View from the Wing points out that Delta just introduced fuel surcharges on award tickets originating from the US and Canada.
From Delta's press release:
Effective Aug. 15, 2008, the SkyMiles program will add:
- A $25 surcharge for Award Travel between the 50 states and Canada
- A $50 surcharge for Award Travel between the 50 states/Canada and all international destinations, including the Caribbean, Latin America, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific.
This
fuel surcharge will not impact existing ticketed award itineraries or
award tickets issued prior to Aug. 15, 2008, regardless of the date of
travel.
One Mile at a Time thinks this isn't such a bad move by Delta:
I know some might think I’m crazy for saying this, but I think this is a good
thing. No, I hate to see new fees, but I’m relieved that it’s “only” a
maximum of $50. Many (including me) have long been predicting award
fuel surcharges for US carriers, and let me tell you, I’m damn relieved
that it’s only $50!
Some may think $50 is a lot, but try redeeming with any non-US FFP.
For example, a recent award from EWR-FRA-MLA-FRA-EWR cost $350 in fees,
taxes, and surcharges, and that’s on the low side.
I get what One Mile at a Time is saying that with Delta setting the bar at $50 it is unlikely that the other USA carriers are going to set a higher fee and that it is means consumers in the USA will pay less compared to other international airlines. But is it really in everyones best interest to only charge $50?
I'm not opposed to airlines raising their fares and covering their costs. They are crazy not to with fuel skyrocketing.
What I don't like about this fee - and many other fees by the airlines recently - is that they aren't actually tied to the airlines increased costs. It is just an arbitrary fee.
When the airlines create fees that aren't rationally related to the services they are providing it feels like the airlines are trying to trick us
by hiding the true cost of their services in a multilayer fee scheme.
If this new fee by Delta is actually a fuel surcharge shouldn't it be proportional to the amount of fuel consumed by the flights covered by the ticket?
A flight from Atlanta to San Juan, Puerto Rico uses a fraction of the fuel that a flight from Atlanta to Dubai uses yet both have the same $50 fuel surcharge.
I know most of you would hate to see a fuel surcharge based on the cost of fuel related to number of miles you fly because it would likely be more than $50 per award but doesn't that make more sense?
Of course that only works if the fuel surcharge actually fluctuates with the cost of fuel. When fuel goes up the surcharge goes up. But just as quickly when fuel goes down the surcharge goes down.
I think that sort of plan makes sense for award tickets where you don't want the number of miles that people are aiming for to be constantly changing but the airlines need to cover their constantly fluctuating costs.
There is an argument to be made that award tickets shouldn't have a fuel surcharge or any other fees associated with them because award tickets are filling seats that would otherwise go unsold (and the impact on fuel burn by one person isn't significant).
That might have made sense last year. But this year capacity is getting slashed. And for those of you who toiled to find award seats last year it is going to get worse. A lot worse.
But how worse does it have to get? Reasonable fuel surcharges on awards might reduce the need to drastically cut capacity on award availability. If airlines know that their award seats will at least cover rising fuel costs with a variable fuel surcharge, in combination with an appropriate number of miles redeemed for the flight, the airlines should be able to keep more award seats available for redemption than they otherwise would with capacity dropping.
