Airlines 'fail to refund taxes' says Which?
in [UK Air Travel]
|
Prev: Emirates faces protectionism
Next: how are you?
From: Graham Harrison on 11 Jul 2010 02:18 "Buddenbrooks" <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> wrote in message news:ADc_n.156647$tH4.124811(a)hurricane... > > "Roland Perry" <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in message > news:8rbc$HX7NOOMFAPV(a)perry.co.uk... >> In message <slrni3hf0k.828.no_one_you_know(a)corv.local>, at 18:29:40 on > > Ticket price 15,00 >> Booking fee 10,00 >> Fuel surcharge 60,00 >> Passenger service charge 14,52 >> Passenger service charge 14,47 >> Security charge 12,94 >> UK air passenger duty 12,69 >> >> Arguably, if we don't fly we should also get the fuel surcharge back... >> (I'll allow them to keep the ticket price and booking fee). > > > A lot of things you are committed to buy at the time of ordering. I > normally take the advanced booking without cancel option for hotels. > It is usually significantly cheaper and covers the risk of not going one > the date. > > When I fail to go, I do not get a refund. A Hotel room is actually costed > by the hotel as > > > Booking fee > Overhead Costs (Cost of running hotel divided by actual room nights > booked per annum) > Daily Room Service charge ( making bed etc) > Linen charge (change of linen, soap etc between bookings) > Tourist tax > VAT > > The last two are money taken, but not passed on, only the first two > still cost the hotel if you do not arrive. > So a Hotel makes a better profit from paid no shows. > > > I think you'll find the VAT is passed on, but other taxes are an interesting thought...............................
From: semiretired on 11 Jul 2010 02:40 On Jul 11, 6:28 am, "Buddenbrooks" wrote: >A lot of things you are committed to buy at the time of ordering. >I normally take the advanced booking without cancel option for >hotels. It is usually significantly cheaper and covers the risk of >not going one the date. > When I fail to go, I do not get a refund. A Hotel room is actually >costed by the hotel as > > Booking fee > Overhead Costs (Cost of running hotel divided by actual room > nights booked per annum) > Daily Room Service charge ( making bed etc) > Linen charge (change of linen, soap etc between bookings) > Tourist tax > VAT > >The last two are money taken, but not passed on, only the first >two still cost the hotel if you do not arrive. >So a Hotel makes a better profit from paid no shows. This is overly simplistic. The reason a hotel can offer a much lower price for a non-cancellable booking is precisely because a certain percentage of people will not show up, and this should balance the reduced price. No shows also deny the hotel the opportunity to sell them food and/or beverages. Not everybody eats or drinks in the hotel, but some do. be balanced against
From: Buddenbrooks on 11 Jul 2010 03:31 "Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1(a)remove.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:tL6dnZcIFNOv_6TRnZ2dnUVZ8nGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > I think you'll find the VAT is passed on, but other taxes are an interesting > thought............................... I am not certain, one could argue that as nothing had occurred to have value attached then VAT cannot apply.
From: Graham Harrison on 11 Jul 2010 03:40 "Buddenbrooks" <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> wrote in message news:Nre_n.78231$hS4.23599(a)newsfe26.ams2... > > "Graham Harrison" <edward.harrison1(a)remove.btinternet.com> wrote in > message news:tL6dnZcIFNOv_6TRnZ2dnUVZ8nGdnZ2d(a)bt.com... > > I think you'll find the VAT is passed on, but other taxes are an > interesting >> thought............................... > > I am not certain, one could argue that as nothing had occurred to have > value attached then VAT cannot apply. > Forgetting that you're getting a good deal I'd say the value comes from the hotel not reselling the room. Part of the agreement is that they will hold the room for you all night. But tourist taxes, particularly "occupancy" taxes, now that's a different proposition. But to test either theory someone would need to fail to take up a reservation and then instigate a refund request.
From: tim.... on 11 Jul 2010 08:34
"Roland Perry" <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:8rbc$HX7NOOMFAPV(a)perry.co.uk... > In message <slrni3hf0k.828.no_one_you_know(a)corv.local>, at 18:29:40 on > Sat, 10 Jul 2010, pete <no_one_you_know(a)notthisaddress.com> remarked: >>> It is a green tax to discourage booking flights, so whether you fly or >>> not >>> is irrelevant. >>> >>If it's a tax (whether paid incorrectly or not), surely it should be >>passed on to our lords and masters, not kept by the collecting >>organisation. >>Sounds like fraud to me. > > Agreed. The airlines should come clean whether or not they pay all the > tax they've collected to the government, or whether they only pay tax > for those who eventually fly. > > I have never heard them say "we can't give refunds because we've paid > all the tax to the government whether you flew or not". Which seems to > me to be a bit of a hint. I don't think that there's any confusion at all. Whilst they don't release press releases saying so, it is an open secret that the keep the money. tim |