in this commentary
- Since 2011, a federal rule has required that the airfare an airline shows you is the fare you actually pay, taxes and fees included, and that the total price be the most prominent number in any ad.
- The Department of Transportation has now proposed changing that. One option would let airlines display each component of a fare as prominently as the total. The department is also weighing a full repeal.
- The DOT frames the current standard as “unnecessarily prescriptive.” Consumer advocates counter that a price you can’t buy at is not a real price.
Remember what booking an airline ticket used to be like?
You’d find a $99 fare online—a real bargain!—and then select it.
But wait, that fare didn’t include a “carrier-imposed surcharge.” And what’s this mandatory fuel surcharge? You also had to wait until the end of the booking process to see the taxes.
By the time you clicked through to the checkout screen, your $99 flight cost $180. It was infuriating.
In 2011, the Department of Transportation adopted the full-fare rule, which says the price an airline shows you must be the price you pay—taxes and fees included. The airlines sued to kill it and lost. Travelers have shopped for flights with confidence ever since.
Now the government wants to jettison that standard. The DOT just proposed changing the full-fare requirement. Two options are on the table. One is bad, the other is worse. And the traveling public has already figured that out, judging by the comments piling up in the government’s inbox.
The present administration is systematically eliminating all protections, consumer, environmental, medical, financial, clean air, endangered species (us included), and so on. This is just one more step into a “You are on your own, you have no rights or protections, laissez faire” regime. They disregard Congress, the courts, and the Constitution. Why should they pay attention to online comments?
Read more insightful reader feedback. See all comments.
The bad proposal: weaken the full-fare advertising rule
Under current regulations, the total price must be the most prominent number in any airfare ad. Airlines can break out the taxes and fees, but they can’t display those components as prominently as the total, or in bigger type.
The DOT calls that “unnecessarily prescriptive.” Its proposal would let airlines display each component as prominently as the total. So under that scenario, you’d see a fare display for $99 and $180 online, which could be confusing. It would also erase nine guidance documents that explain how the rule works in practice, including one that stops carriers from labeling their own surcharges as taxes.
That may sound like a typography debate, but it’s not. Once every number can have the same prominence as the true price, airlines will have a license to make the low base fare the star of the ad. The total still technically appears, but they’ll find a way of burying the real cost.
The worse proposal: eliminate the rule entirely
Buried deeper in the proposal, the DOT says it’s also considering repealing the full-fare rule “in whole.” That would mean airlines could once again advertise a fare that excludes taxes and fees altogether.
Want to know what that world looks like? Jason Rabinowitz, an aviation data journalist, showed the DOT in his comment.
He priced a JetBlue flight from New York to London and found a $314 fare. The base fare was just $31. The rest was $33 in government taxes and a $250 “carrier-imposed fee” — the airline’s own invention. Without the full-fare rule, JetBlue could dangle something close to $31 in front of you. Rabinowitz warned that airlines could set base fares as low as a penny and shift the real cost into fees.
A one-cent flight to London? Now that’s a deal—until you try to buy it.
You can’t fool the public
The comment period runs through July 31, and the early returns are about what you’d expect. Virtually every person opposes the change.
“Showing a price that you cannot purchase is deceptive,” wrote Eric Berman of Woodinville, Wash., who called the proposal “profoundly anti-consumer.”
Cheryl Voigt of Des Moines, asked one of the most important questions in the discussion: Who benefits?
“It certainly would not be airline customers,” she wrote.
Kelly Harris of Trinity, Fla., called the proposal “a disgusting and incompetent use of government power.” Andrew Lambert of Phoenix needed just four words: “What a dumb change.”
And Andrea Gadomski-Riker of Ohio explained the real stakes: “For those of us who do not travel regularly, and have limited funds, knowing a flight’s total cost up front is vital.”
She’s right. Frequent fliers can avoid the checkout trickery. But a family that flies once a year will get ambushed by fees.
The rest of the world is watching
The DOT proposal comes at an interesting time. On July 13, the European Union gave final approval to stronger air passenger rights, including a requirement that airlines display fares with a carry-on allowance included before booking even starts.
Europe is forcing airlines to show more of the true cost upfront. The United States wants to let them show less.
The DOT argues the prominence rule may clash with the First Amendment, and that a 1970 tax law already covers how taxes get displayed. Maybe there’s a lawyer’s argument in there somewhere, but a regulation that lets you know what a flight costs before you buy it isn’t government overreach. It’s a thoughtful, consumer-friendly rule that prevents airlines from misrepresenting their ticket prices.
“The proposed rule presents a false choice,” says Bonnie Patten, executive director for Truth In Advertising, a nonprofit organization that advocates for clear pricing. “This is not about whether airlines may market and discuss every cost of an airline ticket. They plainly may. It’s about whether airlines may emphasize portions of the purchase price in ways that increase the likelihood consumers will be deceived regarding the total cost of transportation.”
Add your voice by July 31
There’s some good news. This isn’t a done deal yet. The DOT must consider your feedback, and there’s still time to put an end to this foolish idea. Anyone can file a comment at the Regulations.gov site (the docket number is DOT-OST-2025-0831).
The airlines are counting on you to stay quiet, to click “book” the next time you have to buy a ticket and obediently accept its fees. Prove them wrong. The comment box is open for one more week.
A rule about how airfares get displayed is up for revision, and the public comment window is open. We want to hear where you land.
Your voice matters
The full-fare rule: what is changing and how to weigh in
A long-standing rule about airfare advertising is under review, and the public comment window is open. Here is what travelers ask most.
Adopted by the Department of Transportation in 2011, it requires that an advertised airfare be the entire price a customer will pay, taxes and mandatory fees included. It also says fare components cannot be displayed as prominently as, or in larger type than, the total. Airlines challenged the rule in court and did not succeed in overturning it. The proposal would let airlines and ticket agents display individual fare components with the same prominence as the total price, and would remove the prohibition on showing components in equal or larger size. It would also rescind nine guidance documents that explain how the rule works in practice. Separately, the department is asking for comment on whether to repeal the rule outright. It would allow advertised fares that exclude taxes and mandatory fees. Critics point out that on some routes the base fare is a small fraction of the total, with the rest made up of taxes and a carrier-imposed surcharge, so an advertised price could look dramatically lower than what you would actually pay at checkout. The department describes the current prominence requirement as unnecessarily prescriptive, and raises legal questions about it, including whether compelling a particular price display sits comfortably with the First Amendment and whether an existing federal tax-advertising statute already governs how fares and taxes must be shown. Supporters of the change also frame it as reducing regulatory burden. That advertising a price nobody can actually pay is deceptive, and that the issue is not whether airlines may discuss every component of a fare, which they plainly may, but whether they may emphasize parts of the price in ways that leave travelers misled about the total. Advocates also note that occasional flyers, rather than frequent travelers, are the ones most likely to be caught out. In the opposite direction. European lawmakers recently approved an overhaul of air passenger rights that requires airlines, intermediaries, and search portals to display fares including carry-on luggage from the start of the booking process, with implementation phased in after the rules take effect. The United States is considering letting carriers show less of the total up front while Europe requires more. Anyone can file a comment through the federal rulemaking portal at Regulations.gov under docket number DOT-OST-2025-0831. Comments are due by July 31, 2026, and the department is required to consider them before issuing a final rule. For more travel coverage, see Elliott Advocacy.What is the full-fare rule?
What is the DOT proposing now?
What would a full repeal actually change?
Why does the government say the rule should change?
What do consumer advocates say?
How does this compare with what Europe is doing?
How can I comment, and by when?
Have a question about this story? Tell us what happened — we read every comment.
Join the conversation
