|
Air Canada imposes new fuel surcharge on Canada flights (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yohan
West Jet has also added this fuel surplus charge, from 25 to 40 dollars pending on flight. |
still cheaper than air canada 40-120 dollars.
However, i just saw a flight to palm beach out of buffalo for 132 taxes inc. Same flight is $434 from toronto. I think its obvious who gets my business :) |
|
|
| failsafe |
| Jayx: The Air Canada surcharge is only $60/leg on the long haul flights. You of course realized that westjet doesn't do any flying that's even remotely long haul, and just piped up to hear the sound of your own voice? The short range stuff at Air Canada, and the short range stuff at WJ now both have very similar fees. Apparently all of the major American carriers already have the surcharge. |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by failsafe
Jayx: The Air Canada surcharge is only $60/leg on the long haul flights. You of course realized that westjet doesn't do any flying that's even remotely long haul, and just piped up to hear the sound of your own voice? The short range stuff at Air Canada, and the short range stuff at WJ now both have very similar fees. Apparently all of the major American carriers already have the surcharge. |
Westjet added a fuel surcharge to their flights today. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
This is something we are going to see in any business that involves travel.
Our company is even considering a flat fee fuel surcharge on all claims we handle....this is over and above what we charge for mileage. |
|
|
| She_Fitz |
Porter appears to have added one as well.
I have been pricing a one way flight from NYC to Toronto for September 2 and it has just gone up $30 over last week.
I do think $40 for one way to NYC is a little steep on the part of AC. I don't understand how an hour flight is considered medium haul.
It pretty much sucks..
I am very happy that I booked all my summer travel 2 weeks ago. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Honestly, the idea of a "fuel surcharge" is not cool. Fuel is an operating expense like electricity or licensing fees or taxes or rent. It goes up and down, sometimes by a lot. This isn't new.
Please don't misunderstand: I'm perfectly fine with companies wanting to raise their rates as the cost of doing business increases. It costs more to produce your product or run your service, therefore you need to charge more for it. There's nothing wrong with that, and of course it's up to the customers to decide if the new valuation is an accurate reflection of the true value.
But even if it's the exact same amount of money, it's very bad form to charge expenses directly to your clients if that's not the agreement you originally made. I'm paying you for goods and services received; I don't give a flying what it's costing you to run the business, I'm only interested in whether or not you have something I want and can provide it to me at a price that I consider to be reasonable.
What makes the idea of a "fuel surcharge" particularly obnoxious is that most of us have already been affected directly by rising petroleum costs. Now it's as if I'm getting reamed twice, having to pay for my own fuel AND everyone else's. It's a lot more of an insult than just raising the price, and there will be a backlash for those who don't understand that.
Remember how irritating it was when they started adding like "debt retirement charges" to your hydro bill? Now imagine this happening when you have the option to take your business elsewhere or simply abstain. |
|
|
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Honestly, the idea of a "fuel surcharge" is not cool. Fuel is an operating expense like electricity or licensing fees or taxes or rent. It goes up and down, sometimes by a lot. This isn't new. |
Surcharges and fees allows them to still advertise low fares. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Surcharges and fees allows them to still advertise low fares. |
That was kind of my point... don't try to put one over on me, it's insulting, just admit that you're not generating enough revenue and have to start charging more. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by failsafe
Jayx: The Air Canada surcharge is only $60/leg on the long haul flights. You of course realized that westjet doesn't do any flying that's even remotely long haul, and just piped up to hear the sound of your own voice? The short range stuff at Air Canada, and the short range stuff at WJ now both have very similar fees. Apparently all of the major American carriers already have the surcharge. |
Well the 132 total for round trip must include the surcharge. Its already booked. Cant wait!! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Honestly, the idea of a "fuel surcharge" is not cool. Fuel is an operating expense like electricity or licensing fees or taxes or rent. It goes up and down, sometimes by a lot. This isn't new.
Please don't misunderstand: I'm perfectly fine with companies wanting to raise their rates as the cost of doing business increases. It costs more to produce your product or run your service, therefore you need to charge more for it. There's nothing wrong with that, and of course it's up to the customers to decide if the new valuation is an accurate reflection of the true value.
But even if it's the exact same amount of money, it's very bad form to charge expenses directly to your clients if that's not the agreement you originally made. I'm paying you for goods and services received; I don't give a flying what it's costing you to run the business, I'm only interested in whether or not you have something I want and can provide it to me at a price that I consider to be reasonable.
What makes the idea of a "fuel surcharge" particularly obnoxious is that most of us have already been affected directly by rising petroleum costs. Now it's as if I'm getting reamed twice, having to pay for my own fuel AND everyone else's. It's a lot more of an insult than just raising the price, and there will be a backlash for those who don't understand that.
Remember how irritating it was when they started adding like "debt retirement charges" to your hydro bill? Now imagine this happening when you have the option to take your business elsewhere or simply abstain. |
100% correct!!
But no matter what the "failsafes" of the world say. I know my options and i know value and i will continue to take my business to those who can provide value for my money. This is something that a lot of businesses in canada, whether it be airlines or other service, dont seem to understand.
I guess this understanding is what has made the US such a success for entrepreneurs. That and cooperation from their government with lower taxes and incentives to hire workers. Here we tax tax tax, and then tax some more. But thats another jerry springer show! |
|
|
| TO guy |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Honestly, the idea of a "fuel surcharge" is not cool. Fuel is an operating expense like electricity or licensing fees or taxes or rent. It goes up and down, sometimes by a lot. This isn't new.
Please don't misunderstand: I'm perfectly fine with companies wanting to raise their rates as the cost of doing business increases. It costs more to produce your product or run your service, therefore you need to charge more for it. There's nothing wrong with that, and of course it's up to the customers to decide if the new valuation is an accurate reflection of the true value.
But even if it's the exact same amount of money, it's very bad form to charge expenses directly to your clients if that's not the agreement you originally made. I'm paying you for goods and services received; I don't give a flying what it's costing you to run the business, I'm only interested in whether or not you have something I want and can provide it to me at a price that I consider to be reasonable.
|
Agreed. Its all marketing bull. Instead of raising fares, they add a charge, so they can still say the flight costs $99 bucks (or whatever). |
|
|
| failsafe |
Jayx: You should have a peak at how the US economy is doing now. What a great environment for citizens. While you're brushing up on the US economy, why don't you check in and see how it's airlines are doing. From top to bottom they're all hemorrhaging money, American is losing 3.3 million a day. I'm glad that represents value to you, but without the ability to sustain themselves they won't be around for too much longer.
I realize your ability to take constructive input hovers somewhere around 0, so enjoy your trip to Buffalo. While you're driving out just take pride in knowing you're always right, and how crazy it is that everyone else has no clue about anything. |
|
|
|
|
