1Newflyer

Sure, and that is what you gonna get from me.

Its a ridiculous statement. Government wants a percentage of something. There are a multitude of elements that comprises the final price. Wages, material cost, labor, fuel etc., do you want to see only the margin that the vendor gets to be listed as the price?

canadiancow

I understand the argument, but it's just too hard to implement.

You board a YYC-YYZ flight, and are given a newspaper. It advertises a product for $1000 from a national chain. How are you supposed to know whether thats the Alberta price or the Ontario price?

At least the way it is right now, I know it will be $1050 in Alberta or $1130 in Ontario.

With your proposal, I have no idea how much it will cost.

The Lev

Are you saying you should advertise at $400 then when I go to check out I find that in addition to the $400 you want a $500 "administrative surcharge" (that is set by you and goes straight into your pocket), various other charges that are claimed as "taxes" but may or may not be set by you to recover costs you pay and $130 of GST?

canadiancow

No, I'm only talking about sales tax.

respectable_man

Imagine arriving at the WalMart checkout to be told there is a fuel surcharge not included in the price of the item.

The Lev

If all we were talking about were sales tax, AC would not be facing a class action suit.

why fly

LOL the cow is grabbing at straws,

eigenvector

It's fine for GST/HST to be excluded because we all know that everything has sales tax on it. If you are going to charge taxes or fees that are not common (e.g. environmental disposal fees, recycling deposit) they should be included in the advertised price.

Air travel is subject to a whole whack of complex government fees and taxes that the average person couldn't be totally aware of even if they tried. Hell, some of them are even based on class of service (LHR J class tax). When I buy a plane ticket to Peru, there is no way I can be expected to think "oh it says $1000, but I know LIM has a $27.50 AIF on top of it". Therefore, the airline should tabulate these costs and display an all-in cost.

Don't even get me started on carrier surcharges. Excluding those is just pure trickery.

1Newflyer

I am sure the providers are happy with your satisfaction on the exclusion of sales taxes. I am not fine. We all know that the exclusion is a marketing gimmick to make the consumers think the price is lower. Other international jurisdictions have no problem including VAT in the price as is done here with gas.

canadiancow

I was just responding to a post specifically about sales tax.

I completely agree about all other fees, and since airlines are now doing all-in pricing, I feel like cars are the next big one. $1500 delivery fee? I had to go pick it up!

superangrypenguin

I completely agree with you. Everything should be all in. However, from my understanding of it, the EU all have 18?% tax. Canada's taxes are not the same across the board, so how would this work?

If it doesn't work in Canada, how can the airline possibly price out tickets that are truly all inclusive and consistent across every province/region?

1Newflyer

You must be joking, how does each terminal and each vendor handle discounts or sales or different prices they charge for the same product or service. I understood you are an IT guy. Year 2015, no?. I think each country has its own VAT in EU and some for sure have different rates for different categories. As for Canada have you noticed there is no problem applying different taxes in each province or not applying in some.

superangrypenguin

You are hoping that AC IT implements anything right? That's a stretch, no?

1Newflyer

Of coarse not nor any other businesses, it would reduce the overall revenue and profit. There is nothing that an individual can do about it but if lots of individuals took a stand it may change. But just look at the comments in this forum, folks really care less and similar feeling across the entire citizenry and it will remain whats good for the goose only. We can however post away.
Notwithstanding my hopelessness, I am with the few that are taking their rights and engaging AC on this matter, if only in spirit.

Transpacificflyer

This discussion has lost sight of what the class action is about. It isn't about people trying to game the rules or to take advantage. Rather it is about the alleged contravention of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. Although, some of the other provinces have similar regulations, the plaintiff, Mr. Silas of Montreal, because he is a Quebec resident, has brought suit using the local provincial law. Had he been a resident of Manitoba, he would have used the MB law if it applied. Consumer protection is a provincial mandate and that is why the actions must be brought through the court in the province where the alleged offence occurred. This action is restricted only to purchases deemed to have occurred in Quebec. It is why anyone who purchased a flight originating in Quebec will have received a notice, and why those who had flights in BC did not. It is up to plaintiffs in other provinces to bring their own suit. Consumer groups in other provinces are watching closely. A Quebec favourable judgement for the plaintiff will facilitate other provincial actions.

In respect to the litigation it is very clear. This is what the law states;
224. No merchant, manufacturer or advertiser may, by any means whatever,
(c) charge, for goods or services, a higher price than that advertised.

For the purposes of subparagraph c of the first paragraph, the price advertised must include the total amount the consumer must pay for the goods or services. However, the price advertised need not include the Québec sales tax or the Goods and Services Tax. More emphasis must be put on the price advertised than on the amounts of which the price is made up

Here's why the lawsuit was brought: AC advertised its seat for $298. During the purchase process, no mention was made of the additional charges and fees outside of selected options. At the payment stage, AC added $126.96 in various fees and supplemental charges. (The taxes are not included as the law states that PST/GST do not have to be declared in the pricing as it is recognized that they are in addition to the pre tax cost.)

The litigation focuses on the AC selling practices which can be argued to have been intentionally deceptive with the intent to conceal the actual cost. The suit alleges that AC's advertising and its internet site did not properly disclose the additional non optional costs as they were legally obliged to do.

The good news about this litigation is that it includes all of the airline tickets AC sold for Star Alliance members at that time including Continental; United, US Airways, Lufthansa, Austrian, Brussels Airlines, Egyptair, SAS, Swiss, Lot , Singapore and Thai.

If the Silas case is decided in favour of the plaintiff then AC will be obliged to refund the fare differences plus $100 in damages.

This is a case about principal and respect for the law. It is not about anyone making a quick buck. If the intent was to profit, the damages would not be set at $100. The action simply seeks to reimburse consumers for AC's alleged illegal and unethical conduct.

As a side note, AC opposed the introduction of full disclosure in pricing and resisted for several years. One can draw one's own conclusions as to whether or not AC's conduct was a legitimate different interpretation of the law, or an intentional act.