR there would be a LHR Passenger Service Charge, but no APD.
Jan 5, 2016, 7:32 am
#116
Moderator: American AAdvantage, Signatures
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, National Exec, AA EXP Emeritus
Posts: 9,765
I smell a fuel surcharge. As mentioned by JDiver, the fees for a 20,000 mile award from BUD-LHR-MIA would not include APD as a 24+ hour stop in London would also split the redemption into two awards.
Jan 5, 2016, 3:53 pm
#117
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP, HHonors Diamond, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 125
Airline employees, as I have read, are responsible for the exact same taxes as revenue pax are on flights originating in London, including the premium cabin taxes should they be seated as such; however, if they present an incoming boarding pass that shows their arrival into the country within 24 hours of the scheduled departure time, they are exempt from the taxes. Regardless of the airline, type of ticket, etc. it just has to be a ticket of completed travel that shows the scheduled time of arrival into the country.
I booked a round-trip award ticket in J to LHR for a friend of mine and the return flight is the same as my paid J ticket (paid by my work).
However, we are spending the last 3 days of our time in Europe in Paris and will be transiting from Paris to London the morning of our flight.
My understanding and my question:
1. If we book a flight from Paris to London via AA or BA then I can get the APD refunded on his return flight.
2. If we book a flight on another airline it is likely we can get the APD refunded by giving the information to AA, though there is much debate on whether AA is breaking the rules
3. My question! What if I return to London via the Eurostar train? If I evidence this with receipts/ticket reference numbers would I fall into category 2 above?
Jan 5, 2016, 8:35 pm
#118
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046
Well I have clearly walked into quite a thread... I will add one wrinkle.
I booked a round-trip award ticket in J to LHR for a friend of mine and the return flight is the same as my paid J ticket (paid by my work).
However, we are spending the last 3 days of our time in Europe in Paris and will be transiting from Paris to London the morning of our flight.
My understanding and my question:
1. If we book a flight from Paris to London via AA or BA then I can get the APD refunded on his return flight.
2. If we book a flight on another airline it is likely we can get the APD refunded by giving the information to AA, though there is much debate on whether AA is breaking the rules
3. My question! What if I return to London via the Eurostar train? If I evidence this with receipts/ticket reference numbers would I fall into category 2 above?
I booked a round-trip award ticket in J to LHR for a friend of mine and the return flight is the same as my paid J ticket (paid by my work).
However, we are spending the last 3 days of our time in Europe in Paris and will be transiting from Paris to London the morning of our flight.
My understanding and my question:
1. If we book a flight from Paris to London via AA or BA then I can get the APD refunded on his return flight.
2. If we book a flight on another airline it is likely we can get the APD refunded by giving the information to AA, though there is much debate on whether AA is breaking the rules
3. My question! What if I return to London via the Eurostar train? If I evidence this with receipts/ticket reference numbers would I fall into category 2 above?
(and likely more expensive too.)
Jan 6, 2016, 2:19 am
#119
Moderator: American AAdvantage, Signatures
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, IHG Diamond Ambassador, National Exec, AA EXP Emeritus
Posts: 9,765
APD has nothing to do with rail travel, so your train tickets would not make any difference. Furthermore, the APD will be chargeable unless:
If you're flying, you may get the airline currently assessing APD to update their systems to note the other flight and thereby allow APD to be waived, but actual experience with this is mixed. In general, there's no obligation for airlines to create references to other tickets for the purposes of waiving APD–if you buy the ticket from a TA on two different airlines and they sell them together that's one thing, but if you buy two totally separate tickets then you're at the mercy of the airline.
- Each [ticket] refers to the other and states that they are to be read in conjunction
- 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 2 flights are connected, they will only qualify for the exemption if the connection is evidenced on the ticket or a flight summary.
If you're flying, you may get the airline currently assessing APD to update their systems to note the other flight and thereby allow APD to be waived, but actual experience with this is mixed. In general, there's no obligation for airlines to create references to other tickets for the purposes of waiving APD–if you buy the ticket from a TA on two different airlines and they sell them together that's one thing, but if you buy two totally separate tickets then you're at the mercy of the airline.
Jan 7, 2016, 11:39 am
#120
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MCO/FLL
Programs: AA-gold(MM); Marriott-Lifetime Titanium Elite; Hilton-Gold;
Posts: 503
When I go through the motions as in a dummy booking, that is what comes up. I still need to wait a week to book for Dec. 9. I'd really like them on my flight and they so want to see London even if only a few hours. The connection/layover is 18 hours. But I think that is way too high to pay, I'll let them train it to VIE and take a direct for 30K each on Austria air.
