DECEPTIVE AIRLINE PRICING is coming

[Tigger_Magic]

You guys have a much higher threshold for deception that I do.

For those that think this isn't decpetive advertising, is there *anything* you would find to be decpetive advertising? Can an airline - or anyone else for that matter - put whatever price they want in an ad and it's not deceptive so long as they till you the real price before charging your credit card?

As long as I am told the price that will appear on my cc BEFORE I click the "purchase" button, I am fine. I almost never believe the "advertised" fares any airline offers because from experience I know that they are either (a) very limited in number or (b) there will be extra taxes, fees, surcharges added on.

I haven't seen anyone complaining about McDonald's so-called $1 menu or Wendy's or KFC's so-called 99 cent burgers or sandwiches. None of those items is actually 99 cents or $1 -- they always add on the taxes, but they continue to advertise them as 99 cents or $1. Deceptive? Not really, because most people know things are added onto the price.

Same with the airlines. The advertised price is rarely the final price on any airline ticket.

 

[Lewisc]

Precisely. As long as the taxes and fees are presented before final purchase, there is no deception.

The purpose of the change is to hide the total fare, make it harder for consumers to know the true price and therefore make it harder for consumers to compare prices of airlines. It's not fraud but it certainly meets my definition of deceptive. The entire purpose is to promote a price which has nothing to do with the actual price paid and, unlike the rental car fees, the surcharges have nothing to do with government fees and will vary from carrier to carrier.

Tigger posted

I haven't seen anyone complaining about McDonald's so-called $1 menu or Wendy's or KFC's so-called 99 cent burgers or sandwiches. None of those items is actually 99 cents or $1 -- they always add on the taxes, but they continue to advertise them as 99 cents or $1. Deceptive? Not really, because most people know things are added onto the price

The difference sales tax is a government imposed fee;I'll pay the same sales tax rate at Wendy's or KFC or McDonalds. The proposed airline change will allow the airlines to hide airline controlled surcharges which will vary from carrier to carrier. It would be like McDonalds adding on a .25 fee to cover the labor cost of the value meal.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The proposed airline change will allow the airlines to hide airline controlled surcharges which will vary from carrier to carrier.

So? The final price of an airline ticket is rarely advertised today and this won't change that. Are you suggesting that the airlines can post one price, allow you to click "purchase" and then post a different, increased price to your credit card?

As long as the final price is shown before you click "purchase", I have no problem with how the airlines advertise their fares. As I said, I know that the fare I see in the ad is not the final price I will ever pay. At least it's been that way since deregulation.

 

[Lewisc]

So? The final price of an airline ticket is rarely advertised today and this won't change that. Are you suggesting that the airlines can post one price, allow you to click "purchase" and then post a different, increased price to your credit card?

As long as the final price is shown before you click "purchase", I have no problem with how the airlines advertise their fares. As I said, I know that the fare I see in the ad is not the final price I will ever pay. At least it's been that way since deregulation.

Right now the only surcharges to the advertised fare are the 9-11 security fee and some airport facility fees. Those surcharges are nominal and are the same from carrier to carrier.

That's a big difference than allowing an airline to show a $200 fare and after the consumer has comparison shopped and is ready to purchase say just kidding about the $200 fare and add on another $100 of fuel surcharges and labor surcharges.

I challenge anyone to give a legitimate reason for the proposed change. The entire purpose is to try to conceal the actual price of the flight. Most consumers will think these surcharges are the same from carrier to carrier, some will even think they are government regulated surcharges.

Sorry but the stated purpose is to deceive the consumer. I'll have to dig out the original NYTimes article and quote the pertinent sections.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Right now the only surcharges to the advertised fare are the 9-11 security fee and some airport facility fees. Those surcharges are nominal and are the same from carrier to carrier.

That's a big difference than allowing an airline to show a $200 fare and after the consumer has comparison shopped and is ready to purchase say just kidding about the $200 fare and add on another $100 of fuel surcharges and labor surcharges.

I challenge anyone to give a legitimate reason for the proposed change. The entire purpose is to try to conceal the actual price of the flight. Most consumers will think these surcharges are the same from carrier to carrier, some will even think they are government regulated surcharges.

Sorry but the stated purpose is to deceive the consumer. I'll have to dig out the original NYTimes article and quote the pertinent sections.

I applaud your efforts (as well as the NYT) in attempting to and create something deeply sinister out of nothing.

If there was real deception going on, it would happen after you click "purchase." But if the final price is displayed before you click "purchase", there's no deception. If that were the case, there would be precious little advertising left in America today.

Then again... maybe there's something to be said for this ...

 

[bicker]

So are you saying that the airlines should be allowed to advertise prices that are exclusive of all charges that don't go into their own pockets? I could agree to that change.

 

[Lewisc]

I'll repeat my question. Can you give me one reason for hiding the true price until a consumer tries to purchase the fare?

One of the purposes of my post is to give an advanced heads up. I'll repost if/when the change happens. The fact that posters in this thread compare this to the rental car companies shows how deceptive this change will be. Consumers will think the addons are the same from carrier to carrier and may even be government sanctioned surcharges.

I applaud your efforts (as well as the NYT) in attempting to and create something deeply sinister out of nothing.

If there was real deception going on, it would happen after you click "purchase." But if the final price is displayed before you click "purchase", there's no deception. If that were the case, there would be precious little advertising left in America today.

Then again... maybe there's something to be said for this ...

 

[Lewisc]

So are you saying that the airlines should be allowed to advertise prices that are exclusive of all charges that don't go into their own pockets? I could agree to that change.

I'm not saying that. Fuel charges don't go into the airlines pocket nor do labor charges. I certainly don't agree with airlines being allowed to surcharge the quoted fare for items like that.

Right now the quoted fare is inclusive of all charges except some taxes and airport fees that are applicable to all airlines.

Can you name any reason for allowing airlines to promote prices that will be surcharged in this matter?

 

[Pedler]

I agree that in general the advertising of prices by airlines is deceptive in that it is almost never the actual out of pocket price you have to pay. Having said that before we go and tar and feather the airline industry this is becoming more and more a standard practice in american business.

Cell phone contracts are another example. The monthly rate qouted in almost all advertising in general excludes govt fees / taxes and is nowhere near what you will actually pay.

Lets face it in todays business world companies will engage in marketing practices when advertising prices that dance on the edge of legality with the hope to gain an advantage. I may not like it but it is the way things are done.

 

[bicker]

I already did: Fairness.

 

[Lewisc]

I already did: Fairness.

we may be saying the same thing, your previous post said

The airlines should advertise what THEY get for airline tickets, and the government should be thereby held accountable for how much extra they tack on.

Do you think the rules should be changed so the airlines can tack on arbitrary fuel surcharges and labor surcharges to the promoted fare after the customer selected the fare but before the final purchase is made? I don't have a major problem with the rental car agencies that itemize all of the various fees they all pay to the various government agencies. Those charges are beyond the control of the companies and are the same from agency to agency.

Peddler--Other industries engage in some deceptive pricing. The point here is an industry want to change existing rules in favor of confusion and against the consumer.

 

[bicker]

If the fee is determined by the airline and goes into the airlines revenues, then yes, I'm okay with that being included in the fare. Taxes and fees paid to external entities should never have been part of the fare, and should only need to be revealed at the time of purchase.

 

[Pedler]

Peddler--Other industries engage in some deceptive pricing. The point here is an industry want to change existing rules in favor of confusion and against the consumer.

I would like it if they didn't do this but I guess I have just become a cynical consumer and generally assume that you have to go almost to the final checkout stage to get a for real price. Online merchants are notorius for not show shipping costs up until the very end of a transaction and many times the shipping costs can signifigantly alter the price.

On a side note one thing that does impress me about Disney is that when you go to thier web site to price out a vacation package the price displayed is pretty much the price you pay. When we first configured our vacation last year and choose the hotel and tickets and such I was fully expecting some sort of 10-20% additional charge for taxes/fees. It was a pleasant suprise that the price displayed was the price.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I'll repeat my question. Can you give me one reason for hiding the true price until a consumer tries to purchase the fare?

Hello -- it's called ADVERTISING! Companies do it all the time. When I bought my new Kia, I didn't arrive at the dealer thinking I was getting the car I wanted at the price shown on TV or in the newspaper ads. I knew there would be all sorts of charges tacked on and the final price would be revealed before I signed on the dotted line.

Same with airline pricing. They are going to advertise the lowest available fare to attract traffic. Some people are willing to pay extra; those that aren't are not out anything except a little time -- which they would have frittered away on some other Internet surfing. No harm, no foul.

One of the purposes of my post is to give an advanced heads up. I'll repost if/when the change happens. The fact that posters in this thread compare this to the rental car companies shows how deceptive this change will be. Consumers will think the addons are the same from carrier to carrier and may even be government sanctioned surcharges.

No the purpose of this post is to sound a deceptive alarm about something that is completely innocent. In short

 

[shafke]

I agree that in general the advertising of prices by airlines is deceptive in that it is almost never the actual out of pocket price you have to pay. Having said that before we go and tar and feather the airline industry this is becoming more and more a standard practice in american business.

Cell phone contracts are another example. The monthly rate qouted in almost all advertising in general excludes govt fees / taxes and is nowhere near what you will actually pay.

Lets face it in todays business world companies will engage in marketing practices when advertising prices that dance on the edge of legality with the hope to gain an advantage. I may not like it but it is the way things are done.

Actually, I think cell phone contracts are worse since, excluding taxes should be the same over all carriers, the fees are not disclosed and you do not find out how much the fees are until after you get your first monthly bill. At least with the airelines you will know the full cost sometime before you actually give them your CC number.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Actually, I think cell phone contracts are worse since, excluding taxes should be the same over all carriers, the fees are not disclosed and you do not find out how much the fees are until after you get your first monthly bill. At least with the airelines you will know the full cost sometime before you actually give them your CC number.

Exactly, which is why I don't believe there is any real deception going on. It would be deceptive if the airline didn't reveal the whole cost of the ticket until AFTER you clicked the "purchase" button and they processed the cc transaction.

It's just an issue of some not liking how advertising works.

 

[NotUrsula]

They are going to advertise the lowest available fare to attract traffic.

Which is fine as long as someone CAN actually purchase a fare for the advertised price, without spending anything more on anything other than universal gov't imposed taxes/security fees. (Since we accept the idea of before-tax price labeling in the US.) However, if *no one* can buy at the advertised price, then the advertising is deceptive.

I'm kind of amazed that people here are defending the proposed pricing structure by saying that it is no worse than what the phone companies do. What the ...? Just because another industry has been getting away with a particular pricing practice, does make that practice just fine and dandy. The phone companies need to have their ad practices reformed, too. (Which is why all of my communications accounts are pre-pays. No surprises.)

 

[Lewisc]

I must have done a poor job explaining the proposed change. I can't understand why anyone would think a company should be able to quote a price that bears no relationship to the final price paid.

In NY car dealers get in trouble if they're not prepared to sell a car for the advertised price (plus sales tax).

Which is fine as long as someone CAN actually purchase a fare for the advertised price, without spending anything more on anything other than universal gov't imposed taxes/security fees. (Since we accept the idea of before-tax price labeling in the US.) However, if *no one* can buy at the advertised price, then the advertising is deceptive.

I'm kind of amazed that people here are defending the proposed pricing structure by saying that it is no worse than what the phone companies do. What the ...? Just because another industry has been getting away with a particular pricing practice, does make that practice just fine and dandy. The phone companies need to have their ad practices reformed, too. (Which is why all of my communications accounts are pre-pays. No surprises.)

 

[NotUrsula]

Lewis, I think that you explained it nicely, and I agree that allowing airlines to advertise fares without including *mandatory* fees for things like labor, fuel, etc. amounts to deceptive advertising. If it isn't possible for anyone to get on the advertised flight without paying those add'l fees (or buying a required return fare as part of the same transaction), then the fees need to be included in the advertised minimum fare.

Accepting the idea that it is normal and acceptable for advertisements to leave out part of the minimum price is absurd. That is bait-and-switch advertising, and it is prohibited by fraud statutes in most states. Airlines have already been skating on really thin ice in this arena for a long time: witness the common practice of advertising a rock-bottom fare class but only making it available for one or two seats on each scheduled flight during the "sale" period. Courts have differed on whether it is OK to post an ad that fails to mention that the number of items for sale at that price is *severely* limited, but most of the cases on that point have concluded that such advertisements are deceptive unless the ad mentions the number. Cars, phone services, airfares, mink coats -- it doesn't matter what the product or service is; a deceptive ad is a deceptive ad.

 

[Pedler]

I'm kind of amazed that people here are defending the proposed pricing structure by saying that it is no worse than what the phone companies do. What the ...? Just because another industry has been getting away with a particular pricing practice, does make that practice just fine and dandy. The phone companies need to have their ad practices reformed, too. (Which is why all of my communications accounts are pre-pays. No surprises.)

I am not defending the proposed pricing change I have just grown to accept that companies will try to obscure pricing information to make it more difficult to comparision shop.