Prev: Emirates faces protectionism
Next: how are you?
From: Buddenbrooks on 11 Jul 2010 12:28 "Steve" <Steve(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message news:4OSdnbR1ZJJbcaTRnZ2dnUVZ7oednZ2d(a)giganews.com... > > > If you don't fly, then the fuel surcharge, passenger service charge, > security charge and air duty should be refunded. As you usually don't end > up getting checked by security, served by the airline, your mass + luggage > isn't carried by the aircraft and the airline is not liable for the > departure tax. Airlines pay an agreed amount for these services based on the number of people estimated to travel. Apart from us poor s**s on PAYE most tax is negotiated on the bases of the rules. The cost of reconciling every passenger does not justify the absolute accuracy in the tax raised. So an individual travelling or not will not effect the amount paid. If Ryanair for example shows in his accounts that he had an average of 86% passenger capacity on a route then the authorities will be looking for tax based on that. Fiddling would be difficult, absolute accuracy not needed.
From: Roland Perry on 11 Jul 2010 14:05 In message <wcm_n.156790$tH4.67459(a)hurricane>, at 17:21:48 on Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Buddenbrooks <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> remarked: >Hotels are very dynamic, it shows in their prices. I tried to book a >room in Poznan a couple of years back, the climate conference was on >and I was quoted E360 for a twin room. I am looking to go again in >December this year, the quote from the same Hotel is E25. Very simplistic. I've seen the same hotel in Geneva vary from 100 to 3,000 euros a night. It's just supply and demand. The "cost" of providing the room is irrelevant. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 11 Jul 2010 14:06 In message <89ts1kFqbbU1(a)mid.individual.net>, at 13:34:08 on Sun, 11 Jul 2010, tim.... <tims_new_home(a)yahoo.co.uk> remarked: >> I have never heard them say "we can't give refunds because we've paid >> all the tax to the government whether you flew or not". Which seems to >> me to be a bit of a hint. > >I don't think that there's any confusion at all. > >Whilst they don't release press releases saying so, it is an open secret >that the keep the money. I agree. Scandalous as it is. -- Roland Perry
From: Buddenbrooks on 11 Jul 2010 15:35 "Roland Perry" <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:AsYjO$x1fgOMFAot(a)perry.co.uk... > In message <wcm_n.156790$tH4.67459(a)hurricane>, at 17:21:48 on Sun, 11 Jul > 2010, Buddenbrooks <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> remarked: >>Hotels are very dynamic, it shows in their prices. I tried to book a room >>in Poznan a couple of years back, the climate conference was on and I was >>quoted E360 for a twin room. I am looking to go again in December this >>year, the quote from the same Hotel is E25. > > Very simplistic. I've seen the same hotel in Geneva vary from 100 to 3,000 > euros a night. It's just supply and demand. The "cost" of providing the > room is irrelevant. > -- Actually I was using it as an example of how dynamic pricing is and that Hotels can ramp up and down staffing as demand justifies it, to do that an accurate model of item costs is needed. A guest who has paid 3000 Euros will be more demanding than the one who has paid 100. Are you suggesting Hotels are run with no knowledge of the operating costs of each of the functions which it has to perform? Supply and demand is important to set prices, but there is a point where the demand does not justify any supply. A hotel needs to know for every chargeable service it has what the costs of providing it is. I was in a pub where they take the order from the till and it goes through to the kitchen, behind the bar. A friend ordered a meal and as soon as he paid he asked for beans rather than peas, as he had done in the past. He was told he could not because the bar software would not allow changes after the order had been finalized as it was coupled to stock control and the parent company did not permit discrepancies. Nation wide companies that monitor costs to a portion of peas are certainly going to know what the marginal cost of a room is.
From: Buddenbrooks on 11 Jul 2010 15:48
"Roland Perry" <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:Gc8iCaymggOMFAKD(a)perry.co.uk... > > I agree. Scandalous as it is. Why? You enter a contract and you default on it, why do you expect the company you have broken an agreement with to do anything for you? Why should an airline incur additional costs by employing staff to perform work outside their business mission? They sell tickets and fly aircraft, not sell tickets and give refunds. They have had the role of tax collector pushed on them. One simple way would be to pressure your MP to have the taxes paid on arrival at the airport. When these taxes came in in Australia I had to buy a stamp to attach to the air ticket handed in at boarding. All the airline staff did was check the ticket had a stamp attached. I bought mine several days before and had I failed to travel I could have used it on the next ticket. Actually the simplest is to put the tax on the aircraft landing fee based on seating capability and fuel efficiency. This would encourage full aircraft, preferably large full aircraft. |