[Anonymous]

[openfly]

In today’s full year figures announced this morning, they state that fuel costs were down 7.8% in the last year. How about a 7.8% reduction in the fuel surcharge??!

[BA744fan]

Expect that fuel cost reduction to be considerably greater in 12 months time as BA hedge so far in advance and should be taking advantage of the current low market prices.

As far as passing on the benefit to the passengers, hell will freeze over before we see a penny of it.

[openfly]

BA744fan……so true, so absolutely true!

[Chutzpahflyer]

And now that jet fuel is down almost 50% on a 12 month comparison…??? Isn’t it time there was a formal call for all airlines to cut their fuel surcharge, on the grounds of legality and candour in advertising, if nothing else?

[LuganoPirate]

In reply Chutzpahflyer, I refer to the last line of BA747fan’s comment above 😉

[FDOS_UK]

BA has not charged a fuel supplement for a number of years, so their ‘carrier imposed charge’ aka YQ will not be coming down, as it has nothing to do with fuel.

If VintageKrug still posted on here, he would be very cwoss to see people writing such nonsense.

[openfly]

LP In March 2014 the Chancellor announced that he was going to ” demand that UK airlines must review their fuel surcharges and reduce them in accordance with the much-reduced crude oil costs”.
What did our Chancellor do? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
I wrote to my excellent MP. He questioned Osborne face to face. He has obviously no intention of taking any action on the fuel surcharge. Willie Walsh has told him to wind his neck in!

FDOS….the fare construction on BA flights mentions “fuel surcharge”. In a recent email from Keith Williams he referred to this charge. It is most certainly still out there!!

[Chutzpahflyer]

FDOS-UK
from the BA website explanation of fare structure:
“British Airways may impose a fuel surcharge as part of the total price of the airline ticket, which you may see stated separately in certain displays during the booking process or on your final e-ticket receipt.*

Fuel surcharges are based on flight duration and also apply to children and infants.”

For “may charge” read “does charge”…

[FDOS_UK]

Guys

BA introduced a fuel surcharge in 2004, then in about 2013 (IIRC) was the defendant to a lawsuit in the USA, following which the name was changed to ‘carrier imposed charges.’

The company still reserves the right to charge a fuel supplement, but you have to check your e-ticket receipt to see the breakdown of charges to reveal what they have charged you for.

On my last BA ticket receipt, I was charged 116€ ‘Carrier Imposed Charge’, but no fuel surcharge.

So, as I wrote, if there is no fuel surcharge, you can’t get a refund when the oil price comes down – Krug would have understood this point 😉

[LuganoPirate]

“Carrier Imposed Charge”. Nice one. I wonder if I could get away with a “Consultants Imposed Charge” on top of my fee???

[MartynSinclair]

How can BA still charge a” fuel surcharge”?

http://news.sky.com/story/1622220/brent-crude-price-crashes-below-30-a-barrel

Even the finance department at BA can not get forward pricing so wrong.

[LuganoPirate]

Yes they can Martyn!

[SimonS1]

Easily. Remember this time last year oil prices were increasing steadily again after the fall in late 2014 and I don’t think anyone (even the analysts) were expecting current prices.

Plus I believe aviation fuel is a bit less volatile price wise and the fall in crude prices does not automatically reflect in Avgas prices to the same degree.

Still I agree though, prices should be coming down, just as the utility companies seem very reluctant to bring down energy prices despite the drop in commodity prices.

[AnthonyDunn]

SimonS1

Just as the fact that a lower petrol price does not automatically translate to diesel prices falling, so I daresay you are right about aviation fuel/JetA1. Interestingly, on BBC TV’s “Newsnight” programme on Wednesday 13Jan16, a range of oil industry commentators pointed out that the USD 100+/barrel for Brent was an historical aberration. With Iran now on tap (so to speak) and Saudi Arabia pursuing a very aggressive oil price strategy to nobble the US shale oil/gas industry, the runes are for the price to continue to head south and be soft for a while to come. The final nail in the coffin for the USD100+/barrel price has been China where, as the FT describes it “With a debt load bigger than the US or Germany, an economy overly dependent on credit-fuelled property development and capital flight accelerating, what will China’s mandarins do next to avoid what many believe is a gathering economic crisis?”

In the modern global economy, everything is interlinked.

One other point, in this last week’s “Economist” dated 09Jan16, there is a briefing on Saudi Arabia and an article on the potential sell off of some of Aramco, the largest company in the world. The latter partly owing to the Saudis needing to raise some cash as they are fast depleting their own forex reserves pile. There is an interesting chart (p19) which shows that at USD37/barrel for Brent (at 06Jan16), only Iran, Iraq, Saudi and Kuwait’s costs of production are south of this. Even Qatar (…!) has a break-even point of USD40/barrel whilst Britain’s is USD60 and the US is around the $65/barrel point.

Back to the OP, has anyone ever asked BA just what a “carrier imposed charge” actually is? Bearing in mind that it has been in place for so long now, is it not long overdue that BA simply incorporated it into the ticket price and was done with the fiction?

[Author]

Posts