Virgin America is introducing fuel surcharges to its existing fare structure as follows, effective immediately:
$10 in short-haul markets: San Francisco (SFO) to Los Angeles (LAX), SFO to San Diego (SAN), SFO to Las Vegas (LAS), SFO to Seattle (SEA), LAX to SEA, SAN to SEA (connecting) and LAS to SEA (connecting).
$25 in all long-haul markets: SFO to New York (JFK), SFO to Washington (IAD), LAX to JFK, LAX to IAD, JFK to SEA (connecting), SEA-IAD (connecting), LAS-IAD (connecting), SAN to IAD (connecting), JFK to SAN (connecting) and JFK to LAS (connecting).
Mirrodie From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 7459 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2269 times:
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 3): Fuel surcharges are not going to do anything into their bottom line.
Respectfully, I have to disagree. To say it won't do ANYTHING is an overstatement. It must have an impact. And in fact, it would probably have a more significant impact than AA's $15 first checked bag fee, since this fee is waived in MANY circumstances. A fuel charge across the board must have some impact.
Forum moderator 2001-2010; He's a pedantic, pontificating, pretentious bastard, a belligerent old fart, a worthless st
F9Animal From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 5636 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2156 times:
Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 3): Makes no difference anyway. Fuel surcharges are not going to do anything into their bottom line.
It's still going to be supply and demand that controls the final price.
How can it not make a difference? $25 per person to help pay for the gas on the longer flights will be helpful to its bottom line. And the $10 per person on shorter markets will help. If anything, the industry is doing what it needs to do, which is increase the fares, and add these fuel surcharges.
I think it is brilliant that the airlines do this. The travelling public has no choice but to understand the positions the airlines are pointing at right now. Sure I would not be happy to pay the extra. But, I understand completley why they are doing this. If I choose not to fly becuase of a fuel surcharge, then I guess I should quit putting gas in my car.
It seems that the airlines are following suit in this quest to offset the high cost of fuel. The big question is, why did it take so long for the airlines to implement these surcharges? Would it be smart for the airlines charging this to strictly invest these $$$'s into fuel?
Let's see. I would estimate 100 passengers paying $25- helps put $2500 in the fuel tank. Someone smart with math..... How much does it cost to fuel a bird from say LAS to JFK? Better question, what is the price of Jet A today? I know it is really bad.
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (7 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2051 times:
Quoting F9Animal (Reply 6): How can it not make a difference? $25 per person to help pay for the gas on the longer flights will be helpful to its bottom line. And the $10 per person on shorter markets will help. If anything, the industry is doing what it needs to do, which is increase the fares, and add these fuel surcharges.
Because people does not buy ticket based on fares excluding the fuel surcharges. They are buying fares at the bottom line out of pocket cost.
I agree raising fares is the only way to get the airline back to profitability, but calling it fuel surcharges is just a PR stunt.
If other carriers are not raising their fares, what's gonna happen is that instead of charging $200 for fare, it's going to charge $175+$25 surcharge, which does not make any difference