http://www.vancouverprovince.com/new...5/5043560.html



[This message has been edited by Empress (edited 08-06-2001).]

Interesting. Why would AC advertise a $99 fare to Detroit when it doesn't fly to Detroit? Air Ontario does fly to Windsor, but on the YYZ-Windsor route there would not be $144 of additional charges, since a good portion of any charges on a flight to Detroit would be the US government Immigration/Customs/Ag charges. Are we seeing another example of journalistic sloppiness? Or was it really NW advertising?

Air Canada spokeswoman Charlotte Wardell said the separate listings are fair because "consumers know exactly what they're paying for."

What a stupid statement. Why don't they just set the base fare at one dollar and break out all the other charges as separate fees? Pilot salary charge, FA uniform dry cleaning surcharge, catering fee, tire wear charge, etc.

Empress, it's probably not a good idea to copy an entire article into your post. You could be (or FlyerTalk could be) in violation of copyright law.

Got it AB!

AC does fly YYZ-DTW now, I think they added it after taking over CP. Four a day on Air Ontario.

andrew

AB

I think copyright law would only come into play if he did not give credit where credit was due (as was done) or there was some sort of financial gain attempted from the plaigarism (as was not).

AC*SE...what do you think ?

AC's 'sale price' offers, etc., are moving it more and more along the (to me) absurd path of several U.S. carriers, who purchase very large full page ads in the Wall Street Journal, offering incredibly low fares.
I am astounded by this practice because it only antagonizes business-fare travellers (or those who must pay the travellers' bills)
The extreme price differences between Y-level fares and 'seat sale' deals only add to consumer cynicism and irritation with the airline.
And, of course, it is even worse when travellers seeking the 'bargains' find they are more 'air' than substance.
Unfortunately, the only solution I know to the problem is the new paradigm of airlines such as WestJet -- but of course AC is trapped in its existing, traditional business models.

AC offers between 2 and 4 flights a day (depending on day of week) between YYZ and DTW, effective July 20.

This is my nominee for "stupidest statement:" Yeah, and for instance, governments charge shopping centres taxes for their land, and that cost is passed on to the stores.

What a moron!

Ken:

Not that I disagree with you, but, Airports charge rent to rent-a-car companies and we pay for that on a seperate line above the quoted rates.

Anything to do with Airlines is considered different and "Special"

It's ironic that in AC's current online sale, the initial fare examples are given without taxes, but when you make the reservation, the total fare is quoted with no indication of how much of the fare is taxes and add ons.

Thank you for the DTW service information. If AC's advertising might be considered deceptive, what would they make of the ads placed by US carriers. It is now standard practice to advertise seat sale prices as One Way fares, without all the surcharges, taxes and fees included. Is this any better, or worse?

In some ways the breakdown is no different than walking into a retail store, very rarely will taxes(GST/PST) be included in the shelf price. I remember back when the GST first was introduced only Woolco(remember them) included the GST in prices. Articles written after its demise hinted that this price differential between it and its competitors might have contributed(very small component) to its failure.
Though I would like to see a clearer break down of the fees/taxes, a clear explanation of each fee levied and why. Not a line like "Other Taxes" or a jumble of letter codes you need a legend to figure out.

The only one that irritates me is the fuel surcharge--that is money that goes into the airline's pocket.

I have no problem at all with the airline splitting off GST, Airport improvement fees, US Inspection Fees, etc. etc. because that is money that scoots from my pocket, through the airline's hands, and on to a third party.

As for the copyright issue--it has been a long time since Intellectual Property! But here goes...

Copyright subsists in the holder (usually the author, unless the publisher has acquired it from the author--as is the case with any newspaper I have ever seen). Copyrighted material may only be reproduced as authorized by the holder. Some allow quotation for the purpose of review, others allow reproduction provided credit is given. Still others only permit reproduction in whole--no excepts. In the absence of any statement giving general license, reproduction of any kind is prohibited.

That being said, the copyright holder can only enforce its right to the extent that the other party has caused a loss. Reproduction on a BBS might cause the newspaper's website to lose a few hits, which could theoretically affect its advertising revenue. But practically speaking, quantifying loss against the person posting the material would be nearly impossible.

However, a BBS permitting reproduction of copyright material is a more general misconduct, which could, in some circumstances be viewed more seriously.

(OK, enough OMNI for today.)