New UK airline tax hits Australia hard

[Greg McDonald]

From NEWS.COM.AU:

AUSTRALIAN Tourism is taking a pounding by the new UK "climate" tax, with many airlines slashing the number of flights Down Under.

Despite industry opposition, Prime Minister Gordon Brown introduced a 112 per cent rise in a passenger duty, slugging a family of four wanting to fly to Australia with up to $700 in fees and charges.

The airline industry has hit back with new figures showing airlines operators have cancelled more routes and flights out of London than any other city in Europe, including a dozen flights Down Under.

Low-cost airline Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary, says the tax will result in 10 million passengers not flying in the next 12 months as a direct consequence of the tax. Already almost 80 routes out of London have been cancelled with more expected.


A spokesman for the Treasury claimed that the tax, which increases the greater distance you travel making Australia the most expensive, was fair.

"Air Passenger Duty is an important contributor to the public finances, while helping the Government to achieve its environmental goals,'' he said.

The tax is based on an internal government study in June which concluded those flying further pay more since they were ``contributing more to the emissions from aviation''.

Opposition aviation spokesman Greg Hands said Australian tourism and business would suffer.

"We are concerned with these enormous increases in passenger duty to Australasia. We think a much more just way of treating aviation taxation is a per plane tax. That would be more closely linked to an aircraft's environmental impact,'' he said.

Qantas and BA protested the move but have been forced to slash the number of their code-shared flights to Australia.

The UK'S Environmental Audit Committee highlighted the fact airfreight would go untaxed, contrary to the ``polluter pays'' principle.

[Brenden S]

$700 is just way too much.

[Kelvin R]

It would be cheaper to have a stopover in FRA on the outbound leg as then only the LHR-FRA tax applies which is at a discounted rate.

[Benny Zheng]

I'm so glad i just got back from the UK.

[Steve Jones]

Just thinking: does it make a difference if you're booked, say, QF2 LHR-SYD versus, say QF10 LHR-SIN connecting to QF6 SIN-SYD?

Both are one stop options London-Sydney on Qantas... If the tax is greater because the ticket shows the flight going to Sydney (ignoring for a moment the technical stop) vs Singapore, maybe Qantas should re-number the flights similar to what they have done domestically (where almost all multi-stop flight numbers have disappeared). But then you lose the perceived benefit of one flight, one plane etc...

If the tax is different in such cases (and I think it is), and if the $$ are that significant, it will put QF, BA and VS at a significant disadvantage compared with the host of other airlines who operate on the Kangaroo route with a stop via a hub in Asia or the Middle East.

Of course, as someone else has said, an even better option is to go LHR-FRA/AMS/CDG/FCO etc and then go from there, though it would mean an extra stop on the trip home, which usually entails extra airport taxes anyway. Would be interesting to make the comparison.

[Adam P.]

The airline industry has hit back with new figures showing airlines operators have cancelled more routes and flights out of London than any other city in Europe, including a dozen flights Down Under.

(my bolding)

This is the point surely? As I understand it* it's flights to Heathrow that cop a bigger tax. So people are avoiding Heathrow. If LHR is where the congestion is,avoiding it creates less congestion, therefore less unnecessary holding (which creates a lot of the emissions they are worried about).

There are other ways to get to the UK than via LHR. If this tax spreads the load over more entry points it ultimately reduces congestion - not a bad thing.

*If this understanding is incorrect, everything that follows is wrong. In that case, pretend I was never here .