What is Qantas doing about its fuel surcharges?

[ffhound]

Hi all

A few weeks back I read that Qantas was going to gradually absorb its fuel surcharges into its fares but apart from a minor reduction to US fares I have seen no reduction in fuel surcharges to Europe.

Qantas frequent flyers get fuel surcharge boost, but overall fares won't fall

Qantas imposed and then raised its fuel surcharges on the pretext of high fuel charges costing it more in fuel costs.

However, I have noted that Qantas's fuel costs have dropped massively but Qantas still continue to charge high fuel surcharges on its tickets whilst other airlines have been reducing theirs. Virgin for example don't even charge fuel surcharges now.

We really need Hong Kong or Phillipines style regulator to stamp out what is a misleading practice.

regards Peter

 

[Melburnian1]

Flight centre's 'Skroo' Turner and his spokesman Hadyn Long will be in furious agreement with you.

In Philippines, airlines even now have to publish the number of 'doscounted' seats on offer by route, which is always interesting to see.

 

[woodborer]

There was no reduction in fuel surcharges on the joint Emirates-Qantas network, which may explain the lack of change to Europe. Internally, Qantas have begun the task of absorbing fuel charges into the base fare, but apparently it will take time. As for whether they are misleading - our regulator seems to take the US regulator approach (say with Resort Fees) - as long as they are properly disclosed....

 

[serfty]

They are trying to work out how they can rename the YQ fee currently known as a "Fuel Surcharge" to somthing like "Service Fee" and get away with it...

 

[ffhound]

They are trying to work out how they can rename the YQ fee currently known as a "Fuel Surcharge" to somthing like "Service Fee" and get away with it...

If they did that it would be somewhat disingenuous of them. It would cause a massive public backlash.

A phased reduction in surcharge is acceptable on the basis of contracts for fuel purchased in advance but a rebadging of the fuel surcharge would simply be outright theft. I doubt that they would go down this road because it would destroy their brand. They can phase out the surcharge and still make good money.

 

[Captain Halliday]

One thing is for sure... You'll need more points than ever for your next toaster.

 

[serfty]

If they did that it would be somewhat disingenuous of them. It would cause a massive public backlash.

A phased reduction in surcharge is acceptable on the basis of contracts for fuel purchased in advance but a rebadging of the fuel surcharge would simply be outright theft. I doubt that they would go down this road because it would destroy their brand. They can phase out the surcharge and still make good money.

I should have put a smiley in as my post was toungue-in-cheek. However I don't doubt there has been consideration of what I posted, no matter how brief.

 

[juddles]

.....fuel costs have dropped massively....Virgin for example don't even charge fuel surcharges now......

Cool, so Virgin fares have ¨dropped mässively¨then?

 

[RooFlyer]

See discussion in this earlier thread. (Note the thread title given to the announcement by Red Roo - and subsequent discoveries made by AFFers along the way . Spin 101. )

 

[opusman]

Say the fuel surcharges are eventually rolled into the base fare, and then down the track fuel prices go up again? Do we just get a new surcharge added back on?

 

[codash1099]

Say the fuel surcharges are eventually rolled into the base fare, and then down the track fuel prices go up again? Do we just get a new surcharge added back on?

Even money bet!

 

[Flying mermaid]

Say the fuel surcharges are eventually rolled into the base fare, and then down the track fuel prices go up again? Do we just get a new surcharge added back on?

What a stupid question. - of course.

 

[JohnK]

I will believe it when I see it and not a moment sooner.