P101 – Domestic Air Passenger Duty Reform Watch

This discussion is closed.
Cabin19
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
I disagree if Train network was improved there would be no need for domestic flying in the UK. The UK is geographic small you can literally already get a train from Glasgow to London in 4 hours . I mean we are hardly the size of USA, Australia or the like where domestic flying is a necessity to get to places. If the UK wants to be a carbon neutral country until electric plane's are invented flying needs to be cut and this is incentived by this tax. You have to look at Japan similar sized land mass they have the lightening fast bullet train and proper efficient local services so domestic flying is almost non existent.
1
Mainline421
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
Stong No If the UK is to be carbon neutral air travel must be reduced and almost all FlyBe routes are economically unnecessary, an in many cases they offer a city-centre to city-centre jouney times that are longer and more exoensive than rail.

(Original post by barnetlad)
I am not in favour of what is proposed by this petition. I would like to see APD retained, but based on the number of flights a person makes and the allowance/different rates not transferable, and some differential on flights to parts of Europe where a train option is available in under one day. I want to see fewer flights and no expansion of Heathrow.

As for subsidising links to say Scottish Islands, this should be by a specific route by route subsidy and not a general APD holiday.
This is already the case via the Public Service Obligation system select UK domestic routes are already subsidised at insane rates up to 1,000USD per passenger, which I would like to see reduced.

(Original post by Miss Maddie)
It's not though, London to Newcastle is 3 hours. By plane it's at most 2 (1 actually flying)

Conformance at Heathrow Airport is 35 minutes. Check in online and you're good to go. The whole 2 hours before domestic flights and 3 hours before international flights is a throw back from before everything went online. No one really keeps it. Even easyJet has conformance at T-40 minutes.
If so please provide an example of a single door-to-door journey someone would actually make, I think you'd find in every case on this route rail would be much quicker.

(Original post by Miss Maddie)
E.g. to get from Plymouth to Darlington involves trains to London up north connecting to another train going back down on yourself, followed by bus journeys. If flights were cheaper you could drive to Newquay, catch a potential flight to Teeside and take a bus. ....
There are two parts to it. The first is the existing routes are either cheaper than trains, at parity or at a level where the premium on speed doesn't cost more. In this case there might be a decrease as some people switch over. Second part is the new routes by plane aren't currently served by train and won't be served by direct train because the track isn't in place. On these routes travelling from one place to another becomes more affordable and people will be able to connect who haven't been able to connect before.
First of all there is a frequent direct train service between Plymouth and Darlington without changing trains, secondly I can attest from personal experience that Teesside Airport is not even remotely well served by public transport, but Darlington station is. As for the "track isn't in place" you do understand that the whole of the Britain (+Europe & half of Asia) is connected by rail right? It's possible to provide through service between anywhere.

(Original post by Miss Maddie)
It sounds like you are applying a holiday experience of flying to commuting by plane or very short trips. The luggage thing doesn't exist with commuters (they don't have hold luggage). Using possible late trains or traffic is also a cop out. You can miss a train to somewhere and trains are not always that frequent in lesser connected areas
Very few people commute by air in the UK, and if you miss a train you can just hop on the next one, if you arrive at an airport late you would need a new ticket at insnae prices to catch another flight.



A small number of Flybe routes are essential, particularly those linking Londonderry with England for example, protection must be sort for those where, while it is worth encouraging leisure passenger to consider using the ferry only air travel can provide the essential fast link needed. But for the most part domestic air travel is not something we should be encouraging it produces 133 grams of CO2 per passnger KM! This compares with only 41 for rail (less for electrified routes). The only way we can meet our targets to be carbon neutral is by reducing air travel and it is not for government to bail out this failing company.
Forgive any typos in this post I don't have time to proof-read right now.
Last edited by Mainline421; 1 month ago
2
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by 04MR17)
Andrew97 :fyi:


My personal view is that we shouldn't be encouraging air travel due to its environmental impact. When air travel is made more environmentally friendly then I'm fully on board.
Seconded.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
It is worth noting that further details are slowly coming out with Flybe claiming the TTP arrangement covers less than £10m for just a few months, in other words it is to deal with, for the moment, short term cash flow issues
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
It is worth noting that further details are slowly coming out with Flybe claiming the TTP arrangement covers less than £10m for just a few months, in other words it is to deal with, for the moment, short term cash flow issues
The TTP arrangement seems completely unnecessary given the riches of their backers, even more so if it is only £10m. Also if the business had a turnover of £752m, why have they not kept enough reserves? Or even as Ryanair do, grounds some planes in the winter.
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#46
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#46
(Original post by 04MR17)
They can, you have no evidence that they will.
What type of argument is that? :confused:

If that logic was applied to everything nothing would happen in the world
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#47
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#47
(Original post by barnetlad)
The TTP arrangement seems completely unnecessary given the riches of their backers, even more so if it is only £10m. Also if the business had a turnover of £752m, why have they not kept enough reserves? Or even as Ryanair do, grounds some planes in the winter.
I was completely unaware Flybe loves flying around empty planes in the quiet season to purposely lose money and that turnover was now a magical number to check the health of a company. You learn something new everyday
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(Original post by barnetlad)
The TTP arrangement seems completely unnecessary given the riches of their backers, even more so if it is only £10m. Also if the business had a turnover of £752m, why have they not kept enough reserves? Or even as Ryanair do, grounds some planes in the winter.
I believe Ryanair own most of their planes whereas Flybe lease their planes which changes the costs, if Ryanair have somewhere they can cheaply park their planes they can retire them over the winter at low cost, Flybe would still need to pay the lease and thus the cost of the unutilised assets are greater.

A turnover of £752m is irrelevant, it is probably the least important metric of financial health. It is less important than profit because profit considers the costs too, I could have a business with a turnover of £1bn but if the CoGS and overheads are £2bn I'm still losing a billion quid. Profit is in turn less important than cash flow, loses don't kill businesses, cash flow issues do; a business can make considerable losses year after year after year but still keep running if they have access to sufficient finance and have good cash flow, an example would be Tesla, a company that has existed for 16 and a half years and never turned an annual profit, and even looking quarterly it took a decade to return a profit, this is despite being worth $5bn and having annual turnover of $21bn in 2018

You will also find that part of the agreement is that the owners invest a further £30m into Flybe.

finally, for you point that "it is only £10m" let's consider a more human example to demonstrate. Let's say that you get paid on the last day of every month and you have a post tax income of £2000 per month and have £1000 in the bank, rent of £800 is due to be paid in a week (24/01/2020) and you owe a mate £400 on monday (20/01/2020), clearly you can't pay both (we'll ignore overdrafts etc for simplicity sake) as you owe £1200 but only have £1000, however if you can get the debt to your mate extended a little you will be able to, so you say to your mate "I have rent due in a week and cannot afford to pay both my debt to you and the rent, however in a fortnight I get paid and will be able to settle the debt then, can I pay in a fortnight instead of on Monday" and they accept.

That is kinda what the TTP is, the mate saying "okay, you cannot afford to pay right now while remaining solvent, however if I know that will a little bit of extra time you can pay me so I will give you an extension"
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
What type of argument is that? :confused:

If that logic was applied to everything nothing would happen in the world
An argument that doubts your utopian vision that so more many people are suddenly going to start commuting by plane.
0
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 month ago
#50
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
You need to get to the station too, or do you live in a station?

And breaking news: domestic travel doesn't tend to involved checked baggage unless it is part of a larger journey, for instance to get to a major airport to then go international, that means you rock up at the airport and go straight to security, just like if you were using a budget airline for a city break
It's loads easier to get to a station - I need to do that to get to an airport anyway!

I've done international flights with no checked baggage (this week actually), I get it. It was still horrible at Lyon's end, but nice at Heathrow (of course).
0
SankaraInBloom
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 month ago
#51
Air Passenger Duty is very much something which adversely affects those living in remote locations such as St. Ives in Cornwall and the Western Isles in Scotland, as it denies them the right to commute for employment access, due to increased plane costs. There are better ways to tax airline costs than hitting both the ordinary taxpayer and private enterprise in their pockets, an economically unviable and counterproductive measure, if ever there was one.

Let's not beat around the bush here, there's only one reason we're discussing APD and that's the possible demise of Flybe. Any airline dying is to the detriment of business initiative in this country, least of all one of the best known airlines of the early 21st century airline boom, but I think Flybe's request to lower APD for them and them only is a daft one. I echo the thoughts of Easyjet CEO, Johan Lundgren, on this matter:

“We do not support state funding of carriers … taxpayers should not be used to bail out individual companies, especially when they are backed by well-funded businesses."

The conclusion from this is that one lowering is a state bailout; a lowering across the board is a way to aid the growth of business in this country, and to boost the ability for private enterprise to operate effectively in this country. With our departure from the EU pretty squarely imminent, I think that's something we've got to consider as a "Brexit Bonus."
0
Miss Maddie
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#52
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#52
(Original post by 04MR17)
An argument that doubts your utopian vision that so more many people are suddenly going to start commuting by plane.
The argument is so weak that is could be applied to anything. Applying it to recent bills:

You could build more accessible toilets. There's no evidence they'll be used.

You could consult on curriculum change and makes changes . There's no evidence the changes will work.

The whole line of argument is ridiculous.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 month ago
#53
(Original post by Miss Maddie)
The argument is so weak that is could be applied to anything. Applying it to recent bills:

You could build more accessible toilets. There's no evidence they'll be used.

You could consult on curriculum change and makes changes . There's no evidence the changes will work.

The whole line of argument is ridiculous.
There's plenty of research being done in both of the areas you've already mentioned, neither of which have anything to do with this thread. You've not provided any evidence for any of the wild predictions you've made and as a result you're losing my previous belief that doing this in the future might actually be a good idea. My original view on this petition was "nice idea but not yet". I'm now wondering whether I should support its principle at all as a result of this ridiculous line of argument.
0
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 weeks ago
#54
Division, Clear the Lobbies!
Last edited by Andrew97; 4 weeks ago
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (479)
66.53%
No (241)
33.47%

Watched Threads

View All