From City AM Forum:
The deficit needs paying down and Air Passenger Duty is regarded as a relatively painless way of achieving this.
However, an in-depth analysis by PwC found that APD abolition would actually increase government revenues, as other indirect taxes rise from the resulting economic bounce. In the long term, it’s also estimated that 60,000 new British jobs would be created.
The Treasury refutes these findings, but continues to stonewall calls for it to undertake its own study into the economic impact of a reduction or abolition of APD.
APD rises also sit at odds with government rhetoric on ensuring the UK is “open for business”. Levying thousands of pounds on business delegations visiting the UK undermines this aspiration. And flyers are motivated if nothing else than by price.
Unfortunately, they have no evidence to back any of this up and PwC's report is just drivel.
Fact is, London airports are running very near capacity and most flights are full, there is no scope for more 'job creation' until we allow airports to expand, so like in any monopoly/rationing situation, ticket prices are set by "what the market will bear" and the airlines pay the APD out of their gross income inclusive of APD.
Of course, APD is a bad tax in itself, and would be best replaced by simply regularly auctioning off the very limited number of landing slots to the highest bidders, regardless of where the planes came from or are going.
This would easily raise as much money as the APD with no distortions whatsoever - as the article says, people flying to Schiphol and then changing to a long haul flight is a complete waste ot time and resources - but with a payment per slot, regardless of where the plane is headed would solve this once and for all.
Debate Magazine
