UAgeek71

With respect - I don't want to get this thread too far off topic, and I don't want this to dissolve into a political debate - However, I think you are making my point - we know what the sales tax is on a major purchase (like a TV) but with all the fees, surcharges, and taxes we have no idea what that is on airfare. I believe it is designed that way on purpose, so that you can raise the fees without accountability or blame if you are a politician.




As I mentioned in my post, don't get me started about gasoline. This again is the perfect example - when the price per gallon goes up do we blame the government? Nope - we all get outraged at greedy big oil. But the reality is that the oil companies average about 7c a gallon in profits. Does the average person know the tax the government gets (it's considerably more than 7c a gallon).

If it were clear, and everyone knew that Big evil oil gets around 7c, and the federal government gets 18.4c per gallon, and the states gets about 49c a gallon (weighted average), do you think big oil would be the villain? (another loaded question - the media and lobbyists would make it all about big oil to protect the government gravy train)

Not that big oil companies are blameless - but when the issue hits the pocketbook, taxes are a larger portion of the cost vs oil profits.


If we carry that forward, and airfares rise, will the average consumer blame the taxes and fees - nope, they will glum on to the evil airlines, charging them for bags, food, better seats etc.


here again are the airlines blameless? NO - but upfront disclosure is always better to inform peoples choices in my humble opinion.

joshwex90

I don't believe debating the topic at hand is getting off topic, but I'll agree to quit. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see how not including taxes and fees is somehow better for the consumer

HatAndJacket

Yes, which is why I have a feeling Spirit is about to spend a lot of money lobbying on Capitol Hill in the next few weeks

joshwex90

Although, truth be told, Spirit is one of the better ones in terms of disclosing fees on their site (though this law is about disclosing major fees, such as checking bags) during booking.

What the DOT should do IMO is choose a standard basket of services (either based on what used to be free OR what, say, more than 70% of pax purchase,) and have airlines include that basket. So is 70% purchase a checked bag and choose a seat but nothing else, then airlines should say: $250, plus around $48 with standard add-ons. Not so easy to do, and I'm sure people will argue, and I'm more curious in what people have to say about this suggestion than the actual suggestion itself!

Boo_Radley

I like the idea. It'll be tough to decide what "basket" of goods to include, though. The most obvious would be "the basket chosen by the plurality of customers". There are two issues with that, though.

1) That basket is probably chosen by a small percentage of actual passengers.

2) Passenger choice is, of course, dictated by the fees themselves. For example, if you constructed this basket in 2005, it would most likely contain a checked bag. Today, it certainly would not. An alternative would be to make the basket the set that the plurality of customers would choose, assuming no fee for any of the services. This would, of course, overestimate the standard consumer's add on fees, though.

Furthermore, any basket choice that reflects what a consumer would "reasonably" expect to receive free today (seat assignment, carry on bag), makes assertions about the state of air travel in 2014 that probably won't be valid as fees become more common.

Still though, I'm a fan of the idea, since requiring airlines to enumerate each fee when the user is checking out would be too onerous in my opinion.

joshwex90

In theory, the "basket" could be determined by what 70% of pax chose in 2005. Or what the majority do indeed pay for, as that's a fair assessment of what people are indeed willing to pay for

Jaimito Cartero

I don't think pricing should be with an average 1 bag and aisle seat. I'm fine with it showing the flights with no baggage, but a tickbox that you can add to pick the options you'd like. That way, if you want to bring 3 x 50 pound bags, you can get the total picture.

Himeno

Shouldn't you hate almost every single business in the US for doing this?
I should not see a price for anything only to find I have to pay more at the checkout because the business is too lazy to display the full tax/fee/surcharge inclusive price to start with.

Boo_Radley

The issue with that is there probably is not majority basket, and the plurality basket is still only chosen by a small/moderate percentage of people. I like the idea of using a past time to remove the bias imposed by changing consumer behavior.

Great in theory, but a huge burden technologically in the short term. IME, it's probably overkill when we're just trying to provide a reasonable level of transparency. In the long term, I could see this coming to be, though. The fundamental problem that this approach solves is that the systems we use to purchase tickets assume that: 1) airlines are, for the most part, fungible and 2) any information the user might need with respect to carrier differences can be conveyed by simply giving the user the carrier name. From the evolution of FF programs, to the varying degrees of fare un-bundling, these assumptions no longer hold.