This beggars belief

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:28:08 -0700, Lansbury wrote:
>
> My son is coming on the spur of the moment for a visit in 2 weeks time.
>
> He is going to try the new Northwest direct flight from AMS - PDX starting the
> UK end in Manchester.
>
> This is the bit that shook me. His ticket price is £341.70 of which £219.50 is
> taxes and fees. NW/KLM are flying him return 10500 miles for £122.20.
>
> Now I know I've been gone 16 months but since when did the taxes and fees
> outstrip the actual fare to become 64% of the cost.
>
OK, it's not quite on the same scale, but this is the breakdown I got
from a recent trip:

Air Fare: £13.98
Air Passenger Duty: £10.00
Fuel supplement: £14.00
Passenger service charge: £9.46
Airport departure tax: £3.10
Airport handling Charge: £1.37

Fee Sub-Total: £1.00
Services Sub-Total: £0.00

Total Cost (original pricing currency): £52.91

So for a 13.98 fare (Luton - Almeria) I paid 52.91, making the _flight_
portion of the bill just over 26% of the total.

ISTM, this is just a marketing exercise on the part of the airlines, to
come up with a (misleading?) headline price, before they nickel-and-dime
you up to the true cost.



It would be interesting if garages sold petrol the same way: with a
forecourt sign saying UNLEADED - 35p/litre
then, after you've filled up and go to pay, the sales 'droid says:
"50 litres - that's £17.50. Oh, plus £25.20 duty and another £7.45 VAT,
so that comes to ..... £50.15 [1] please" <ker-ching>

Then we'd see just what ordinary people thought of indirect taxation!

[1] yes, yes I know, old data - out of date costs.

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

In message
<5d46de90-9241-44c9-8159-fe30e9ef1759@w5g2000prd.************.com>, at
03:24:36 on Fri, 4 Apr 2008, david_r98@************ remarked:
>Part of the reason for reducing the so-called "fare" and bumping up
>the charges is to make it possible to advertise apparently very low
>fares. Another is to reduce the cost of award flights. I have
>planned several flights within Europe using my miles on KLM/Air
>France. For each projected journey, the cost of the "taxes and
>charges" associated with my "free" flight actually exceeded the total
>cost of taking an equivalent flight with Easyjet.

The checkin guy at EMA tried to "sell" me a Star Alliance membership
(via BMI-baby) earlier this week, but I was put off somewhat because the
"free" flights are only the 'fare' element, and you have to pay the tax
& charges.

BMI-baby (who I use a lot) give points in bands based on the coat of the
flight, but thankfully that's the cost *including* taxes (but probably
not, and they are ambiguous here) not the cost of speedy board, credit
card surcharge etc.

.... but now I remember I have a United card gathering dust somewhere, so
might as well flash it, I suppose.
--
Roland Perry

In message <65mi40F2g1cslU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:35:21 on Fri, 4
Apr 2008, Gerald Oliver Swift <goswift@************> remarked:
>> Even with all the add-ons £341.70 for 10500 miles is still a good fare,
>> where
>> else can you travel for 3.25p a mile these days.
>
>These days, any airline charging you more than 4p per mile flown is ripping
>you off.

There's takeoff and landing too. The shortest scheduled flight I've been
on is San Jose to San Francisco, which is about 30 miles across the bay.
Cost more than £1.20 I think!
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oAGb3teVVh9HFALQ@perry.co.uk...
> In message <65mi40F2g1cslU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:35:21 on Fri, 4 Apr
> 2008, Gerald Oliver Swift <goswift@************> remarked:
>>> Even with all the add-ons £341.70 for 10500 miles is still a good fare,
>>> where
>>> else can you travel for 3.25p a mile these days.
>>
>>These days, any airline charging you more than 4p per mile flown is
>>ripping
>>you off.
>
> There's takeoff and landing too. The shortest scheduled flight I've been
> on is San Jose to San Francisco, which is about 30 miles across the bay.
> Cost more than £1.20 I think!


And I think that Loganair charge more than 8 pence for WRY to PPW, even
though the route is subsidised. It is claimed to be the shortest flight
anywhere, but I still consider MLS to BSL to be the ultimate as you don't
even need to leave the airport.

==
JohnT

"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oAGb3teVVh9HFALQ@perry.co.uk...
> In message <65mi40F2g1cslU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:35:21 on Fri, 4 Apr
> 2008, Gerald Oliver Swift <goswift@************> remarked:
>>> Even with all the add-ons £341.70 for 10500 miles is still a good fare,
>>> where
>>> else can you travel for 3.25p a mile these days.
>>
>>These days, any airline charging you more than 4p per mile flown is
>>ripping
>>you off.
>
> There's takeoff and landing too. The shortest scheduled flight I've been
> on is San Jose to San Francisco, which is about 30 miles across the bay.
> Cost more than £1.20 I think!

The shortest scheduled flight I've been on lasted 11 minutes.
It was on a helicopter in the Faroe Islands, between Mykines and Vagar, 2
islands which are about 10 miles apart.
The flight (back in the early 90's) cost DKR 145.00 (ca. £14) - but was
worth every penny!

Gerry

In message <65oh6jF2hde49U1@mid.individual.net>, at 06:31:59 on Sat, 5
Apr 2008, Gerald Oliver Swift <goswift@************> remarked:
>The Monterey/Salinas shuttle bus from SJC to SFO takes 45 minutes and costs
>$15.
>Probably quicker, and certainly cheaper, then flying.

I had booked a through ticket to SFO which just happened to involve a
change of planes at SJC. It was all the travel agent's fault - back in
about 1992.
--
Roland Perry

In message <65nlvgF2evkv6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 22:46:43 on Fri, 4
Apr 2008, "tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@*****.co.uk> remarked:
>The "fee" that I find most annoying is the "airline failure insurance" that
>EZ and/or FR charge (or used to last time I booked).

Probably not EZ, because when I looked hard at my most recent trip with
them they didn't break out the various tax/fee charges at all.
--
Roland Perry

In message <65p4kjF2g15ouU1@mid.individual.net>, at 12:03:02 on Sat, 5
Apr 2008, "tim (not at home)" <tims_new_home@*****.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>The shortest scheduled flight I've been
>>>> on is San Jose to San Francisco, which is about 30 miles across the bay.
>>>
>>>No it isn't. SJC and SFO are on the same side of the bay.
>>
>> SJC is at the tip of the bay, and the flight was across water all the way
>> (apart from a very short stretch at takeoff).
>
>The runways at SFO stick out into the bay, so if you take off/land from that
>direction it impossible to reach the aiport without flying over the bay
>wherever you are flying to/from.

As you say, the SJC runway is basically N/S so you normally fly out over
the 'beach', then across the bay to the end of the SFO runway.

>But if the runways were orientated N-S (like SJC is) it would be easily
>possible to fly SJC to SFO without going over the water.

You could use the "inland" ends of both runways (regulations permitting)
and therefore not fly over any water, but that move the positions of the
airports.
--
Roland Perry

In message <11eM63W3O29HFAba@perry.co.uk>, at 12:34:15 on Sat, 5 Apr
2008, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>You could use the "inland" ends of both runways (regulations
>permitting) and therefore not fly over any water, but that

... doesn't ..

> move the positions of the airports.

--
Roland Perry