I'm not a tax specialist and am not concerned by British taxes, obviously. But you might find interesting that almost consistently for the past 15 years it has been more interesting for me financially (and timewise) to fly to the US from Bordeaux through London (with BA and/or Virgin) than through Paris or Madrid with other companies. I've never looked at the tax details when comparing fares, but I will now, out of curiosity.
You are OK as flying from Europe via London does not attract the UK APD. However we cannot pay the same as you for buying a ticket from Bordeaux and pick up/leave the same flight in London.Originally Posted by lafifille
Don't forget also that it is only departures that attract tax. So you could make your own way to, say, Paris and book a flight from Paris to, say, Florida and a return from Florida to UK and escape UK APD.
The increases come into force next week and the new level of taxes range from £12 per person to fly economy class to Europe, to £170 for a person flying to Australia or Singapore in premium economy. This means a family of four flying to Australia for Christmas in premium economy will have to pay £680 in taxes.
Travel experts are now suggesting that some passengers could avoid the bulk of the taxes by first flying to Europe in economy class before then catching a separate long-haul flight from Paris or Amsterdam in premium. The initial leg would incur £48 in taxes, and the second leg – as long as it was not connecting – would be tax-free, saving a family a possible £632 in taxes.
Mike Greenacre, managing Director of The Co-operative Travel, said: “There are ways for holidaymakers to get around APD with families booking economy able to save several hundred pounds by flying from other European hub airports, such as Schiphol. First class or business travellers stand to pocket the most, with a family of four flying to the Caribbean from Amsterdam able to save over £500.
“Our research shows that consumers will look at alternative airports to fly from to lessen the impact of APD and this is bound to have a major impact on UK airlines.”
This tactic would make most financial sense for families living in Scotland, the South West of England or anywhere that usually involved them flying first to Heathrow or Gatwick before catching a long-haul flight. "Why bother flying to Heathrow if you can save a few hundred pounds by flying to Schiphol," said one travel agent.
There are concerns that if enough people carry out this strategy London-based airlines could be hit. Virgin Atlantic also said they were "concerned" by the potential for passengers to fly first to Europe.
Suart Bensusan, at the travel insurance site xxxxxx said are very conscious that the APD hikes, which come into effect next week, will seriously impact our customers’ wallets and predict that many will look at travelling to their long-haul destination via Europe to avoid the higher tax they’d be charged if flying from a UK airport.
A poll undertaken by xxxxxx comparison site, found that 77 per cent of travellers would rather take a cheap flight with a stopover than a direct flight that was more expensive.
However, some warned that the tactic could backfire. Passengers will only avoid the full hit of the tax if they are catching separate, non-connecting flights. Bob Atkinson at the travel website travelsupermarket.com, said: "In theory you could save a lot on taxes, but if you miss the second part of your flight, you will be left high and dry."
The travel industry has argued the tax, designed as an environmental measure, is unfair because it hits families hardest, but businessmen travelling on private jets are immune. They also point out that freight flights are also free from paying the tax.
APD raised £2.3bn a year for the Treasury last year but is expected to generate £3.8bn by 2015 – a rise of 65 per cent.
Osman-Rani confirms the airline industry's warning to the British government that the APD will create a "chicken run" of travellers going out of their way to avoid the tax.
"We're already seeing a material percentage of our passengers on the Paris-KL [Kuala Lumpur] flight are UK nationals," he says. "Because that segment is quite price-sensitive, people are saying, 'You know what? I might just hop on the train and get to Paris or take a cheap flight if I can fly out of Paris and save money on the departure tax.'
"So we're seeing Paris growing faster than London because of the taxation regime. That's the problem when governments impose taxes unilaterally. People have alternate choices and they will find a way."
Last edited by Robert5988; 25-07-2011 at 12:53.
Not always the case though. We often buy the tickets separately as we use the occasion to spend a day or two in London on our way out. Plus most often than not we get more direct routes from London.
For example 2 years ago when we went to Florida we flew Easyjet from Bordeaux to LGW, booked Virgin from LGW to MCO and back, then BA from LGW to Bordeaux. Same last year for our Arizona vacation, I grabbed a wonderful deal with BA from LHR which I couldn't get from Bordeaux, saved a bunch of money.
So it seems we're doing this the other way around.... maybe the exception that confirms the rule? Or maybe it is because we fly to North America...? Come to think of it, my mom is flying to Thailand next winter and the best deal is through Paris. But when she went to Kenya she went through London. Well, I guess you just have to compare each time you travel.
I must admit that if the price were the same I'd still fly through London, I absolutely hate Charles de Gaulle airport [msnwink].
I got a rather sniffy response from my MP - Alistair Darling - he virtually said that as he had instigated the tax while in Government he was not about to vote against it now. He is a snotty little creature anyway so didn't expect much else. However I sent him an equally stroppy reply and took the opportunity of telling him that it was a pity that we the tax payer were having to pay to allow the likes of him to claim fraudulent expenses and get away with it. I have now got several neighbours to bombard him with complaints about the APD so that will keep him busy. Aren't I a nasty little soul!! But his response just got up my nose. Hope others get a better response from their MP's
Andrena
Lets hope that the voting public decide he should be working for what they want rather than what he wants and not keep him in his position when the time comes. Well done for your actions. What annoys me that most, if not all, MP's are well paid so what makes a huge difference for most ordinary families won't have the same impact for them. That aside at least he replies. I have emailed our MP on more than one occassion and she rarely bothers to reply [msnmad]
Last edited by sammibabe; 06-08-2011 at 21:54. Reason: forgot something!
Just done it for a second time because my MP didn't seem to think I lived in her constituency !!!! soon put her straight on that one !!
This is our new MP because our last one was Peter Viggers the "Duckhouse" owner !!!!
Last edited by kitch50; 07-08-2011 at 08:20.
Wendy
Just had this email back from my MP :
Dear Ms Kitchin,
Thank you for writing to me about aviation tax and the ‘Hands off my Holiday’ campaign.
As the recovery in the world economy continues, I believe the aviation industry will continue to play a greater role in delivering future growth for the UK economy. Without continuous improvements in air travel, competitive and fair pricing in aviation and a balanced taxation system, the UK risks endangering future growth and prosperity.
As you may know, the Government announced in March that it would freeze air passenger duty (APD) rates for 2011-12, with the planned inflation increase deferred until April 2012. In addition, the Government is exploring changes to the aviation tax system and has recently held a consultation on the subject. Please be assured that the Government’s intention is to simplify the tax system for air transport services without hampering growth and to ensure that a fair contribution is made towards the public purse.
For the time being, it has been decided not to go ahead with a per-plane duty, given concerns over the feasibility of this approach, its impact on route viability and its interaction with aviation’s forthcoming inclusion in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The Government will, however, start a programme of intensive work with international partners to build consensus for a per-plane duty in the future.
I understand your concern about the impact of APD on family holidays. However, although APD is greater in the UK than some countries in Europe, unfortunately the deficit we have inherited makes tax reductions very difficult at this stage of the recovery process.
Both my colleagues in the Department for Transport and the Treasury are aware of the importance of aviation to the UK and the major role the industry plays in the country’s economy. I know that they are in discussions about how to formulate aviation policy and ensuring a fine balance is maintained between appropriate and fair taxation without restricting people’s freedom to travel.
I hope that you have found this useful. Thank you once again for taking the time to write to me.
Kind regards
Caroline
Caroline Dinenage
Member of Parliament for Gosport
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
020 7219 7078
Wendy
Done ... here's hoping.
Our MP hasn't answered yet, but she might be a tad busy at the moment - Theresa May, Home Secretary. She is normally extremely good at responding, although I suspect she will be taking the official gov line!
Fiona
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks