FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1961
1961 - 0554.PDF
564 FEES v. FARES . . . tourist-class and 8d/mile for first-class fares was used for the threeshort Stages which qualify for rebate. For all the rest, including Prestwick, the standard first-class and tourist fares, as shown inthe current ABC World Airways Guide, were used. Next, the aircraft were all assumed to have a standard load factorof approximately 60 per cent allocated, as follows: Boeing 707-320, 30first-class, 70 tourist; Comet 4, 21 first-class, 25 tourist; Viscount,44 tourist; and DC-3, 17 tourist. In each case the aircraft was assumed to have come from the departure point on the bottom ofthe scale and to have landed at London without an intermediate stop. The amount to be paid by each aircraft was then calculatedas a percentage of the gross revenue which the airline would receive for the appropriate flight at the previously stated load factors.This percentage is represented by the columns in the diagram. Inset in the diagram is a representation of the actual first and touristclass single fares to London (single) from these same points. Two most significant points emerge. First, the percentages ofgross revenue absorbed by landing fees bear most heavily not on big aircraft flying long distance stages, as was intended, but uponthe shorter stages. Naturally the rates for a Boeing 707-320 are extremely high when it is operating on a very short sector such asfrom Paris or Luxembourg but it is surprising to discover how closely the percentage taken from a Comet 4 tallies with, or evenexceeds, the Boeing figure. The really alarming discovery is the amount extorted from the short-range operator on routes entirelywithin this country, particularly when it is remembered that over and above these charges he is subjected to a stinging tax of 2s 6dper gallon of petrol if he is still using piston airliners. That the yield from this tax does not go to aviation is no mitigation—itstill forms part of his costs. Relation to Revenues Second, the rates charged have lost any relationship they mightonce have had to revenue earned, since they vary from nearly 16 per cent to just over 1 per cent. And, in all cases when operatinginto the UK, the larger machines have to pay a much higher rate than their smaller contemporaries. It has to be borne in mindthat these columns represent not the actual fee paid but the percen- tage of gross revenue absorbed by that fee. One main contributory factor to the fluctuations is the presentfare structure. Here again there is no such thing as a standard rate per mile and some glaring anomalies come to light. The suddendrop in fares at Oslo is most puzzling, nor is it easy to compre- hend why it costs £8 10s Od more to fly tourist class to Teheranthan to New York, which is 700 miles further away from London. It is quite obvious that the UK intercontinental surcharge hasrelatively little effect upon Atlantic revenues but does hit traffic from, for example, Casablanca and Ankara. Indeed the presentsystem is now so untidy that it should be scrapped and the sums done again. Domestic traffic is penalized to an unwarranted extent FLIGHT, 27 April 1961 and so fares have to remain at a relatively high level. The existir.$fees only hit the big jets when flying on inter-European services and, again, must be partly responsible for high fares. The fairest and most equitable way of making aviation pay areasonable percentage of its revenue lies in taxing tickets, as advocated in Flight for March 16. No matter what is done by wayof juggling with landing fees the increased cost will sooner or lau-r be passed on to the passenger. He might just as well pay a realisticpercentage in the first instance and have done with it. By so doing he might well pay less than he would have to later. If a 2 per centsurcharge were levied then landing fees could be cut to the point where operators would no longer have any grounds for complain'.The airlines would be happy, the passengers would soon cease to grumble, the Ministry of Aviation would have attained its objectof making aviation pay according to its revenue, and it could look forward to seeing its receipts rising in direct proportion to theyearly traffic increases. This should make a pleasant change from the Ministry's present habit of scratching around every year tofind ways and means of bolstering up revenues, having to placate the Select Committee on Estimates, all the while dodging the slingsand arrows of outraged operators. A Tax on Tickets During 1958 no fewer than 4,246,300 passengers left this countryby air for destinations abroad. Disregarding domestic travel for the moment and assuming that international tickets averaged £40each, which is probably an underestimate, then a 2 per cent levy would have brought in £3,397,040. And traffic has increased since. Using this system one could then recast UK landing fees intoa much simpler and easier mould. To start with, the use of the present 1,0001b scale, so confusing to kg users, should be abolishedand the metric tonne, 1,000kg, which is in use all over Europe (except in Portugal) should be adopted. Next, rates should beexpressed in simple fractions of the £. Let's inflict no more 7s 9ds, etc, upon foreigners. Finally, slash domestic rates and tie them tothe use actually made of facilities within the country. The present rebates are too rigid and artificial. It is suggested that the following scale, allied to a 2 per cent ticketlevy, would more than pay present costs and would, possibly, go quite a long way towards wiping out the present UK airport deficit. Proposed New UK Landing-Fees Scale Standard Rate: £0.5 per tonne (no surcharges or passenger servicecharges). Straight-line distance flownDomestic Rate: 10 per cent of standard rate.Domestic rate to apply to subsequent landings of an international flight after first landing. Under 0.5 tonne to be rounded down,0.5 tonne or over to be rounded up. It would not be surprising, if this scale were adopted, to find that before very long airport charges could be reduced still further. SFERMA AND THE TURBOMECA TURBOPROPS: MORE CONVERSIONS THE Sud Aviation subsidiary SFERMAhas for some time been co-operatingwith Turbomeca in converting existing air- craft to Turbomeca turboprop power, workfor which SFERMA is specially well equipped. They already overhaul Paloustesand Artoustes for Djinns and Alouettes, produce Palas booster pods for C-46s andDakotas and have extensive maintainence and modification facilities. The prototypetwin-Astazou Beech Travel Air is now being modified to Baron standard and the firsttwo production Baron airframes are in the shops for modification. They will be"promoted" to Marquis and will sell for £29,800. The Astazous are 440 h.p. versions. Another recent conversion is the DornierDo 27Q4, illustrated here, which was recently completed for Turbomeca. Itsperformance should be most impressive and Dornier are rumoured to be consideringlaying down 100 Astazou-powered Do 27s. Pilatus in Switzerland have made their ownAstazou conversion of a Porter. The French airworthiness authoritieshave authorized a gross weight increase of some 2,7501b for Dakotas equipped with aPalas pod; when the attachments have been fitted the pod can be clipped on in 30min.Cost of a kit of two Palas pods (for the C-46) isNF150,000 (about £11,200).
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
