Hi were flying with xl in july and had the same e-mail,i think its £10 each person for the both journeys,so they will be taking the money from my card tomorrow,bit annoyed about it really but it has to be paid

Celine I believe if its just flights you have booked you will have to pay the extra . We did on our flights to Egypt (£20 per person). but many of the T/O are having to swallow the extra APD if you have booked a package did you add the other 4 to the same booking or was it a completely seperate booking ? Turkey should be defined as Europe.

cockney girl . I think it should still be only £5 per person . I paid an extra £10 in total to easyjet for 2 people return.

lyn

Lynn i just presumed it was £5 each way,so it only looks like we have to pay an extra £30 for our party.Thanks

Hello

The other 4 flights were separate from ours still ours which we booked last year were the same price as the the4 which we booked this year.

Yet the flights booked this year don't pay the tax yet all the flights booked cost the same

Just it states because we booked ours last year we pay it so in the long run we didn't get cheap flights

Should off just waited till this year if we had known but never mind.

We go to Egypt in August also for 2 weeks with first choice but when i phoned them to ask how much we had to pay we got told we don't have to pay it ?

And that also was booked the same time as the Turkey flights the Egypt holiday is a package holiday and Turkey is flight only

Cockney girl. well that is what we paid to Easyjet and im assuming every airline will be working on the same rules . but who knows

Celine . will be interesting to see what XL charge you. We havnt been charged anything from portland either for our July "package" to turkey . It certainly seems to be just the flight only bookings.

lyn

lyn i paid £5 each pp for our turkey flights so it should definitely only be £5 and i havent been charged anything so far for my portland package in oct and it was so cheap im amazed they havent asked me for it , worked out £104 each lol and apt in icmeler has great reviews lol, wasnt going to use apt just the flights but hubby said we might as well now lol

good for you Karen . sometimes its nice to have a change and you still have your own place to go as well.

We received an email froom bmi 2 weeks before travelling stating that the additional APD would be taken off the card we booked with. However on checking in at Manchester Airport we were told that we had to pay the APD at the Customer Services Desk or we wouldn't be allowed to fly.

luci

OPERATORS MOUNT APD LEGAL CHALLENGE

Leading tour operators are to mount a legal challenge to the latest hike in Air Passenger Duty which has cost the industry an estimated �50 million.

Members of the Federation of Tour Operators begin a challenge today in the High Court to the government through a Judicial Review of the legality of APD and the way the recent increase in the tax has impacted on operators.

A verdict is expected by the end of the month.

Former Chancellor Gordon Brown announced last December that APD would double from February 1, 2007.

The lack of notice given to operators - just seven weeks - is what has triggered the legal action from leading FTO members.

This lack of adequate notice - always given to the industry in the past - has cost the sector an estimated �50 million, according to the FTO.

Operators work on long lead times and, unlike airlines, are largely precluded by law from passing on surcharges for unexpected new costs to passengers who have already booked.

There are three main strands to the tour operators' challenge to the government:
First that it is an illegal tax as it is in breach of Article 15 of the Chicago Convention which effectively says taxes can only be levied on flights if they are in return for cost based services provided - security, air traffic control etc. APD is not related to any such services.

Secondly that it breaches the human rights of tour operators by failing to give sufficient notice of the change, forcing them to absorb substantial unplanned costs.

And lastly that APD is in breach of the Treaty of Rome which enshrines the right to the free movement of goods and services across the EU.

FTO director general Andy Cooper said: "Our industry is acutely aware of its environmental responsibilities, and is actively leading in a variety of ways to meet the challenges.

"But we will not accept any further post-rationalised 'greenwashed' claims for APD to justify this controversial stealth tax increase. APD was not introduced nor intended as an environmental measure and indeed its impact is perverse.

"As a tax levied on passenger numbers, not aircraft, it penalises environmentally friendly airlines with high load factors and rewards those with half empty flights.

"The legal action is primarily directed at the way the Government chose to introduce new APD rates which has forced us to use all means possible to defend the sector from the entirely avoidable consequences.'

With permission from Travelmole

As you know we all pay Air Passenger Duty (APD) whenever we fly - up to £40 a head if you fly out of the EU.

The Federation of Tour Operators (FTO) have challenged the legality of the charge, prompted by the doubling of the tax in February this year.

As of last Thursday, the formal judicial review ended, with a formal judgement due next month. If it goes the passengers' way ( as seems entirely likely) any APD charged since 1 February could be reclaimed. If it goes the industry's way, Airtours and Thomas Cook face problems as they have been levying an additional charge to cover their possible refund bill

Here's what the Travel Trade Gazette said last Thursday:

Post edited for copyright reasons. Please click HERE to read the relevant article.
David HT Mod

The only reason they have objected is because it has cost them money.

TOs are not altruistic - they are there to make a profit.

Where they have been compelled to absorb it the cost will be carefully documented by them so they can claim back against their tax bill, so the actual cost to them will not be as large as they claim.

They were very quick to claim it was not their fault and to blame the government. If they win they will no doubt try to find a way of not paying back the tax they have already claimed yet still claim they are the consumers champion - cynic that I am.

Just as a point of interest I booked two holidays at the end of October last before the new tax was announced. One I have taken and I have just posted a cheque for the balance of the second one today.

In neither case have I been asked for money to cover the additional APD.

If my small TO can absorb it why are the big boys complaining?

fwh

FTO loses case against APD hike

The Federation of Tour Operators has voiced "disappointment" that the High Court, hearing a Judicial Review of aspects of the government's decision to double Air Passenger Duty, has failed to uphold a case presented by operators.

"There are wider potential international ramifications of the judgment, and these and other aspects will be considered as the FTO seeks advice on its grounds for possible appeal," a statement from the FTO said.

The case arose from the government's failure to give the holiday industry sufficient notice of the tax rise - against all previous precedent regarding APD - costing operators some £50 million which, unlike airlines, they were unable to build into prices for those already booked to fly, the FTO said

A judge found that there were no insurmountable legal or administrative difficulties preventing the government from giving tour operators exemption in relation to existing bookings.

Its decision to ignore the industry's calls for this exemption effectively imposed "a major and wholly unexpected financial penalty" for the sector to absorb, one which disadvantages it against its many travel and airline industry competitors, the FTO claimed.

The government also sought to make the case that the doubling of the tax was an environmental measure, but, according to the FTO, the retrospective imposition of the tax increase on bookings already made showed that this element of the tax could in no way contribute to the Treasury's stated environmental aims

The legitimacy of the industry's objections was reflected in it being granted permission to bring the case, added the federation.

TUI Travel said it firmly believed this was an "unfair penalty" for operators to absorb, and was one that left it "unjustly disadvantaged" against many of its travel and direct airline industry competitors.

TUI Travel said that during the hearing the government defence largely failed to have an adequate argument for why the constraints of the tour operators were largely ignored by the Treasury when the change was introduced and couldn't justify any legal or administrative difficulties preventing Treasury from giving tour operators an exemption in relation to existing bookings.

Peter Long, CEO of TUI Travel, said: "We don't agree with the judgement and are considering the grounds on which we can appeal to either the UK or European Court of Appeal."

With permission from Travelmole

APD will be charged per flight, not per passenger

The Government has outlined plans to change the way Air Passenger Duty is charged.

In its pre-Budget report, it says from November 1 2009 it will charge APD per aircraft, instead of per passenger.

Federation of Tour Operators director general Andy Cooper said it was too early to assess the full impact of the move, but said charter airlines and low-cost airlines should benefit.

"Charter airlines tend to have higher load factors than regional and scheduled airlines, so in theory this should be a positive move. But, as always, the devil is in the detail, and we need to sit down and look at this more closely."

In a separate move, the Government has gone some way to resolve an anomoly in APD charges relating to class of travel.

At present, if an airline offers more than one class of travel, only passengers in the lowest class pay a lower rate of APD.

Passengers on airlines with just one class of travel, even on all-business class airlines like Silverjet and Eos, pay the lower rate, while those travelling in Premium Economy on two-cabin charter flights pay the higher rate.

From November 1 2008, the Goverment intends to charge those travelling in all business-class airlines the higher rate, but will still also charge the higher rate to those travelling in Premium Economy on two-class charter flights.

"This is yet another money grabbing measure," added Cooper.

Virgin Atlantic said it was delighted that all-business class airlines have now been included.

But it said it was concerned that there is no indication from the Treasury that the taxation collected will be used for environmental purposes.

A spokesman for Ryanair said: "This is just another tax on ordinary passengers from Government ministers swanning around on private aircraft.

"This Labour Government lied when it proposed to spend the £1bn raised from doubling APD on the environment. Not a penny has been spent on the environment and they are back stealing more from ordinary passengers going on holidays."

EasyJet welcomes APD move

EasyJet has welcomed the Chancellor's decision to charge Air Passenger Duty per aircraft instead of per passenger from 2009.

"This is the right decision and we look forward to working with the government on a new structure that properly reflects the pollution levels of different aircraft types and the distance flown by those aircraft," it said in a statement.

"While it is right that aviation should be taxed more intelligently, easyJet cautions that this must not be used as a Trojan Horse to increase the overall of levels of tax from airline passengers.

"People passing through UK airports already pay £2.4 billion in APD."

The no-frills airline claims that, based on current levels, easyJet already covers its full carbon cost more than four times over.

Andy Harrison, easyJet Chief Executive, said: "We have long argued that the current structure of APD is in need of reform. A tax that penalises families but excludes private jets; and charges passengers travelling to Marrakech the same as those travelling to Melbourne, is just plain wrong.

"A structure that taxes a passenger in the newest, cleanest aircraft the same as someone in an old gas-guzzler cannot be allowed to continue.

"It is right to tax emissions, not passengers. That means reflecting a combination of aircraft type and distance flown. But the reform should not be used as an excuse to further increase the burden of tax on passengers - easyJet, for example, already covers its carbon costs more than four times over.

"We think it is a good step in the right direction that could be up and running before the November 2009 date indicated by the Chancellor today."

First Choice and Thomsonfly say APD plans make more sense

First Choice Airways and Thomsonfly have welcomed the announcement that Air Passenger Duty will be levied on planes and not on passengers.

The two airlines said they are keen to be involved in the forthcoming consultation into the tax and understand how it will be structured.

But, they say the money raised should be used for environmental projects to mitigate the impact of flying, not used simply as a way to generate more money from the aviation industry.

TUI marketing director Tim Williamson explained: "The current APD structure makes absolutely no sense, so we welcome the new consultation, but only if the Treasury is going to take its responsibilities seriously and ensure the money raised from APD will go to projects that have environmental benefits, not just be used to fill government coffers."


With permission from Travelmole

Looks like the chancellor has hit holidays/flights again. APT for Europe flights to rise from £10 to £11 next November and to £12 November 2010. Up to 4000 miles(including USA) from £40 to £45 and then £60 Carribean from £40 to £50 and then £75. Premium seats to be double these taxes. I would have thought prices were high enough. Premier class is beginning to look vastly overexpensive when you consider much of the additional charge for is tax.

Government scraps Aircraft Duty plan

The government is to scrap plans for an aircraft duty to replace Air Passenger Duty.

Instead a new four-band APD will be introduced on November 1, 2009 so those flying the furthest, and making the most envionmental impact, will pay the most.

The announcement was made by Chancellor Alistair Darling in his pre-Budget Report.

He said the proposed Aircraft Duty was not the right conclusion as it would harm the aviation industry.

The reformed APD will be introduced in a year's time set around four distance bands, each set at intervals of 2,000 miles from London.

"This reform will ensure that those flying farther and therefore contributing more to emissions from aviation will pay more," the pre-Budget report says.


With permission from Travelmole

Industry reaction to APD change

ABTA said it was disappointed that the government has chosen to continue with Air Passenger Duty "which is acknowledged not be environmentally efficient, and actually penalises those airlines which operate full aircraft".

"As it now has four different distance bands, it means that passengers flying to Australia from 2009 will have to pay nearly 38% more than today, and 112% more in 2010/11," ABTA said.

The association warned that the increase will put off travellers to destinations such as the Caribbean and Kenya, whose economies are extremely dependent upon tourism, particularly from the UK.

ABTA head of development Andy Cooper said: "The travel sector has not yet felt the full effect of the recession, but travel lags behind the rest of the economy by about six months and we are facing an extremely challenging 2009.

"The money being raised from APD will not be hypothecated to go to environmental causes, but will just end up in general government coffers, despite being grouped under the heading on how the government will deliver on environmental goals."

---

TTA and Worldchoice managing director Simon Hargreaves said: "The Government says it wants to help business. I find that hard to believe!

"The positive impact of the measures announced will be absolutely minimal on travel companies, while the damage from increased taxation comes at a time when we are all facing challenges from fluctuating fuel prices, plunging currency values and a hugely risk-averse atmosphere in the financial markets.

---

Easyjet chief executive Andy Harrison said: "I am dismayed that the Chancellor has failed to carry through his commitment to reform a bad tax.

"All parties agreed that APD needed to be changed to a tax on planes not people, but now the government has succeeded in bodging-up the reform of an already bodged tax.

"He has made a bad situation worse by increasing the burden of APD on hard working families.

"The Chancellor said that he wouldn't allow the economic crisis to 'push aside the importance of protecting the environment' but his green credentials have been brushed aside in a dash for cash and the emissions from cargo planes, private jets and transfer passengers continue to be tax free.

"So, Roman Abramovich, FedEx and Heathrow's transfer passengers will continue to be exempt, but hard-working families going on their summer holiday on environmentally-efficient low-fare airlines will now pay even more.

---

Cheapflights welcomed the decision to drop the proposed Aircraft Duty but regretted retaining a modified APD.

"The Chancellor has made no provision to reduce the tax burden for consumers, especially lower income travellers," the price comparison site said.

"Air travel is the only viable mode of transport for both leisure and business travellers for mid to long haul destinations.

"The increase in APD, especially on long haul, stated by the Chancellor as being for environmental reasons, actually harms the environment by delaying the introduction of fuel efficient and cleaner emissions aircraft.

"Furthermore, the option for travellers to fly from Paris or Brussels to long haul destinations looks increasingly attractive for both economy and for business class passengers with APD at £110 and £170 respectively."

---

The Board of Airline Representatives in the UK (BAR UK) had a mixed response to the Chancellor's decision.

It said the decision to abandon plans to introduce Aviation Duty and retain the principle of the existing APD was " a victory for common sense".

But it said the decision to completely revise APD will see large-scale increases for all passengers flying 2000 miles or more.

Passengers flying in economy class beyond the EEA countries will see APD rise from the current £40 to a maximum of £85 by 2010/11, and those flying in all other cabin classes will see an increase from £80 to a maximum of £170 over the corresponding period.

BAR UK chief executive Mike Carrivick said: "The revised distance bands will cause anxieties to many airlines and also create some market distortions.

"Now is not the time to impose additional financial burden on the airline industry and the travelling public."


With permission from Travelmole

Increased taxes are apparently due to come into force tomorrow. Will these apply to tickets already bought ?
Thanks Dave

Increased taxes are apparently due to come into force tomorrow. Will these apply to tickets already bought ?

Most operators state in their T&C that they can pass on any increase in tax however depending how many on the booking and the distance you are flying it may be more expensive for them to collect the difference than absorb the charges themselves.

It makes me laugh this increase, it's nothing to do with environmental issues, it's just another Gordon Brown scam to get more money, if it was for the enviroment they would target the airlines flying old aircraft with more polluting engines.

I for one if I go longhaul will be investigating taking a short flight outside the UK (Dublin, Amsterdam, Paris) and then fly the long haul segment from there on a seperate ticket, initial investigations shows it may actually work out cheaper.

Dave

Looking as though increase in taxes are coming our way in the next budget (yet again..) if I book flights now, could these taxes be added on to the cost after booking ?