ANA to reinstate international passenger fuel surcharge

Profiteering...plain and simple. I would avaoid ANA if they continue with these unfair business practices.

Not that I'm a big fan of fuel surcharges, but unfair to whom? How is this different from any other passing on of increased costs to consumers? I just booked a rental car in Honolulu at a "locked-in low local rate" of $194 a week (vs. a typical rate of about $325), but that rate doesn't include $45 for a "rental vehicle surcharge" or $42 in "airport concession fees", not to mention $27 a day for bare minimum insurance. Most major resort hotels now add a slew of mysterious "resort usage fees", nearly every airline now charges for baggage (and a laundry list of other items), and banks and credit card companies make most of their money from predatory fees that half the time you'll be lucky to hear about in advance.

So in that sense, the fuel surcharge, tied explicitly to a specific benchmark (the price of jet fuel), and charged upfront and under full disclosure, starts to seem almost reasonable.

sk4ek, I think the answer is they're all unreasonable. The real price for these things should be given upfront.

Well, good thing I already bought and ticketed my next 3 trips for ANA... I'd still pay a little extra to fly them over UA or NW.

Sk4ek. The whole fuel charge, x charge, y charge thing is idiocy in the first place. From a consumer point of view let's pass a regulation that says if you want to got o X destination it will cost JPYX.XXX period. No this charge and that charge.

At the end of the day we just want to know if I go to Thailand how much does it cost all together? If I go see grandma in Okinawa how much does it cost.

It doesn't help anyone to have all these charges. Just set your rates and adjust them as you need but give us one posted complete, everything included price so consumers can say "Yes I will go." or "No it is too expensive to travel."

JAL is certain to do the same as ANA, since they collude in fixing the fuel surcharges.

The airlines still need to explain why there is no surcharge on domestic flights.

this is not profiteering. when oil is over $60-70 per barrel, any airline loses money. How anyone here can claim profiteering is simply misinformed or just ignorance of costs. Japan does not produce it's own oil, did you know that??

wikipedia the number of airlines that have gone out of business, you'll find a long list of Japanese carriers.

Speculate no more. This consumer won't travel on airlines with surcharges. I wonder if buses and taxis are considering a fuel surcharge - didn't think so!

Tha airlines can and should charge as much as they think consumers will pay. If they raise the price too high, consumers won't pay it, and they'll lower the price.

Sebastian - the taxi companies raised their fares about a year ago.

ANA execs should be put in the stocks and flogged.

Commodities speculators are already rubbing their hands gleefully over the size of their year-end bonus.

It amazes me that even for half-empty flights, which use less fuel, JAL is so mentally inflexible that it will STILL charge excess luggage fees for even 1kg over, on top of this fuel-surcharge. Gouging JAL, that's why I will never fly them again. JAL Customer Service, the ultimate oxy-moron.

speculators? are they hording the oil then? If there are twice as many futures' contracts for the same amount of oil, the price goes up. It's called a market. Either a market or regulate the market, pick one.

Peak Oil, combined with the fact that China is pushing the market, not the US, is raising the costs since China is still hot with domestic spending and projects. The US is in deep recession. They couldn't speculate on paying their creditcard bills or useless mortgages, let alone their economy given the amount of reserve increases of oil. USA oil holdings are at the highest they've ever been due to inactivity, not speculation. China is where the bubble is growing, the US's already burst.

Sources: http://energybulletin.net

That's why I already booked with a U.S. carrier for my trip to the States. The price was much lower than ANA or JAL and there was no surcharge. The Japanese carriers should just make it permanent instead of removing it for 2-3 months then reinstating it. Not fooling anyone.

kwaabish

Well, good thing I already bought and ticketed my next 3 trips for ANA... I'd still pay a little extra to fly them over UA or NW.

Amen to that. I need to buy tickets back to the US for my entire family at Christmas so I'm hoping this surcharge will go away at the end of November...

I always love checking the pages for quotes on flights and seeing the: "Fly to Europe from September to December, starting from ¥80,000!" And then of course when you check the dates you'd like to go the cost they give you is some ¥200,000, without the airport departure taxes, oil surcharge, and what have you.

I agree, this is all nonsense and you should be given a flat cost, upfront, of how much it will cost to go to here or there.

Anyway, no surprise this comes at December 1st. I'm sure they'll, as usual, somehow know beforehand that the cost will drop from January 5th, once work starts again for 95% of Japanese. Price gouging at its worst, people.

this is not profiteering. when oil is over $60-70 per barrel, any airline loses money.

Then raise fares. Don't tack on stupid surcharges. The price should be the TOTAL price. Not +++.

Considering most airlines pay for their oil up front, and oil prices a few months back were around the $50 range, why does ANA stipulate it's now going to charge us. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes for your incompetency. I will make sure my yen never lines the pockets of such incompetent fools. Particularly when there are many more better carriers here in the Asian region.

@whitepocky

airlines must handle their contracts months in advance. Noted before about how the market has speculators that drive the market up or down in a market economy, thus if you're an airline and the price is over $60-70 a barrel, your operating budget takes a hit in a few months. They have to do it now or else they'd go out of business.

@pawatan

Then raise fares. Don't tack on stupid surcharges. The price should be the TOTAL price. Not +++.

I agree with that. Given the marginal profits themselves the surcharge now pays for the fuel they will need later. If they'd include it in the price though, that would be better. Since not every airline does they'd lose 1-5% of the customer base just on advertising even if the overall price is the same. Margins are tight enough to not self inflict losses. If costs are to be included then a law would need to be passed for all airlines to act the same.

They simply know that if they put into place surcharges people will still buy the tickets....do they give refunds when the price of oil drops between when you bought the ticket and when you actually depart???? Yeah fat frigging chance of that.

All I know is the surcharges they are putting on all the flights out of Chicago to Japan is out of hand! What I cannot figure out is, how can I get a flight to Hong Kong for $300 to $400 less than Tokyo!! They are nuts!