DECEPTIVE AIRLINE PRICING is coming

[nuke]

I equate fuel surcharges, labor charges, luggage charges and seat assignment charges to Mcdonald's advertising that cheeseburger for $1 and then adding an extra quarter for the bun, 15 cents for the cheese and 5 cents for the ketchup.
What's next? A $25 charge for a seat belt?

Those things should be added into the price of the fare and the only thing that should be added on to a ticket is government imposed taxes and fees which are already ridiculous.

 

[bicker]

While you might be able to make a claim with regard to fuel surcharges and labor surcharges, you cannot make that argument fly with regard to seat assignment changes. You don't have to change your seats.

McDonald's actually does charge extra for cheese -- they call it a cheeseburger but it is nothing more than a hamburger with cheese.

 

[Pedler]

McDonald's actually does charge extra for cheese -- they call it a cheeseburger but it is nothing more than a hamburger with cheese.

OK. I want a new posting rule. No mentioning McDonalds cheesburgers during lunch time. Those things are addictive.

 

[chipscinderelly]

This thread is amusing and educational!

I'm not for paying more, I'm for the airlines managing their own companies better.

I'm also curious why no one has asked Tigger_Magic which airline or lobbyist organization they (not sure he/she) work for ... sure are fighting hard on a message board for this thread.

 

[bicker]

I think you don't really understand the limitations and obligations that the airlines have, that prevent them from being both profitable and low-priced.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I'm also curious why no one has asked Tigger_Magic which airline or lobbyist organization they (not sure he/she) work for ... sure are fighting hard on a message board for this thread.

You don't know me very well. Take a pinch of boredom, add a pound or two of playing the devil's advocate, mix in a dash or two of passion, and throw in a tablespoon of contumaciousness -- that's one possible explanation.

Another might be that I simply don't buy into the "Chicken Little" mindset that pervades this particular board and honestly do not believe this will significantly alter airline ticket advertising or purchasing. I am a definite believer in LESS gov't. regulation of any industry.

You choose what you want to believe. (BTW, I wish I worked for the airline industry so I could fly cheaper or for a lobby org so I'd make more $$. )

 

[chipscinderelly]

(BTW, I wish I worked for the airline industry so I could fly cheaper or for a lobby org so I'd make more $$. )

Me too (meaning I'd like to fly cheaper or make more $$)

 

[Pedler]

I think you don't really understand the limitations and obligations that the airlines have, that prevent them from being both profitable and low-priced.

I am not sure I understand your statement. Do you mean legacy airlines or all airlines? Southwest has been around for quite some time, is low cost, and is profitable.

 

[bicker]

Southwest hasn't been around long enough for the seniority system to have it impact yet. For much of its early history it had very advantageous contracts with its employees. That changed. They're now accruing obligations that will eventually put them in a similar (though I'll admit, not the same) situation as the legacy carriers.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

SW also managed for some time to acquire fuel purchase contracts at advantageous prices for them. Those have started to expire and they are now facing the same high prices legacy carriers face. They've already announced some price increases to adjust for the extra cost of fuel, because now they are paying prices similar to everyone else. Now that this field is getting leveled, it will be interesting to see what happens next.

 

[salmoneous]

Another might be that I simply don't buy into the "Chicken Little" mindset that pervades this particular board)

Just want to point out that the only "chicken little" attitude I see if from the folks who claimed the legacy carriers will go under if not allowed to engage in deceptive advertising.

The rest of us are just saying that advertising a price that has no relationship to the price actually charged for a ticket *is* deceptive. Period. Now you can argue that it isn't fraud if you tell people the correct price before charging them. And you can argue that the government should allow companies to engage in deceptive practices. But there is no reasonable definition of "deceptive" that would not encompass advertising one price for a ticket, when the actual price to the airline is something different.

 

[bicker]

Just want to point out that the only "chicken little" attitude I see if from the folks who claimed the legacy carriers will go under if not allowed to engage in deceptive advertising.

That would reflect your perspective on this issue. Please understand that for the folks who disagree with you, it is your perspect that looks like that. In the end, reasonable people disagree on this issue -- there is no "Chicken Little" mindset on either side, so let's stop with the name-calling, okay?

 

[salmoneous]

That would reflect your perspective on this issue. Please understand that for the folks who disagree with you, it is your perspect that looks like that. In the end, reasonable people disagree on this issue -- there is no "Chicken Little" mindset on either side, so let's stop with the name-calling, okay?

Didn't mean to offend. How about this - I believe that the only people who have expressed an opinion that there would be serious negative consequences are the folks saying that not allowing the rules will help cause the legacy carriers to fail. Those folks who think it deceptive aren't saying there will be serious negative consequences, just that such deceptive practices are wrong.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Just want to point out that the only "chicken little" attitude I see if from the folks who claimed the legacy carriers will go under if not allowed to engage in deceptive advertising.

The rest of us are just saying that advertising a price that has no relationship to the price actually charged for a ticket *is* deceptive. Period. Now you can argue that it isn't fraud if you tell people the correct price before charging them. And you can argue that the government should allow companies to engage in deceptive practices. But there is no reasonable definition of "deceptive" that would not encompass advertising one price for a ticket, when the actual price to the airline is something different.

Sure. Terms like "fraud", "deceptive pricing", "bait and switch", etc. without even a sliver of evidence to support them is certainly not practicing a "Chicken Little" attitude. Whatever you say.

If this is the case, then once again practically anything and everything that is advertised is done so "deceptively" according to your standards. Therefore, the gov't. should step in and regulate every business, industry and corner of commerce in America and ensure that all of us poor unsophisticated consumers are saved from the pernicious purloining of our purses.

BTW, airlines already advertise this way. I hope no one is naive enough to think that everyone on every flight paid the exact same advertised fare. I've been on flights where I paid as little as $18 + tax one way for the flight while others on the same flight paid a couple of hundred dollars (plus tax) for their seat.

Many cheap fares are advertised every day in print, TV, radio, email, pop-ups. The number of seats available at those fares is very limited. If I wanted to waste the time, I could link to threads on this very board where people complain about seeing a Ding fare or an email fare and tried to book it but couldn't. Why? Because the airline sold out of those fares BEFORE they booked. GASP! Deceptive advertising! Bait and switch! Horrors -- it's ALREADY happening and the rule change isn't even in effect yet!

No-- it's normal supply and demand at work in the airline industry just like in any other industry. Let's stop the hysteria and the misrepresentation. Unless you have some shred of evidence to support your contentions...

 

[Tigger_Magic]

That would reflect your perspective on this issue. Please understand that for the folks who disagree with you, it is your perspect that looks like that. In the end, reasonable people disagree on this issue -- there is no "Chicken Little" mindset on either side, so let's stop with the name-calling, okay?

Please don't blame salmoneous... I'm the one who coined that phrase on this thread about this thread and about this board in general at times. I stand by the characterization, not as name-calling, but as an accurate representation of what happens too often on this board. I'm sure some people won't like it, but then those are probably people who haven't read my tag.

 

[bicker]

Didn't mean to offend.

And you didn't. As pointed out, the loaded language started very early in this thread, and has IMHO fostered an environment counter-productive to discussing the issue.

How about this - I believe that the only people who have expressed an opinion that there would be serious negative consequences are the folks saying that not allowing the rules will help cause the legacy carriers to fail. Those folks who think it deceptive aren't saying there will be serious negative consequences, just that such deceptive practices are wrong.

And both sides disagree with each other on both issues. So saying so begs the question: What's the point?

 

[goofy4tink]

All I ask is to be able to compare airfares before I hit 'purchase'...not a big thing to ask for. To date, that hasn't been an issue. I usually check and then double check to see which airline 'looks' like it's giving me the cheapest rate. If I get to that ole 'purchase' point and they have added on all those 'fees' and the fare isn't comparable anymore, then I don't buy it. I have been subject to those terrific airfares also...got to the purchase point, and lo and behold, there aren't any of those fares left. But, there are plenty at double the rate!!!
I don't think the airlines are hiding anything...just making you work for the info. Sometimes I wish we still had the debate board.....there certainly are a ton of people who just love the debate. I get too involved in debates, so now try to stay away.

 

[bicker]

I don't think you have anything to worry about there, goofy4tink.

 

[Pedler]

If this is the case, then once again practically anything and everything that is advertised is done so "deceptively" according to your standards. Therefore, the gov't. should step in and regulate every business, industry and corner of commerce in America and ensure that all of us poor unsophisticated consumers are saved from the pernicious purloining of our purses.

Actually there are already laws that do control deceptive advertising. Surely you don't meant that business's should be able to advertise whatever price they want regardless if the consumer can actually purchase the good or service at that price? How does that type of miss information serve a free marketplace?

Many cheap fares are advertised every day in print, TV, radio, email, pop-ups. The number of seats available at those fares is very limited. If I wanted to waste the time, I could link to threads on this very board where people complain about seeing a Ding fare or an email fare and tried to book it but couldn't. Why? Because the airline sold out of those fares BEFORE they booked. GASP! Deceptive advertising! Bait and switch! Horrors -- it's ALREADY happening and the rule change isn't even in effect yet!

True not everyone will be able to book a seat at the advertised fare but the point is that some people did. It was possible to book a seat at that fare if you were quick enough to get it.

I know that from your previous statements and the tag that you like to stir things up so I guess I will ask the following questions and be done with responding to your posts. Do you honestly believe that having businesses advertise any price they want regardless if a consumer can purchase something at that price serves the free market or are you just being contrarian to amuse yourself? If you do think that businesses should be able to advertise any price they want regardless if anyone can purchase at that price please let me know, in economic terms, how that better serves a free market economy when compared to providing consumers accurate information?

Thanks in advace for your reply.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Actually there are already laws that do control deceptive advertising. Surely you don't meant that business's should be able to advertise whatever price they want regardless if the consumer can actually purchase the good or service at that price? How does that type of miss information serve a free marketplace?

My point is that I do not believe that this is or will be deceptive advertising. There has been no evidence presented on this thread that it is or would be. Therefore, I consider the accusation of "deceptive advertising" to be fallacious.

True not everyone will be able to book a seat at the advertised fare but the point is that some people did. It was possible to book a seat at that fare if you were quick enough to get it.

I know that from your previous statements and the tag that you like to stir things up so I guess I will ask the following questions and be done with responding to your posts.

Believe what you wish, but it begs the question of why you ask the questions in the first place.

Do you honestly believe that having businesses advertise any price they want regardless if a consumer can purchase something at that price serves the free market or are you just being contrarian to amuse yourself?

I believe that if a business has only 1 unit to sell at a stated price, they are within their rights to advertise that unit at that stated price. Example: an airline ticket at $39 one way. They may have only 1 seat to sell at $39, but they have every right to advertise that seat in order to sell it. Maybe you would disagree but I see that as an unconstitutional hindrance of commerce.

If you do think that businesses should be able to advertise any price they want regardless if anyone can purchase at that price please let me know, in economic terms, how that better serves a free market economy when compared to providing consumers accurate information?

It serves the free market economy by allowing the business to sell the goods and/or services it has available at a price they wish to sell at. If they exercise good judgment and planning, they should be able to make a profit and continue in business. The general public benefits because some good and/or service was available at that price and someone made that purchase. Supply and demand have worked themselves out just as they always do. Capitalism rules!