How to avoid the airport public transport tax surcharges.

[neilmc]

BUDAPEST AIRPORT - BUDAPEST CENTRE

The direct bus number 100E costs 1500HUF (about £3.30)

However if you catch bus 200E from the airport to Kobanya-Kispest interchange then catch the metro each section costs 350HUF plus if you buy city travelcards at the airport they are valid on the 200E/metro but not on the 100E, and the metro may well take you closer to where you want to go.

The 200E will also take you to the airport railway station and you can get a train to Nyugati station if this is convenient or you are connecting to somewhere else from there by train, this train fare depends on the type of train you catch but I think you can use a travelcard again. Last time we were in Hungary we came in from the east (Szolnok) directly to the airport station without traversing Budapest at all.

Having said that I don't really consider 1500HUF an onerous fare compared to the UK ripoffs.

 

[deltic]

Yes i suppose technically some of them are not taxes or surcharges. It is just a case of public transport companies profiteering as they know that they can get away with charging more for airport services. But i just did not know what other term to use.

No it's a case of making some of the richest people in society pay the full cost of their transport, not clear why tax payers should subsidise people travelling to and from airports.

 

[redreni]

Regarding the thread title, I believe 'premium' is how transport planners describe the difference between the fares to/from airports compared to the regular public transport fares. I don't think 'surcharge' is an unfair description at all. 'Tax' may also be fair in some cases, especially if (as in many cities and regions) the government essentially controls the fares, or if the government owns the airport or the infrastructure and levies a charge on transport operators that they know will have to be passed on to passengers. Governments don't get to define which of the charges they impose count as taxes - if they did, nothing would be called a tax.

Worth mentioning the honourable exceptions where no premium is charged: e.g. London City Airport, Lisbon Airport, Toronto Billy Bishop Island Airport, Nuremberg Airport.

And finally, turning to the point of the thread, according to this thread there is a £5.60 fare from Glasgow City Centre to Glasgow Airport via the express bus, though you need to get it from a rail ticket office and they may or may not consider that you need to hold a train ticket (though this isn't stated in the ticket restrictions).

No it's a case of making some of the richest people in society pay the full cost of their transport, not clear why tax payers should subsidise people travelling to and from airports.

I'm all for taxing the rich, however, I'd much rather tax them if they park at the airport or if they are set down or picked up by taxi or private car. It's unclear why you'd want to tax them for taking public transport? That's what we want them to do, isn't it? It's particularly unfortunate if airport workers end up paying the premium airport fares, since they're not rich, generally speaking.

And if you just want to tax airline passengers irrespective of how they travel to or from the airport (which we absolutely should), then you need to do it through duty on aviation fuel and/or air passenger duty.

 

[renegademaster]

Deleted.

 

[deltic]

I'm all for taxing the rich, however, I'd much rather tax them if they park at the airport or if they are set down or picked up by taxi or private car. It's unclear why you'd want to tax them for taking public transport? That's what we want them to do, isn't it? It's particularly unfortunate if airport workers end up paying the premium airport fares, since they're not rich, generally speaking.

And if you just want to tax airline passengers irrespective of how they travel to or from the airport (which we absolutely should), then you need to do it through duty on aviation fuel and/or air passenger duty.

Public transport is generally heavily subsidised. Charging higher fares on airport services which are disproportionately used by higher earners either means we are not subsidising those people or if the service is profitable means better public transport services elsewhere. Many airports do have high charges for parking and also drop-off/pick-up charges. Airport workers often get discounted public transport fares on premium services. There are lots of issues with trying to charge duty on aviation fuel and air passenger duty which if not done at a global or regional levels leads to a number of unintended consequences and distortions in the market.

 

[renegademaster]

Public transport is generally heavily subsidised. Charging higher fares on airport services which are disproportionately used by higher earners either means we are not subsidising those people or if the service is profitable means better public transport services elsewhere. Many airports do have high charges for parking and also drop-off/pick-up charges. Airport workers often get discounted public transport fares on premium services. There are lots of issues with trying to charge duty on aviation fuel and air passenger duty which if not done at a global or regional levels leads to a number of unintended consequences and distortions in the market.

Is air travel really the disproportionately better off, especially among people who'd use public transport once they arrive. A flight is cheaper than a London Glasgow train and you can fly across Europe for £20 with wizz.

Also I suspect airport services are probably one of the few services that can run profitably with a £2 fare. Nothing else can fill an 4bph Enviro400 both ways reliably from 6am till midnight, doubt much subsidy will be involved

 

[redreni]

Public transport is generally heavily subsidised. Charging higher fares on airport services which are disproportionately used by higher earners either means we are not subsidising those people or if the service is profitable means better public transport services elsewhere. Many airports do have high charges for parking and also drop-off/pick-up charges. Airport workers often get discounted public transport fares on premium services. There are lots of issues with trying to charge duty on aviation fuel and air passenger duty which if not done at a global or regional levels leads to a number of unintended consequences and distortions in the market.

Yes, we have drop-off/pick up charges in some places, but they're a joke.

Consider a family of 4 going to Heathrow.

If they drive themselves and park, they only pay for the parking.

If they get dropped off by a friend or a taxi, there's a charge of £1.25 per person (although they can avoid it by being dropped off at the long stay car park and taking the free bus to the terminal).

If they take the Elizabeth Line the premium is £6.65 per adult if travelling via zone 1 (and if we assume the children are over 11 years old, they may or may not be able to access a 50% discount for them). On the Heathrow Express it is nearly £20 per adult (these by comparison with the normal zonal TfL fare).

You've perhaps made a reasonable case for some sort of modest premium on airport services if staff are exempted (which they're not always), but there is no justification whatsoever for the status quo.

When you speak of unintended consequences of taxing aviation fuel I assume you mean tankering? That just needs banning outright, although I accept it's not straightforward to do that. Imposing disproportionate costs on the least irresponsible subset of airline passengers (those who at least use public transport to get between the airport and the city centre) is not a reasonable alternative, though.

Is air travel really the disproportionately better off, especially among people who'd use public transport once they arrive. A flight is cheaper than a London Glasgow train and you can fly across Europe for £20 with wizz.

Also I suspect airport services are probably one of the few services that can run profitably with a £2 fare. Nothing else can fill an 4bph Enviro400 both ways reliably from 6am till midnight, doubt much subsidy will be involved

Agreed.

I've flown domestically four times this year and in each case it is because the flights were cheaper than the train (even factoring in airport transfers), or because I booked the flights when the advance rail fares weren't available yet and I suspected the flights may well be cheaper overall and wasn't going to wait to find out.

I don't think we should make crude assumptions about passengers' income. Rather, we should disincentivise what we want to discourage.

 

[deltic]

Is air travel really the disproportionately better off, especially among people who'd use public transport once they arrive. A flight is cheaper than a London Glasgow train and you can fly across Europe for £20 with wizz.

Yes - from the BBC.

In the UK, 70% of flights are made by a wealthy 15% of the population, with 57% not flying abroad at all.

 

[renegademaster]

In the UK, 70% of flights are made by a wealthy 15% of the population, with 57% not flying abroad at all.

What are the same statistics for trains in the UK? I suspect higher than median income too, especially for intercity.Bus and car and probably more skewed to working class.

 

[Watershed]

When you speak of unintended consequences of taxing aviation fuel I assume you mean tankering? That just needs banning outright, although I accept it's not straightforward to do that.

It'd be almost impossible to ban tankering (you can't really regulate something that happens abroad). But you could quite easily introduce a sales tax for fuel uplifted in the UK, and an equivalent surcharge on the anticipated fuel burn for those airlines that decide to engage in tankering, thus eliminating any financial advantage.

Imposing disproportionate costs on the least irresponsible subset of airline passengers (those who at least use public transport to get between the airport and the city centre) is not a reasonable alternative, though.

Agreed. Unfortunately these passengers are seen as "fair game" for ripoff fares.

 

[redreni]

What are the same statistics for trains in the UK? I suspect higher than median income too, especially for intercity.Bus and car and probably more skewed to working class.

Put it this way: if it is true that airline passengers are rich, that doesn't mean it isn't true that the subset of airline passengers who fly short haul and pay fares that are cheaper than the rail fare for the same journey, are not as rich as those who make the same journey by train.

 

[Gaelan]

My view is that transport to the airport, from some reasonable "local" area, should be included in the price of the plane ticket. Airlines would of course be free to increase airfare to compensate if they think they can get away with it. This would have the benefits of reducing hidden costs, and encouraging the use of public transport to airpots.

 

[redreni]

My view is that transport to the airport, from some reasonable "local" area, should be included in the price of the plane ticket. Airlines would of course be free to increase airfare to compensate if they think they can get away with it. This would have the benefits of reducing hidden costs, and encouraging the use of public transport to airpots.

Fully agree.

We have far too many industries that still have an early post-war era mindset of catering the motorist. I'm getting rather tired of subsidising other people's parking. (I don't mean airports, here, but it's so common for other businesses like restaurants, shops etc to do this that it is almost unfair to single out specific examples.)

We absolutely should normalise the idea that you pay for parking when you use it, but you pay for public transport whether you use it or not.