SAA declines to refund taxes and surcharges

[Deanw]

From The Star:


SAA declines to refund taxes and surcharges

July 11, 2005

By Lyse Comins

South African Airways is quietly holding on to airport taxes that travel industry professionals say rightly should be refunded to customers holding unused or cancelled air tickets.

SAA customer Dave Torry, of Hillcrest, Durban, said SAA had declined to refund the airport tax and fuel surcharge he had paid to the airline in duplicate after he missed his flight and had to book a second ticket.

Torry said that when he booked a recent trip to Spain on SAA's website www.flysaa he was unaware that the two R788 domestic tickets he had purchased were the airline's non-refundable, non-transferable class tickets.

It was only at the tail end of his journey, when he missed his flight from Johannesburg to Durban and was billed twice for airport tax and fuel surcharge, that he realised the overpayment. His international flight with Iberia Airways had been delayed by four hours.

SAA put him on the next available flight, charging the full fare of R1 157, including R278 for airport taxes and a fuel surcharge. This was despite the fact that he had paid airport tax and a fuel surcharge on the original ticket.

Airport taxes and fuel surcharges are fees charged separately from airfares, and are levied on passengers and paid to the Airports Company of SA by airlines by way of passenger fees and charges for parking and landing facilities at airports.

Torry felt it would have been fair if the airline had billed only for the difference in ticket class. However, SAA had sold him the next most expensive ticket.

When Torry complained to SAA, he was told that it was written in the small print in the terms and conditions on the website that the ticket he had purchased was not refundable. However, Torry said reference to this warning did not appear clearly anywhere on the pages he accessed during the booking.

SAA spokesperson Sara Uys and general manager of communications and customer service Onkgopotse Tabane did not respond to questions as to why the airline had refused to refund the tax overpayment.

Flight Centre's public relations manager, Amanda Hardy, said it did not seem fair that the customer had to be stung twice with tax charges.

[SebasW]

SAA spokesperson Sara Uys and general manager of communications and customer service Onkgopotse Tabane did not respond to questions as to why the airline had refused to refund the tax overpayment.

Typical!!!

[praenoscere]

You cannot expect a third world airliner to act like a first world one - is it not one of their PDI air hostesses who recently appeared in court for theft? No outcry from the bosses about this - could perhaps be construed as tacit approval for affirmative shopping!In any event I only flysaa as a last resort!

[kq777]

You cannot expect a third world airliner to act like a first world one - is it not one of their PDI air hostesses who recently appeared in court for theft? No outcry from the bosses about this - could perhaps be construed as tacit approval for affirmative shopping!In any event I only flysaa as a last resort!

chill out with the off-topic rant.

Back to topic. This bloke got sprung by the fineprint, why is SAA's fault ?

Does SA have a consumer affairs court/tribunal to handle such disputes?

[SebasW]

This bloke got sprung by the fineprint, why is SAA's fault ?

Fair enough. But you would expect a company to provide a well informed service to consumers and not try to catch them out with fine print to make an extra buck.

That said, I truly think that SAA have a great future if it is run correctly because as for a trademark in SA, you can't get a better one than "South African"!

It may be fair in a sense that they charged him for the second flight, he did afterall miss his first one, but SAA only pay the taxes if the pax are on the flight, so why should he pay it if he's not there? SAA then makes money twice but only pays once?!?

Above all else they could at least not charge pax tax the second time as a show of good faith to their clients.

[BAKELA]

Does SA have a consumer affairs court/tribunal to handle such disputesNope it seems. Nor do they have qualified bean counters, proper planners, etc etc etc. Seems like the only guys/girls they have doing something tangible for SAA are in the cockpit (Go SAAPA). May standards rule. chill out with the off-topic rant This is not off-topic as the tallest trees gets the most wind. Why all the hype (again?) about an operatoing profit and a bottom line (balance sheet) profit? Before Airbus makes the decision about cancelled orders? BS! Why the hype about sueing Viljoen when SAA's financial figures are about to be made public? To distract from the real loss to the public (taxpayer) again? SAA should get real, get the people that can do the job and start playing on a level playing field. As a taxpayer the above was said as a shareholder in SAA was it not? Or do you have to be a paid up party member (choice is yours) to be part of the shareholding? Just asking. :confused:

[praenoscere]

[ chill out with the off-topic rant]

Get real for a change - the SAA general attitude is we are right you are wrong.Yes ,the small print may cover SAA's arse , but it is morally corrupt to charge twice for one service.

As long as they have the monopoly , this type of corrupt misbehaving will flourish.

[PAXboy]

You cannot expect a third world airliner to act like a first world one Actually ... they ARE behaving like first world airlines!

In Europe, people like Ryan and (I think also) Easy say they WILL refund the taxes on sectors that were not travelled, even if the fare is forfeit. THEN they have small print that says an 'administrative' fee will be charged for this. Guess how much the administrative fee is for? Did you say that it is less than the combined taxes??? I think that some main line carriers play this game too and it has been discussed many times in the PAX & SLF forum.

If SAA simply get their small print sorted out then they will not have any trouble.

Always good to know that the mother country can still teach you bright young things a trick or two. :}

[praenoscere]

Are you getting paid for this?

[TAVLA]

From Kulula's website:

"No Refunds
_
No turning back - once your booking is confirmed, no refunds. (sorree)"
_

From 1Time's website:

"6. REFUNDS
6.1. After confirmation of a reservation, no refunds will be granted under any circumstances, apart from the following.
_____- If a flight is cancelled by 1time.
_____- If 1time is unable to honour the passengers reservation resulting in the passenger being denied boarding."

"6.3 Refunds are not permitted where a passenger failed to check-in within the allocated time (between 2 hours and 30 minutes before departure time). This constitutes a No-show."

Nationwide and Comair have various provisors regarding refunds on various fares. In general if its a cheap fare - NO REFUND.

[contraxdog]

If they dont give a rebate on a replacement ticket for the taxes and surcharge's it constitutes unlawful taxation. They are acting as an agent for the collection, wich means they have to pay it over to SARS. If not, it constitutes frudulent representation, of a South African Revenue Service. That will stand in court.

Trevor, check their deposit slips!

[Deskjocky]

As long as they have the monopoly , this type of corrupt misbehaving will flourish.

Im sure everyone at SAA would like to say they have monopoly!!!

As for Mr Viljoen, there is a piece of legiaslation in our lovely land called the PFMA- this governs how civil servants spend our tax money. If it can be proved that you misused the cash then you are liable to pay it back!

[PAXboy]

praenoscere You made a perjorative comment after my last post and I could not discern if you were aiming it at me and, if so, what you meant by it?

I made a factual statement about UK carriers, to reflect on how ZA carriers might behave.

[B Sousa]

Just a comment, not necesarily about SAA but the entire industry. If one is to buy a cheap ticket, one should read the very small writing hidden somewhere. Maybe even going through the entire Website if necessary to get ALL the rules. Cheap tickets are so very restrictive that if you dont make all your connections, sometimes they are void NO MATTER whos fault as to your missed connections. Bottom line is no free rides. You want to travel without that worry, two things come to mind. Some kind of Insurance, again reading ALL their rules and or full fare tickets, refundable anytime.
I have been bitten a couple times by cheap tickets, thankfully someone at the respective airline saw fit to get me where I was going with a minimum amount of problems. Thats about all we can hope for.
Standby is another story. It used to be OK to travel like that. Dont depend on it today. I have not seen to many empty seats anywhere.