Yet another proposed tax from our government

[Hymie]

If the news agencies are to be believed, the government is proposing to fine airports for passenger delays - as recently experienced by large numbers of people due to the airports’ inability to deal with inclement weather.

Such a fine would simply be a tax on the air travelling public – any money paid in a fine would come from the passengers (some of whom where delayed), and none of that money would be re-paid to them as way of compensation.

Why do those interviewing those proposing such a fine not point this out to them and ask why Joe Public should be paying additional tax for poor public transport/service (or whatever), surely delayed Joe Public should see this fine directly re-funded to their pockets – and not to the governments coffers.

[237SJ]

I don`t think that`ll be very workable. There are times when airport delays are caused by circumstances out of their control such as thick fog, terrorist activities, fires in terminals etc. It would be so difficult to work out whether a delay is airport`s fault that I can`t see it happening.

[factor-fiction]

I'm not sure I agree.
Something needs to be done. The purpose of the levy would not be to raise money- it would be to persuade airports to do more to improve services, which is what travellers want isn't it? The airports are private businesses- they do not want the additional cost that a tax would bring. They know they can't simply recoup the money by raising prices-it was that easy to raise prices they would be doing it already.
Do you feel the same about extra taxes on bank profits?

[factor-fiction]

Hi S237SJ- my "not sure I agree" was in response to Hymie's post

[ChuckFickens]

It would be quite hard for such a tax/fine to be passed onto passengers seeing as no passenger pays any money to an airport. the passenger pays the airline who then pays the airports landing fees and the airlines would kick up an almighty stink if the charges got shifted onto them.

[webbo3]

How can heavy snow be the airports fault, I remember them saying as fast as they were clearing the runways it was getting covered again.

The only thing they could do is make the delayed passengers more comfortable by letting certain passengers in to the first class areas (the elderly and infirm) this would create more space in the other areas of the airport giving more seating etc, also the airports could provide free drinks and money off vouchers for food etc, I know airlines give vouchers after a certain time period but the airport could also do this in these circumstances

Dave.

[jno]

"as fast as they were clearing the runways it was getting covered again"

Well, not really, Heathrow still had only one runway functioning days after it had stopped snowing. They aren't sorting it out nearly quickly enough.

I think factor's analysis of where the money comes from is correct.

[factor-fiction]

Thanks jno, but I think it was ChuckFickens that gave details of where the airports get their money from.

[jno]

oh yes, well I think both of you were right. It will hit airlines before consumers and they will not be keeping quiet about it.

[Gromit]

The Airports are not Public Transport/Services, they are Private companies. They make lots of money and they pay shareholders.

The bad weather has exposed that some airports have under invested in systems and equipment to the extent that a little bit of snow can put the Airport out of action for several days. It was not all Airports, many were barely affected.

The Airports are obliged to provide a service, and just like badly run train operators are fined for poor service, then badly run Airports should also be fined.

It is only when it starts affecting their profitabilty, that some companies take notice.

[ChuckFickens]

People also seem to forget that a lot of the temperatures we have seen this year are the lowest on record, ever! It doesn't really make sense for any private business (or public body) to invest millions in equipment to deal with a situation that may not happen again for another 100years!

I'm sure the same people that are complaining we do not have the infrastructure in place to deal with the sort of weather we have had lately will also be complaining if millions were spent on equipment to deal with this sort of weather only for it to sit unused for years.

[jno]

Chuck, this is the third cold winter in a row. It seems at least possible that the preceding run of mild winters, rather than the current run of cold ones, is the blip rather than the norm.

But it's not just the statistical probability of bad weather that BAA has to calculate, but the number of people, and the amount of business, it may affect. A grass strip runway may not be worth de-icing; one of the busiest airports in the world certainly is. Thouugh BAA is a private company, it is also one providing a monopoly public service, and so it needs monitoring in a way that Marks & Sparks don't.

[237SJ]

They should just increase the ability of the airlines who are BAA`s customers to claim compensation when things don`t run as they should. It doesn`t matter where in the world it is, if 5inches of snow is going to dump on your runway there is nothing that can be done about it. However, the BAA doesn`t have enough snow clearing equipment. The runway and taxiways shouldn`t have been closed 2 days after the event. Last year was a snowy winter as well but even if this sort of thing happens once in a decade there should be the equipment to deal with it. A snow plough costs 500000$. BAA made £1bn profit. They can afford a couple of extra ones

[Gromit]

// Earlier this year, BAA published an investment programme of £5.1bn for Heathrow over five years, of which £500,000 was invested in snow and ice-fighting technology this year, with another £3m planned for the next four years.

By comparison, reports suggest that Gatwick Airport, which is half the size of Heathrow and was sold by BAA last year, spent £1m on snow and ice this year and plans to spend another £7m next year.

Heathrow's "snow fleet" is made up of 69 vehicles; Gatwick's is a reported 150. //

[rov1200]

Heathrow and Gatwick are both run by BAA. If Gatwick had 150 snow vehicles and Heathrow only 69 there is something amiss in their operations. As Gatwick is only about 50 miles away round the M25 couldn;t they have transported a few to help out?

[boxtops]

They commented on the radio this morning that Continental airports had dozens of snowploughs out straight away, and the UK airports had far less.

[chelle7272]

If our airports ahd invested in equipment to combat this kind of weather previously people would have compleined that there was no point as we don't have such low temperatures or heavy snow.
They have promised to invest in this in future if this is what customers want them to spend funds on - I think that's fair all things considered.

[Hymie]

I still don’t understand – why should the airports not pay these multimillion-pound fines directly to me, rather than the government – after all, I’m more likely to be affected than they are?

In fact, I’m going to dream up all sorts of targets that utilities and other private companies routinely fail to meet – and fine them, thereby becoming an instant millionaire. This looks even better than a Nigerian 419 scam to me (albeit run legally by HM Government).

[237SJ]

rov1200, Gatwick is not owned by BAA. BAA sold it so there wouldn`t be any sharing of equipment.