Guy Betsy

Looking at fares ex-Brazil for a client, it seems that airlines there don't charge any fuel surcharges... except BA!

Looking at GRU-LHR in J on :

JJ (TAM) , total taxes on oneway is : US$ 36 - no YQ
BA , total taxes on oneway is : US$ 245 - YQ is $209

LH , total taxes via FRA : US$ 62.90 - no YQ
AF, total taxes via CDG : US$ 65.10 - no YQ (And these two are infamous for high FS/ YQ)

So... take BA , pay fuel surcharge when others don't? What's the logic there?.. (Ok, I know the answer if you're a BA loyalist)

Reality_Czech

Ah this looks interesting guy busty.

So, BA rips you off in you are frecnh, german, english or brazilian. LH and AF will rip you off unless you are Brazilian. Hmmm. Doesn't sound very fair for me.

And this shows too that fuel surcharge on AF and LH is no longer needed, Clearly, it is not a fuel surcharge any more if brazilian does not pay (unless brazilian brings his own fuel to the plane) so tax should be re-named. Not right that others subsidise cheaper tickets for brazilians.

HIDDY

I haven't the foggiest why BA do it....maybe so they can charge it on a redemption ticket and make a "free" ticket even more of a "not free" ticket.

Genius1

Is it perhaps something to do with BA being a UK-based airline, and therefore having to pay higher taxes when flying to/from the UK than non-UK airlines?

Just a wild guess, and probably nowhere near accurate. But as HIDDY's already posted in this thread, the standard is hardly set very high

HIDDY

My reason is far more believable.

Could also be that some airlines just include the YQ in their base fare rather than separately. In the end it's the total price of a revenue ticket that counts.

KenJohn

I am not saying I am a BA loyalist but the proof is in the pax numbers.

Yet, there is no sharp drop in BAEC membership and the only complaints come from non-UK pax. VS also charge taxes on award seats. Why are UK pax not abandoning BA for AA, QF or CX? Maybe the cost of changing planes in Europe outweight the higher costs in taxes.

Has Willie Walsh got there marketing and pricing/profitability policy correct? Shock horror! Maybe it is not a pricing factor only.

Yes - there is a drop pax numbers but with the ash cloud and strikes, so a drop is to be expected but not a a result of the cost of taxes

BA0197

It might have something to do with BA allowing 2 hold baggages on their Brazil flights. AF and LH only offer 1 on this route. Brazil is one of the only places left on the BA map that still allows 2 hold baggages in WT, along with Nigeria and a few other places.

Guy Betsy

Digging deeper.... You get charged the fuel surcharge if you're booked on a BA flight number even though the aircraft is oon another...

eg. From KUL to LHR via HKG, BA codeshares with CX on this route.

KUL-HKG BA4564 (operated by CX) and connecting to BA 26...
Total taxes : US$ 254.70 of which YQ is US$ 238.60

But book on CX entirely...
KUL-HKG-LHR only attracts total taxes of US$ 93.70, and CX's FS is only US$ 77.30


If BA wants more bums on their seats, they better be honest about fuel surcharges.

dgwright99

this was news 2-3 years ago.

HIDDY

But does it really matter on a revenue ticket? Surely the final price is more important than how the fare is broken down?
I'm not sure what your point is to be honest.

House

To me it's about marketing. In China for example, BA is quite happy (as are other airlines) to advertise their headline fares to Europe. Then you try to buy the fare and a huge amount of fuel surcharges get added.

I care about the ultimate amount charged to my credit card, not how it is broken down. Why can't BA (and others) outside Europe start to advertise their fares on this basis?

Cap'n Benj

Im sure they can but chose not to for the obvious reasons. By law in the UK, the full price has to be used in advertising

The maddest eg of this is with food pricing in the US, McDonalds advertise the 99c Cheese Burger on big posters in the window, you go in with you dollar bill and its $1.14 or some ridiculous amount!

RJD1983

All the airlines have to include all mandatory charges when advertising their prices, including taxes/surcharges. This is why MOL gets in trouble with the ASA for his adverts, though I think he does it deliberately to get even more advertisements, as places like BBC will report that the advert is to be banned.

I think the ASA should make RyanAir (or any company) on the frontpage of their website, about how many times they've been stung for misleading people over adverts. It would make people think again.

As for McDonalds, the problem is tax. Tax varies in each state, and even county/city. Some states have no sales tax. So how do you get the advertised price right for 50 States, AND their counties/cities? The only way is for McDonalds to absorb the sales tax to get a 99c cheeseburger around the country. Would be great if they did that.

Guy Betsy

Really? Then why does my GBP 180 rate at the Andaz London gets whacked with a 17.5% VAT when I check out? Don't they have to advertise the rates as all included like their European counterparts? UK hotels do not add the VAT on advertised rates!

My issue here is with BA's fuel surcharge only.. I just don't understand why they have a surcharge on routes where there shouldn't actually be one.

Roger

No, AFAIK all airlines have to pay the same taxes (= APD), though PSCs (= airport charges) may differ.

There was one exception. When APD was simple with just two rates, one for single cabin and 'economy' in multi cabin planes and an enhanced rate for biz and first, one airline charged passengers the enhanced rate in a single cabin plane yet accounted to HMRC only for the single cabin charge. Which airline was that, then? Step forward, BA for Concorde.

When I checked with HMRC, it was apparently in order. BA had no obligation for the amounts charged to be handed over to Government.Oh, really? No, it isn't.^ for recognition of MOL's philosophy.The hotels plead that in areas with large numbers of 'international' (read American) visitors, they need to show the tax as an add-on. This applies to 'international' (this time read mainly London) locations in the UK. Most UK hotels outside London show tax-inclusive rates. FWIW, I agree that the hotels shouldn't get away with it.

Back to Guy Betsy's original point, why does BA do this? Because they can.