gemac

Let's also include use of 'rift-raft' instead of 'riff-raff'. As denCSA says, it is one thing to speak up nicely, quite another to badger.

mvoight

THAT SUX

dfyant

I still beleive that calling it a Tax is deceptive and illegal. In my business, if I called extra shipping charges a tax, I could end up in jail.

Imagine the implications - you buy something for $100 and on the invoice below that it says Taxes: $40.00

Then you dig further and find out the "taxes" were really just "packaging costs, we don't make any money on that we used to not charge it but now we have to"?

My customers would be at the AG's office screaming bloody murder. I'd end up on one of those exposing TV shows "on your side" looking like a crook.

"Sir was that REALLY a tax?" "Do you think it was fair to tell Grandma smith that there were 40% taxes on her purchase"....

Bretteee

AA / BA awards are a problem because of the high London taxes and the BA fuel surcharge. However I like the 40,000 winter AA Award to Europe vs. 55,000 miles on UNITED / CO.

Here are the fees for a NYC to Geneva Award.

1. UA/CO $100.
2. AA connecting in London: $200
3. Flying BA: $300

I am therefore focusing more on my UA miles. But the 15,000 mile winter saving makes it somewhat worthwhile.

Try to connect in another city than London such as Madrid / Barcelona: AA / IB.

ExpatExp

Could someone sue to get this "tax" back if it is indeed correct that the funds are not taxes and are not paid to the government?

The counter-argument could be that BA requires the funds as a fuel surcharge, and therefore it would not be appropriate to refund the "tax" to customers.

The response to the counter-argument could be that the fuel surcharge is not the same as a tax and the two are unrelated (i.e. it's not the passenger's fault if AA neglects to collect the fuel surcharge required by BA).

In short, it seems from a common sense perspective that some sort of legal recourse should be available for any business that represents itself as adding charges on for a tax, when in fact the charges are being added on for something else.

sbrower

Probably not a problem in any jurisdiction because AA gives notice that the conversation may be recorded. Which means that both parties (AA employee and customer) have been given notice and are likely deemed to consent.

sdsearch

I think at the very least that would depend on what it's called in writing. (And what is that? Once you book such an award with BA, what does your receipt say?)

This thread is about what an AAgent said, and I'm not sure that you could sue over an agent getting it wrong if the receipt was right.

ExpatExp

Agreed! I should have been more clear.

Does anyone have an example of a ticket where this charge has been documented? I have avoided mileage redemptions on BA since the new policy took effect, so I would be curious to know how this "tax" is described on paper.

dfyant

Oh yeah they go the full 9 yards on this scheme. They call it TAX.

PASSENGER
XXXXXXXXXXXX TICKET NUMBER
XXXXXXXXXX FARE-USD
0
TAX
766.30
TICKET TOTAL
766.30

denCSA

Not exactly, here is how a redemption ticket looks:

The reason the agent likes to claim it is a tax is because it will either show itemized in the TAX field, or lumped together in the XT Taxes (as yours is above).

The reason for this is that fares and surcharges come from ATPCO on a weekly basis and the AIRLINES have complete control over what gets filed into ATPCO in what position. Just because BA/AA say it is a tax does not makes it so...

ExpatExp

Ok, so they are indeed calling it a tax on paper?

Dave Noble

I do not see how it is any less a "tax" than an airport fee or passenger service charge which is paid to the airport.

I do not agree with the fee and do noth think that fuel is anything other than a fundamental requirement for flying, but given that other charges already exist on bookings which are not taxes ( but are listed under taxes ) I dont see how there could be an issue with non taxes being quoted as such

For a paid booking though AA on BA, it should have the flip benefit that should a cancellation be made to a fare which is non refundable/non changeable etc, the fuel surcharge element should be refunded

ExpatExp

I see what you mean, in the sense that it's part of the cost of the flight -- and I agree. However, it's still not a tax, at least as defined by Messrs. Merriam and Mr. Webster: "a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes".

Given that definition, I would indeed consider airport fees and passenger service charges to be taxes. Fuel, however, doesn't seem to be a tax any more than the cost of the aircraft's tires: Both are expendable physical goods which are used up in the course of an aircraft's operations. Neither expenditure is paid to anyone for the provision of public services.

Interesting -- and I'm probably showing my inexperience here, so apologies if I am getting any of this completely wrong. So this process of defining various things as "taxes" is nothing new? For example, besides the fuel surcharge, are there other items which are described as tax in denCSA's receipt which are not taxes?

I wonder, however: Even if it is nothing new, it still seems that there should be some kind of recourse against a company for charging nonexistent tax. That really does seem like the kind of thing that should be illegal. I understand of course that in this situation there is a real cost to AA -- having to pay BA for the fuel surcharge -- but it does not appear to be appropriate to call fuel surcharges a "tax" any more than it would be appropriate to call catering a "tax": Both are goods which vary in price.

Even if a company has been doing something like this for a long time, it should still be possible to stop it...? Perhaps the fact that it is a long-standing situation would make a plaintiff's argument even stronger...?

mvoight

The answer is simple. There should be a law against fuel surcharges.

Dave Noble

Given the English dictionary definition of tax being "a compulsory contribution towards a country's expenses raised by the government from people's salaries, property and from the sale of goods and services" , airport fees an passenger service charges are not taxes

if you accept that a fee payable to an airport for using its services can be charged as a tax, then surely a fee payable to an airline for using its services can also be charged as a tax?

I know that Qantas lists the entries as "Taxes and other charges" which seems to deal with the issue ; perhaps AA should reword the website and receipts to properly indicate that not all items in that field are taxes


Dave