Travel News - New rule against 'bait and switch' fees

Just saw this on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/29/travel/airfare-price-rule/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

'New rule requires airlines to include mandatory taxes and fees in advertised fares'. Finally! So sick of the international fees being hidden in searches =/

Am I the only one who's having a head scratcher at WN's marketing person's quote:


"Forcing airlines to include taxes will also make air travel 'look' more expensive when in reality it's not," King wrote.

HUH? Those LCCs have some pretty weak sauce objections to the rule.

I've been scratching my head at the press articles that mention taxes but not fees such as fuel surcharges at all. The genuine taxes should be the same regardless of carrier and represent money not retained by the airline. This is very different from the miscellaneous required charges added by the airline to increase the ticket price without making it look like a more expensive ticket.

I've been scratching my head at the press articles that mention taxes but not fees such as fuel surcharges at all.

I agree. The prices advertised should be "all in". Anything less is deceptive.

As this topic — based on a news source — is not specific to Delta Air Lines or the SkyMiles frequent flier loyalty program, the new home for this thread is now the Travel News forum.

Regards,

Canarsie
Co-Moderator, Delta SkyMiles forum

I've been scratching my head at the press articles that mention taxes but not fees such as fuel surcharges at all.

Am I missing something here?

From the article:
The Department of Transportation rule requires airlines to include all mandatory taxes and fees in advertised fares.
...
consumers need to be able to see the entire price they need to pay to get to their destination the first time the airfare is presented to them

You believe fuel surcharges are not covered by this rule?

This has been discussed countless times, it's not a new rule, it's the implementation of a rule that was passed in April of 2011, with quite a few threads discussing it over the past however many months.

The total price display I think is the least significant portion of it. While it would be nice to see the total price up front, it's really not a big deal to make the extra click or two to get the total price. Maybe somebody who has never traveled before thinks they can go to London for $99 each way and only have to pay $198 and needs to be told the real charge is much higher up front, but anybody else already knows it.

I think the other parts of it are way more significant, but of course the focus will be on the saving those extra mouse clicks.

I've been scratching my head at the press articles that mention taxes but not fees such as fuel surcharges at all. The genuine taxes should be the same regardless of carrier and represent money not retained by the airline. This is very different from the miscellaneous required charges added by the airline to increase the ticket price without making it look like a more expensive ticket.

I agree, PFCs that are included in taxes and fees can vary depending on the number of stops and airpors involved, but fuel surcharge is a fixed amount for a specific region. Fuel surcharge is the same for all destinations in a given region. Fuel surcharge is the easiest charge to include since it's the least variable.

It's about time that the change was made. What took them so long? Even twenty years ago, when taxes amounted to a small fraction of the fare, there was a case for including taxes and fees in quoting the fare. Now, taxes and fees, as a percentage of the fare have reached obscene proportions. Sometimes taxes and fees can be many times the base bare.

The same baggage allowance and fees to apply throughout a passenger's trip


Will this provision apply to itineraries involving a foreign airline operating a segment between two foreign airports?
For example, DCA-DTW-CDG-DEL will the same baggage rules apply on CDG-DEL sector on Air France as those on DCA-DTW-CDG on Delta? Or, as Delta claims, the most restrictive rules will apply?

1. Taxes + Fees - This makes simple common sense and will make quick comparisons much easier, especially where taxes/fees jump because of multiple segments vs. non-stop. Back when there was one simple tax and no fees, the price quoted was the fare one paid to board the aircraft. There is no reason for that to change now that there are multiple taxes and all sorts of fees. If someone tells you that you can fly between AAA and BBB for $X,XXX, that's the amount you ought to pay.


2. DOT Vs. IATA baggage - The new DOT bag rules apply to "ultimate ticketed destination." Otherwise the April 2011 IATA rules apply. Thus, NRT-HKG on Carrier A connecting to HKG-ORD on Carrier B will have Carrier A rules apply all the way through even if Carrier A and B have different baggage rules.

A major consideration will be assuring that segments are on the same itinerary because that is what presumably lets Carrier B know that it can't collect different bag fees (or allow free bags) when accepting interlined baggage from Carrier A.

Long-term, like many rules designed to help consumers, the baggage aspect of the new disclosure rules will likely have the effect of greater transperency, but higher charges. Carriers will most likely harmonize their baggage policies and, to do so, reduce the number of free bags to an international standard. DL has already announced this for Silvers. I predict that others will follow suit over the next 9-12 months.

Am I missing something here?

From the article:

You believe fuel surcharges are not covered by this rule?
Of course fees are covered. My point is that I have been seeing articles in the press, including highly regarded newspaps and international coverage, that mention taxes but not fees. I believe that disclosure of fees is the more significant portion of the legislation as taxes tend to be independent of the carrier as well as not under the control of the carrier and not accruing to the carrier.

Of course fees are covered. My point is that I have been seeing articles in the press, including highly regarded newspaps and international coverage, that mention taxes but not fees. I believe that disclosure of fees is the more significant portion of the legislation as taxes tend to be independent of the carrier as well as not under the control of the carrier and not accruing to the carrier.
It doesn't matter to me whether a given item is a tax or a fee. What matters to me is how much I have to pay in order to board my flight. I could care less if a $1,000 ticket is $100 in airfare and $900 in taxes or vice-a-versa. I simply care that I need to spend $1,000. And, as the customer, it's not my job to hunt down this information.

The Delta.com site displays both the fare, and the total all-in price, from the very first fare display page. Works well.

The Southwest.com site gives you a grid showing only the base fares but, once you select the fare, the next screen shows the all-in price. Not as good of an implementation at Delta but not bad.

I recently did a rental car through Travelocity and that got me a grid with all of the different car and company options showing but the base per-day change and total rental charge in each box of the grid. Worked well.

What I don't want to see is the taxes hidden. I think we should know how much of what we are paying is going to taxes and other government fees. This is especially true in travel expenses as the percentage of taxes and government fees can be so much higher than what we're used to at the checkout register.

The Delta.com site displays both the fare, and the total all-in price, from the very first fare display page. Works well.

Maybe I can go to EU again sometime in 2012. If I have enough money and will try to search a cheap fare and not too expensive at all. We want a real cheaper the reasonable fare is $500 to $600 R/T all-in. I don't want to get too extremely expensive.

1. Taxes + Fees - This makes simple common sense and will make quick comparisons much easier, especially where taxes/fees jump because of multiple segments vs. non-stop. Back when there was one simple tax and no fees, the price quoted was the fare one paid to board the aircraft. There is no reason for that to change now that there are multiple taxes and all sorts of fees. If someone tells you that you can fly between AAA and BBB for $X,XXX, that's the amount you ought to pay.It's impossible to include all taxes or fees in advertisements, because the airline doesn't know what routing you will take. If a European airport is involved as an intermediate point, the difference between total fare can be significant.

I agree that breaking down the fare into a dozen components does not benefit the customer at all. When you buy a bus ticket, from Washington, D.C. to New York, for example, they don't add every toll along the way to the quoted fare. Some buses are non-stop and some might stop in Baltimore and/or Philadelphia, which does not increase the fare even though facilities in Baltimore and Philadelphia re being used. It's the misconception. What the airline has to pay the airport, or the government is between the airline and the entity, I don't need to know that.
I wonder if the practice of not announcing total fare to the customer until the routing is finalised gives airlines anymore revenue than they would get if they just had one fare for a specific pair of cities regardless of routing.

2. DOT Vs. IATA baggage - The new DOT bag rules apply to "ultimate ticketed destination." Otherwise the April 2011 IATA rules apply. Thus, NRT-HKG on Carrier A connecting to HKG-ORD on Carrier B will have Carrier A rules apply all the way through even if Carrier A and B have different baggage rules.
A major consideration will be assuring that segments are on the same itinerary because that is what presumably lets Carrier B know that it can't collect different bag fees (or allow free bags) when accepting interlined baggage from Carrier A.

Most airlines already allowed this (until recently) even when two carriers were involved on two separate tickets, as long as connection was within 24 hours. I have flown, hundreds of US-YY-XX and US-ZZ-XX itineraries, on which allowed baggage on YY-XX and ZZ-XX was 20Kg vs 2 pieces on US-XX, but the connecti8ng carriers in the connecting cities rarely made a fuss about it until recently, when every airline started the practice of "we will enforce baggage policy for each sector and the customer be damned". Micro-accounting costs everyone in the long run. I have had only one issue, which was because the check-in agent iin BWI screwed up by checking my bags up to AMS only where I had a 20 hour layover.


Long-term, like many rules designed to help consumers, the baggage aspect of the new disclosure rules will likely have the effect of greater transperency, but higher charges. Carriers will most likely harmonize their baggage policies and, to do so, reduce the number of free bags to an international standard. DL has already announced this for Silvers. I predict that others will follow suit over the next 9-12 months.
TMT-Too much Transparency
TMI-Too much Information
TMC-Too much Confusion
TME-Too much extortion/expense

It's a simple thing. Consumer wants to fly from A-B and is wilin to pay the advertised fare. why make it complicated with TM-TICE?

It is absolutely possible to quote a fare for a specific routing which includes all mandatory taxes and fees.

And, that is what helps consumers make informed choices. By way of example, "is it cheaper for me to fly IAD-CDG direct or via LHR?" "What happens if I stop over for a few days in London?" "What if I upgrade to J?"

There are endless permutations, but they are all simple arithmetic calculations which, if the carrier can pull together to calculate the total collection, it can calculate and post on its website.

As to luggage, while the carriers were doing pretty well, particularly intra-alliance transfers, the new IATA rule is so confusing and so subject to screw-up by poorly-trained CSR's at airports, that the new DOT rule likely saves $ for the carriers by simplifying the process.

It's dumb idea, since taxes and fees depends on routing and the difference might be quite significant, for example if You stop in FRA you have to pay 65$ in taxes.
So You will see advertisements with *additional fees and taxes may apply if flight is not nonstop anyway.
And all that won't make any sense anymore.

And for the people who wonder - Then why flying with 1 stop sometimes is cheaper than nonstop ? It's because nonstop flights usually are booked out first, and cheapest booking classes are not available, thats why 1-stop flights can be cheaper (if cheaper booking classes are available) despite the additional taxes for the stopover.

Same law is being passed in Canada.. although its only in response to basically one airline..

Looks like United.com & continental.com just started quoting all-in fares in the past week. Personally, I like it. I found it funny that at times both sites would have the same flights, with different fares, different fees, and the same all-in fare.

Same law is being passed in Canada.. although its only in response to basically one airline..

What about EU, Middle Eastern, Asia or Africa hasn't already passed the law yet?

It's dumb idea, since taxes and fees depends on routing and the difference might be quite significant, for example if You stop in FRA you have to pay 65$ in taxes.

What about EU, Middle Eastern, Asia or Africa hasn't already passed the law yet?
EU has had this law for several years, ditto Australia.

Looks like United.com & continental.com just started quoting all-in fares in the past week.

United has gone back to doing it, they use to quote the all-in fares, but because so many other airlines went to here's the fare, click six times for the total cost, they went with it too so they didn't look like they were costing a fortune.

It always cracks me up when people here or at the airlines say it's an impossible task for them to make the change to show all inclusive fares on the first page, given that just a few years ago that's exactly what many of them did.

Indeed, there use to be threads asking how to break out a United fare to show fare and taxes, all you could see on the website was a total

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-mileage-plus-pre-merger/357845-seeing-actual-fare-taxes-fees-united-com.html

Spirit sent out e-mails regarding this today and have a website dedicated to it
http://keepmyfareslow.org/

I find this a bit confusing... they should tell us the full fare not this nonsense of $9 flights that end up being so much more $

What about EU, Middle Eastern, Asia or Africa hasn't already passed the law yet?

Loophole remains in jurisdictions that hasn't already passed the bait and switch law.

Spirit sent out e-mails regarding this today and have a website dedicated to it
http://keepmyfareslow.org/

I find this a bit confusing... they should tell us the full fare not this nonsense of $9 flights that end up being so much more $

Thanks for the link. I wrote my senators and representative, asking them to support the mandate. :D

Spirit sent out e-mails regarding this today and have a website dedicated to it
http://keepmyfareslow.org/

I find this a bit confusing... they should tell us the full fare not this nonsense of $9 flights that end up being so much more $Despite Spirit's protestations to the contrary, :rolleyes:ne thing we've already seen from many airlines is their own hiding behind fees payable to themselves that are lumped in with government mandated taxes. If Spirit (or any other airline) wants us to know what the taxes are, they can certainly say that the price is $XXX, which includes $YYY in taxes.

The Spirit page says

Thanks to the U.S. Department of Transportation's latest fare rules, Spirit must now HIDE the government's taxes and fees in your fares.

Yet if you search for a fare on United, you get the full price on the first screen now, with all taxes and fees. You can click price breakdown and see


Traveler
Adult 1

Fare(s)
USD 298.00

Additional taxes & fees*
USD 21.60

Fare subtotal(s)
USD 319.60

Nobody is forcing Spirit not to breakdown the fares. They are just pissy because now people will know up front there is no such thing as a nine dollar fare.

Of course fees are covered. My point is that I have been seeing articles in the press, including highly regarded newspaps and international coverage, that mention taxes but not fees. I believe that disclosure of fees is the more significant portion of the legislation as taxes tend to be independent of the carrier as well as not under the control of the carrier and not accruing to the carrier.
I agree 100%. While prices should definitely be quoted "all-in" of amounts actually retained by the airline, the forced bundling of taxes creates a new problem.

By mandating that airlines include taxes in the price (something not commonly done anywhere else in retail channels that I can think of), the Federal Government "money grab" is hidden from view, so that consumers can't readily determine how high the "all in" tax rate on air travel has become. Since this information is less visible, consumers will be less inclined to exert pressure on Congress to keep these taxes reasonable. In contrast, Congress will be tempted to raise these taxes in the future, since the increase will be largely invisible to consumers, who will wrongly assume that it is the airlines, rather than the government, that has driven up the cost of travel.

By mandating that airlines include taxes in the price (something not commonly done anywhere else in retail channels that I can think of)The inclusion of taxes in qu:)ted retail prices is pretty much the rule outside of the US.

In most other instances, taxes are a straight percentage and most people can easily calculate them in their head. I know if I go to the store and buy $100 worth of soda, I'm going to pay $6.35.

Airfare has no basis for figuring out the tax easily. There's this rate and that rate and security fees and different fees at different airports and fuel surcharges and so on and so on.

Airlines like Spirit have totally taken advantage of it by offering nine dollar fares, and there are people dumb enough who don't understand why they can't fly for nine dollars.

The airlines could have prevented this if they wanted to, but they choose not to do so. They moved away from a display showing the fare and the taxes and fees or just the total price to showing numbers that have no basis in reality leaving the consumer to waste their time trying to get a total price. They only have themselves to blame.

Airfare has no basis for figuring out the tax easily. There's this rate and that rate and security fees and different fees at different airports and fuel surcharges and so on and so on.
Stop saying "tax", it's "tax and fees". If you buy airfares to the US from the EU, Oz, Canada and many other places then they do include the US "taxes" in their upfront fares - even if you buy flights on a US airline. So clearly they can and do successfully work it out.

Stop saying "tax", it's "tax and fees". If you buy airfares to the US from the EU, Oz, Canada and many other places then they do include the US "taxes" in their upfront fares - even if you buy flights on a US airline. So clearly they can and do successfully work it out.

I called it tax because in the quoted post, I was only discussing taxes and not additional fees

In most other instances, taxes are a straight percentage and most people can easily calculate them in their head. I know if I go to the store and buy $100 worth of soda, I'm going to pay $6.35.


I also clearly stated additional fees in the rest of the post

There's this rate and that rate and security fees and different fees at different airports and fuel surcharges and so on and so on.


and again

They moved away from a display showing the fare and the taxes and fees or just the total price


When I am referring only to Taxes, I'm going to say Tax. When I'm referring to fees, I'll call them fees. When I'm referring to both, I'll call them Taxes and Fees.