Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
G4, NK & WN Go To US Supreme Court Against DOT  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25841 posts, RR: 50
Posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8209 times:

Allegiant, Spirit and Southwest Airlines have petitioned the US Supreme Court in their effort to overturn DOT's recent mandate on ticket pricing to include all government taxes and fees, along with the departments policies such as mandating 24-hour refund period even on non-refundable tickets.

The airlines argue that the DOT violates the industries First Amendment rights in mandating that they must advertise total cost tickets, which restricts airlines truthful speech about the larger and ever growing share of each ticket that consist of government taxes and fees. As part of the 1978 Deregulation Act passed by Congress, the intent was that the marketplace would determine price and airlines as virtually every other industry in America were free to advertise products on a pre-tax basis. The DOT rules even further limit the airlines ability to prominently identify government imposed taxes and fees by requiring such information be in significantly smaller type.

Secondly, the DOT exceeded its statutory mandate to arbitrarily require airlines to begin allowing customers to cancel and offer full refunds within 24-hours of purchase even though consumers opted to select fares with clearly disclosed conditions that do not allow refunds. Airlines argue that this action is a form of regulation on pricing and market competitiveness which also goes against the Deregulation Act that recognized that the availability of a variety of open market fare options and their applicable restrictions would be pro-competitive for both the consumer and sellers.


Writ of Certiorari:
http://www.airlineinfo.com/ost14/ost112912.html#Spirit

=

[Edited 2012-11-30 08:56:19]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
105 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7418 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8131 times:

I think they will win, but let's be honest. The real issue is that NK was taking advantage of this to create tons of fees that are not tax related. IMHO, actual govt taxes should be excluded, but not other fees which are really airline levied.

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7785 posts, RR: 18
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 8054 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 1):
I think they will win, but let's be honest. The real issue is that NK was taking advantage of this to create tons of fees that are not tax related. IMHO, actual govt taxes should be excluded, but not other fees which are really airline levied.

Agreed but it is a sly move by the airlines.
I smell a new NK advertising slogan- "Now a higher authority than the US Supreme Court"   



我思うゆえに我あり。(Jap. 'I think, therefore I am.')
User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5930 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7924 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It's the airlines' attempt to provide false advertising to the public on the true price of the ticket. I think the airline needs to be upfront with all of the fees and taxes. I think it's wrong for an airline to advertise $39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes.

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7885 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
It's the airlines' attempt to provide false advertising to the public on the true price of the ticket.

   And there are false advertising regulations in this country designed for consumer protection, so this isn't without precedent. I do think that the rule will hold up.

As for the second issue of the 24-hour refund rule, that I could see being struck down. I hope it isn't, since I've taken advantage of that sort of thing (though not on any of the complainant airlines), but I would understand if it were.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineseven3seven From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 318 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 7849 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
I think it's wrong for an airline to advertise $39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes.

You can mostly blame the govt for taxing the bejeezus out of the airlines and its consumers. Hiding the taxes in the fare will just allow the govt. to increase airline taxes without you even realizing it. What you should be doing is protesting the govt.'s need to outrageously tax the airline industry.

The airlines are correct to be fighting this fight and I think they will win. If the industry is deregulated than what is this rule to require showing entire fares about? Sometimes the govt. is wrong



My views are mine alone and are not that of any of my fellow employees, officers, or directors at my company
User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3834 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7792 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
It's the airlines' attempt to provide false advertising to the public on the true price of the ticket. I think the airline needs to be upfront with all of the fees and taxes. I think it's wrong for an airline to advertise $39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes.

They should only have to advertise the price including mandatory fees, which they've been doing. I don't know a conventional way to market a product with dozens of service combinations that would affect the price.

Quoting seven3seven (Reply 5):
You can mostly blame the govt for taxing the bejeezus out of the airlines and its consumers. Hiding the taxes in the fare will just allow the govt. to increase airline taxes without you even realizing it. What you should be doing is protesting the govt.'s need to outrageously tax the airline industry.

True enough. Though you always get the argument of "someone has to pay for the FAA and ATC and all of the infrastructure" I'm sure there's a happy medium that will never be reached.


User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1935 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7742 times:

As much as I love WN (and conversely hate NK and G4), I hope they lose this.

The lack of advertising the taxes and fees is nothing more than a bait-and-switch. And what's so wrong with the 24 hour rule?


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7645 times:

The way I look at it, the DOT is trying to hide from the flying public just how much of that fare is taxes. The DOT has a nasty habit of changing the rules to make them look better. They did the same thing with the on-time stats in the late 80s.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 7621 times:

Any word on whether G4's blocked plans to offer a fare option based on fuel prices (where one would pay extra if fuel went up from the time of ticket purchases) are also part of this Supreme Court case?

G4 was making a big hissy over that when the DOT issued their regulations.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 7):

As much as I love WN (and conversely hate NK and G4), I hope they lose this.

I hope they lose this, too. However, I like WN (still offering great service, even though they don't serve my home airport), and I like G4 as well (good service, and they bring low vacation fares to small-town airports that leisure travelers would otherwise ignore). However, it will be a cold day in hell before I step on an NK Airbus.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7616 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 8):
The way I look at it, the DOT is trying to hide from the flying public just how much of that fare is taxes.
NK was making that exact argument on their website when the new rules came into effect.

IIRC, NK's CEO Ben Baldanza also thinks that air travel in the US is overtaxed. (He must not have seen the air travel taxes in our friendly neighbor to the north...)

[Edited 2012-11-30 11:39:46]


"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 5769 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7611 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
he DOT exceeded its statutory mandate to arbitrarily require airlines to begin allowing customers to cancel and offer full refunds within 24-hours of purchase even though consumers opted to select fares with clearly disclosed conditions that do not allow refunds.

This bit I can definitely see being overturned. Unless the DOT lawyers find a clever way to couch it in terms of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, then I'd suggest that it violates the freedom to contract.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Allegiant, Spirit and Southwest Airlines have petitioned the US Supreme Court in their effort to overturn DOT's recent mandate on ticket pricing to include all government taxes and fees

I feel that this will be harder for them to argue. While I understand that aviation is one of the few industries that is required to advertise prices including tax, it is also one of the few that is entirely taxed at the federal level. Therefore taxes are uniform across the nation, whereas in other industries - such as retail - it would not be possible to adopt after-tax advertising because the level of tax levied varies from state to state. And to couch this in terms of freedom of speech seems to be drawing a very long bow!



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinedeltairlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8906 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7562 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 6):
They should only have to advertise the price including mandatory fees, which they've been doing. I don't know a conventional way to market a product with dozens of service combinations that would affect the price.

Agreed.

When I go to Best Buy to buy my nice, new big screen TV that's advertised in the Sunday flyer, it says it's $999 (or whatever). It doesn't say in the total price that I get to pay a nice little bit of money in sales tax to various government entities at all (maybe it does in the fine print, but it sure doesn't say anywhere until I get to checkout how much in tax I owe).

It's a double standard for the airline industry.

AIrline-included fees should be included, but taxes should be seperate. Heck, on some routes the taxes can vary between the O&D based on what hub you might be connecting in (ie MEM has a much lower PFC than ATL).


User currently offlineJONC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 126 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7540 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 7):
The lack of advertising the taxes and fees is nothing more than a bait-and-switch

If you go to target and buy a toothbush for $2.99 you take it to the register and the price is $3.24 including taxes. Thats nowhere on the lable, and its just accepted in the U.S. that taxes are added to goods and services. Why is the airline industry being singled out in this issue? No other industry is forced to include the amount of taxes in any advsertised price. Its just not fair.


User currently offlineAlasizon From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 289 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7504 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
$39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes.

While I think that taxes should be known, advertising the ticket as $39 is very correct as that is what the airline is charging you to get you from point A to point B. The additional taxes and fees are not airline imposed, they are just required to be collected by the airlines. It is just like sales tax in stores, in order to get your items, you need to pay the sales tax as well at the register even though it is not the store charging you the sales tax. Stores can advertise their prices pre-tax, no reason why the airline industry shouldn't be able to as well.

The DOT, in my opinion, overstepped their bounds on this one. In this day and age, anyone who thinks that there are no taxes on a purchase of any kind is quite foolish and it is obvious that there will be taxes, no reason for airlines to disclose them as part of their ticket price when they are not actually part of the ticket price, rather the fees on the ticket.



Window seats may be over-rated, but I'll take a window seat on a DC9 anyday
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7453 times:

Quoting JONC777 (Reply 13):
If you go to target and buy a toothbush for $2.99 you take it to the register and the price is $3.24 including taxes. Thats nowhere on the lable, and its just accepted in the U.S. that taxes are added to goods and services. Why is the airline industry being singled out in this issue? No other industry is forced to include the amount of taxes in any advsertised price. Its just not fair.

When Southwest starts competing with Oral-B, then you'd have a point. But as long as the rule is applied consistently across the airline industry, it's entirely fair.

Quoting Alasizon (Reply 14):
In this day and age, anyone who thinks that there are no taxes on a purchase of any kind is quite foolish and it is obvious that there will be taxes

Here's the difference: let's say I go into a store and compare Item A ($10) and Item B ($14). Because they're in the same store, both have an 8% sales tax, so I can figure out relatively what I'm going to pay for each item, and I can certainly tell which of the two is more expensive. That's not the case with air travel taxes or fees, which may vary based on routing, airline, etc. So I can't see which is actually cheaper until I go through the booking processes for both, which is a waste of my time.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7451 times:

Lots and lots of misconceptions in this thread.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
It's the airlines' attempt to provide false advertising to the public on the true price of the ticket. I think the airline needs to be upfront with all of the fees and taxes. I think it's wrong for an airline to advertise $39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes.

So when the auto dealership does the same thing, it's not false advertising? Why does EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY save one get a free pass?

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
And there are false advertising regulations in this country designed for consumer protection, so this isn't without precedent.

There is exactly ONE other industry that is required to include all taxes in the advertised price: Gasoline. So clearly, omitting taxes from advertised prices is NOT "false advertising".

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 7):
The lack of advertising the taxes and fees is nothing more than a bait-and-switch.

You really need to look up the definition of bait-and-switch.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 11):
it is also one of the few that is entirely taxed at the federal level.

False. Individual airports set their own PFCs (which I've seen range from $1 to $30, with the average being about $10).

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The DOT rules even further limit the airlines ability to prominently identify government imposed taxes and fees by requiring such information be in significantly smaller type.

If anything is going to get overturned, that one is it. Total 1st Amendment violation with zero precedent.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineAWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1935 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7355 times:

Quoting JONC777 (Reply 13):
If you go to target and buy a toothbush for $2.99 you take it to the register and the price is $3.24 including taxes. Thats nowhere on the lable, and its just accepted in the U.S. that taxes are added to goods and services. Why is the airline industry being singled out in this issue? No other industry is forced to include the amount of taxes in any advsertised price. Its just not fair.

What other industries randomly introduce nickel-and-dime fees the way the airline industry does? This isn't about the taxes and we all know it.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):

You really need to look up the definition of bait-and-switch.

No need to be condescending!


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 5769 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7299 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):
False. Individual airports set their own PFCs (which I've seen range from $1 to $30, with the average being about $10).

In which case that further builds the case for including them in advertising. At least if I go to a store here in NC I know that 6-7% will be added (depending on the county). I don't, however, have the first clue what the difference in cost would be for flying out of RDU as opposed to GSO.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7259 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):
There is exactly ONE other industry that is required to include all taxes in the advertised price: Gasoline. So clearly, omitting taxes from advertised prices is NOT "false advertising".

And gasoline taxes being included in the price has never been struck down by the courts. So clearly, there is precedent for this sort of regulation.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinenkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2673 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7221 times:

Rental cars are just as bad at this... you ever see the taxes and fees on rental cars? However, every airline website I have been on shows you the TOTAL price before you have to pay for it, you can always get out of it before confirming... If they showed you one price, then changed it after you confirmed and paid, then it would be bait and switch.


I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7214 times:

What has WN ever done that puts them in this category of airlines? I never noticed any fals advertising or outrageous fees with them. Can somebody enlighten me a bit?

That being said, WN is one of my favorite airlines, but my entire being is based on principles, and this is breaking a big one. You don't pull such slimy moves like false advertising or covering up fees and taxes, and then try to pull something like this! I don't see how this was even allowed to go to court, as it is a method of protecting the common good and the well-being of the people.


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 7148 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 21):

What has WN ever done that puts them in this category of airlines? I never noticed any fals advertising or outrageous fees with them. Can somebody enlighten me a bit?

WN, G4, and NK are all LCCs that don't like the fact that they can't show rock-bottom fares before tax anymore.

WN's opposition is strictly limited to including government and other taxes and fees in fares and the 24-hour cancellation rule, and there are some parts of the DOT rules that WN likes. G4 and NK, however, have much deeper grudges, and many of these have been mentioned in depth in this thread.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7055 times:

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 22):
Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 21):
What has WN ever done that puts them in this category of airlines? I never noticed any fals advertising or outrageous fees with them. Can somebody enlighten me a bit?
WN, G4, and NK are all LCCs that don't like the fact that they can't show rock-bottom fares before tax anymore.

WN's opposition is strictly limited to including government and other taxes and fees in fares and the 24-hour cancellation rule, and there are some parts of the DOT rules that WN likes. G4 and NK, however, have much deeper grudges, and many of these have been mentioned in depth in this thread.

Oh, thanks! I have notice recenty that WN's fres are not as cheapas they used to be. I don't know if this had anything to do wth that, but what cost me around $150 on WN last year costs me $400 this year!


User currently offlinefrmrcapcadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1731 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7019 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):
So when the auto dealership does the same thing, it's not false advertising? Why does EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY save one get a free pass?

Many of us assume that the advertised price is a starting point, and that we will end up paying less.



Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7019 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 17):

What other industries randomly introduce nickel-and-dime fees the way the airline industry does?

Plenty. If I go to a baseball game, all I pay for is a seat. If I want any food or drinks I have to pay an astounding amount for it because in many places, once you're in there's no re-entry. So I'm at the mercy of their prices. If you want a massage at a beach resort you pay for it after you've paid for your room. Plenty of hotels charge hourly for internet usage. They're all ancillary fees not inherent in the original service purchased.

Not everyone checks a bag on a flight, so it would be pretty silly to advertise a fare with a bag fee included if a passenger doesn't need to check a bag. Now, when it comes to things like convenience or booking fees, fees that you have no way of getting out of paying, I totally agree that those should be included in the price tag. But if it is a fee like onboard internet, or a bag fee, I don't think they should be included in any base price.

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 17):
This isn't about the taxes and we all know it.

How is it not? If it was about more then wouldn't they be requesting more changes?

Government taxes and fees on airline tickets are outrageous. This industry for whatever reason is every government's personal ATM. If the government wants airlines to be transparent in the way they price everything, piggybacking their fees onto the ticket price is not making things transparent for them.

I remember flying Ryanair once and finding a one way ticket for absolutely free. Zero Euros. When I went to book the ticket it was shocking that I was still going to have to pay 40 Euros because that was the price of all the taxes and fees from the governments. It certainly got my attention at how ludicrous some of these taxes and fees can be. If it was buried in the ticket price I might have never noticed, and that's precisely what the government wants. Nobody to be paying attention as they raise those fees.

Quoting Mir (Reply 19):

And gasoline taxes being included in the price has never been struck down by the courts. So clearly, there is precedent for this sort of regulation.

Why not start your own petition then to get every good or service in this country to show the all in price including taxes and fees?


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3435 posts, RR: 7
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6817 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 1):
I think they will win, but let's be honest. The real issue is that NK was taking advantage of this to create tons of fees that are not tax related. IMHO, actual govt taxes should be excluded, but not other fees which are really airline levied.

I can live with the listed fare including all fees (airport, fuel, premium cabin, etc.) but excludes strictly tax. One area that really frustrates me is the notorious fuel surcharge. Fuel surcharges to Europe have surged in the past year or so. That is part of the fare. I used to hate to see a $300 ai roundtrip fare to Europe only for a $400 fuel surcharge to be added to really make it $700


User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4608 posts, RR: 23
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6550 times:

I'm somewhat shocked airlines don't say "your airfare is $$$ which includes $$$ in government fees and taxes." That would seem to get their point across, unless that isn't legal to present it that way.

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 23):
Oh, thanks! I have notice recenty that WN's fres are not as cheapas they used to be. I don't know if this had anything to do wth that, but what cost me around $150 on WN last year costs me $400 this year!

Pay attention to the day you buy them on. WN does a lot of fare sales Tue-Thur or special ones on Fridays that can really drop the fares down a ton. A route I normally fly is about $240 one way. Last year WN had it on say for $130. This year that had a similar offering but the sale only ran for a few days and I didn't book in time. it is all about just being prepared. If the airfare is low enough to where you are able to jump on it, I always do. If the fares drops, I'll just go in and change my reservation to the same flights at the lower fare and get a fare credit to put on my trip.


User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 446 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6381 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Writ of Certiorari:
http://www.airlineinfo.com/ost14/ost...pirit

Does anyone have a link that you can access without being a member of airlineinfo.com?


User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6261 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 27):

I usually do ISP-BWI-CHS on Tues or Wed morning that leaves ISP at 0630ish and the flight I flew it last year for $130, but now it's $378. I guess gas prices and demand has gone up?


User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3834 posts, RR: 7
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 6119 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 23):
Oh, thanks! I have notice recenty that WN's fres are not as cheapas they used to be. I don't know if this had anything to do wth that, but what cost me around $150 on WN last year costs me $400 this year!

That's not taxes, their fares have been on the rise for years and will continue to do so as costs rise.

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 29):
I usually do ISP-BWI-CHS on Tues or Wed morning that leaves ISP at 0630ish and the flight I flew it last year for $130, but now it's $378. I guess gas prices and demand has gone up?

I'd say the introductory fares are long gone. Gas and demand shouldn't be all that different.


User currently offlineJHCRJ700 From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5923 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
It's the airlines' attempt to provide false advertising to the public on the true price of the ticket. I think the airline needs to be upfront with all of the fees and taxes. I think it's wrong for an airline to advertise $39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes

Agreed. Though it isn't a big deal per say, it would be nice to just have an up front cost from the get go.

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 29):
I usually do ISP-BWI-CHS on Tues or Wed morning that leaves ISP at 0630ish and the flight I flew it last year for $130, but now it's $378. I guess gas prices and demand has gone up?

Is it still fair to call WN a LCC? In some cases their fares are higher than the legacy carriers.



RUSH
User currently offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 5755 times:

Count me as hoping the airlines lose this case as well.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):
So when the auto dealership does the same thing, it's not false advertising?

Yes, but auto dealers don't double the price of the car because you want to buy it two days before Christmas.

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 6):
They should only have to advertise the price including mandatory fees, which they've been doing. I don't know a conventional way to market a product with dozens of service combinations that would affect the price.

What needs to change is all booking engines like Kayak, Orbitz, etc. During the booking process, things like baggage and premium seating should be accounted for.

Quoting deltairlines (Reply 12):

It's a double standard for the airline industry.
Quoting JONC777 (Reply 13):
Why is the airline industry being singled out in this issue?

Boo hoo!! Outside of a sale offer, neither Best Buy or Target charges me a higher price on TV's or toothbrushes just because I purchase them at the counter versus pay for it 14 days earlier. Sorry, but the airlines brought this on themselves.



The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4590 times:

Quoting nkops (Reply 20):
Rental cars are just as bad at this... you ever see the taxes and fees on rental cars?

Actually, rental car companies make it a point to capitalize and bold the taxes charged when you select a car... something the DOT has prohibited the airlines from doing. It's not rocket science either... when they quote "$35/day $185 total" for a 3 day rental, it's not hard to figure out what the taxes are. Again, something the airlines are prohibited from doing.

Quoting nkops (Reply 20):
If they showed you one price, then changed it after you confirmed and paid, then it would be bait and switch.

Which is, and has always been, illegal.

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 21):
You don't pull such slimy moves like false advertising or covering up fees and taxes

Again, EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY does the same thing, except for gasoline. And it doesn't hurt them one bit, so they don't complain.

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 21):
I don't see how this was even allowed to go to court, as it is a method of protecting the common good and the well-being of the people.

Not to be that guy, but the Nazis also used the "protecting the people" excuse for the atrocities they committed.

We have a court system for a reason.

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Reply 24):
Many of us assume that the advertised price is a starting point, and that we will end up paying less.

Straw man. "Many people" and "assume" do not make a case.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 26):

I can live with the listed fare including all fees (airport, fuel, premium cabin, etc.) but excludes strictly tax.

For the record, airport fees are indeed a tax.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 26):
One area that really frustrates me is the notorious fuel surcharge. Fuel surcharges to Europe have surged in the past year or so. That is part of the fare. I used to hate to see a $300 ai roundtrip fare to Europe only for a $400 fuel surcharge to be added to really make it $700

  

Now THAT'S something that needs to be quashed. Although airlines for a few years now (of their own accord) have included "fuel surcharges" in the base fare, it is simply nothing more than tax evasion.

Also, when talking award tickets and mileage redemption, it is indeed a bait-and-switch tactic, as airlines often make people pay the fuel surcharge as a separate fee... yet you'd be hard pressed to find that little tidbit printed anywhere.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 27):


I'm somewhat shocked airlines don't say "your airfare is $$$ which includes $$$ in government fees and taxes." That would seem to get their point across, unless that isn't legal to present it that way.

That's part of the lawsuit; the the DOT has required airlines to post that info in a much smaller font and in a non-prominent way.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 32):
Yes, but auto dealers don't double the price of the car because you want to buy it two days before Christmas.

Um, that's how the free market works: everyone gets to set their own prices based on supply and demand. You can bet Best Buy jacks up prices during the holidays.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 32):
What needs to change is all booking engines like Kayak, Orbitz, etc. During the booking process, things like baggage and premium seating should be accounted for.

Actually, the airlines are actively moving towards putting such things directly into the GDS listings, so that they can be purchased from them.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 32):
Outside of a sale offer, neither Best Buy or Target charges me a higher price on TV's or toothbrushes just because I purchase them at the counter versus pay for it 14 days earlier. Sorry, but the airlines brought this on themselves.

I love the smell of entitlement in the morning.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 4582 times:

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 32):
Yes, but auto dealers don't double the price of the car because you want to buy it two days before Christmas.
Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 32):
Boo hoo!! Outside of a sale offer, neither Best Buy or Target charges me a higher price on TV's or toothbrushes just because I purchase them at the counter versus pay for it 14 days earlier. Sorry, but the airlines brought this on themselves.

Those commodities aren't perishable items as a seat on a flight is. Once it's gone, it's gone. If a customer doesn't by a toothbrush, it will still be there for the next customer.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineDTWLAX From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4444 times:

Quoting JONC777 (Reply 13):
If you go to target and buy a toothbush for $2.99 you take it to the register and the price is $3.24 including taxes. Thats nowhere on the lable, and its just accepted in the U.S. that taxes are added to goods and services. Why is the airline industry being singled out in this issue? No other industry is forced to include the amount of taxes in any advsertised price. Its just not fair.

Does the price of a toothbrush change multiple times a day? Does it start at $2.99 and go all the way upto $12.99?
If the airline industry is willing to keep the ticket fare constant for all for a few days or even for a single day then we can talk about being fair.

Quoting nkops (Reply 20):
Rental cars are just as bad at this... you ever see the taxes and fees on rental cars? However, every airline website I have been on shows you the TOTAL price before you have to pay for it, you can always get out of it before confirming

Rental cars also show total price including taxes before you confirm your reservation.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 22):
WN, G4, and NK are all LCCs that don't like the fact that they can't show rock-bottom fares before tax anymore.

LCCs do not have to offer rock-bottom fares. WN is a Low Cost Carrier but not a Low Fare Carrier. That does not mean WN offers low fares as is evident in their high fares at certain times.
And NK is a Low Fare Carrier only if you are traveling with no checked or cabin baggage.

And lastly, for a price conscious traveler, it is always the final cost that he will pay attention to. If the total cost after including all taxes and fees is lower, then he will buy that; it does not matter to him if the taxes make up 5% or 50% of that final price because he still has to pay those taxes.

[Edited 2012-12-01 13:31:46]

User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3834 posts, RR: 7
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4436 times:

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 35):
LCCs do not have to offer rock-bottom fares. WN is a Low Cost Carrier but not a Low Fare Carrier. It is the operating costs to WN that are low. That does not mean WN offers low fares as is evident in their high fares at certain times.

They have the highest labor costs in the industry. Nothing about them is Low Cost.

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 32):
What needs to change is all booking engines like Kayak, Orbitz, etc. During the booking process, things like baggage and premium seating should be accounted for.

But again, how? Don't some say that other options may cost more.


User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4387 times:



Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 35):
Does the price of a toothbrush change multiple times a day? Does it start at $2.99 and go all the way upto $12.99?
If the airline industry is willing to keep the ticket fare constant for all for a few days or even for a single day then we can talk about being fair.

Maybe not toothbrushes, but certainly things like fruit, vegetables, meat and seafood prices change often due to a little thing called supply and demand. If there were a lack of toothbrushes in the market, they certainly could be sold for $12.99. To say the price of a tooth

Even sports leagues like the NBA are charging more for marquee games. Your Miami Heat/OKC Thunder tickets will cost you much more than your Minnesota Timberwolves/Golden State Warriors tickets will cost. Concert tickets typically are more expensive the day of the show at the box office compared to purchasing them online ahead of time. Even marathons reward those who register earlier with lower entrance fees.

Airlines do offer fares that are below their costs during large fare sales so it's hard to say that the fluctuations in prices is always at the benefit of the airline.

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 35):
Rental cars also show total price including taxes before you confirm your reservation.

As did airlines. Before the taxes and fees were included in the base price, you would see the total price at the end of your booking path prior to purchasing...just like rental cars, hotels, and everyone other industry that does not show taxes until the end prior to purchasing.

[Edited 2012-12-01 13:23:44]

User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4608 posts, RR: 23
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4368 times:

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 29):
I usually do ISP-BWI-CHS on Tues or Wed morning that leaves ISP at 0630ish and the flight I flew it last year for $130, but now it's $378. I guess gas prices and demand has gone up?

Yes those days are typically the best to fly on, but for WN they are also the best days to book on - which online fare sales tend to take place during the middle of the week or on Friday.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 31):
Is it still fair to call WN a LCC? In some cases their fares are higher than the legacy carriers.

When looking at BTS comparing the top 9 major airlines (by pax)...WN comes in 6th in CASM.

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 35):
LCCs do not have to offer rock-bottom fares. WN is a Low Cost Carrier but not a Low Fare Carrier. It is the operating costs to WN that are low.

This. Low Cost Carrier != Low Fare Carrier.

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 36):
They have the highest labor costs in the industry. Nothing about them is Low Cost.

Highest labor costs perhaps, but this comment is totally off base. DL, UA, AA, US, and AS all have higher CASM's than WN right now. They are just under a cent higher than JetBlue.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4248 times:

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 35):
If the total cost after including all taxes and fees is lower, then he will buy that; it does not matter to him if the taxes make up 5% or 50% of that final price because he still has to pay those taxes.

Except it does matter; because then he would know that the taxes are outrageous and petition his representatives in Congress to change them.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 37):
As did airlines.

  

There seems to be some faulty memories around here, as if the airlines were waiting until after you put in your credit card information to show you what the actual cost is... which has never been the case.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4243 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 38):
Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 35):
LCCs do not have to offer rock-bottom fares. WN is a Low Cost Carrier but not a Low Fare Carrier. It is the operating costs to WN that are low.

This. Low Cost Carrier != Low Fare Carrier.

And it's not just WN. US Airways also likes calling themselves an LCC (in fact, their NYSE ticker symbol is LCC), but in many markets, their fares are anything but low-cost.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4095 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 38):

Thanks, good to onw about booking in the middle of e week.


User currently offlinespiritair97 From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 1231 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 38):

Thanks, good to know about booking in the middle of the week.


User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3203 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3899 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
It's the airlines' attempt to provide false advertising to the public on the true price of the ticket. I think the airline needs to be upfront with all of the fees and taxes. I think it's wrong for an airline to advertise $39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes.

I agree. Full transparency. I suspect the new Consumer Protection Agency will win this one.

I also see a need for the federal government to define ULCC. Three or so months ago I searched the Code of Federal Regulations by name and abbreviation; ULCC does not populate. The closest I came was the term 'micro" in the procurement statutes. I think each carrier defines what they think a ULCC is and tweaks it to their needs.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3879 times:

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 43):
I agree. Full transparency. I suspect the new Consumer Protection Agency will win this one.

That's ok, as long as other businesses are required to do the same thing. Except for gasoline (and I have seen pumps that show the amount of tax in the price) I can't think of another industry that includes the tax in the advertised price, so, why pick on the airlines? Much as you'd like to think so, they aren't a public utility. Come to think of it, public utilities don't include fees or taxes in the advertised price, just in the total when you get your bill.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 17):

Greyhound, AMTRAK, MegaBUS, Hilton, Marriott, Hampton Inn, Super 8, Radisson, etc. all do this....... and none of them have to show you fees and taxes prior to booking, so why should airlines?



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3772 times:

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 43):
I also see a need for the federal government to define ULCC.

While we're at it, why don't we get the government to define what a "pale ale" is, or what exactly a "sale" is.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 43):
I think each carrier defines what they think a ULCC is and tweaks it to their needs.

Yep. It's called marketing... and freedom of speech. Also, the term is completely relative no matter how you slice it.

It's no different than a retail chain marketing their stores as "discount" or "budget".



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinestrandedinbgm From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 349 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3727 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):
If anything is going to get overturned, that one is it. Total 1st Amendment violation with zero precedent.

Once your done telling everyone that they are wrong, go back and read the first amendment. This is not a case of freedom of speech, religion, or press. It's about deceitful advertising practices.

A reasonable person can expect to pay .25 cents tax on a toothbrush that is marked $2.99. There are no hidden fees in the purchase of the toothbrush. No 9/11 fee, no local airport fees, no fee to have the cashier hand the bag to you. The blue one is the same price as the green one.

Buying an airline ticket is different. A reasonable individual can assume that they will pay sales tax on the ticket. What they cannot assume is that there are mandatory fees associated with the cost of the ticket.



It's 737s, 747s and 380s. Not 737's, 747's and 380's. Learn to use the apostrophe for crying out loud.
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

Quoting strandedinbgm (Reply 47):
Buying an airline ticket is different. A reasonable individual can assume that they will pay sales tax on the ticket. What they cannot assume is that there are mandatory fees associated with the cost of the ticket.

Why are you still going back to this? The topic at hand relates just to the taxes piece only, which pretty much every airline is opposed to including taxes in the base price. I agree that fees you can't get out of paying like these convenience fees that NK and G4 charge are ludicrous and in my opinion should be included in the base price. I however, do not think that we should be including taxes in the base price just like we do for every other product except gasoline. Which is what the DOT ruling was changing. If they are only concerned about these hidden fees then that's what they should have ruled on. Not taxes.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3588 times:

Quoting strandedinbgm (Reply 47):
A reasonable person can expect to pay .25 cents tax on a toothbrush that is marked $2.99. There are no hidden fees in the purchase of the toothbrush. No 9/11 fee, no local airport fees, no fee to have the cashier hand the bag to you. The blue one is the same price as the green one.

Are we talking about taxes or fees? I was led to believe that this was all about TAXES. How many of the fees you're so adamant about are imposed by the federal, state or local governments or even the airport? And the airlines are required to collect those fees but all people can seem to do is blame the airlines for ALL of them.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3203 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3436 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 46):
It's no different than a retail chain marketing their stores as "discount" or "budget".

I think you missing the brunt of my post. Both "discount" and "budget" can be easily defined. ULCC not so much.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3203 posts, RR: 1
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3416 times:

Quoting sancho99504 (Reply 45):
Hilton, Marriott, Hampton Inn, Super 8, Radisson, etc. all do this....... and none of them have to show you fees and taxes prior to booking, so why should airlines?

I've stayed at many a hotel across the last twenty five or so years and can't remember an instance when I didn't know the taxes would be. I've booked lodging using a travel agent and on my own using a web URL.

I would agree with you when you if and when a clearinghouse such as Hotwire and Priceline is used. It is my understanding the rule book changes when excess inventory is sold from retail to wholesale.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlinesilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2128 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3341 times:

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 51):
I've stayed at many a hotel across the last twenty five or so years and can't remember an instance when I didn't know the taxes would be. I've booked lodging using a travel agent and on my own using a web URL.

Things like "resort fees" or "energy surcharges" are not uncommon anymore.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1310 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3325 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

so what the DOT is asking for is "WHAT is a FULL FARE Ticket Price" ?? Amazing !! I thought Nobody wanted to Pay full fare which caused all of these "Broke down" ticket prices. Either Advertise the full fare with all the services included OR post the ticket prices and all the Fees imposed BY the airline to actually get to put your BUTT in the seat to where you're going What is wrong with that?? It's High time everybody quit playing games so that ALL can see what the
"REAL Deal" is I've bought quite a few full fare tickets on United, Delta and American this year and Honestly? I got a darn GOOD deal AND?? all the tickets I bought were cheaper than I could get on WN, with either better flight times, non Stop and better fares and for Most of them I bought directly via the airline's web site or Orbitz. What is it these guys want to STILL hide??? Everybody Post straight up and we'll SEE who's got What !! Then let he chips fall where they may.
I do work for United but I believe that if people KNEW the Real Deal? then the supposed "LCC's" might NOT be SO L.C.
A little revolution every now and again is a good thing..


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3302 times:

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 53):
so what the DOT is asking for is "WHAT is a FULL FARE Ticket Price" ??

But, in asking for the TAXES to be put in a smaller font, they are almost asking for them to be hidden, without actually doing so.  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7418 posts, RR: 14
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3295 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
  And there are false advertising regulations in this country designed for consumer protection, so this isn't without precedent. I do think that the rule will hold up.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 2):
Agreed but it is a sly move by the airlines.
I smell a new NK advertising slogan- "Now a higher authority than the US Supreme Court"

Yes, but I think they have a point only on real taxes. DOT was so peeved with NK that they over-reached in attempting to prevent NK from using loopholes..

Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 7):
And what's so wrong with the 24 hour rule?

I think it's great. I have used a few times that the airline's website glitched. There are often liitle programming bugs that screw things up. There was one on DL's site last year where you would set the outbound date and then as you were just clicking the return date it would "snap" to a new month based upon the outbound date and if you didn't notice the swap in the fraction of a second before you clicked you had booked the wrong date and potentially wouldn't check it later knowing you had clicked the right date.

I think the only excuse the airlines have really should be in the last couple of days before the flight. Then there is the opportunity for "speculative" bookings where the passenger has a free opportunity to tie up a seat with no intent (or little intent) of using the ticket. The airline is right to try to stop that. Aside from that it should not be eliminated.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):
Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The DOT rules even further limit the airlines ability to prominently identify government imposed taxes and fees by requiring such information be in significantly smaller type.

If anything is going to get overturned, that one is it. Total 1st Amendment violation with zero precedent.

That's crazy. They should not be dictating the size of the tax wording unless it appears that the tax is the fare.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 26):
I can live with the listed fare including all fees (airport, fuel, premium cabin, etc.) but excludes strictly tax.

I like it the way it is now, but I do agree that it gives the govt the ability to raise taxes as they wish and have it be completely invisible to the consumer. That is a bad practice. That's the only check and balance on ticket taxes.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 26):
Fuel surcharges

See, that's by no means a tax. There is a federal tax on aviation fuel. I don't think that should qualify as a "tax" in the "fees and taxes" section either. That's the route Spirit was going. There are taxes on income so they could say that 28% of all their profits should be shown as a tax on the ticket price. The rules need to be explicit and I think the DOT was trying to make it simple so NK couldn't start creating all those types of "tax" exceptions. We'll see, but I don't think ticket taxes will be allowed to be included.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 25):
Government taxes and fees on airline tickets are outrageous. This industry for whatever reason is every government's personal ATM.

Knowing no-one would make a statement like that without facts to back them up and having tried to find the numbers you obviously have. Please direct me to where the total taxes and total government spend on aviation can be found.

Quoting mayor (Reply 54):
But, in asking for the TAXES to be put in a smaller font, they are almost asking for them to be hidden, without actually doing so.

What is wrong with the requiring total amount to be paid to be the most dominant?


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3778 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3212 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 44):
Except for gasoline (and I have seen pumps that show the amount of tax in the price) I can't think of another industry that includes the tax in the advertised price

Tobacco products sold in the US also include most, if not all taxes in the price.



"Did he really need the triple bypass? Or was it the miles?"
User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3203 posts, RR: 1
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3161 times:

Quoting silentbob (Reply 52):
Things like "resort fees" or "energy surcharges" are not uncommon anymore.

I can't remember seeing any sort of resort fee as recently as two months ago in the U.S. at two of the brands mentioned above. I know Hilton Garden and Super 8 does not charge them; one in the state of Maine and the other in Tennessee. With that said I know their are special rates which may waive them. Military, AARP, AAA/CAA etc.

The Orpyland Hotel in Nashville which is/was a Gaylord property meets the criteria of a resort and to my knowledge does not charge a resort or energy fee. Even after a significant rebuild after the 2010 flood.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 56):
Knowing no-one would make a statement like that without facts to back them up and having tried to find the numbers you obviously have. Please direct me to where the total taxes and total government spend on aviation can be found.

If you have read any industry news you will constantly see people like Tony Tyler, head of IATA constantly coming out in the press against governments raising airline taxes even more. Here is an article where he discusses increased taxes in Canada.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/busines...xes-canada-levies-airline-industry

There is also the issue of the EU emissions scheme that many have called as a cloak for the governments to just add another tax and revenue source for themselves.

Here is also a report done on airline taxes that has some conclusions about the effect of taxes on air travel:

http://www.aviationinstitute.org/AAIReportNov11.pdf

As it points out, since airline deregulation in 1978, there have been 17 taxes, fees or financial measures enacted on passenger and cargo airlines. Today, airlines pay higher federal tax rates for domestic itineraries than federal taxes for alcohol (5%), tobacco (18.5%) and firearms (15%). Across both domestic and international itineraries, taxes, customs fees and airport PFCs constitute $59 per round-trip itinerary. $17 billion in taxes were generated in 2011. According to ATA only 7% of a $300 ticket in 1972 went to taxes as opposed to 20% today.

From 2001 to 2011, inflation adjusted ticket prices (which they include all the ancillary fees everyone loves to hate) have only risen 1% from $165.18 to $166.55.

The problem is many of these taxes are segment taxes and don't change based on ticket prices, which has a negative impact on leisure demand and lower ticket prices. Higher taxes that are proposed could cost the economy $5.5 billion in tourism in this report. They also estimate new proposed tax increases would lead to 17.7 million less people flying resulting in $443 million less in tax revenue.

In the UK the air passenger duty tax reportedly has increased 360% over the past 7 years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...senger-tax-rise-highest-world.html


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3136 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 1):
IMHO, actual govt taxes should be excluded, but not other fees which are really airline levied.

I disagree with you a million percent. I want to know what I'm going to be expected to pay for and the like when I book my tickets. Nickle and diming passangers when they get to the airport should be illegal. Coming up with a "Oh, we forgot to charge you for this, this and this so you need to pay for it...." is bait and switch.

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
I think the airline needs to be upfront with all of the fees and taxes. I think it's wrong for an airline to advertise $39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes.

   Agreed. That is a classic bait and switch. If they are going to charge me for extra stuff that WILL happen at the airport, they need to address this at the time of booking so that it is paid for then and there instead of waiting to pay for it at the airport.

I think that every fee that all the airlines do should be taxed as well. If the Government were to tax all the fees, the airlines would eliminate all these unnecessary fees in a hurry....or they would just pass that on to the consumer, which is a common trend in the airline industry. I just think fees should be taxed as well.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):
So when the auto dealership does the same thing, it's not false advertising?

Every auto dealership I've ever been to has actually had the labels on cars saying the price and what taxes are associated with it. I don't see your point.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 16):
You really need to look up the definition of bait-and-switch.

See: Ryanair and Spirit. That says it enough.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 22):
WN, G4, and NK are all LCCs that don't like the fact that they can't show rock-bottom fares before tax anymore.

They were never, ever rock bottom fares to begin with anyway. This is why I like this DOT rule, I want to know what I'm gonna pay for on my airfare! I hope the DOT wins this one.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinesancho99504 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3098 times:

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 51):

I stay at Hampton Inn all the time. When I book the room, I do not know the total price until I enter my CC info and click "reserve". The total price is usually "estimate" unless you book an advanced rate which you pay for in full. Also, I do a lot of meetings in Vegas and usually use one of the strip hotels because the "client" requests that and pay resort fees which is rediculous when spending $400-500/night.



kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out-USMC
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3053 times:

Quoting strandedinbgm (Reply 47):

Once your done telling everyone that they are wrong, go back and read the first amendment. This is not a case of freedom of speech, religion, or press. It's about deceitful advertising practices.

No, you can go back and reread my post.

My comment was about how the DOT has prevented the airlines from informing people just how much of that total fare is tax. It doesn't matter even if there's a case for showing the full price (and, despite my personal views, there is indeed a case for it), the government is prohibited by the 1st Amendment and various court decisions and laws from restricting truthful, non-harmful speech.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 50):
I think you missing the brunt of my post. Both "discount" and "budget" can be easily defined. ULCC not so much.

If it's so easy, define "discount" and "budget".

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 51):
I've stayed at many a hotel across the last twenty five or so years and can't remember an instance when I didn't know the taxes would be.

I've booked dozens of airplane tickets over the last 10 years, and can't remember an instance when I didn't know what the taxes would be.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 60):
Every auto dealership I've ever been to has actually had the labels on cars saying the price and what taxes are associated with it. I don't see your point.

Yet under the DOT rule, the airlines are PROHIBITED from advertising what the taxes are.

So what you're basically saying is that auto dealerships can not only send out advertisements quoting prices excluding tax, and can then prominently display what the tax is, but airlines can do neither.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 60):

See: Ryanair and Spirit. That says it enough.

What does two airlines' deceitful practices have to do with the government preventing everyone else from showing the taxes and fees?

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 60):
I want to know what I'm gonna pay for on my airfare!

Again, when have you ever NOT known what you're gonna pay before you put in your CC info and click "submit"?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3051 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 60):
Every auto dealership I've ever been to has actually had the labels on cars saying the price and what taxes are associated with it. I don't see your point.

And every one I've been to has the window sticker on it, with the price of the car and options plus the delivery charge. The other fees and taxes don't seem to show up except on the sales contract.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 60):
or they would just pass that on to the consumer, which is a common trend in the airline industry.

It's a common trend in ANY industry. If the price of tires goes up, don't you think that the automaker passes this on to the consumer in the price of the car? If a company didn't pass on their costs to the consumer, they might not be in business for very long.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3028 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 62):
Yet under the DOT rule, the airlines are PROHIBITED from advertising what the taxes are.

Source? Even if that were true, that can always be changed, and that is what the DOT is trying to do.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 62):
So what you're basically saying is that auto dealerships can not only send out advertisements quoting prices excluding tax, and can then prominently display what the tax is, but airlines can do neither.

Next time you go to the auto dealership, go look at the stickers on the window that shows the final price. It includes all taxes, license fees, etc etc... And oh, read the fine print on those ads. It will tell you what I just said.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 62):
What does two airlines' deceitful practices have to do with the government preventing everyone else from showing the taxes and fees?

A lot. Those fees are not taxed, and they should be.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 62):
Again, when have you ever NOT known what you're gonna pay before you put in your CC info and click "submit"?

I have never had that problem. If you know the local, city and state tax percentage that will be applied in any purchase, it shouldn't be a problem. But that rate changes yearly. I think Colorado's sales tax rate is 8.2%

Quoting mayor (Reply 63):
The other fees and taxes don't seem to show up except on the sales contract.

I have always seen taxes written on that piece of paper that they cling to the window along with the "As is" warranty info.

Quoting mayor (Reply 63):
It's a common trend in ANY industry. If the price of tires goes up, don't you think that the automaker passes this on to the consumer in the price of the car? If a company didn't pass on their costs to the consumer, they might not be in business for very long.

I think you are missing my point and my point is that the airline industry is taxed to death by the U.S. Government. The airlines just pass on the taxes onto the customer without batting an eye, hence why the "fees" jiggyness has became a new norm now without it being taxed. That needs to change. Tax all the fees the airlines collect, even first class upgrades as well. That will solve only some of the problems.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3012 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):
I think you are missing my point and my point is that the airline industry is taxed to death by the U.S. Government. The airlines just pass on the taxes onto the customer without batting an eye, hence why the "fees" jiggyness has became a new norm now without it being taxed. That needs to change. Tax all the fees the airlines collect, even first class upgrades as well. That will solve only some of the problems.

How in the world does that solve anything? As you say, they'll just pass those fees on to the consumer as every other industry does. You complain about higher fares and the airlines nickel and diming the consumers and yet you want those very same fees taxed, which will simply be passed on to you, the consumer. A tax on a first class upgrade will certainly be passed on to the customer. The gov't absolutely taxes the airlines to death and not all of those are passed on to the consumer. The consumer "movement" in this country does just not seem to understand that a company needs to turn a profit to provide for facilities, aircraft, etc. that directly affect the customer. They still think it's possible, profitably, to fly across the country for less than $100 and you and I both know it isn't possible, at least on a full service airline and more than likely, not possible on an LCC, either.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2992 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 65):
You complain about higher fares

No, I have never complained. Show me on this thread where I have complained about higher fares. I am complaining about how the fees itself, before this rule was taken into effect, was not on the final "bill" before you purchase it.

Quoting mayor (Reply 65):
the airlines nickel and diming the consumers and yet you want those very same fees taxed

The whole purpose of the taxing of fees is to get them eliminated. The DOT could say "We will tax the airlines on fees, at the same time they are prohibited from passing on the tax to the customer." That could very well happen.

Quoting mayor (Reply 65):
The consumer "movement" in this country does just not seem to understand that a company needs to turn a profit to provide for facilities, aircraft, etc. that directly affect the customer.

That is not the customer's fault. That is the airlines fault. Blame WN for the "Low Fare" mantra. There are airlines who are competing for passengers on low fares that do not even benefit the cost of flying a flight. In other words, if you have a flight full of low fare fliers, that does not mean the flight made a profit. Most of the time, in this scenario, it is a loss. You gotta have money to pay for the flight.

Quoting mayor (Reply 65):
They still think it's possible, profitably, to fly across the country for less than $100 and you and I both know it isn't possible, at least on a full service airline and more than likely, not possible on an LCC, either.

I think this affects every airline. Again, you cannot fly a flight unless you can pay your bills for said flight. You still have to pay your pilots, your FA's, your rampers, your CSA's, your catering company, your fueler and the fuel itself, MX has to be paid for, hull insurance, landing fees, etc etc. The bill comes first before the flight. But then again, this is for a different thread.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2962 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 66):
The whole purpose of the taxing of fees is to get them eliminated. The DOT could say "We will tax the airlines on fees, at the same time they are prohibited from passing on the tax to the customer." That could very well happen.

Just another example of the airlines being picked on and the gov't trying to tell a business, in a free market, how to run itself. They wanted de-regulation, they got it, warts and all.



BTW, when I said "you" I meant that in the general sense, not particularly "you". Sorry.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2967 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):
Source?

Right from the OP:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The DOT rules even further limit the airlines ability to prominently identify government imposed taxes and fees by requiring such information be in significantly smaller type.

While I can't access the link he posted, LAXintl is pretty good at not making stuff up.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):
Even if that were true, that can always be changed, and that is what the DOT is trying to do.

LOL WUT. So because something can be "changed", that makes it legal? BTW, the DOT made the rule...

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):

Next time you go to the auto dealership, go look at the stickers on the window that shows the final price. It includes all taxes, license fees, etc etc... And oh, read the fine print on those ads. It will tell you what I just said.

Okay... try reading my post again. That little sticker on the car contains information posted in a way that the airlines are PROHIBITED from doing. You're not helping your case any...

Oh, and all the "fine print" on the ads say is "plus tax, title, and doc fee". Sometimes they quote the doc fee, but rarely (if ever) does it show the exact amount of the other taxes and fees.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):
A lot. Those fees are not taxed, and they should be.

Huh? What do airline-imposed fees have to do with government-imposed taxes? And what does that have to do with airlines being prohibited from advertising those taxes?

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):
I have never had that problem.
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 66):
I am complaining about how the fees itself, before this rule was taken into effect, was not on the final "bill" before you purchase it.

So then why are you saying that it was a problem, when it clearly wasn't? The fees were ALWAYS on the final bill before purchase (with the exception of bag fees... and that is something that does need to be looked at).

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 64):
Tax all the fees the airlines collect, even first class upgrades as well.

Which will just be passed on to the customer. BTW, the UK already levies a 70 pound luxury tax on all business and first class seats... which is paid directly by the passenger.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 66):
"We will tax the airlines on fees, at the same time they are prohibited from passing on the tax to the customer." That could very well happen.

The cost will ALWAYS be passed on to the end user... that's Economics 096.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2932 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 68):
the DOT made the rule...

And laws can be changed.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 68):
The cost will ALWAYS be passed on to the end user...

Not if the DOT says that the airlines are prohibited from passing the tax along to the customer.....



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineRaventech From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2909 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 69):

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 68):
The cost will ALWAYS be passed on to the end user...

Not if the DOT says that the airlines are prohibited from passing the tax along to the customer.....

It will always be passed on to the customer because the money must come from somewhere, so unless they can somehow get money from somewhere other than a customer paying the airline for its services, then its either its passed on in the form of a DOT Tax or it is passed on in the form of a fare increase by how ever much is needed to cover the cost of the tax.

BTW I am 99.9% that stopping a company from speaking about what taxes they have to pay is a violation of the first amendment


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 69):
And laws can be changed.

If you're trying to imply that just because a law can be changed, a court will uphold it... you are sorely mistaken.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 69):
Not if the DOT says that the airlines are prohibited from passing the tax along to the customer.....

Again, you fail to grasp the most fundamental principles of economics: an expense will ALWAYS be passed on to the end user, if the seller is to remain in business. Even if an airline were prohibited from "passing the tax along", all they would have to do is raise prices to compensate.

BTW, the DOT making any such rule would immediately be struck down as a violation of the Airline Deregulation Act.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2828 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 59):
If you have read any industry news you will constantly see people like Tony Tyler, head of IATA constantly coming out in the press against governments raising airline taxes even more. Here is an article where he discusses increased taxes in Canada.

So how much do aviation pay in tax and how much do they get back?


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 71):
If you're trying to imply that just because a law can be changed, a court will uphold it... you are sorely mistaken.

Keep twisting my words. That is not what I said. I don't know why you keep doing this.   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 69):
Not if the DOT says that the airlines are prohibited from passing the tax along to the customer.....

How exactly would they do this, fix the total price and only allow it to be changed by government decree?
Whether a new fee or increase in the basic fare the cost will be passed on to the consumer, this is the same as the talk of taxing the rich more because they can afford it, they are going to get their funds back, whether that is by lowering salaries and bonus, hiring less, investing less, no one, no one simply gives or allows money to be taken away without some form of quid pro quo, even donations to charities has something beneficial to the giver, tax write off.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2805 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 74):
How exactly would they do this, fix the total price and only allow it to be changed by government decree?

Sounds like "regulation", again, doesn't it??  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2788 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 74):
Whether a new fee or increase in the basic fare the cost will be passed on to the consumer

Im not debating that they do that and/or they could. I'm just saying that laws can be changed or amended in addition below:

My whole point, in which Maverick seems to not grasp here, is that I want to know what the heck I am paying when buying a ticket. I want to know the fare and ALL taxes and fees upfront before submitting my credit card. I want to know exactly what I am buying. I have a right to know.

I do not want to show up at the airport having an agent tell me "Oh, we forgot to collect this fee/tax from you, we need to collect it now." But I paid my fare in full. If this happens, they should have added that tax or fee at the time of purchase and I would have gladly paid for it. This is called bait and switch. I am not forking over additional money that the airline "forgot" to impose on my reservation, UNLESS I decide to upgrade to First Class or use the Clubs, or check in an additional bag (very, very rare I do this).

This is why I refuse to fly with Spirit.

I want to know upfront on what my final payment is going to be, including ALL FEES AND TAXES. Any tax missed by the airline is on the airline and not me since I paid my final "bill" owed.

In my opinion, by not adding fees and taxes during the process of seaching for flights makes it more difficult than needs to be. This new DOT law needs to be left alone. It is more consumer friendly and I think the consumer likes it and it makes good business to include everything.

[Edited 2012-12-03 16:34:20]


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 72):
So how much do aviation pay in tax and how much do they get back?

By "get back" do you mean in services from the FAA or something like that?


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10532 posts, RR: 14
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 76):
I want to know exactly what I am buying. I have a right to know.

And it seems like the DOT is trying to lessen what it looks like the gov't. is adding on in taxes to your ticket. It may be on there, but it looks like the airlines have been directed to make it in smaller print.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 76):
I want to know upfront on what my final payment is going to be, including ALL FEES AND TAXES. Any tax missed by the airline is on the airline and not me since I paid my final "bill" owed.

I think where most people struggle is that they now have to essentially "build" their fare, no one knows how to get the airlines to go back to an integrated fare, so we fight anyway we can.
Baggage fees - due to weight - and fuel surcharge are my biggest pet peeves, recently when comparing the charge for excess weight it is cheaper to pay for an additional bag and distribute your weight versus a single bag, I guess the weight in a single bag is more important that multiple bags.
I will admit, I have never paid for a fare online and got something different when I got to the airport, I can only state that it never happened to me.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 79):
I have never paid for a fare online and got something different when I got to the airport, I can only state that it never happened to me.

It hasn't happened to me either, I hope it never happens in the future to me or anyone. And I do agree with you, Par13del with your post.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineRaventech From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 57 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2725 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 79):
Baggage fees - due to weight - and fuel surcharge are my biggest pet peeves, recently when comparing the charge for excess weight it is cheaper to pay for an additional bag and distribute your weight versus a single bag, I guess the weight in a single bag is more important that multiple bags.

I imagine another reason might be on the risk management side. If everyone packed multiple suitcases into one then ramp agents then increase risk of injury, thus increase in the associated cost.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2702 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 77):
By "get back" do you mean in services from the FAA or something like that?

How much money governments spend on aviation.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2701 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 76):

My whole point, in which Maverick seems to not grasp here, is that I want to know what the heck I am paying when buying a ticket. I want to know the fare and ALL taxes and fees upfront before submitting my credit card. I want to know exactly what I am buying. I have a right to know.

Which has always been the case... so your "whole point" is moot.

Also, it's not your "whole point", as you say this:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 76):
In my opinion, by not adding fees and taxes during the process of seaching for flights makes it more difficult than needs to be. This new DOT law needs to be left alone.

If that were the only thing the new DOT rule (not law) did, I wouldn't be as harsh in my responses... because I see the point in that argument (even if I disagree with it).

What the airlines are challenging is the mandate that they prohibit the airlines from disclosing in an easy way how much of a ticket is taxes.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 76):
It is more consumer friendly

Infringing on the right to disclose how much the government is taxing you is consumer friendly?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 83):
Infringing on the right to disclose how much the government is taxing you is consumer friendly?

It is customer friendly when the WHOLE price, the final price, is disclosed before the purchase happens, including when the fare is shown on the search flights page online. I want the whole damn price, not parts of it, period. I want to know what my final bill will be before I select the flights I want.

THAT, sir, is how business should be done. That is what the consumer wants. You get better business done that way and there is a lot less hassle and complaining from pax on these fares.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 83):
I wouldn't be as harsh in my responses..

When you quote me on any thread on A.net, you tend to bash me on my responses which I feel are unnecessary and unwarranted. No need to come off as a prick. Respect my opinions as I have respected yours. That is all I ask.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3203 posts, RR: 1
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2639 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 71):
BTW, the DOT making any such rule would immediately be struck down as a violation of the Airline Deregulation Act.

Not so fast. Since we are talking Acts; You might want to familiarize yourself with the the language in the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act a.k.a. Credit Card Reform Act of 2009. Wiki is fairly accurate and would be a good launching point; specifically the language which reads "other purposes"

This is the same authority which authorized the new Federal Consumer Protection Agency. Keep in mind the intent at least in part of the CCRA is to protect consumers when a credit card is used to to pay for goods or services. That in my mind would be a majority the of travelers.

[Edited 2012-12-03 19:21:57]


Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5675 posts, RR: 6
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 84):
It is customer friendly when the WHOLE price, the final price, is disclosed before the purchase happens, including when the fare is shown on the search flights page online. I want the whole damn price, not parts of it, period. I want to know what my final bill will be before I select the flights I want.

And again, the whole price has ALWAYS been displayed before the purchase.

And again, I can definitely see your side of the argument where the whole price should be displayed from the get-go.

And again, you ignore the point where even when the whole price is displayed, the government is preventing the airlines from prominently displaying how much of that is taxes. THAT is the part that will without a doubt be overturned.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 85):

Sorry, you're gonna have to point to the part in the CARD Act where it mentions anything to do with anything related to how taxes are collected... because I don't see it.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2572 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 86):
And again, you ignore the point where even when the whole price is displayed, the government is preventing the airlines from prominently displaying how much of that is taxes.

Maybe I have missed it but can you please show where it is stated it cant be displayed prominently.

http://www.pillsburylaw.com/siteFile...rotectionRule_11_09_2011_final.pdf describes the rule as "carriers and ticket agents may inform consumers of the government taxes and fees included in the full fare price. For example, air carriers and ticket agents may have pop-ups or fine print that lists the government taxes and fees. However, DOT cautions carriers and agents to ensure that consumers understand the total price of the airfare and are not confused by such notifications."

I find the requirement that it should not be confusing reasonable, do you?

I also understand that it allows airlines to display the amount of taxes more dominantly than they thought was needed to inform passengers about additional costs being added before this ruling came into effect.


User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 82):
How much money governments spend on aviation.

According to this article the FAA spends about $15 billion a year on all civil aviation related activities which most certainly includes the enormous GA market in the country and not commercial aviation. It says one fourth of it goes to grants to local airports.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu.../01/12005/oops-i-lost-the-airport/

Here is an interesting tidbit too:

"Every year about 730 million passengers board commercial air flights in the United States. While the Federal Aviation Administration provides direct services to a little more than 200 airports and funds contracts that provide service to nearly 250 more, 70 percent of the nation’s passengers board planes at the nation’s 29 largest airports, otherwise known as the “major hubs.” Another 70 of the larger airports account for an additional 25 percent of enplanements, leaving the remaining 341 or so towered airports with only 5 percent of all passengers."

So a lot of those tax dollars that airlines collect go to subsidizing a significant number of airports that aren't really utilized by the passengers that pay the taxes. Taxes generated from passengers make up about $17 billion per year, most of it going to the government, and some going to the local airport.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2510 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 88):
According to this article the FAA spends about $15 billion a year on all civil aviation related activities

How about money not spent through FAA, e.g. NASA.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 88):
So a lot of those tax dollars that airlines collect go to subsidizing a significant number of airports that aren't really utilized by the passengers that pay the taxes.

So aviation related.

Don't think the numbers support your claim that the industry is every governments personal ATM.


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7397 posts, RR: 8
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 22 hours ago) and read 2465 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
Don't think the numbers support your claim that the industry is every governments personal ATM.

So the significance of your question on NASA is.............. or are you claimimg that they are fully funded by the taxes collected on aviation?

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
How about money not spent through FAA, e.g. NASA.
Quoting hatbutton (Reply 88):
"Every year about 730 million passengers board commercial air flights in the United States. While the Federal Aviation Administration provides direct services to a little more than 200 airports and funds contracts that provide service to nearly 250 more, 70 percent of the nation’s passengers board planes at the nation’s 29 largest airports, otherwise known as the “major hubs.” Another 70 of the larger airports account for an additional 25 percent of enplanements, leaving the remaining 341 or so towered airports with only 5 percent of all passengers."

The major airlines are presently in a push to have taxes raised / shifted / regularized on GA, would it be accurate to assume that they want the taxes upped at the second 70 airports, would be interesting to overlay GA movements against the numbers above.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 21 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 90):
So the significance of your question on NASA is.............. or are you claimimg that they are fully funded by the taxes collected on aviation?

I am claiming they use tax money to support aviation and thus should be included when you count how much money government spend on aviation. That it isn't just FAA.


User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 17 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 89):
Don't think the numbers support your claim that the industry is every governments personal ATM.

I'm saying commercial aviation. It is clear that commercial aviation pays way more in taxes than say general aviation. So yes, they do dig into the pockets of the commercial industry to support others. Their attempt to add a $100 per departure tax was said to be put forth to get private aviation to pay more of the share of the burden on the system as their opinion was they don't pay their fair share of the costs. It was aimed at corporate jets and turbine powered airplanes. So even the government themselves said general aviation doesn't pay their share. Which is why I said, the airline industry is their piggy bank to draw from to support other forms of aviation. Your paid tax on your airline ticket goes to subsidizing some guy flying in his private jet from small airports that make up less than 5 percent of all passenger traffic.


User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3203 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 15 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/business/...n-Advertised-Prices-137064893.html

IMO this bru-ha-ha has gone sideways in the realm of public perception. The URL above documents it to be a "truth in advertising" in the eyes of one Texas flyer. I look at it more as a transparency in advertising. Truth and transparency are two different animals. In this case I whole heatedly support transparency providing it is equitable. I don't see it as a violation of the First Amendment

The public in general has lost confidence in most sectors of commercial travel. The on the ground side of commercial aviation is the scapegoat (the 800 pound gorilla) by their own current and past practices. It certainly helps to have strong business skills and understand basic contract law to navigate many airports and their tenants these days.

As it relates to the Writ of Certiorari; we have to keep in mind this is a rule and not law. I am dumbfound why WN decided to jump into the frey as the industry leader as the low or no fee air carrier; when change and baggage fees enter the equation. I would have gone in the other direction as they have so many times before.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 92):
I'm saying commercial aviation. It is clear that commercial aviation pays way more in taxes than say general aviation.
...
So even the government themselves said general aviation doesn't pay their share.

My gut feeling is that it is true but it doesn't confirm commercial aviation pay more than they receive? For that we need data from all government entities involved in commercial aviation. Not just FAA and not just federal.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 92):
Which is why I said, the airline industry is their piggy bank to draw from to support other forms of aviation.

No, what you said is dramatically different:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 25):
This industry for whatever reason is every government's personal ATM.

And we are still waiting for support for either statement.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26626 posts, RR: 75
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

The anti-tax crowd are just cutting off their nose despite their face. The real reason airlines - especially NK and G4 - would oppose this is because they want to charge a dollar for the ticket, then charge you extra for the gas.


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineGentFromAlaska From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3203 posts, RR: 1
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 13 hours ago) and read 2286 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 95):
The real reason airlines - especially NK and G4 - would oppose this is because they want to charge a dollar for the ticket, then charge you extra for the gas.

In some instances at $6 or more a gallon if you forget to fill up the rental car before you return it; unless you've entered into a separate fuel contract with the rental car agency.



Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 12 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 94):
And we are still waiting for support for either statement.

I've given plenty of support. Taxes have increased from 7% to 20% of a total ticket, are still higher than other industries in the country, and the programs that this money goes to support, like the TSA, have not exactly had stellar report cards on their effectiveness. So they're taking more money to do jobs like the TSA that aren't proving any more effective than private screeners at airports in this country that have private screening like SFO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/bu...-airports.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3402 posts, RR: 6
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 10 hours ago) and read 2219 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 1):
I think they will win, but let's be honest. The real issue is that NK was taking advantage of this to create tons of fees that are not tax related. IMHO, actual govt taxes should be excluded, but not other fees which are really airline levied.

  

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 3):
It's the airlines' attempt to provide false advertising to the public on the true price of the ticket. I think the airline needs to be upfront with all of the fees and taxes. I think it's wrong for an airline to advertise $39 ticket when the actual price will be $99.80 with all the fees and taxes.

But those government taxes and fees will be the same for any flight regardless of the airline, like sales tax.

Quoting Mir (Reply 4):
As for the second issue of the 24-hour refund rule, that I could see being struck down. I hope it isn't, since I've taken advantage of that sort of thing (though not on any of the complainant airlines), but I would understand if it were.

I've used it several times on NK when hastily-arranged travel plans (have to take advantage of those 36-hour sales!) fell through. Interestingly, before the new DOT regulations went into effect, Spirit already had an unofficial policy in place which allowed customers to be issued full refunds if cancelling a ticket within 24 hours. The catch was that the customer had to explicitly request a refund—the airline representative was not supposed to offer one up front.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
IIRC, NK's CEO Ben Baldanza also thinks that air travel in the US is overtaxed. (He must not have seen the air travel taxes in our friendly neighbor to the north...)

Ideally, he would prefer that the money passengers spend on taxes go directly to the airline instead, and who can blame him?

Quoting nkops (Reply 20):
Rental cars are just as bad at this... you ever see the taxes and fees on rental cars? However, every airline website I have been on shows you the TOTAL price before you have to pay for it, you can always get out of it before confirming... If they showed you one price, then changed it after you confirmed and paid, then it would be bait and switch.

   The final price was always shown before purchase, so I don't think the DOT would've instituted this rule if NK hadn't kept poking them.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 31):
Is it still fair to call WN a LCC? In some cases their fares are higher than the legacy carriers.

Every airline should strive to be a low-cost carrier. "Low-cost" refers to the airline's operations and not their fares. In a perfect world (for the airlines), they would have costs as low as possible and fares as high as possible, and rake in the profits.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 40):
And it's not just WN. US Airways also likes calling themselves an LCC (in fact, their NYSE ticker symbol is LCC), but in many markets, their fares are anything but low-cost.

"Low-cost" does not obligate the airline to pass its savings on to the consumer.

Quoting mayor (Reply 54):
But, in asking for the TAXES to be put in a smaller font, they are almost asking for them to be hidden, without actually doing so.

   I didn't even know this was a part of the law.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 95):
The anti-tax crowd are just cutting off their nose despite their face. The real reason airlines - especially NK and G4 - would oppose this is because they want to charge a dollar for the ticket, then charge you extra for the gas.

   I love NK, but I would be kidding myself if I believed that NK was fighting this out of a genuine concern for the welfare of the traveling public.


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 10 hours ago) and read 2189 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 97):
I've given plenty of support.

Sorry but what you have doe is provided a lot of isolated numbers that do not support your conclusion.

For aviation to be the governments personal ATM the money collected must be higher than the money spent on it. That things can be done more efficient doesn't change that. That the tax rate is 1%, 5%,or 50% doesn't change that. Only if collected is more than spent matters. And that is what you have failed to provide.

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 98):
I didn't even know this was a part of the law.

It is a red herring. Let's put some facts on the table:

"In response to concerns expressed by carriers, the Department made clear in the preamble to the rule that advertisers are free to advise the public in price solicitations about government taxes and fees as well as carrier- or agent-imposed fees that are included within the single total price, so long as that notice is not deceptive."
http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/fil...xes_.fees_.sam_.dl_.13.website.pdf

Pretty far from "almost asking for them to be hidden"


User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 8 hours ago) and read 2156 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 99):
For aviation to be the governments personal ATM the money collected must be higher than the money spent on it.

Commercial aviation taxes add up to $17 billion per year. 85% of those taxes go to the federal government and local airports, which are essentially government entities. The other 15% goes to the TSA. So $14.45 billion per year goes to the entities that run the national air system.

http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/fil...agency_financial_report_fy2012.pdf

In that report above it shows the 2012 budget for the DOT. They claim their air transportation budget costs $16 billion per year. However, intra-governmental costs make up $2.35 billion of that total, so the costs being spent on public transportation are $13.65 billion. Seeing that we know that of all aircraft operations in the country, not 100% of it comes from commercial aviation alone. If I assume an 80/20 split between commercial and general aviation, commercial aviation gets $10.92 billion of direct government spend while it provides $14.45 billion.

On the whole it looks like they run a deficit if you say they take in $14.45 billion and spend $16 billion. If you only include the money they spend directly on public transportation they run a surplus ($14.45 billion vs $13.65 billion). I haven't even included any taxes generated from general aviation. Just commercial. Either way, it appears the burden mostly falls on commercial aviation and they subsidize the majority of the DOT's Air Transportation budget even though it all isn't directly spent on their activities alone.

Which also appears to be why they wanted to implement the $100 per departure tax, to get general aviation to start paying for more of their share. Since that didn't work out, their solution is to raise taxes on commercial aviation. Hence my argument that when they need more money for whatever they plan to do, they get it from the airline industry.

It'd be one thing if NextGen was already in existence. But when you raise the tax rate from 7 to 20% between 1978 and today, yet you still have an air traffic control system that was built in the 70s and causes airlines to not be able to fully utilize the technology in the cockpits to create more efficient routings, how exactly are you returning value to the industry?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 101, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2065 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 100):
commercial aviation gets $10.92 billion of direct government spend while it provides $14.45 billion.

You're still using limited data but lets use the numbers you provided above. Based on them there is 3.5 BUSD contribution above spend. While plenty of money to you and I it really is a drop in the ocean when you look at government spend. Thus the suggestion that aviation is governments ATM does not hold water.

Exaggerations like this are extremely unproductive.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 100):
But when you raise the tax rate from 7 to 20% between 1978 and today, yet you still have an air traffic control system that was built in the 70s and causes airlines to not be able to fully utilize the technology in the cockpits to create more efficient routings, how exactly are you returning value to the industry?

More poor logic. If all money went to the air traffic control system you would have a point, but it isn't. If you want to make a claim about the meaning of 7% to 20% you need to look at the full picture.

Note: I'm not saying the taxes collected are at the right level and the money spent correctly, nor am I saying it isn't. I'm saying that making outlandish statements based on incomplete data poisons the discussion and makes it very hard to improve things.


User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 102, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2015 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
More poor logic. If all money went to the air traffic control system you would have a point, but it isn't. If you want to make a claim about the meaning of 7% to 20% you need to look at the full picture.

It is not poor logic. It is a request the airlines have been asking for for years now and there has not been a full scale response. If you're going to continue to take a larger share of tax money and the constituents whose service you're taxing are asking for something that would bring greater efficiency to the market, then you are not doing all you can to best serve that industry.

Quoting cmf (Reply 101):
Based on them there is 3.5 BUSD contribution above spend. While plenty of money to you and I it really is a drop in the ocean when you look at government spend. Thus the suggestion that aviation is governments ATM does not hold water.

Your logic is just as poor if you want to call mine poor. You are no more making an assumption than I am. Your logic seems to read that government is inefficient and it costs a lot of money, so therefore this surplus is justified and they are not taking more than they should in taxes since it's just a drop in the bucket. If they could create more efficiency then perhaps they wouldn't need to raise taxes any more and could do with what they have. But when their costs go up, their solution is to raise taxes, which is why I refer to it as an ATM. When you need cash you go to the machine where you get it.

As I have pointed out from some of the links I put above, airlines have managed to hardly raise fares at all over those same time periods and they are forced to make it work. Why can't the government force itself to think in the same way? Do more with less? Rather than raise taxes?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 103, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1981 times:

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 102):
It is not poor logic.

It is poor logic because it has nothing to do with aviation being governments ATM, as claimed. What you're bringing up is a different issue, important, but still different.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 102):
You are no more making an assumption than I am.

The only time I made an assumption was when I used the numbers you provided.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 102):
Your logic seems to read that government is inefficient and it costs a lot of money, so therefore this surplus is justified and they are not taking more than they should in taxes since it's just a drop in the bucket.

No, I have not addressed that issue. All I'm talking about is the claim that aviation is governments ATM. The numbers you have provided does not support it it because 3.5 BUSD is a rounding error in the government spend.

Quoting hatbutton (Reply 102):
But when their costs go up, their solution is to raise taxes, which is why I refer to it as an ATM. When you need cash you go to the machine where you get it.

Nice rewrite but your original statement was nothing such. But if you want to go down this road. Do you have a breakdown of what is provided today vs what was provided then?


User currently offlinehatbutton From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1500 posts, RR: 14
Reply 104, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1961 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 103):
Nice rewrite but your original statement was nothing such.

By government I was referring to the part of the government that supports aviation. Apologies if you took that as the entire government. And I still stand by my belief that the airline industry pays more in taxes than they get in return as their taxes help subsidize the rest of the system used by others that don't pay their fair share, partially evidenced by the government's attempt to institute a $100 departure tax that would include a good chunk of general aviation. I don't see $3.5 billion as a rounding error in government spend when you talk only about the spend related to aviation. When the total budget is $16 billion, $3.5 billion is no small chunk.

I am just going to agree to disagree and I respect your opinion and appreciate you pressing harder on this issue as it has been fun to debate with you. I feel there is enough evidence to show the airline industry shares more of the burden and will continue to do so and you do not. Unfortunately the DOT's budget document doesn't go nearly into enough detail about the components that make up their $16 billion worth of spend which is unfortunate. The furthest they go is to show the breakdown between public use of the dollars and government use.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21730 posts, RR: 55
Reply 105, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1950 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 83):
What the airlines are challenging is the mandate that they prohibit the airlines from disclosing in an easy way how much of a ticket is taxes.

You're saying that Delta, United and American (i.e. the three largest carriers in the country) are in violation of DOT regulations:

http://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag133/originalusernamehere/DeltaFares.jpg

http://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag133/originalusernamehere/UnitedFares.jpg

http://i1302.photobucket.com/albums/ag133/originalusernamehere/AAFares.jpg

On DL's and UA's site, that comes up on the first page after you select the flights. On AA's site, you have to wait until the payment page, which I don't like, but it is there and clearly displayed.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
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...
NK, WN, G4, B6 Airlines Of The Future? posted Sat Jan 21 2012 15:15:44 by dtwpilot225
US Supreme Court Sides With AA Against Skycaps posted Tue Nov 29 2011 08:16:46 by LAXintl
OAG Changes 11/12/2010:AA/AS/CO/UA/DL/FL/G4/NK/US posted Wed Nov 10 2010 06:45:03 by enilria
DOT Final Decision: B6 NK CO DL To BOG posted Wed May 21 2008 14:46:15 by Summa767
Latest DOT Filings Or Applications To Fly To US posted Tue Dec 11 2007 11:52:06 by SlimShady
US Asks Court To Allow Alternatives To Merger W/HP posted Mon May 23 2005 19:03:50 by TOLtommy
Supreme Court Allow AI To Use Untrained Cabin Crew posted Sat Nov 6 2004 05:00:30 by B747-437B
US Seeks Court Order To Cut Pay 23% posted Fri Sep 24 2004 18:12:24 by DLKAPA
Where Will WN Luv To Go Next posted Sun Sep 21 2003 21:38:11 by GEG2RAP
Pilots To Move Court Against PIA Chief posted Thu Apr 18 2002 22:38:14 by GF-A330