British Airways in court in the US over fuel surcharges on Avios tickets

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Gordon says:

  17 Nov17 November 07:26

  I’m showing my ignorance here but were fuel surcharges not introduced to cover the rapid rise in fuel. They werent meant to cover the whole cost of the fuel, simply the cost above a certian level and therefore should drop if fuel prices dropped. They should be part of the price of the ticket and not used to generate excessive profits like credit card charges. The US courts will come down heavily on the differential prices and manipulation

  • Rob says:

    17 Nov17 November 09:53

    This is exactly my opinion. Every 6 months, BA files new fully-flex fares with IATA. A fuel surcharge should therefore only cover any increase in price since the last 6-month reset. It is illogical to run a permanent ‘fuel surcharge’.

    You don’t, after all, still see shops adding a 2.5% VAT surcharge at the till because they are still pricing goods on the shelves based on the 17.5% VAT rate which was increased in January 2011. Some shops surcharged for a few weeks, and then readjusted their pricing accordingly.

    • Mr Bridge says:

      17 Nov17 November 10:16

      The way I see it, any use of the word ‘surcharge’ is just bad business.
      I think I am right in saying BA hedge their fuel any way.
      Why not call the charge fuel element, for purposes of Avios flights.
      As all eu flights must be advertised as the total ticket price, why do the airlines even have this?

      Not that i am defending BA, but raffles figures assume a full load, and BA report a 95% load factor, and there are always currency fluctuations.
      US law is daft, but i would say as the price is displayed b4 you buy, then dont buy, similarly if you dont like the airlines FF programme, use a different airline

      • Rob says:

        17 Nov17 November 12:07

        This misses the point though. The idea that you should pay for fuel on a redemption ticket is stupid. A surcharge is something which should only cover an unexpected increase in costs since a price was set – and only then if the cost increase is so high that it threatens the viability of the underlying contract. That is not the case here.

        • Mr Bridge says:

          17 Nov17 November 13:13

          I completely agree. Its the same as redeeming clubcard points in tesco, but having to pay the VAT in cash! But if that were the rules of the clubcard scheme, you would decide if to shop in tesco or sainsburys. My point was that it is not a surcharge, its an element of the ticket price, and that element is not covered by the avios redemption (rightly or wrongly).
          On a seperate note, do first class passengers consume more fuel than those in economy? maybe its the cost of flying the real glasses and plates rather than the plastic ones!

        • Rob says:

          17 Nov17 November 14:28

          But why, then, is the surcharge £200 higher if you start your return flight in the US rather than the UK?

          The end result of this will be that BA will end up fixing the surcharge and rebranding it as a supplement – probably £500 return for Club World / First and £300 for Economy / WTP. That would, at the very least, bring clarity to the numbers.

          It won’t solve the problem of corporate net fares, though, which – in the scheme of things – probably account for as many bookings as Avios.

    • Dave P says:

      17 Nov17 November 13:45

      Perhaps I am being naive and simplistic, but fuel costs at the pumps have come down recently – has aviation fuel costs/litre or gallon done the same? If so, compared to 6 mths ago it would appear that aviation costs have come down and so, therefore, should any charge to the passenger.

      • Rob says:

        17 Nov17 November 14:29

        The airlines hedge their fuel costs, often fixing the price several years in advance, so short term movements are not an accurate guide. However, your point is the crux of the court case.

• olybeast says:

  17 Nov17 November 07:45

  Good. I’m glad they aren’t allowed to get away with it. It clearly has nothing to do with the price of fuel.

• mike turnbull says:

  17 Nov17 November 07:46

  Hopefully, if they win, these guys will move on to take on AF/KL

• mrtibbs1999 says:

  17 Nov17 November 08:17

  Ba look in real trouble here. The law is quite clear. They should have called it a wine surcharge, a food surcharge, a nice weather surcharge. Anything but related to fuel; which, in the US is covered by clear and unambiguous legislation!

  The net effect in this case will either be nothing, or backdated refunds and a renamed surcharge. Sadly the surcharge will not be going away!

• Flyersj18 says:

  17 Nov17 November 08:20

  While I would love to see the end of “fuel surcharges” they simply aren’t going to go away IMO as they generate too much valuable revenue.

  Should BA lose this case look watch the charge simply become labelled as co pay. The only other alternative is that the number of miles needed to redeem flights to go up considerably. Not a particularly desirable outcome…

  • Alan says:

    17 Nov17 November 10:11

    Indeed – looks like the lawyers will be the main winners here, can’t see much changing for redemption costs.

• John says:

  17 Nov17 November 10:08

  I don’t understand why “fuel surcharges” can’t just be part of the fare on paid tickets, when they don’t attempt to charge you more or refund you if the cost of fuel changes between the time of payment and the time of flight.

  With award tickets, again a “redemption fee” is acceptable but the calculation of this needs to be transparent and available without searching for flights. For example, I believe the fuel surchages of Cathay must be filed and approved with the Hong Kong Aviation Authority. Does this happen with the CAA?

  • Rob says:

    17 Nov17 November 12:08

    No. That is why fuel surcharges on Cathay are very low ex-Hong Kong. For some reason this rule doesn’t apply to BA, so it is substantially cheaper to redeem on Cathay vs BA out of HK.

    • John says:

      17 Nov17 November 20:28

      I’m not so sure about that. I paid around £80 for CX Y redemption and £260 for BA J redemption, both with BA Avios, HKG-LHR, around Christmas (going to Asia twice, not enough Avios for J both times and no availability anyway!)

      No idea how much it would have been for CX J and BA Y.

• uk1 says:

  17 Nov17 November 10:34

  If the judge has concluded that the surcharge does not appear to be based on the actual additional cost per passenger, then BA may then also be asked to explain why the charge is imposed differently depending on the class travelled. It shouldn’t be if BA have described the reason for the surcharge accurately. The additional cost of carrying each passenger is on average the same and depends more on their wheight and not at all by the class they travel …. except the fact that F food and drink may be slightly heavier per paasenger 😉

  • John says:

    17 Nov17 November 20:29

    Well, Y pax can only take 23kg unless they have status, and F pax can take 192(?)kg.

• Sam says:

  17 Nov17 November 10:41

  Not just redemption tickets that have been hit hard by Fuel Surcharges – staff / industry tickets are seemingly pointless when most discounts apply to base fares and not the taxes / surcharges. May not be relevant to you but there are 100,000+ of us in the UK – and base fares to Asia / US frequently £100+taxes. Perks, what perks!

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.