I dont know about economics degree but my maths degree is not yet under threat.
The numbers are from QF, not me. HANOI you may be right but no one will know and I doubled the numbers to represent a whole year and two sectors per person. Just estimates.
As for the surcharge it was introduced at $40/barrel so maybe you could do some guestimates at that rate margin.
As for staff travel a 737 uses about 30-50 kg for each extra tonne carried so you are looking at 3-5 kg of fuel TOTAL per traveller and even a maxed out 744 will use under 400kg per tonne carrried so thats less than 40kg for a staff traveller. No wonder they feel so ripped off. Engagement at work.
Also the average 744 flight is about 8-9 hrs over many years.
the short answer to this is the fuel surcharge I believe covers almost all the fuel cost, not the increase.
At the end of it though the fuel surcharge does not really represent a large amount of money or percentage of the ticket except on shorter flights. I think the anger felt by punters far out weighs the benefit of "transparency" and the world's airlines have made a big mistake and should just put standard fares up. I think the fuel surcharge represents incompetence on the managements behalf because it accentuates the negative which is surely one of the first lessons of marketing and advertising( sadly no degree held there but if QF managers are anything to go by it couldn't be too hard to get one) and discourages punters from flying at all and encourages qf staff to use virgin which many do.