Business

Partly Sunny with Showers 3° London Hi 4°C / Lo -2°C

Airlines cut flights in tax-hike protest

Aviation and tourism chiefs unite to demand review of 'bonkers' duty

By Nick Clark

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."

Post a Comment

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.

Comments

useless bleating
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 12:39 am (UTC)
It is obvious to anyone capable of analysing data objectively that international tourism has no long term future, and that using heavier-than-air conrtraptions to move people around has been a very short-lived aberration in the grand scheme of things.

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.
Re: useless bleating
[info]telfreeman wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 05:53 am (UTC)

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!

Re: useless bleating
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 10:18 am (UTC)
Look forward to that day - nice ride in the right weather. Just don't expect to fly there for very much longer.
Re: useless bleating
[info]freeethinker wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 08:07 am (UTC)


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?
Re: useless bleating
[info]tallise wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 08:40 am (UTC)
Exactly!
Re: useless bleating
[info]someofusknow wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 12:59 pm (UTC)
The only problem with your solution is that all the lovely cuddly creatures and hte humasn that are completely innocent of 'the crime' get annihilated along with the humans who are the problem.

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!!!!
APT increase
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 12:48 am (UTC)
Good for Ryanair! The APT is already an iniquitous tax, and doubling it is just ridiculous.
Difficult..
[info]thisanthat wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 03:39 am (UTC)
to see who is getting the blame here, the passenger or the grasping treasury. Certainly can't be the airlines fault. Can it?
Flight Tax
[info]ironspiderzero wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 06:18 am (UTC)
Shame on all those who think it's the airlines fault! Of course it isn't. Therefore it must be the Government's fault for allowing (almost) unrestricted growth in an environmentally damaging sector of the travel market. The airlines are just providing the service the public obviously requires, regardless of the potential damage they might be doing - and having to pay back some of their profits toward reducing the environmental impact is, equally obviously, very unfair. Shame on the Government...

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)
Re: Flight Tax
[info]georgesign wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 06:48 am (UTC)
Obviously you have no electricity, gas or running water in your wattle and daub hovel. Television is obviously out and travelling to the nearest hamlet must take days walking. Not relying on any modern technical innovations must be quite an achievement. I should imagine your "children and "grandchildren" must think you're a little treasure making them live like cave-men.

By the way I think you do sarcasm very well: especially with the picture of a noisy polluting motorcycle.
Re: Flight Tax
[info]ironspiderzero wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 09:39 am (UTC)
Like I said - not so good at sarcasm. And if it were a real motorcycle (and not an Aprilla electric concept bike), then that would, surely, be irony...
Re: Flight Tax
[info]pcsobilly wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 10:03 am (UTC)
ironspiderzero, beautiful work.
Re: Flight Tax
[info]georgesign wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 10:41 am (UTC)
Where do you think electricity comes from... I presume you think you can knit it. For all of your huffing and puffing you still want the comforts of modern technology.
Re: Flight Tax
[info]ironspiderzero wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC)
The bike concept is, I believe, one of the hydrogen-lattice power supplies; though I don't claim to understand how it works.

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...
Airlines cut flights in tax-hike protest
[info]mikem1 wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 06:32 am (UTC)
APD. Absolutely nothing to do with "green environment" claptrap. Just a Treasury cash cow.
Airlines cut flights in tax-hike protest
[info]leminier wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 06:46 am (UTC)
Airlines like Ryanair (for all their faults) have done more to further European integration than any UK government. Scrap this mad tax. If you lived in France you might have some green choices (TGV expanding network for example) but as the UK has been a non starter on this front (because it is a French idea?) flying remains the only serious option for this island for the foreseeable future.
Flight Tax
[info]howellyjb wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 08:17 am (UTC)
How much longer are we (British Citizens) as a Democratic Nation going to allow our Government to rip us off with TAXES. All we do in this country is pay TAX, TAX TAX and all our Government do is WASTE that income on their ILLEGAL expenses. Oh why do we sit down and take it from them. IT IS TIME THAT THE WHOLE NATION BECAME UNITED AND STOOD UP FOR OUR SELVES INFORMED THEM THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO PAY THESE TAXES. When visiting other countries we see that they are able to be successful by charging less for VAT, Income Tax, Fuel, APD Tax, Alcohol.etc etc etc

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.
Other facts
[info]pcsobilly wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 08:47 am (UTC)

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..

TAX vs GREEN CLAPTRAP
[info]mountainman52 wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 09:05 am (UTC)
A green tax on the airline industry that is only paid by passengers and not by freight shipping companies, especially when freight is added to passenger aircraft, is not only not an environmental tax, it is an unfair tax meant to make up shortfalls in a waste riddled budget. To double the tax on the passengers while continuing to exempt the freighters is twice as unjust.
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.
Re: TAX vs GREEN CLAPTRAP
[info]pcsobilly wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 09:20 am (UTC)

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 ?

[info]borderreiver1 wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 09:06 am (UTC)
And still no-one has the guts to confront the real reason the planets in trouble.
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.
(no subject) - [info]thomas_66 - Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 10:20 am (UTC) Expand
Tax tax tax and we'll tell you what to do
[info]prof_use wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 09:52 am (UTC)
Has anyone noticed that all the govt ideas involve more tax? Every single problem has the same solution which is an increase in tax. We also know that the govt is much better at spending our money than we are. They waste billions on an identity card which they finally abandon, NHS IT projects that don't work and just layer upon layer of bureaucracy that has two functions, to tell you what to do and to spy on you whilst you are doing it. It's like living under a new form of Stasi.

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
ALL NON-VOLUNTARY TAX IS GATHERED BY FORCE
[info]georgesign wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 09:56 am (UTC)
The Government ALWAYS thinks it can spend the hard earned money of people who produce wealth better than they can. The Government always boasts it will spend more money on schools and health: but it's your money not theirs. Socialist governments are particularly good at spending other people's money until they run-out and then they have to invent more and more new taxes including Green Taxes. Western governments like their counterparts in Communist countries and Religious dictatorships will eventually destroy the capability of honest hard-working wealth creators to function. When the wealth producers finally find it too much of a burden then the wasteful social and welfare systems will collapse. When the airlines stop flying then all the do-gooder greenpeacenics will have nobody to fleece.
Green taxes
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 10:07 am (UTC)
If you object to green taxes you want to *** DESTROY THE PLANET *** you scum! A green label on a tax makes it beyond criticism no matter how unreasonable it seems.
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 ;)
Green Taxes
[info]wolfstan wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 11:44 am (UTC)
I have no problem with Green Tax or any other tax as long as it, a. used for it's intended purpose and b. a system is in place that we can make sure it is spent on the original intention.

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?
The side-swipe at APT is just RyanAir headline grabbing
[info]geoffreyc wrote:
Wednesday, 22 July 2009 at 08:32 pm (UTC)
I just don't believe a word of the RyanAir announcement. RyanAir is simply cutting capacity over the winter period when less people want to fly (as they did last year) and then Spring there'll be a host of press releases of "RyanAir announces major expansion with flights to X, Y and Z".

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!