NV43 wrote:The question is, perhaps, how the Scottish economy might benefit from abolition of APD through an increase in passenger traffic, and receipt of additional taxation from overnight stays and spending, in and around, Scottish airports.
The biggest destination from Scottish airports is London, it's not to stimulate airport business although it has the handy side effect of being a vote winner for Scottish families. Being based next to a Scottish airport, if I need to go to Manchester on business I normally go by car or train, Birmingham normally FlyBe sometimes train if I'm unlucky, London is flying only. If you are based in Manchester, Birmingham or London and have to do business in the rest of the UK chances are you'll go by car or train. So this is essentially a tax on Scotland doing business, Scottish business is more reliant on air transport than their equivalents in the rUK and by cutting the tax the Scottish Parliament is trying to improve business conditions to the detriment of the loss in revenue which is probably insignificant in the scheme of things.
That's why it's particularly galling when fog hits London airports because it's usually the domestic flights cancelled in favour of international flights because apparently 6 hours on a train is a reasonable alternative. [/2cents][/quote]
Fuzzy
Abolishing APD in Scotland will, I believe, be more than balanced by the revenue generated by an increase in passenger numbers, including business travellers.
I'm in agreement on the relative impracticality of reliance on road and rail to reach other parts of the UK; I've tried, in reverse, and it's exhausting, so EDI and INV have been my regular gateways from BHX, BHD, LHR and SOU.
Travelling the evening before has proven to be much more effective, in terms of work throughput, than attempting to get there, and back, in a single day.
It's also, obviously, benefited local hotels and restaurants and, on one occasion, TESCO as I had neglected to pack cufflinks and ties.