airazurxtror wrote:Yesterday, for the seventh time since 11 september 2001, BIAC has increased the security tax at BRU by 2,5 %, bringing it to 6,57 euros per pax. Beginning of 2001, the tax was 150 belgian francs (3,71 euros).
( 7Dimanche, 2 april 2006)
The travellers criticized the too long queues, BIAC has engaged more workers, who have now to be paid...
And the privilege of using "the best airport in Europe" has its price !
BIAC has increased the security tax
Moderator: Latest news team
BIAC has increased the security tax
-
airazurxtror
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 00:00
I don't quite understand why air travellers should have to pay a security tax.
I don't know that the railway travellers have to pay a security tax, though there is a "Railway Police" patrolling in the trains and the stations.
Same for urban transport - although there is also a special police unit set up in the big towns to keep order in the metro stations, buses and trams, I have never heard of a security tax being levied on the users.
Big football matches mobilize many policemen, sometimes dozens or even hundreds of them. However, no security tax is demanded from the spectators.
And rightly so. The tax-payer, in return for the taxes he pays, is entitled to have the State meeting his obligations, and amongst them, the security of his citizens.
I don't see why the airport users, and only them, have to pay (dearly) for it.
I don't know that the railway travellers have to pay a security tax, though there is a "Railway Police" patrolling in the trains and the stations.
Same for urban transport - although there is also a special police unit set up in the big towns to keep order in the metro stations, buses and trams, I have never heard of a security tax being levied on the users.
Big football matches mobilize many policemen, sometimes dozens or even hundreds of them. However, no security tax is demanded from the spectators.
And rightly so. The tax-payer, in return for the taxes he pays, is entitled to have the State meeting his obligations, and amongst them, the security of his citizens.
I don't see why the airport users, and only them, have to pay (dearly) for it.
-
airazurxtror
- Posts: 3769
- Joined: 17 Nov 2005, 00:00
There was a discussion about this in The Netherlands, seems the Minister of Justice wants to pass a law requiring organizers of events to pay for the police presence.airazurxtror wrote:DearAndré,
I am not sure that you are entirely right.
In the case of football matches, I am sure the clubs don't have to pay for the policemen presence.
About air travel security taxes, it probably should be paid from national taxes, not just by the passengers. For one thing, if someone hijacks a plane, and it falls onto your house, you are affected by (the lack of) airport security, even though you didn't go anywhere near a plane (until it dropped onto your house).
In addition, air travel has some kind of effect on the economy as a whole. If people stop travelling by plane, because of some security-related event, it will impact the economy. If you lose your job because your company loses business, because another company, which it did the business with, lost business, because (....insert interesting long supply chain here....) because the airports and airlines see less passengers, you will be affected by (the lack of) airport security, even if you are not a traveller. In fact, a terrorist attack on/with a plane can cause people to become uncertain about the future, and to keep their money stashed away in an old mattress, instead of spending it, thus slowing down the economy. Just look what happened after 9/11.
So no, airport security is not just of interest to those directly involved (us passengers), and probably should be paid for by everybody, not just the travellers.
I haven't really thought of that, to be honest. I also realized that there are 45 million passengers using AMS each year, which is nearly three times the population of the country, and even more times the number of people actually paying taxes. Most are transit passengers, so it would be perhaps quite hard to explain why taxpayers each have to pay the airport security tax for several passengers, most of whom do not spend more than a few hours in the country. Such a scheme would obviously be better suited to some country which has little transit traffic.SN_fan wrote:So but what with people who don't live in Belgium they don't have to pay taxes then? Where with soccer games the majority of the specators are BelgiansAbout air travel security taxes, it probably should be paid from national taxes, not just by the passengers.
-
Lukas_Ridgeston
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 16 Mar 2006, 00:00
Slide 15 of the analysts' presentation of Schiphol Airport's annual report shows a nice comparison of passenger and security charges at different airports, including BRU.
http://www.schipholgroup.com/media/port ... ijfers.pdf
You'll notice that the security charges at BRU are very modest (not to say low).
http://www.schipholgroup.com/media/port ... ijfers.pdf
You'll notice that the security charges at BRU are very modest (not to say low).
Interesting to see how the transfer costs at AMS are so low.-
Lukas_Ridgeston
- Posts: 26
- Joined: 16 Mar 2006, 00:00
According to some airlines (in particular airlines without transfer pax), the fact that transfer pax taxes at AMS are so low, is meant to support (read: subsidise) KLM's hub operation.
This is particularly true in security taxes: security screening is now done in a de-centralised way (at each gate), so transfer pax make use of exactly the same facilities as O&D pax, but pay less...
This is particularly true in security taxes: security screening is now done in a de-centralised way (at each gate), so transfer pax make use of exactly the same facilities as O&D pax, but pay less...