FUEL SURCHARGES
Guest
Posts: n/a
It would be nice if the ACCC did ask questions but from personal dealings with them recently they are not worth a c**t full of cold water. They have no cojones.
Any reply you get is legal jargon, that sounds like its written by a legal professor, telling you why the Legislation they work under allows all sorts of shady practices and they can't do a thing about it.
Its legislation that needs to be changed to give them some teeth. And thats little Johnny's role.
Don't hold your breath.
Any reply you get is legal jargon, that sounds like its written by a legal professor, telling you why the Legislation they work under allows all sorts of shady practices and they can't do a thing about it.
Its legislation that needs to be changed to give them some teeth. And thats little Johnny's role.
Don't hold your breath.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you may find it's the other way around.
Domestic subsidizing the overseas operations.
Maybe some 747 and 737 driver may wish to supply there fuel burns for
say a Sydney to Melbourne and a Sydney to LA flight.
On the Dash 8's there flight average about an hour.
Let's say Qantas pay's about $1.00 lt. "Which they don't, its less"
Load factors are about 80%
Dash 100 burns about 1200 lbs an hour.. about 700 lts = $700.00
28 pax @ $29.00 = $812.00
Dash 300 burns about 1400 lbs an hour.. about 850 lts = $850.00
40 pax @ $29.00 = $1160.00
Dash 400 burns about 2000 lbs an hour.. about 1300 lts = $1300.00
57 pax @ $29.00 = $1653.00
So not only is the surcharge covering the fuel cost but making a profit.
l think you may find on a 747 to the States they are still short to the tune of 10's of thousands of dollars. 300 pax @ $100.00 old surcharge = $30.000
If someone has the burn figures to add for this flight. But l'm sure it's more than 30,000 lts.
You can do your own maths.
Domestic subsidizing the overseas operations.
Maybe some 747 and 737 driver may wish to supply there fuel burns for
say a Sydney to Melbourne and a Sydney to LA flight.
On the Dash 8's there flight average about an hour.
Let's say Qantas pay's about $1.00 lt. "Which they don't, its less"
Load factors are about 80%
Dash 100 burns about 1200 lbs an hour.. about 700 lts = $700.00
28 pax @ $29.00 = $812.00
Dash 300 burns about 1400 lbs an hour.. about 850 lts = $850.00
40 pax @ $29.00 = $1160.00
Dash 400 burns about 2000 lbs an hour.. about 1300 lts = $1300.00
57 pax @ $29.00 = $1653.00
So not only is the surcharge covering the fuel cost but making a profit.
l think you may find on a 747 to the States they are still short to the tune of 10's of thousands of dollars. 300 pax @ $100.00 old surcharge = $30.000
If someone has the burn figures to add for this flight. But l'm sure it's more than 30,000 lts.
You can do your own maths.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I despise the fact that staff also have a fuel surcharge on their tickets. My reason for this is, how many times has a crew increased their fuel load or burn for staff put on at the last minute? In my experience it is none, so therefore the staff are filling an empty seat and putting money in the coffers which otherwise would not have been there.
Also you can get around the fuel surcharge on staff tickets by not using QF. Many other airlines don't have a fuel surcharge on staff travel. Use Air NZ, TG, EK the list goes on.
Also you can get around the fuel surcharge on staff tickets by not using QF. Many other airlines don't have a fuel surcharge on staff travel. Use Air NZ, TG, EK the list goes on.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rammel,
Well, adding an additional 100kg of weight (a staffie+bag) at the last minute will result in slightly higher fuel burn for the sector. But only very slight - it's worth about $4 of fuel on SYD-MEL or SYD-BNE. Definitely not $22.
Given we are talking STAND-BY travel, the seat was otherwise going to fly empty so all other costs in moving that empty seat from SYD to MEL are fixed or sunk. The stand-by staff member is not preventing the company earning commerical revenue on the seat. By charging staff an additional $22 when it really only costs the company $4 means the company is profiteering out of its staff to the tune of $18 in this example.
Not big biccies individually, but it adds up, doesn't it? Engagement.... right....
Well, adding an additional 100kg of weight (a staffie+bag) at the last minute will result in slightly higher fuel burn for the sector. But only very slight - it's worth about $4 of fuel on SYD-MEL or SYD-BNE. Definitely not $22.
Given we are talking STAND-BY travel, the seat was otherwise going to fly empty so all other costs in moving that empty seat from SYD to MEL are fixed or sunk. The stand-by staff member is not preventing the company earning commerical revenue on the seat. By charging staff an additional $22 when it really only costs the company $4 means the company is profiteering out of its staff to the tune of $18 in this example.
Not big biccies individually, but it adds up, doesn't it? Engagement.... right....
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Otautahi (awright, NZCH)
Age: 74
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air NZ came to grief in the NZ courts recently in a Commerce Commission (I think) prosecution tied up with the "fuel surcharge". The arguement wasn't so much around a surcharge but around the way in which it was advertised under NZ's comsumer protection laws. Air NZ was fined a substantial amount (high 6 figures). I understand there are other cases of a similar vein sub judice.
Not strictly to the topic under discussion, but closely aligned. One of the arguments put forward was that an increase in a product which is a component part of the product/service being sold is a 'cost of doing business' and should be included in the overall cost, not shown separately.
"Batteries not included"?
Not strictly to the topic under discussion, but closely aligned. One of the arguments put forward was that an increase in a product which is a component part of the product/service being sold is a 'cost of doing business' and should be included in the overall cost, not shown separately.
"Batteries not included"?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop your bloody whinging....
QF need to have a bit of extra money in the Kitty, because if their future oil assessments are a tad low, or someone slips on a bar of soap in the middle east creating panic and driving the oil prices higher, or god a forbid, a major war, then QF will rapidly become unfeasable, ops will scale back and good bye jobs.
Hows those jobs in India and China looking now boys and girls?
4S
QF need to have a bit of extra money in the Kitty, because if their future oil assessments are a tad low, or someone slips on a bar of soap in the middle east creating panic and driving the oil prices higher, or god a forbid, a major war, then QF will rapidly become unfeasable, ops will scale back and good bye jobs.
Hows those jobs in India and China looking now boys and girls?
4S
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SYD
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Old 'Un
Air NZ came to grief in the NZ courts recently in a Commerce Commission (I think) prosecution tied up with the "fuel surcharge". The arguement wasn't so much around a surcharge but around the way in which it was advertised under NZ's comsumer protection laws. Air NZ was fined a substantial amount (high 6 figures). I understand there are other cases of a similar vein sub judice.
Not strictly to the topic under discussion, but closely aligned. One of the arguments put forward was that an increase in a product which is a component part of the product/service being sold is a 'cost of doing business' and should be included in the overall cost, not shown separately.
"Batteries not included"?
Not strictly to the topic under discussion, but closely aligned. One of the arguments put forward was that an increase in a product which is a component part of the product/service being sold is a 'cost of doing business' and should be included in the overall cost, not shown separately.
"Batteries not included"?
1) Car Dealers - "Plus onroad costs"
2) TV Infomercial Junk - "Plus postage and handling"
Part of the problem with including all taxes and surcharges is that the taxes are levied by foreign governments or airports in foreign currencies and thus the cost changes daily. Also, different routings and stopover choices attract different taxes. One way is to calculate the max possible taxes on a given journey and charge everyone this amount. But then the same people would complain about this - so you can't have it both ways.
Having said that: The fuel surcharge has got to be absorbed into airfares sometime. I agreed with the surcharge when it first came in as it was supposed to be a temporary measure that could be easily rescinded when the price came back. Doesn't look like this is happening anytime soon though. But in a lot of countries the fuel surcharge has to be approved by the government. So it seems maybe the governments concerned should just start saying no!
Rammel: Air NZ definitely charge a fuel surcharge on "free" travel on tickets issued in New Zealand. Maybe AUS is different? Or maybe it's just us they charge!
The airline I work for don't charge it on our own staff travel (thank god), but since NZ charge us we charge them right back! 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A DHC8-300 uses 1150 lts to go SY-CB-SY. With the regular 40-50 pax each way the fuel surcharge is paying for more than the fuel.
I would guess Qantas made more profit on the SY-CB run last year than the amazing profit Geoffstar made for the year!!
I would guess Qantas made more profit on the SY-CB run last year than the amazing profit Geoffstar made for the year!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to Phuket next month and my journey is MEL-BKK-HKT. On TG it is ecy and is $150 one way including taxes and charges and it is one stop, there before lunch time. To do the same on QF ecy cost about $270 one way including taxes and charges. This was MEL-SYD-BKK (overnight expenses in BKK not included, as it arrives too late for a connex) then HKT. Aside from the inconvienence of going via SYD and overnighting, financially why should I choose the airline that I work for? Considering most of the difference is made up of fuel surcharges.
