Calchas

I can see this argument, but the problem is, for instance, that the United States is the only country I visit where a calculator is an item I require at the dinner table.

The airline collects the "fees" and taxes from me and pays its liabilities to the various government(s) out of its own pocket, so in my view—which I accept is not in line with yours—it is appropriate that the taxes and fees are stated antecedently to our transaction. By the same token, I am no more interested in what fraction of my ticket cost goes into the US Federal Government's coffers than I am of what fraction goes into aircraft maintenance. I am simply looking for the lowest (total) fare that meets my requirements.

If the airline wants to sell me a ticket without the taxes and fees advertised perhaps it would be happy to trust me to pay the appropriate fees and taxes to government(s) myself directly at some later time.

GUWonder

This airline industry apologist/lobbyist bill in the Congress is generally bad for consumers, so I hope it never becomes law.

Airlines are already free to show the total price of the ticket and supplement it with information about the value of each of the ticket price components. This bill is not necessary to better inform consumers. This bill is about allowing airlines to play more advertising games to further obscure the total price of the tickets available for sale.

BearX220

Yes. The kind of transparency that would actually help consumers, breaking down the total paid to show the fees included, the airlines can do in marketing right now if they want to (and many do in trip receipts, etc.).

This bill would enable the opposite of transparency, allowing the airlines to advertise a deceptive low number that bears no relation to the final amount paid. Remember the old days of "London $299!" with very small print saying, "Each way, based on round-trip purchase. Taxes and fees not included"? Your actual payout would typically be $1,100 or so. The "$299" was meaningless.

It is pro-consumer to show the bottom line in big type, then break out its components. It is anti-consumer to market one small component in big type, then hide the actual bottom line in small type. This bill would allow the latter.

Initiatives like this help convince me the airline industry really is strategizing against its customers.

gooselee

This. Exactly.

I couldn't care less whether actual government-imposed fees/taxes are included in the advertised price or not, as they are standardized (and therefore predictable) across all airlines. As long as fuel surcharges are controlled by the airlines and can be tacked on as whatever amount each individual airline deems appropriate, it should be included in the advertised price of that ticket.

But at the end of the day, they're seeing that they have Option A of nonstop for $300, or Option B of 1-stop for $322. Most consumers don't care how much of that money goes where, and those that do can already see the breakdown in just a couple clicks (which they'll be motivated to take if they really care that much about the breakdown).

GUWonder

Indeed. The US airline industry trade groups and lobbyists operating in and around the nation's capital are but a front for the airlines to conspire against consumers and to get the government to more completely buy into the airlines' anti-consumer agenda.

Jerseyguy

Here's the problem with that. Before the goverment required them to add their fees to an advertised fare. JFK-MCO was $99, the airline got $99 and then you paid your taxes to the goverment via the airline (kind of like when you get taxes taken out of your paycheck by your boss). The total cost of the ticket if you included taxes was $119. Now the goverment says you can't do that you have to advertise your rates with our taxes in it. Now the airline looks at $119 and says, people see $119 and pyschologically see it at a higher cost. So the airline feels like they have to advertise it at $109 or $99 in order to make the sale. But now that $99 ticket they are making $85 from it.

Speaking about taxing taxes out of your paycheck, would you require your employer to make you an offer of your salary after taxes? After all, you never see that money, all I want to know is what I'm taking home when the paycheck arrives.

ajGoes

That's it in a nutshell. The airlines hope they'll sell more tickets if they're allowed to advertise only part of what the customer has to pay. You didn't mention other bits of the equation, like making comparison-shopping much more difficult, thus removing other pressures towards lower prices.

Why should I want to remove pressures that tend to lower airfares?

I can't remember when the current rule took effect, but I sure remember the relief I felt when I could get back to shopping based on my cost. Returning to the bad old days would be a major step backwards.

beachmouse

Anyone in BOS want to give Elizabeth Warren's office a call? Seems like this is just the kind of thing she likes to crusade about in the name of consumer protection.

Jerseyguy

The problem with your argument is that unlike some airlines where the goverment runs or highly subsidies the airline, US airlines aren't in anyway a part of the goverment. The airlines are just an agent for goverment. The advertisement is for the airline not the goverment.

jfkeze

I wrote to my Congresswoman (Grace Meng) to express my opposition to this piece of legislation. Let’s see what she or her staff responds…

StayingHomeIsBetter

Does it make a difference?

"Honestly, officer, I didn't buy the spray paint and I didn't do any of the graffiti... I was just along for the ride."

Sure....

gooselee

In any case, it looks like basically ALL of the airlines are buying the spray paint and also paying Congress to do the graffiti.

Democracy at work.

darthbimmer

That's a little different for two reasons. First, the amount of income and payroll taxes an employee owes are not known for sure by the employer at the time a salary is negotiated. They depend on the worker's personal finances, family situation, and countless other factors which are not any of the employer's business to know. Secondly, a salary can be negotiated in most cases. Individual airfare purchases are not up for negotiation.

Fanjet

Actually, when an advertised $99 ticket used to be $99 "at the register", the airline would keep $90 and give the government $9. Then in the mid-90's, we got the PFC charges; and the additional amount was determined by how many airports you went through. Although some airlines ate the $3 fee at their connecting airport hubs to remain competitive. Then, the government tried to shift how the federal excise tax on airline taxes were calculated. They wanted a per segment fee. The legacy carriers pushed for this; Southwest was adamantly opposed to it. So they compromised on a 7.5% ticket tax, and a per segment fee of $2.50 (IIRC). And since then, PFC charges have gone up; and we also got the 9/11 security fee. The main reason why I would favor this bill, is that the consumer would clearly see how much the federal and local governments are grabbing per each ticket. I found a ticket receipt from a couple of months ago. It was $289.00 for a 3 segment RT. The airline kept $238.14, while $50.86 wandered off to other agencies.

Calchas

What is to stop consumers seeing this now? Why don't the airlines make this information prominent?

Is it really necessary to mislead consumers about the total price of the airfare to get them to understand that aviation is subject to taxation?

(Where I define "total price" as the money the consumer will pay for the ticket.)