TravelSkills

News and Tips For Your Trips

Airlines face new scrutiny over surcharges

Are airlines going too far in hiding unjustified surcharges? (Image: Jim Glab)

Are airlines going too far in hiding surcharges that have  no relation to their costs? (Image: Jim Glab)

As oil prices continue to linger at or near their lowest point in years, airlines are facing new criticism of their ongoing fuel surcharges – or more often now, other vaguely-defined surcharges that replaced them – and interests representing travelers want the Transportation Department to intervene.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D.-Conn.) this week released a letter he sent to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx asking for a DOT investigation of carrier-imposed surcharges that “mislead and possibly deceive consumers.”

DOT in 2012 banned airlines from imposing fuel surcharges unless they were directly linked to fuel costs. And after fuel prices went into their downward spiral in recent years, “most airlines dropped ‘fuel charges’ and began assessing consumers other vaguely-worded charges such as ‘international/domestic surcharges’ and ‘carrier-imposed charges,’ which seem to have no relation to any additional costs borne by the airlines,” Blumenthal wrote. In some instances, he said, the fees are larger than the actual base fare charged by the airline.

Blumenthal noted that the fees “sometimes only surface when a consumer attempts to redeem an award ticket,” a circumstance that “seems to further confirm the deceptive nature of these surcharges.” He cited fine print in Delta’s SkyMiles rules which includes hint that redeeming a “free” award ticket may cost the customer “’up to $600 for foreign government taxes and fees and/or carrier-imposed fees for international itineraries;’” and that Delta “’reserves the right to change fees or add additional fees at any time without advance notice.’”

Secretary Foxx got another letter this week from the Business Travel Coalition, requesting a “thorough and in-depth investigation” of airlines’ ongoing assessment “of often-sizeable fuel surcharges on many itineraries,” in violation of DOT rules about justifying such charges.

“We call on DOT to hold the airlines assessing fuel surcharges, by any term or language, to account — by requiring them to substantiate on a route-by-route basis that the charges do indeed reflect the actual costs of fuel per passenger over some baseline amount,” BTC wrote.

Readers: Have you had any unpleasant surprises with unexpected or extreme surcharges? Should the government intervene? Post comments below.

NOTE: Be sure to click here to see all recent TravelSkills posts about:  Should I tip my Uber driver? + Boeing 747 nearing its end? + Bargain hunters travel guide for 2016 + World’s best airline lounge? + Fares to Europe tumble 

twitter-floowmeDo you follow us on Twitter? It’s a great way to keep up with the latest news!

Please join the 100,000+ people who read TravelSkills every month! Sign up here for one email-per-day updates!

facebook like


Print pagePDF pageEmail page

DOJ airline probe: A paper tiger?

Are airlines breaking the law by conspiring to restrain capacity growth? (Image: Jim Glab)

Are airlines breaking the law by conspiring to restrain capacity growth? (Image: Jim Glab)

The mainstream media on Wednesday were jumping all over a story that the Justice Department has launched an investigation into the airline industry for possible collusion in violation of antitrust laws, and major airline stocks fell as a result.

But don’t expect to see airline executives doing perp walks on TV any time soon. For one thing, all DOJ has done so far is send letters to the major airlines requesting copies of any communications they or their executives have had with each other, and with Wall Street analysts, about their intentions regarding controlling their capacity. This kind of DOJ information request happens a lot, in many industries, as nothing more than a kind of fishing expedition to see if there might be anything there.

As we noted a few weeks ago, the idea has been floating around in the media that airline executives who constantly harp on “capacity discipline” at industry conferences — i.e. how their company is resisting the urge to add more flights and/or seats — could be signaling each other to adopt this as an industry-wide standard, thereby keeping fares high during a time of healthy passenger demand.

But there’s a huge gap between public comments at airline industry conferences and solid proof of an illicit conspiracy to violate the antitrust laws.

You also have to consider the political nature of the Justice Department — i.e., it is an institution that responds to pressure. Besides the media muttering about industry “discipline,” Senator Richard Blumenthal (D.-Conn.) just two weeks ago issued a public demand that DOJ look into possible airline collusion in view of what he called “skyrocketing fares” that may have resulted from industry consolidation.

Airlines for America (A4A), the airline trade organization, was openly skeptical about the DOJ probe, claiming its members are competing as much as ever. As for Blumenthal’s complaints about pricing, A4A said the Transportation Department’s own data shows that fares are down this year.

(A4A probably has a good point about base fares, although it ignores the fact that travelers are paying a lot more overall for their trips in the form of add-on fees, which are reaching new records almost every quarter.)

Related: Discipline- a secret airline code word? 

Anyway, although the Justice Department makes a lot of noise about the airlines, it doesn’t have a great track record for acting against them. In 2013, DOJ filed suit against the US Airways-American merger, apparently determined to block it at all costs on antitrust grounds because of the damage it would do to competition. (This after it had given the green light to Northwest-Delta, Continental-United and Southwest-AirTran.) But in the end, after the lawyers for both sides got done talking, the airlines agreed to give up some slots and gates at a few airports and the merger went ahead.

Classic deregulation economic theory suggests that when the major competitors in a market are under-serving demand — whether in cahoots or not — new competitors will see an opening and move in to exploit it, bringing the market back into balance. And that’s exactly what we’re seeing these days from ultra-low-cost airlines like Spirit and Frontier, which are expanding all over the place — often in markets served by the legacy carriers. (See our post about what they’ve done in Atlanta.)

The DOJ’s latest action might just be a way of saying to the airlines’ critics in Congress and the media, “Hey, don’t worry, we got this;” and to the airlines themselves, “We’re watching you, so be careful.”

What do YOU think? Are the airlines in cahoots? Please leave your comments below. 

–Jim Glab

NOTE: Be sure to click here to see all recent TravelSkills posts about: San Francisco hotels NOT most expensive + New Centurion lounge opens + Planespotting 101: Airbus + Pay to join loyalty programs? + More!

 

 


Print pagePDF pageEmail page
Editorial Disclaimer: This editorial content is not provided or commissioned by the credit card issuer. Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of the credit card issuer, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the credit card issuer. This site may be compensated through the credit card issuer Affiliate Program. Responses in the comments section are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.”