Cheap flights bad...

[Flyfisher]

For a number of reasons having a booming tourist industry is possibly a good thing. It is also possibly not a bad thing that people are encouraged to remain in this country for holidays, or at least short breaks, instead of flying off for weekends and spending cash in economies elsewhere.

It follows, therefore, that it's a good thing that people from outside the UK are encouraged to visit us. Indeed, the government spends some of our taxes to expressly encourage such travel - http://www.tourismtrade.org.uk/aboutvisitbritain/default.asp. Presumably, budget flights can only help this boost to our economy, which is possibly why the government refrains from adding VAT to aviation fuel?

It would appear that Travelodge believes (as do many others) that the 'cheap flights' bonanza is aided by the failure to impose VAT on air travel (aviation fuel).

A rather strange belief, considering that VAT on aviation fuel would have a far greater effect on non-budget flights, i.e. scheduled flights used mainly by business travellers. Perhaps this is another reason that the government refrains from adding VAT to aviation fuel?

I suspect that most cheap flights are out of the country not internal ones.

Most cheap flights might well be international, but no airline operates 'one-way' flights and they are equally capable of bringing overseas visitors into the UK. If those visitors choose to do so, of course.

It seems that, like so many of these complex issues, there are inherent conflicts in the system; e.g. international tourism is deemed to be good but budget flights that encourage it are deemed to be bad.

I do not wish to engage in discussion regarding those views. If others do, I suggest they begin a fresh thread.

It's your choice to engage or not, of course, but please abide by the forum rules and don't try to moderate the discussion:

Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". If members note an issue which contravenes something in this policy document they are welcome to bring it to the attention of a member of the Moderator Team. Only do this if a moderator team member has not replied within 48 hours. Do not respond to such topics yourself. Members who consistenly "act" as moderators may be warned.

 

[Nemesis]

I have nothing to say to you. I would prefer it if you did not follow me around this forum and obsessively nitpick every post, but of course I cannot prevent it.

If you wish to complain about anything I post to Rob and Simon you are free to do so.

I suggested a fresh thread as this one has become so far off topic and convoluted that a fresh discussion may have been better.

 

[Moo]

The problem with imposing tax on aviation fuel is, possibly the fact that airlines, like haulage firms, will just find ways of buying their fuel elsewhere.
Ideally there would be international agreement about using taxation as a way of reducing the number of flights.

 

[Flyfisher]

I have nothing to say to you.

Clearly you do.

I would prefer it if you did not follow me around this forum and obsessively nitpick every post, but of course I cannot prevent it.

You could prevent it by not posting, as you continually suggest.

If you wish to complain about anything I post to Rob and Simon you are free to do so.

Of course I am, and if I wanted to I would, but I don't and I haven't. I just thought a friendly reminder of the forum rules might be in order.

I suggested a fresh thread as this one has become so far off topic and convoluted that a fresh discussion may have been better.

The title of the topic is 'Cheap flights bad' and I was expressly discussing budget airline issues, thus bringing the discussion back on topic.

 

[Nemesis]

I do not wish to engage in discussion with you.

 

[Flyfisher]

The problem with imposing tax on aviation fuel is, possibly the fact that airlines, like haulage firms, will just find ways of buying their fuel elsewhere.
Ideally there would be international agreement about using taxation as a way of reducing the number of flights.

Good point. And, ironically, it's likely to be the budget airlines that would find it easier to avoid UK-only VAT because they typically operate over the shorter routes and could therefore carry sufficient fuel to avoid refuelling in the UK. This would be far harder, probably impossible, for the long-haul operators.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Good.

In fact the Press Release was a short report of part of a Commons Select Committee hearing on tourism in this country. ............

Thanks for that whole post, it has made a lot of issues clear.

 

[Moo]

This would be far harder, probably impossible, for the long-haul operators.

I don't think it would be impossible, though. They'd just have to make a little detour to a north European airport and top up there.

So many of our problems are the result of increased prosperity, though. In the olden days only the very well-off minority could afford cars, let alone cheap flights. Now any Tom, Dick or Harry can do it. Henry Ford has a lot to answer for.

 

[Nemesis]

A link to the Heathrow protest site:

http://www.stopheathrowexpansion.com/

A local authority and a link to the consultation paper:


http://www.richmond.gov.uk/home/environment/pollution/noise_pollution/aircraft_noise/heathrow_expansion.htm


http://www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/display.var.604198.0.heathrow_expansion_would_obliterate_village_to_make_way_for_runway.php

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't think it would be impossible, though. They'd just have to make a little detour to a north European airport and top up there.

True, I hadn't thought of that, although it would add quite a bit of time to a journey. It might also encourage a move away from Heathrow as a major international hub, which I suppose has pros and cons but so often these things can have major unintended consequences.

So many of our problems are the result of increased prosperity, though. In the olden days only the very well-off minority could afford cars, let alone cheap flights. Now any Tom, Dick or Harry can do it. Henry Ford has a lot to answer for.

I suspect if Henry Ford hadn't done it someone else would have. But I certainly agree that increased prosperity brings its own problems (unintended consequences again). I don't recall any of my friends going abroad on holiday when I was at school but these days even school trips to Europe and USA seem fairly commonplace.

Mind you, traffic problems are not just down to the motor car. I recall reading about projections that London would be six feet deep in horse dung by (I forget) if something wasn't done about the congestion. At least the car saved us from that :wink:

 

[skier-hughes]

Don't worry folks I'm doing a Nemesis.

OK Graham - I will ignore you, you ignore my posts.

This is your way of ignoring me is it?

Good.

In fact the Press Release was a short report of part of a Commons Select Committee hearing on tourism in this country.

Which folks we obviously can't disagree with, however flawed the arguement

It was not simply a piece of Travelodge PR as some seemed to think, who clearly had not read the thread carefully. You don't turn up at a Commons Select Committe as a bit of PR, believe me. You turn up, having put forward your evidence first in written form, fully briefed with facts at hand and expect a grilling. Not something to be taken lightly, as anyone who has been involved can testify.

Travelodge gave evidence, as have others connected with tourism in this country. For a number of reasons having a booming tourist industry is possibly a good thing. It is also possibly not a bad thing that people are encouraged to remain in this country for holidays, or at least short breaks, instead of flying off for weekends and spending cash in economies elsewhere.

The hearing at the CSC will,as I have pointed out, be available, as uncorrected oral evidence, on the CSC website very shortly. I can't find the written memoranda so maybe as yet nothing has been published. This seems to be becoming increasingly common, it used to be the case that all submissions were avaiable in print and on the CSC website.

It would appear that Travelodge believes (as do many others) that the 'cheap flights' bonanza is aided by the failure to impose VAT on air travel (aviation fuel). I suspect that most cheap flights are out of the country do these not come back again? not internal ones. I also doubt that a huge numbrer of flights cost nothing, so VAT would then bring nothing back in revenue. I flew to Edinburgh for 4p and returned for 0p. I am flying to Belfast for 4p and flying back from Dublin for £12. If you book at the right time you can buy cheap flights, there are plenty of them. There is a view that unfettered air travel is currently being bolstered by unsustainable levels of cheap flights. This in turn means that claims that Stansted (and possibly Heathrow) need to continue to expand, with the attendant environmental damage which would ensue, maybe based on an unsustainable projected level of growth in air travel.

The entire second runway issue at Stansted is causing a great deal of uncertainty in the surrounding area, and blight. That may be sound business sense to BAA and Graham, See you misinterpret me yet again, please read the posts adnd digest it properly - I said that sounding out what the lay of the land is first makes good business sense. Let's see how many people buy a listed building to find that they can't change it how they wish, now if they'd found out the lay of the land first, checked with planning and got an idea of what the neighbours think etc, then they'd know whether to make a bid on the property. Same with BAA. the idea that they moot a second runway but don't seem to have the finance to do it and have not as yet even submitted an application, but to those living with the uncertainty regarding their homes, communities and environment it is not a pleasant thing. I agree this is not a pleasant thing for those around the area.

BAA ( a commercial company) did apply to massively expand the number of flights out of Stansted using the existing runway. This application was turned down by the local authority, naturally concerned at the noise and environmental damage. This application then went to a public inquiry last summer. The outcome is still awaited. The SPAB gave evidence at that inquiry.

It will be interesting (at least I will be interested) to read the full report of last week's proceeding when it appears.

One worrying side issue is the current planning bill going through Parliament, which will curtail the public's right to protest at such things as airport expansion. This seems to me to be a denial of democracy, as decisons such sas this should not be left to government departments and at times far from impartial advisers and commercial interets.

The above is a very brief overview of some of the issues involved.

If anyone wished to delve further I am sure there is a great deal of wider reading they can do. I have posted a link to the CSC site, the Stop Stansted site, and the local authority site where there is more information. Google is avaiable also.

Don't shoot the messenger - nobody did until the messenger shot at us, we all just nickpicked at the report. If you don't want to read nickpicking of the reports, then post them and then forget them.or bother, anyone, to cut and paste and forensically nitpick every word I have said in this very rapid post. It is here to attempt to show that the perceived ills of staying an a Travelodge is possibly not the major issue here.

This point is correct, it is not whether staying at a travelodge is a major issue, it is the credit worthyness of their evidence, they have proven to be a poor company in many peoples eyes, so how poor is their report? They also have a vested interest, so hardly neutral.

I appreciate that some here think expansion of airports and air travel is a good thing. They are entitled to those views. Personally, I disagree with them. I do not wish to engage in discussion regarding those views. If others do, I suggest they begin a fresh thread.

 

[Nemesis]

More here about Heathrow expansion, including picture albums of what would be lost (that includes Harmondsworth Barn):

http://www.hillingdontimes.co.uk/display.var.604198.0.heathrow_expansion_would_obliterate_village_to_make_way_for_runway.php

Travelodge said airlines received an unfair advantage from the government because they do not pay VAT on international ticket sales. It estimated that a 10% reduction in overseas flights by British holidaymakers over the next 10 years would create 31,250 jobs and generate £1bn for regional tourism.

The hearing at the CSC will,as I have pointed out, be available, as uncorrected oral evidence, on the CSC website very shortly. I can't find the written memoranda so maybe as yet nothing has been published. This seems to be becoming increasingly common, it used to be the case that all submissions were avaiable in print and on the CSC website.

Quotes from Graham in blue above regarding my very rapid overview contain certain statements which I do not believe are the full picture. .

I am not prepared to spend any longer on this, I feel that his information is sketchy however and this should be pointed out to anyone reading this.

(The purpose of an all-party Commons Select Committee is to investigate issues. They question and cross examine the evidence of any witnesses called. Eventually such findings and recommendations will be published. The Government will then respond.)

 

[Moo]

I recall reading about projections that London would be six feet deep in horse dung by (I forget) if something wasn't done about the congestion.

I once asked my grandfather (b.1881) what he thought of modern London after he'd spent a day around his childhood stamping-grounds in his late eighties. I'd assumed that he would comment on the noise and dirt, but replied quite vehemently that it was all a great improvement. He went on to paint a graphic picture of the noise (iron-rimmed wheels + horse-shoes + angry drivers) and the dirt. No need these days, he said, for crossing-sweepers.

 

[Nemesis]

I also add - as a counterbalance - I have stayed in Travelodges frequently. I have made use of the cheap deals. I do not expect 5 star luxury. I have never had any cause for complaint.

Travelodge chief executive Grant Hearn said: “Today we called on the Government to embrace tourism as a national economic priority and address the complete lack of a coherent business plan for British tourism growth.

We suggested that the prime minister follows the example of successful European tourism economies by moving tourism from a culture to an industry focused department.

http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/news/index.php

 

[Flyfisher]

http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews55571.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/29/travelleisure.ryanair

http://www.travelbite.co.uk/newsbrief/travel-advice/travel-trends/in-defence-cheap-flights-$485145.htm

 

[Schoolmarm]

Don't worry folks I'm doing a Nemesis.

 

[Nemesis]

Gosh that's clever - how did you do that?

Really had me fooled for a second or several!

 

[Schoolmarm]

Did you try and pick the nit off your screen?

 

[Nemesis]

Fraid so!

Well my eyesight isn't great... took a moment or so...

 

[Nemesis]

Anyhoo. What say you we decamp elsewhere?

Bricks and Brass or IHBC?

http://www.bricksandbrass.co.uk/


http://wonfordweb.co.uk/punbb/index.php



Any other suggestions?