Gardyloo

The UK government has announced further increases in the Air Passenger Duty (APD) effective next year and the year after.

They're creating 4 distance "bands" from the departing airport, so that e.g. in November 2009 a London - LAX flight that currently carries APD of £40 in coach and £80 in business/first, will be £50/100 in 2009/10 and £100/150 in 2010/11.

As now, pax transiting through the UK with less than 24h between flights (as long as they're on the same ticket) will be exempt.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/pbr2008/pbrn20.pdf

The mind boggles.

yk

At least for the US pax, £ is a lot cheaper now. £40 was around $80 back during the summer; where as £50 now is $76.

But of course, seems like all the fees and taxes just keep going up still.

Carrybean

Oh, joy. . .

Gardyloo

Some clarification...

My example of LHR-LAX is incorrect - see this language in the announcement:

<i>2. Destinations will be categorised into four geographical bands based on distance from London to <b>the capital city of the destination country/territory</b> (with the exception of the Russian Federation which is split east and west of the Urals).</i>

So even though the LHR-LAX distance would put it in Band &quot;C&quot; the distance to Washington DC puts it in Band &quot;B.&quot;

I feel so much better now.

Gavin

These rising duties make stopping over in the UK for a few days while on the way to somewhere else less attractive than formerly. South America is looking better.

nelsonian

The cost for people travelling to New Zealand will be horrendous, especially if a family is travelling. Lots of young New Zealanders spend their time in the UK doing their big OE and this will add significant cost when they want to return home. Our Prime Minister has already talked to the UK Prime Minister about getting this removed or reduced.

flanneruk

&quot;The mind boggles.&quot;

It does indeed. Why on earth we're exempting transit passengers beggars belief. Further evidence this hapless government is incapable of switching its brains on when dealing with the sharks at BAA and BA.

We've got an overcrowded airport system, transit passengers pollute twice as much as point-to-point passengers and the sooner we legislate them out of existence the better.

Of course, if the US government wasn't so obsessed with keeping aviation fuel tax-free the problem wouldn't arise. Flying does more damage to the atmosphere than any other activity any of us engage in, and it's the job of responsible governments to discourage it.

flanneruk

&quot;Our Prime Minister has already talked to the UK Prime Minister about getting this removed or reduced.&quot;

Characteristic enzeddy hypocrisy.

You spend your lives lecturing the world about the environment. The instant it hits the sacred right of Kiwi kids to spend their youth somewhere interesting, you turn your prime minister into an advocate of gas-guzzling.

I can't imagine Ms Clarke would have wasted her time on something so pointless. Has Key really got nothing better to do?

nelsonian

You don't know Ms Clark very wel do you, she would be doing exactly the same thing as John Key.

Gavin

I have to agree with Flanner. A universal tax on aviation fuel is a more rational way of reducing emisions than passenger duties by one nation. A universal fuel tax rewards more efficient use of fuel whereas a UK passenger duty encourages travellers to not fly out of the UK.