Frequent Flyers sue BA over 'bogus' fuel surcharges...

[dairyfloss]

Frequent flyers sue British Airways over 'bogus' fuel surcharges - smh.com.au

A US judge has rejected British Airways' bid to dismiss a lawsuit by frequent flyers who accused the carrier of imposing bogus fuel surcharges on rewards flights.

The carrier, a unit of International Airlines Group , had argued that federal regulations pre-empted the lawsuit, and that the flyers failed to plausibly allege that the surcharges were not based on fuel costs.

In a decision made public on Friday, US District Judge Raymond Dearie in Brooklyn, New York, said the plaintiffs offered sufficient support for their claims that the surcharges were not "reasonably related to or based upon" fuel costs. He did not rule on the merits of the case.

The case was brought last November 9 by four members of British Airways' frequent flyer program, Executive Club.

The issue sounds mighty familiar... I just can't think where I have experienced it before... hmmm... Qantas Frequent Flyer, do you think you might recall where we have seen this on a local level?.... oh, 'taxes' are they? Wonder how AA manages to avoid those on the same routes, then

Cheers.

 

[eastwest101]

I was going to post a similar link I found on the Canberra Times (same source).

The interesting thing was that the case was going into the discovery phase, I wouldn't think that BA would be very pleased about that as discovery could open up further avenues, but I would say that the sheer volume of evidence would mean that this case drags on for a very long time.

 

[tinkybelle]

lets hope someone in Australia decides to take Qantas and Singapore air to task their taxes lax syd in premium eco I booked for a friend were $480 when virginaustralia was $34.

SQ are just as bad
ripping off FFers.

 

[whatmeworry]

I was going to post a similar link I found on the Canberra Times (same source).

The interesting thing was that the case was going into the discovery phase, I wouldn't think that BA would be very pleased about that as discovery could open up further avenues, but I would say that the sheer volume of evidence would mean that this case drags on for a very long time.

I wonder if the discovery phase gives the ACCC some ammunition to launch an investigation into Qantas?

 

[dairyfloss]

I wonder if the discovery phase gives the ACCC some ammunition to launch an investigation into Qantas?

Thousands of QFF data points in these forums, I would have thought! Happy to play paralegal for such a good cause

 

[MikedOut]

I wonder if the discovery phase gives the ACCC some ammunition to launch an investigation into Qantas?

Even if it did given them some ammunition they wouldn't find anything. The ACCC never find anything......

Hope someone does launch a similar action here though....Slater and Gordon are you listening.

 

[UP4014]

Even if it did given them some ammunition they wouldn't find anything. The ACCC never find anything......

Hope someone does launch a similar action here though....Slater and Gordon are you listening.

Yes, I bet Slater and Gordon are discussing it at their morning meeting. Wondering if QF are watching or thinking they will just throw money at it until it goes away again.

 

[albatross710]

I'm always surprised that airlines are surprised to find they need to use fuel for their aircraft.

 

[drewbles]

Even if it did given them some ammunition they wouldn't find anything. The ACCC never find anything......

ain't that the truth. I bought a book of pre-paid car wash vouchers for an establishment in Melbourne. I had 3 of the 10 left, and went to have my car washed to be told "oh, we used to operate this brand under a licence to someone but we bought it back; your vouchers are no good, but if you buy a new book of 10, we'll discount it by 30% and give you 7 of the 10". I sent a detailed complaint to the ACCC to be told 'sorry about that. Good luck!' (I paraphrase).

ACCC. Toothless Tigers, who can't even roar very loud.

 

[Plutonus]

ain't that the truth. I bought a book of pre-paid car wash vouchers for an establishment in Melbourne. I had 3 of the 10 left, and went to have my car washed to be told "oh, we used to operate this brand under a licence to someone but we bought it back; your vouchers are no good, but if you buy a new book of 10, we'll discount it by 30% and give you 7 of the 10". I sent a detailed complaint to the ACCC to be told 'sorry about that. Good luck!' (I paraphrase).

ACCC. Toothless Tigers, who can't even roar very loud.

OT, but wouldn't this issue be more suited for state based fair trading?

 

[drewbles]

OT, but wouldn't this issue be more suited for state based fair trading?

They were trying to use the excuse of changing company hands (even though the vouchers had no ABN or ACN on them) as the reason for invalidating the vouchers.

You're probably right though, I should have gone to them though too

 

[JohnK]

So why a surcharge for fuel only?

Why not a surcharge for maintenance. A surcharge for catering. A surcharge for wages etc. All of these costs are so difficult to predict.