Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5728074/

Topic: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: ytib
Posted 2013-04-01 11:50:43 and read 5696 times.

As a follow-up to a past thread ( G4, NK & WN Go To US Supreme Court Against DOT (by LAXintl Nov 30 2012 in Civil Aviation) ) in regards to ticket pricing to include government taxes and fees the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...line-appeal-over-ad-141901439.html

[Edited 2013-04-01 11:51:07]

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: awacsooner
Posted 2013-04-01 11:55:50 and read 5659 times.

Good...glad to see common sense win out...but now this means that NK will come up with yet another fee on top of the one they already have to combat this...probably a "Pay for our legal fees cause we lost our case" fee.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-04-01 12:06:08 and read 5554 times.

Common sense is that we will have a new Secretary of Transportation soon, and many of the hostile industry policies of the past can be reviewed again.
This SoT was far out of touch with air transportation and too focused on his rail hobby and pet peeve of chasing distracted car drivers.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-04-01 15:51:25 and read 4898 times.

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 1):
Good...glad to see common sense win out...

Common sense (about the merits) generally has nothing to do with why the Supreme Court does or does not review cases.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: MSPNWA
Posted 2013-04-01 21:16:04 and read 4482 times.

Disappointing that the court didn't hear the case. The new rule is the true deception and not fair to either the customer of airline. All this does is more easily hide taxes that the airline has no control over. The $199 fare is not $199 in the airlines' pocket.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2013-04-01 23:37:53 and read 4327 times.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 6):

Disappointing that the court didn't hear the case. The new rule is the true deception and not fair to either the customer of airline. All this does is more easily hide taxes that the airline has no control over. The $199 fare is not $199 in the airlines' pocket.

There isn't anything though keeping airlines doing what NK is. Saying in big bold letters... "This is the government's cut."

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-04-01 23:49:52 and read 4310 times.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 6):
The new rule is the true deception

This is still April's Fool, right?

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: Jamake1
Posted 2013-04-02 00:17:44 and read 4283 times.

The part that is unfair is that the airline industry was singled out here. Mobile phone carriers, rental car companies, hotels, and retailers should be subject to the same rules if full price disclosure is going to be legislated...

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: awacsooner
Posted 2013-04-02 04:35:59 and read 3999 times.

Quoting Jamake1 (Reply 9):

Wholeheartedly agree...hopefully they're the next targets.
Living in Europe, I actually enjoy shopping a bit more because the price you see on the shelf already has the VAT added...so the price you see us the price you pay...easier than back in the States

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: commavia
Posted 2013-04-02 04:55:56 and read 3927 times.

It really is unfortunate the Court won't hear this case.

This regulation is truly shameful - singling out the airline industry, which is already so heavily taxed, to force carriers to display the price of their products in a given way that virtually no other industry is required to do.

And then - to make it even worse - the nakedly political nature of then effectively forcing airlines to deemphasize what portion of the price consumers pay is taxes. Only politicians and bureaucrats could come up with something that ridiculous.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-04-02 05:07:40 and read 3876 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
It really is unfortunate the Court won't hear this case.

Maybe so, but the Court isn't an error correction court, so if you want it to hear the case, you must also want some drastic structural changes in the way the Court arranges its docket. Are those good things?

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: commavia
Posted 2013-04-02 05:38:13 and read 3711 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 12):
but the Court isn't an error correction court

???

The Court hears cases and determines constitutionality, right? That's what the claimants say is at stake here. No drastic change required in the jurisprudence of the Court required.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: awacsooner
Posted 2013-04-02 07:42:28 and read 3087 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
This regulation is truly shameful - singling out the airline industry, which is already so heavily taxed, to force carriers to display the price of their products in a given way that virtually no other industry is required to do.

The singling out of the airlines does suck...and I agree that this stuff needs to be transparent in the rest of the travel/mobile/etc industries. However, this regulation is not shameful...it's a step in the right direction.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: MSPNWA
Posted 2013-04-02 10:45:47 and read 2271 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 6):
This is still April's Fool, right?

Most of the world was on April 2nd by then, so absolutely not. Before the change I could usually see both the airlines share and the total taxes and fees at the same time when executing a basic flight search. Now I have to dig to find that information out. Very deceptive.

Quoting commavia (Reply 9):
And then - to make it even worse - the nakedly political nature of then effectively forcing airlines to deemphasize what portion of the price consumers pay is taxes.

That's the worst part of it to me. You're hiding taxes. That's never a good thing. Then when you add the singling-out of the industry, the legislation is a joke that should be struck down.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: SEPilot
Posted 2013-04-02 12:19:04 and read 1949 times.

One of the reasons I prefer WN over other airlines is that when I look for fares, their website gives me what it is going to cost me for the trip with no surprises. All other sites I have seen tack the taxes on after you have selected it, and likely leave out baggage fees and other gotchas. So I am a bit surprised by their bringing this suit.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: GSPSPOT
Posted 2013-04-02 14:03:36 and read 1872 times.

I just like being able to count on the quoted fare being the "out the door" price for a ticket. One price including all applicable taxes & fees quoted one time.... Just like in the good ol' days.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: jerseyguy
Posted 2013-04-02 14:16:06 and read 1855 times.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 13):
That's the worst part of it to me. You're hiding taxes. That's never a good thing. Then when you add the singling-out of the industry, the legislation is a joke that should be struck down.

   We're slowly becoming Europe.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-04-02 14:16:16 and read 1855 times.

Quoting Jamake1 (Reply 7):
Mobile phone carriers, rental car companies, hotels, and retailers should be subject to the same rules if full price disclosure is going to be legislated...

I agree wholeheartedly. I think all prices should be inclusive of all mandatory add-ons, whether they be state and local taxes, resort fees, facilities charges or whatever they may be called, at least as far as transactions with individual customers are concerned. I would understand taxes not being included in b2b transactions since some businesses do pay sales taxes and others don't.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 13):
Now I have to dig to find that information out. Very deceptive.

The majority of opinions filed with the court find it more deceptive not to be told upfront what the total cost is without having to do the math. The majority of consumers prefer to see a single price in front of them.

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-04-02 14:26:21 and read 1828 times.

Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 16):
We're slowly becoming Europe.

Your experience of Europe is probably limited to retail transactions. Buy something more significant, and the tax will be broken down in your final invoice, but you will notice, surprise, that the price that was quoted to you was the bottom number, after taxes!

For retail transactions, I'll give you that, the ticket often doesn't include a breakdown, but the rate is the same throughout a country and their education system churns out people able to remember what their VAT rate is and figure out what 20% of the final number is...

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: jerseyguy
Posted 2013-04-02 16:19:28 and read 1752 times.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 18):
figure out what 20% of the final number is...

other than too much for a sales tax??

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: blueflyer
Posted 2013-04-02 16:49:31 and read 1699 times.

Quoting jerseyguy (Reply 19):
other than too much for a sales tax??

20% is actually on the low end for a Value-Added Tax rate.
http://www.ricksteves.com/plan/tips/vat-rates-europe.htm

Someone has to pay for all that free healthcare...

  

Topic: RE: G4, NK & WN V DOT Denied By Supreme Court
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-04-02 19:26:11 and read 1613 times.

Quoting commavia (Reply 11):
The Court hears cases and determines constitutionality, right?

Yes--if it takes the case. But the Court takes a very small percentage of the cases where one or more parties wants review. The Court takes cases only where lower courts have decided the issue differently (not so here) or where there is an "important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by [the] Court." While this issue is something about which I think all of us care, I can't argue with a straight face that it's in the very small percentage of important questions of federal law that warrants Court review.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/