There has never been anything stopping paid airfares rising in response to increasing fuel costs. Regardless of whether a portion of the airfare is labelled as "fuel surcharge". Because it was only ever about labelling.

Before 2014(?):
Fare of $5000 can have a fuel surcharge of $500 added, but airlines can advertise their fare as $5000 and initial search results will show that amount.

2014-2015:
Fuel surcharges were capped at lower amounts. Nothing stopped the airline from changing the total price to $5400 fare + $100 fuel surcharge. However, the advertised price and initial search results would now have to show $5400.

2016-2018:
Airlines cannot label any part of their fare as fuel surcharge, but nothing stopped them from charging a fare of $5500 or raising it to $6000.

Fuel surcharge permitted:
Airlines can now relabel the $5500 fare as $3000 fare and $2500 fuel surcharge or $1 fare and $5499 fuel surcharge if they like. They can still raise the fare + surcharge to $7000 if they want to. But now they need to advertise the total price, including the $300 departure tax+airport construction fee + overseas taxes and fees.


The only thing that can change is redemptions, since the amount of fare covered by miles can now be reduced.

The total price for paid airfares remains subject to market forces. If an airline raises the price of a ticket from $5000 to $5500, then there will be a drop in demand whether they label it as $5500 fare or $5000 fare + $500 fuel surcharge. Unless you think HK consumers are so stupid that they will pay $500 more for the same thing just because it is called a fuel surcharge but they won't pay it if it is called the fare?? It's not like airlines were collecting fuel surcharges at check-in based on the current price of oil - it was always fixed at the time of booking.

If there is no drop in demand, then the airlines were stupid and should have raised fares earlier.


The SCMP article wasn't talking about award flights.