Airlines 'fail to refund taxes' says Which?
in [UK Air Travel]
|
Prev: Emirates faces protectionism
Next: how are you?
From: Roland Perry on 12 Jul 2010 03:00 In message <t2p_n.11552$284.6506(a)newsfe10.ams2>, at 20:35:52 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. Yes, but that's not the main reason for a sliding scale of prices. >A guest who has paid 3000 Euros will be more demanding than the one who >has paid 100. A little grumpier perhaps, but it should make no difference to the the day to day operations of the hotel. > Are you suggesting Hotels are run with no knowledge of the operating >costs of each of the functions which it has to perform? Many of them will understand it, some will change their operations to suit the number of guests that night and some won't. > 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. You seem to mainly worried what the minimum cost of a room is, and thereby assuming a well run hotel will use that as a floor on prices. A strict "cost plus" model. In the UK that's around �25 on average. -- Roland Perry
From: Roland Perry on 12 Jul 2010 03:08 In message <Lep_n.11689$284.245(a)newsfe10.ams2>, at 20:48:57 on Sun, 11 Jul 2010, Buddenbrooks <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> remarked: > >"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? In this instance because they keep the taxes/fees for themselves rather than passing them on to the person they are purporting to collect for. >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. And they have cunningly decided to disguise several of their costs as if they were taxes (eg the airport per-passenger fees). >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. It used to be like that at Hong Kong, and it is claimed to be like that where I went in India, but I've never been asked to fork up the fee. >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. It'll be interesting to see how airlines decide to market (or is that launder) such a charge in order to present it to the public. Some airlines run fleets of very similar aircraft and could probably have a flat-fee per trip. Others with a diverse fleet will struggle to do that. -- Roland Perry
From: Buddenbrooks on 12 Jul 2010 12:17 "Roland Perry" <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in message news:xkLv8z859rOMFAeo(a)perry.co.uk... > It'll be interesting to see how airlines decide to market (or is that > launder) such a charge in order to present it to the public. Some airlines > run fleets of very similar aircraft and could probably have a flat-fee per > trip. Others with a diverse fleet will struggle to do that. Perhaps they will just market what the passenger wants, which is a flight from A to B. I do not like prices separated out, unless there is a genuine choice.
From: Roland Perry on 12 Jul 2010 12:58 In message <AeH_n.163097$m87.153865(a)hurricane>, at 17:17:39 on Mon, 12 Jul 2010, Buddenbrooks <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> remarked: >Perhaps they will just market what the passenger wants, which is a >flight from A to B. >I do not like prices separated out, unless there is a genuine choice. I like it, because it gives you an indication of how close to the minimum-possible total you've got. Looking at my earlier example, the "fare" part was �15 from a total of about �140. Now, given that the �125 of "extras" is a fixed cost, this tells me not to waste my time trying to find a much cheaper fare from *that* carrier for that route. It's also quite likely that if I was to get a "free" ticket on that airline's Frequent Flyer Programme for that route, that they'd charge me the �125 - so that's a warning for the future. I'm also nosey, and want to know how much the foreign airports are charging me, assuming of course that the numbers are reliable. -- Roland Perry
From: semiretired on 14 Jul 2010 21:01
On Jul 12, 6:37 am, "Buddenbrooks" <knightstemp...(a)budweiser.com> wrote: >semiretired wrote >>On Jul 11, 5:04 pm, "Buddenbrooks" wrote: >>>semiretired wrote >>>>On Jul 11, 8:31 am, "Buddenbrooks" wrote: >>>>>I am not certain, one could argue that as nothing had occurred >>>>>to have value attached then VAT cannot apply. >>>>This is arrant piffle. >>>>Argue as you like, >>>I took the bother of looking up the rule. >>>As the hotel is not refunding it >>>makes no difference but: >>>If the booking was for 1 to 28 nights the hotel >>>must forward the VAT in >>>the normal way. >>>If the booking was for longer than 28 days >>>the hotel has no liability to >>>pass any VAT on. >>Once again you are talking piffle. >>The rule says something totally >>different from what you claim. >>Read it properly this time.1 >Piffle? >i made only two statements: >a. VAT is paid on up to 28 days >b VAT is not paid over 28 days. >As you said piffle, rather than total piffle I assume you are not suggesting >I am wrong on both counts. >So you disagree with case a or b. ? You seem to have a talent for misreporting. Please try harder. If you cannot extract the correct information from a perfectly clear notice there is little benefit in me pointing out that which you have already read. For your information something along these lines was in force when I first read it about 25 years ago. However you do seem to have accepted that VAT collected is passed on to the authorities, which was the original point.. |