Osborne postpones action on Air Passenger Duty or per plane tax till the autumn
Airport Passenger Duty (APD)
that he would report back in the autumn on whether to scrap the tax and replace
it with a per plane duty.
airlines and travel agents.
to “barrage” MPs over their concerns about the tax.
the planned increase in APD, due on November, will go ahead.
on short haul flights, £12 on medium haul and between £25 and £30 on long haul
journeys.
is both fairer and more environmentally friendly.
travellers.
George Osborne said: “
plane tax as opposed to a per passenger tax to contribute towards a reduction
in carbon emissions.”
Budget: “cost of air travel set to rise because of increased aviation taxes”
23.6.2010 (Telegraph – warning – very biased article !)
to double the amount it raises from aviation taxes.
billion in 2014-15 from air travel, compared to £1.9 billion last year.
despite the Chancellor’s announcement that the Government is considering a switch
from a per passenger to a per plane duty.
industry said families were facing a "hidden tax bombshell".
a family of four flying to Florida will pay £300 in taxes alone – compared to
£200 at the moment.
£2.9 billion next year. This will increase by nearly a third within only three years.
and any family looking to fly on holiday will have to pay the price," said Michelle di Leo, spokesman for the aviation lobby group, Flying Matters.
more tax from people who fly.
have to pay our fair share," he said "
over the odds."
tax, especially given the Liberal Democrats manifesto pledge to raise £5.3 billion
from the reformed duty.
competitiveness without bringing any practical environmental benefit," a BA spokesman
said.
regions and would also be likely to reduce the range of longhaul destinations
served directly from the UK’s national hub airport, Heathrow."
Britain meets its carbon reduction targets.
which, they said, failed to live up to its claims to be the greenest Government
ever.
the Chancellor has failed to take the bold decisions we so urgently need," said
Simon Bullock, Friends of the Earth’s economy campaigner.
and increased taxes on aviation pollution would have been a greener and fairer
way to cut the deficit."
in 2015/16
and there is no tax on aviation fuel. A litre of aviation fuel costs around 30
– 33p, while a litre of petrol for the car costs around £1.19. Aviation is a sector
that is very lightly taxed indeed. The benefit to the UK aviation industry
of not paying these taxes is worth at least £9 billion a year. When VAT rises,
the benefit will be even greater. And i
it’s VAT-free. Even the in-flight meals and the in-flight scratch cards..
[When they had the perfect opportunity to start ‘today’]
to save 90+% of our carbon emissions across all sectors of society, in order to
allow aviation to continue to expand ? And how can the aviation industry buy
offsets for their expanding emissions, when they have already put everyone else’s
savings up to 90+%? Where does that extra carbon come from?
a budget belonging to the "late second millennium" and NOT to today’s world.
About the only time "green" was mentioned was in connection with banks. We need
to be thinking very differently, and looking at a new model. For example, in
order to get passengers out of Domestic Flights, we are looking at High Speed
Rail as an alternative. Unfortunately, as published by some researchers, when
we create those High Speed Rail lines MORE people will travel. Hence the SAVINGS
in our carbon budget made by getting passengers out of Domestic Flights will be
LOST simply because more people will travel and we will run more trains – thereby
uplifting the carbon emissions.
TO FIND FISCAL WAYS OF GETTING EVERYONE TO TRAVEL LESS? Only then will we bring
our transport – and overall – emissions DOWN … and what’s more KEEP THEM DOWN.
Birmingham (and perhaps Leeds/ Manchester). That’s a lot of money.
budget". We need to REMOVE money from projects like £30Bn rail lines and MOVE
that money into creating "third millennium" GREEN industries. Industries that
will take this country into the realms of SAVING emissions, and also give this
country a platform to EXPORT such industries and products to fully underpin the
fiscal strength the Chancellor is looking for – not just NOW – but in the FUTURE
too.
My parents had "nothing". We had our holidays within 50 miles or so of home.
100 miles at the most and we weren’t in the least bit "unhappy" about that.
security" AND easily available "world travel". Consequently, they "think" that
"this is life". As they have never experienced anything else, "austerity" is something
they will fear. I see that the Chancellor is 39 years old – he, himself, has lived
in that world.
by "real values" – not false ones built up by the "freedom to travel at the drop
of a hat". If we don’t go at least "part of the way backwards" then we will NEVER
conquer our carbon emissions. But how to achieve that is the issue.
parliament contains members who know how to achieve this. Indeed they are supporting
"late second millennium big business" and are largely in denial of the environment.