In order to actually determine how much of a gouge is being inflicted here, you'd need to know the average cargo haul in dollars vs. the average passenger take in dollars, since it is economically speaking unfair to bill the entire fuel "increase" to the passengers. I suspect there IS a fuel surcharge on cargo, but that no new surcharge was added. [My inclination is that We The People are just paying -literally- what the traffic will bear, and it has nothing to do with fuel. But it does seem like a bit of a scam doesn't it? $300 goods for only $340+taxes!??]

Considering you can buy a ticket between the U.S. east coast and London for $129 each way, is another $20 that much more? I agree, on a short hop that $20 on a $129 looks quite different. But when you also consider how cheap gas still is in the U.S. -- at least one-half what most other "developed" countries are currently paying off the North American continent -- you have to wonder how other non-North American carriers are handling this, since local taxes still have to be factored into fuel prices, even if a carrier has bought on the futures market.

I would be very interested to know where you can actually purchase a ticket from the U.S. East Coast to London for $129 each way. Isn't that exclusive of about $100 in taxes on a roundtrip ticket? And the fuel surcharge applies only to domestic itineraries.

My question about fuel rebates when prices fall was purely facetious. I posed it to illustrate that it is the AIRLINES that want it both ways. Like most oligopolies, they try to force consumers to absorb raw materials price increases immediately citing replacement cost. When raw materials prices fall they justify keeping prices high by citing acquisition cost. Either way the consumer loses.

[This message has been edited by gilpin (edited 09-10-2000).]

What is the logic in having a separate line item (surcharge) for the increase in fuel costs? Will United have a 'labor surcharge' to pay for the higher wages since they've settled their pilots contract dispute? Or an 'aircraft surcharge', because my upcoming ATL-HNL flight on Delta might be on a new 777, instead of a 10-15 yr old L1011?
These costs, along with all others, are part of operating costs. Add them all up, and if you have to, raise the price.

Jeff

Ever buy a car? Destination charge, advertising charge, etc.

And we all know what paragons of ethical business practice car salesmen are!

At least, when buying a car, I may have some chance of bargaining these charges down, or away. Not going to happen with the fuel surcharge on a JFK-LAX ticket! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

[This message has been edited by BIM (edited 09-12-2000).]

The airlines are able to do this because the airlines have the officials at the DOT in their pockets. States' Attorney General have absolutely no power over the airlines...due to the Airline Deregulation Act. Congress and the Carter Admin. really hosed the American people when they passed that one.

At least in the USA there is fuel to surcharge!

In the UK gas is now £4 a gallon .. IF you can find it. There are riots in Liverpool about this happy state. Country is almost out of it, and it is starting to affect flights right now:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum94/HTML/002441.html

Things Congress could do to make everyday life a little bit nicer for all of us:

1. Pass a law requiring all advertised prices to include all taxes, surcharges, and fees. What you see is what you pay.

2. Abolish pennies. Round everything to the nearest nickel.

3. Abolish the income tax

OK, well maybe the first two are doable in my lifetime.

------------------
I hope you enjoy my Lion Tales. For photos, past travelogues, subscriptions, and more, see www.liontales.com

What really infuriates me about fuel surcharges is the deceptive and inconsistent ways in which airlines use them.

Deceptive - they RARELY disclose them when you are talking to them on the phone or in their advertisements.

Inconsistent - they don't always apply them. For example, as of 10/13/2000 Northwest has two relatively inexpensive fares between MKE and LAN. KE14SPN at $128 and KE7NR4 at $148. The $128 fare has a fuel surcharge, the $148 fare does NOT!! Why have a fuel surcharge on one fare but not on the other? My bet is they really think the $128 fare is a bit too cheap. IE, it has nothing to do with the cost of fuel. UAL also has a $128 fare which supposedly also has a surcharge - but when you price out the itinerary it doesn't show up.

Hello...Something that I did not see pointed out inother responses is that with the fuel surcharge they are able to make money off of flights booked with frequent flyer miles. This I believe is one of the main reasons they are hiding a price increase into a 'fuel surcharge'. Is my guess anyway.

------------------

This stuff is JUST like the advertising charge on new cars.... Advertising is a cost of doing business when selling cars. I expect the dealers to include that in the price of their car - I'm not paying extra.

This came to a head last month when I got into a very heated debate with a car salesman, who stormed out on me after I refused to even consider paying an advertising charge. He apologized later, but too late -- next day I bought from another dealer who didn't explicitly charge me an advertising charge.

Now did the dealership actually have to pay an advertising charge? Probably. But I'm not paying it outright as an additional charge. I based my offer on invoice+dest charge (my father-in-law works in trucking -- thats a real charge). That's it. Advertising charge eats into their profit, just like paying the salesman and the electricity bill is. It's not on top of the price of the car.

Today I wanted to book a $110 cheap roundtrip. Yesterday it priced out to $127. Today it priced out to $167 since they added the whole $40 fuel surcharge to the route. I said no thanks and booked on another carrier since so far not all of them had the surcharge on the route.

The fact that the surcharge has no relation to the distance flown is the most criminal IMHO. Whether or not govt can or should do anything about it I don't know. It's just plain ridiculous.

I think Cordelli's example of paying extra for tomatoes on a sandwich is a case where a surcharge makes perfect sense. The tomatoes are something extra and optional; if you feel like saving money you can forgo the tomatoes.

I believe delivery charges on cars began this way too. Many years ago you could save yourself the cost of shipping the car to the dealership by picking it up at the factory. The "advertising charge" has always been a scam though.