Survey confirms Air Passenger Duty anger

The growing antagonism of passengers towards Air Passenger Duty (APD) has been highlighted by the findings of a recent survey.

The duty, which is levied on all flights from a United Kingdom airport on any aircraft that has an authorised take-off weight of more than ten tonnes, or more than twenty seats for passengers, has been the subject of dramatic increases in recent times, and has subsequently drawn much criticism.

The new survey, which was carried out by ComRes for UK airports, canvassed the opinions of 2,000 people. An overwhelming 82 percent of those questioned stated that they wanted to see changes to the duty. Meanwhile, a separate survey carried out by the Airport Operators Association (AOA), which involved the opinions of 500 business leaders, found that 73 percent of them believe that in the interest of growth and job creation, the British aviation industry should be supported by the government.

At AOA’s conference, which opened in London today, the organisation is to launch its aviation policy, ‘Integrated Framework for UK Aviation: Connecting the Economy for Jobs and Growth’. The policy, aimed at the government, sets out 25 recommendations to boost the aviation industry, and ultimately the economy of the whole country.

Ed Anderson, the chairman of the AOA, said, ‘Sadly, the government’s draft aviation policy framework is not an integrated aviation policy which will help boost our airports or the UK economy. We think this is a major error, and it is why we are launching our own policy document to hopefully focus the minds. The government has to realise that the aviation industry plays a major role in resolving the ongoing problem of growing the economy – and so we have produced a bold and specifically cross-departmental integrated aviation policy to should what is possible. Our ‘Integrated Framework’ unashamedly promotes the case for aviation and urges the government to do likewise, to ensure our sector can prosper for the ultimate benefit of the whole economy.’