Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ryanair Blasts The Latest BA Fuel Surcharge  
User currently offlineDoor5Right From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 707 posts, RR: 16
Posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4371 times:

Off Ryanair's web site:

RYANAIR GUARANTEES NO FUEL SURCHARGES AS BRITISH AIRWAYS GOUGES PASSENGERS FOR A 7TH TIME
Ryanair, the world’s favourite airline, today criticised British Airways for again increasing fuel surcharges – for a record 7th time – despite the fact that it has substantially hedged most of its fuel for the remainder of 2006 at less than $60 a barrel. Ryanair continues to be the only major airline in Britain which guarantees no fuel surcharges, today, tomorrow or ever. Oil prices can double again to $150 per barrel and Ryanair still won’t apply fuel surcharges.

Criticising British Airways for its constant gouging of consumers, Ryanair’s Chief Executive, Michael O’Leary said:

“Yet again British Airways go for the soft option. This is the 7th separate fuel surcharge British Airways have introduced since May 2004. Over the past two years as oil prices have doubled from $35 to $70 a barrel, British Airways’ fuel surcharges have increased fourteen fold from £2.50 per sector to £35 per sector. This is price gouging of consumers.

“At £35 per sector, British Airways’ fuel surcharge is greater than Ryanair’s average fare (£28 per sector). Isn’t it time that BA stopped gouging passengers and started reducing other costs instead?

“Ryanair would be pleased to hear from the so called Air Transport Users Committee in the UK who have remained steadfastly silent, whilst British Airways have added 7 separate fuel surcharges to hard pressed consumers. Since this
quango claims to represent air transport users, why does it continue to remain silent while British Airways levy 7 separate fuel surcharges?”

For the record Ryanair guarantees no fuel surcharges, today, tomorrow or ever. Ryanair’s average fare (£28) is now less than British Airways one way fuel surcharge (£35). The message for British consumers and visitors couldn’t be clearer. If you want to get there on-time, on brand new aircraft and be certain of no fuel surcharges fly Ryanair. If you want to pay 7 separate fuel surcharges, on old aircraft and don’t mind being late, fly BA.

Ends.

Anyone know how Ryanair manages to keep keep flying without fuel surcharges? Is Ryanair just better at hedging fuel costs in advance?


My soul is in the sky...
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4283 times:

Quoting Door5Right (Thread starter):
Anyone know how Ryanair manages to keep keep flying without fuel surcharges? Is Ryanair just better at hedging fuel costs in advance?

They just increase fares. If oil went to $150 a barrel, FR wouldn't be able to offer as many cheap fares. We'd just see more high-level fares, and fewer sales and pomotions.

All the press release says is no fuel surcharges - increasing the basic fare to cover the additional charges is probably fair game to the O'Leary PR machine.



No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User currently offlineTomFoolery From Austria, joined Jan 2004, 529 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4261 times:

I could only wish that airlines would start charging fares in accordance with costs. I refuse to believe that a 500EUR ticket really needs to carry an additional 210+EUR tax and fees to the US.
UAL.com MUC-IAD is less than 90EUR in taxes on the UA 902, but why is the LH9280 over 120EUR in tax on the same plane?
The industry needs to be forced to disclose all taxes and fees upfront, and not just some fine print describing the nature of the fees*.
I hate being taken for a sucker.



Paper makes an airplane fly
User currently offlineMutu From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 536 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4220 times:

well just for the record shorthaul surcharges havent increased. A further supplem,ent has been added to longhaul oil surcharges only.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4206 times:

I wonder when BA will blast FR's latest Health, Safety or Labor violation?


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4188 times:

So there not having at go at other carriers in the UK that have done the same.
Have not VS upped theres a few times as well.
And since when is FR the worlds Fav airline, there just nicking one of our slogans
HAHAHA


User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4170 times:

FR should just mind their own business. They're an LCC, BA is not. FR should just focus on what they do and not go around bashing the major airlines for doing something that is common practice. MOL should just get off his high horse and do something productive for a change.

User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4142 times:

Quoting Door5Right (Thread starter):
Ryanair, the world’s favourite airline



Quoting Trekster (Reply 5):
And since when is FR the worlds Fav airline, there just nicking one of our slogans

I was wondering that, too. Since when can you fly FR in South America for example...
Anyhoo.

Quoting Door5Right (Thread starter):
At £35 per sector, British Airways’ fuel surcharge is greater than Ryanair’s average fare (£28 per sector). Isn’t it time that BA stopped gouging passengers and started reducing other costs instead?

Perhaps because BA's sector is a slight bit longer than FR's sector.

Quoting Door5Right (Thread starter):
Ryanair would be pleased to hear from the so called Air Transport Users Committee in the UK who have remained steadfastly silent, whilst British Airways have added 7 separate fuel surcharges to hard pressed consumers. Since this
quango claims to represent air transport users, why does it continue to remain silent while British Airways levy 7 separate fuel surcharges?”

I don't know who the ATUC is, but it seems FR is trying to hit as many crows as possible with one stone .

Quoting Door5Right (Thread starter):
If you want to get there on-time, on brand new aircraft and be certain of no fuel surcharges fly Ryanair

Perhaps FR wants to start flying long-haul.
 stirthepot 


User currently offlineHAJFlyer From Switzerland, joined Sep 2005, 1473 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 4133 times:

Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 2):
The industry needs to be forced to disclose all taxes and fees upfront, and not just some fine print describing the nature of the fees*.

In Switzerland the competition commission has ruled that from June onwards airlines have to quote the true cost of a ticket including taxes and surcharges in their advertisements; LX and LH are already complying.

[Edited 2006-04-18 22:11:24]

User currently offlineMutu From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 536 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

Quoting HAJFlyer (Reply 8):
In Switzerland the competition competition has ruled that from June onwards airlines have to quote the true cost of a ticket including taxes and surcharges in their advertisements; LX and LH are already complying.

This is a practice adopted by some UK airlines. The issue really is, when is an oil surcharge a price rise and when is a price rise an oil surcharge. FR fares are rising (they will always have SOME £1 fares, thats what they want us to remember them for) but they are not surcharges!


User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4119 times:

Quoting Mhodgson (Reply 1):
All the press release says is no fuel surcharges - increasing the basic fare to cover the additional charges is probably fair game to the O'Leary PR machine.

What evidence do you have to support this bold statement? The lowest pre-tax fare from MAN to DUB, for example, is 49p and has been for quite some time.


User currently offlineTrekster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4082 times:

Quoting A319XFW (Reply 7):
Quoting Door5Right (Thread starter):
If you want to get there on-time, on brand new aircraft and be certain of no fuel surcharges fly Ryanair

Perhaps FR wants to start flying long-haul.

And start landing at the right airport. AND provide decent customer service for a change. AND stop charging for baggage AND alot of other things


User currently offlineA319XFW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4068 times:

Quoting Trekster (Reply 11):
And start landing at the right airport

The odd thing is, I saw in the paper today that they are advertising an airport as 'Pisa (Florence)' I would have thought that Florence is a nicer place to visit (I thought so anyway when I went to both) and you'd advertise it as Florence!


User currently offlineFbgdavidson From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 3706 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4041 times:

Have to say, as I fly BA more than any other airline it is annoying to see continual surcharges put on taxes. Why can't BA factor this into the cost of the ticket I don't know, well I do, corporate discounts, shareholder bookings and award tickets only are applicable to base fare, not the surcharges, taxes and 9/11 fee and all that...

As someone on BA Flyertalk says:
'I may introduce a power surcharge for my clients as power prices have gone up, and I need power to run my PC.'

Quoting HS748 (Reply 10):
The lowest pre-tax fare from MAN to DUB, for example, is 49p and has been for quite some time.

Yes, but the numbers of seats at that price is probably going down.



"My first job was selling doors, door to door, that's a tough job innit" - Bill Bailey
User currently offlineMhodgson From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2002, 5047 posts, RR: 25
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 4019 times:

Quoting HS748 (Reply 10):
What evidence do you have to support this bold statement? The lowest pre-tax fare from MAN to DUB, for example, is 49p and has been for quite some time.

The actual number of those fares may have decreased, though. Also, I was not intentionally referring to the present:

My point is, that when/if oil does reach $150 a barrel, are FR really not going to charge a surcharge? They will increase fares instead. I highly doubt FR will succeed with their incredibly low fares, when fuel is that high.



No trees were harmed by this message. However, several million electrons were terribly inconvenienced
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6424 posts, RR: 54
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3971 times:

Is that correct, that BA adds a £35 per sector fuel surcharge?

Let's take one example - a BA A320 flying a 1000 km (600 miles) sector, for instance LHR - CPH.

Plane is configured for 150 pax, load factor = 67% = 100 pax = £3500.

Plane will consume roughly 15,000 lbs fuel.

Fuel surcharge is considered to cover the crude prise rise from $35 to $70 per barrel.

A little math with conversions will uncover that the BA £35 fuel surcharge in this example corresponds to roughly $130 per barrel jet fuel.

The only thing not taken into account is the fact that no refinery can produce fully one barrel of fuels from one barrel of crude oil. The refinery burns a few percent itself. That reduces the $130 surcharge figure a little.

But the end of the story is that BA charges a fuel surcharge which is more than three times higher than the price increase which is related to the crude rising from $35 to 70.

The BA fuel surcharge would fit pretty well in this example if the crude price had not risen from $ 35 to $70, but from $35 to something like $150 or $160 per barrel.

Is the fuel surcharge the same £35 on a London - Sidney sector? Then it is a bargain. Ryanair doesn't fly to OZ as far as I know.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineBAxMAN From St. Helena, joined May 2004, 671 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3923 times:

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
Is that correct, that BA adds a £35 per sector fuel surcharge?

Let's take one example - a BA A320 flying a 1000 km (600 miles) sector, for instance LHR - CPH.

Plane is configured for 150 pax, load factor = 67% = 100 pax = £3500.

Plane will consume roughly 15,000 lbs fuel.

Fuel surcharge is considered to cover the crude prise rise from $35 to $70 per barrel.

Not quite right. The FR propaganda machine is, as always, quite blinkered in its attacks. Of course, the pros and cons of the fuel surcharge are a legitimate debate, particularly in the way that Mr F Davidson describes. But FR is simply displaying the lack of class that has become de rigeur for their media mouthpieces.

The surcharge for a shorthaul journey (such as CPH-LHR) is unchanged at £8.00 per sector. FR needn't be concerned with BA's longhaul surcharge which has gone up to £35.00 per sector.

Interesting that FR were not outraged when VS increased their surcharge a few weeks ago. It's all very tacky and now is typically what one comes to expect from FR. Sure, the avergae Joe Pax will not know the ins and outs, and many people here will put this down to the genius and impending sainthood of MOL but I feel a bit uneasy that an established and successful company like FR still feels the need to be so misleading just to attack a competitor. If this is how people feel that businesses should conduct themselves, then that's their funeral.



I need to get laid
User currently offlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2253 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3919 times:

This is typical Ryanair nonsense. They compare the BA £35 surcharge with their own air fares without noting that the £35 surcharge is for long haul flights only. So they're actually comparing a BA flight LHR-HKG with the prices on FR between STN-DUB!

The truth is, however, that on intra-European flights BA is charging "only" (which is a relative term) £8 per sector.

Quoting Prebennorholm (Reply 15):
Is that correct, that BA adds a £35 per sector fuel surcharge?

Let's take one example - a BA A320 flying a 1000 km (600 miles) sector, for instance LHR - CPH.

Check the official info from BA before trusting what FR claims. Between CPH-LHR, the surcharge is £8.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6424 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3874 times:

Thanks BAxMAN and RedChili.

The BA £8 fuel surcharge on short haul is very reasonable. It just barely covers the crude hike from $35 to $70.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinePA110 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2000 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3818 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TomFoolery (Reply 2):
I could only wish that airlines would start charging fares in accordance with costs. I refuse to believe that a 500EUR ticket really needs to carry an additional 210+EUR tax and fees to the US.
UAL.com MUC-IAD is less than 90EUR in taxes on the UA 902, but why is the LH9280 over 120EUR in tax on the same plane?
The industry needs to be forced to disclose all taxes and fees upfront, and not just some fine print describing the nature of the fees*.
I hate being taken for a sucker.



Up until recently, UA along with most U.S. carriers chose to show their fuel surcharges as an actual surcharge to the base fare, and they surcharged only the transatlantic leg $55 each way (now $65 each way). LH and most most other carriers, show the fuel surcharge as either a YQ or YR tax. So, on a simple roundtrip on direct flights without any onward connections, UA's base fare will be $130 more than LH, but the tax will be $130 less. The totals should price out the identically. UA has just changed to show their fuel surcharges as a YQ tax , to remain consistant with LH, with whom they share revenue on transatlantic services.

I specifically mention direct flights without onward connections, becuase this is where the inequities start developing. Consider the following journey:

STL UA x/ORD UA FRA UA x/ORD UA STL. UA applies their fuel surcharge only to the transatlantic crossing. If you sell this itinerary using the actual UA operating flights, you will get the $65 per direction fuel surcharge, for a total of $130. However, if you book this same itinerary under LH codeshare flight numbers, You will pay $160 in fuel surcharges - because LH applies a fuel surcharge to every single leg of the journey. (longhaul at $65 per sector, shorthaul at $15 per sector) I don't actually know what happens to the extra $30 dollars because UA doesn't collect fuel surcharges for the domestic legs of an international connection.

Incidentally, KLM and AF in order to match NW and DL respectively show their fuel surcharges as a surcharge to the base fare of the ticket, instead of as a tax.

[Edited 2006-04-19 00:53:08]


It's been swell, but the swelling has gone down.
User currently offlineOlympicbis From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3674 times:

Quoting BAxMAN (Reply 16):
But FR is simply displaying the lack of class that has become de rigeur for their media mouthpieces.

Well said !

Quoting Door5Right (Thread starter):
Ryanair, the world’s favourite airline

In their wildest dreams !
If it would become the "world's favourite airline", it probably can happen only in some kind of parallel universe.


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3610 times:

I think it is high time the airlines were forced to show the fully inclusive fares, rather than add on all the surcharges, taxes and supplements.

I mean look at some bargain fares quoted by BA - basic fare £18 return plus £44.10 taxes, fuel surcharges and supplements, total £62.10. Asking for a breakdown of the £44.10, BA's website states that there is an insurance and security supplement of £2.50 for each leg, a fuel surcharge of £8 for each leg and UK Government Passenger Duty of £10. That gives a total of £31, so what does the balance of £13.10 represent? The fat cat's tax?

Monarch is another bad example. It shows bargain fares at £29.99 each way but when you add taxes, supplements and surcharges, instead of being just under £60, the total is well over £120. At least Monarch shows a detailed breakdown of the surcharges. But passenger service charges, airport departure tax and airport handling charges? Surely all these are an integral part of the fare which should be shown fully inclusive?

If you went to an electrical store and brought a washing machine, you are not quoted a price as follows:
  • Model cost £20
  • Distributor's mark-up £20
  • Shop's profit £40
  • Storage charges (whilst held in stock) £15
  • Delivery charges £15
  • VAT £21
  • Total £141
So why should it be any different for an airline fare?

Quoting Olympicbis (Reply 20):
Quoting Door5Right (Thread starter):
Ryanair, the world’s favourite airline

In their wildest dreams !
If it would become the "world's favourite airline", it probably can happen only in some kind of parallel universe

No worse that Virgin claiming to be the UK's flag carrier (when 49% owned by SQ and the remaining 51% held through non-UK holding companies) or one of the world's best airlines.



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineLapper From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 1564 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3586 times:

Quoting BCAL (Reply 21):
mean look at some bargain fares quoted by BA - basic fare £18 return plus £44.10 taxes, fuel surcharges and supplements, total £62.10. Asking for a breakdown of the £44.10, BA's website states that there is an insurance and security supplement of £2.50 for each leg, a fuel surcharge of £8 for each leg and UK Government Passenger Duty of £10. That gives a total of £31, so what does the balance of £13.10 represent? The fat cat's tax?

That would be the UB tax, the charge for the privilege of using the airport, which of course you have no choice but to.


User currently offlineAlanUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3578 times:

What an interesting thread!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 4):
I wonder when BA will blast FR's latest Health, Safety or Labor violation?

Never! BA, thank godness, doesn't play these games of cheap "in your face" PR rubbish that appeal to shav-ville residents and other Sun readers...


User currently offlineHBDAN From Switzerland, joined Jan 2006, 661 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3549 times:

Quoting RedChili (Reply 17):
This is typical Ryanair nonsense. They compare the BA £35 surcharge with their own air fares without noting that the £35 surcharge is for long haul flights only. So they're actually comparing a BA flight LHR-HKG with the prices on FR between STN-DUB!

The truth is, however, that on intra-European flights BA is charging "only" (which is a relative term) £8 per sector.

... Not really a smart move by FR. Let's say that ereryone with a QI above 7 should understand that you can not compare BA's long haule routes with FR's short haule ones! FR's PR seems to have lost its full-of-good-idea-brain in the last time...

Regards,
HBDAN



Next flight: hopefully soon...
25 StarGoldLHR : Is it me or did I miss something... I heard the Fuel Surcharges only applied to BA fares "sold in the UK". if you buy a BRU-LHR-JFK-LHR-BRU, or a SFO-
26 RedChili : Some quotes from the BA press release (my emphasis): It seems to me that as of today, the fuel surcharge on long haul flights sold outside of the UK
27 RedChili : I found a QF press release from 23 August 2005 where they say: I assume that this means that QF international flights still has a fuel surcharge of 7
28 ANother : $71.80 was the price of 'light sweat crude' today - not the price of kerosene which is at least $13 higher pbl than crude. In addition to the doublin
29 DavidT : I reguarly see ads by BA which quote prices including all surcharges and taxes. I think there's a large billboard advertising man-belfast city at the
30 VV701 : I am not so sure. In this thread one respondent calculated the fuel surcharge at £35 a passenger on a 320 operating LHR-CPH. And all replies up to R
31 Mutu : The far quoted each leg on BA.com is fully inclusive of all charges taxes etc so it is what you get before you make the decision to purchase. It is f
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...
The Latest BA Exec Club Scam? posted Fri May 27 2005 20:01:26 by Geoffm
The Great Fuel Surcharge Ripoff! posted Fri Apr 21 2006 17:07:34 by Jetfuel
EK Raises Fuel Surcharge...same Time BA Does? posted Fri Sep 9 2005 18:07:02 by EK156
BA Announces 2nd Fuel Surcharge This Year posted Fri Jun 24 2005 09:47:07 by Drinkstrolley
Whats The Latest With BA In Regards To 747/777/787 posted Fri Apr 29 2005 16:49:51 by RJpieces
When Do We Get To See The New BA Club World Seat? posted Fri Sep 29 2006 14:02:52 by 8herveg
What's The Latest On The Bmi Pilots Strike? posted Tue Sep 5 2006 23:55:00 by APP
More Specifics On The Users With Fuel Hedging posted Tue Sep 5 2006 04:21:20 by KarlB737
Explosive Sniffer Dogs And The Latest Threat posted Thu Aug 10 2006 22:36:14 by Axio
Afternoon Of Aug10th06 Whats The Latest: posted Thu Aug 10 2006 17:30:00 by BHXDTW