Bollitics: VT General Election Poll #4 - Leaders Debate one

[kidlewis]

from my personal point of view, the Lib dems want to change Air Passenger DUty to be by the plane not the individual, which is much fairer. More fuel efficient planes pay less than planes which cause more damage.

From my personal business perspective that would be much more beneficial to me, because airlines who have a high occupancy rate with better, newer planes will be able to charge less than they do now for flights.

It would also lead to airlines cutting routes that don't have a high occupancy rate, especially if they have an older more polluting plane.

So it should work out better for the environment without taxing the airlines and passengers purely to generate revenue, which what APD is currently doing. It is not remotely a fair green tax at all. It also brings in hardly anything anyway in comparison with other revenue generation streams for the government.

I'd expect Ryanair to upgrade their aircraft if that was to happen, then they would absolutely be able to offer even more flights cheaper than they already to, but they will probably reduce their route options as well.

BA would be a bit screwed because apart from major routes like New York, some short haul and domestic routes, they would have to either upgrade aircraft or cut routes. However their merger with Iberia could work out in their benefit if the Lib Dem policy was implemented.

Drat you seem to fly long haul quite a bit, I would imagine that this (what I believe to be a fairer) tax would base the duty not just on the planes but the exact distance of the flight.

I think at the moment a flight to barbados is the same APD as LA (which is ridiculous). I haven't checked SA flights APD in comparison with others but I think is also on the cusp of another APD band.

Whilst APD might not be an issue for many it's certainly an issue for me. It needs addressing because it isn't fair green tax, and should be more fluid and dynamic in how it is calculated.

[thetrees]

from my personal point of view, the Lib dems want to change Air Passenger DUty to be by the plane not the individual, which is much fairer. More fuel efficient planes pay less than planes which cause more damage.

From my personal business perspective that would be much more beneficial to me, because airlines who have a high occupancy rate with better, newer planes will be able to charge less than they do now for flights.

It would also lead to airlines cutting routes that don't have a high occupancy rate, especially if they have an older more polluting plane.

So it should work out better for the environment without taxing the airlines and passengers purely to generate revenue, which what APD is currently doing. It is not remotely a fair green tax at all. It also brings in hardly anything anyway in comparison with other revenue generation streams for the government.

I'd expect Ryanair to upgrade their aircraft if that was to happen, then they would absolutely be able to offer even more flights cheaper than they already to, but they will probably reduce their route options as well.

BA would be a bit screwed because apart from major routes like New York, some short haul and domestic routes, they would have to either upgrade aircraft or cut routes. However their merger with Iberia could work out in their benefit if the Lib Dem policy was implemented.

Drat you seem to fly long haul quite a bit, I would imagine that this (what I believe to be a fairer) tax would base the duty not just on the planes but the exact distance of the flight.

I think at the moment a flight to barbados is the same APD as LA (which is ridiculous). I haven't checked SA flights APD in comparison with others but I think is also on the cusp of another APD band.

Whilst APD might not be an issue for many it's certainly an issue for me. It needs addressing because it isn't fair green tax, and should be more fluid and dynamic in how it is calculated.

A couple of comments

APD is higher for business class tickets than economy anyway, as drat will testify.

Flights have become more expensive since the recession and will continue to rise.

Ryanair have approx 240 aircraft in their fleet, the oldest of which is 8 years old. 185 aircraft are 5 years or younger, with around half that total being less than 2 years old.

Most airlines are flying modern fuel efficient aircraft because it makes commercial sense.

It's normal for the green agenda to hit the airline industry as it is a soft target. They forget that cars are a far bigger pollutant.

[wiganvillain]

I can understand some may not want him but the need to remove labour from power should be greater

Sorry Tony, you (and "Dave") need to do better than that

Vote for someone just because they're not someone else.

Nick Griffin anyone - he's not Brown either so why not him rather than Dave, we get the same result - no Gordo and that seems to be what you want

[kidlewis]

from my personal point of view, the Lib dems want to change Air Passenger DUty to be by the plane not the individual, which is much fairer. More fuel efficient planes pay less than planes which cause more damage.

From my personal business perspective that would be much more beneficial to me, because airlines who have a high occupancy rate with better, newer planes will be able to charge less than they do now for flights.

It would also lead to airlines cutting routes that don't have a high occupancy rate, especially if they have an older more polluting plane.

So it should work out better for the environment without taxing the airlines and passengers purely to generate revenue, which what APD is currently doing. It is not remotely a fair green tax at all. It also brings in hardly anything anyway in comparison with other revenue generation streams for the government.

I'd expect Ryanair to upgrade their aircraft if that was to happen, then they would absolutely be able to offer even more flights cheaper than they already to, but they will probably reduce their route options as well.

BA would be a bit screwed because apart from major routes like New York, some short haul and domestic routes, they would have to either upgrade aircraft or cut routes. However their merger with Iberia could work out in their benefit if the Lib Dem policy was implemented.

Drat you seem to fly long haul quite a bit, I would imagine that this (what I believe to be a fairer) tax would base the duty not just on the planes but the exact distance of the flight.

I think at the moment a flight to barbados is the same APD as LA (which is ridiculous). I haven't checked SA flights APD in comparison with others but I think is also on the cusp of another APD band.

Whilst APD might not be an issue for many it's certainly an issue for me. It needs addressing because it isn't fair green tax, and should be more fluid and dynamic in how it is calculated.

A couple of comments

APD is higher for business class tickets than economy anyway, as drat will testify.

Flights have become more expensive since the recession and will continue to rise.

Ryanair have approx 240 aircraft in their fleet, the oldest of which is 8 years old. 185 aircraft are 5 years or younger, with around half that total being less than 2 years old.

Most airlines are flying modern fuel efficient aircraft because it makes commercial sense.

It's normal for the green agenda to hit the airline industry as it is a soft target. They forget that cars are a far bigger pollutant.

If business class takes up more room and requires more energy to get that class up and down on a route then fair enough. But you could argue that business passengers should pay less because economically they are more important to an economy than people going away on holiday. Obviously not the case for tourist destinations like canaries, balearics and the like, but should people on holidays pay more than people flying for work?

also if I am not mistaken a route between A and B, would be the same APD on a plane that is brand new and fuel efficient than a plane that is 12 years old and throws out pollutants like chavs throw macDonalds wrappings out of Saxos.

also if you fly to the certain areas of the Windies, it's the same APD as LA.

not very fair at all.

you are right that flights are a soft target, because they know people will ALWAYS use planes for holidays and business.

You go and add a 2p green duty on fuel and everyone would go absolutely bezzerk!

it should go on the exact distance of the flight and also the plane used on that route. Then it is up to the airline to ensure they get a high occupancy rate in order to ensure they still make a decent profit.

It would obviously mean airlines would cut routes which may make them money now, but due to not filling their planes over a certain percentage would have to stop them because it would reduce their margins on those routes. Which is a good thing for global warming.

The only thing which I (even as someone in the travel industry) agrees on is the fact that domestic flights in the UK shouldn't really exist. But they do because our rail network isn't fast enough or well connected enough. Heathrow Express, Gatwick Express are both too over priced and a pretty average service at best.

The new high speed rail proposal is a half arsed effort. It doesn't connect well enough to major cities or major airports. Transport networks need to be almost seemless.

City coach station adjacent to the city rail station which also connects directly to nearby airports and major locations (football stadiums, exhibition centers, concert venues etc). Problem is in order to do that for the high speed rail network proposal it would probably double the cost. But something as important as high speed rail, you need to do it properly.

imagine being able to fly to BHX, jump on a train directly to london in 40 minutes or even manchester in an hour. Obviously the high volume domestic routes are EDI/GLA to LON and the only way you are going to be able to make those routes redundant is to have those trains hammering it into a central London station with no changes. Which on the current proposal doesn't look like an option.

It's the one thing rail has over flights, more often than not you are dropped right in the heart of a city and not on the outskirts requiring a 20-30 minute transfer.

[tonyh29]

Of course no ones right btw, I just think your approach is particularly wrong

:-)

[tonyh29]

I can understand some may not want him but the need to remove labour from power should be greater

Sorry Tony, you (and "Dave") need to do better than that

Vote for someone just because they're not someone else.

Nick Griffin anyone - he's not Brown either so why not him rather than Dave, we get the same result - no Gordo and that seems to be what you want

well I've given reasons before on why I think people should vote for him but I don't think posters in here really want to be converted , we still see posts about Torys only looking after the rich , Thatcher etc etc .. so It just seemed easier not to try and convince anyone on merit alone

TBH I don't think anyone has actually posted a why we should vote for Labour post , it's just always why we shouldn't vote Tory , and always on emotive levels (see above Thatch etc) .. for example on the NHS at the debate I think Cameron gave a clear answer on his intentions to preserve budgets for the NHS and how important it was to him ... but the next morning we had the usual posts about Tory's not caring about the poor , only interested in the rich etc etc ..

On The Griffin thing , he couldn't stop Brown retaining power ..I'm not sure if Clegg can either ?? (it's possible they may do a sharing deal on the proviso that Gordon stands aside ?)

Cameron can win a majority though ..in theory

[tonyh29]

You go and add a 2p green duty on fuel and everyone would go absolutely bezzerk!

to be honest I don't think they would

However what the airlines did ( I believe Brown introduced it ?) was they introduced a green tax of around £5 - £15 on flights which was initially shown as a separate line item when you made a booking ..gradually it disappeared as a line item and became absorbed into the price , and then they added an extra tick box with "off set my carbon footprint" and pay £xxx extra ... in a bid to mislead and fleece more money from the guilt ridden .. and that is something that I believe is misleading and people should be angry about

not very fair at all.

People flying on business don't care about the APD rate as they are not paying for it (unless it's their own business I suppose) .. friends of mine that fly business don't always know what the ticket even costs ... maybe that is part of the reason why the airlines can get away with ripping people off over it ?

I always grumble about the amount of Airport tax (being stung for close on £300 per person APD on a flight to Bermuda that I've just booked is day light robbery ) but it is also a lifestyle choice I suppose .. I would just like to see some justification as to why a flight in Business warrants double the airport tax of a flight in economy

[kidlewis]

I always grumble about the amount of Airport tax (being stung for close on £300 per person APD on a flight to Bermuda that I've just booked is day light robbery ) but it is also a lifestyle choice I suppose .. I would just like to see some justification as to why a flight in Business warrants double the airport tax of a flight in economy

there isn't justification, that is why. The only argument they can have really tbh is that in business class as you have more room and more comfier (heavier) chairs, that it takes more fuel to get yourself in business class up in to the air, then someone in economy.

I think businesses look closer at flights than you might think. 1000 flights per year with £300 APD on top would be 300k right? if that APD isn't fair to the consumer then it isn't fair to the business and that business is paying way over the odds for something it shouldn't have to.

if 2p was put on fuel I doubt that haulage companies would just say 'ah well we don't really notice the cost of fuel so we will just get on with it'.

Especially in the current climate.

Then again if you fly to New York in business class and get a deal worth £20k then it's worth the £200 APD isn't it?

my point is that APD is not a fair system at all for charging individuals who fly to help combat climate change and get people to use alternatives.

Plane Stupid are the most ridiculous, they want a ban on all domestic and short haul flights, which is fine, if there is a way I can get from Birmingham to Nice in under 3 hours without having to change from Euston to St. P then change at Paris.

but Nice wouldn't even be the remotely the furthest option. Try getting a train to Malaga from the UK.

[drat01]

Tory opportunistic twaddle again - showing themselves up - from the Ash / Plane story

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis denied the UK authorities had been slow to get planes flying again, saying the ban was lifted after a "robust safety assessment" based on observational data and test flights.

"The whole of Europe has been in the same position, acting according to the same aviation safety rules," he said. "European safety regulators have been working to properly understand the impact of the ash cloud which has come from Iceland."

Lord Adonis also denied the decision to reopen the airspace was the result of pressure from the airline industry.

USEFUL LINKS

Latest health advice

Air passenger rights

Travel news

Foreign Office advice (external link)

But shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said Labour's "misjudgement and mismanagement" had "badly let down" the travelling public.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman, called for an inquiry but said the government was not responsible for a volcano in Iceland.

"I do think it's important to remember that the government has had to listen to professional advice on this, and I think it's pretty reprehensible for the Conservatives to be almost gleeful about the chaos that there has been," he said

What a complete and utter twunt Villiers showed herself to be - absolutely pathetic and TBH why isn't Cameron coming out and telling her just to shut the **** up

[tonyh29]

The whole of Europe has been in the same position, acting according to the same aviation safety rules

didn't Eurocontrol come to the conclusion that parts of UK airspace could have been opened several days ago ?

whilst i agree with you in that the attack seems politically motivated it is worth finding out if lessons can be learnt for next time ..it shouldn't be used as political gain though

[mjmooney]

Labservative manifesto

[kidlewis]

if the EU have brains they would allow airports to be open 24 hours with flights coming in at all hours to try and alleviate some of the burden and to help people get home. Mainly because we don't know if the volcano will have another surge.

[drat01]

if the EU have brains they would allow airports to be open 24 hours with flights coming in at all hours to try and alleviate some of the burden and to help people get home. Mainly because we don't know if the volcano will have another surge.

Trees will probably tell you exactly why that cannot be done, but with all of the flights there are logistical problems in terms of safety with crew and the number of hours, check on equipment, checks on infrastructure and consideration to people living close to airports

[drat01]

The whole of Europe has been in the same position, acting according to the same aviation safety rules

didn't Eurocontrol come to the conclusion that parts of UK airspace could have been opened several days ago ?

whilst i agree with you in that the attack seems politically motivated it is worth finding out if lessons can be learnt for next time ..it shouldn't be used as political gain though

Yes lessons need to be learned but as you say not for political gain. TBH I expect the Sun and the Mail etc to come out with some shit soon followed by Sky News and the BBC.

I wonder if those airlines that were so critical of gvmts (and not just in the UK) will now be running to them and the EU saying please help us?

[drat01]

Labservative manifesto

:-) :-)

It seems that this election that the funnies are better

I like this one about how Dave has been copying Clegg :-)

[tonyh29]

We promise to saddle students with debt for their university education.

well they get my vote

[Richard]

The debate about hung parliament and whether or not it would be a good one is very interesting. For me I think it would be a disaster for us in the current economic climate and the argument that goes "I couldn't give a stuff about how it affects business" is naive to put it as diplomatically as I can.

I think what is obvious is that people no longer want Labour. I think it is clear that they are not yet totally sold on the Conservative message and the current state of the polls reflects that people are not sure which way to vote, not that they necessarily want a hung parliament.

Unfortunately, and largely due to the boundary changes that labour have brought in, if the voting pattern matches the polls then people will get what they do not seem to want which is a labour govt, whether propeed up by the lberals or on their own

I think the current anti politics state is also down to Labour to be honest, and not just the expenses issue, more to do with the promises made 13 years ago, the way the public were cynically treated durring the nulabour "project" and their reaction to that. The way labour raised hope only to destroy it stored up issues for the way in which politics works in this country and they have themselves to blame

[tonyh29]

Anyone tried the sky Who should I vote for app ?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Election/Vote

To a degree I think the policies are already out there and thus people will know which policy relates to a given party ...so of course it's slighty flawed ( as these things always are) but it's quite interesting to try and vote based on the 3 statements presented to you ..

It may surprise VT folk to learn that a couple of my policy preferences belong to labour ( education i knew was theirs anyway but it's one I actually believe in) .. and not many with the libs (no surprise :winkold: )

I agreed with Labour on : Education , Defence , Benefits and Pensions

Libs on : Spending

Torys on :Tax , Policing and crime , Europe, Health and Immigration

would be interesting to see the make up of VT members and if it collates to the result in the poll on this thread

[Guest Ricardomeister]

I agreed with Labour on: Europe, Defence, Immigration and Benefits & Pensions

I agreed with Lib Dems on: Tax, Spending, Policing & Crime, Education, Health, Political Reform

I agreed with the Tories on: Bugger all!

[thetrees]

Anyone tried the sky Who should I vote for app ?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Election/Vote

To a degree I think the policies are already out there and thus people will know which policy relates to a given party ...so of course it's slighty flawed ( as these things always are) but it's quite interesting to try and vote based on the 3 statements presented to you ..

It may surprise VT folk to learn that a couple of my policy preferences belong to labour ( education i knew was theirs anyway but it's one I actually believe in) .. and not many with the libs (no surprise :winkold: )

I agreed with Labour on : Education , Defence , Benefits and Pensions

Libs on : Spending

Torys on :Tax , Policing and crime , Europe, Health and Immigration

would be interesting to see the make up of VT members and if it collates to the result in the poll on this thread

Apparently I agree with Labour on a number of issues, the Tories (surprise, surprise) a bit more, and the Liberals nothing.