Study in Germany found significantly cheaper to make domestic trips by rail, not by air

The German newspaper  Die Welt reports on a study which found that within Germany, it was generally much more expensive to fly that to take the train. They compared a number of routes, and found significant savings, with as much saved as 50% or more.  The new study was undertaken between May to September and looked at 540 trips, with 270 flights with the corresponding number of rail journeys compared. The ten routes were selected with the highest volume of passengers. It emerged that travellling by rail between Munich and Frankfurt was 42% of the fare compared to the same route by air. On the Frankfurt-Hamburg route the saving was 57%, and between Hamburg and Munich 63.3%. On the route between Cologne/ Bonn-Berlin there were the greatest savings with 77.2%. They conclude that within Germany is makes financial sense to go by rail and not fly.
Tweet

Flieger versus Bahn – Was wirklich günstiger ist

( = Flight versus train – what really is cheaper)

Viele Airlines setzen auf Schnäppchen-Tarife und wollen der Bahn damit Kunden abspenstig machen. Doch wie reist man innerhalb Deutschlands wirklich am günstigsten? Eine neue Studie klärt auf. Von Nikolaus Doll

Many airlines rely on bargain rates and want to alienate rail customers. But how to travel within Germany really the cheapest? A new study explains.

28.11.2012 (Die Welt)

Article in German at :

http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article111590956/Flieger-versus-Bahn-Was-wirklich-guenstiger-ist.html

Comparison of train price and flight price (%)

Foto: Infografik Die WeltAuf allen Strecken ist die Bahn günstiger: 100 Prozent entspricht den Kosten für ein Flugticket, der Bahnpreis wird immer im Verhältnis dazu gesehen

(Apologies for the imperfect translation into English of the first part of the article below)

Posted: Wednesday, February 13th, 2013. Filed in General News, Recent News.

Read more »

Patrick McLoughlin says taxpayer will not pay £30 billion for a new hub airport

Speaking at the Commons Transport Select Committee on 11th February, the Transport  Secretary, Patrick McLoughlin said that the estimates for a new  hub airport for the UK were up to £80 million. A report by Oxera reported recently that a new 4-runway  hub airport could need up to £30bn of public subsidy, mainly to cover road and rail links. Mr McLoughlin called these “very substantial figures” and said  “We do not generally subsidise airports . . . I am not looking for ways of spending extra money on something provided by the private sector”. Airports in the past have had public subsidies, through road and rail building paid for by the public purse, that benefits the airport. He highlighted how much of the UK’s aviation infrastructure was privately funded. Boris gave evidence, at the same session, promoting  his view that there was a need for a new hub, other than  Heathrow, and this should be at one of two sites in the Thames Estuary, or at Stansted.

.
Tweet

Posted: Tuesday, February 12th, 2013. Filed in General News, News about Airports, Recent News.

Read more »

Boris targets Arab states in bid to raise £80bn for a new airport

Tweet

Mayoral tour: Boris is visiting states in the Gulf to drum up financial backing for his new airport

by Pippa Crerar, City Hall Editor  (Evening Standard)

11 February 2013

Boris Johnson is to embark on a week-long tour of the Gulf states to drum up financial backing for his plans for a new international airport.

The Mayor plans to visit Dubai, Qatar and Kuwait in mid-April to raise up to £80 billion for a new 180 million- passenger-a-year super-hub. City Hall’s preferred option remains a new four-runway airport in the Thames Estuary, but senior aides view expansion of Stansted as a more realistic option.

Mr Johnson insists a new hub airport, wherever it is, could be delivered with private finance and operated as a viable commercial business.  His £80 million estimate covers the cost of terminals, runways, ancillary facilities and rail and road access. He was inspired by Hyderabad’s “aerotropolis” — 30 per cent funded by money from Gulf states — on a recent trade mission to India.

Today the Mayor will give evidence to the Commons transport committee. He is expected to be asked why a new hub airport is so important and why further expansion of Heathrow is impossible.

Mr Johnson also announced a team of experts — including British-Iraqi architect Zaha Hadid, designer of the Olympic aquatics centre — to draw up plans for a hub to the east of London. Other advisers include Pascall+Watson, which designed Heathrow Terminal 5 and the redevelopment of St Pancras station.

Engineering firm Atkins, which worked on the Olympics, the Bahrain World Trade Centre and the Dubai metro, will look at surface access and environmental impacts.

The Mayor accused ministers of kicking the issue of airport capacity into the long grass, and ordered his own £3 million study, after the Government said a review on aviation would not be concluded until after the next general election. City Hall has already set out some 15 proposals for a hub airport, and a shortlist will be announced this month, which the experts will examine.

Mr Johnson said: “It is imperative that work to progress a new hub airport is completed as soon as possible. The Government has set a timetable that dawdles when dash should be the order of the day. I have assembled experts tasked with delivering an  examination of the most realistic solutions.”

A senior aide to the Mayor added: “Any discussions we have in the Gulf at this stage are obviously very conceptual because until we have an agreed location and design [for the airport] it is impossible for investors to have a firm view. There will be discussions about raising funds for housing, regeneration and transport more widely.”

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/boris-targets-arab-states-in-bid-to-raise-80bn-for-a-new-airport-8490015.html

.

---

 

.

London Mayor Boris Johnson appoints “airport experts”

11.2.2013  (BBC)

London’s mayor has announced he has appointed “a mighty team of experts” (sic)  to help develop his hub airport plans.

Boris Johnson opposes a third runway at Heathrow and supports the idea of an airport in the Thames Estuary or the expansion at Stansted.

He said: “The government has set a timetable that dawdles when dash should be the order of the day.”

The Whitehall-appointed Davies Commission on aviation is not due to make its final report until 2015.

The Department for Transport is yet to respond to Mr Johnson’s latest comments.

Mr Johnson said: “It is absolutely imperative that work to progress a new hub airport in the South East is completed as soon as possible.

“That is why I have assembled a mighty team of experts who I have tasked with delivering a fulsome examination of the most realistic solutions to our aviation crisis in the shortest time possible, which I look forward to sharing with the government.”

The mayor’s airport team will include design, engineering and project management consultants Atkins.

Architects Pascall & Watson, whose previous projects include Heathrow Terminal 5, Dublin Airport Terminal 2 and St Pancras International rail station, will also take part.

‘Fantasy airports’

About 15 different proposals for a new hub airport in south east England have already been made public.

Mr Johnson has consulted on criteria that will be used to evaluate each proposal and to form a shortlist.

That shortlist is expected to be announced within weeks and the team now assembled by the mayor will combine their expertise to produce detailed feasibility studies that he will submit to the Davies Commission.

Speaking to the Transport Select Committee, the mayor said: “Personally I think that agenda could be accelerated and and it would be possible by early next year to come to a pretty clear view about what the right way forward is but we’re content to be as useful as we can for the time being.

“I think the parties could get together and agree a way forward and we intend to be as useful as we can in helping that to happen.”

Ed Mitchell, the Environment Agency’s environment and business director, told the committee that [talking about a Thames estuary airport] habitat protection requirements would be “quite a stiff challenge” and there could be flood risks.

He said his gut instinct was that it was “possible although not easy and not cheap” that solutions to problems posed by an estuary airport could be found.

London Assembly Green Party member Jenny Jones said: “Instead of squandering taxpayers’ money on developing fantasy airports that will inevitably lead to massive carbon emissions, he should be prioritising climate mitigation and adaptation projects.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21416847

 

.

---

.

Zaha Hadid appointed to Boris’s airports review

7 February 2013

By Elizabeth Hopkirk  (Building Design.com)

Pascall & Watson and Atkins will also advise Mayor of London

Zaha Hadid Architects has been appointed to advise Boris Johnson on the options for expanding London’s airport capacity.

The practice will work with Atkins and transport specialist Pascall & Watson to assess the recommendations due to be made by his aviation panel.

Zaha Hadid

There are currently around 15 alternatives, including proposals by Foster & Partners, Farrells and Gensler.

Frustrated by the pace of government decision-making, Boris appointed his own aviation panel including UCL’s Peter Hall to establish the criteria on which a decision should be made.

A consultation on these criteria ends tomorrow.

Zaha Hadid, Atkins and Pascall & Watson will work with the mayor to apply the criteria to a shortlist of options.

They are expected to pick one or two favoured options which will then be submitted to the government-appointed Davies Commission whose interim report is due out at the end of the year.

The Mayor of London is open about his support for a brand new airport in the Thames Estuary but has promised to listen to alternative ideas, including expanding Heathrow.

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/zaha-hadid-appointed-to-boriss-airports-review/5050025.article

.

---

.

A quote from Boris’s website has him saying (27.1.2013):

Big spending on infrastructure is key to this plan, with a second Crossrail across the capital, longer tube lines and more river crossings. There must be a swift solution to the capacity crunch above Britain’s skies and a new hub airport. He considers expanding Stansted just as viable as building a new airport in the Thames estuary, aided by a sovereign wealth fund from China or another developing world economy.

“You just have to chuck a snowball into a cocktail party at Davos and you’d hit someone with a sovereign wealth fund who would fund a piece of infrastructure like that,” he says.

 

http://www.boris-johnson.com/2013/01/27/davos-2013-boris-johnson-tells-it-on-the-mountain/

 

.

---

.

 Earlier:

Boris now wants not only a Thames estuary airport but a massive aerotropolis = airport city

28.11.2012   Boris Johnson – during his trip to India to promote London – set out his vision to build an “aerotropolis” around a new terminal for his fantasy project of a Thames Estuary airport. He said a town of about 20,000 people could spring up to the east of London based around a 4-runway hub airport (it was 5 runways last week…).  It would have four or five “anchor” developments such as a hospital, university campus, a major business or exhibition centre to create thousands of jobs. A social infrastructure including homes, schools, shops, parks and a transport network would be a key part of the plan. Any such scheme would have truly dreadful environmental and biodiversity impacts. The Mayor said London had “much to learn” from India on the future of airports. He added that he was “inspired” by his visit to Hyderabad’s two runway airport — a leading example of an “aerotropolis” that is set to double in size over the next five years  (that is because India is only starting to develop its aviation, while we did so decades ago, and it has a massively larger population).http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/?p=1383and

 

Boris island’ is an unfundable white elephant, says boss of Dubai airport

October 13, 2012

Paul Griffiths, the British boss of Dubai airport, one of the world’s fastest growing airports in the world, says Boris’s proposal for an £80 billion, 4-runway hub in the Thames Estuary is “unfundable” and a potential white elephant. (He wants a Heathrow 3rd runway instead, of course). Of the Thames airport plan, he said it requires all the expense of investing in the project without the productivity arising from it, and at the same time you are forcing other airports in the London system to stop growing. Fundamentally, he said, the location of the estuary is wrong, and though transport links to it would be hugely expensive, the airport would not be used. “Many cities have built large airports out of town and as a result have constructed white elephants because they are not successful. Montreal is a very good example.”He will say more at an AOA conference on October 22-23. Click here to view full story…

.

---

 

.

GLA press release

These were Boris’s criteria for a new airport:

 

…. key tests that a mega hub airport must pass

7 FEBRUARY 2013

Only twenty-four hours remain for Londoners to comment on draft criteria that the Mayor believes would provide the fairest possible evaluation of the increasing number of plans proposed to solve the desperate need for more aviation capacity in the southeast. Londoners and members of the aviation, business and political communities are being asked what they think about the new criteria.

Around 15 different proposals have already been made public and the Mayor has made it very clear that he wishes to see the speediest possible resolution to the debate on where to build a multi runway hub airport, so that the British economy is given the best chance to prosper in the face of huge competition from its global rivals. His draft criteria have been designed to reduce the plans already suggested to a more manageable number by applying rigorous tests of their viability.

The draft criteria are as follows:

Economic: The primary driver for an increase in aviation capacity is its economic impacts; it is essential that any proposals taken forward support regional and national economic objectives and maximise the economic and social benefits for the UK.

Airport infrastructure: Any new airport facilities should meet the needs of airlines, passengers and freight by enabling an efficient, effective, safe airport operation that is competitive with the best airports in the world.

Airspace: Aviation safety remains paramount. Any increase in aviation capacity must address conflicts with existing airports and comply with current and future airspace regulations, including the continuing ‘Single European Sky’ initiative.

Surface access: These criteria are designed to ensure that an airport has the required access provision: drawing on the widest pool of passengers, staff and freight will be essential to any airport’s success. Sufficient new road and rail capacity is integral to any airport option, and a high public transport access mode share will be key to ensuring sustainable airports. New-build airports such as Hong Kong have achieved a public transport access mode share in excess of 70%.

Environmental: The impacts of aviation on local communities and the natural environment must be minimised if any expansion of aviation is to be sustainable.

Deliverability: Any new aviation capacity must be capable of being delivered. This must take into account likely planning and construction issues and the need to secure funding.

A consultation on the criteria has run since the beginning of January and will close this Friday February 8. Once agreed they will be used to form a shortlist of options from the range of proposals already made public. Options on the final shortlist will then be the subject of detailed feasibility studies that the Mayor of London will submit to the Davies Commission.

ENDS

• The consultation on the Mayor’s criteria can be found online at:http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/projectsandschemes/26458.aspx

 

Posted: Monday, February 11th, 2013. Filed in General News, News about Airports, Recent News.

Read more »

Head of Qatar Airlines, Al Baker, joins Heathrow board as its 2nd Qatari member

The head of Qatar Airways who has said the prospects for the UK economy would be “catastrophic” without a third runway at Heathrow has joined the board of the airport’s parent company.  He joins Ali Bouzarif, who is from the Qatar Investment Authority, taking up the two seats handed to Qatar Holding in return for the 20% stake it bought in the airport conglomerate last October.  The two men have been appointed to represent the interest of the sovereign wealth fund and its investment. Their appointment has not yet been announced by Heathrow, and they are not yet listed on its Board members website. Qatar Airlines is part-owned by the Qatari royal family. The appointment of Al Baker has the potential to anger other airlines, particularly rivals from the Middle East, as some may fear he may hold more sway when further slots become available. Qatar owns the Shard, part of Canary Wharf, part of Barclays, the Olympic Village, part of Sainsburys, part of the Stock Exchange, Harrods etc.
Tweet

Posted: Sunday, February 10th, 2013. Filed in General News, News about Airports, Recent News.

Read more »

Flybe & Ryanair agree possible deal for new Irish carrier – “Flybe Ireland”

Flybe and Ryanair have agreed a deal which could see the creation of a new carrier under the Flybe Ireland brand, with Ryanair transferring 43 European routes and 9 Airbus A320 aircraft and injecting €100m into the airline. The agreement is part of Ryanair’s package of concessions submitted to the European Commission in its latest attempt to win approval for its takeover bid for Aer Lingus. Ryanair would also transfer “the requisite number of  flight crew, aircraft engineers, management and facilities”, to the new Flybe Ireland, and “the required number of slots to operate the 43 routes”. Flybe would purchase the Flybe Ireland brand for €1 million, and Ryanair would inject €100 million of cash into the carrier, as well as the forward sales cash from the 43 routes. Flybe Ireland would retain the right to use the Aer Lingus brand for up to 3 years after the transaction. The European Commission has expressed concerns about the negative consequences for competition if Ireland’s two main airlines are allowed to combine.

Tweet

Flybe and Ryanair have agreed a deal which could see the creation of a new carrier under the Flybe Ireland brand, with Ryanair transferring 43 European routes and injecting €100m into the airline.

The agreement is part of Ryanair’s package of concessions submitted to the European Commission in its latest attempt to win approval for its takeover bid for Aer Lingus.

If successful the deal would see Ryanair transferring 43 European routes and a minimum of nine Airbus A320 aircraft to the new carrier, as well as “the requisite number of  flight crew, aircraft engineers, management and facilities”, and “the required number of slots to operate the 43 routes”.

Flybe would purchase the Flybe Ireland brand for €1 million, and Ryanair would inject €100 million of cash into the carrier, as well as the forward sales cash from the 43 routes.

The new carrier would operate from bases in Dublin and Cork, and would “Deploy Flybe’s frequency model on the major city pairs, and its leisure model on the European leisure markets”.

Flybe Ireland would also retain the right to use the Aer Lingus brand for up to three years after the transaction, to “allow it to develop its own brand position in Ireland during a realistic transition period”.

The new carrier would commit to operate an agreed frequency on routes, “with the ability to terminate a certain number of routes per year whilst maintaining stable capacity in the Irish market”.

In a statement Flybe said it had secured support from 64 per cent of shareholders for the transaction, which it believes “represents good value to shareholders”, “is in line with company strategy”, and “leverages the company’s proven skills in mergers and acquisitions”.

The regional carrier said there would be no effect on UK employed staff, with Flybe already having announced restructuring plans as part of a “two year roadmap to return the business to profitability and further exploit European potential”.

Flybe’s CEO Jim French said: “Flybe would be delighted to be granted the opportunity to service the Irish aviation market through Flybe Ireland, an airline which would be based in Ireland and dedicated to developing a broad range of scheduled services for business and leisure markets.

“This development of creating a Dublin based airline is in line with the Company’s stated strategy at the time of IPO – which was to diversify away from reliance upon the UK economy. The terms of the deal negotiated ensure that Flybe Ireland will be a well-capitalised, well-funded company, enabling us to deliver upon that strategic aim. Flybe has a history of acquiring businesses of scale, restructuring and refocusing them and as a result delivering profitable returns. This opportunity plays clearly to that corporate strength.

“Flybe would be proud to have the chance to serve the Irish markets, and would be, as we seek to be throughout the rest of Europe, a good employer and corporate citizen.

“However, before Flybe Ireland can come into being there are many hurdles to overcome, not least the EC accepting the remedies offered by Ryanair in its offer to take over Aer Lingus, and then the shareholders of Aer Lingus accepting an offer from Ryanair.  However, Flybe has positioned itself well if these events come to pass, while in the meantime we continue to focus upon the delivery of the cost reduction and efficiency plan we outlined in January.”

The European Commission is expected to make a decision on Ryanair’s latest bid for Aer Lingus on March 6, which if successful would pave the way for the Flybe deal to close in May, with the new brand likely to launch in October.

flybe.com
ryanair.com

http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/0620316-flybe-and-ryanair-agree-deal-new-irish-carrier

 

.

---

.

The FT says:

February 6, 2013

Aer Lingus continues to reject Ryanair

By Andrew Parker in London

Aer Lingus on Wednesday denounced Ryanair’s proposed takeover of the Irish flag carrier, as it reported a 41% rise in underlying operating profit in 2012 and raised its dividend.

With the European Commission reviewing Ryanair’s third attempt to secure control of Aer Lingus, Christoph Mueller, the flag carrier’s chief executive, insisted that combining Ireland’s two main airlines would be “bad for consumers”.

His statement came as Flybe, the UK regional airline, disclosed that a planned new subsidiary should generate a €20m pre-tax profit in its first year of operation under an agreement with Ryanair that is intended to help secure its takeover of Aer Lingus.

Flybe has agreed in principle to establish the Irish subsidiary, which would run 43 short-haul routes out of Ireland that are currently operated by Aer Lingus, but some analysts questioned whether this competition remedy would satisfy Brussels.

 

…….

The European Commission has expressed concerns about the negative consequences for competition if Ireland’s two main airlines are allowed to combine. Ryanair is responding by asking other carriers to provide alternative services.

Ryanair, Europe’s largest budget airline by revenue, has agreed to pay €100m in cash to a Flybe subsidiary that would operate services on about 40 per cent of Aer Lingus’ short-haul routes. A further €50m could be contributed by Ryanair to the Flybe subsidiary, which would represent Aer Lingus’ bookings on these routes.

…..

Full FT article at

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66821fb8-7031-11e2-85d0-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcompanies_transport%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2K4JNtKH2

.

---

.

 More from the FT on Aer Lingus and Ryanair:

• Further Aer Lingus concessions for Ryanair
• Demand boosts Ryanair’s profits outlook
• Ireland attacks Ryanair’s Aer Lingus bid
• Ryanair makes concessions on Aer Lingus
• Ryanair loses appeal over Aer Lingus probe

• Aer Lingus spent €50m fighting off Ryanair
• Aer Lingus urges ‘no action’ on Ryanair
• Etihad eyes Ryanair’s Aer Lingus stake
• Parallel probes for Ryanair stake

Posted: Thursday, February 7th, 2013. Filed in General News, Recent News.

Read more »

Willie Walsh knows there will be no Heathrow 3rd runway. He is against a Thames hub, or a new runway at Gatwick or Stansted.

Speaking at the Business Travel Show in London, Willie Walsh said the government’s strategy to increase airport capacity in the south east would fail. He said the Airports Commission would have little impact, and also that there will not be a third runway at Heathrow. He is planning his future business strategy without one, content to have more slots at Heathrow, so other airlines there cannot get them.  He is against a new runway at Gatwick or at Stansted, and says BA would not pay anything towards either.  “I am not going to spend one penny on new runways at Stansted or Gatwick.” He is also against a new Thames estuary hub airport.  ”Building a new hub airport would be “economic suicide” as it would never be able to secure commercial funding and the charges to airlines were likely to be “excessive” to pay for the project.”  You can see why Simon Burns told the aviation industry to find some agreement among itself, on what it wants. They are truly divided.  Willie Walsh is not interested in any concept of “benefit to UK plc” but what benefits BA: getting as many Heathrow slots as possible.

Tweet

Author – Rob Gill

5 Feb 2013  (Buying  business travel)

The government’s strategy for increasing airport capacity in the south-east is destined to fail, according to IAG boss Willie Walsh.

Walsh poured cold water on the likely impact of the recently-formed Davies Commission, which has just started looking at options for increasing capacity, during the IAG chief executive’s opening speech at the Business Travel Show (BTS) in London today (February 5).

“My own view is that we are not going anywhere with this,” said Walsh. “British Airways has planned its business on the basis that there will be no third runway at Heathrow. In 50 years time I expect that BA will still be operating from a two runway airport at Heathrow.”

Walsh added that even though there was an “overwhelming need for more capacity” – a solution was not likely to be found without cross-party support.

He added that there was also “no demand” from airlines for new runways at either Stansted or Gatwick.

“I have heard Gatwick talking about a second runway but that is assuming that airlines are willing to pay for it,” Walsh said.  “I am not going to spend one penny on new runways at Stansted or Gatwick.”

He added that while BA had managed to address its short-term lack of capacity at Heathrow through its purchase last year of Bmi, there were other airlines who were unable to add routes to fast-growing economies in the Far East and Latin America from Heathrow.

Walsh said that building a new hub airport would be “economic suicide” as it would never be able to secure commercial funding and the charges to airlines were likely to be “excessive” to pay for the project.

“This is the shocking situation that we find ourselves and it’s clearly having an impact on the ability of the UK to compete on the global stage,” he added.

Walsh also used his opening address to declare his confidence in the Boeing Dreamliner, which remains grounded due to safety fears over its onboard batteries.

BA is due to receive its first B787 later this year as well as its first superjumbo A380s from Airbus.

“The Dreamliner is hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons at the moment,” he said. “But I’m confident that this aircraft will be a great success. We are fully supportive of Boeing and the aviation authorities’ efforts to resolve the current technical issues and the aircraft back into the skies.”

http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/0520313-bts-2013-walsh-hits-out-government-hub-airport

 

,

---

.

You can see why Simon Burns said this:

Transport Minister, Simon Burns, tells aviation industry to agree among itself on airport capacity

Date added: February 6, 2013

The transport minister has told the aviation industry it must reach “consensus” before the debate on aviation capacity can move forward. Simon Burns was speaking at the annual British Air Transport Association (BATA) dinner in London, where he said the aviation debate needed agreement from within the industry itself. His words were: “Consensus between politicians, across communities and yes…even within the aviation industry itself.” He said: “Progress is being squeezed between the rock of local issues and the hard place of national interests.” He said we all need to be part of the process, and “Communities and companies, politicians and policy-makers, economists and environmentalists…..all sides of the debate, making their case but listening to and seeking to understand the arguments of others as well.” Also “All sides in this debate need to approach the issue with fresh eyes.”

Click here to view full story…

Posted: Wednesday, February 6th, 2013. Filed in General News, Recent News.

Read more »

Transport Minister, Simon Burns, tells aviation industry to agree among itself on airport capacity

The transport minister has told the aviation industry it must reach “consensus” before the debate on aviation capacity can move forward. Simon Burns was speaking at the annual British Air Transport Association (BATA) dinner in London, where he said the aviation debate needed agreement from within the industry itself. His words were: “Consensus between politicians, across communities and yes…even within the aviation industry itself.” He said: “Progress is being squeezed between the rock of local issues and the hard place of national interests.”  He said we all need to be part of the process, and “Communities and companies, politicians and policy-makers, economists and environmentalists…..all sides of the debate, making their case but listening to and seeking to understand the arguments of others as well.” Also “All sides in this debate need to approach the issue with fresh eyes.”

Tweet

6 February 2013 (Travel Trade Gazette)

By Lucy Siebert  (full speech at Simon Burns speech 30.1.2013)

Posted: Wednesday, February 6th, 2013. Filed in General News, Recent News.

Read more »

Nantes: Legal victory for opponents in Notre-Dame-des-Landes – delay in expropriations of perhaps over 2 years

The Supreme Court in France has ruled that no expulsions will be made at Notre-Dame-des-Landes (for the planned new airport at Nantes). Lawyers say the delay could be for at least two and a half years.  The Court made its judgement on January 29,  and this means is put on hold until the outcome of the other legal remedies. There are at least 5 legal appeals to be decided. The company, Vinci, that plans to build the airport, will not be able to move the protesters – for a long time. The expropriate orders cannot be valid until the administrative judge confirms the legality of previous judgements listing the plots of land to expropriate people from.  The company AGO (Airports Great-West), wanted the immediate rejection of the appeal, without waiting for the completion of administrative remedies. Meanwhile, farmers and their animals have re-occupied Bellevue farm, which had been cleared earlier.

Tweet

Apologies for imperfect translation into English below.  Original article in French below.

Legal victory for opponents in Notre-Dame-des-Landes

February 05, 2013 (Journal de l’environment)

by Stephanie Senet

Back to the reoccupation of the farm on Bellevue ZAD, Sunday, Feb. 3: Bellevue lives!

Seen on the blog words campaigns, 04/02/2013:

Today Sunday, February 3, Bellevue is celebrating. Many of us gathered to greet the animals that come to keep the farm alive and protect it from any hint of destruction.

It should be noted that following the broadcast of France2  at 1pm on this action, the Prefect himself clarified that “it was not planned, no, no, to destroy this house … “. Say, Mr. Prefect, was it the same for St Jean du Tertre which was destroyed 10 days ago? Battle of communication … This action disturbs …

The collective COPAIN (Collective of Professional Agricultural Organisations outraged by the airport project) has invested heavily in this farm house surviving. This is the first operating office that was deserted, so it was important to reinvest to preserve and maintain agriculture in the area. The many small farmers, both men and women, have came back to keet these places in a good state …

It’s beautiful!

Some brought animals with them (Notre Dame des Landes, new resort … and no plane to catch!) …

This is great!

discovery of Bellevue … in front of an audience moved

Cute, which is going to calve in 15 days …

and even a few chickens for eggs …

A young peasant has become officially declared occupant. You can, if you wish, send him a word of welcome and encouragement by writing to:

Roman

Bellevue

44130 Notre Dame des Landes

Roman (back) with his animals …

Bellevue today is regaining its farming life and wants from now on to open a place that allows discovery of the life of the fight against the proposed airport at Notre Dame des Landes.

A photo exhibition of the fight is in place … 

I say it loud and clear:

“What Bellevue lively and gives a” beautiful view “throughout the fight and what lives there! “.

BRAVO TO ALL!

.

http://lutteaeroportnddl.com/2013/02/05/retour-sur-la-reoccupation-de-la-ferme-de-bellevue-sur-la-zad-le-dimanche-3-fevrier-que-bellevue-vive/

blog du collectif de lutte contre l’aéroport de Notre Dame des Landes

---

In French:

Retour sur la réoccupation de la ferme de Bellevue sur la ZAD, le dimanche 3 Février : Que Bellevue vive !

Vu sur le blog paroles de campagnes, le 04/02/2013 :

Aujourd’hui dimanche 3 février, Bellevue est en fête. Nous sommes nombreux rassemblés pour accueillir les animaux qui viennent maintenir la ferme vivante et la protéger de toute velléité de destruction.

Il est à noter que suite à la diffusion du reportage de France2 à 13 heures sur cette action, M. le Préfet a lui-même appelé la direction de la chaîne pour préciser qu’ « il n’était pas prévu, non, non, de détruire cette maison …». Dites, M. le Préfet, il en était de même pour St Jean du Tertre détruit il y a 10 jours ? Bataille de communication… Cette action dérange…
Le collectif COPAIN (Collectif d’Organisations Professionnelles Agricoles INdignées par le projet d’aéroport) s’est fortement investi pour que cette ferme demeure. C’est le premier siège d’exploitation déserté ; il était donc primordial de le réinvestir pour le préserver et maintenir l’agriculture sur la zone. Les paysans et paysannes sont venus nombreux remettre les lieux en état… C’est beau ! Certains ont amené des bêtes (Notre Dame des Landes, nouveau lieu de villégiature… et sans avion à prendre !)… C’est formidable!

Posted: Wednesday, February 6th, 2013. Filed in General News, News about Airports, Recent News.

Read more »

PwC report on APD met by dismissive comments from Treasury – Chancellor has no intention of lowering APD

The 4 largest airlines in the UK (British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, EasyJet and Ryanair) commissioned a report from PwC on Air Passenger Duty (APD). The intention was to try and get APD reduced, or removed altogether. PwC put together arguments that the UK economy would benefit, if flyers could fly slightly more cheaply. There was a range of arguments, including more tax take, more investment, spin offs of all sorts.  However, this has cut no ice with the Treasury. The pressure from the 4 airlines got a frosty response from the Treasury, which made clear that the Chancellor had no intention of lowering APD. The FT reports that a Treasury spokesperson said APD, which is forecast to bring in £2.9bn this year, makes an “essential contribution” towards helping meet the government’s deficit reduction plans. “We do not recognise the figures in this report or agree with the assumptions behind it,” the Treasury said. The report also had to admit that making flying a bit cheaper would have a negative impact on parts of the UK economy, as yet more Brits took they money to spend abroad.

Tweet

 Flickr

The pressure from the 4 airlines got a frosty response from the Treasury, which made clear that the Chancellor had no intention of lowering APD.  And consumer groups (Air Travel Advisory Bureau) pointed out that carriers often benefited by pocketing tax paid on cancelled bookings – travellers find getting the APD they have paid back from airlines can be very, very difficult.  Critics of the industry say that airlines are happy to add their own levies to tickets, ranging from fuel surcharges to luggage charges and credit card fees. (See Times £ link )

The FT reports that a Treasury spokesperson said APD, which is forecast to bring in £2.9bn this year, makes an “essential contribution” towards helping meet the government’s deficit reduction plans. “We do not recognise the figures in this report or agree with the assumptions behind it,” the Treasury said. (FT  link  )

The FT adds:

But the report also found that by encouraging foreign travel by UK residents, abolishing APD would mean some parts of the economy would suffer even if the overall impact on GDP was positive.

“The outflow [of UK consumers’ pounds] is partially offset by expenditure from foreign inbound tourists . . . [but they] tend to purchase a more limited range of lower value-added goods and services than domestic consumers,” the study said.

.

.

More details about the PwC report:

Airlines have another go at trying to get rid of APD.                  Reminiscent of turkeys and Christmas.

Date added: February 4, 2013

EasyJet has produced two press releases, making out that a new study done for the airline industry shows that the UK economy would benefit if Air Passenger Duty was cut. EasyJet, BA, Virgin and Ryanair commissioned PwC to investigate the possible effect of abolishing APD. Using elaborate contortions of facts and logic, and glossing over the point that the main beneficiaries of abolishing the tax would be themselves (not UK plc) they ignore the inconvenient facts that the majority of air travel takes Brits abroad, to spend their money elsewhere. Only a minority – around 20% at most – of air passengers from the UK are on business. The study also ignores the fact that air travel pays no VAT and no fuel duty – making it a very special case, and very under-taxed in comparison to other sectors. Much of the “logic” behind the calculations by PwC of the suggested economic benefits of removing APD involve indirect effects, such as boosting tax take in a variety of sectors, increasing investment, and presumed spin off effects of this over time. All very dubious. No industry likes to pay tax, but there is no reason why air travel – largely discretionary spending by the better off – should escape a fair level of tax. These APD claims by the 4 airlines really are stunning nonsense.

Click here to view full story…

.

.

Air Passenger Duty – 10 Key Points  

(APD – 10 Key Points Briefing from SSE)

1. APD was introduced in 1994 by Ken Clarke, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, not as an environmental tax but because he considered the aviation industry to be lightly taxed compared to other sectors, largely arising from its exemption from fuel duty and VAT.

2. It was initially set at £5.00 for short haul economy travel, which accounts for more than three quarters of all air travel. In 1997 Ken Clarke doubled APD to £10.00 for short haul economy flights.

3. Gordon Brown halved the short haul economy rate of APD in 2001, put it back up again to
£10.00 in 2007 and Alistair Darling raised it to £11.00 in 2009. George Osborne increased it to £12.00 in 2010. There was no increase in 2011 but it was raised to £13.00 in April 2012. Thus, for the vast majority of passengers APD has increased by just £3.00 (30%) over the past 15 years.

4. APD is payable only on departure from a UK airport and so the basic Band A rate of £13.00 is for a round trip to an overseas destination. APD is however payable on both legs of a domestic round trip within the UK.

5. APD raised £2.6 billion for public finances in 2011/12 and this is planned to increase to £3.9 billion by 2015/16. APD would, however, need to rise to four times its current level to offset the value of the industry’s exemption from fuel duty and VAT. If airlines paid the same level of fuel duty and VAT as road users, the cost to the aviation industry would be around £10.5 billion a year.

6. Not only do airlines pay no VAT on fuel, they are exempt from VAT on everything they buy
relating to the provision of air transport services. Mostly, VAT is not charged in the first place; aircraft and aviation fuel, for example, are zero rated. However, where VAT is charged, the airlines claim this back and in 2010/11, HMRC paid UK airlines a VAT rebate of £583 million (net).

7. In 2010/11, the latest year for which a detailed HMRC breakdown is currently available, 77% of passengers paid APD at the short haul economy rate (Band A).

8. Whilst it is true that “passengers can end up paying £184.00 tax on some flights”, as we are repeatedly told by the industry, this is the very top rate of APD and applies only to first class and business class passengers on long haul flights to countries whose capital city is more than 6,000 miles from London. Less than 0.4% of all air passengers fell into this category in 2010/11.

9. Regarding the alleged negative impacts on the UK economy of the recent hikes in APD, it is worth noting that overseas leisure trips by UK residents reduced from 60.1 million in 2008 to 49.2 million in 2011 – a fall of 10.9 million (21.5%) whilst the number of foreign tourists coming to the UK fell by less than 300,000 (1.6%) over the same period, from 23.8 million to 23.5 million. The effect of this was to reduce the UK’s tourism trade deficit by £6.8 billion and to boost spending in the domestic UK tourism industry by £5.1 billion over the same period (2011 vs 2008).

10. Finally, those in the aviation industry who are pressing the Government for APD to be reduced should explain how they would propose to make up the revenue shortfall to the Exchequer. Should we sack some more policemen, teachers or nurses? Should we cut pensions or welfare benefits?
Or should we raise VAT and/or extend its scope?

(the aviation industry has not questioned the accuracy of any of these figures).

.

.

Not so independent auditor

And, to add another interesting twist, the – in theory – “independent” auditors for easyJet is …. guess who?  …. PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Independent auditors’ report (512KB)

which is most irregular …… probably worthy of investigation, as the “independent” auditor should not be involved in writing reports for its client.

Posted: Tuesday, February 5th, 2013. Filed in General News, Recent News.

Read more »

Airlines have another go at trying to get rid of APD. Reminiscent of turkeys and Christmas.

EasyJet has produced two press releases, making out that a new study done for the airline industry shows that the UK economy would benefit if Air Passenger Duty was cut.  EasyJet, BA, Virgin and Ryanair commissioned PwC to investigate the possible effect of abolishing APD. Using elaborate contortions of facts and logic, and glossing over the point that the main beneficiaries of abolishing the tax would be themselves (not UK plc) they ignore the inconvenient facts that the majority of air travel takes Brits abroad, to spend their money elsewhere. Only a minority – around 20% at most – of air passengers from the UK are on business. The study also ignores the fact that air travel pays no VAT and no fuel duty – making it a very special case, and very under-taxed in comparison to other sectors. Much of the “logic” behind the calculations by PwC of the suggested economic benefits of removing APD involve indirect effects, such as boosting tax take in a variety of sectors, increasing investment, and presumed spin off effects of this over time.  All very dubious. No industry likes to pay tax, but there is no reason why air travel – largely discretionary spending by the better off – should escape a fair level of tax. These APD claims by the 4 airlines really are stunning nonsense.

.

The pressure from the 4 airlines got a frosty response from the Treasury, which made clear that the Chancellor had no intention of lowering APD. And consumer groups (Air Travel Advisory Bureau) pointed out that carriers often benefited by pocketing tax paid on cancelled bookings – travellers find getting the APD they have paid back from airlines can be very, very difficult.  Critics of the industry say that airlines are happy to add their own levies to tickets, ranging from fuel surcharges to luggage charges and credit card fees. (See Times £ link )

The FT reports that a Treasury spokesperson said APD, which is forecast to bring in £2.9bn this year, makes an “essential contribution” towards helping meet the government’s deficit reduction plans. “We do not recognise the figures in this report or agree with the assumptions behind it,” the Treasury said. (FT  link  )

Tweet

To see some of the real facts about Air Passenger Duty, rather than the misinformation being publicised for reasons of self interest by the airlines, see

APD – 10 Key Points Briefing from SSE

and

Below is a comment from Cait Hewitt, Deputy Director of the Aviation Environment Federation, AEF:

Of course businesses want to boost their profits by paying less tax, but it’s a bit rich for the airlines who commissioned this report to complain, given that the aviation industry is entirely exempt from paying either fuel duty and VAT. A recent report by the Intergenerational Foundation estimated this effective subsidy to be worth around £11 billion a year (or £400 per UK household) based on a comparison with the taxes paid by private motorists. Taxing aviation at the same rate would raise five times as much revenue per year as Air Passenger Duty generates.

The idea that APD is a tax that hits poor families hardest is just not true; higher earners are far more likely to fly than people on low incomes. In any given year, about half the UK population don’t fly at all, while most of the growth in demand for flying has come from a wealthy minority who are making multiple return trips.

In relation to employment: aviation doesn’t have a great track record in terms of actually delivering the jobs that are always promised when airports want to expand. And the number of jobs per million passengers has been falling quite dramatically over time. The rule of thumb used to be that every million passengers needed a thousand airport and airline staff, but the figure for new jobs created is now more like 150 per million passengers – even fewer in the case of some low cost carriers. 

.

.

                                                                     Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas

Nobody likes paying taxes – but that is part of the deal, in a civilised society.                             We could all have more champagne, if it wasn’t taxed ….

We could have more of lots of things if they weren’t taxed …..(but just think of the consequences for society….)

First EasyJet press release (take with a huge pinch of salt – some of it is very dodgy, with deliberately misleading wording. A few AW comments in square brackets in brown):

“SCRAPPING FLIGHT TAX COULD PAY FOR ITSELF AND CREATE 60,000 JOBS, SAYS PIONEER STUDY”

4.1.2013 (Easyjet)

A study commissioned by the UK’s four major airlines on the economic impact of Air Passenger Duty shows that its abolition could bring a lasting boost to the UK economy, generating a net tax gain for the Treasury and creating almost 60,000 new jobs.

The study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), The economic impact of Air Passenger Duty, used a model to simulate how changes in one area of the economy (such as tax policy) affects all the rest. This “dynamic” approach to modelling tax impacts is used by the IMF, World Bank and some national governments, and has been advocated by Chancellor George Osborne.

Applied for the first time to APD, the modelling finds that:

• Abolishing APD could boost UK GDP by 0.46 per cent in the first year, with continuing benefits to 2020.
• The GDP boost to the UK economy would amount to at least £16 billion in the first three years and result in almost 60,000 extra jobs in the UK over the longer term. [ See below for more on EasyJet and employment].
• Abolishing APD would pay for itself by increasing revenues from other sources such as income tax and VAT. [Bit rich seeing air travel pays no VAT]. This net benefit, even after allowing for the loss of APD revenue, would be almost £500m in the first year.

The modelling suggests this boost to GDP would come from three main sources:

• Extra investment by airlines to expand their networks, and investment by other aviation businesses to support this growth; [Air passenger traffic has not grown recently due to the recession, not to APD. Government figures confirm this].
• A net increase in inbound tourism, which constitutes an export for the UK economy;  [Wonder why there is no mention of outbound tourism, which is very much larger than inbound, as more Brits to abroad than those from overseas come here]
• Over the medium term, higher business productivity resulting from increased business travel, which improves international business connections and creates employment.  [There is little evidence that business travel is affected by APD. The fares are paid by the company, not the individual. Business travel is much less price elastic than leisure travel].

Per cent increase in GDP from abolition of APD -Source: PwC

Using cautious assumptions, PwC’s analysis shows that receipts from other taxes would rise as a result of APD’s abolition, primarily because of business growth, [there is no logical reason to presume that  making flying a bit cheaper is going to turn round the UK economy and end the recession. 80% or so of UK air passengers are not on business] leading to a net revenue gain for the Government of about £500m in each of the first two years and averaging £250m annually over the period to 2020.

Fiscal Impact of APD abolition, £billions-Source: PwC

The study describes APD as a “substantial business cost”, equating to about £500m a year for UK businesses overall. It adds: “Abolishing APD has the potential to reduce the cost of flying, making it cheaper for businesses to maintain relationships with overseas customers. In this sense APD could be regarded as a tax on exports.”  [Also a tax on imports - many of those businesses are importing - they are not all exporting].

The report ranks major UK taxes by how much additional GDP results from a £1 cut in tax revenue – a good guide to how much individual taxes can distort production decisions leading to inefficiencies in business decision making.

How much extra GDP results from a £1 tax cut (median value over 30 years) Source: PwC

Comparing the impact of a variety of taxes, the analysis goes on: “APD is at least as damaging to the UK economy, and probably more so, than corporation tax or fuel duty.” It ranks major UK taxes by how much additional GDP results from a £1 cut in tax revenue – a good guide to how much individual taxes distort business decisions and consumer behaviour.  [Actually, paying tax is not bad for the UK.  How else would public services etc be funded? Paying taxes is the cost we pay for living in a civilised society - which costs money to maintain. We need companies to pay Corporation Tax. Witness the outcry recently about companies such as Amazon and Starbucks. The airlines and airports pay very little corporation tax, finding ways to account for profits/ losses between companies etc]. 

In recent Budgets, action has been taken to stem rises in fuel Duty and reduce corporation tax, while APD has risen continually. Since January 2007, APD has increased by up to 260 per cent for short-haul flights and up to 360 per cent for long-haul. [This disingenuous and deliberately misleading comment, that has been very carefully worded, because on 1st Feb 2007, APD went up from £5 to £10; therefore since February 2007, APD for short journeys ie. Europe has risen by only £3, from £10 to £13, which is a 30% rise. See Details  The Chancellor announced that APD this year would rise in line in inflation.  Not more.]

The study further indicates that APD is regressive.  For families in the bottom income decile, the APD cost for a family of four travelling to a European destination is some 28 per cent of weekly household expenditure. About 45 per cent of APD-liable leisure trips in 2010 were made by passengers with below-average household income.   [Very odd maths here. APD for a trip to Europe is £13 only. For a family of four that would be £52.   If the family's income was £187 per week, that would be 28% of their income - for that one week. Not in general.  The rest of their holiday would be many hundreds of pounds. If a family has an income of £9,657, it is unlikely that they are going to be considering foreign travel by air. Certainly not in high season, when the airlines charge much higher fares - increases much larger than the £13 of APD]

-ENDS-

The Economic Impact on Air Passenger Duty – A study by PWC

To view an abridged version of the PWC report: click here

To view the full PWC report: click here

http://corporate.easyjet.com/media/latest-news/news-year-2013/04-02-2013-en.aspx?sc_lang=en

.

This is the other EasyJet press release – along the same lines as the one above.   Read with critical faculties alert !

.

BRITISH AIRWAY, EASYJET, RYANAIR AND VIRGIN ATLANTIC RESPONSE TO PWC REPORT ON THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF AIR PASSENGER DUTY

Welcoming the PwC report, Willie Walsh, chief executive of British Airways’ parent company, IAG; Carolyn McCall, chief executive easyJet; Michael O’Leary, chief executive Ryanair and Craig Kreeger, chief executive of Virgin Atlantic jointly said:

“The PWC report highlights the critical role that aviation plays as an engine of economic growth for both international commerce and tourism. It confirms that abolishing APD would provide the UK economy with a much needed boost creating 0.46% GDP in the first year and at least £16 billion in the first three years and would also result in almost 60,000 new jobs in the UK.

“It proves that APD is one of the three most destructive taxes; alongside Corporation Tax and Fuel Duty.

“The Chancellor has taken action on those two taxes in the Autumn Statement and we would encourage him to use the forthcoming Budget to remove APD to stimulate economic growth and create jobs.

“Should APD be abolished the aviation industry would be able to move quickly to add new flights in and out of the UK, or invest in new products and services, creating new opportunities for businesses and much needed jobs across the UK.”

http://corporate.easyjet.com/media/latest-news/news-year-2013/04-02-2013a-en.aspx?sc_lang=en

.

.

The FT reports also that, on the subject of the tourism deficit being increased by lowering APD:

“… the report also found that by encouraging foreign travel by UK residents, abolishing APD would mean some parts of the economy would suffer even if the overall impact on GDP was positive.

“The outflow [of UK consumers’ pounds] is partially offset by expenditure from foreign inbound tourists . . . [but they] tend to purchase a more limited range of lower value-added goods and services than domestic consumers,” the study said.

.

.

EasyJet and employment:

Number of staff a EasyJet (from EasyJet data):

8,446 in 2012 (so 2.6% more staff than in 2011)

8,228 in 2011

Number of Easyjet passengers:

58.4 m pax in 2012  (so 7.1% more passengers than in 2011)

54.5 m pax in 2011

so there were:

6,914 passengers per  EasyJet staff member in 2012

6,624 passengers per EasyJet staff member in 2011

ie.  145 staff per million passengers at EasyJet. in 2012

and 151 staff per million passengers at EasyJet in 2011

EasyJet said they had 3.9 million more passengers in 2012 than in 2011. So per additional million passengers:

If there were 3.9 million extra passengers, and 158 extra staff, then there were about          41 more staff per extra million passengers.

The budget airlines really are not great at generating a lot of extra jobs.

Posted: Monday, February 4th, 2013. Filed in General News, Recent News.

Read more »