Reply to: About Gordon's increase in air tax

[wendigo100]

What used to piss me off when flying first class is that would still have to wait for my bags with the rest of the plebs. Can't see why they put that first class tag on it. I'm going to ask that they don't next time.

Shit on the carousel. They'll soon sit up and take notice.

[Buffoon]

Question: Is Heathrow the only place in the world where if you have purchased a 1st class ticket you can get 'fast track' immigration & passport control?

It makes my blood boil everytime I see it.

Can they actual prevent my access to a government office based on the price of my ticket?

The USA has 'citizens' 'foreigners' 'resident aliens' as most other places.

What used to piss me off when flying first class is that would still have to wait for my bags with the rest of the plebs. Can't see why they put that first class tag on it. I'm going to ask that they don't next time.

[expat]

Question: Is Heathrow the only place in the world where if you have purchased a 1st class ticket you can get 'fast track' immigration & passport control?

It makes my blood boil everytime I see it.

Can they actual prevent my access to a government office based on the price of my ticket?

The USA has 'citizens' 'foreigners' 'resident aliens' as most other places.

No. Frankfurt. Faster business class too (!st is not even in my sight as I'm queueing).

I have wondered about that: if they haven't paid more to the airport or the government, why are they getting better treatment? And if they have, how much more? I'd pay a few quid more to get through faster (I just won't pay hundreds more for a guaranteed empy seat beside me and more drink). So let me go First in securrity and Second on the plane....


(Edit) the answer, at least for Immigration at Heathrow, seems to be that they have indeed paid for it, indirectly, because the airline pays:

Bribe your way to the front of the queue in Britain

The Home Office explains that BA covers the cost of the extra member of staff, that there is no burden on the taxpayer and no diminution of existing services to the public. They also insist that once in front of an immigration officer, everyone is treated exactly the same.

[Fishface]

Question: Is Heathrow the only place in the world where if you have purchased a 1st class ticket you can get 'fast track' immigration & passport control?

It makes my blood boil everytime I see it.

Can they actual prevent my access to a government office based on the price of my ticket?

The USA has 'citizens' 'foreigners' 'resident aliens' as most other places.

[ImNotFromIndia]

From the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...577583,00.html

I like this bit:

"Airlines insist that the small print allows them to pass increases in tax on to passengers, but Mr Jack said that small print does not legally apply if the tickets were bought before December 7, the date of Mr Brown’s announcement."

That's me excused.

Yes. you can refuse ... you just won't get on the plane ... that's all.

[tim123]

Do you think it would be OK to retrospectively put up my rate?

If the VAT rate goes up then yes, that's exactly what you do do.

(and the VAT isn't transparent to all clients)

tim

[pisces]

Yes, but have you all noticed how much cleaner the air is today.

No.

[DimPrawn]

Are you saying it isn't "fair"?

[The Lone Gunman]

The airlines deserve a kicking here.

When I quote for a job it is based on what I think it will cost. If I agree a price I stick to it. If inflation goes up or Gordo stiffs me with a tax I have to wear the costs.
The airlines just refuse to carry you untill you have paid. That has got to be illegal.

It can not be right that someone can demand extra money after an agreed (and paid for) sale.

[Moose423956]

Legal expert says passengers can refuse to pay

From the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...577583,00.html

I like this bit:

"Airlines insist that the small print allows them to pass increases in tax on to passengers, but Mr Jack said that small print does not legally apply if the tickets were bought before December 7, the date of Mr Brown’s announcement."

That's me excused.

[hugebrain]

still don't think you have to pay

A question raised this morning on Radio 4. The finance bill containing the tax hike hasn't gone before the house yet so technically if it were overturned the tax would have to be refunded.

How can it be overturned if it has never been passed?

Are you saying that if Gordo unilaterally declared that we had to send him all our money (instead of the paltry sixty something percent we give him now), that we should all pay up now and hope that we get it refunded later? It makes no sense at all.

[malvolio]

I already said, the tax is imposed on the airline, not the passenger. You are at liberty not to pay it to the airline, but I somehow doubt you'll get on the plane...

[expat]

Ermmm - and the practical difference is?

The difference is who is putting up the price. If it's the airline then you might argue with them that you already had a deal with them at a given price. If it's HMG then your argument is with the Govt, and not with the airline. The point being that you have a deal with the airline, you don't with the government.

[Lucifer Box]

The budget airlines are working to such tight margins that they have no choice but to pass it on to passengers. I don't know what else Gordon Brown expected them to do. Therefore it is a de facto tax on passengers, and Gordon is a c***.

Oh, I've already called him that.

Yes, the typical profit margin on a seat on a budget flight is £3 - £5, so it's simply not possible for them to take the hit themselves and stay in business.

[malvolio]

So are they actually collecting the tax specifically (as for example we do with VAT), or are they simply charging a price, some of which happens to be there so that they will have the money to pay their tax?

Ermmm - and the practical difference is?