Highlights:


Airlines bagged over grown-up charges for babies
12 March 2006
By ROB STOCK

She weighs little more than hand luggage and doesn't have a seat on the plane, but my daughter Catherine Emma is being hit for the same fuel surcharge as a full-grown man.

She is heading to England on Singapore Airlines with her parents later this year to meet family in the northern hemisphere. Her ticket, which gives her the right to a bassinet, costs $258, 10% of the adult fare her parents will each pay.

But the fuel surcharge on her ticket - an extra fee to cover the rising costs of jet fuel - is $337, the same as an adult, hiking her ticket price by over 130%.

Singapore Airlines is not alone in charging babies the full fuel surcharge. Cathay Pacific, Emirates and Qantas also charge babies the same fuel surcharge as they would a full-grown adult on international flights.

The exception is national carrier Air New Zealand, which was the first to introduce a fuel surcharge in 2004 to recoup losses created by the rising price of jet fuel. As long as an infant does not have a seat of its own, there are no charges for long-haul international routes.

Singapore Airlines admitted that charging babies who did not have a seat had resulted in complaints, but said it calculated fuel surcharges on a per person basis, not by their weight.

Jamieson said there was no plan to begin calculating fuel surcharges on weight, and reducing child surcharges could lead to increasing adult surcharges.

All the airlines said surcharges were not a profit centre, though they do not disclose surcharge revenue.

Jamieson said: "Overall, airlines continue to collect less in surcharges than they pay in increased fuel costs."

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3601458a13,00.html

The article does not make clear who this "Jamieson" person is.

Anyway, enjoy.