http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ck/9043892.stm

Why? Are you saying you should fly from somewhere more expensive in order to save on airport tax?

I think the additional tax, which is not unsubstantial, is a valid consideration in determining where you will fly. Typically, this type of tax is collected by the airline, but is not revealed in their pricing until very near the end of the purchasing process, so a flight that may appear cheaper may be in fact more expensive by the time they collect the tax. Because you have so much time invested in buying the tickets by the time the true cost is revealed, many of us go ahead with the purchase, rather than starting our search over.

Further, I think other countries will be watching how this works. If their is no lessening of traffic in the countries that are imposing this tax, I would expect it to spread like the plague, driving up costs for all of us, with no improvement in service. I think boycotting, to the extent possible, will help to keep this from spreading, and perhaps even lead to its recission. Perhaps airlines, rather than paying through the nose for landing rights in the UK, will relocate some of their transatlantic flights to less taxing countries.

That is exactly what some people (maybe not the British vacationers, but definitely their greenies) want over there. They don't want people to fly, period. Look at London, arguably world's most important financial center. They have 5 runways total in the 4 airports that serve the metropolitan (in contrast, AMS has 5, not to mention DFW, ATL, etc) , and they refuse to build anymore. They won't even let LHR use their two runways more efficiently (dual mode, instead of one for take-off, one for landing only).

In fact, I think if not for the lobbyist at BA and other UK airlines, some politicians there definitely wouldn't mind taxing connecting customers as well. They want their cost to be high, they don't want people flying to the UK, they don't want locals to fly on their vacations. And I say, let them. London is too expensive to visit anyways, it's way down the list of the places I want to visit again.

<<< Typically, this type of tax is collected by the airline, but is not revealed in their pricing until very near the end of the purchasing process >>>

That's a problem of US law - elsewhere all such things are included in the headline price. They also include at the end lots of other things that they include at the end that AREN'T anything to do with taxes, so even if the taxes were the same you still wouldn't have a clue to the final price and your complaint would still stand. So it's little to do with the tax itself but the way airlines in the US are allowed to present prices.

But it doesn't affect my basic point - that just because local taxes are high doesn't mean that the flight costs will be higher.

<<< They won't even let LHR use their two runways more efficiently (dual mode, instead of one for take-off, one for landing only). >>>

Being lynched by several million Londoners would ruin your day. That is why LHR doesn't use "their two runways more efficiently" because there are other people to consider. Of course if you think the lives of several million Londoners are unimportant then that's a different matter.

<<< Being lynched by several million Londoners would ruin your day. That is why LHR doesn't use "their two runways more efficiently" because there are other people to consider. Of course if you think the lives of several million Londoners are unimportant then that's a different matter. >>>

Exactly my point. Londoners don't want others to fly into their city, they don't want fellow citizens to fly to their vacations.

Turns out connecting flights are not subject to the APD.
http://tinyurl.com/29lydpa

<<< Exactly my point. Londoners don't want others to fly into their city, they don't want fellow citizens to fly to their vacations. >>>

I wonder how you would like having flights come over every 30 seconds for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week - that is the experience of millions in London.

And you want to make it even worse. If you were a politician suggesting it you'd be lucky if all that happened was lynching

I guess southeast England is all so built-up with residential areas that there is absolutely no space to build a single extra runway without causing millions to protest. Oh well.

<i>I wonder how you would like having flights come over every 30 seconds for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week - that is the experience of millions in London. </i>

Millions? I think you are exaggerating. Perhaps hundreds of thousands are directly impacted by significant noise, but probably not millions. I would also point out that Heathrow has been an airport for roughly 60 years, and Gatwick has been one for roughly 70. It isn't as if the people living under the flight paths should be surprised.

Besides, I'm a bit unclear how this differs from any other city. The reality is that, in this day and age, cities need airports to be competitive economically and London would probably be well-served to come up with a real strategy for their aviation needs.

Well, but they got the 2012 Olympics without having to build new airports, new runways, and a dozen new subway lines. So, who knows...

Speaking of more taxes, I just read this bit on Reuters about how "The EU agreed in 2008 that airlines should be included in its emissions trading scheme (ETS), which forces industry to pay for permits for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit into the atmosphere."

Link: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6981CU20101009

Of course, these savings (ho, ho, ho) are more than likely going to be passed on to us passengers.