Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

The CAA proposes new fees for using Heathrow – and airlines are not happy

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

The on-going battle between Heathrow Airport and the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) over what it can charge airlines – which falls straight through to the price of your ticket, as one of the ‘taxes and charges’ you pay – has entered its next phase.

Heathrow believes that, since its income is effectively capped by the CAA at below the market rate, it deserves some retrospective protection for the drop in income last year. That said, it still reportedly paid out a £106m dividend to its shareholders and did not need to raise new equity.

The airlines believe that Heathrow has a de facto monopoly on premium air travel in London and should be constrained appropriately, for the benefit of passengers and the wider economy.

The CAA publishes its view on Heathrow's proposed fee increases

As we covered earlier this year, Heathrow Airport has already added an £8.90 surcharge to all tickets issued.

It is fully within its rights to do this, since there is an agreement with the airlines that guarantees a minimum income level to cover the cost of running certain facilities. This income level was not reached in 2020 and the £8.90 surcharge will continue until the difference is made up.

Heathrow’s original proposal to the CAA was for the Passenger Service Charge to increase like this:

  • domestic charges increased from £10.98 in 2021 to £12.26 in 2022
  • short haul charges increased from £15.98 in 2021 to £19.76 in 2022
  • long haul charges increased from £38.33 in 2021 to an astonishing £67.86 in 2022

This won’t be happening.

However, an interim price control averaging £29.50 per passenger is proposed from January 2022. This is up sharply from the current average of £22 per passenger. This interim figure will operate until Summer 2022 when the new five year charging period will begin.

What has the CAA proposed?

The UK Civil Aviation Authority published its thoughts for the 2022-2027 charging period yesterday. It suggests:

  • a (hugely vague) average charge of somewhere between £24.50 to £34.40, compared to the current average of £22 per passenger (the original Heathrow proposal above averages out at £38 per passenger)
  • an interim price cap of £29.50 to be put in place for Spring 2022 whilst discussions continue
  • no additional one-off adjustments on top of the £300 million of additional asset base increase that was allowed earlier this year. This means that Heathrow’s request for a payment of £2,300 million to cover its covid losses (paid via an increase in Regulatory Asset Base) will not happen.
  • an agreement to cap both the upside and downside to Heathrow of actual passenger levels versus forecast levels over the next five years

The CAA was very positive about it’s proposals. CEO Richard Moriarty said:

“While international air travel is still recovering, setting a price control for Heathrow Airport against the backdrop of so much uncertainty means we have had to adapt our approach. Our principal objective is to further the interests of consumers while recognising the challenges the industry has faced throughout the Covid-19 pandemic. These initial proposals seek to protect consumers against unfair charges, and will allow Heathrow to continue to appropriately invest in keeping the airport resilient, efficient and one that provides a good experience for passengers.”

That is one view. Shai Weiss, CEO of Virgin Atlantic, went batshit crazy:

“Today’s initial proposals from the Civil Aviation Authority fail to protect the British consumer, paving the way for Heathrow Airport to introduce unacceptable charges, just as international travel resumes at scale. The world’s most expensive airport risks becoming over 50% more expensive, as Heathrow and its owners seek to recoup their pandemic losses and secure hundreds of millions in dividends to shareholders. It is concerning that the regulator has failed in its first opportunity to step in, and together with industry partners, we will oppose these proposals in the strongest terms to protect passengers.

“Abusing its unique position as the UK’s only hub airport, Heathrow’s proposed increase of charges will hurt the UK’s economic recovery and unfairly hit the pockets of families and businesses around the nation. No other airport in the world is proposing increases on this scale and by becoming unaffordable, competing EU hubs and airlines will benefit.”

Even the CAA admits, in the consultation document, that:

“Increases towards the upper end of our range could cause material consumer detriment.”

Virgin Atlantic claims that the CAA is unduly pessimistic in assuming a 44% fall in passenger numbers in 2022 versus 2019. This is, however, more optimistic than the forecast submitted by Heathrow. Virgin Atlantic believes that passenger numbers are likely to be down by just 5% on 2019 levels.

The CAA proposals are not set in stone. Two industry consultations will now take place, on the interim 2022 price cap and the wider proposals, before the final figures are published.

One upside is that the CAA admits that ‘gold plating’ needs to end. At present, because Heathrow’s agreed returns are based on what it invests in the airport, there is an incentive to – literally – gold plate the toilets if allowed. The more it spends, the more it can earn. The CAA says:

“we consider that stronger incentives are needed to protect the interests of consumers from the increased costs that they would otherwise face were HAL to make inefficient capex investments.”

You can read the full CAA consultation document here.

Comments (72)

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

  • JDB says:

    Isn’t all this moaning aiming at the wrong target? The LHR charges rather pale into insignificance vs the long haul APD £185 from next April and the carrier charges (originally fuel surcharges) that increased during Covid (c. £300 each in CW say to Caribbean). Also someone complained recently about all the fees to St Lucia – airport charge there £65 per person!

    • John says:

      Yup. Shai Weiss is right to moan since the bulk of these increases will have to come out of airline revenues; they won’t be able to pass the increases (including the APD increases) on to passengers in full except on award tickets.

      • Nick says:

        Contrary to popular opinion, YQ is not designed to penalise redemptions, it’s designed to allow collection on the non-dealt part of corporate fares. Also taking it on redemptions is just a happy coincidence (legally YQ has to be both published and standardised across all fares on date of collection).

    • Dace says:

      Yeah, it reminds me of people complaining about fuel prices when fuel had an insane level of duty on it that is also double taxed with VAT.

    • Tim says:

      APD goes to the treasury. It is money they would need to raise though other taxes if they didn;t get it as APD.

      Exploitative airport fees go to the shareholders of Heathrow.

      It is a question of which is more deserving- schools, hospital, armed forces etc or private foriegn capitalists

      • Aristeides says:

        Well, yes, but the foreign capitalists actually operate the airport. Try turning up to a school or hospital and ask them to fly you on your summer holiday.

        • Tim says:

          Profit isn’t a reward for running the airport. The people who run the airport get rewarded in their pay package. All the shareholders to is risk their capital. Profit is the rental charged on that capital

  • David says:

    A significant hike in LHR fees is a bit rich judging by the lack of valet parking on the way out and the terrible baggage handling service we received on Monday, travelling back through the airport. We haven’t had to wait so long for our bags in living memory ( we were parked at a T5 A gate, so no excuse there).

  • Sean says:

    “This means that Heathrow’s request for a payment of £2,300,000 million” – think a typo here!

  • Andrew says:

    Looking forward to flying transatlantic with United, Delta, Air Canada and American from EDI again.

  • Richie says:

    All the airlines have to do is flirt with other airport operators.

  • AJA says:

    Does Sean Doyle at BA not have a view on these proposals? He seems strangely silent on the matter. Virgin Atlantic (and BA) would love traffic levels to be a mere 5% below 2019 levels by 2022. I think Virgin are bring a bit optimistic.

    As for increasing charges to recover losses aren’t they all doing the same thing? The recent “sales” by BA haven’t really been the bargains we saw in 2018/19, and haven’t had huge uptake, you can tell that by the lack of comments on the specific sale articles here in HfP.

    As JDB points out the LHR charges are not nearly as significant as the APD and airlines own surcharges as a proportion of fares. Of course the airlines will moan about LHR hiking their charges as they eat directly into profit margins along with APD. I too don’t like the idea of increased charges, no one does.

    Finally, with the upcoming COP26 conference I am not sure it is the right time for airlines to be questioning these charges. The effects of climate change are undoubtedly going to see government’s trying to reduce demand for air travel as it one of those things they can show as how they are dealing with reducing CO2 emissions in their ambitions to get to net zero. Which is why APD is increasing, it is seen as both a deterrent to air travel and as a tax on frequent flying, both very popular with those anti flying.

    • Dubious says:

      This raises an interesting point. It seems a wasted opportunity to merely increase charges and the regulated assess base without any concurrent requirements to invest in sustainability goals.

      If raising charges and external fees such as APD eat into profit margins of the airlines, surely this discourages investment in sustainability initiatives by the airlines? Of course, there is no certainty that without the increased charges investments in sustainability would actually happen (beyond greenwash) but not linking the increase to new targets seems certain to discourage sustainability investments whilst giving the cash to organisations that also have a propensity to waste it (HAL and HMRC).

      • AJA says:

        I’d argue it might have the opposite effect. If airlines can be seen to be investing in and implementing sustainability initiatives which reduce their carbon emissions and helping achieve net zero then environmentally conscious passengers might be more inclined to choose them over other airlines which aren’t doing the same.

        Also more efficient aircraft also help improve profit margins as the running costs are lower. So airlines do have an incentive to invest.

        Re APD eating into profit margins I was meaning on the basis that there is a limit on how much people are willing to pay. Obviously APD is charged directly to passengers so its not a cost that airlines have to pay but it does limit how much they can charge overall. I’d say legacy airlines benefit more from increased APD as they have other perks and frequent flyer benefits they can offer to sweeten the pill of increased airfares.

  • Malcolm says:

    BA for example could start flying direct to European / long haul destinations from more regional airports surely?

    • Paul Pogba says:

      You would think if Emirates, Qatar, Westjet, Air Transat etc can manage to make long haul work from Gatwick BA would be able to. I’m surprised services to NYC don’t work with leisure coming from the southern home counties and Thameslink feeding business traffic from London Bridge – but I’m sure some ones looked at the data.

      • Peter K says:

        But surely all those other airlines have Gatwick as a spoke leading to their hub? For BA, LHR is their hub.

        • Paul Pogba says:

          I’m guessing but isn’t most LON-NYC traffic point to point and the same for the majority of passengers on routes like LON-YTO, LON-YVR, LON-YYC, LON-LAX – probably different for Emirates and Qatar who will be relying on a more even split between DOH and DXB as destinations and transit hubs.

          Virgin pretty muc tried what I’m thinking and it doesn’t look to have worked out for them.

    • Rob says:

      Not easily. Issues over crew etc unless it is a W formation eg Lon – Man – Nice – Man – Lon.

    • JDB says:

      Other than LH that has set up MUC as a full hub, regional airport long haul on any scale has unfortunately been a fiasco for many airlines like the old Swissair and Alitalia where political pressure made them operate routes from Rome and Geneva that were not financially viable.

  • Memesweeper says:

    This is the UKs only hub and only (I think) dual runway airport (with simultaneous operations).

    If it’s already the worlds most expensive airport then I think the case is pretty much already made that it’s charges should be capped, not increasing.

    • JDB says:

      It isn’t the world’s most expensive airport and charges are being capped under this proposal and have been at each regulatory review. If you mean frozen rather than capped, the regulator would be sued. If you look on the breakdown of the charges, many other airports charge more, even if the charge looks smaller as it is broken down into more component parts. The airlines are of course keen to make headline grabbing statements. It’s just noise! As mentioned yesterday, if you want to look at charges that have gone crazy, look at water or electricity over the last 5-10 years (ignoring the current hikes).

      The ongoing investment in improvements – many requested by airlines, but not very visible to passengers eg aprons, taxiways, aircraft facilities including notably cargo etc.. does also need to be financed. If you look at say CDG 2, that now looks incredibly run down vs T5 or T2.

    • Nick says:

      @memesweeper MAN also has two runways that can be used simultaneously.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.