Joe Airman

So I just rented a full-sized car at Avis / SFO using my Earnst&Young AWD code. $47 base rate (24 hours, unlimited milage) + $5.33 (11% concession recovery) and $1 "FTP SR$ 1.00DY" and $1.83 "COUNTY TAX 2.50 /RENTAL" came to $55.16, then 9% tax (4.96) was tacked on, making it $60.12.

Then listed under "Non-taxible products/services" is:
2.6% TAF ($1.22)
Transportation Fee 20.00/RNTL ($20.00)

Making the grand total $81.34 for what started as $47 base rate.

Regarding this bogus $20 fee being charged at SFO:

http://blog.sfgate.com/dgreenberg/20...arging-20-fee/

-----------
According to Mr. McCarron, the transportation fee was negotiated between the airport and car rental companies as a means of financing the AirTrain system. Rental companies are responsible for training their employees in its application. If a fee is misapplied, a customer may contact the airport and receive a refund (as I did).

To be fair, the vast majority of rental car customers do use the AirTrain. Thus, in most cases the fee is being charged properly.
------------

So $20 for taking the less-than-smooth AirTrain? What a crock.

3Cforme

The fact that you don't like the train, or find the fee outrageous, is irrelevant. The fee is to be charged on car rentals for people using the train - as virtually all passengers arriving by air & renting a car will do. The fee - if not the $20 rate - has been in place for at least six years.

mittencuh

Fees like this are pretty much the standard at any airport with any rental company now in the US. The best solution at SFO is to take an Uber ride (about $20) to the nearest off airport location. You'll save quite a lot on your rental overall. Selection won't be great but if you don't like your car, exchange it at the airport.

Dieuwer

I wonder how long it will take for airport car rentals to become utterly uneconomical. When will the first airport car rental agency go bust?

IAHtraveler

Highly unlikely IMO. Most folks renting cars are flying to a destination and requiring the use of a rental car. So there aren't many other options.

Dieuwer

Often1

"Bogus" "Outrageous", it's how the system is financed. If you've got a better proposal and have done the analysis to determine that your assertions are true, why not post those?

Joe Airman

What I don't get is that this AirTrain serves as inter-terminal transport at SFO, and serves as transport to a parking garage. And the second last stop is to a USPS facility. The car rental facility is just one more stop at the end of the line. How are these other transportation uses of the train being paid for? Surely the entire reason for existence of this airtrain can't be to serve as a link to the rental car facility?

And at $20 for each car rental customer, why was such a link and payback agreement even entered into when the pre-existing shuttle bus probably cost the equivalent of a few dollars per customer to operate?

username

I think most of us agree AirTrain and the consolidated rental car facility is an upgrade from what they had before. I think most of us also agree that $20 is high (I think it was $17.50 before). I personally think the whole "pay only if you used it" is not enforceable and should not have been there.

High rental surcharges/taxes are not unique at SFO. SFO is probably the worst. ORD/MDW are not better. As others suggested, if you don't like it, there are less convenient alternatives.

These things cost money and also "sticking it to the visitors" is an easy thing to do. I am not sure how airport taxes are charged in the US for domestic tickets but you see how airports like YYZ, YVR and YUL all have pretty high AIFs. Nothing is free, right?

Joe Airman

Why didn't they roll the cost of the airtrain into some sort of airport improvement fee that gets added to every flyer's ticket price?

It seems that they're saddling an inordinate share of the cost for one additional train stop onto the shoulders of car rental customers.

That's the logical point I'm trying to make here.

Where else (at what other north-american airport) is such an outrageous user fee tacked onto car rental customers for what is obsensibly a shared piece of airport infrastructure?

And no, I don't think that the train ride is worth $20 compared to the rental car shuttle. Not even at $17.50 either.

And why (if you follow the signs) do they make you, upon car return and transport back to the airport, do they route you down to ground level, exit the rental car building, take an escalator up the outside covered station waiting area, to board the train back to the airport via one set of train-car doors when you could have entered via the interior-facing doors that open onto the rental car service counters? And I'm paying $20 for that whole experience?

sz2628

Agreed. I am still trying to understand how $20 is "outrageous"....

mittencuh

Because then you'd be complaining about it being added to every flyer's ticket even if they don't rent a car?

Especially since it's possible to walk between terminals at SFO. Seriously, if you don't like the airport fees, rent off airport. It's simple and takes extra time but in most major cities there are locations not far from airports. Vote with your wallet.

Joe Airman

There is no reason for this train to exist if it cost a fortune to build and the vast, vast majority of it's riders are rental car customers. But in my recent rental experience, it seems that half the riders were using it as transport between the terminals and a parking garage. Will those people ALSO SEE A $20 CHARGE TACKED ONTO THEIR PARKING BILL?

There was absolutely no indication when booking the car rental with Avis that there would be this $20 fee tacked on, with a corresponding explanation as to what the fee is for. Had I known that, I would have done some investigation beforehand to find out about off-airport rentals, where they are, how I would get there, how much it would have cost me, hours of operation, etc.

My main argument here, which nobody else seems to acknowledge, is that the SFO train is a shared, multi-use, multi-station piece of airport infrastructure, yet it seems that car rental customers are the only airport users getting nailed by a quite hefty charge in the name of paying for the train.

And by hefty - yes. $20 in proportion to a $47 base rental rate (or $60 after all the other bullcrap charges are added) is a significant fraction. Especially since my plane ticket probably already included an SFO airport improvement charge.

3Cforme

I won't call BS on the first assertion, but I see the $20 fee clearly disclosed when I look to make a booking on avis.com. The fee has been disclosed on every SFO Hertz/Avis/National booking I have made in recent history.

As for the second, it seems you don't like the ability of the State (and certain other governmental units) to tax intra-state transactions. The taxing authority doesn't need to explain itself to you. If you feel targeted as a non-citizen in the Bay Area, that is pretty much as they planned it. Tough luck. Don't rent from the airport. You'll find hotel taxes pretty stiff in Chicago and Orlando, too.

username

Why is someone living in Canada complaining about the high taxes in the States anyway

or

The tax is so bad, even a Canadian is complaining