SYDNEY - The British government has a nasty little surprise waiting – it’s called the Air Passenger Duty (APD) and from this Sunday, November 1, it will rise substantially.
APD will now fall into four bands – with passengers being charged according to how far they fly. The increases are planned for November this year and November 2010
The tax on the longest flights over 6,000 miles – including UK to Australia - is more than doubling from £40 now to £85 next year.
Passengers in premium-economy seats flying long haul to Australia or New Zealand will be hit hardest. The duty on these seats, which offer a little more legroom for a modest fee, will rise to £110 on November 1 to £170 in November 2010.
Premium economy passengers will pay the same APD as passengers in Business and First Class.
A family of four flying from London to Sydney or Auckland will pay £220 from November 1 and £340 from November next year.
The tax rise threatens to curb travel from the UK to long haul markets.
International long haul visitors will pay the tax when they fly out of the UK on their return journeys.
"APD is now a significant part of the overall price of the air fare and the planned increases in long-haul APD rates over the next year are a genuine threat to the commercial viability of premium economy," said Dermot Blastland, chief executive of TUI UK
When APD was introduced, the UK Government said the money raised would be used to offset environmentally damaging carbon emissions.
"There is no evidence to date of any environmental benefit, and it is ridiculous to think that holidaymakers travelling in premium seats on one of our charter flights will have to pay the same APD fee as those flying in first class on a scheduled flight," said a spokeswoman for Thomas Cook.
"When they should be doing all they can to lessen the strain on hard-working families, they are yet again making the consumer pay."
Showing posts with label fuel tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fuel tax. Show all posts
Friday, October 30, 2009
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Flag-waving questions beg patriot's reply | courier-journal |
As America gears up for its Fourth of July birthday party without all the birthright optimism of its past, much less being able to afford the ice cream and cake, I'm thinking about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the presidential race -- and the price of gasoline.
Today's flag-waving questions for all automatic patriots:
Unless you have family or friends in the military, what kind of real sacrifices have you made to support the men and women fighting these wars -- as in at least being willing to pay for them?
If it turns out our presence in oil-rich Iraq will help feed America's selfish energy needs, does that help justify its cost in tax dollars and lives?
For those with mixed feelings about the war, is there now a tiny part of you saying, yes, we now need to do whatever it takes to boost our steadily slipping standard of living?
Was this war, as many have charged, really about access to oil all along? Since there were no weapons of mass destruction, and democracy in Iraq remains an ethnic-charged illusion, are you willing to rationalize our permanent presence there if it will help keep gasoline under $5 a gallon?
With four giant oil companies -- Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP -- hovering over no-bid Iraqi oil concessions, have all those soldiers died in part to help keep oil company profits at obscenely high levels?
Just something to think about as you drive to the lake.
The presidential race of late has become bogged down in military rhetoric and symbolism -- but what else is new?
The symbolism thing comes way too easily. Barack Obama never served in the military -- the great majority of Americans do not these days -- but John Wayne never did, either. So which one would be your first choice to lead the country into war -- and why?
Gen. Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter who was seriously wounded and won a Silver Star while a company commander in Vietnam, took some verbal shots at John McCain, who was a tortured POW in Vietnam for 5½ years, by saying, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Nobody wins at that level of argument -- and Obama backed away from it. But if military record and experience is so important, how did we end up with our present commander in chief?
He used family influence to get into the Air National Guard during a time when that mostly insured not seeing any combat -- and ended up fighting the Vietnam War in Alabama.
Granted, he is now the lamest of ducks, but where was all the military argument -- unless you consider "swiftboating" military patriotism -- the last time around?
Just something to think about on the way to see the kids.
Which brings us to the cost of gasoline to get there. The news headline that most brought that chicken home to roost went, "Energy experts puzzled over oil prices."
They are not alone. From what I've read, the nation's demand is down just a tad, the availability of oil is steady -- and the price at the pump jumps 20 cents a day.
My fully unscientific theory is that we are being had by oil companies -- who will again reap enormous profits -- cynical politics, market manipulators and greed.
Just something to think about while driving to the Fourth of July parade.
Bob Hill's column appears on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Reach him at (502) 582-4646 or bhill@courier-journal.com. Comment on this column, and read his blog and previous columns, at http://www.courier-journal.com/bobhill
Flag-waving questions beg patriot's reply courier-journal The Courier-Journal
Today's flag-waving questions for all automatic patriots:
Unless you have family or friends in the military, what kind of real sacrifices have you made to support the men and women fighting these wars -- as in at least being willing to pay for them?
If it turns out our presence in oil-rich Iraq will help feed America's selfish energy needs, does that help justify its cost in tax dollars and lives?
For those with mixed feelings about the war, is there now a tiny part of you saying, yes, we now need to do whatever it takes to boost our steadily slipping standard of living?
Was this war, as many have charged, really about access to oil all along? Since there were no weapons of mass destruction, and democracy in Iraq remains an ethnic-charged illusion, are you willing to rationalize our permanent presence there if it will help keep gasoline under $5 a gallon?
With four giant oil companies -- Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP -- hovering over no-bid Iraqi oil concessions, have all those soldiers died in part to help keep oil company profits at obscenely high levels?
Just something to think about as you drive to the lake.
The presidential race of late has become bogged down in military rhetoric and symbolism -- but what else is new?
The symbolism thing comes way too easily. Barack Obama never served in the military -- the great majority of Americans do not these days -- but John Wayne never did, either. So which one would be your first choice to lead the country into war -- and why?
Gen. Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter who was seriously wounded and won a Silver Star while a company commander in Vietnam, took some verbal shots at John McCain, who was a tortured POW in Vietnam for 5½ years, by saying, "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Nobody wins at that level of argument -- and Obama backed away from it. But if military record and experience is so important, how did we end up with our present commander in chief?
He used family influence to get into the Air National Guard during a time when that mostly insured not seeing any combat -- and ended up fighting the Vietnam War in Alabama.
Granted, he is now the lamest of ducks, but where was all the military argument -- unless you consider "swiftboating" military patriotism -- the last time around?
Just something to think about on the way to see the kids.
Which brings us to the cost of gasoline to get there. The news headline that most brought that chicken home to roost went, "Energy experts puzzled over oil prices."
They are not alone. From what I've read, the nation's demand is down just a tad, the availability of oil is steady -- and the price at the pump jumps 20 cents a day.
My fully unscientific theory is that we are being had by oil companies -- who will again reap enormous profits -- cynical politics, market manipulators and greed.
Just something to think about while driving to the Fourth of July parade.
Bob Hill's column appears on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. Reach him at (502) 582-4646 or bhill@courier-journal.com. Comment on this column, and read his blog and previous columns, at http://www.courier-journal.com/bobhill
Flag-waving questions beg patriot's reply courier-journal The Courier-Journal
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Vietnam to scrap fuel import tax for airlines
Vietnamese Ministry of Finance has decided to remove import tax levied on aviation fuel to help domestic carriers reduce losses on rising international fuel prices, Vietnam News reported here Saturday.
The tax rate reduction will be effective early next month.
The fuel price, which has gone up about 80 percent so far this year, is an important factor affecting airline's total revenue, said experts here.
Fuel now accounts for 55 to 60 percent of the total cost of flights for domestic carriers, including Vietnam Airlines and Jetstar Pacific.
The ministry cut the import tax rate for aviation fuel from 10 percent to 5 percent four weeks ago.
The tax rate reduction will be effective early next month.
The fuel price, which has gone up about 80 percent so far this year, is an important factor affecting airline's total revenue, said experts here.
Fuel now accounts for 55 to 60 percent of the total cost of flights for domestic carriers, including Vietnam Airlines and Jetstar Pacific.
The ministry cut the import tax rate for aviation fuel from 10 percent to 5 percent four weeks ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)