V-Flyer

So, some will have already seen - a lady called "Penny" (we have no idea who she is ) started a petition some time ago about fuel surcharges.

The deal being:

• The money goes to the pockets of the airline - it is revenue, plain and simple.
• It's not a "surcharge" by definition - as it is not "an additional sum added to the usual amount or cost." - it IS the usual amount or cost!
• VS have decided it's non-refundable, even if you don't use the fuel by not flying.
• It is charged on "reward" tickets, which have been earned by flying and paying this charge in the past.
• It's simply underhand expressing it as a "fee/tax" - it's not, it's a cost of doing business for any airline.

Now, granted, it's not just VS participating in this racket, so a few people have posted it to different airlines too. But, it would be good to get Penny's petition aired in the house of commons (with 100,000 signatures) so please let's see if social media people power can do it...!

It's been posted on the VS Facebook wall here: http://www.facebook.com/virginatlantic/ ... 7185192885

And the direct link to the petition is here: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/14991


Enjoy ^) ^) ^)

Done y)

buns

Thanks, 7 sent

Done y) y)

Done y) y)

Done, shared on FB and Tweeted on Twitter. Please share and support, this is very worthwhile.

Done y)

Long way to go...

Done x 2 from this family.

Done and RT'd to the Fry'ster. You never know

While I don't see much evidence that the fuel surcharge normally adds much to the cost of a paid-for price, that it has all the appearance of a scam is evidenced by VS and BA's refusal to refund it on cancelled tickets and also to charge it on redemption tickets. I'd suggest it is also bad for business, especially in the US where it discourages people from becoming loyal to VS.

So, done and posted to my Facebook wall and tweeted y) .

Done x 2

Done and tweeted

David

Done also y)

Done also y)

Done y)

Have signed.

Now we all know that whilst this won't lead to a reduction in the overall fare it will add to fare transparency by stopping airlines hiding it in the'taxe, fees etc' part of the fare.

Most people therefore assume it is all tax when the YQ is at least 2-3 times the APD and 4-5 times the airport fees.

preiffer wrote:But, it would be good to get Penny's petition aired in the house of commons (with 100,000 signatures) so please let's see if social media people power can do it...!

Just to clarify the 100k signatures does not automatically lead to a debate on the floor of the Commons it means it is automatically considered for a debate by the Back Bench Business Committee.

Whilst some e-petitions (e.g. Hillborough disaster) have been debated on the floor most are allocated only a couple of hours in Westminsiter Hall.

Signed - fingers crossed y)

Also done!!

It's completely disingenuous;

And I'd expect VS to lead from the front here to bin it and start a campaign for transparent pricing. It's the sort of thing they'd do in the past - making them stand out from the crowd - perfect opportunity to distance themselves from BA you would have thought?

craigmonster wrote:And I'd expect VS to lead from the front here to bin it and start a campaign for transparent pricing. It's the sort of thing they'd do in the past - making them stand out from the crowd - perfect opportunity to distance themselves from BA you would have thought?

Ditto to that emphasis too y) .

also done

Would love to sign, but don't see why there's an insistence on completing your home address!

y) signed up, thanks for the info - this subject really puts me on my soap box !

Its a shame 'Penny' hasn't also added to her list, the unfair level of fuel surcharge piled onto the UC fare. I very rarely travel UC, but for those passengers who do I feel loading an increase in the fuel surcharge is terrible. No way can they justify it, a seat is a seat and it costs no more to occupy that seat in terms of fuel whatever class you travel v( Anyway UC passengers have already paid a higher enough price for their extra luggage and the suite etc.. It should only be a standard charge for 'all'.

Rant over

Hev60 wrote:Its a shame 'Penny' hasn't also added to her list, the unfair level of fuel surcharge piled onto the UC fare. I very rarely travel UC, but for those passengers who do I feel loading an increase in the fuel surcharge is terrible. No way can they justify it, a seat is a seat and it costs no more to occupy that seat in terms of fuel whatever class you travel v( Anyway UC passengers have already paid a higher enough price for their extra luggage and the suite etc.. It should only be a standard charge for 'all'.

I'm not in agreement with that, because:

- Your seat and everything required to service you in flight is heavier.
- You take up proportionally more floor space of the aircraft - not just the seat, but the bar, the wardrobes, the galleys - and if you allocate weight to the square footage occupied it's a lot more - weight = more fuel.

Now whether it's the same calculation used by VS is another thing ): .

Hev60 wrote:y) It should only be a standard charge for 'all'.

You could use the same argument for APD - there are two levels - economy and 'not economy' and the 'not economy' rate is the same for PE and UC (and F on airlines that have an F cabin)

But the petition is not about the level of the surcharge but that it should be included in the base fare and not 'hidden' in what is essentally the 'non airline' taxes and airport charges part of the fare.

catsilversword wrote:Would love to sign, but don't see why there's an insistence on completing your home address!

Presumably a sop to the notion that "voting early and often" will be discouraged. Otherwise 100,000 votes <> 100,000 people, just 100,000 cyber identities.