Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NWA No Longer Absorbing Passenger Facality Charges  
User currently offlineKarlB737 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3143 posts, RR: 10
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2246 times:

Courtesy: BTN Online


4 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineTymnBalewne From Bermuda, joined Mar 2005, 953 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

I must admit I read the subject line too quickly and thought is said, "NWA No Longer Absorbing Passenger Fatality Charges."


Dewmanair...begins with Dew
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2118 times:

For NWA or any other airline to implicitly claim that they have ever "absorbed" the PFC component of total fares is nothing more than semantical sleight-of-hand. Seems to me, in fact, that fares advertised by NWA (and others) invariably come with a footnote that reads something like "does not include passenger facility charge of up to $18.00 maximum per roundtrip itinerary."

Is NWA claiming to have been "absorbing" PFCs until now by setting their fares at levels that are, by their choosing, up to $18.00 less than they "would have" charged had they had the "pricing power" to pass along the cost of PFCs to their customers? If so, it is just so much more airline-speak hocus pocus, to say nothing of disingenuous spin.

User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2100 times:

Quoting TymnBalewne (Reply 1):
I must admit I read the subject line too quickly and thought is said, "NWA No Longer Absorbing Passenger Fatality Charges."

That is what I first got, too, and when I realized that was wrong my next thought was "fecality"....took a while to get it figured out.  Smile

But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineRjnut From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2039 times:

Basically , what they are doing is adjusting fares to match the various PFC tax charges so that no one hub is more dominant over the other in terms of fares "searches" ! so now whether you travel via DTW MEM MSP or even CLE and EWR or IAH..via CO codeshare partners, the fare is the same, but they had to adjust fares to accomplish this since the PFC charges are set by individual airports..It all makes sense, but is pretty hard to explain!

NW would actually absorb the charge in certain situations, so that certain routings of theirs were not passed over to the competition,,just over the difference of $3.00 or $4.50.

In a fare search ..people would make their decsions for that little of an amount!

Hope this explains and chime in anyone if you think I missed the point!

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NWA No Longer At Osaka? posted Sun Sep 19 2004 06:28:12 by Learjet23
Minnesota Timberwolves - No Longer Flying NWA posted Tue Sep 9 2003 07:20:55 by Beefer
Delta Name No Longer On SLC's Utah Jazz Arena posted Tue Nov 21 2006 00:08:04 by SLCUT2777
A350 - No Longer A 787 Competitor? posted Tue Oct 31 2006 06:28:10 by Aloha717200
Signs For Airports That Are No Longer There? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 03:51:29 by Falstaff
Garuda No Longer Flies To Europe/North America? posted Mon Sep 4 2006 15:00:46 by Kingsford
Are Overnight Connections No Longer Allowed? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 19:03:54 by HPRamper
SQ 747-400, Which Ones Are No Longer In Service? posted Tue Jul 25 2006 18:29:40 by SQ772
Aviation When Oil No Longer Available posted Sun Jul 23 2006 13:14:01 by Eddie757
FR @ GRO: Which Routes No Longer Exist? posted Sat Jun 10 2006 20:53:29 by Pe@rson