jayer

With apologies since I can't seem to find what seemed like a relevant thread. I thought I had read one previously. But I guess I need to just start a new one.

Could anyone who flies BA more than me please direct me to a proper form to request refund of the UK departure tax. Touched down in London both ways long enough to change between AA and BA. Should not have been charged departure tax as I originated both trips outside of the UK. But was. Apparently an error in linking the tickets, which I didn't realize till hurrying to make the return connection.

AA said just wait till you get home. They were quite prompt in issuing the refund, less a processing fee retained by the crown.

BA on the other hand, whether by AI review or a person who didn't bother to read the message carefully, did not grasp the question at all and sent back a dismissive note that was curt, short, and rude. To say they missed the point would be kind.

Perhaps there is some specific online form I should have filled out, rather than ending in a generic request for assistance? Can one of you direct me to a better method of contact?

I believe there is a UK government agency one can escalate to if the airline is unresponsive?

Finally, how much is a short haul tax to the Netherlands from Heathrow? I would say it might not be enough to be worth my trouble, but the reply was so frustrating. I might just like to escalate the claim to the UK equivalent of a DOT complaint. Just because they would have to answer it..

Thanks

corporate-wage-slave

Would this be one PNR or two? If two, then I doubt you will get anything out of BA since it's the separate contracts argument. If one, then you should be able to apply for a refund via the complaints portal, and escalate to CEDR (an alternative dispute resolution service) after 8 weeks. You can't escalate it to HMRC since this duty is entirely devolved to the operating airline (and there is no Crown fee - it's not refunded via HMRC either).

bisonrav

See Air Passenger Duty and connected flights - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Noting the definition of connected flights.

If these flights were on different tickets, they cannot be classed as connected flights, so I fear you got lucky with AA in a presumably similar circumstance.

Rates for APD depend on seating pitch and distance. See Rates for Air Passenger Duty - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

guv1976

Not so, and no luck involved with AA, which apparently generates an (internal) "summary" of the two tickets which AA must believe satisfies the requirements of the regulation.

I don't think that BA takes the same approach.

bisonrav

According to "the basics" section at the first link, "Connected flights must be shown on the same ticket or on conjunction tickets and meet the time-related rules."

If this was two separate tickets with one US->LHR and another LHR->AMS then they were not connected on this basis, and I don't believe there was a conjunction under the definition unless the tickets were formally joined into a single itinerary with both tickets referring to each other. I'm not sure what this means exactly anyway.

You can have two PNRs on a single ticket, and this is quite frequent. But if you have two separate tickets with two separate airlines under two separate contracts, they're not connected under the definition as far as I can see. It'd be lovely if I were wrong about this, because if I was I could reclaim a lot of UK departure tax for trips that happened to start within 24 hours of the preceding one finishing and which could be seen as connecting.

I think the duty for Band A on BA would be Ł13, but happy to be corrected on that.

guv1976

This is what the regulation says:

"Tickets are only conjunction tickets if either:

"they’re in one booklet

"in separate booklets where each:

​​​​​​"refers to the other and states that they’re to be read together

"includes a summary of the flights that make up the passenger’s journey"

Assuming these two tickets were not in one "booklet," we have to look at the "separate booklets" option. Note that there is no "and" between the first and second clauses there.

There are reports in the FlyerTalk AA forum of AA's not charging the APD on an AA LHR-U.S. flight when the passenger alerted AA beforehand of a separate flight into LON no more than 24 hours before departure of the AA flight. In one of the cases that I recall, that other flight was an Icelandair cash ticket; in another, it was an intra-European award flight operated by BA. Apparently, if AA can "see" the other ticket in their computer systems, AA can create the requisite "summary," and avoid charging the APD. Whether this is a correct interpretation of HMRC regulations I cannot say, but AA has been doing this for years.

This is the first time I recall hearing of a passenger getting the APD refunded after the flight.

BA6501

I think conjunction tickets are those that are split across two ticket numbers because the 4-segments per e-ticket has been exceeded. E.g. 125-1234567890-91.

guv1976

That's certainly the traditional definition of the term. See, for example, this definition, courtesy of Hawaiian Airlines:

"Conjunction Ticket means two or more tickets concurrently issued to a passenger and which together constitute a single contract of carriage."

Source:

https://www.hawaiianairlines.com/leg...01-definitions


​​​​​​The problem is that HMRC's definition is (arguably) broader.

oldfolky

I am entertained that the regulations still refer to booklets, I don’t think I have seen a ticket booklet since the 90s

R2

A related question: I see many of the rates go up 1 April 2025. Is the rate charged based on ticket purchase date or ticketed travel date? TIA

Finland Station

Never mind what the law says. Presumably the OP has seen the state of the UK. Might s/he consider donating that money to a country in need?

corporate-wage-slave

That's actually the answer: the regulations relate to paper tickets, and if you think paper tickets you will know what is and what is not a conjunction ticket. etickets still largely mirror paper tickets, hence all sorts of non digital rules as to how construct etickets which reflect the only way they could be introduced without blowing up computer architecture from the 1960s. Some of which is still there. Hence my answer above about whether it was 2 PNRs. Now anyone who works with paper tickets would say "that's not the same thing", and it's not. A PNR can have multiple tickets in it and not be conjoined, but it's probably good enough from HMRC's - or rather BA's - point of view.

As for AA, they probably want to avoid a mob of CKs tipping one of their lovely Embraer 145s into Boston Harbor.

KARFA

travel date.

JAXBA

To expand upon this part, with current ticketing methods, it's quite easy to endorse one of the tickets to say, for example; "in connection with ticket 125-xxxxxxxxxx" because the BA tkt was issued first, you know the number, and you can add the message to the next tkt before issuing the next ticket…

It is impossible however to then go back to the BA tkt and then add any message about anything - so the tkt issued 1st can never ever refer to the 2nd, and so can't comply with the regulation. There isn't a way of complying, it just can't be done.


To still get a refund of one of the amounts paid is a win.

guv1976

I take it that AA considers this clause as a separate option, and is relying on it:

"includes a summary of the flights that make up the passenger’s journey"

As I noted earlier, I can't say whether AA is interpreting the regulation correctly, but I would be surprised if a large carrier like AA, which undoubtedly has lawyers and tax-compliance people, would be waiving the APD in these situations unless they thought that they were on firm legal ground.

It's certainly poor draftsmanship on the part of HMRC not to have inserted either an "and" or an "or" between the two clauses in the regulation dealing with separate tickets.