Airlines, ABTA and BAA condemn Tories’ ‘Quality of Life’ proposals

EasyJet and Flybe have rounded on suggestions proposed by the Conservatives Quality of Life policy group that domestic air travel should be further taxed.

EasyJet damned the report for consigning the 50 million Britons not living in or around London “to the status of second-class citizens for whom time is considered an unimportant commodity and the dream of high-speed rail is contradicted by the nightmare of today’s reality”.

The budget carrier said it would welcome the proposal to replace Air Passenger Duty with an aircraft emissions charge and to scrap the current system that taxes family holidays, but not private jets.

“But adding VAT to domestic air travel would simply put up the cost of family holidays, without providing any link to the CO2 emissions of a particular flight. It would also threaten the existence of many domestic air routes from communities all over the UK,” easyJet warned.

ABTA chief executive Mark Tanzer said: “ABTA is concerned that the representations made by the travel industry on the issue of VAT and fuel duty on domestic air travel and the moratorium on the expansion of airports have been totally ignored. The plight of many remote communities who have no other option than to take domestic flights is in jeopardy if these proposals are adopted.

“We sincerely hope that the ‘Quality of Life’ Group’s recommendations on fuel duty and VAT on domestic air travel together with those curtailing airport expansion will be dropped by the Conservative Party when they come to publish their election manifesto.”

Responding to reports that John Gummer and millionaire ecologist Zac Goldsmith want to introduce a new domestic aviation tax, Flybe chief executive Jim French said: “Imposing a tax on domestic flying is a slap in the face for the UK regions and is sadly yet-another example of London-centric policy making that ignores the world outside the M25.

“For the record, we at Flybe agree with Gummer and Goldsmith that transport from London Heathrow to places like Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle are not best served by air travel – the rail infrastructure into London meets such demand and that’s why we don’t offer such services.

“However, policy designed to solve London-centric angst cannot simply be applied to the rest of the country without seriously damaging regional economies that have come to rely on aviation.”

He added: “The regional traveller who currently spends 90 minutes flying from Southampton to Aberdeen does not have the luxury of spending 9 hours on a train – with two changes thrown in for good measure. For that passenger, flying is not a luxury but a necessity.”

“I’m not a politician but it strikes me that killing off domestic aviation for political reasons might win a few votes in London is no way to make policy and no way to treat the rest of the country.”

EasyJet agreed, with a statement in response to the report saying: “Believing that rail journeys are a viable substitute for short-haul air travel is an argument of the metropolitan London elite.

“For those living in the West Country, Wales, Scotland and many other parts of the UK the train is inconvenient, slow and expensive. Anybody suggesting that people in Northern Ireland can take the train must be living in cloud-cuckoo-land.”

A spokesman for airport operator BAA said: “The Quality of Life Group has come up with an unworkable and messy compromise for Heathrow that threatens Britain’s competitive position without delivering environmental benefits.

“Capacity problems at Heathrow can’t be solved by tinkering with domestic flights and a moratorium on expansion is simply putting off tough decisions that need to be taken now.

“Heathrow is full today, operating at 99% of available runway capacity, and already vulnerable to foreign competition.

“Europe’s other major hub airports are all building more capacity to attract the passengers who are currently flying through London.

“If airlines can’t fly through Heathrow they will fly from another hub instead. That does nothing to combat climate change but would severely damage the UK’s competitiveness.”

*See TravelMole Comment

by Phil Davies