In Washington, DC, I have been working with the airlines and DOT to try and mandate price transparency that would provide consumers the ability to compare prices across airlines, including baggage and seat reservation fees. So far the airlines have stonewalled all efforts by consumers, corporate travelers, travel agencies and computer giants that provide price and amenity information to get access to dynamic baggage and seat reservation fee data, claiming they already provide all data passengers need.
Besides big lies that are harming consumers who want to compare prices, airlines consistently lie about the little things like calling fuel surcharges taxes and fees or, as on my latest United Airlines flight, calling an Economy Plus seat with “no” recline, a seat with “limited” recline.
Price transparency
In comments filed with the Department of Transportation (DOT), the airlines claim that their distribution network partners do not have the technology to deal with the complexities that the airlines have created. The airlines are, therefore, planning to organize their own system and exclude all other technology providers from competing with them.
This dissembling is disgraceful.
The “other technology providers” are players like Google, Sabre, Amadeus and Travelport that power almost all of the airline computer systems in the world. The airline excuse about insufficient technology is a self-serving fabrication.
Airlines are the actual technology lightweights and every other organization mentioned in the paragraph above could create and deploy systems that could help consumers to know the full price of their travel and compare prices across airlines if only the airlines would release their dynamic data in a real-time format.
The computer systems that allow price comparisons of “airfares + baggage fees + seat reservation fees” were demonstrated before a meeting of the Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protections (ACACP) as well as DOT last year. Yet, airlines continue to lie (there, I’ve said it). It is not the technology systems that cannot be developed. It is the data that cannot be obtained from the airlines.
Fuel surcharges
These are irritating extra charges that airlines use to avoid paying commissions to their distribution partners. I know that the airlines have some other convoluted explanations for breaking out the fuel surcharges, but the bottom line comes down to limiting their distribution costs and, when frequent flier tickets are involved, collecting more money for “taxes” even though fuel surcharges are not taxes.
A Harvard lawyer has filed a complaint with DOT about this practice. This comes from a 37-page document that has details of the airlines’ practices complete with recordings of airline telephone agents.
Ongoing Misrepresentations by American Airlines Telephone Representatives: Ordinary Paid Bookings
On June 26, 2012, I booked a ticket by telephone with an American Airlines telephone representative.(Itinerary: CDG‐BOS‐JFK‐SCL‐JFK‐BOS‐LHR‐CDG in business class.) After confirming the desired flights, discussion proceeded as follows:
Edelman: Could you review the fare and tax?
Agent: Certainly. OK, I’m showing that the fare in US dollars is $4828, and $708.20 taxes.
I have a digital recording of this call.1 Contrary to the agent’s statement, I believe the majority of the $708.20 consists of carrier‐imposed fees, not “taxes.” (I reach that conclusion by cross‐checking the itinerary with a near‐identical itinerary quoted via the ITA Matrix site, which itemizes applicable taxes and carrier‐imposed surcharges.) Note that this ticket includes only a single 216-mile segment on British Airways – countering any suggestion that AA’s mischaracterizing of carrier‐imposed surcharges is limited to travel wholly or substantially on BA.
Nor is this the first instance in which AA representatives have overstated the amount of “tax” on a paid booking. In April 2011, I contacted an AA telephone representative to book paid business class travel BOS‐LHR‐CPH‐LHR‐DEL‐MUM‐BAH‐LHR‐CPH‐LHR‐BOS‐ORD‐SEA. The agent orally quoted “tax” of $792.10. The e‐ticket confirmation and receipt was in accord, listing “tax” of that amount. … In fact, as best I can tell, the majority of this amount is carrier‐imposed surcharge, not any actual tax.
In Canada, airlines are facing lawsuits over this practice of indicating fuel surcharges are taxes when they are not.
United Airlines, the world’s largest passenger carrier in terms of miles flown, joined Air Canada, Lufthansa, Japan Airlines, Cathay Pacific, British Airways and Delta Airlines as defendant in British Columbia’s biggest class action lawsuit since the province passed the Class Proceedings Act about 18 years ago.
Representative plaintiff Derya Simsek, a waitress, alleges that about $350 the airline collected from her as tax on her ticket from Vancouver to Singapore turned out to be not a tax at all. North Vancouver lawyer James Poyner, who represents the plaintiff, says this was money the airline pocketed for its own use in contravention of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, one of the strongest consumer protection statutes in Canada. What’s surprising, says Poyner, is that United Airlines reportedly refrains from this practice in the US but takes its liberties with Canadian consumers.
Is there a difference between “limited recline” and “no recline”?
Finally, I come to my personal story about purchasing a $99 Economy Plus seat on United Airlines for a flight from Madrid to Newark. The seat was listed as “limited recline.” I have been on many exit row seats that only recline a couple of inches so as to not obstruct the emergency exit. I can deal with that; the legroom was the most important factor. However, on this flight UA63, the seat had “no recline.” I felt cheated. Furthermore, my legroom was restricted by some sort of electronic component box that meant I could not store my briefcase under the seat in front of me, nor fully extend my legs beneath the seat in front of me. Because of misrepresentation and deceptive practices, I was tricked into paying an extra $99 for a seat that had no recline.
I can already hear the airlines protest my request for reimbursement of my Economy Plus charge. They will claim that “limited” can also mean “none,” in which case, DOT should mandate that based on the airlines own logic, all non-stop flights should be marketed as limited-stop flights.
Why do the airlines insist on misrepresenting their products? Why can’t they simply tell the truth? Why can’t they tell us the prices we are going to pay and allow us to compare across airlines?
Charlie Leocha is the President of Travelers United. He has been working in Washington, DC, for the past 14 years with Congress, the Department of Transportation, and industry stakeholders on travel issues. He was the first consumer representative to the Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protections appointed by the Secretary of Transportation from 2012 through 2018.
