Paralytic

Come on, we can do better than that.

Load the flight with a certain amount of fuel, but not enough to get to the destination. Put a big fuel gauge on the In flight Entertainment System, and a payment slot for each passenger (RyanAir probably has designs for these already).

Then take off and watch passengers sweat as the fuel gauge falls, until someone breaks and puts money into the slot. This releases fuel from the YQ Tank (marketing can come up with a better name) and into the main tank, increasing the range of the aircraft, and the IFE fuel gauge (with suitable swooooosh sound effects).

Repeat until the plane reaches the destination, or falls out of the sky. There can be bonus rounds where the amount of fuel is doubled (for Doctors) or halved (for Children in premium cabins).

To reduce costs further, the rights for filming on each flight can be sold to Channel 5, who can turn it into a game show called "Die or No Die"

IAN-UK

Even when YQ was a fuel surcharge it had no direct link to fuel cost .

Paralytic has come up with a splendid alternative of raising the revenue: though there is room for refinement in the treatment of surviving Eurocheats and Bronzers. Surely there could be a mechanism for jettisoning these to conserve fuel.

ajamieson

Calchas

Quite a string of mental pictures lined up there

IAN-UK

I think most folk get that. What genuinely puzzles them is why the price they pay for a ticket is not simply a fare (plus any taxes applied).

Essentially the YQ surcharge becomes itself the base fare, with a variable market-driven element rising and falling above it with consumers' willingness to pay and the shenanigans of yield managers. The ultimate model would have YQ covering costs and the fare generating profit.

There are marketing and pure revenue advantages to the carrier in such a pricing mechanism, but quite clearly nothing positive accrues to the consumer.

Sam Bee

Hang on... are you sure? It's about £30-40,000 here isn't it?

bernardd

The place this argument breaks down is when the airline advertises that you earn points for travel and/or using your credit card that can be redeemed for future travel, subject to the payment of carrier imposed charges.

The problem is the carrier imposed charges are not known with any certainty at the point the consumer chooses a BA flight or a BA linked credit card, they can change wildly in the year or more before the "reward" is obtained, can become all but unavailable and they don't appear to be subject to any legal controls.

Put simply, all the carriers make up their own "rules" that are extremely opaque and very much at the "discretion" of the carrier, yet they masquerade as a "contract", ie there are published T's & C's that provide near zero protection to the purchaser or the original ticket, card or service.

I'm staggered that any business, in any jurisdiction is allowed to get away with that kind of trick.

callum9999

The only valid argument against it I've seen is the corporate fare discount mentioned before - where they are no longer getting the level of discount they thought they would because YQ isn't included. Even then, I hardly see how you could possibly call it illegal.

It isn't remotely a con and it is clearly itemised, so there are no "smoke and mirrors" involved either. To a consumer buying revenue fares it makes no difference whatsoever whether the fare is £500 or £200 + £300 YQ. For a consumer buying an avios fare it makes no difference whatsoever whether the surcharge is £300 YQ or a £300 redemption surcharge. What exactly are you objecting to - are you really this annoyed just because of the description they put next to the charge? (I'm assuming you're well aware that the charge will always be there in some form - whether it's rolled into the fare price or called something different?)

shorthauldad

Oh, right....

"Fare" plus "Taxes/Fees/Carrier Charges", when it should actually be "Fare and Carrier Charges" (everything that goes to BA) and "Taxes and Fees" (everything that doesn't).

callum9999

No. "Fare" and "Carrier imposed charge"

EDIT: In response to your edit, that is exactly how it is laid out. A table says "Government, authority and airport charges" with a separate table underneath saying "British Airways fees and carrier charges".

shorthauldad

It's currently:



and it ought to be:



That £101.90 is part of the price, for any commonly-accepted understanding of the word "price".

callum9999

Click the blue i and it will give you a list. Or is expecting you to click an obvious button if you're interested in the breakdown (which 99% of people aren't) part of some big scam?

Any commonly-accepted understanding of the word "price" would also include the taxes as well (or at least the airport charges). Why have you left them out?

shorthauldad

A blue 'i' isn't a get-out-of-jail-free-card when the the statement that "Price" iz zero, is simply false.

Left what out?

callum9999

When did I say it was? You claimed that it wasn't itemised, I proved that it is. I happen to agree with you that logically it should come under the price tab, I merely don't care as it's utterly irrelevant.

Exactly what I said... You moaned about the "commonly-accepted meaning of the word "price"" yet didn't use it properly yourself. Using your logic, that column should list whatever is currently in the "inclusive total" column.

shorthauldad

So if you got a petrol receipt from Tesco which said

1p/litre "price"
plus
129p/litre "taxes, duty and retailer charges"

you'd call that accurate itemisation?