more than a "cost of living" adjustment in 2009, and then Osborne hiked it twice more. It has now become a significant element in the national tax take: 2.6bn in 2011/12, to reach 3.9bn in 2015/16. The flights are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them ... etc. The Green argument is APD would still need to increase a further four-fold to compensate for the notional "lost" fuel duty and VAT. That means 10.5 billion more from the air traffic industry (i.e. from passengers). Allow me to rehearse what, I'm sure, is well-known to others -- but which I've had to refresh myself on. My doubts are whether that is a fair comparison, anyway. Other modes of transport benefit from similar waiving of notional "duty". The greatest beneficiary of government assistance and 'subsidy' is road traffic: 'The Highways Agency network is valued at about 130bn' -- if anything, that feels to me like a gross underestimate (one rail line, HS2, is estimated at 32.7 billion; Boris Johnson's mad Thames airport is a cool 50 billion). So let's just admit that all modes of transport are, and will remain, publicly subsidised. Meanwhile back to APD. Were I in the business I'd be arguing it is a tax which falls largely on leisure travel. Business travel is just another 'on-cost', to be passed on in the billing. In other words, another way to bleed the poor bloody, and well-blooded consumer. I'm happy with the notion of a high-tax, high-earnings