Originally Posted by
Often1
1. Taxes + Fees - This makes simple common sense and will make quick comparisons much easier, especially where taxes/fees jump because of multiple segments vs. non-stop. Back when there was one simple tax and no fees, the price quoted was the fare one paid to board the aircraft. There is no reason for that to change now that there are multiple taxes and all sorts of fees. If someone tells you that you can fly between AAA and BBB for $X,XXX, that's the amount you ought to pay.
It's impossible to include all taxes or fees in advertisements, because the airline doesn't know what routing you will take. If a European airport is involved as an intermediate point, the difference between total fare can be significant.
I agree that breaking down the fare into a dozen components does not benefit the customer at all. When you buy a bus ticket, from Washington, D.C. to New York, for example, they don't add every toll along the way to the quoted fare. Some buses are non-stop and some might stop in Baltimore and/or Philadelphia, which does not increase the fare even though facilities in Baltimore and Philadelphia re being used. It's the misconception. What the airline has to pay the airport, or the government is between the airline and the entity, I don't need to know that.
I wonder if the practice of not announcing total fare to the customer until the routing is finalised gives airlines anymore revenue than they would get if they just had one fare for a specific pair of cities regardless of routing.
Originally Posted by
Often1
2. DOT Vs. IATA baggage - The new DOT bag rules apply to "ultimate ticketed destination." Otherwise the April 2011 IATA rules apply. Thus, NRT-HKG on Carrier A connecting to HKG-ORD on Carrier B will have Carrier A rules apply all the way through even if Carrier A and B have different baggage rules.
A major consideration will be assuring that segments are on the same itinerary because that is what presumably lets Carrier B know that it can't collect different bag fees (or allow free bags) when accepting interlined baggage from Carrier A.
Most airlines already allowed this (until recently) even when two carriers were involved on two separate tickets, as long as connection was within 24 hours. I have flown, hundreds of US-YY-XX and US-ZZ-XX itineraries, on which allowed baggage on YY-XX and ZZ-XX was 20Kg vs 2 pieces on US-XX, but the connecti8ng carriers in the connecting cities rarely made a fuss about it until recently, when every airline started the practice of "we will enforce baggage policy for each sector and the customer be damned". Micro-accounting costs everyone in the long run. I have had only one issue, which was because the check-in agent iin BWI screwed up by checking my bags up to AMS only where I had a 20 hour layover.
Originally Posted by
Often1
Long-term, like many rules designed to help consumers, the baggage aspect of the new disclosure rules will likely have the effect of greater transperency, but higher charges. Carriers will most likely harmonize their baggage policies and, to do so, reduce the number of free bags to an international standard. DL has already announced this for Silvers. I predict that others will follow suit over the next 9-12 months.
TMT-Too much
Transparency
TMI-Too much
Information
TMC-Too much
Confusion
TME-Too much
extortion/expense
It's a simple thing. Consumer wants to fly from A-B and is wilin to pay the advertised fare. why make it complicated with TM-TICE?