Because it's the same ripoff as before, when the previous thread on Fuel Surchages was started!

Now, this being said... There are lots of sectors where there is an add-on charge of some sort.

Ticketmaster (or some similar company), for instance, charges a fee to handle tickets for all kinds of venues: the net cost is always the advertised cost plus the handling fee. FWIW, I place this kind of fee in a lower ripoff category as fuel surchages: handling fees usually represent a much smaller fraction of the net cost, and Ticketmaster functions as a middleman providing a service supplementary to every venue it handles.

Another one is criminal fines. A particular offence might lead to a fine of x dollars, but there is often an administration fee tacked on to this. The logic is that fine levels are set by law, so that increasing the fine on a particular offence means rewriting the law every time there is a fine increase. It's usually simpler to increase the administration fee, which requires no such changes but achieves the same net effect.

Another example is the recent fuel surchage from Canada Post (for XpressPost and courier deliveries). In this case, the logic is (apparently) that it's simpler to charge at the cash register than to print new stamps, especially if there is an abundant supplies of stamps of a particular value.

Fuel surcharges are not limited to AC: a large number of airlines do this. The recent allegations regarding BA conspiring with other UK-based airlines to "fix" the fuel surchage simply show how artificial and random these charges are. In fact, I cannot see any logic (other than marketing) for not including all charges in the base price of the ticket.

Now, SH, you can find all kinds of practical excuses for the Fuel Surcharge, but that doesn't make Fuel Charges right. I understand an airline may market a particular product at a certain price and add to that base price some extras for the convenience of passengers (like: weekend surcharges, discount fare available only for selected departure times, things like this), but a general surcharge, which is levied and collected by the airline without any benefit to the passenger, is deceitful (but not illegal or fraudulent for otherwise this old practice would have been struck down already) and ultimately, IMHO, counterproductive.

Indeed, speaking for myself only, I can say it is one reason why AC is never the first option on my list of carriers: I have grown suspicious of various offers that look good in the paper but "peter out" when it is time to actually buy the ticket. I can say with absolute honesty that, when I shop a ticket with my current preferred airlines, the price I get is the net price (without taxes). I would personally much prefer if AC did not advertise a specific price on which I need to add all kinds of fees but would simply advertise a sale to one or several particular destinations and produce an all-included price (without taxes). It's my preference, of course, but if we are to judge from the reactions to these fuel surcharges, I am not alone in defending this position.

The outrage ought not stop until the ripoff stops, and the scheme should be reported as a ripoff it is until it stops.