Air France Frequence Plus - attorney investigating Air France advertising

I am an attorney investigating Air France advertising practices as to ticket prices and taxes. If you booked a paid ticket on airfrance.com or by telephone to Air France reservations agents, or if you booked an award ticket using Flying Blue points or Frequence Plus points, I’d like to interview you to confirm the scope of relevant Air France practices.

Please feel free to send me a Private Message (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=4586) if you'd be willing to discuss this.

Thanks,

Ben Edelman

This is interesting.
I have contacted multiple times Air France in the past regarding the way they cheat the taxes and had no answer.

Mid February, I decided to complain to the DOT which has been extremely responsive to my claim. They told me that this was interesting and that AF might be in violation of regulations and that they are investgating.

The next day, I received an email from **** at Air France regarding a claim I sent one month earlier on AF telling me that they are investigating the matter on their side.

Guess things are moving and they might have gotten a kick from the DOT. Surprising coincidence huh?
In any case, if the DOT fines them for illegal advertising, I would be very glad that this was done thanks to me. I can't wait some regulator shove a big stick in that company. Guess that's what happens when you alienate your formerly loyal customers.

Minos

PS: Complain was that AF is hiding revenues (ie fuel surcharge) in taxes while booking award tickets. Proof was made using a Delta codeshare flight and pricing it on ITA. ITA showed about $97 in taxes. Air France was showing over $400 in taxes and $0 in Surcharge.

Aren't things explained on internet site?

Fuel surcharge
The price of kerosene is currently high and subject to major fluctuations. This situation has obliged Air France to levy a fuel surcharge on all its flight tickets, which depends on developments in the oil market. On European trips, this amounts to € 32 per segment flown; on intercontinental destinations, the surcharge is € 98 (flights not longer than 9 hours) and € 108 (flights longer than 9 hours) per segment. The supplement is calculated per flight, so it is charged on both the outbound and return trips as well as any intermediate flights.

Security surcharge
The security surcharge amounts to € 5 per segment flown and is levied for insurance and security measures, as separately indicated on the ticket. Insurance premiums have risen considerably in conjunction with the increased risk of terrorist attacks. In addition, structural security measures are still being implemented in various processes onboard and at airports.
Would you like to know more?

Would you like to know more about surcharges and taxes? Call Air France Reservations on 1300 390 190 (toll free) from Monday to Friday, 9am until 7.30pm (AEST).

Air France (http://www.airfrance.fr/AU/en/local/transverse/footer/paymentmethods.htm)

Aren't things explained on internet site?

Fuel surcharge
The price of kerosene is currently high and subject to major fluctuations. This situation has obliged Air France to levy a fuel surcharge on all its flight tickets, which depends on developments in the oil market. On European trips, this amounts to € 32 per segment flown; on intercontinental destinations, the surcharge is € 98 (flights not longer than 9 hours) and € 108 (flights longer than 9 hours) per segment. The supplement is calculated per flight, so it is charged on both the outbound and return trips as well as any intermediate flights.

Security surcharge
The security surcharge amounts to € 5 per segment flown and is levied for insurance and security measures, as separately indicated on the ticket. Insurance premiums have risen considerably in conjunction with the increased risk of terrorist attacks. In addition, structural security measures are still being implemented in various processes onboard and at airports.
Would you like to know more?

Would you like to know more about surcharges and taxes? Call Air France Reservations on 1300 390 190 (toll free) from Monday to Friday, 9am until 7.30pm (AEST).

Air France (http://www.airfrance.fr/AU/en/local/transverse/footer/paymentmethods.htm)

What are you talking about ???

I am an attorney investigating Air France advertising practices as to ticket prices and taxes. If you booked a paid ticket on airfrance.com or by telephone to Air France reservations agents, or if you booked an award ticket using Flying Blue points or Frequence Plus points, I’d like to interview you to confirm the scope of relevant Air France practices.

Please feel free to send me a Private Message (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/private.php?do=newpm&u=4586) if you'd be willing to discuss this.

Thanks,

Ben Edelman

Isn't your thread a commercial message going against Flyertalk's rules (http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#q71)?

Closed pending review.

Jouy31
AF/KL co-moderator

Thread re-opened for posting. Thanks for your understanding.

Jouy31
AF/KL co-moderator

The issue is that AF used to note on our tickets YQ (Fuel Surcharge) under Taxes. Thanks to people complaining and/or suing, they no longer do this. And it wasn't just for award tickets, but all tickets. Go back and look at your receipts to see this. It seems to have been corrected around February of this year.

Indeed, AF used to provide no details on its surcharge which was listed under taxes. In the past few months it started to show the detail at the booking stage when you click on "Taxes" (in english) or "Taxes et Surcharges" (in French).
These are tax and surcharges for CDG-HKG-CDG:

Carrier Imposed International Surcharge 294,00
Passenger service charge international 26,81
Airport fee 12,75
Air passenger departure tax 11,81
French airport tax 7,62
Solidarity tax 4,00

Total per passenger 356,99

Note however, that actual surcharge bears no resemblance to what is listed by Nicolas75. I could not find a similar page on the official French website (maybe my laziness or Nicolas75 has access to privileged or beta versions). On the French or Hong Kong web-pages, AF only talks of "taxes" (including YQ). My guess is that AF is changing its policy after so many complaints about fuel surcharges being hidden as taxes.

Question: what difference does it make if it is a tax or a fuel surcharge, when we have to pay for them anyway?

Question: what difference does it make if it is a tax or a fuel surcharge, when we have to pay for them anyway?

Most of us think that the fuel surcharges should not be allowed. The airlines should set ticket prices at whatever it costs to run their business, plus make a reasonable profit. Fuel surcharges are effectively a scam to game the system. And telling the public they are government taxes is really crossing the line.

Question: what difference does it make if it is a tax or a fuel surcharge, when we have to pay for them anyway?

I would agree with this.

I would agree with this.

Tax means it's government imposed. Fuel surcharge is something airlines impose to their customers to reflect the fuel costs.

So both should really be distinguished, even if for the end customer, it's the same overall price.

Hidding revenues in taxes might also be a tax evasion scheme.
Plus:
When AF clearly writes on its website:
Surcharge: $0
Taxes: $423
They are clearly crossing the line.

Minos

Most of us think that the fuel surcharges should not be allowed.

According to what?
Are you suggesting that airlines cannot adjust their prices according to fuel prices? In North Korea perhaps, but certainly not anywhere else.

May I remind you that the airlines companies in the world have not made globally profits since the 1950s, for a very simple reason. It is a business model based on high OPEX and CAPEX (read: low margins), with one very fluctuating cost (fuel prices).

Fuel surcharge, with .hedging products, is one of the only way to help airlines making profits despite evolution of fuel prices ceteris paribus.

Hidding revenues in taxes might also be a tax evasion scheme.

This is of course wrong.
Fuel surcharge is part of the revenue.

According to what?
Are you suggesting that airlines cannot adjust their prices according to fuel prices? In North Korea perhaps, but certainly not anywhere else.

No, I didn't say that at all. In fact it's the opposite. The airlines are free to raise their prices, but they refuse to. Instead they raise the fuel surcharge in order to hide the price increase from the public. And to cheat their frequent flyers out of the free award tickets they were promised.

May I remind you that the airlines companies in the world have not made globally profits since the 1950s, for a very simple reason. It is a business model based on high OPEX and CAPEX (read: low margins), with one very fluctuating cost (fuel prices).

Oh, I think you can find many examples of profitable airlines over the years.

Fuel surcharge, with .hedging products, is one of the only way to help airlines making profits despite evolution of fuel prices ceteris paribus.

Fuel surcharges aren't necessary. They should raise the base fare if their costs are raised.

No, I didn't say that at all. In fact it's the opposite. The airlines are free to raise their prices, but they refuse to. Instead they raise the fuel surcharge in order to hide the price increase from the public.
As the price is visible from the first page, I don't think they are actually hiding the price from the public.
And to cheat their frequent flyers out of the free award tickets they were promised.
It's been a long time since these promises were abandoned. And the economic environment has been increasingly difficult during that time.

Fuel surcharges aren't necessary. They should raise the base fare if their costs are raised.
That's pretty much an abstract discussion from my end user point of view.

Yes it's been a long time, but time only heals these egregious wounds if you are easily forgetful. I remember when this all began and what the reasons behind it were. And as I'm sure you know you can find all these arguments here on Flyertalk if you search back over the years.

And I think the fact that AF and others were hiding fuel surcharges under government taxes even up til 2012 gives credence to my argument.

And to cheat their frequent flyers out of the free award tickets they were promised.

A award ticket is like any other ticket: it is needed to fuel the plane to bring you from one place to another.

Between January 2010 and January 2011, oil price soared from USD80 to USD 111 (with USD rising against EUR).

An easy way to have 100% free award ticket: to heavily incrase the number of miles required. Not quite sure you will love this solution...

A award ticket is like any other ticket: it is needed to fuel the plane to bring you from one place to another.

Yes, and I paid for that fuel with all the revenue I gave AF when I earned those miles.

Again, if your costs rise, your prices should rise with it. Be that in miles or base fare, I have no problem with that. And AF and the other airlines have indeed raised the miles required for many award tickets. But they are too afraid to raise their base fares. That's the problem.

As the price is visible from the first page, I don't think they are actually hiding the price from the public.

It is certainly not a worldwide practice. Airlines are still playing the local legislation game on this one.
In Japan for example, AF advertise on the 1st page of their website a RT to Europe at 45.000 JPY (no date available at this price BTW, you can double that), but you have to add 51.000JPY in surcharge+taxes when purchasing the ticket.
But it's not AF only. BA also advertises for 45.000 JPY (wide open at this price contrary to AF) plus 65.100 JPY as surcharge+taxes showing up during the registration process.
Their only current requirement in Japan is to state that the advertised prices don’t includes surcharges and taxes.

It is certainly not a worldwide practice. Airlines are still playing the local legislation game on this one.
In Japan for example, AF advertise on the 1st page of their website a RT to Europe at 45.000 JPY (no date available at this price BTW, you can double that), but you have to add 51.000JPY in surcharge+taxes when purchasing the ticket.
But it's not AF only. BA also advertises for 45.000 JPY (wide open at this price contrary to AF) plus 65.100 JPY as surcharge+taxes showing up during the registration process.
Their only current requirement in Japan is to state that the advertised prices don’t includes surcharges and taxes.

same in Hong Kong and most Asian countries.

YQ is an absolute scam, it should be included in the fare, end of.

The EC produced an advisory document on this, covering pretty much all that has been discussed. I'm sure it won't be long before there is some legislation regarding this.

Why is it on domestic US routes there is no YQ and airlines like US don't charge YQ at all. Or indeed, SK doesn't charge YQ to it's EB members.

It is clear by many examples here on FT like the YQ is actually paying more and beyond the actual price of fuel to carry a passenger, how is this a surcharge? How come YQ differs at POS, how come it is manipulated depending on the ticket price? Why no flat charge? How come it differs depending where you start the journey for the same route?

Even Ryanair and easyJet don't charge YQ! How can it be said that these are not normal costs and should be in the ticket price?

And then, if you're not happy with AF change carriers, not everyone is doing this as I said, US for example.

I'm sure FB will increase the number of miles required whether YQ goes up or not!

I just read that Euro airlines are looking to take their costs associated with operating in Europe under the new Emissions Trading Scheme, into a new passenger paid surcharge! I hope that the EU stands up for consumers and stops these surcharges. Raise the ticket price if you feel you must, but please end the surcharges!

This is of course wrong.
Fuel surcharge is part of the revenue.

DOT Investigation was launched after I tipped them because AF is clearly claiming in its website that the states (US+FR) are charging over $400 for a LAX-PPT flight.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1554288/AF_TAX.JPG

Besides all the ethical issues this might raise, another one (in which the DOT was certainly more interested) was the fact that no-one is sure whether AF reports this as a a tax or as revenue in its own accounting

--> Hence a possible tax-evasion scheme

Minos

The issue with FB (as well as other European FFP such M&M) is more a tax/surcharge calculation and its consistency compared to revenue tickets than the so-called "free ticket" appelation.

Indeed, no airline will take the risk to advertise their award tickets as free ones.

Fellow Fter ranskis has found the perfect wording to sum-up the situation some weeks ago. I quote him again :

Fuel surcharge is a daylight robbery because it is not implemented in a consistent way. In addition, the name does not match at all reality.

If it is charged as a tax (like on AF KL most of the time), it should behave like a tax, which means:
- it applies also on award tickets
- the surcharge is the same for all tickets (award or promo tickets pay the same airport taxes as full fare tickets)
- it should be refunded in case of cancellation even on non refundable tickets

If it is charged as a Q charge (which is part of the fare rules and integrated in the price) like on some airlines or markets, it becomes indeed part of the total fare and not a tax, then the following should apply:
- it does not apply on award tickets
- surcharge can vary per fare basis and itinerary as specified in the rules, it is not charged per flight segments
- it cannot be refunded in case of cancellation of non refundable tickets as it is part of the fare

Now with AF KL, we have the worst of both worlds, which is where hypocrisy lies. They want to put it as a tax, to collect it on all flights in any case, but sometimes they are ready to "lower" the tax arbitrarily, which also allows them to keep this "tax" artificially high and lower it when needed. They charge it on award tickets at the full rate, making it de facto a cash+miles redemption, and making some redemption ridiculous because they cost more than a revenue ticket! On the other hand, they now refuse to refund the fuel surcharges on cancelled non refundable ticket, because all of a sudden, they consider it as "part of the fare".

On awards from USA, they charge the fuel surcharge as part of the fare, which is unacceptable since it is not a tax, and only taxes should be charged to the customer. When looking at the fare calculation from IATA standards, the e-ticket mentions a FARE component in addition to the TAXES.

Then, you can also add the fact that in quite many cases, the amount of collected fuel surcharge for a flight at average load factor is in fact higher than the total fuel cost of the flight! This is mainly true for short European flights and short long haul flights.

Therefore these surcharges are a scam but fortunately there are ways to avoid such surcharges. I was once "interviewed" at CDG by AF fare monitoring department about a ticket that was issued on another airline's stock. I explained them how their YQ was a scam and that I was proud to screw them on that ticket, legally, by following all fare rules and IATA rules... they had nothing to oppose :)




http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17737258-post13.html

A award ticket is like any other ticket: it is needed to fuel the plane to bring you from one place to another.

Between January 2010 and January 2011, oil price soared from USD80 to USD 111 (with USD rising against EUR).

An easy way to have 100% free award ticket: to heavily incrase the number of miles required. Not quite sure you will love this solution...

Revenue-based FF system ala SW.
Clear, transparent, simple and apparently working well. No black-out dates and no YQ.

You can defend AF all you want and give any excuse you like such as volatility in oil-prices and the like, but when I see one way TATL eco awards (that used to be marketed as Free Flight*) that actually cost more than buying the flight itself, I am calling all this propaganda BS.

Minos

DOT Investigation was launched after I tipped them because AF is clearly claiming in its website that the states (US+FR) are charging over $400 for a LAX-PPT flight.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1554288/AF_TAX.JPG


The screenshot you provide:
- indeed lists a total of over USD 400 in taxes for a LAX-PPT flight (on the left handside)
- but also details all the components included in this total (on the right hand side),
* USD 356 for the AF YQ surcharge
* USD 16.70 for the US international departure tax
* USD 2.50 for the US September 11th security fee
* USD 4.50 for the US passenger facility charge
* USD 5.00 for the USDA APHIS fee
* USD 7.00 for the US immigration fee
* USD 15.60 for the French Polynesia departure tax
* USD 17.60 for the French Polynesia airport tax
* USD 16.70 for the US international arrival tax

So I would say AF does provide all the information needed to identify fees, taxes and surcharges. What is charged by both governments is clearly identified, and the AF YQ surcharge is not listed as a tax or a fee that goes to any of the two governments.

The screenshot you provide:
- indeed lists a total of over USD 400 in taxes for a LAX-PPT flight (on the left handside)
- but also details all the components included in this total (on the right hand side),
* USD 356 for the AF YQ surcharge
* USD 16.70 for the US international departure tax
* USD 2.50 for the US September 11th security fee
* USD 4.50 for the US passenger facility charge
* USD 5.00 for the USDA APHIS fee
* USD 7.00 for the US immigration fee
* USD 15.60 for the French Polynesia departure tax
* USD 17.60 for the French Polynesia airport tax
* USD 16.70 for the US international arrival tax

So I would say AF does provide all the information needed to identify fees, taxes and surcharges. What is charged by both governments is clearly identified, and the AF YQ surcharge is not listed as a tax or a fee that goes to any of the two governments.

Sorry I was not more clear:

Left hand side is Air France website. Without details whatsoever and clearly shows $0 in surcharge and $442.63 in taxes

Right Hand side is ITA website (a third party providing the detail) for comparison purposes for the very same flights on the very same day.

As you pointed out, there is no more than $97 is genuine taxes all in all for this flight.

Still AF wrongfully claims over $442.63 in taxes. (to let you believe your award flight is actually free with the miles)

That's our beef. And the US DOT is not happy about that either.
Minos

Sorry I was not more clear:

Left hand side is Air France website

Right Hand side is ITA for comparison purposes for the very same flights. As you can see, there is no more than about $90 is taxes all in all for this flight. Af still claims over $400 under taxes.

Minos

OK, thanks for the correction. ^

The language of surcharges may be misleading and the price of isolating one cost in providing the service and describing it as a 'surcharge' may be somewhat bizarre, even though understandable for historical reasons, but, in susbtance, you have to really wonder what those who really wish to fight fuel surcharges really hope to obtain.

In relation to revenue tickets, this will have no influence on the price nor, at any rate in Europe, on the way prices are presented to consumers since prices have to be displayed all taxes and surcharges included.

As regards award tickets, if you really expect that a ban on surcharges will result in award tickets becoming cheaper, you are very naive. European airlines will not put up with a significant increase in their costs in providing award tickets. They would either significantly increase redemption rates or introduce some kind of service fee/co-pay system to compensate for the loss of fuel surcharges.

Beware of pyrrhic victories.

The language of surcharges may be misleading and the price of isolating one cost in providing the service and describing it as a 'surcharge' may be somewhat bizarre, even though understandable for historical reasons, but, in susbtance, you have to really wonder what those who really wish to fight fuel surcharges really hope to obtain.
Beware of pyrrhic victories.

If you are referring to our endeavor, it is not aimed at what you are describing.

In any case, once marketed and displayed in an ethical way, I have nothing against YQ.

In fact, like greed, YQ is good. You only need to learn how to remove it... :D

Sorry I was not more clear:

Left hand side is Air France website. Without details whatsoever and clearly shows $0 in surcharge and $442.63 in taxes

Right Hand side is ITA website (a third party providing the detail) for comparison purposes for the very same flights on the very same day.

As you pointed out, there is no more than $97 is genuine taxes all in all for this flight.

Still AF wrongfully claims over $442.63 in taxes. (to let you believe your award flight is actually free with the miles)

That's our beef. And the US DOT is not happy about that either.
Minos

This is indeed shocking. I tried a couple of award bookings and gets a surcharge from 0 to 3 and a tax of several hundreds euros or dollars.
AF will claim that it is a bug, but they'd better fix it quick.

It seems that there are several issues related to YQ surcharge with respect to the three European majors, at least:

1. the lack of transparency about the total price in several regional markets: Europe is fine, US and Asia, seemingly not
2. the lack of transparency about the breakdown of the components that are not in the base fare, regardless of item 1
3. the fact that YQ applies to award tickets
4. the fact that reimbursement of YQ in the case, for example, of cancellations, is done in a seemingly haphazard fashion, even within a given airline

with stimpy adding another argument against European airlines labelling fees associated with carbon emission as a surcharge.

On this final item, I am puzzled and not convinced about how this would make the EC stand up for consumer rights. If it is included in the total price in the first web page, it looks fine to me.

On item 1, I would say it is more a failure of local legislators who lack the political will to enforce consumer protection on this issue. And I think that forcing European carriers through EU regulations to ensure that their world wide web sites implement it would put them at a disadvantage on each national market.

On item 2, I would say that I am personally utterly disinterested in having or not having the breakdown, but since many customers do not share my opinion, I would be in favor of forcing carriers to display the breakdown in addition to the total. Whether this should be enforced at the international level or just at the European one is an issue that should also be addressed.

On item 3, my personal opinion is that FFP rules have changed since I first became a member. I have exercised my responsibility by choosing to remain with my initial FFPs and the associated airlines. My choice. I could have elected to move my mileage accrual to other FFPs, I haven't done so. On a more global approach, I get the feeling that the three European majors are edging towards a resolution of this issue: AF has scrapped the surcharges on its short-haul network, and introduced, as LH has, redemption options on its medium-haul network. I guess this trend is going to extend soon to the long-haul network. It remains to be seen whether, as NickB suggested, it will be a Pyrrhic victory or not.

On item 4, I agree that this is not transparent enough. I remember being surprised that I would be refunded the YQ surcharge when cancelling a standard award ticket with AF, and not even bothering to check whether it had been refunded on a cancelled award ticket with BA. In both cases, my expectations seemed to be that I had made a mistake, and that was part of the price to be paid. But consumer protection should ensure that KL reimbursement practices are the same as AF's, BA's or LH's.

Given all these elements, some people argue that YQ should be scrapped, full stop. My personal opinion is that 1) I don't have such a big issue with current practices 2) if items 1 through 4 are solved, I no longer have any issue with YQ, and strongly believe that it is up to each airline to decide what it puts in the base fare or in various surcharges, as I am only interested in the total price paid.

Question: what difference does it make if it is a tax or a fuel surcharge, when we have to pay for them anyway?

For the same reason that I want VAT to be spelled out on a bill. I am fine paying the taxes that I am supposed to pay, but the least I want in return is transparency.

On the same token I want AF to be transparent about "costs" it can not or hardly influence - e.g., security charge at airport - and things which are under its full control. Levying a fuel surcharge to compensate their hedge that want the wrong way or because they don't make any more money selling tickets is a strategy that they may follow if they like. But it's money that goes into their company's cash desk and not into the givernment's. Thus, pretending that this is a tax is simply a lie.

For the same reason that I want VAT to be spelled out on a bill.

It is a legal obligation.

And the price shown to be paid must be in France all tax included.

Which is not the case in the US, where you never know in shops if price tags are with or without tax.
Which is not the case in the UK where shops can now add fees for credit cards.

On the same token I want AF to be transparent about "costs" it can not or hardly influence - e.g., security charge at airport - and things which are under its full control.

Personally I am not - as a customer - interested in challenging the cost / price structure of flight tickets (or any other products/ services).

Either the product/price looks fine to me, either not and I do not buy it.

I must be a simple man ;)

It is a legal obligation.



I know, but that wasn't the point. My point is that I want to get a feeling for what I am giving to the government and hold the government responsible for the tax level, and what I am giving to the company and hold the company responsible for its prices. FOr instance I would really like to see more transparency about the price of fuel at petrol stations. When people start realizing that around 85% of what they pay does not go into the pockets of the oil companies but into the government's cash drawer there may be some reactions.

But I guess there is a cultural bias. In France people tend to be much more accepting of taxes then for instance in the US, and there is less of a culture to hold governments responsible for individual actions than in the US (I don't have the numbers here but it's proven in numerous studies).

And since you mentioned the word "legal", albeit in a different context: is it legal for AF to claim that they're levying a government tax whose receipts they pass on whilst all they do is opening up another source of revenue for themselves? Sure it looks more compatible with a marketing promise of "low fares where everything is included" (->hinting at "... not like U2 and FR where you have to pay for luggage, food, etc"). But in fact is a scam because if there is a fuel surcharge then one of the most vital elements of the flying product, the fuel to make the plane fly, is excluded. In a sense I find the LCCs more honest when they say "you pay for what you get". You can opt out of charges for luggage by not taking luggage, but you cannot opt out of the fuel charge by using less fuel. In a way AF and the other airlines levying a fuel surcharge try to tell us that fuel is an extra and not an integral cost of delivering the product. Absurd.

In a way AF and the other airlines levying a fuel surcharge try to tell us that fuel is an extra and not an integral cost of delivering the product. Absurd.

You are right in that perspective.

But as you know it, the price structure of flight ticket is basically:
Stable OPEX (wages) and CAPEX (investments cost of the plane) + variable OPEX (fuel)

It seems that there are several issues related to YQ surcharge with respect to the three European majors, at least:

1. the lack of transparency about the total price in several regional markets: Europe is fine, US and Asia, seemingly not
2. the lack of transparency about the breakdown of the components that are not in the base fare, regardless of item 1
3. the fact that YQ applies to award tickets
4. the fact that reimbursement of YQ in the case, for example, of cancellations, is done in a seemingly haphazard fashion, even within a given airline



I think you missed the main point which is reporting YQ as a tax. That's not a transparency issue. It is false reporting and probably illegal.

with stimpy adding another argument against European airlines labelling fees associated with carbon emission as a surcharge.

On this final item, I am puzzled and not convinced about how this would make the EC stand up for consumer rights. If it is included in the total price in the first web page, it looks fine to me.

The Emissions Trading Scheme is a corporate tax in Europe. It is not a personal tax, right? It is the cost of doing business in Europe, applied to airline companies. So for airlines to turn around and ask each of us to individually cover their responsibilities, is wrong. The airlines should, if they feel it is necessary, raise their ticket prices if the cost of doing business has increased.

Some might say that raising ticket prices is too hard in a competitive environment. I say hiding your costs in surcharges is anti-competitive and hurts everyone.

Some might say that raising ticket prices is too hard in a competitive environment. I say hiding your costs in surcharges is anti-competitive and hurts everyone.
Hiding the costs in surcharges is hiding them in plain sight, and therefore not hiding them, in my personal view. If it is more convenient for the airlines, I am fine with it.

I think you missed the main point which is reporting YQ as a tax. That's not a transparency issue. It is false reporting and probably illegal.

I think it was more a lack of IT fields in some documents and screens. Tax should have read as taxes and fees. If the breakdown is displayed, that solves the problem for me.

On another issue that has been raised by Minos,
Hidding revenues in taxes might also be a tax evasion scheme.

I don't believe for a minute that AF, LH or BA have hidden the proceeds from the YQ surcharge in their consolidated income statement and decreased the amount of corporate tax they have to pay. These income statements have been audited/certified by one of the Big Three.

When our ticket receipts, for many years, have listed YQ as "Taxes", I don't think you can blame it on IT. There are regulations regarding taxes printed on official receipts aren't there?

And sorry if I implied otherwise, but I never would claim that AF was not compliant with paying their own taxes. But they did for many years falsely report YQ as Taxes on ticket receipts.

Here is what is printed on one of my receipts...

Tarif: EUR 1613.00
Taxes: EUR 250.00 YQ 25.95 QX 105.66 XT
Montant Transport: EUR 1994.61

Now tell me how that is transparent? It looks to anyone that my ticket costs €1613 and the rest is purely government taxes.

Here is what is printed on one of my receipts...

Tarif: EUR 1613.00
Taxes: EUR 250.00 YQ 25.95 QX 105.66 XT
Montant Transport: EUR 1994.61

Now tell me how that is transparent? It looks to anyone that my ticket costs €1613 and the rest is purely government taxes.

I agree that this can be and needs to be improved for the future. For the past, I don't see that you have been wronged in any way.

I agree that this can be and needs to be improved for the future. For the past, I don't see that you have been wronged in any way.

The main problem with such breakdown does not concern end customers but is related to distribution. Fares in GDS are displayed without taxes (ie does not include YQ/YR), making airlines using such "tricks" to appear well placed when requesting fares/availability.

And do keep in mind that even if few countries (mostly in Europe) have mandatory rules to have prices published including taxes, it's not a worldwide thing...

You are right in that perspective.

But as you know it, the price structure of flight ticket is basically:
Stable OPEX (wages) and CAPEX (investments cost of the plane) + variable OPEX (fuel)

Sure, I fully agree.

What I have an issue with is that airlines aggregate their stable OPEX and CAPEX into "fare" and their variable OPEX into a surcharge. That is bo**cks. Every producer in every industry has some input costs that vary - just ask the food industry or the steel industry. However, I have never come across a Mars bar that is priced as "price 1 EUR + 20 cents cacao surcharge" even when commodities prices went up.

Having to deal with variations in the price of inputs is part of the essence of a company. It has several ways to deal with them: hedge, decrease margins, pass on to customer, a combination of it. But in all cases the price of the product should reflect the costs of input. AF has chosen to pass it on to customers (fine) but to single it out in shoulder-shrugging-way ("nothing we can do, commodities markets beyond our control") and then went on claiming it was a tax, suggesting that its completely out of its control. To add insult to injury they then play around with the surcharge - "tax" - depending on route flown, country of ticket purchase, etc., de facto not managing it like a tax but like any other fare component that is adapted to market circumstances. :td:

Well I guess AF and the other legacy airlines doing this have an attitude of thinking customers are idiots that are captive by definition. :td:

Some might say that raising ticket prices is too hard in a competitive environment. I say hiding your costs in surcharges is anti-competitive and hurts everyone.I can see the misleading angle but I cannot for the life of me fathom where the anti-competitive element could possibly reside if fares are displayed to the consumer in an all-inclusive manner anyway. Are you suggesting that people who buy tickets ignore the overall cost of the ticket and base their purchasing decisions on the raw fare only excluding taxes and surcharges? That would strike me as rather implausible and, frankly, sheer and utter stupidity.

Here is what is printed on one of my receipts...

Tarif: EUR 1613.00
Taxes: EUR 250.00 YQ 25.95 QX 105.66 XT
Montant Transport: EUR 1994.61

Now tell me how that is transparent? It looks to anyone that my ticket costs €1613 and the rest is purely government taxes.Are these historic tickets? No idea what older tickets used to say but my recent "memos-voyage" state "Taxes, surcharge carburant et frais de service/Taxes, fuel surcharge and applicable service fees".

I can see the misleading angle but I cannot for the life of me fathom where the anti-competitive element could possibly reside if fares are displayed to the consumer in an all-inclusive manner anyway. Are you suggesting that people who buy tickets ignore the overall cost of the ticket and base their purchasing decisions on the raw fare only excluding taxes and surcharges? That would strike me as rather implausible and, frankly, sheer and utter stupidity.

No, I'm saying that if the airlines included their costs of doing business in the ticket price, some airlines who manage fuel strategy better (as one example), would have better prices than others. And as we have noted in this thread, the full price is not displayed in an all-inclusive manner in many markets around the world.

Are these historic tickets? No idea what older tickets used to say but my recent "memos-voyage" state "Taxes, surcharge carburant et frais de service/Taxes, fuel surcharge and applicable service fees".

Yes, also as stated earlier in this thread AF corrected their receipts in February of this year.

The main problem with such breakdown does not concern end customers but is related to distribution. Fares in GDS are displayed without taxes (ie does not include YQ/YR), making airlines using such "tricks" to appear well placed when requesting fares/availability.
Well, I would say that we do pay travel agents for a service, so they are the professionals who should be able to correctly analyze the data coming from the various GDS.

And do keep in mind that even if few countries (mostly in Europe) have mandatory rules to have prices published including taxes, it's not a worldwide thing...
As long as the industry or international organizations do not come up with homogeneous rules, I would say it is up to the legislators of each country to have the political will to improve consumer protection in their own country. Japan comes to mind as a prime example.

As long as the industry as a whole does not come up with homogeneous rules, it is up to the legislators of each country to have the political will to improve consumer protection in their own country. Japan and the US come to mind.

Why can't it be up to the airlines to be honest? Competition is not an excuse for false reporting.

Yes, also as stated earlier in this thread AF corrected their receipts in February of this year.

So AF has corrected what you claim were illegal practices and can still be held liable for the past. Fine. Looks good.

You are right in that perspective.

But as you know it, the price structure of flight ticket is basically:
Stable OPEX (wages) and CAPEX (investments cost of the plane) + variable OPEX (fuel)

You are only looking at supply but competition and demand also play a role in pricing.
Unfortunately, AF has managed to "control" longhaul competition in CDG, especially in premium cabins. So premium fares exCDG are much higher than from other European hubs, especially LHR and FRA.
I agree with San Gottardo that airlines tend to take their customers for idiots. I wonder why AF resisted the idea of including a wage surcharge after each across-the-board pay raise.

No, I'm saying that if the airlines included their costs of doing business in the ticket price, some airlines who manage fuel strategy better (as one example), would have better prices than others. And as we have noted in this thread, the full price is not displayed in an all-inclusive manner in many markets around the world.



Yes, also as stated earlier in this thread AF corrected their receipts in February of this year.OK, so you are essentially saying that there no longer are significant issues on European markets but there are still some on some other markets. I would agree with that. But I would also say that the fuel surcharges are something of a red herring in that the real issue is the failure to fully display prices in a transparent manner. Fuel surcharges is one aspect of that but not the only one. In the US, for instance, it is common for airlines to display a headline oneway price even though the fare in question requires purchase of a return ticket. To me, this is another aspect of misleading price indications. Rather than focus on a sub-issue, it seems to me more sensible to address the more general issue of price display transparency. But as Jouy31 says, this is an issue for each jurisdiction to determine, taking into account local conditions, customs, practices and expectations.

Unfortunately, AF has managed to "control" longhaul competition in CDG, especially in premium cabins. So premium fares exCDG are much higher than from other European hubs, especially LHR and FRA. But I don't quite see in what way this is related to the issue, not least since all European airlines have similar practices on fuel surcharges.
I agree that it is in principle misleading but I fail to see anybody in Europe suffering from this. So, as an ethical principle, it would be nicer if airlines were more straightforward and honest. In terms of significance of the issue, at any rate for those of us based in Europe, it seems to me that there probably are a good thousand battles worth fighting before engaging in something which will result in little gain, if any, for us passengers.

You are only looking at supply but competition and demand also play a role in pricing.
Unfortunately, AF has managed to "control" longhaul competition in CDG, especially in premium cabins. So premium fares exCDG are much higher than from other European hubs, especially LHR and FRA.
I agree with San Gottardo that airlines tend to take their customers for idiots. I wonder why AF resisted the idea of including a wage surcharge after each across-the-board pay raise.

... the usual debating society: brunos/Mokshu/Gotthard "vs" nicolas75/Jouy31?;) Although please do not overestimate the "vs",I put that in inverted commas on purpose. Just observing.

And as it happens I agree with Mokshu and brunos on their above post.

To make things really interesting AF should levy a "strike surcharge" to raise all the money that is lost during industrial action. Just like with fuel it could argue that it's "outside its control" and it would be as true or untrue as with fuel.

The main problem with such breakdown does not concern end customers but is related to distribution. Fares in GDS are displayed without taxes (ie does not include YQ/YR), making airlines using such "tricks" to appear well placed when requesting fares/availability.If that is so, in the EU that looks to me illegal: the current version of the (binding) code of conduct for computerised reservation systems (EU Reg 80/2009 (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:035:0047:0055:EN:PDF)) explicitly states that where display is ranked on prices, prices must include "all applicable taxes, charges, surcharges and fees to be paid to the air carrier or rail-transport operator, and which are unavoidable and foreseeable at the time when shown on the display." (see Annex I, point 1).

What I have an issue with is that airlines aggregate their stable OPEX and CAPEX into "fare" and their variable OPEX into a surcharge. That is bo**cks. Every producer in every industry has some input costs that vary - just ask the food industry or the steel industry. However, I have never come across a Mars bar that is priced as "price 1 EUR + 20 cents cacao surcharge" even when commodities prices went up.

This is a great argument, but even better would be a comparison with SNCF and RATP. Do they add fuel surcharges? Or surcharges to deal with the rising costs of electricity? Of course not. If this practice were to spread there would be pricing chaos throughout Europe.

This is a great argument, but even better would be a comparison with SNCF and RATP. Do they add fuel surcharges? Or surcharges to deal with the rising costs of electricity? Of course not. If this practice were to spread there would be pricing chaos throughout Europe.

I know that some container shipping companies add a fuel surcharge. but that's a B2B market and thus a different story.

But others who do not: taxis (and they would have a reason!), limo companies, bus companies, all companies that use refined petrol as an input (from toothpaste to plastics).

Let's stop here as otherwise Air France will from next week onwards levy a fuel surcharge on the AF buses between the airports and downtown Paris.

By the way, what is the fuel surcharge of airline segments operated by TGV?

This is a great argument, but even better would be a comparison with SNCF and RATP. Do they add fuel surcharges?

1. Most trains are electrical in France, and electricity in this country (mainly nuclear) has no highly variable costs like oil (Brent spot prices)

2. Fuel is now cost #1 for airplane industry (before plane and wages)

3. It is authorized by law to modify the price of flight ticket, even after selling a ticket (under conditions):

Décret no 94-490 du 15 juin 1994 pris en application de l'article 31 de la loi no 92-645 du 13 juillet 1992 fixant les conditions d'exercice des activités relatives à l'organisation et à la vente de voyages ou de séjours

Art. 19. - Les prix prévus au contrat ne sont pas révisables, sauf si celui-ci prévoit expressément la possibilité d'une révision tant à la hausse qu'à la baisse et en détermine les modalités précises de calcul, uniquement pour tenir compte des variations : a) Du coût des transports, lié notamment au coût du carburant ; b) Des redevances et taxes afférentes aux prestations offertes, telles que les taxes d'atterrissage, d'embarquement, de débarquement dans les ports et les aéroports ; c) Des taux de change appliqués au voyage ou au séjour considéré. Au cours de trente jours qui précèdent la date de départ prévue, le prix fixé au contrat ne peut faire l'objet d'une majoration.

4. It is clear that behind the wording "Fuel surcharge", there is marketing to make accept price increase which are not 100% due to fuel cost rise

By the way, what is the fuel surcharge of airline segments operated by TGV?0, AFAIK.
To be honest, i would find it difficult to disagree with the argument that the whole fuel surcharge business is nonsensical (and even more nonsensical when you consider that the surcharge does not go to the airline that sets but to the ticketing carrier and then only when the ticketing carrier decides to levy it, hence all the "tricking" shenanigans).

Many of us have been arguing that for a very long time. Here is, among many others, an example (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/3318138-post.html) of something I posted on PSC and other "surcharges" on FT some 8 years ago.

There comes a point, however, when you have to accept that you are flogging a dead horse and move on. I think that, as far as fuel surcharges in Europe are concerned, we have reached that point: legislation has largely neutralised their negative effects. They are nonsensical but then so much in life is nonsensical. If we have managed to neutralise their noxious effects, then it seems to me just a tad obsessive to bang on about them.

There comes a point, however, when you have to accept that you are flogging a dead horse and move on. I think that, as far as fuel surcharges in Europe are concerned, we have reached that point: legislation has largely neutralised their negative effects. They are nonsensical but then so much in life is nonsensical. If we have managed to neutralise their noxious effects, then it seems to me just a tad obsessive to bang on about them.

+1

I would say that righting injustices should never be compared with flogging a dead horse. It's not the most important thing when limited to the airline business, but if it were to spread to other businesses it would indeed become a major issue.

So AF has corrected what you claim were illegal practices and can still be held liable for the past. Fine. Looks good.

I think it is high time we stop the AirFrance koolaid right now..

1) As has been shown through screenshots, to these days (April 17th 2012) Air France is still lying in plain sight regarding the taxes and fuel surcharge on award tickets in a manner that is astounding for a large reknown airline...

2) Given this fact, we cannot rule out that they may perform tax evasion too. Being audited or not, history has shown in the past that this point tend to be irrelevant (Maddoff, Arthur Andersen, Greece...). This being said, i am not interested in this point.

There may be legal implications to the first point, including the possibility to claim back what was falsely billed and advertised as taxes in past reservations. i.e. in the same way some people were able to ask airlines for a refund of some of the taxes they paid but that the airlines were not charged a while back when the FAA had no Congress authorisation to levy them in the US (not during last year's event but before that, I don't recall the year maybe in the 90's - Clinton?).

Will this lower your tickets in the future: no.

Minos

I would say that righting injustices should never be compared with flogging a dead horse.But if you are in Europe, what "injustice" exactly? What exactly is the prejudice you suffer? You are quoted a total fare for your ticket and this is exactly the fare you pay. You are not being misled as to what you are required to pay, so what is the issue?

The whole point is that the requirement to display prices in an all-inclusive manner addresses the potential problem of misleading prices that could arise so the potential "injustice" is righted. If we still had an outstanding problem there, I would agree with you. But since the problem is addressed in that way, it becomes a purely academic issue.

Hi NickB, I tend to agree with the points you raised in post #61.
But you are usually more careful about the legal terms used.
I am annoyed that AF still "advertise" (indicates) that an award ticket has zero surcharge and 400 tax (which is different from what appears for revenue tickets). This was pointed out by Minos and can easily be checked if you do a dummy booking even from Paris. This is the focus of the argument developed by Minos, and it is hard to reject it. A tax repaid to some other party and a surcharge kept by the airline are different items.
My question is why does AF pursues this strategy?

But I don't quite see in what way this is related to the issue, not least since all European airlines have similar practices on fuel surcharges.


I was quoting a sentence by our friend Nicolas who discusses general pricing principles. Indeed, it is not directly related to the issue. But the issue has been shifting a lot since the first post.

It is a common practise on almost all airlines.
They advertise cheap tickets (only basic price) but the YQ taxes are nothing else as increased prices. The most inbelievable thing is that once you have enough miles to get a free ticket (as fare is 0.00) you still have to pay all the taxes. Inclusive YQ, so again airline is making profit.

And if you refund the ticket, a lot of cheap tickets do not allow to refund the YQ taxes. SO for example, AF sells flights to BOG for 115 eur, airport taxes are around 70 eur, but YQ is 390 !!! eur, which is non refundable.

I know only some US carriers and in Europe Iberia, do not charge those taxes.
So on Iberia a return to Buenos Aires costs you about 57 eur, total paying with avios, the same ticket on LH costs you 420 eur, and on AF about 230.

Hi NickB, I tend to agree with the points you raised in post #61.
But you are usually more careful about the legal terms used.
I am annoyed that AF still "advertise" (indicates) that an award ticket has zero surcharge and 400 tax (which is different from what appears for revenue tickets). This was pointed out by Minos and can easily be checked if you do a dummy booking even from Paris. This is the focus of the argument developed by Minos, and it is hard to reject it. A tax repaid to some other party and a surcharge kept by the airline are different items.
My question is why does AF pursues this strategy?This is true but in what way is anybody mislaid in a meaningful manner with negative consequences by this? Are you being led to believe that you are going to pay less than you would otherwise do? No. Nobody suffers a prejudice as a result of this; nobody buys a ticket that they would not otherwise buy as a result of this; so what is the big injustice that our intrepid justice fighters are so keen to redress?

Yes, I entirely agree that they should correct the display to avoid bundling YQ in "taxes" the way they have done it for revenue tickets. But the words "mountain" and "molehill" spring to mind here.

I was quoting a sentence by our friend Nicolas who discusses general pricing principles. Indeed, it is not directly related to the issue. But the issue has been shifting a lot since the first post.Ah, I get you. :)

It is a common practise on almost all airlines.
They advertise cheap tickets (only basic price) but the YQ taxes are nothing else as increased prices.In EU jurisdictions, no they don't: that is precisely the point of requiring airlines to display all-inclusive prices so as to avoid this.

The most inbelievable thing is that once you have enough miles to get a free ticket (as fare is 0.00) you still have to pay all the taxes. Inclusive YQ, so again airline is making profit.And what do you think would happen if legislation prevented them from charging YQ on awards? They would charge 'service fees' or 'co-pay' as some US airlines are doing or significantly increase redemption rates to make up for the lost YQ. Would you be any better off? No, you would not.

Yes, I entirely agree that they should correct the display to avoid bundling YQ in "taxes" the way they have done it for revenue tickets. But the words "mountain" and "molehill" spring to mind here.

I love your comparison and cannot disagree with it, although I once twisted my ankle due to a molehill :)

I love your comparison and cannot disagree with it, although I once twisted my ankle due to a molehill :)Ah, those moles can be really sly and underhand...;)

This is true but in what way is anybody mislaid in a meaningful manner with negative consequences by this?

You seem to have selectively ignored several posts on this, including the most recent by kai.lileboo noting the different YQ charged for the same flight and YQ not being refunded. I'm sure if you think hard you can see lots of other possibilities of abuse by this system. Again, this is why we do not see any other commodity pricing using surcharges.

But others who do not: taxis (and they would have a reason!),

At least they do in the US (BOS for example),
4 USD if I remember correclty and paper in the taxi from city of Boston saying so.

2. Fuel is now cost #1 for airplane industry (before plane and wages)


So what? Because one input is the most costly it justifies an add-on pricing? Did I ever pay a beef surcharge at McDonald's (and the price of beef does vary over time)?

I go along with people to accept it as a fact in the airline landscape since some year, but it is an absurd fact and no reasoning whatsoever will justify why airlines can pretend to be the passive victims of price swings in their input and therefore charge a surcharge at will whilst all other industries do not, not for fuel nor for any other factor of production or input.

The debate is then more about whether these are taxes and how refunds are handled. There I am less prepared to let them get away with it.

In any case, this thread is full of life and spice :), and thankfully focused on issues, not on criticizing other posters.

You seem to have selectively ignored several posts on this, including the most recent by kai.lileboo noting the different YQ charged for the same flight and YQ not being refunded. I'm sure if you think hard you can see lots of other possibilities of abuse by this system. Again, this is why we do not see any other commodity pricing using surcharges.
Different YQ charged for the same flight? So what? Again, what are the negative consequences of this?
You are told in one case: we will sell you a return flight from Paris to London for €99. You think, well that is a price that I am willing to pay and go for it. Will you purchasing decision change depending on whether that flight is €0 "fare" + €50 "YQ" +€49 "taxes" or €50 "fare" and €49 "taxes"? I suggest that it would not.

Now, the next flight you are offered is €149, which breaks down as €20 "fare" + €80 "YQ" + €49 "taxes". Would your decision to purchase that flight be any different if the price paid constituted of €50 "fare" + €50 "YQ" + €49 "taxes"? Again, I suggest that it would not.

The situation where this could possibly make a difference would be if the airline was llowed to advertise the raw fare as in "Return flight to London: €0 (+taxes and fees)" or "Return flight to London: €20 (+taxes and fees)" but this kind of advertising is no longer allowed in EU jurisdictions, so the fact that there is differential amount of YQs may be wrong but does not mislead with negative consequences: purchasing decisions are not being influenced by the YQ issue.

As to the refunding of YQ, where is there any suggestion anywhere as to whether YQ should be refunded or not? As long as the airline makes it clear in its T&Cs whether YQ will or will not be refunded, I do not see where anybody is misled. I do not see where anybody should assume an ethical entitlement to have YQ refunded. Indeed, your whole point that YQ is NOT taxes but part of operating costs (which is a point I agree with) suggests that one should regard YQ as non-refundable.

2. Fuel is now cost #1 for airplane industry (before plane and wages)

I think wages are still cost #1 for Air France.

In EU jurisdictions, no they don't: that is precisely the point of requiring airlines to display all-inclusive prices so as to avoid this.

And what do you think would happen if legislation prevented them from charging YQ on awards? They would charge 'service fees' or 'co-pay' as some US airlines are doing or significantly increase redemption rates to make up for the lost YQ. Would you be any better off? No, you would not.

Do the airlines provide all-inclusive prices to ATPCO and through it to all of the GDS and CRS, by having pushed into place this "fuel surcharge" scam? No.

Hasn't Brazil killed off fuel surcharges for tickets issued for trips originating there and/or on Brazilian carriers? Sounds like a good thing to me. More should borrow that play.

Brazilian ticket prices haven't skyrocketed, nor new fees popped up merely for the Brazilian market, since the regulated baggage allowance for trips to/from there has widened relative to the reduced baggage allowance in general.

In any case, this thread is full of life and spice :), and thankfully focused on issues, not on criticizing other posters.

The following one too: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-news/1330062-brazil-has-made-fuel-surcharges-scamcharges-award-flights-criminal-offence.html

Do the airlines provide all-inclusive prices to ATPCO and through it to all of the GDS and CRS, by having pushed into place this "fuel surcharge" scam? No.See post #57.

Hasn't Brazil killed off fuel surcharges for tickets issued for trips originating there and/or on Brazilian carriers? Sounds like a good thing to me. More should borrow that play.And exactly what do you expect would be the consequences of abolition of YQs? For revenue tickets: do you believe that base fares would remain unchanged so that the cost of flights would be diminished by the amount of the YQ. Of course not: the YQ would be integrated in the price.

For award tickets, do you expect that European airlines would simply take the hit and neither introduce surcharges nor raise redemption rates to compensate? I do not believe that you are that naive.

European airlines can live with the Brazilian situation: what proportion of awards issued by AF and other European airlines originate in Brazil? If, however, you generalised it, the idea that FFers would suddenly see the cost of their redemptions fall seems to me rather naive.

Sure, it would be better not to have YQs. But there is so little to be gained in it for passengers that the fight for YQ abolition looks to me more the reflection of an obsession that has ceased to be based on rational analysis of what is genuinely to be gained in the process if one was ever successful. The ratio of effort to result looks to me so ridiculously low (little more than intellectual satisfaction) as to be nonsensical.

If people have spare time to fight on worthy attempts for more transparency, how about devoting their energies to press airlines to adopt a more systematic and transparent system for luggage charges on interline itineraries, for instance? Now, that would be a worthwhile effort.

As we seem to be miles apart in this electronic discussion, and as several of us will be face to face next week at CDG, I suggest we take it up then.

Plus we'll have AF in the room with us to make the discussion more lively. ;)

Air France is announcing today to its French travel agents that, effective May 1st, the fuel surcharge (YQ or YR) will no longer be refundable on non-refundable tickets sold in France.

Recall the title of this thread -- "attorney investigating ..." reflecting my initial inquiry and my ongoing investigation. I've heard from two FT members affected by the Air France practices at issue, but if anyone else is affected, my investigation would benefit from further discussions and further examples as I attempt to confirm the scope of affected tickets.

I'm particularly interested in talking to folks who used the Air France web site or Air France telephone reservations to book travel (rather than booking via a travel agent or online travel agent). I'm interested in both paid and award travel. I'm most interested in itineraries that originate in the United States (e.g. JFK-CDG-JFK rather than CDG-JFK-CDG). I'll only take a few minutes of your time.

If you care to participate, just send me a private message and I'll follow up. Many thanks!

Air France is announcing today to its French travel agents that, effective May 1st, the fuel surcharge (YQ or YR) will no longer be refundable on non-refundable tickets sold in France.

It was one of the main advantages of fuel surcharge considered by AF as a "tax"
Very bad news indeed.

Air France is announcing today to its French travel agents that, effective May 1st, the fuel surcharge (YQ or YR) will no longer be refundable on non-refundable tickets sold in France.

Shouldn't the above topic be its own thread (at least)? The refundable aspect and fuel dumping aspect were of some use to some consumers, but not surprised the refundable aspect is going away as that is a way to hit far more consumers and goose up AF-KL's revenues.

For revenue tickets: do you believe that base fares would remain unchanged so that the cost of flights would be diminished by the amount of the YQ. Of course not: the YQ would be integrated in the price.

The market-clearing price of tickets would end up being whatever it would end up being, perhaps with higher base fares. That's fine by me -- I'd rather prefer higher base fares than have the "fuel surcharge" approach used by airlines when it comes to my ticket purchases.

For award tickets, do you expect that European airlines would simply take the hit and neither introduce surcharges nor raise redemption rates to compensate? I do not believe that you are that naive.

For at least some window of opportunity, they may simply take the hit and neither introduce surcharges nor raise redemption rates, if pricing methods were restricted to prohibit the "fuel surcharge" approaches currently used by airlines in many countries. Better some window of opportunity than none. And better yet if there was some further regulation of the industry's practices with regard to "loyalty" program points/miles.

Sure, it would be better not to have YQs. But there is so little to be gained in it for passengers that the fight for YQ abolition looks to me more the reflection of an obsession that has ceased to be based on rational analysis of what is genuinely to be gained in the process if one was ever successful.

There is money in it for some. And pursuit of material returns is a reflection of rational pursuit.

If people have spare time to fight on worthy attempts for more transparency, how about devoting their energies to press airlines to adopt a more systematic and transparent system for luggage charges on interline itineraries, for instance? Now, that would be a worthwhile effort.

That too.

There is money in it for some. And pursuit of material returns is a reflection of rational pursuit. What is irrational is the disproportion between the spending of energy and the likelihood of success. It would be a huge success for Kim Jong-un to convince President Obama of the superiority of the North Korean economic system to capitalism. It does not follow that it would be rational for him to devote large resources to attempt it.

So yes, on paper, anything is possible and it is possible that anti-YQ regulation would result in their abolition without counterpart resulting in a significant cost reduction for awards . It is also possible that tomorrow AF might decide to slash all redemption rates by 80%. But neither is, imo, very likely. But, sure, if you believe that either is likely, then it would make a lot of sense for you or anybody else to devote energy to this. After this, the next step would be to consider spending energy attempting to convert Pope Benedict XVI to shintoism.

What is irrational is the disproportion between the spending of energy and the likelihood of success. It would be a huge success for Kim Jong-un to convince President Obama of the superiority of the North Korean economic system to capitalism. It does not follow that it would be rational for him to devote large resources to attempt it.

So yes, on paper, anything is possible and it is possible that anti-YQ regulation would result in their abolition without counterpart resulting in a significant cost reduction for awards . It is also possible that tomorrow AF might decide to slash all redemption rates by 80%. But neither is, imo, very likely. But, sure, if you believe that either is likely, then it would make a lot of sense for you or anybody else to devote energy to this. After this, the next step would be to consider spending energy attempting to convert Pope Benedict XVI to shintoism.

Thank you for fabricating strawmen to knock over. Well done, easily. :)

Are you familiar with which segment of passengers may benefit from class action lawsuits in the US when regulators in the US go MIA in some sense or another? It's not clear. About the words which you quoted, their point ought to be a little less foggy by now.

Are you familiar with which segment of passengers may benefit from class action lawsuits in the US when regulators in the US go MIA in some sense or another?Please note that I have made it very clear throughout my post that my comments were in relation to European markets, not US ones.

Shall we rendez-vous in, say, five years' time and see:
1) whether European airlines still charge YQ in European markets and;
2) if they don't, what benefits, if any, have accrued to European consumers as a result of it?

You obviously must believe that there are great benefits to be reaped by European consumers and that these benefits are round the corner and therefore worth the effort. I don't. I think that we will have to agree to differ on this.

You obviously must believe that there are great benefits to be reaped by European consumers and that these benefits are round the corner and therefore worth the effort. I don't.

I obviously don't believe all that, but I do fancy the idea of someone knowing my beliefs better than I. But this is not a meet-/meat-market, or is it?

There are some benefits for some, but the benefits are generally not around the corner.

A award ticket is like any other ticket: it is needed to fuel the plane to bring you from one place to another.

Between January 2010 and January 2011, oil price soared from USD80 to USD 111 (with USD rising against EUR).

An easy way to have 100% free award ticket: to heavily incrase the number of miles required. Not quite sure you will love this solution...

While they're at it, why not add a "staff" surcharge and "equipment" surcharge and an "administration" surcharge? All are costs to "bring you from one place to another", as you say. The scam is that they advertise a frequent flyer program and when you want to use the miles they have enticed you with you discover they come with fees that add up to half or more of what it costs to buy a ticket outright.

AF is not the only offender. I've been sitting on about 200K BA (now Avios) miles that I have never been able to bring myself to use because of the ridiculous fees. But perhaps that's the point, it's a "win/win" for the airlines. If I use the miles they get just about the $ they would have anyway, or more (especially considering the ticket used with miles are seats that they figure they're not going to sell), and if I don't use the miles they get to write them off when they expire.

Air France is announcing today to its French travel agents that, effective May 1st, the fuel surcharge (YQ or YR) will no longer be refundable on non-refundable tickets sold in France.

Which reveals the fuel surcharges for the scam they are. If it was a true fuel surcharge, surely it's refundable when the ticket doesn't get used?

I obviously don't believe all that, but I do fancy the idea of someone knowing my beliefs better than I. But this is not a meet-/meat-market, or is it?

There are some benefits for some, but the benefits are generally not around the corner.Well, if you think that there are SOME benefits for SOME and that these benefits are not around the corner, then in what way would you disagree that, overall, this is an issue of minor importance and priority given that there is little to expect in the foreseeable future?

All I have been saying is that this is, in the overall scheme of things, a pretty minor issue and that it seems rather disproportionate to give much importance to it given that there is little gain to expect from it in European markets. If you agree with me, then I simply do not understand why you objected to what I said.

If you disagree with me on this, what I stated in my earlier post would seem to follow from it, so it is not a question of knowing your beliefs but rather of drawing the logical inferences from what you said. Of course, I may be wrong in my analysis or you might be incoherent, either of which would lead to the conclusions I drew being erroneous.

But if you agree that there is little likelihood of any progress on the matter in the foreseeable future in Europe, then I just do not understand how you can at the same time agree that it is rational to devote much energy to fighting YQs in Europe, since it would unavoidably lead you to the conclusion that devoting large amounts of energy on something on which there is little prospect of meaningful progress in the foreseeable future is rational which, imo, is an untenable position.

The only way I could make sense of it is if you were to consider that the gains would be so huge that devoting much energy to it is worthwhile notwithstanding the low probability of success in the foreseeable future. But, unless I have totally misunderstood you, I do not believe that you think that, do you?

Which reveals the fuel surcharges for the scam they are. If it was a true fuel surcharge, surely it's refundable when the ticket doesn't get used?

Exactly. Next step is FARE 1EUR, YQ 680EUR.

If it was a true fuel surcharge, surely it's refundable when the ticket doesn't get used?

Which, unlike with other European airlines (LH (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/14952239-post2.html), BA (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13675498-post2.html), both at least since 2010, KL ...) has been the case until now ^.

This new move makes the argument about YQ being a fuel surcharge at AF inconsistent at best :td:. I would personally say that it is following the worst practices of other European majors, most probably following advice provided for a hefty fee by the usual culprits, consulting companies.

BTW, would anyone here have an insight into the number of people who cancel a flight when using a non-refundable ticket?

Air France is announcing today to its French travel agents that, effective May 1st, the fuel surcharge (YQ or YR) will no longer be refundable on non-refundable tickets sold in France.

Very bad news. And what a scam : AF charges a pax something it says to be effectively cashed out if the pax flys but if the so-called pax does not fly, AF keeps the money? Will a court accept that?

Different YQ charged for the same flight? So what? Again, what are the negative consequences of this?
You are told in one case: we will sell you a return flight from Paris to London for €99. You think, well that is a price that I am willing to pay and go for it. Will you purchasing decision change depending on whether that flight is €0 "fare" + €50 "YQ" +€49 "taxes" or €50 "fare" and €49 "taxes"? I suggest that it would not.

Now, the next flight you are offered is €149, which breaks down as €20 "fare" + €80 "YQ" + €49 "taxes". Would your decision to purchase that flight be any different if the price paid constituted of €50 "fare" + €50 "YQ" + €49 "taxes"? Again, I suggest that it would not.


Hi NickB, for my concern, the structure of the total price may have an impact on my purchase decision if I know I can be refunded of the YQ/taxes when not flying.

Of course what JOUY31 just pointed also has an impact.

Hi NickB, for my concern, the structure of the total price may have an impact on my purchase decision if I know I can be refunded of the YQ/taxes when not flying.The paradox of this, though, is that this would have made you welcome, rather than oppose, large fuel surcharges since they would work to the advantage of the passenger. Indeed I welcomed that on LH since it made very cheap tickets, with a near-zero base fare component, close to 100% refundable and was disappointed when they moved away from it.

I must confess that I had not realised that AF still refunded YQ on non-refundables until now and assumed that they had made the same move as most other European airlines have done on this.

AF charges a pax something it says to be effectively cashed out if the pax flys No they don't. Where do they say that?
Will a court accept that?As long as they make it clear in their T&Cs, I can't see how this could be legally challenged.

Which, unlike with other European airlines (LH (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/14952239-post2.html), BA (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/13675498-post2.html), both at least since 2010, KL ...) has been the case until now ^.

This new move makes the argument about YQ being a fuel surcharge at AF inconsistent at best :td:. I would personally say that it is following the worst practices of other European majors, most probably following advice provided for a hefty fee by the usual culprits, consulting companies.

BTW, would anyone here have an insight into the number of people who cancel a flight when using a non-refundable ticket?

The thing is that the fuel surcharge should be solely dependent on the route and the price of fuel. But in fact, Air France (and many other airlines) waives it partially for promotions fares. That's why you have for example revenue fares which are cheaper then flying blue award tickets.

I really do think EU needs to put guidelines on such commercial tricks.

I really do think EU needs to put guidelines on such commercial tricks.But again, who suffers as a result of that? What difference would it make if YQs were incorporated in the fare the way it used to be and the way it is in some jurisdictions?

If there is a need for legislative intervention by the EU, there sure are a gazillion things that I would want them to do before that.

The thing is that the fuel surcharge should be solely dependent on the route and the price of fuel. But in fact, Air France (and many other airlines) waives it partially for promotions fares. That's why you have for example revenue fares which are cheaper then flying blue award tickets.

I really do think EU needs to put guidelines on such commercial tricks.

Frankly, I don't have a problem benefitting from a rebate, either on a tax, a fee, a surcharge, or whatever comes out of my wallet ;). And I don't feel any kind of envy when people benefit from it and I don't. I've purchased the ticket, being well aware of its price and limitations. An unexpected increase would be another matter, though.

But again, who suffers as a result of that? What difference would it make if YQs were incorporated in the fare the way it used to be and the way it is in some jurisdictions?

To answer the latter question (and indicate an answer to the former question), the commissions/rebates/discounts given to travel agents and corporate buyers would increase (for at least some window of opportunity). Perhaps that gainful window would also include those who use the likes of ebates/fatwallet/bigcrumbs/quidco and other cash-back-type of sites when making travel purchases.

To answer the latter question (and indicate an answer to the former question), the commissions/rebates/discounts given to travel agents and corporate buyers would increase (for at least some window of opportunity). Perhaps that gainful window would also include those who use the likes of ebates/fatwallet/bigcrumbs/quidco and other cash-back-type of sites when making travel purchases.This sounds to me like we are clutching at straws here: we are talking about crumbs. I therefore just do not understand that fixation of some with this issue as if it were one of crucial importance.

This sounds to me like we are clutching at straws here: we are talking about crumbs. I therefore just do not understand that fixation of some with this issue as if it were one of crucial importance.

If it is crumbs, then wouldn't that be because the YQ approach yields only crumbs for the airlines? Certainly no one here is naive enough to believe that the YQ approach has resulted in only crumb revenue-enhancement for the airlines when it comes to their dealings with travel agents, corporate contract buyers, some of those "BigCrumbs"-type of sites, and certainly a huge chunk of those who use miles for tickets.

No they don't. Where do they say that?

You are right. But they keep the pax misinformed by considering them the way they deal with other taxes (security, government etc...) ; just like fuel were a tax payed to oil compagnies ! Then why don't we pay salaries surcharges, crew meals surcharges, captain's uniform surcharges...?

As long as they make it clear in their T&Cs, I can't see how this could be legally challenged.

Clear T&Cs do not always mean legal ;)

If it is crumbs, then wouldn't that be because the YQ approach yields only crumbs for the airlines? Certainly no one here is naive enough to believe that the YQ approach has resulted in only crumb revenue-enhancement for the airlines when it comes to their dealings with travel agents, corporate contract buyers, some of those "BigCrumbs"-type of sites, and certainly a huge chunk of those who use miles for tickets.Again, my focus is from the perspective of a European consumer which, imo, are the only ones who could reasonably argue about being mislaid, etc... professionals know exactly what the score is and it would be utterly incredulous for them to argue that they do not understand YQs, etc...

From the perspective of a European consumer, we are talking crumbs here (and minute crumbs at that). How much exactly would it represent on your typical quidco rebate to have it calculated with with YQ included, moreover only on a transitional period and assuming that the agreement with quidco is not changed (huge assumptions of course, but let us ignore them)?

Even for corporate buyers, do you really believe that corporate discount would remain identical if they were calculated on a different basis, including what is now in YQs? As you recognise yourself, this is window of opportunity territory in the most optimistic outlook. So, again, in the overall travel costs of the entities concerned: crumbs.

The YQ system has evolved the way it is for historical reasons. If YQ was not there, European (and Asian) airlines would have organised their costs differently. The assumption that you remove YQs from the picture and nothing else in the system is changed at all (which is what the assumptions of gain out of the dissappearance of YQ are based) seems to me utterly implausible. But then, I do not believe in Father Xmas either. No doubt I must be excessively cynical.

Again, my focus is from the perspective of a European consumer which, imo, are the only ones who could reasonably argue about being mislaid, etc... professionals know exactly what the score is and it would be utterly incredulous for them to argue that they do not understand YQs, etc...

Well since the argument keeps going, I'll wade in again. Sorry but the above statement is wrong. Does anyone here, professional or otherwise know exactly how YQ is calculated? Why is it less if you buy DUS-CDG-LAX versus CDG-LAX? Why does it go up? Why does it go down? I mean exactly why. No you don't know. Nor does any corporate travel planner who books millions per year with AF. It is completely hidden from the public as well as B2B.

From the perspective of a European consumer, we are talking crumbs here (and minute crumbs at that). How much exactly would it represent on your typical quidco rebate to have it calculated with with YQ included, moreover only on a transitional period and assuming that the agreement with quidco is not changed (huge assumptions of course, but let us ignore them)?

It's not about immediate cost savings. We've said all along in this thread that the base fare should represent the total cost, sans tax, of the ticket. If removing YQ results in an equal increase in base fare, we are fine with that.

Even for corporate buyers, do you really believe that corporate discount would remain identical if they were calculated on a different basis, including what is now in YQs? As you recognise yourself, this is window of opportunity territory in the most optimistic outlook. So, again, in the overall travel costs of the entities concerned: crumbs.

Sorry, but for corporations it is a much bigger deal. Not crumbs at all. It's about managing costs. Removing this hidden profit center for airlines will force them to compete better and allow the corporate travel manager to control costs.

The YQ system has evolved the way it is for historical reasons. If YQ was not there, European (and Asian) airlines would have organised their costs differently.

Yes this is what we want.

The assumption that you remove YQs from the picture and nothing else in the system is changed at all (which is what the assumptions of gain out of the dissappearance of YQ are based) seems to me utterly implausible. But then, I do not believe in Father Xmas either. No doubt I must be excessively cynical.

No one has mentioned that claim here but you it seems? I'll repeat myself for the 10th time, the base fare should include all costs plus a reasonable profit.

I'll repeat myself for the 10th time, the base fare should include all costs plus a reasonable profit.

And I guess I'll repeat it, also: that's only one out of several ways to structure the total price: whether it is only the base fare or the base fare plus surcharges does not seem to make it better or worse for me as a consumer; in addition, I don't see why the calculation of YQ needs to be any more transparent than the calculation of any of the myriad base fares that exist on the market. IMHO, there is no transparent base fare, but there are probably hundreds of them.

And I guess I'll repeat it, also: that's only one out of several ways to structure the total price: whether it is only the base fare or the base fare plus surcharges does not seem to make it better or worse for me as a consumer; in addition, I don't see why the calculation of YQ needs to be any more transparent than the calculation of any of the myriad base fares that exist on the market. IMHO, there is no transparent base fare, but probably hundreds of them.

It's not only one way. It's the only way. It's the only way that train tickets are sold, taxi fares are priced, bread is sold at the market, etc. One price, no extras.

Question: what difference does it make if it is a tax or a fuel surcharge, when we have to pay for them anyway?

In one case, you're dealing with a supplier stating the price of his product, in the other case, a liar. As you rightly point out, it doesn't change the final price, so the airlines, on a revenue ticket, doesn't stand to gain financially from this lie, but that doesn't mean liars shouldn't be exposed as such. Too bad the law forbids the well-deserved tarring and feathering of company executive lying to their customers... I am a strong proponent of business ethics.

It's not only one way. It's the only way. It's the only way that train tickets are sold, taxi fares are priced, bread is sold at the market, etc. One price, no extras.

Taxi fares are not as straightforward as you say, supplement for baggage, airport pickup, toll roads, ev. number of pax, min tariffs ex airports, ... it's all posted, so no problem, but same is true for airline tickets when you hit the pay button.

Well since the argument keeps going, I'll wade in again. Sorry but the above statement is wrong. Does anyone here, professional or otherwise know exactly how YQ is calculated? Why is it less if you buy DUS-CDG-LAX versus CDG-LAX? Why does it go up? Why does it go down? I mean exactly why. No you don't know. Nor does any corporate travel planner who books millions per year with AF. It is completely hidden from the public as well as B2B. But who gives a monkey how the YQ is calculated? Whether it is done by rolling the dice, examining the entrails of a goat or otherwise, why does it matter in substance? Is a ticket which cost €1500 + €0 fuel surcharges better value than a ticket that cost €1000+€500 fuel surcharges? You will still end up paying EXACTLY the same amount of money for your flight and that amount is, in Europe, the total amount that is initially displayed to you when you buy it. So you are not mislaid as to the price of your flight when you buy it. You have been told it will cost you €1500 and €1500 is exactly what it will cost you.



It's not about immediate cost savings. We've said all along in this thread that the base fare should represent the total cost, sans tax, of the ticket. If removing YQ results in an equal increase in base fare, we are fine with that. If I tell you: Mr Stimpy, the cost of your flight is €1500. Why does it matter to you whether I subdivided into €1000 base fare and €500 YQ (I am removing the tax altogether from the examples to simplify) or a single €1500 base fare and no YQ? WIll you pay anything different? No you won't.

Now you WOULD have a point if I told you: it is €1000, to which you answered OK, went though all the buying process giving your details and at the end I tell you, oh BTW, it is in fact €1500 as there is a €500 surcharge.
You would also have a point if I displayed in my shop big signs saying that the flight cost €1000 so as to entice you in and, once inside, I told you that there is an extra €500 YQ.
You would also have a point if I did the same thing and put in the small print (*plus taxes and fees).

But you cannot do that in the EU: you have to indicate the full price including everything and this is what airlines now do. So what IS the problem in practice? You do not need to know what the YQ is. You can safely ignore it in exactly the same way that a non-business final consumer can ignore the fraction of their meal or purchase is affected to VAT even though it is stated in your receipt. So why do you care? Why does it matter to you? What does it change for you?



Sorry, but for corporations it is a much bigger deal. Not crumbs at all. It's about managing costs. Removing this hidden profit center for airlines will force them to compete better and allow the corporate travel manager to control costs. What matters to corporations is what they have to pay. They could not care less whether AF bills them €1000 "fare" + €500 "YQ" or bills them €1500 for "fare" and no YQ. It is the same in any event. What makes a difference for corporate buyers is the basis on which their corporate discount is calculated. The effect of the YQ is that you can give a discount which is nominally higher since the base on which it is calculated (i.e. without the YQ) is lower. But if airlines integrate YQ in the fare, the likely effect will be taht the discount will be nominally lower so as to remain in reality constant. So, all in all, removing YQs and integrating costs in the fare will not result in more money (beyond transitional crumbs) in corporate pockets. it is just that the money will go from two separate envelopes (one labelled "Fare" and one labelled "YQ") into a single envelope. This is neater and more principled but ultimately does not change much.


No one has mentioned that claim here but you it seems? I'll repeat myself for the 10th time, the base fare should include all costs plus a reasonable profit.I agree wholeheartedly in principle with you. Yes: this is how it should be. The separating of YQ outside of the fare does not make sense and indeed the whole way YQ is handled is nonsensical. I used to say that 10 years ago and I have not changed my mind on it since then. It was more problematic at the time as it was normal for airlines to advertise prices not including taxes and surcharges.

Where we disagree is on the significance of it: to me, what you are complaining about is that the windows are not properly dressed. You are right. They are not. But we are talking about little more than window dressing here without major significant consequences since, if you remove YQ, the system in all likelihood will be adjusted so that you end up paying the same anyway.

If that is so, is it really worthy of so much fuss?

Taxi fares are not as straightforward as you say, supplement for baggage, airport pickup, toll roads, ev. number of pax, min tariffs ex airports, ... it's all posted, so no problem, but same is true for airline tickets when you hit the pay button.

It's not that it's posted. It's that those charges are fixed and set by a regulatory authority. YQ is not fixed, nor set by regulatory authority. But maybe it should be if it continues.

It's not that it's posted. It's that those charges are fixed and set by a regulatory authority. YQ is not fixed, nor set by regulatory authority. But maybe it should be if it continues.Not necessarily for taxis. Baggage surcharge, etc... need not necessarily be set by a regulatory authority. Another example of an industry that loves to breakdown fares in multiple surcharges is car rental (with things such as "premium location surcharge", etc...). You could make exactly the same comments in relation to them.

It's not that it's posted. It's that those charges are fixed and set by a regulatory authority. YQ is not fixed, nor set by regulatory authority. But maybe it should be if it continues.

You are right, but I think there is a crucial difference between regulatory mandated taxi fares and airplane tariffs. You can not really choose your taxi, but have to take the next one available for you, while you have normally a choice with which airline you are flying.

Regulating the first case where the customer has no choice makes sense IMO, but I would not be in favor of regulating any price where the customer has a choice of suppliers.

What matters to corporations is what they have to pay. They could not care less whether AF bills them €1000 "fare" + €500 "YQ" or bills them €1500 for "fare" and no YQ. It is the same in any event.

This just isn't true for a corporation, nor for me as a very frequent flyer. I'll grant you it might be true for a holiday maker, but not for serious traveler/manager. The arcane and sometimes nonsensical way YQ is calculated has us going through many more hoops to try and understand and control costs. Have you ever heard of fuel surcharge dumps? I can't imagine how much more difficult it is for a corporate travel manager to deal with YQ these days.

If you want to learn more about the corporate travel business and how fuel surcharges are causing havoc, maybe search Google and enter "corporate travel manager fuel surcharge". Try it and you will find links like this....

http://www.carlsonwagonlit.co.uk/en/countries/uk/business-travel-insight/case-studies/airline-fuel-surcharges.html

http://express.bcdtravel.com.au/corporate-travel/staring-down-the-barrel/

http://www.businesstravelnews.com/Business-Globalization/More-Travel-Managers-Report-Fuel-Surcharge-Refund-Problems/?a=btn

http://www.businesstravelnews.com/Business-Travel/DOT-Adds-Teeth-To-Fuel-Surcharge-Rules/?ida=Airlines&a=proc

I love this quote! The U.S. Department of Transportation plans to change that, warning last month in a notice to carriers that fuel surcharges "must accurately reflect the actual costs of the service covered." Subsequently published in the Federal Register, the Feb. 21 memo warned that DOT would begin enforcing its tougher stance within 60 days.

If I tell you: Mr Stimpy, the cost of your flight is €1500. Why does it matter to you whether I subdivided into €1000 base fare and €500 YQ (I am removing the tax altogether from the examples to simplify) or a single €1500 base fare and no YQ? WIll you pay anything different? No you won't.


In markets like Europe where the all-inclusive price is the basis of publicity, it doesn't matter financially. Nor does it matter if the 500 € YQ is labelled clearly (as part of the fare). Whenever it's described as "taxe", it matters. It's not a big deal really : I don't think anyone really expects large companies to behave respectfully to their customers, but it matters.

But who gives a monkey how the YQ is calculated?

Apparently, some people do. What I am puzzled about is the fact that they want total transparency for YQ, which represents at most 25% of the total price of a revenue ticket, while leaving the rest of the price setting structure unchanged, i.e. the byzantine way in which any of the base fares is calculated. I personally don't care how the total price of a ticket is calculated, but for people who do, they would need to focus at least as much on the base fare, which represents the most important part of the price, as they do on YQ. Claiming that there is one base price may apply to the price of bread, definitely not to any of the base fares of an airline ticket.

Apparently, some people do. What I am puzzled about is the fact that they want total transparency for YQ, which represents at most 25% of the total price of a revenue ticket, while leaving the rest of the price setting structure unchanged,

My guess is those wanting YQ transparency is because reward tickets are supposed to be free, except taxes (which should be passed on the customer). And they wouldn't want to be ripped off by an obscure tax. But their problem stems not from it not being a tax, but being simply a part of the ticket the airlines no longer want to pay for when issuing a "free" ticket. I think it's a totally different problem from the tax problem on revenue tickets and the advertizing problem in parts of the world where legislations doesn't enforce advertizing the real price of product.

But who gives a monkey how the YQ is calculated? Whether it is done by rolling the dice, examining the entrails of a goat or otherwise, why does it matter in substance? Is a ticket which cost €1500 + €0 fuel surcharges better value than a ticket that cost €1000+€500 fuel surcharges? You will still end up paying EXACTLY the same amount of money for your flight and that amount is, in Europe, the total amount that is initially displayed to you when you buy it.

Not true. Even in Europe corporate purchase arrangements include set-ups where an airline increasing the proportion of aggregate ticket costs which is YQ results in increased annual costs for the corporate buyer of travel services and makes it harder to project (or even calculate) net travel costs for budgeting purposes.

If I tell you: Mr Stimpy, the cost of your flight is €1500. Why does it matter to you whether I subdivided into €1000 base fare and €500 YQ (I am removing the tax altogether from the examples to simplify) or a single €1500 base fare and no YQ? WIll you pay anything different? No you won't.

Some of us indeed do pay something different. And when the proportion of the aggregated ticket costs that are YQ increases and it happens intra-year, then corporate purchasers in negotiated arrangements with an airline do lose money that is material enough that it has even impacted some department-level PNLs enough to have cost some people their bonuses.

That is of course not even touching upon the aspect of this that has frequent flyer programs for individuals and/or companies being considered a rebate of sorts which gets messed up even fruther -- post-purchase -- by the fuel surcharge schemes when applied to redemption/"rebate currency" tickets.

Apparently, some people do. What I am puzzled about is the fact that they want total transparency for YQ, which represents at most 25% of the total price of a revenue ticket, while leaving the rest of the price setting structure unchanged, i.e. the byzantine way in which any of the base fares is calculated. I personally don't care how the total price of a ticket is calculated, but for people who do, they would need to focus at least as much on the base fare, which represents the most important part of the price, as they do on YQ. Claiming that there is one base price may apply to the price of bread, definitely not to any of the base fares of an airline ticket.

Some revenue tickets have YQ amounts which are far greater than a mere 25% of the total price of the revenue ticket. It can make fuel-dumping a way to reduce ticket costs by even more than 50% -- and that is perhaps one reason why some FTers should not be thrilled with regulating or litigating out YQs from the industry's pricing practices.

This just isn't true for a corporation, nor for me as a very frequent flyer. I'll grant you it might be true for a holiday maker, but not for serious traveler/manager. The arcane and sometimes nonsensical way YQ is calculated has us going through many more hoops to try and understand and control costs. Have you ever heard of fuel surcharge dumps? You lost me there. Fuel-dumping is a technique using a loophole to avoid paying YQ and thereby articificially reduce the price that you would normally pay for your ticket. Fuel-dumping works only one-way: to the advantage of passengers. So you are complaining that a loophole is open for you to reduce your travel cost but that loophole is too complicated?:confused: Nobody forces you to fuel-dump if you do not want to. Just do not fuel-dump and you will pay exactly the same as you would pay if YQ was eliminated and integrated in the fare. You have nothing to gain here from the disappearance of YQ. Quite the contrary.

If you want to learn more about the corporate travel business and how fuel surcharges are causing havoc, maybe search Google and enter "corporate travel manager fuel surcharge". Try it and you will find links like this....

http://www.carlsonwagonlit.co.uk/en/countries/uk/business-travel-insight/case-studies/airline-fuel-surcharges.html

http://express.bcdtravel.com.au/corporate-travel/staring-down-the-barrel/

http://www.businesstravelnews.com/Business-Globalization/More-Travel-Managers-Report-Fuel-Surcharge-Refund-Problems/?a=btn

http://www.businesstravelnews.com/Business-Travel/DOT-Adds-Teeth-To-Fuel-Surcharge-Rules/?ida=Airlines&a=proc

I looked at these links. As regards the 4th, it is concerned with DOT. As I repeatedly stated above, there are different issues on the US market which have no relevance in Europe.
The 3rd link is concerned with problems with reimbursement of fuel surcharges that were unlawfully co-ordinated between BA and VS. This has nothing to do with fuel surcharges per se.
This leaves us with the first and second link (BTW, is Nigel Turner in the first one The infamous Nigel Turner that introduced the modular concept at bmi?): what they complain about is what I referred to above, viz. that route discounts only apply to base fares and not YQ. Do these people really think that the level of discount that they have will remain exactly the same if the base on which the dsicount is based changes so as to include YQ (which is what would happen if YQ was re-integrated in the base fare)? Do they, in other words, really think that airlines are willing to effectively agree to a significant increase in the level of discounts they have at present? Or is a more likely outcome that the nominal level of discount will decrease to compensate for the inclusion of YQ in it?

In any event, frankly, from the perspective of FFers, this is pretty much an irrelevance.

My guess is those wanting YQ transparency is because reward tickets are supposed to be free, except taxes (which should be passed on the customer). And they wouldn't want to be ripped off by an obscure tax. But their problem stems not from it not being a tax, but being simply a part of the ticket the airlines no longer want to pay for when issuing a "free" ticket. I think it's a totally different problem from the tax problem on revenue tickets and the advertizing problem in parts of the world where legislations doesn't enforce advertizing the real price of product.
I agree that many people object to fuel surcharges primarily because they think that eliminating fuel surcharges will bring back the days of 'free' award tickets at more or less the same redemption levels as currently (and obviously similar availability). In other words, some people believe that there is a free lunch to be had here. IMO, this is naive.
Fuel surcharges are, in effect, what is known is some US FF schemes as a "co-pay" system. Take them away and that co-pay system will have to be introduced in another way or award restructured to compensate for their disappearance.

I looked at these links. As regards the 4th, it is concerned with DOT. As I repeatedly stated above, there are different issues on the US market which have no relevance in Europe.

Please, you don't really think that US regulations have no relevance in Europe, do you?

Please, you don't really think that US regulations have no relevance in Europe, do you?I think that they have limited relevance for European consumers, yes. DoT has certain concerns which are dictated by the characteristics of the retail market in the US, which are different from the characteristics of retail markets in European countries. The example of the European requirement for prices to be displayed in an all-inclusive manner, which does not exist in the US, would be a prime example of that. The fact that DoT has issues with fuel surcharges tells us in itself nothing as to whether these concerns arise in the same terms in Europe.

Dear Nick. You have posted a vast number of messages on this topic making your position crystal-clear. Please accept that most others do not share you views about the irrelevance of YQ and the way it is presented by AF.

BTW, and unrelated:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17766501

I think that they have limited relevance for European consumers, yes.

Just my HO, but I think that shows a complete lack of understanding on cross-Atlantic regulation. I guarantee you a good many meetings in Brussels were scheduled after that DoT ruling. Before as well I suspect.

Apparently, some people do. What I am puzzled about is the fact that they want total transparency for YQ, which represents at most 25% of the total price of a revenue ticket, while leaving the rest of the price setting structure unchanged, i.e. the byzantine way in which any of the base fares is calculated. I personally don't care how the total price of a ticket is calculated, but for people who do, they would need to focus at least as much on the base fare, which represents the most important part of the price, as they do on YQ. Claiming that there is one base price may apply to the price of bread, definitely not to any of the base fares of an airline ticket.

While I am not personally YQ-obsessed, I don't completely agree here: I think it is airlines themselves which are inviting a different form a scrutiny on YQ than on base fares. We all know that things have a price, but when you are being told that there is a 'surcharge' for something specific, you typically look at it differently. That is, if you go to a restaurant and order from a set menu, you'll have a very immediate intuition of whether the menu price works for you or not given what is on offer. However, if you are told that for an extra €10 you will get macaroni instead of spaghetti in your pasta dish, you'll probably say that this is an inadequate surcharge for the pasta substitution per se. By contrast, if you are asked to pay the same €10 to add fresh tuber melanosporum ('winter black truffle') to all your dishes you will probably consider that this is pretty good value! In other words, when the seller associates a surcharge (be it optional or compulsory, I could have made exactly the same argument with the old 'impot secheresse' but I don't think it would have travelled quite as well to people who do not know France!) he/she invites the type of scrutiny that we see here.

What is more, airlines do not treat YQ like base fare. For example, from May, for KLM tickets issued in France, YQ will not be reimbursed as part of taxes and surcharge refunds when people cancel a non-refundable ticket. Again, this legitimises a certain scrutiny as it is not unnatural to fear that airlines will use them as a loophole to 'transform' part of their base fare into the said surcharge to maximise their income and minimise refunds.

While I am not personally YQ-obsessed, I don't completely agree here: I think it is airlines themselves which are inviting a different form a scrutiny on YQ than on base fares. We all know that things have a price, but when you are being told that there is a 'surcharge' for something specific, you typically look at it differently. That is, if you go to a restaurant and order from a set menu, you'll have a very immediate intuition of whether the menu price works for you or not given what is on offer. However, if you are told that for an extra €10 you will get macaroni instead of spaghetti in your pasta dish, you'll probably say that this is an inadequate surcharge for the pasta substitution per se. By contrast, if you are asked to pay the same €10 to add fresh tuber melanosporum ('winter black truffle') to all your dishes you will probably consider that this is pretty good value! In other words, when the seller associates a surcharge (be it optional or compulsory, I could have made exactly the same argument with the old 'impot secheresse' but I don't think it would have travelled quite as well to people who do not know France!) he/she invites the type of scrutiny that we see here.

What is more, airlines do not treat YQ like base fare. For example, from May, for KLM tickets issued in France, YQ will not be reimbursed as part of taxes and surcharge refunds when people cancel a non-refundable ticket. Again, this legitimises a certain scrutiny as it is not unnatural to fear that airlines will use them as a loophole to 'transform' part of their base fare into the said surcharge to maximise their income and minimise refunds.

I don't disagree with some of the points you raise. I am merely saying that the arcane way in which the base fares are calculated should invite far more scrutiny as 1) it is not transparent, either, 2) base fares have a far greater degree of variability than YQ, and 3) base fares have a greater financial impact on customers.

I don't disagree with some of the points you raise. I am merely saying that the arcane way in which the base fares are calculated should invite far more scrutiny as 1) it is not transparent, either, 2) base fares have a far greater degree of variability than YQ, and 3) base fares have a greater financial impact on customers.

If base fares are more variable than YQ, why not simply put YQ in base fares? I thought that the lame excuse for having a separate YQ was because it was more variable :)

As a consumer, I have no problem having AF set their base fares (excluding taxes) the way they like, as long as they do not collude with other competitors. This is normal business practice: companies set their selling prices and consumers decide what to do. What I despise with AF is that they do not provide us with easy access to all their fares and their conditions. Many other airlines have a much more useful website where you can see the pricing of alternative options and their conditions (cancellation/change fees, etc..). For example, from HKG AF often lists a Zleisure fare that is unflexible, while for 100 or 200EUR more there are other Z fares with excellent flexibility. The only way to find out is using tools such as EF and spending a long time with a call agent to have them search the fares and options. With other airlines those different fares are offered on the website.

I am merely saying that the arcane way in which the base fares are calculated should invite far more scrutiny

Ah, the old Air Inter days...

If base fares are more variable than YQ, why not simply put YQ in base fares? I thought that the lame excuse for having a separate YQ was because it was more variable :)

... the airlines take this approach because: (a) it helps them capture additional revenue at the expense of their customers; and (b) it helps them reduce costs at the expense of some service suppliers (and also internally).

If the airlines didn't find this YQ method to be worth way more than crumbs and generating substantially more revenue (and cost savings) for the airlines at the expense of customers and suppliers (than not using the YQ approach), then the airlines wouldn't have been so wedded to "fuel surcharges" and increasing the proportion of the total ticket price that is YQ.

A somewhat off-topic comment to thank all contributors for keeping this thread focused on the issues, and to note that NickB is closing on the 10,000 mark :). Congratulations!

And no one is even mentioning that 4-6 years ago as teh price of oil went up and up, not only did AF increase their YQ's at a rate FASTER than oil rose but they also promised that if it ever went down and stayed down for more than a certain amount of days that they would rescind the YQ's. IIRC they did one or two and then just stopped, there was a small amount of outrage, buit what it meant was that when oil was back to trading at less than $50 a barrel, they were still charging pax like it was around $90 a barrel IIRC.

As someone stated YQ's are generally done in an unscrupulous manner and they only present full prices in markets where they are compelled to do so.

... the airlines take this approach because: (a) it helps them capture additional revenue at the expense of their customers; and (b) it helps them reduce costs at the expense of some service suppliers (and also internally).

If the airlines didn't find this YQ method to be worth way more than crumbs and generating substantially more revenue (and cost savings) for the airlines at the expense of customers and suppliers (than not using the YQ approach), then the airlines wouldn't have been so wedded to "fuel surcharges" and increasing the proportion of the total ticket price that is YQ.
We are where we are with YQ essentially for historical reasons. I guess social scientists would call this 'path dependency'. There was a reason why YQs were introduced in the first place but they have taken a life of their own. Had we not had YQ in the first place, other mechanisms would have appeared to fulfil similar functions. There are a few things on which we can, I hope, most agree and some points of disagreements.

1) One thing which, I believe, is relatively uncontroversial is that, historically, YQs started off as genuine fuel surcharges, viz. temporary surcharges designed to address significant fluctuation in the cost of fuel which, as we all know, is a major component of an airline's operating costs.

2) I think most of us can also agree that airlines soon realised that fuel surcharges were a handy tool to perform other functions beyond dealing with fuel cost spikes. It seems to me that the three main ancillary functions that fuel surcharges have served from the perspective of airlines are (in no particular order of importance):
a) make fares appear cheaper to consumers than they actually are by displaying a low headline fare which does not take into account of additional costs including fuel surcharges. The bigger the fuel surcharge, the more misleading the headline fare is. That particular aspect of the question (which, incidentally, is not about YQ on its own but also taxes and PSCs, etc...) has, in the EU, been addressed by obligations on airlines to quote and display fares on an all-inclusive basis.
b) lowering the cost (for airlines) of awards by having passengers contribute to them under the guise of fuel surcharges.
c) narrowing the basis on which corporate discounts/TA volume commissions are given: since corporate discounts are based on the raw fare, the more you take out of the base fare and the more you shift to the YQ, the narrower the basis on which the discount is calculated and therefore the higher the ultimate cost of the ticket for the buyer. Ditto for commissions: the TA will have to achieve a higher volume of sales to reach the target if the YQ is excluded from calculations. Similarly, when an agent is paid a commission on individual sales, the commission perceived will be lower if calculated just on the basis of the fare excluding YQ.


3) I think that we can all also probably all agree that, in so far as fuel surcharges have ceased to be justified by their original purpose, they are, at the very least, something of a misnomer these days and have become somewhat nonsensical. Moreover, the whole regime of YQs, in particular the fact that YQ revenue does not necessarily accrue to the airline that sets it and markets or operates the flight (since the ticketing carrier keeps the YQ) shows how nonsensical YQs have become.

4) I think that we can also agree that the purposes currently served by YQs from the perspective of airlines can be achieved by alternative mechanisms (I am excluding the misleading consumers aspect, which, however, is better addressed by non-YQ specific devices as the EU example shows).
For 2b) above, for instance, airlines could lower the cost to them of awards in various ways such as, for instance, reducing availability, increasing redemption rates, introducing an explicit contribution mechanism whether you call it "cash+miles", "part cash part miles", "co-pay", etc... or a combination of these.
For 2c), you reach the same result if YQ is abolished by lowering the level of corporate discounts by a few percentage points in return for calculating it on a wider base. Ditto with TA commissions on individual sales. For targets, you can raise target to compensate for the inclusion of YQs in it.

5) Where disagreement mostly lies, it seems to me, is in relation to the consequences of the disappearance (whether spontaneously by the airlines under pressure or through new regulatory obligations).

Some take the view that, ultimately, this will not change much in substance because the airlines will use other tools such as those described under 4) to fulfill the ancillary functions that YQs serve. So, it might be intellectually more satisfying to have a neater and more logical system but, ultimately, that would not change much to the final cost of tickets, whether revenue or awards, and, even if there were changes, it would be impossible to predict whether these changes would be positive or negative for purchasers of tickets. For instance, in relation to award tickets, the disappearance of YQ could result in costs which are in fact substantially higher, for instance by introduction of cash and miles rates which are higher than the current sum of miles+YQs or eye-wateringly high redemption levels for miles only redemptions (or, if that proves unpalatable, the sneakier device of drying out availability at normal rates while increasing rates for "anytime" awards of similar devices.

Others take the view that there is no reason to assume that this will happen. There is a naive version of this: those who have simply not contemplated that the airlines would replace YQs by alternative devices and the somewhat more sophisticated one, which contemplates that possibility but discounts it on the ground that market pressure is likely to prevent airlines from introducing compensatory mechanisms or, at any rate, that the compensatory mechanisms introduced will not match what the airlines lose through abolition of YQ so that there will be a net gain for users, whether those users are individuals or corporate buyers (or other professionals affected by YQs in one way or another, such as TAs).

I personally take the former view, hence why it seems to me that ultimately there is little to be gained in fighting YQs as any victory would be short-lived and pyrrhic, hence why it is, in my view, ultimately irrational to spend resources to fight this.

However, if you believe that airlines will not be able to compensate (or compensate fully) the abolition of YQs by alternative mechanisms which are at least as onerous for users, then there is sense in fighting YQs. It is just that I do not see any reason why the airlines would not be able to compensate by alternative mechanisms. For instance, if they were able to impose to corporate buyers the exclusion of YQ from the calculation of discounts, I do not see why they would not be able to negotiate discount rates down to compensate for the wider basis on which discounts are calculated to compensate for any reintegration of YQs into base fares.

Apparently, some people do. What I am puzzled about is the fact that they want total transparency for YQ, which represents at most 25% of the total price of a revenue ticket, while leaving the rest of the price setting structure unchanged,


Just a nitpick : I was asked by a coworker about redeeming miles to get to EDI for the holidays with his wife and daughter. I searched for the price of tickets to show him that he would do better buy purchasing revenue tickets than using miles. The results, reminded me of your approximation :

Fare 1: Carrier KL RSRFR SXB to EDI (rules)
Passenger type ADT, round trip fare, booking code R
Covers SXB-AMS (Economy), AMS-EDI (Economy)
10,50 €
Fare 2: Carrier KL RSRFR EDI to SXB (rules)
Passenger type ADT, round trip fare, booking code R
Covers EDI-AMS (Economy), AMS-SXB (Economy)
10,50 €
KL YR surcharge (YR) 164,00 €
The Netherlands Passenger Service Charge (RN) 13,20 €
The Netherlands Noise Isolation Charge (VV) 4,00 €
The Netherlands Security Service Charge (CJ) 14,48 €
French Aviation Civile Tax (FR) 4,24 €
French International Passenger Service Charge (QX) 7,29 €
French Airport Tax (FR) 13,25 €
French Air Passenger Solidarity Tax (IZ) 1,00 €
United Kingdom Air Passengers Duty (GB) 15,79 €
United Kingdom Passenger Service Charge (UB) 13,83 €

Subtotal per passenger 272,08 €


The YQ surcharge is 60% of the total price in this case, and 780% of the base fare.

The YQ surcharge is 60% of the total price in this case, and 780% of the base fare.

Well, I don't believe that, overall, YQ represents 60% of AF passenger ticket sales. I would guess that the approximation I used would also be higher than the actual value.

Well, I don't believe that, overall, YQ represents 60% of AF passenger ticket sales. I would guess that the approximation I used would also be higher than the actual value.

Indeed, because of premium tickets. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the short-haul tickets, especially leisure fares, are composed mainly of YQ these days.

Just a nitpick : I was asked by a coworker about redeeming miles to get to EDI for the holidays with his wife and daughter. I searched for the price of tickets to show him that he would do better buy purchasing revenue tickets than using miles. The results, reminded me of your approximation :

Subtotal per passenger 272,08 €

The YQ surcharge is 60% of the total price in this case, and 780% of the base fare.

With BA's new Avios program, that ticket to EDI costs 9000 miles plus €27 and you could even add a stopover in London for free. I have several hundred thousand BA miles that I normally would have used for some nice trips in F. But now I think I will use them up for a whole lot of short haul trips around Europe. And with the BA Gold card I don't mind transiting LHR and hanging out in the T5 F lounge.

With BA's new Avios program, that ticket to EDI costs 9000 miles plus €27 and you could even add a stopover in London for free. I have several hundred thousand BA miles that I normally would have used for some nice trips in F. But now I think I will use them up for a whole lot of short haul trips around Europe. And with the BA Gold card I don't mind transiting LHR and hanging out in the T5 F lounge.

Fully agreed. But those who have not sampled the F lounge at LHR T5 cannot understand.

I have been reading these posts with great interest but there are too many great points that I cannot reply to each of them so I'll briefly summarize some of my thoughts :

1) Big companies do cheat, our mod said he has complete confidence in the integrity of the major European airlines including AF, however such trust is misplaced. That is not to say there is necessarily any tax evasion or wrong doings though one only needs to look at the LIBOR fixing scandal that has hit London in recent months, the ones being caught are very large companies

2) Once the DOT is in hunter mode, things should get interesting. Reinforcement of regulations tends to be more forceful in the U.S. than it is in Europe because U.S. regulators often have more tools at their disposal. As being pointed out in the LIBOR scandal, few would dare to do so in the U.S. because they will go straight to jail without passing by GO. But the DOT investigation will likely take time and its ultimate impact is uncertain. It may result in a massive fine for the airline but not necessarily a Brazilian style ban on fuel surcharge.

3) I believe some changes are starting to take place with this renewed attention on European airlines' fuel surcharge. Recently, I booked a flight using my BA miles from SCL to LAX on LA Business Class. As you know, BA is famous for their outrageous YQ, not just on their own metal. They even bullied AA and AS to impose fuel surcharge on their award tickets when booked on BA metal. But surprise, my BA miles booked ticket in premium class for a inter-continental long-haul flight over 5500 miles is merely $47 all-in. Fuel surcharge = $0 This was unexpected to be honest. Whereas some airlines will invent fuel surcharge even on flights where none exists, at least BA has not done so when the carrier in question (AA or LA) do not do so themselves. I want to believe the lawsuits and fines they got are making them more cautious about going overboard with false surcharge claims, especially flights to/from the United States. Isn't it true that AF has also not charged YQ on DL metal flights? Then, that's a positive. Still doesn't resolve the whole issue but that's a start. FYI, NH still charges some phantom YQ on award partner flights that have none, so no, not all airlines are quite there yet.

2) Once the DOT is in hunter mode, things should get interesting. Reinforcement of regulations tends to be more forceful in the U.S. than it is in Europe because U.S. regulators often have more tools at their disposal.

Wow. I almost choked on my breakfast reading that. If you do some investigation of this subject you will find that the complete opposite is true. The US is waaaaaaaay more business friendly (euphemism for corrupt) than Europe when it comes to enforcement of regulations.

3) I believe some changes are starting to take place with this renewed attention on European airlines' fuel surcharge. Recently, I booked a flight using my BA miles from SCL to LAX on LA Business Class. As you know, BA is famous for their outrageous YQ, not just on their own metal. They even bullied AA and AS to impose fuel surcharge on their award tickets when booked on BA metal. But surprise, my BA miles booked ticket in premium class for a inter-continental long-haul flight over 5500 miles is merely $47 all-in. Fuel surcharge = $0 This was unexpected to be honest. Whereas some airlines will invent fuel surcharge even on flights where none exists, at least BA has not done so when the carrier in question (AA or LA) do not do so themselves. I want to believe the lawsuits and fines they got are making them more cautious about going overboard with false surcharge claims, especially flights to/from the United States. Isn't it true that AF has also not charged YQ on DL metal flights? Then, that's a positive. Still doesn't resolve the whole issue but that's a start. FYI, NH still charges some phantom YQ on award partner flights that have none, so no, not all airlines are quite there yet.

This is pretty old news regarding BA and you may not have noticed the same is true for AF and KL. Short haul awards fees were greatly reduced a while back.