Comments on: Renegade travel agent brings ticket pricing fight to America

By: tripso.com | EU commissioner for consumer affairs launches blog

tripso.com | EU commissioner for consumer affairs launches blog — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:43:18 +0000

[...] it comes to the travel industry — particularly the airline industry. How and where will the new fare rule be implemented? And what of the often lax enforcement of EU Rule [...]

By: tripso.com | How airlines are defrauding the government with “taxes” and surcharges

Mon, 22 Sep 2008 10:33:51 +0000

[...] Europeans have now implemented a new regime of quoting an all-inclusive fare. Perhaps the U.S. should do the same and be clear and transparent about [...]

By: mark

mark — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:42:14 +0000

I would love to see this pass i hate it when i get an email to fly to London for 250.00 only to find out there are 550.00 in other fees to add on

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:06:28 +0000

The one I hate the most is advertising flight prices for “each way, based on purchase of round-trip ticket”. To me that’s like offering a price for one shoe, based on buying the pair. I wouldn’t have a problem with it if you could actually buy the one-way ticket for that price, but of course you can’t. So you cannot actually purchase anything at all for the advertised price. How can that be legal???

By: Lianne

Lianne — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 18:28:41 +0000

Fuel surcharges are the silliest thing the travel industry has come up with. As much as I dislike baggage fees, food/beverage fees and the various ticketing fees, at least there is the psudo-rational “unbundling” explination (“we only want to charge you for the services you use!”) has a warped logic behind it. Fuel is part of a plane/cruise ship’s most basic operating expenses. A fuel charge is like buying french fries and being charged a potato fee.

Kudos to Gyoshev, hope he’s successful.

By: Dave

Dave — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:34:06 +0000

There’s a big difference between quoting a price that doesn’t include the government-imposed taxes and fees and quoting a price that doesn’t include a company’s own surcharges and fees. The government-imposed monies do not go to the purveyor of the product or service, and it is fair that companies be allowed to quote a number that represents what the company will actually receive from the customer. What is despicable is the practice of quoting a phony, unpurchasable base price, then adding on lots of fees that they will collect for themselves. This is truly bait and switch, and I don’t know why it isn’t already illegal. The “fuel surcharge” is the prime example of something that should by law be a part of the quoted price. This is nothing more and nothing less than part of the cost of the ticket to the customer, and part of the cost of doing business to the provider of the ticket.

By: PeterGreenberg.com » Travel News Roundup, August 28, 2008

PeterGreenberg.com » Travel News Roundup, August 28, 2008 — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:33:26 +0000

[...] Link: Elliott.org [...]

By: WishingEveryoneWasLikePalmairEuropean

WishingEveryoneWasLikePalmairEuropean — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 09:39:36 +0000

“Why then would we become confused when it comes to the airlines utlizing the same model that everyone else does?”

Even seasoned veterans of airline travel are not familiar with the model the airlines use, because they don’t use the same model as, well, anybody else. Unlike the sale of retail goods where sales tax is the only addition to the listed price, airlines add multiple taxes, regulatory fees, and “surcharges.” These fees and surcharges vary from airline to airline, and even the taxes vary from flight to flight. What the airlines are doing now is unbundling their fares to charge for every little thing they can think of. In the health care field, unbundling became illegal many years ago (in the US, anyway). This is why, for example, your dentist does not, and cannot, charge you more for administering more anesthetic; nor will a hospital charge you every time they change your bandage. The airlines are developing a new pricing model where anything and everything is broken down, and a price is put on the resulting fragments. That may be fine for optional things like food on a 2-hour flight, but it’s not the same when they charge for non-optional things like drinking water, food on a 10-hour flight, or fuel.

Your example of gasoline/petrol can actually be used the other way, since several taxes & fees are added to the base price to give the posted price. But just as when I buy gas, when I buy a plane ticket I really don’t care how much of my money goes to pay for fuel, taxes, departure fees, or the pilots’ retirement fund.

What I want to know is simply, how much?

By: Carver Farrow

Carver Farrow — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:44:47 +0000

I’m not convinced. In the US at least quoted prices rarely include taxes and other government fees or assessments. The only one that jumps to mind is gas.

So what’t the problem with airlines using the same model which we very familiar with?

By: Carver Farrow

Carver Farrow — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:43:08 +0000

I’m only half way convinced. In the US at least, it is rare that a merchant quotes a price that includes mandatory government taxes or assessments. The only regular purchase that comes to mind is gas.

Why then would we become confused when it comes to the airlines utlizing the same model that everyone else does?