Fuel Surcharge

[signals]

Why is it that people are willing to pay for the the extra cost of fuel at the pump ,but are unwilling to pay for the extra fuel cost on the airlines. Also people won't even hesitate to pay for an overnight letter on Fedex, UPS ,etc. Have you checked those prices lately? With the airplanes full you would think that a 25 dollar increase to cover 100 dollar a barrel oil is not to much to ask.

If you can't afford to fly, then find another means of getting to where you are going. This idea about transportation for the masses in air travel is flawed. Airline ops,routes and equipment cost a little more than a public bus system.

I want a Porsche and a Bentley. Shouldn't everyone be able to have one too.

wopr21

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...20080115?rpc=44

You just might get your wish. That would mean that with that much less people flying your airlines you would have to raise your prices to the point that it would be cheaper to own your own private jet! And with more 'cars' who needs busses???

On the other hand most consumers who don't complain are flying the 'cheaper' airlines that continue to cut their costs. They're out there and aren't just a fantasy!

 

[leprechaun]

Sorry, but as long as you have people not called to work - like pilots and F/A, the employees are being paid more than necessary. Law of supply and demand says that employees would quit is paid too little.

We've seen the results of that logic. Have you flown lately? How's the service?

 

[N965VJ]

U.S. airlines increase fuel surcharges
Mon Jan 28, 2008

NEW YORK, Jan 28 (Reuters) - American Airlines, United Airlines and US Airways doubled their fuel surcharges to $40 from $20 on domestic roundtrip tickets over the weekend, matching a move by Continental Airlines last week.

After two industry efforts to raise fuel surcharges failed, airlines were more selective in increasing the fees, raising them on 66 percent of their respective networks, according to fare tracker FareCompare.com (www.farecompare.com).

"This slightly less aggressive approach may be an attempt to give this airfare increase a greater chance of 'sticking'," said FareCompare.com Chief Executive Rick Seaney in an email late Sunday.

Rest of story

 

[jerseyfinn]

Why is it that people are willing to pay for the the extra cost of fuel at the pump ,but are unwilling to pay for the extra fuel cost on the airlines. Also people won't even hesitate to pay for an overnight letter on Fedex, UPS ,etc. Have you checked those prices lately? With the airplanes full you would think that a 25 dollar increase to cover 100 dollar a barrel oil is not to much to ask.

If you can't afford to fly, then find another means of getting to where you are going. This idea about transportation for the masses in air travel is flawed. Airline ops,routes and equipment cost a little more than a public bus system.

I want a Porsche and a Bentley. Shouldn't everyone be able to have one too.

wopr21

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews...20080115?rpc=44

What's your point? :glare:

If you fly on any airline, you've paid the fuel surcharge and all sorts of other associated ( involuntary ) fees. There is no opt out in this equation if you get on the plane.

As to why the airlines would retreat from fuel surcharges. That's their tough sh!t. Fuel and other costs are passed on to consumers in all sorts of businesses . . nothing new here at all.

You suggest that it's the pax fault. Looks and feels more to me like the (still) dysfunctional airline industry behaving dysfunctionally as usual. Airlines, US Air especially, could care less about pax or accountability. So hey, one carrier drops all/part of the fuel surcharge, and the others follow suit. We're back to the old tired ways of legacy airline (mis)management. Kind of makes me wonder exactly how much of that so-called "fuel surcharge" was really for fuel and how much was simply a strategem to extract more money under the guise of a fuel surcharge. The former is indeed a legitimate response for any management to undertake. The later reeks of indecisiveness and lack of character. A Tempe has that lack of character part down pat.


I'm just sitting here watching the latest merger ruminations sweep through the industry and waiting to see if airline executives can accomplish something substantive this time. Of course, US is now the ugly girl at the party who will have to resort to other measures to get a dance. I'm anticipating mergers as well as higher prices. The writing is on the wall in that regard. Can't say I'm happy as a pax facing the prospect of higher prices, especially on a carrier with a pretty thin product to begin with.

Then again, that might just be the first phase of consolidation and a carrier or two might also "rediscover" the importance of product and service to go along with those higher prices. I don't see Tempe in this equation, but those of us who fly, will continue to fly, surcharge or not. It's up to the airlines to decide if they intend to play the new game caller service, product and accountability.

Barry

PS -- just so you don't think I entirely anti-airline, lets be clear here that Congress is also very responsible for a completely dysfunctional ATC system which shafts both airlines and pax. But markets remain markets.