The fuel surcharges have been quite profitable for a number of airlines -- that's because the fuel surcharge had more than covered the actual cost of fuel attributable to a passenger (and their belongings) on a full flight.

There is quite the lively discussion going on about this on the BA board.

How is that legal?

I agree with fs2kisfun. I did a quick search on the internet and all I could find was a list generated by Government of Hong Kong. See under:

http://www.cad.gov.hk/english/fuel_surcharge.htm

It seems that for longhaul almost every airline charges HKD 832. Is this also the case in other markets that almost every airline charges the same? As most of the FT folks will agree fuel surcharges have become just a ticket increase and have litte to do with actual fuel costs.

From what I've heard, United hedged it's fuel costs when oil was way over $100. So now, they essentially aren't benefiting from the drop. (Which is exactly how hedges work!) So are they going to pass the price of their poor hedging onto customers?

QF has reduced fuel surcharges for tickets bought in Australia, but no change for tickets bought in NZ :mad:

Of course it helps if fuel costs are down. No major airline has all it's fuel hedged. I doubt that UA had less than 30% hedged at $100++, so if it comes down 50% for them, they're still way ahead.

deleted

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthrea...2#post10522562

numerous consumer groups have voiced their concerns but essentially, the traveller is at the mercy of the airline concerned.

In the absence of law or other appropriate government regulation prohibiting that, it's not considered illegal.

Lufthansa did.
3€ decrease for intra-European flights. Surcharge is now 24€
5€ decrease for long-haul flights. Surcharge is now 92€

For tickets issued after October 20th.

LH Press announcement

Oil is down into the $60s now - way under HALF the peak, and I just paid $US354 a person "extras" - mostly UA taxes for a booking I made today PHL-SYD-PHL. :mad:
.

And one that is extremely dishonest and should be prohibited by law.

Agreed. I'm surprised it isn't against the law. It's like cell phone companies overcharging for their "Federal Regulatory Fee Recovery Charges" - something which I think would be illegal?