Hi
Well the low cost airlines that use Liverpool airport are not going to like this one. Easyjet, Ryanair & Flyglobespan will all be effected by this news. The airport are trying to impose a £2 charge on all departing passengers.
Anyway here a news artical from the Liverpool daily post. http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpooldailypost/news/regionalnews/tm_headline=easyjet-in-row-with-john-lennon-airport-&method=full&objectid=18315595&siteid=50061-name_page.html
Easyjet in row with John Lennon Airport Dec 23 2006
by Bill Gleeson, Business Editor, Liverpool Daily PostAIRLINE giant Easyjet yesterday put itself on a collison course with executives at Liverpool John Lennon Airport as it launched a campaign to oppose the airport’s proposed new security charges.
The operator, probably Liverpool’s most important, says it is angry that JLA is attempting to impose a £2 charge on all passengers as they pass through barriers at the entrance to the departures lounge.
The airline has said it will be at hand to challenge any attempt by the airport to extract payment from passengers.
Earlier this month, JLA leaders revealed a plan to make the charge in the light of what it says is rising security costs since an alleged plot was uncovered last August to blow up transatlantic flights using liquid explosives.
JLA has tried to ask the airlines and government to meet the rising costs, but they have refused to do so. As a result, the airport is now going direct to passengers.
At £2 a head for each departing passenger, the charge should raise in the region of £5m a year.
A spokesman for Easyjet said: “They have been speaking to us for some time, but we said we have a long-term contract and that’s it.”
The airline does not accept that security costs have risen sufficiently to justify the extra charges.
“All airports around the country face the same problem and they haven’t come to us,” said the spokesman.
“We are angry about this. We don’t think they have a right to take any money from our passengers.
“We just hope the airport does the right thing and that Mr Pakey (JLA chief executive) comes to his senses between now and the New Year and realises that this is the wrong thing to do.”
Two weeks ago, JLA said it was considering asking passengers to pay a £2 fee to pass through London underground-style ticket barriers before entering security. The airline says the new charge will come into effect from January 1, but the airport insists no start date has yet been set.
“If this charge is actually imposed, Easyjet is strongly urging its passengers to say no to Liverpool Airport,” said the spokesman.
Over the coming days Easyjet says it will launch an advertising campaign, e-mail all passengers due to fly from Liverpool Airport at the start of the year and position representatives at JLA on the day the charge is introduced “to ensure the unhindered passage of its customers through the Airport.”
Neil Pakey, JLA managing director, said: “Any new initiative has no start date on it.
“We are angry about this. We don’t think they have a right to take any money from our passengers.
“We just hope the airport does the right thing and that Mr Pakey (JLA chief executive) comes to his senses between now and the New Year and realises that this is the wrong thing to do.”
Two weeks ago, JLA said it was considering asking passengers to pay a £2 fee to pass through London underground-style ticket barriers before entering security. The airline says the new charge will come into effect from January 1, but the airport insists no start date has yet been set.
“If this charge is actually imposed, Easyjet is strongly urging its passengers to say no to Liverpool Airport,” said the spokesman.
Over the coming days Easyjet says it will launch an advertising campaign, e-mail all passengers due to fly from Liverpool Airport at the start of the year and position representatives at JLA on the day the charge is introduced “to ensure the unhindered passage of its customers through the Airport.”
Neil Pakey, JLA managing director, said: “Any new initiative has no start date on it.
“We all have to remind ourselves why we have to do something. Ever since September 11 we have had mandatory requirements from the Department for Transport for changes in security provision. These new costs are not picked up in Easyjet’s contract.
“We have to do something.
“What we have achieved in the last four months in particular is best in class. We have managed the flow of passengers very well.
“We have taken on more new people
“Market research shows that people would rather pay a modest sum to ensure fast and safe throughput at security. We don’t want ot jeopardise performance.
“We have reassurred them and advised them that nothing would commence without 14 days notice.”
Mr Pakey said one solution might be to offer passengers a choice with a fast lane for those prepared to pay the extra charge for additional security staff and a slower lane for passengers who don’t want to pay.
By: Skymonster - 30th December 2006 at 21:58
As the charge is technically not leved by airlines or really has much legally to do with them it would not have to feature in the T&C. It would be viewed as a contract, of sorts, between you and the airport.
I think it would be reasonable to contend that, as the airline has been contracted to transport a passenger from one airport to another, they have at the very least a duty of care to advise passengers of additional charges associated with that transportation – the airline is transporting passengers from [say] Liverpool to Geneva, not from airside at Liverpool to Geneva. Also, having paid a “security fee” as part of the total cost of said transportation and seeing as the airline is not directly involved in security, I think it would be reasonable to contend that the security fee represented the total paid fo said security, not just a part of it. I accept that a precident may have been set in some countries where there is a locally paid departure tax that is not included with ticket purchase, but I still think that if Liverpool go ahead and implement this charge someone needs to challenge the legality of it both in principal an in the context of the airline’s terms and conditions of carriage and booking conditions that we’re all invited to read as we book flights these days.
Andy
By: andrewm - 30th December 2006 at 19:35
I think, if it goes ahead, someone needs to challenge this (in court if necessary) – I don’t necessarily mean you or I, but maybe the consumer association, or another trade body.
Agreed
As far as I can see, if I’ve paid for a flight and the charges include security taxes and charges and there are no conditions that state that I will be subject to security charges applied by the airport.
As the charge is technically not leved by airlines or really has much legally to do with them it would not have to feature in the T&C. It would be viewed as a contract, of sorts, between you and the airport.
By: Skymonster - 30th December 2006 at 17:01
I think, if it goes ahead, someone needs to challenge this (in court if necessary) – I don’t necessarily mean you or I, but maybe the consumer association, or another trade body.
As far as I can see, if I’ve paid for a flight and the charges include security taxes and charges and there are no conditions that state that I will be subject to security charges applied by the airport, I believe a passenger would be within their legal rights to refuse to pay the charge. Now the airport may then refuse to screen the passenger and thus the passenger might not be able to fly, but as I say I think there must be a legal recourse to remedy the situation and stop airports doing this.
The bottom line is that it seems to be that its Liverpool’s own stupid fault – they negotiated deals with airlines that they now find they aren’t able to make any money on, and are forcing passengers to pay for the airport’s greed when it came to winning business from the airlines. The airport should be forced to suck it up and not charge anymore unless and until they can renegotiate their deals with the airlines.
Andy
Andy
By: chrism20 - 30th December 2006 at 08:29
I am surprised EZY got in the press before FR on this one. This is usually a prime topic for the O’Leary toys to start flying (maybe he got a nice new shiny one for Christmas and doesn’t want to damage it yet 😀 )
On the other hand though cast your mind back to when Barclays bank bought a share in LTN and EZY went all out there to expose the charge and actively publicised the charge for what it was
And why has such a charge not been announced at the other two airports in the group?
By: andrewm - 30th December 2006 at 04:35
I think the likes of Ryanair are responsible for the end result of charging pax.
At Londonderry Airport (EGAE) they were given over £1million to promote the London Stansted service by the local council. This was in addition to fees for landing and per pax that are hardly worth mentioning due to the haggling of FR.
FR (and the rest) seem to be able to too easily make airports believe they need the airline and not the other way around.
The airlines are not state run, they are private companies making lots of money yet they resent any additional charges that are needed for things such as security. (things that keem them flying)
Their marketing is superb, general punters seem to think its the airport and governments fault yet really one could agrue the airline could be a little more “co-operative” when it comes to at least part obsorbing the costs.
By: keltic - 29th December 2006 at 23:08
I have always wondered, why should taxpayers pay for something which is the goverment duty. In the UK, some airports are private, but in Spain where all bellong to the state, this measure wouldn´t be really popular.
Protecting an airport, is the same to protect a street, an embassy, a shopping centre, and so on. Police is part of the state, and paid by people taxes. So why should airports be different?.
I don´t know what happens in a private one, if police are private or goverment dependant. I hope you could clarify this point. I think it´s a bad move for an airport which has been fighting to attract new airlines, and that´s a bit unnecessary.
Safety costs shouldn´t be paid directly by the passengers. It should be raised by inderect ways (landing taxes, parking fees, even lease of the airport premises). I wonder if passengers are responsible for the safety costs.
By: SHAMROCK321 - 28th December 2006 at 20:55
Well Im sure U2 and GSM will make their feelings felt but this is something which FR could fall out with the airport over. Its happened before and I wouldnt be surprised if we saw FR routes from LPL being moved to MAN.
Stranger things have happened!
By: bmi-star - 28th December 2006 at 19:36
Yup saw this in the North Wales Daily Post about a week ago, i’m gonna jump those barriers when i go to BCN in Feb :diablo:
Or i’ll use the excuse i only have Cambodian Dollars or something. Don’t they get enough money from the taxes they raise or something!?
Its daylight robbery 😡
Sign In
December 28, 2006 at 6:50 pm