BlackBerryAddict

Oh., and it didn't included taxes - otherwise LHR charges would be even higher.

The per aircraft charges (in this case an A320) are divided over the passengers, assuming a nominal load factor.

UKtravelbear

But that wouldn't show the landing fees element that the airline pays as that would be included in the base fare and those could be higher at other airports leading on the face of it to a lower passenger fee.


I'm not saying you're wrong just that the we only have some of the data and so can't make a true and fair comparison.

BlackBerryAddict

The chart above does include landing fees for each airport. It's called 'runway' on the chart.

callum9999

That argument is trotted out time after time but I find it incredibly hard to believe people would avoid London because of APD. If you want to go to London then you will go to London, APD or no APD. If a prospective tourist is that price sensitive then would they be visiting one of the most expensive cities in the world anyway?

Why does it remotely matter whether the fuel surcharge is listed as a separate charge or included in the base fare? Unless I'm missing something, the only thing it will affect is redemption bookings - which can merely be replaced with an equivalent redemption surcharge.

Ldnn1

This matters greatly for redemptions in my view because with the current ruse, they can advertise redemptions to e.g. JFK as 40k avios *plus taxes fees and charges.

If they were forced to include the YQ in ordinary fares I think they would then have to advertise the redemption as 40k avios plus £200+ plus TFC. This would be much more accurate and honest.

callum9999

Why can't the redemption charge just be included in the generic taxes/charges section?

Ldnn1

Because it's highly misleading. It implies TFC are relatively small, and that the bulk of your ticket is paid for in Avios.

In reality, especially for long-haul Y, you are effectively paying part Avios and a very significant part as pure cash fare (YQ). It's fine to charge the cash element if they want, but it should be part of the upfront price.

The booking process is ok on this, but the Avios calculator for example says for LHR-JFK o/w:

Avios required: 20,000
Money: £0.00 + taxes, fees and carrier charges

How is that £0.00 figure not misleading?

shorthauldad

Do you book much l/h travel to Europe?

Plenty of posts on FT from US-based pax planning to visit Europe, often on reward tickets, who - when they find out about it - are annoyed by APD and attempt to structure their trips to avoid paying it. This usually means limiting their time in LON, or avoiding it altogether.

Doc Savage

Very true.

paulwuk

What difference does it make if you have a £1500 return ticket including APD to London, or a £1500 return ticket to Paris which doesn't include APD?

It's the same cash out of your pocket.

If you want to "do Europe", fly into London, then on to Paris, Rome, and then back via London but don't visit London a second time. You'll be paying a small APD, which is pretty insignificant compared to the cost of the entire flight. You'll also be paying other taxes while in London, things like VAT.

Due to the overcrowding at LHR, APD should be increased for LHR departures, but decreased for Gatwick ones, and eliminated for BHX and North

I don't think George Osborne, rich as he is, won't be paying it all himself.

What you mean is you'd rather the non-flying UK taxpayer cough up rather than the person making use of the facilities? Very socialist. Although this tends to mean that builders from Glossop are subsidising the jet set lifestyle of champagne swilling bankers. Bit like the lib dems wanted with no-tuition-fees.

shorthauldad

I did say "often on reward tickets", and these are often using non-Avios FF schemes.

Typical poster would be someone planning to use bundle of miles plus a little bit of cash, except when their return TATL leaves from LON, or is on BA metal(!), this jumps to a significant dollop of cash, so they decide not to bother with the LON and/or BA metal bit.

BlackBerryAddict

Or it is Paris for £1500 and London for £1640. Or if the same fare is charged it means that on a similar flight AF will make more money than BA.

One of the reasons ex-EU is cheaper is the absence of APD for transfers.

shorthauldad

So you'd suggest that MAN-LHR-NYC ought to be exempt from APD?

Remind us, which part of the UK are you based in?

paulwuk

Sorry, meant direct flights. From MAN, NCL, BHX, NQY, wherever, direct to >2000 mile destinations. Just like the exemption from BFS.

Give an incentive for those american tourists to visit the rest of the country, and perhaps relieve some of the pressure on Heathrow, which Londoners don't want expanding, and the typical person in the regions couldn't give a stuff (just as easy to transfer at AMS).

I suspect the £213 YQ, £45 Heathrow tax, and £35 USA APD, not to mention the pricey hotels and food in London, stings a lot more than £67 UK APD, which goes into the general kitty to fund things like the roads into Heathrow, subsidise the underground from heathrow, etc. That's assuming you are avoiding the £583 base fare in the first place.

APD is 7% of the fare on a typical Q-class Economy ticket. In F this decreases to 2%. Even an F redemption it's only 25%, slightly more than VAT.

Of course if you fly USA-LHR(stop)-FCO-LHR-USA you'll pay a grand total of £13 in APD (for your LHR-FCO flight). People won't come to London because of that extra £13?

But BA and AF don't set prices based on "this is how much the flight costs, this is our profit margin, therefore this is the price". They set prices on what the market will bare. The vast majority of this market are paying revenue fares. If a passenger from NY to Lon will pay £1000, then that's the price BA will charge. If Heathrow increases the landing charges, or the government increases the APD, the price will still stay at £1000, but BA will make less money, and may decide to pull out of the market for £1000 returns from New York.

The reason ex-EU flights are cheap is that BA want a slice of the DUB-NYC market. All things being equal you'd go for the 7 hour direct flight over a 13 hour ordeal (including a terminal transfer).

OSL-LHR-JFK in S/N class costs £750 return for a 2 week trip mid august.
LHR-JFK on the exact same TATL planes costs £947. An extra £200, of which £69 is APD. 2/3rds of the extra is not APD. It's a convenience fee for flying direct, and because the LON-NYC market will bare a higher price than the OSL-NYC market.

If anyone really believes that a reduction in APD would mean that the fare you pay would actually come down, I have a bridge to sell.

I'd rather that rich people that can afford to fly abroad (especially intercontinetal, and especially in premium cabins) were taxed.

Calchas

First, why should the government be using the power of taxation to intervene in the affairs of (allegedly) private businesses?

If Heathrow is so great that everyone wants to pay through the nose to land there, while the ugly sister in the name of Gatwick cries out for attention down the road, that is really the market's decision.

Second, as a good counter example to the effect of this policy: APD does not apply to long haul flights originating out of Northern Ireland. Yet I've never seen BHD or BFS emerge as a regular stop in the Mileage Run Deals forum. In fact I think the only flight making use of it is a seasonal UA flight to EWR.

You cannot invent demand by reducing a cost barrier you erected in the first place.

APD should be earmarked for aviation purposes or not collected at all.