Airlines cut flights in tax-hike protest
Aviation and tourism chiefs unite to demand review of 'bonkers' duty
Britain's largest low-cost airline is to cut almost a third of its flights from Stansted this winter, blaming "unfair" passenger taxes for making the routes uneconomical.
Ryanair, which currently runs 40 aircraft from Stansted, its main London hub, will run just 24 planes from October, leading to a 30 per cent reduction in the number of weekly flights.
It is the latest airline to cut its schedules, increasing the pressure from the aviation and tourist industries on the Chancellor to review the controversial air passenger duty (APD).
Belgium, Holland, Greece and Spain have all reduced or scrapped similar taxes to boost tourism during the recession. Yesterday Ryanair's arch-rival easyJet joined in the attack, branding the tax "certifiably bonkers".
The British Air Transport Association (Bata) has already approached the Government over the issue as many of its members have warned the measure could have a disastrous impact on an industry already suffering heavily from the effects of the recession. An industry analyst, Rigas Doganis, said that the decline of the aviation industry had been "absolutely frightening".
However, industry sources believe that while a £1 rise in the tax in November appears to be a "fait accompli", they are concentrating their efforts on stopping a doubling of the tax, due to come in next year.
APD first came into effect in 1994 but was overhauled in the pre-Budget report last November. The tax is in four bands, dependent on how far the passenger flies. In Europe, there is currently a flat £10 fee for passengers on shorthaul economy flights, rising to £40 to fly further. This will rise to £22 and £90 from November next year.
The Government introduced it as a green tax, which easyJet rejected yesterday. "As an environmental tax it is stupidity itself as it is a flat rate. A passenger flying on the most environmentally friendly plane will pay the same as one on a dirty old banger."
Virgin Atlantic also came out against the tax, and has started printing anti-APD messages on its e-tickets. Sir Richard Branson called it "one of the most unjust taxes out there" on a website launched railing against APD. He said there was "not a shred of evidence to suggest the £2bn-plus currently raised is going towards environmental or sustainable projects".
A spokeswoman for BA said: "It is not made plausible by the environmental argument. We believe that aviation should be placed within the system of emissions trading, rather than hit with a crude tax such as this."
A spokeswoman for the Association of British Travel Agents (Abta) said: "This will have an impact on the tourism trade in this country, especially hitting long-haul flights. However, as Ryanair have pointed out, shorthaul flights will not go unaffected.
"It will also hit those with friends and family abroad, especially those with family in places such as the Caribbean. While we may think the Caribbean is a place for the rich, most travel there is carried out by people visiting family members, so placing it in a very high band will hit them hard. The economies of many countries reliant on tourism will also be hit by this," she warned.
The decision to cut 10 routes and reduce 30 more and reduce the aircraft operating from Stansted from 40 to 24 – a 40 per cent drop in capacity – will see 2.5 million fewer Ryanair passengers travel from Stansted between October and March. A spokeswoman for Ryanair said 2,500 local jobs could be hit as a result.
Ryanair's outspoken chief executive Michael O'Leary denied the move was driven by the recession, pointing to its growth in passenger numbers in June over the previous year.
He turned both barrels on the UK Government. The airline has already called on the Prime Minister to scrap the Air Passenger Duty tax, which will go from £10 to £11 in November, as well as pushing for lower fees at BAA airports. "The capacity cutback at Stansted shows just how much Gordon Brown's tourist tax is damaging London and UK tourism and the British economy generally," Mr O'Leary said.
He added that Air Passenger Duty is not paid by cargo aircraft or by transfer passengers. "So someone taking a flight to Tokyo will be paying a huge tax, that a transferred passenger sitting next to them has avoided."Mr O'Leary said: "In recent months the Belgian, Dutch, Greek and Spanish governments have all scrapped tourist taxes or reduced airport charges to zero in order to stimulate tourism.
"Sadly, UK traffic and tourism continue to collapse while Ryanair continues to grow traffic rapidly in those countries which welcome tourists instead of taxing them."
Details of which routes will be cut have not yet been disclosed. This is the second year Ryanair has slashed the service during the winter. Last year, the airline cut its capacity from Stansted from 36 planes to 28, blaming BAA's charges and the oil price.
Ryanair has seen staggering growth since it was set up in 1985 by the Ryan family with one 15-seater aircraft. The total number of passengers is expected to hit 67 million this year and it hopes to hit 100 million by 2012. However, last month Mr O'Leary said the airline had stopped expansion in Britain, and this year is expected to see the first ever falls in UK customer traffic. The group also had its first ever loss this year, although the hit came from a huge writedown on its stake in Aer Lingus. The group plunged to a €181m pre-tax loss from a profit of €439m the previous year.
British Airways, which is feeling the full force of the recession, is set to resume talks with trade union officials today over plans to cut thousands of jobs and freeze pay. A GMB union spokesman said that while some progress had been made, "we do not expect the talks to conclude until later in August".
Gert Zonneveld, an airline analyst at Panmure Gordon, said: "It is a considerable cut in capacity. The issues of tax and airport charges are a huge concern to the industry."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
Kill it by taxation, or let it die a natural death by attrition as fuel prices rise and economies collapse, the result is much the same ... with a whole load of useless bleating from vested interest groups throughout either process.
WELL SAID!!
The sooner we realize that these "heavier-than-air conrtraptions" are defying the natural laws of gravity and we should return to the ground, the better.
I look forward to the day I can take my wife and 3 kids to visit her mother in Edinburgh using only a horse and carridge. I assume you're like me and don't trust these new fangled "automobiles"
Bring back the guy with the red flag I say!
look, if you really want to "save the planet" you need to shut up and let the polluters free reign. by doing this the human race would probably expire eventually and then the earth would regenerate and cleanse itself.
problem solved. nice squeaky clean planet, no dirty polluting humans. just what you want, dont you?
That's why I think it better that insane humans mend their ways.
The only problem with that solution is that being insane, all the humans who are locked into maintream thinking believe that insanity is perfectly normal Trapped in The Matrix and colour blind, so they are unable to sellect the correct coloured pill.
Help!!!!
So I say let's allow all the industries - air, car, fuel, shipping (etc.) - free reign to carry on polluting as much as they can and f**k the planet - who cares if our children and grandchildren are left to wallow in our waste and their environment is damaged beyond any hope of reclamation!
(Sorry, I'm not sure I can manage sarcasm)
By the way I think you do sarcasm very well: especially with the picture of a noisy polluting motorcycle.
I also don't claim that all technology is bad; which you've some how inferred from my initial comment. I just think that the more polluting technologies, and the industries that they support, should be required to provide some form of mitigation for the damage, regardless of severity, that they are causing.
It's a question of degree, rather than 'yes' or 'no'. And I personally don't think that either Government or industry has yet addressed the matter with enough thought.
As always my comments here, and elsewhere, are personal opinion and are not intended to represent any persons, institutions or conspiracy theories, either living or deceased.
See you on the flipside...
If the simple british human is able to see that all OUR GOVERNMENT appear to be acheiving is to completly destroy our wonderful country, with taxes, rules and regulations, and creating massive unemployment, who have to be paid from these uncontrolable taxes. We do not hear them offering to take a 'WAGE CUT' in order to help the economy NO THEY JUST CONTINUE TO STRIP UP US OF OUR HARD EARNED WAGES TO FURNISH THEIR LAVISH LIFESTYLE AND DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THE BRITISH CITIZEN. What the hell happened to the GREAT in Great Britain.
Ryanair last autumn cut its fleet operating from Stansted airport to 28, this year as stated it is to cut the fleet to 24. Is the 2.5 million cut in passenger numbers between October and March versus the same period last year or versus high season ?
It is clear that business model of all airlines has to change due to the vast falls in consumer disposable income already experienced and that yet to come i.e. passenger numbers will fall further, practically every other area of business is dealing with reality without crying wolf.
All airlines enjoyed vastly increased revenues during the credit led consumer boom and those mentioned above appear to believe it is their right to continue (making vast profits) as if nothing has changed ! The fall in passenger numbers means falling total tax revenue therefore the rises in tax per flight may cover the shortfall.. or of course government can tax some other area..
To sit back in your little thatched cottage sayng"we don't need the tourists coming here" is just as ridiculous. Tourists fund whole industries in this country through their purchases, sight seeing excursions and such. I would also note that the British are if not the biggest, one of the largest tourist nations in the world on a per capita basis. Gap year, multiple annual holidays to Turkey, Greece, Egypt, China, Christmas shopping in NY, visitting family abroad, the Brits travel more and farther than anyone. So, one must assume that these curmudgeons who think the aviation industry needs to be scrapped wish to return to the days of foot/horse travel and sailing ships? After all, studies show ship traffic is the heaviest polluter per mile of all forms of transport.
How much money comes into the U.K. from tourism and how much money goes out of the U.K ?
Still think "tourism" is a good idea ?
N.B. who ultimately would pay a tax levied on freight coming into the U.K ?
Just the usual dross from tree hugging cranks, whom want us all reading books on social work,want us all to walk to work in shoes made out of leaves -on vacating our domiciles made out of turf.
There is eighty percent too many humans on the planet.
Theres not enough room.
Stop the 'virus' that is over human population,and those left can jet off where they like with impunity.
Two thousand years ago it is estimated that there were about 1.5 million people in Britain.
Now theres about 70.
Overpopulation is increasing exponentially,and unless someone grasps the nettle all are doomed.
To fund all this and to cripple your freedom they need to tax you so you can not make the choice of where to spend your money and what you do. By talking about the environment you are merely perpetuating the scam. The airport tax has nothing to do with the environment it's just a label that they can put on a tax to make it more pallitable. Green taxes, hah!
Govts spend money very badly, we've all tightenend our belts and we can't afford the luxury of a big fat govt. We need less taxes at the moment but every time for every problem the solution they give is the same, more taxes and more spending. You can't have the same solution for every different problem
If you want to cheat the chancellor why not take a short haul trip to Belgium or the Netherlands and change onto a long haul flight there ;)
If people could see where the money is going I don't think most of us would have a problem with these taxes. However this will never happen as ANY government in power will only use a fraction of the money raised for it's intended purpose, the rest will be used to plug any gaps in the countries finance.
Perhaps The Indpendent could start a campaign to force the government to impliment such a scheme?
Headline grabbing and nothing more in my opinion. And its worked, they achieved front page and page 1 of The Independent today.
Yes I do agree with the argument that APD isn't fairly levied, it should be based upon the actual CO2 of the planes in use to encourage airlines to run modern more efficient aircraft ... but then the cynic in me says that they'd then claim that the government regulations were over-bureaucratic!