Fuel surcharges continue
Nov 24th, 2008, 10:15 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuel surcharges continue
I'm sure someone already covered this - but i'd like to asK why, if fuel prices are down are there still hundreds of dollars added on to airline tickets as a fuel surcharge?
Nov 25th, 2008, 05:21 AM
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember years ago when sugar prices were high, they raised the cost of a bottle of soda quite a bit. But, they also raised the cost of club soda - which has no sugar in it. Excuse to make more money? Same with airlines?
Nov 25th, 2008, 01:57 PM
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to travelgoumet: "Would it really make you feel better if they simply rolled the costs into the fare? Why?"
In answer to this I say - yes it would matter. I take honesty over deception any day.
In answer to this I say - yes it would matter. I take honesty over deception any day.
Nov 25th, 2008, 04:26 PM
#8
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some parts of the world where capacity, routes and fares are still regulated, there may be a legitimate reason to have fuel surcharges. The government's regulatory entity may allow "temporary" fuel surcharges that should come down, while keeping the underlying fare unchanged. That supposedly give everybody more flexibility.
Many airlines also impose fuel surcharge on FF awards. Again, that allow them to "get more" from the flyers without complicated and lengthy changes to the FF programs itself. It doesn't mean that they're not doing that either, but it's faster to post surcharges than changing award redemption levels.
Many airlines also impose fuel surcharge on FF awards. Again, that allow them to "get more" from the flyers without complicated and lengthy changes to the FF programs itself. It doesn't mean that they're not doing that either, but it's faster to post surcharges than changing award redemption levels.
Nov 25th, 2008, 05:57 PM
#9
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frankly, if an airline used the high price of oil as an excuse for raising prices, then the cutting of the price by two/thirds should warrant rolling back those prices. There are no excuses that would justify maintaining a fuel surcharge when the price of oil is now lower than it has been in years.
The airlines complain that customers have no loyalty to any airline, and that they just shop on price and price alone. Their contempt for the average customer, however, is the a very large reason why there is no loyalty.
The airlines complain that customers have no loyalty to any airline, and that they just shop on price and price alone. Their contempt for the average customer, however, is the a very large reason why there is no loyalty.
Nov 25th, 2008, 07:55 PM
#10
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since US is perhaps one place where fuel surcharge is not used commonly, I am waiting for all the praises for the all the US airlines (except DL, which placed a fuel surcharge on award tickets for several months).
Let's hear it!
Let's hear it!
Nov 25th, 2008, 09:30 PM
#11
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i> I am waiting for all the praises for the all the US airlines (except DL, which placed a fuel surcharge on award tickets for several months).</i>
But even DL reversed their fuel surcharges on award tickets recently.
<i>Frankly, if an airline used the high price of oil as an excuse for raising prices, then the cutting of the price by two/thirds should warrant rolling back those prices. There are no excuses that would justify maintaining a fuel surcharge when the price of oil is now lower than it has been in years.</i>
So, I assume that, in your view, the airlines should operate as non-profit charities? The airlines don't make money. Clearly, they need to raise prices. Fuel surcharges are nothing more than a price increase.
<i> I take honesty over deception any day.</i>
Where is the deception? The fuel surcharges are made available. They are included in the price you pay. There is nothing dishonest about it.
I only care about the cash I have to fork over for my ticket. What they call the components is beside the point.
But even DL reversed their fuel surcharges on award tickets recently.
<i>Frankly, if an airline used the high price of oil as an excuse for raising prices, then the cutting of the price by two/thirds should warrant rolling back those prices. There are no excuses that would justify maintaining a fuel surcharge when the price of oil is now lower than it has been in years.</i>
So, I assume that, in your view, the airlines should operate as non-profit charities? The airlines don't make money. Clearly, they need to raise prices. Fuel surcharges are nothing more than a price increase.
<i> I take honesty over deception any day.</i>
Where is the deception? The fuel surcharges are made available. They are included in the price you pay. There is nothing dishonest about it.
I only care about the cash I have to fork over for my ticket. What they call the components is beside the point.
Nov 26th, 2008, 02:56 PM
#13
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the end - of course I care about the cash I have to give out whether it's labeled a tax, a fuel charge or the base rate..
However, it's like a bait and switch operation. "They" advertise the price for a R/T ticket as $398 but the taxes and fuel charges bring it up $300 more dollars. Why do that? So that when you look for air rates you notice that "low low" price of $398 first and go with them vs. another airline whose airfare is $500 and taxes are just $100. If you look at the base rates only you'll go with the, on first glance, "lower" rate.
But, you may say, people looking for airfares should check this final price out for themselves? Why would anyone be so stupid as to not realize that the "lower" price is not really lower? To me that's not the point. The point is airlines which are trying to fool you with phony low prices and high extras such as a fuel surcharge (even when the fuel price has gone down). That's the problem.
However, it's like a bait and switch operation. "They" advertise the price for a R/T ticket as $398 but the taxes and fuel charges bring it up $300 more dollars. Why do that? So that when you look for air rates you notice that "low low" price of $398 first and go with them vs. another airline whose airfare is $500 and taxes are just $100. If you look at the base rates only you'll go with the, on first glance, "lower" rate.
But, you may say, people looking for airfares should check this final price out for themselves? Why would anyone be so stupid as to not realize that the "lower" price is not really lower? To me that's not the point. The point is airlines which are trying to fool you with phony low prices and high extras such as a fuel surcharge (even when the fuel price has gone down). That's the problem.
Nov 26th, 2008, 09:27 PM
#16
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 26,778
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>"They" advertise the price for a R/T ticket as $398 but the taxes and fuel charges bring it up $300 more dollars.</i>
I am unaware of any major booking site that does not clearly display the total price from the very first results. On Expedia, for instance, I don't think it is even possible to see the components of the price. You are simply never in the position of comparing apples to oranges. All the prices you see reflect what you will actually pay. Heck, I struggle to think of a website that does not allow you to rank-order the various fares by total price, making it even easier to tell which is cheaper.
This is simply a non-issue. Unfortunately, it has been blown into something bigger than it is because people want to turn their desire to pay less into some sort of righteous indignation. What people really want are cheaper flights (who wouldn't), but that doesn't become some great moral crusade simply because you act all indignant about how they build up their pricing.
I am unaware of any major booking site that does not clearly display the total price from the very first results. On Expedia, for instance, I don't think it is even possible to see the components of the price. You are simply never in the position of comparing apples to oranges. All the prices you see reflect what you will actually pay. Heck, I struggle to think of a website that does not allow you to rank-order the various fares by total price, making it even easier to tell which is cheaper.
This is simply a non-issue. Unfortunately, it has been blown into something bigger than it is because people want to turn their desire to pay less into some sort of righteous indignation. What people really want are cheaper flights (who wouldn't), but that doesn't become some great moral crusade simply because you act all indignant about how they build up their pricing.
Nov 27th, 2008, 04:32 AM
#17
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just goes back to charging a fuel surcharge when that high price for fuel, which was the reason for the fuel surcharge, no longer exists because the price has gone down so much. That's all.
Nov 27th, 2008, 06:19 AM
#18
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again, I don't get your point. The fuel charge whether listed or not as separate component will be part of the total price of the ticket and you will know about it before you make your final decision to actually purchase the ticket.
It's not like they collect the $300 once you settle in your seat on the plane.
It's not a surprise.
There is a sort of valid claim about another issue. Airlines used the high cost of fuel to explain the new checked baggage charges. Since the fuel prices went down, one can argue that perhaps those charges should be rolled back.
Chances of that happening? probably none, but at the very least I can see somewhat of a valid argument there, although again, they do tell you how much you will be charged if you show up with 1, 2, 3...etc bags, so you know if you go with airline A because their ticket was $100 and they charge $10 per checked bags, it may be more expensive to fly with airline B, which only wanted $90 for the ticket initially but charge $20 per bag and you will have 2 bags to check in.
It's not like they collect the $300 once you settle in your seat on the plane.
It's not a surprise.
There is a sort of valid claim about another issue. Airlines used the high cost of fuel to explain the new checked baggage charges. Since the fuel prices went down, one can argue that perhaps those charges should be rolled back.
Chances of that happening? probably none, but at the very least I can see somewhat of a valid argument there, although again, they do tell you how much you will be charged if you show up with 1, 2, 3...etc bags, so you know if you go with airline A because their ticket was $100 and they charge $10 per checked bags, it may be more expensive to fly with airline B, which only wanted $90 for the ticket initially but charge $20 per bag and you will have 2 bags to check in.
Thread
Original Poster
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sydney2K
Air Travel
16
Feb 7th, 2011 02:00 AM
klam_chowder
Air Travel
4
Apr 8th, 2008 06:28 AM
