With a barrell of oil now close to $50 is it not high time that airlines removed their long haul fuel surcharges - Aer Lingus have a fuel surcharge of €80 on a return fare to New York while BA apply a surcharge of £70 (€100 approx.) on a return fare to the west coast USA.
Airline fuel surcharges - rip-off ?
- Thread starter gdf
- Start date
redchariot
Registered User
- Messages
- 594
Fairly typical, companies (not just airlines, ESB for example too) jack up prices with the hint of a oil price increase but are not in a big hurry to drop the prices accordingly when the oil comes back down again
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 53,448
As different people use the word Rip-off to mean different things, you should specify that you are using the word to mean expensive rather than the main meaning of the word which means some underhand activity.
Especially when you are referring to named companies, as it is defamatory.
Brendan
Especially when you are referring to named companies, as it is defamatory.
Brendan
Virgin Atlantic, Lufthansa and KLM all reduced their fuel surcharges way back in mid Oct '06 due to the fall in oil prices. Like Aer Lingus these airlines would have hedged a percentage of their fuel but still they were able to reduce the charge. Here in Ireland the tour operators are ahead of the game; [FONT=Verdana, Arial] Budget, Falcon/JWT and Panorama/Airtours have all [/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial]scrapped the supplement.
[/FONT]If the surcharge doesn't reflect the price of fuel then I suppose it qualifies as a Rip-Off in both senses; expensive and underhand.
I prefer the Wikipedia definition of a "rip-off":
"A ripoff (or rip-off) is a bad deal. Usually it refers to an incident in which a person pays too much for something. A ripoff is distinguished from a scam in that a scam involves wrongdoing such as fraud; a ripoff, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder."
"A ripoff (or rip-off) is a bad deal. Usually it refers to an incident in which a person pays too much for something. A ripoff is distinguished from a scam in that a scam involves wrongdoing such as fraud; a ripoff, on the other hand, is in the eye of the beholder."
An airline may want to be percieved as a "low cost budget carrier",
the fuel surcharge is a way to shift the blame onto oil prices rather
than the company charging EXPENSIVE fares, which may be fair enough.
I consider certain airline's fuel charge policy as representing some underhand activity,
they promote and market their transatlantic fares as approx e100
each way which is to be percieved at NOT EXPENSIVE,
but then slap on this considerable fuel surcharge (e40) 40% of base fare.
As mentioned previously, oil has dropped so much since charge was introduced people will feel it is unfair to not at least reduce the charge.
Air plane petrol is a significant charge to flying, but not the ONLY cost to airlines.
If air plane petrol becomes less expensive ( now approx US$55 for oil ) then the end cost of fares should also drop significantly,
air travel (all oil fueled) in general has become less expensive,
by an airline trying to be percieved as being not expensive but still adding this cost which has since decreased to them, people are justified feeling that the airline is a RIP OFF!!!!
Aside, I dont know why airlines just dont incorporate the fuel surcharge into their basefares, ie market the flights as e140 instead of e100,
then it would make it easier for consumer to quickly evaluate current airfares in terms of whats expensive, and also to compare over time (if/when fuel surcharges change)