Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Great Fuel Surcharge Ripoff!  
User currently offlineJetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2215 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4165 times:

Ok, here goes my complaint. Some airlines are ading huge fuel levy surcharges onto fares due to increasing fuel costs. I fully understand the impact of fuel on operating costs. What I don't get is why they just don't lift the fare. Fuel costs impact on everything we purchase. I don't see Taxis charge me a fuel surcharge do I?

I will tell you why they do it this way and it really peeves me. It's is so than can SLUG THE FREQUENT FLYER redeeming seats. As a frequent flyer I am happy to pay the government obligatory taxes but fuel costs SHOULD be part of the airfare. Even landing costs are really part of the airfare, or should be.

I dont take a $2 bus fare and then pay extra for fuel levies, noise tax when I go past a residential area, bus parking fees, road tolls or stopping fees.

For example

OOL-MEL return (VIA SYD) $167.10 in total charges

OOL-LHR return $412.60 in total charges

It's a way of ripping off frequent flyers redeeming seats. Governments should make airlines have one price and only one price that's inclusive of all costs. Frequent Flyers redeeming seats were supposed to be earning free flights and now some carriers are finding loopholes to recover costs.

Sorry I just get so peeved, when you give your loyalty to somebody and they find a way to take advaantage.


Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineQxq400 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Thread starter):
is so than can SLUG THE FREQUENT FLYER redeeming seats.

That's it we airlines want to really tick off our FF. We would not want to raise fares to cover our operating expences.



Welcome baby Madison Renee
User currently offlineQfsis From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Thread starter):
OOL-MEL return (VIA SYD) $167.10 in total charges

You are SO right Jetfuel. Once (and I'm talking within the last five years here) the total charges on that flight would equal AU$3.74 ... AU$3.40 Noise Tax for landing in SYD because all of the local residents who located there did so AFTER the airport did and they didn't care for the noise PLUS (and here's the kick in the rubber parts) the 10% Goods and Services Tax that the Australian Government apply to the first Tax that THEY charged in the first place. In those times a direct service (no stopping in SYD) would attract NO additional charges whatsoever.

This is where much of the problem also lay. If the airlines absorb these charges into the fare, 10% of nothing equals nothing. By doing it the way that they do, the airline gets the extra revenue (for essentially doing nothing) and so does the the Australian Government.

Why should it be a concern to any of them that they are p***ing off the customer ?

 Angry


User currently offlineBCAL From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2004, 3384 posts, RR: 16
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4036 times:

Jetfuel

Your views are exactly the same as I posted on a thread a few days back. They should bring in a law and make it compulsory for all airlines to quote the full cost of a flight or return flight, not a basic fare with all supplementary charges added on as "extras". We have read that BA has now introduced their seventh fuel supplement for long haul flights, despite hedging most of their fuel bill for the remainder of the year at $60 a barrel. Certainly smells of a rip off to me.

A UK low cost carrier is quoting fares from LGW to AGP at £26.99 outwards and £36.99 return. A bargain but when you proceed with the booking, the return fare of £63.98 has hiked to £97.17 equivalent to an increase of 52%. Looking at a breakdown of the supplements of £33.19, they are
  • £5 UK Air Passenger Duty
  • £15.32 for fuel and security supplements
  • £8.69 passenger service charge
  • £2.81 (AGP) airport departure tax and
  • £1.37 (AGP) airport handling charges.
Apart from the fuel/security charges, are the passenger service charge, airport departure tax and airport handling charges, really separate from a basic fare? Like you said, if you took the bus, you do not pay separately for any passenger transport tax, departure charges from the bus or coach station or bus/coach station handling charges.

If you buy a drink in the pub, you do not pay for the beverage, with supplements for the use of a glass, the use of a table, the use of the facilities, a contribution towards the public entertainment licence, and a handling charge to cover the cost of cleaning the glass, the table etc.

I agree that these rip offs should be made illegal, but who could enforce them?

 confused 



MOL on SRB's latest attack at BA: "It's like a little Chihuahua barking at a dying Labrador. Nobody cares."
User currently offlineAndesSMF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4002 times:

I was thinking about this problem:

I bought my airplane tickets about a month ago for the family vacation. Fuel was about $55 back then, I think. So the airline now has to pay more for fuel than the original agreement per my ticket purchase. My question is, does this make the fuel charge higher for others who purchased their tickets later, for the same flight?


User currently offlineQfsis From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3820 times:

Andes ... they can and do charge more. In the rare instance that an airline will allow you to reserve a seat and pay for for it later (especially domestic sectors), the price you pay is the one at the time of "purchase" and can differ quite severely from what you may have been quoted when the reservation was made.

I know that one of the charges that QF make is for aircraft insurance on a policy held by a US company. Depending on the exchange rate AUD to USD at any given time, this charge fluctuates constantly. (Sometimes mid booking if your fare needs to be requoted during the process for whatever reason ... extremely customer un-friendly).


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

Ah... those wonderful fuel surcharges...

There are a couple of airlines who even charge fuel surcharges by means of YR/YQ-taxes in the tax box of your ticket, but will (in the case of a refund) see this as a part of the fare.

Imagine a nonrefundable fare of €300 plus taxes of €210 (of which €120 are fuel surcharges)... in the EU, you get back the taxes if you cancel prior to departure (the fare obviously remains nonrefundable); so you'd expect to receive €210 back, right? Wrong - you're just getting €90, because the €120 hidden in the taxes are considered part of the fare...

Ridiculous, isn't it? But, unfortunately, this is the way a few airlines have been operating for a while now... and with the recent rise in oil prices, I expect this practice to increase quite quickly.

Just by the way - within IATA, it was actually agreed that YQ/YR taxes (and I think this also applied to Q-surcharges, but I'm not so sure there) were only to be used as a stopgap measure before airlines started adjusting their fares... that much all airlines agreed on... and as we all know, some "stopgap measures" last longer than "permanent solutions"...

Fuel surcharges are a part of the fare - and that's where they belong. Not into the tax box, not into Q-surcharges that are only added to the fare at time of quoting/ticketing - they belong into the base fare.

But, seriously, thinking that it's because the airlines want to rip off frequent flyers? No... not really.

It's more a sign of adjusting to customer behavior that's, unfortunately, become far too normal: unfortunately, consumers these days seem to be hunting for deals where they'll get ripped off... few still pause to look at the real cost of what they're buying, as soon as there's a way to get the same thing even for €5 cheaper, albeit at a much lower quality, they'll go for it.

And, thus, consumers hate fare increases. A small fare increase will lead to an airline losing thousands of customers - a "tax" increase (even though it's actually a fare increase - and, in the end, the consumer has to pay both anyhow, so it's really irrelevant which one is increased) does not have the same effect, as those will be seen as "inevitable".

As soon as consumers stop falling for misleading commercials or offers, in which fares are given without all taxes and charges, as soon as they start looking at only the final price... that's when airlines will be able to change this practice without "shooting themselves in the foot" (i.e. losing customers).

Quoting Qfsis (Reply 5):
I know that one of the charges that QF make is for aircraft insurance on a policy held by a US company. Depending on the exchange rate AUD to USD at any given time, this charge fluctuates constantly. (Sometimes mid booking if your fare needs to be requoted during the process for whatever reason ... extremely customer un-friendly).

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - "if your fare needs to be requoted during the process"?

Any quotation made before the actual ticket is issued is, in essence, worthless: the quotation made at the time of ticketing is the one that's valid.

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3622 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
As soon as consumers stop falling for misleading commercials or offers, in which fares are given without all taxes and charges, as soon as they start looking at only the final price... that's when airlines will be able to change this practice without "shooting themselves in the foot" (i.e. losing customers).

That is the trick of marketing, how many people shop and are attracted by the cheapest price?? without reading the "fine print"???

Some people ( incl. me) prefer the real ticket price which incl. all taxes except
the fuel......

Quoting BCAL (Reply 3):
A UK low cost carrier is quoting fares from LGW to AGP at £26.99 outwards and £36.99 return. A bargain but when you proceed with the booking, the return fare of £63.98 has hiked to £97.17 equivalent to an increase of 52%. Looking at a breakdown of the supplements of £33.19, they are

No look at BCAL's example above and think about the ways these prices are,
you see 26.99 and say well hello great price but you read the "fine" print and........... Also all these extra taxes we have to pay it is getting to the point
were we (Traveler) soon have to pay for everything...........  thumbsdown 

Cheers,


User currently offlineJetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3620 times:

I am assuming that there is some consumer law in the USA prohibiting airlines from using this practice of fuel levies. I did a few fare searches and the USA carriers all seem to adjust there base fares with fuel costs, which is the way it SHOULD be.

The following example is from United


Fares are valid for travel originating in both directions.

San Diego - Honolulu $342 Seattle - Honolulu $333


*Additional Taxes/Fees: Fares do not include a $3.30 per flight segment tax. A flight segment is defined as one takeoff and one landing. Fares do not include the September 11th Security Fee of up to $10 maximum per roundtrip or Passenger Facility Charges of up to $18, which may be collected depending on the itinerary. Fares for Hawaii do not include a $7.30 (each way) departure tax.



I just wish the Australian (and many other) Government would outlaw this deceiving practice of base fares plus undisclosed charges, surcharges, taxes, fees and levies



Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Reply 8):
I am assuming that there is some consumer law in the USA prohibiting airlines from using this practice of fuel levies. I did a few fare searches and the USA carriers all seem to adjust there base fares with fuel costs, which is the way it SHOULD be.

Actually, no, there is no such law, most - but not all - US carriers simply use a different method. What they do not do is increase the base fare.

There are two methods of charging the fuel surcharge without raising the base fare - the first, used by most non-US carriers as well as, since the beginning of April, United Airlines, is by means of YQ or YR "taxes" that are listed in the tax box.

The other method is the Q-Surcharge that's added to the base fare at the time of quoting the itinerary.

Looking up fares in fare-displays, you practically always get the base fares listed without any taxes or surcharges... which is why a flight listed for €200 can suddenly cost €300 as soon as you get the whole thing quoted (and that's without the taxes that are added on top of that).

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineHarrisAir From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 59 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

Quoting Jetfuel (Thread starter):
I don't see Taxis charge me a fuel surcharge do I?

Well we do here, Seattle Times, March 30:


Because gas prices are rising again, so is the cost of a taxicab ride in Seattle. The city has authorized a temporary 50-cents-per-trip fuel surcharge for cab trips originating in Seattle....


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7115 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

Is the surcharges the reason why non-US carriers are doing so well financially? Maybe the US carries should try it, after all, the INTL Carriers have been doing it for years and their population's have always commented on how much better run they are than their US counterparts. Certainly, the charge has spiked in the last few months, but its been around a lot longer than that with no complaints, thats the principle of the thing.
Does it hit the FF hard, you bet, but is that not what everyone wants, airlines to charge a "fare" which reflects their cost? If most of the person's on your a/c are FF's you won't be making any money, as each flight should pay for itself, or at least a high percentage of cost.
The alternative is to abandon the FF programs, who's in favour of that?


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8281 posts, RR: 10
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

Quoting Swissy (Reply 7):
That is the trick of marketing, how many people shop and are attracted by the cheapest price?? without reading the "fine print"???

That's why I shop on Orbitz which quotes the full fare with all taxes and surcharges included. In the end people who can't do math or don't travel often are the one who get screwed (i.e. non-FF's), and I don't feel too sorry for them. The bad news for airlines it that they're pissing off their FF's in order to attract the low budge traveler. Personally I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. You be the judge.


User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3505 times:

Quoting Par13del (Reply 11):
Is the surcharges the reason why non-US carriers are doing so well financially? Maybe the US carries should try it,

There's nothing for US carriers to try out there, because - again - they have fuel surcharges just like non-US carriers do.



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineHS748 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3449 times:

Quoting BCAL (Reply 3):
A UK low cost carrier is quoting fares from LGW to AGP at £26.99 outwards and £36.99 return. A bargain but when you proceed with the booking, the return fare of £63.98 has hiked to £97.17 equivalent to an increase of 52%. Looking at a breakdown of the supplements of £33.19, they are
£5 UK Air Passenger Duty
£15.32 for fuel and security supplements
£8.69 passenger service charge
£2.81 (AGP) airport departure tax and
£1.37 (AGP) airport handling charges.

Well the moral of the story is to book easyJet, the only airline to add nothing more than the APD to its quoted fares.


User currently offlineAerofan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3430 times:

It's true - I say do away with the fuel surcharges and just raise all fares by $100.00 each way. And there should also be an admin fee for FF redemptions as well. I think $100.00 per ticket should do nicely

User currently offlineSwissy From Switzerland, joined Jan 2005, 1734 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 2 days ago) and read 3243 times:

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 12):
That's why I shop on Orbitz which quotes the full fare with all taxes and surcharges included. In the end people who can't do math or don't travel often are the one who get screwed (i.e. non-FF's), and I don't feel too sorry for them. The bad news for airlines it that they're pissing off their FF's in order to attract the low budge traveler. Personally I think they're shooting themselves in the foot. You be the judge.

Yes you are right and I am one of it...........

Quoting HS748 (Reply 14):
Well the moral of the story is to book easyJet, the only airline to add nothing more than the APD to its quoted fares.

That is why I try to fly with EasyJet as much as possible if I use a LCC in Europe.

Cheers,  thumbsup 


User currently onlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7459 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

Quoting BCAL (Reply 3):
We have read that BA has now introduced their seventh fuel supplement for long haul flights, despite hedging most of their fuel bill for the remainder of the year at $60 a barrel. Certainly smells of a rip off to me.

In fact it's even better than that - for BA - at least in the short term. For April to June they have hedged 65 per cent of their needs at $55 a barrel, for July to September 55 per cent of needs at $57 a barrel and for October to December 57 per cent of needs also at $57. However that also means they will pay market price for between 35 per cent and 43 per cent of their needs and that market price looks like costing them £200M more than they planned, equivalent to around 12 per cent of their fuel bill.

BA are also probably in a quandary about what to do beyond December. Some experts are forecasting that prices will continue to rise until after the US automobile driving season is over (in September) and then go into reverse. So do you hedge now at the current very high prices or do you believe those experts who are forecasting a price drop?


User currently offlineQfsis From Australia, joined Feb 2006, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

Quoting Leskova (Reply 6):
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - "if your fare needs to be requoted during the process"?

Any quotation made before the actual ticket is issued is, in essence, worthless: the quotation made at the time of ticketing is the one that's valid.

Sorry for not being clear Frank,

I meant in course of the same internet session/call ... if you change your mind about the 0900 service, go back and select the 1000 service instead the taxes can change between the two quotes (ie. within the minute or so).

Does that make more sense?

Tony


User currently offlineSkySurfer From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3100 times:

Can you imagine, an airline hedging their fuel for the next few months at $55 per barrel and chargin a fuel surcharge already! I'm shocked, lol. What should happen now is that airlines lock in their fuel prices for the forseeable future, charge the surcharge for the next few months to gain additional income, then they could actually reduce the surcharge in the future once they'd made the money back and seem like the darling of the airlines. Its a quick cash grab to charge, but it helps them in the long term...not the short term. Anyone fancy cruising the atlatic/pacific instead of flying?

Cheers



In the dark you can't see ugly, but you can feel fat
User currently offlineLeskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 70
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3028 times:

Quoting Qfsis (Reply 18):
I meant in course of the same internet session/call ... if you change your mind about the 0900 service, go back and select the 1000 service instead the taxes can change between the two quotes (ie. within the minute or so).

Does that make more sense?

It most certainly does, Tony.

Actually, that'll usually not be the consequence of currency fluctuations, because few - if any - ticketing transactions are based on actual currency exchange rates: in several countries (don't quite remember, but I think this method is used worldwide) exchange rates are based on the average of the previous week... i.e. this week's exchange-rate average will determine next weeks (the rates are adjusted every Wednesday). I'm not certain whether this exchange rate is also used for taxes, but even that won't be adjusted on a by-the-minute basis, but daily at the most.

What you'll be seeing there is probably more the result of airports having different fees for different times - a rush-hour-departure is more expensive than during weaker hours, very early in the morning and very late in the evening can often be very expensive as well (because of noise restrictions).

Not sure if that's the case with the examples you're mentioning, but I've seen taxes/fees vary up to €20-€40 for simple point-to-point roundtrips just depending on the times.

Obviously, the fares themselves are often dependant on times as well (not just booking class availability), so that may also be a factor.

Regards,
Frank



Smile - it confuses people!
User currently offlineJetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2832 times:

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 15):
And there should also be an admin fee for FF redemptions as well. I think $100.00 per ticket should do nicely

Why should a FF have to pay an admin fee. Airlines are seriously peeving off their FF. Loyal FF that have in many cases flown only one airline, and at times higher fares, to get free flights shouldn't be targeted......fuel levies should be outlawed and airlines forced to incorporate all their costs into the ticket price.



Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
User currently offlineBHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (8 years 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2809 times:

TAP now build the fuel surcharge in with the fare.

Normally I quote fares to clients including all taxes and fees, because it now sounds stupid to say the fare is 120 plus taxes, because the client starts thinking 140/150, then you say 210 and they think you're making it up. I just ticketed a round the world - total taxes / fuel was Eur 475 on top of the fare.

In BA's case part of the problem quoting all inclusive fares outside the UK are that the Air Pax Duty rates change if you fly economy or business, and the airport taxes change whether you stopover in London one way, both ways, or not at all. Those 2 factors can change the fare by around Eur100, so should the airline quote higher to cover itself and charge everyone the highest rate? Not very fair either. I also do not see BA's point about hiking the fuel surcharge in the same week as launching new lower fares to Europe. Robbing Peter to pay Paul perhaps?



Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
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...
Ryanair Blasts The Latest BA Fuel Surcharge posted Tue Apr 18 2006 20:21:46 by Door5Right
Why Are We Still Paying The Recent Fuel Surcharges posted Tue Oct 10 2006 09:54:22 by Skyhigh
PHL The Great Terminal Shuffle...Part 2 posted Tue Jul 11 2006 01:52:52 by Vega
Has FR Introduced A Back-door Fuel Surcharge? posted Tue Jun 27 2006 23:23:04 by LS737
How Will The Higher Fuel Prices Affect Reorg.? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 14:45:29 by 7E72004
EI To Introduce Fuel Surcharge. posted Fri Apr 21 2006 16:31:50 by Eikiwi
The Great Airline Fee Debacle Timeline posted Thu Mar 23 2006 00:32:24 by 747buff
Swiss Fuel Surcharge posted Mon Jan 30 2006 02:30:41 by Hawaiian717
PHL The Great Terminal Shuffle... posted Tue Nov 15 2005 03:29:14 by UALPHLCS
Air France-KLM To Raise Fuel Surcharge Again posted Thu Sep 29 2005 12:34:14 by JetMaster