Comments on: Fuel Surcharges and an a la carte future for air travel pricing?

By: Will Southwest’s Move into Atlanta Signal the End of Checked Baggage Fees? - View from the Wing

Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:20:02 +0000

[...] have added some revenue to airline bottom-lines through greater price discrimination, that overall it isn’t nearly as lucrative as most reports claim. Simply totaling bag revenue and saying that’s the total effect on revenue misleads, it just [...]

By: Carolinian

Carolinian — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 13:30:40 +0000

Referring to the seperate charge for a ''fuel surcharge'' as ''unbundling'' is deceptive. To be something that can be bundled or unbundled, it must be able to be offered seperately from the basic product. Meal service, drinks and snacks, seat assignment, and extra bagage are good examples, as a customer could choose to accept or not accept them, and it would not prevent him from using the basic product - a flight from point A to point B. Planes do not fly without fuel, however, and fuel is thus an essential part of the basic service, not something that can be bundled or unbundled. Charging for this seperately is like your phone company charging seperately for a dial tone. It is not ''unbundling''. It is ripping off comsumers. It is also called marketing deception. Many search engines only pick up what it considered the fare. So when part of what is really the fare is broken out and called ''fuel surcharge'', the fare search engine presents the fares of such airlines as the lowest, while in fact with the phony surcharge added back, they probably are the highest. The consumer is duped into buying a ticket he thinks is the cheapest out there, when in fact it may not be. Use of the ''fuel surcharge'' scam is nothing but a fraud on the consumer and should be prohibited by law. CAlling this sleazy practice ''unbundling'' is almost as deceptive as the airlines calling it a ''surcharge''.

By: seth

seth — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 02:04:21 +0000

You don’t seem to outright mention it in this or the other post on the fuel surcharges, but there is one other reasons the airlines go that route. When you redeem a “free” ticket you’re still required to pay all taxes and fees, which includes the fuel surcharges. US-based carriers can’t bill it separately to their passengers but the European ones do, so that free tripp can cost EU$200+ just in fuel surcharges, while the same flight from a US-based carrier may only have a few dollars in taxes. A great example is looking at UA/LH rewards on the same route/plane on the TATL runs. The price difference can be huge.

I don’t mind unbundling at all, but if you’re going to ro it there has to be a minimum basic level, which should include all fees necessary to transport your person (ie fuel, seat, Flight attendant and pilot pay, etc.). Anything above that (and I’m willing to include checked luggage in the list) can be piecemeal, so long as that is disclosed in the booking process, IMO. When the airlines unbundle so much that there is a fare for the seat and then a surcharge for everything from using the lav to having the pilot actually fly the plane it becomes a terrible case of misleading the consumer.

More of my rant here: http://www.wanderingaramean.com/2007/08/on-taxes-service-fees-and-surcharges.html