Glareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, RR: 1 Posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2187 times:
Published in Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant this morning in relation to the AMS hal year results. Even though AMS had 2% more pax they expect a reduction for the next year because of the increase in taxes and other ticket components. Here it comes:
I don't know what other airports cost but the ticket almost doubles in price. I understand why DUS BRU NRN CRL FMO CGN enjoy growth with Dutch pax. My main reason to prefer DUS is the congested freeways in The Netherlands. All together AMS has tough times ahead.......
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
Andie007 From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 848 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2062 times:
As a FTL I'm flying quite regular from DUS airport.
In the past few months the presence of Dutch people (esp. in Terminal A / *alliance-Terminal) is quite impressive.
MEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4124 posts, RR: 37 Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2047 times:
Quoting Glareskin (Thread starter): don't know what other airports cost but the ticket almost doubles in price.
Schiphol can be only to blame for a small part of thıs doublıng.
At least the airlıne should advertıze the basıc prıce of thıs tıcket as 671 euro (405 plus 265)
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
Vfw614 From Germany, joined Dec 2001, 3644 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2023 times:
Quoting Glareskin (Thread starter): I don't know what other airports cost but the ticket almost doubles in price.
Well, the "fuel addition" is neither a tax nor a fee, it is part of the fare. So the fare ("ticket price + fuel addition") is 671 EUR, the rest is 125 EUR.
I think legislation should force airlines to give just one sum for all the monies they pocket - because that is what a "fare" is when looking at it with some common sense - and to then break down those monies going to third parties on a per transaction (VAT) or per capita basis (security, airport fee).
HT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6475 posts, RR: 26 Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1866 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4): At least the airlıne should advertıze the basıc prıce of thıs tıcket as 671 euro (405 plus 265)
&
Quoting Vfw614 (Reply 5): I think legislation should force airlines to give just one sum for all the monies they pocket - because that is what a "fare" is when looking at it with some common sense - and to then break down those monies going to third parties on a per transaction (VAT) or per capita basis (security, airport fee).
Negative on a complete price only.
Keep in mind, that in case you cancel a non-refundable ticket, only the "fare"-portion and the non-refundable Handling Charge (if advertaised accordingly) actually are non-refundable. All other fees & surcharges (incl. fuel surcharge) ARE refundable !
-HT
Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4169 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1741 times:
Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 4):
Schiphol can be only to blame for a small part of thıs doublıng.
At least the airlıne should advertıze the basıc prıce of thıs tıcket as 671 euro (405 plus 265)
All airlines mustadvertise all-inn prices (only charges which are avoidable may be left out). At least this is the policy of all ticketrs sold in the EU.
Quoting Glareskin (Thread starter): Even though AMS had 2% more pax they expect a reduction for the next year because of the increase in taxes and other ticket components.
And guess who is increasing its landing and other fees for airlines....Yes it´s AMS. So basically the airport is as much to blame as all the other parties trying to make money out of the pax.
Glareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 1594 times:
Quoting LJ (Reply 13): And guess who is increasing its landing and other fees for airlines....Yes it´s AMS. So basically the airport is as much to blame as all the other parties trying to make money out of the pax.
But at least for that part they are responsible for the consequences themselves.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
Kappel From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 1546 times:
It is also dependant on the airline. For example a return ticket AMS-SIN-AMS on Sept 14 - Sept 21:
KL: Ticket price: EUR 617, taxes and charges: EUR 382.24, Total price: EUR 999.24
SQ: Ticket price: EUR 779, taxes and charges: EUR 236.68, Total price: EUR 1,015.68.
That's a big difference in the taxes and charges category. I suppose SQ's fuel surcharges are much lower as I assume they have to pay the same airport and government taxes. KL is quite competitive on ticket price alone.
Same goes for a return ticket AMS-JFK-AMS on the same dates.
KL: Ticket price: EUR 319, taxes and charges: EUR 373.60, Total price: EUR 692.60
DL: Ticket price: EUR 259.98, taxes and charges: EUR 336.64, Total price: EUR 596.62. I guess in this case, the low dollar helps DL with the low ticket price.
So, KL is at least partly to blame for the high taxes and charges included in the ticket prices. But there is indeed no doubt that AMS is one of the more expensive airports in Europe.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6675 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 hour ago) and read 1433 times:
Quoting Glareskin (Thread starter): I don't know what other airports cost but the ticket almost doubles in price.
If you go to the BA web site and look at a LHR-JFK-LHR flight travelling west on 16 September and east on the 23 September BA start by quoting an all inclusive price of £298.50. Once you have selected your flights a subsequent screen tells you that the price of the fare is only £48 and that "taxes, fees and surcharges" total £250.50.
No detailed and full breakdown of the taxes, fees and surcharges appears to be given except that a fuel surcharge of £78.00 and an "insurance and security fee" of £2.50, both charged by BA, are identified.
This seems totally ridiculous. So off to the DL site.
Same journey and same dates identifies on the first page a DL fare of £63.60 (in large type) and immediately below it a note in smaller type that "taxes and fees" add an additional £233.90 (to give at this stage of the booking process an unidentified total of £297.50)! On a subsequent screen the full cost is given.
So from LHR the total ticket price is not nearly double the fare as iit is from AMS but between four and a half to just over six times the fare!
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, RR: 23 Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1337 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 16): If you go to the BA web site and look at a LHR-JFK-LHR flight travelling west on 16 September and east on the 23 September BA start by quoting an all inclusive price of £298.50. Once you have selected your flights a subsequent screen tells you that the price of the fare is only £48 and that "taxes, fees and surcharges" total £250.50.
No detailed and full breakdown of the taxes, fees and surcharges appears to be given except that a fuel surcharge of £78.00 and an "insurance and security fee" of £2.50, both charged by BA, are identified.
If you want a detailed breakdown of taxes/fees/surcharges, you can use the following site (this company provides the software for several airline website booking systems). http://matrix.itasoftware.com/cvg/dispatch
Change the "Sales city" as required to get the correct currency (they're based in BOS so it shows BOS and thus US$ as the default) After clicking on the selected fare in the resulting display click "Show booking details" link in the top left corner. Your BA LHR-JFK fare is broken down as follows. The "YQ surcharge" is the fuel surcharge and is of couse not a "tax" as shown in the heading of that row. "USDA APHIS fee" stands for the "U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service" fee. The two U.K. government fees/airport taxes when converted to US$ are roughly twice as much as all the U.S. government and airport taxes/fees combined.
Fare (A1): BA LONNYC OXRCUK9 fare £24.00
Fare (A2): BA NYCLON OXRCUK9 fare £24.00
Tax: USDA APHIS Fee $5.00
Tax: US Immigration Fee $7.00
Tax: US Customs Fee $5.50
Tax: United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty £40.00
Tax: United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge £19.70
Tax: US International Arrival Tax $15.40
Tax: BA YQ surcharge £161.00
Tax: US International Departure Tax $15.40
Tax: US September 11th Security Fee $2.50
Tax: US Passenger Facility Charge $4.50
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4169 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1256 times:
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 14):
Quoting LJ (Reply 13):
And guess who is increasing its landing and other fees for airlines....Yes it´s AMS. So basically the airport is as much to blame as all the other parties trying to make money out of the pax.
But at least for that part they are responsible for the consequences themselves.
However it´s AMS mangement who cries out loud on how the environmental tax has hurt them in revenues etc. because it has "increased costs for flying from AMS" . Needless to say it´s only for PR purposes as it keeps the attention away from the real problems namely the fact that airlines view AMS as expansive. It´s a very common trick, blame a decline on something external (and better blame it on something the majority of people don´t like namely the government) to cover up your own problems (namely the fact that AMS is unable to control its (security) costs. And Schiphol has always been an expert in this field (they do have a very good PR department).
Glareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1093 times:
Quoting LJ (Reply 18): And Schiphol has always been an expert in this field (they do have a very good PR department).
True, but I'll have to admit that the Dutch govt. isn't really AMS friendly with anti-Schiphol activists like Wijnand Duivendak being part of it........
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
LJ From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4169 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 975 times:
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 19): True, but I'll have to admit that the Dutch govt. isn't really AMS friendly with anti-Schiphol activists like Wijnand Duivendak being part of it........
Given the fact that the shareholders of AMS is the Dutch govenrment (local + central), they (the Dutch central government) know exactly what they´re doing. Remember, this environemental tax is a PR thing for the Dutch government. It keeps the environmentalists happy and at the same time doesn´t hurt the airport much. Therefore, this is a classic win-win situation for the Dutch government. The airlines loose, but they also know that the alternatives discussed were far worse. That makes only the pax the real loser....
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1284 posts, 
From France, joined Sep 2004, 1718 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jun 2002, 770 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jun 2000, 848 posts, 
From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2781 posts, 
From Suriname, joined Jul 2005, 3533 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 6675 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21679 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
