Operators mount APD legal challenge
Leading tour operators are to mount a legal challenge to the latest hike in Air Passenger Duty which has cost the industry an estimated £50 million.
Members of the Federation of Tour Operators begin a challenge today in the High Court to the government through a Judicial Review of the legality of APD and the way the recent increase in the tax has impacted on operators.
A verdict is expected by the end of the month.
Former Chancellor Gordon Brown announced last December that APD would double from February 1, 2007.
The lack of notice given to operators – just seven weeks – is what has triggered the legal action from leading FTO members.
This lack of adequate notice – always given to the industry in the past – has cost the sector an estimated £50 million, according to the FTO.
Operators work on long lead times and, unlike airlines, are largely precluded by law from passing on surcharges for unexpected new costs to passengers who have already booked.
There are three main strands to the tour operators’ challenge to the government:
- First that it is an illegal tax as it is in breach of Article 15 of the Chicago Convention which effectively says taxes can only be levied on flights if they are in return for cost based services provided – security, air traffic control etc. APD is not related to any such services.
- Secondly that it breaches the human rights of tour operators by failing to give sufficient notice of the change, forcing them to absorb substantial unplanned costs.
- And lastly that APD is in breach of the Treaty of Rome which enshrines the right to the free movement of goods and services across the EU.
FTO director general Andy Cooper said: “Our industry is acutely aware of its environmental responsibilities, and is actively leading in a variety of ways to meet the challenges.
“But we will not accept any further post-rationalised ‘greenwashed’ claims for APD to justify this controversial stealth tax increase. APD was not introduced nor intended as an environmental measure and indeed its impact is perverse.
“As a tax levied on passenger numbers, not aircraft, it penalises environmentally friendly airlines with high load factors and rewards those with half empty flights.
“The legal action is primarily directed at the way the Government chose to introduce new APD rates which has forced us to use all means possible to defend the sector from the entirely avoidable consequences.’
by Phil Davies
Phil Davies
Vegas’s Billion-Dollar Secrets – What They Don’t Want Tourists to Know
Visit Florida’s New CEO Bryan Griffin Shares His Vision for State Tourism with Graham
Chicago’s Tourism Renaissance: Graham Interviews Kristin Reynolds of Choose Chicago
Graham Talks with Cassandra McCauley of MMGY NextFactor About the Latest Industry Research
Destination International’s Andreas Weissenborn: Research, Advocacy, and Destination Impact
Graham and Don Welsh Discuss the Success of Destinations International’s Annual Conference
Graham and CEO Andre Kiwitz on Ventura Travel’s UK Move and Recruitment for the Role
Brett Laiken and Graham Discuss Florida’s Tourism Momentum and Global Appeal
Graham and Elliot Ferguson on Positioning DC as a Cultural and Inclusive Global Destination
Graham Talks to Fraser Last About His England-to-Ireland Trek for Mental Health Awareness
Kathy Nelson Tells Graham About the Honour of Hosting the World Cup and Kansas City’s Future
Graham McKenzie on Sir Richie Richardson’s Dual Passion for Golf and His Homeland, Antigua
ADS PRO 
Qatar Airways offers flexible payment options for European travellers
Phocuswright reveals the world's largest travel markets in volume in 2025
Cyclone in Sri Lanka had limited effect on tourism in contrary to media reports
Skyscanner reveals major travel trends 2026 at ITB Asia
Higher departure tax and visa cost, e-arrival card: Japan unleashes the fiscal weapon against tourists