info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ryanair 'free' payment method changes
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Mizter T
Sep 14, 2011, 10:50:14 AM9/14/11
to
http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/ryanair-launches-branded-prepaid-mastercard
First, Visa Electron was the 'free' payment method to avoid Ryanair's
"administration fee" for processing card payments (which recently rose from
GBP5 to GBP6 - and it's absurdly levied per-passenger, per-flight rather
than per transaction), then in November '09 they changed the 'free' payment
method over to Mastercard Prepaid cards, now they're changing the 'free'
payment method from November '11 over to being their own-brand Ryanair
Mastercard Prepaid card which they're just launching - so those with other
Mastercard Prepaid cards will now pay the admin fee.
The new card will have a *minimum load* of GBP150, and a GBP2.50 monthly
inactivity fee per month if it hasn't been used for six months.
In other words, jumping through the hoops to try and avoid the extra fees
just got rather harder for UK-based Ryanair passengers. No word on any
changes for non UK-based passengers - it seems as though the existing
arrangement of any Mastercard Prepaid card being their 'free' payment method
will continue.
I wonder if this might be Ryanair's last indulgence w.r.t. card payment
surcharges - the result of Which's super-complaint to the OFT was (a) the
OFT trying to cajole airlines and travel companies into ditching debit card
surcharges using their existing powers, which aren't really up to it, and
perhaps more to the point (b) recommending to the government that they
legislate on the matter:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jun/28/debit-credit-card-surcharges-oft
Of course, passing new legislation takes time, and as ever the Parliamentary
timetable is busy, but it'd be a popular move if they were to do it. Up
until that point however, would one expect anything else from Ryanair but to
rake it in as much as they can...
First, Visa Electron was the 'free' payment method to avoid Ryanair's
"administration fee" for processing card payments (which recently rose from
GBP5 to GBP6 - and it's absurdly levied per-passenger, per-flight rather
than per transaction), then in November '09 they changed the 'free' payment
method over to Mastercard Prepaid cards, now they're changing the 'free'
payment method from November '11 over to being their own-brand Ryanair
Mastercard Prepaid card which they're just launching - so those with other
Mastercard Prepaid cards will now pay the admin fee.
The new card will have a *minimum load* of GBP150, and a GBP2.50 monthly
inactivity fee per month if it hasn't been used for six months.
In other words, jumping through the hoops to try and avoid the extra fees
just got rather harder for UK-based Ryanair passengers. No word on any
changes for non UK-based passengers - it seems as though the existing
arrangement of any Mastercard Prepaid card being their 'free' payment method
will continue.
I wonder if this might be Ryanair's last indulgence w.r.t. card payment
surcharges - the result of Which's super-complaint to the OFT was (a) the
OFT trying to cajole airlines and travel companies into ditching debit card
surcharges using their existing powers, which aren't really up to it, and
perhaps more to the point (b) recommending to the government that they
legislate on the matter:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jun/28/debit-credit-card-surcharges-oft
Of course, passing new legislation takes time, and as ever the Parliamentary
timetable is busy, but it'd be a popular move if they were to do it. Up
until that point however, would one expect anything else from Ryanair but to
rake it in as much as they can...
Mizter T
Sep 14, 2011, 11:10:02 AM9/14/11
to
"Mizter T" <mizt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> I wonder if this might be Ryanair's last indulgence w.r.t. card payment
> surcharges - the result of Which's super-complaint to the OFT was (a) the
> OFT trying to cajole airlines and travel companies into ditching debit
> card surcharges using their existing powers, which aren't really up to it,
> and perhaps more to the point (b) recommending to the government that they
> legislate on the matter:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/jun/28/debit-credit-card-surcharges-oft
>
> Of course, passing new legislation takes time, and as ever the
> Parliamentary timetable is busy, but it'd be a popular move if they were
> to do it. Up until that point however, would one expect anything else from
> Ryanair but to rake it in as much as they can...
The other way out for Ryanair might lie in it being an Irish company, of
course - at present, for UK-based pax (or at least for UK originating
flights) they seem to process transactions as if they were a UK company -
i.e. they take the payment in pounds sterling, and banks don't levy any
overseas transaction fees as many would do with overseas
retailers/transactions - but perhaps Ryanair could rejig their arrangements?
Roland Perry
Sep 14, 2011, 11:11:40 AM9/14/11
to
In message <j4qev9$7l6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:14 on Wed, 14 Sep
2011, Mizter T <mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
This is why Essex Trading Standards lost a case against Ryanair - the
jury said in effect "but everyone knows the first price you see on the
website is a myth".
To some extent everyone paying the same surcharge means those of us who
would not have the right card to avoid the surcharge might be getting a
better price. If this surcharge is outlawed they'll just get the money
off us some other way.
--
Roland Perry
2011, Mizter T <mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
>Up until that point however, would one expect anything else from
>Ryanair but to rake it in as much as they can...
You have to look at theirs (and others') fares as a bottom line figure.
>Ryanair but to rake it in as much as they can...
This is why Essex Trading Standards lost a case against Ryanair - the
jury said in effect "but everyone knows the first price you see on the
website is a myth".
To some extent everyone paying the same surcharge means those of us who
would not have the right card to avoid the surcharge might be getting a
better price. If this surcharge is outlawed they'll just get the money
off us some other way.
--
Roland Perry
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
Sep 18, 2011, 8:04:25 PM9/18/11
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
I see that point of view, but far easier if the law simply mandates that
the _first_ price you see on the website is the non-discounted (via
card) one. I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
that initial price. I don't see the problem with that approach...
--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
www.davidhorne.net (email address on website)
"[Do you think the world learned anything from the first
world war?] No. They never learn." -Harry Patch (1898-2009)
Graeme Wall
Sep 19, 2011, 3:03:19 AM9/19/11
to
On 19/09/2011 01:04, David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
> Roland Perry<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message<j4qev9$7l6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:14 on Wed, 14 Sep
>> 2011, Mizter T<mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Up until that point however, would one expect anything else from
>>> Ryanair but to rake it in as much as they can...
>>
>> You have to look at theirs (and others') fares as a bottom line figure.
>> This is why Essex Trading Standards lost a case against Ryanair - the
>> jury said in effect "but everyone knows the first price you see on the
>> website is a myth".
>>
>> To some extent everyone paying the same surcharge means those of us who
>> would not have the right card to avoid the surcharge might be getting a
>> better price. If this surcharge is outlawed they'll just get the money
>> off us some other way.
>
> I see that point of view, but far easier if the law simply mandates that
> the _first_ price you see on the website is the non-discounted (via
> card) one. I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
> that initial price. I don't see the problem with that approach...
>
What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
> Roland Perry<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message<j4qev9$7l6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:14 on Wed, 14 Sep
>> 2011, Mizter T<mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Up until that point however, would one expect anything else from
>>> Ryanair but to rake it in as much as they can...
>>
>> You have to look at theirs (and others') fares as a bottom line figure.
>> This is why Essex Trading Standards lost a case against Ryanair - the
>> jury said in effect "but everyone knows the first price you see on the
>> website is a myth".
>>
>> To some extent everyone paying the same surcharge means those of us who
>> would not have the right card to avoid the surcharge might be getting a
>> better price. If this surcharge is outlawed they'll just get the money
>> off us some other way.
>
> I see that point of view, but far easier if the law simply mandates that
> the _first_ price you see on the website is the non-discounted (via
> card) one. I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
> that initial price. I don't see the problem with that approach...
>
nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
Roland Perry
Sep 19, 2011, 3:09:25 AM9/19/11
to
In message <1k7thjv.19lmw7p11ot9peN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 01:04:25 on
Mon, 19 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
<d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
are applied to online selling). The problem with airline tickets, more
so than even rail tickets, is the difficulty of buying them with cash.
>I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
>that initial price.
No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
reclaim times mainly).
Continental (and probably other similar airlines) now charges $25 for
the first domestic checked bag, up to $70 for the first Intercontinental
bag on many routes. Thankfully transatlantic and their connecting
flights are still free.
>I don't see the problem with that approach...
The problem with making the prices look less attractive is it will
reduce the number of people looking, and hence the number eventually
buying. Flights are cheap because they can fill the planes.
--
Roland Perry
Mon, 19 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
<d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>far easier if the law simply mandates that the _first_ price you see on
>the website is the non-discounted (via card) one.
There should be a general law about Credit Card surcharges (and how they
>the website is the non-discounted (via card) one.
are applied to online selling). The problem with airline tickets, more
so than even rail tickets, is the difficulty of buying them with cash.
>I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
>that initial price.
reclaim times mainly).
Continental (and probably other similar airlines) now charges $25 for
the first domestic checked bag, up to $70 for the first Intercontinental
bag on many routes. Thankfully transatlantic and their connecting
flights are still free.
>I don't see the problem with that approach...
reduce the number of people looking, and hence the number eventually
buying. Flights are cheap because they can fill the planes.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sep 19, 2011, 3:15:14 AM9/19/11
to
In message <XOBdq.7663$4u6...@newsfe16.ams2>, at 08:03:19 on Mon, 19
Sep 2011, Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
the Card Surcharge, if they manage to take the heat off cards as such.
It's not just transport which does this, my local stadium/venue also has
a "handling charge" to add to whatever the event price is.
"There is a handling charge per order for tickets posted out,
printed at home or collected at anytime from the venue."
You can queue at the box office for free (although this involves time
and travel costs), but it's not practical for those events which my kids
tell me sell out within minutes of going online.
--
Roland Perry
Sep 2011, Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
>nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
>mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
>fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
Some airlines have a "ticketing fee". I suspect that's what will replace
>nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
>mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
>fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
the Card Surcharge, if they manage to take the heat off cards as such.
It's not just transport which does this, my local stadium/venue also has
a "handling charge" to add to whatever the event price is.
"There is a handling charge per order for tickets posted out,
printed at home or collected at anytime from the venue."
You can queue at the box office for free (although this involves time
and travel costs), but it's not practical for those events which my kids
tell me sell out within minutes of going online.
--
Roland Perry
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
Sep 19, 2011, 5:56:25 PM9/19/11
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1k7thjv.19lmw7p11ot9peN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 01:04:25 on
> Mon, 19 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
> <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
> >far easier if the law simply mandates that the _first_ price you see on
> >the website is the non-discounted (via card) one.
>
> There should be a general law about Credit Card surcharges (and how they
> are applied to online selling). The problem with airline tickets, more
> so than even rail tickets, is the difficulty of buying them with cash.
>
> >I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
> >that initial price.
>
> No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
> reclaim times mainly).
You're maybe missing the point of what I'm suggesting. Let airlines
> In message <1k7thjv.19lmw7p11ot9peN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 01:04:25 on
> Mon, 19 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
> <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
> >far easier if the law simply mandates that the _first_ price you see on
> >the website is the non-discounted (via card) one.
>
> There should be a general law about Credit Card surcharges (and how they
> are applied to online selling). The problem with airline tickets, more
> so than even rail tickets, is the difficulty of buying them with cash.
>
> >I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
> >that initial price.
>
> No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
> reclaim times mainly).
charge extra for baggage, just make them include it in the advertised
price. I think travelling without check-in luggage should be seen as a
perk, something which you get a discount for- not something you have to
do in order to get the advertised price.
> Continental (and probably other similar airlines) now charges $25 for
> the first domestic checked bag, up to $70 for the first Intercontinental
> bag on many routes. Thankfully transatlantic and their connecting
> flights are still free.
>
> >I don't see the problem with that approach...
>
> The problem with making the prices look less attractive is it will
> reduce the number of people looking, and hence the number eventually
> buying. Flights are cheap because they can fill the planes.
Roland Perry
Sep 20, 2011, 2:13:25 AM9/20/11
to
In message <1k7v69l.odzxzj1liiqnyN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 22:56:25 on
"hand baggage only" discount of £20? Sounds complicated.
>> Continental (and probably other similar airlines) now charges $25 for
>> the first domestic checked bag, up to $70 for the first Intercontinental
>> bag on many routes. Thankfully transatlantic and their connecting
>> flights are still free.
>>
>> >I don't see the problem with that approach...
>>
>> The problem with making the prices look less attractive is it will
>> reduce the number of people looking, and hence the number eventually
>> buying. Flights are cheap because they can fill the planes.
>
>Flights would still be cheap with the added extras.
They wouldn't *look* as cheap, and while I understand the complaints
many people have about the pricing structure, flights advertised as
starting at about £50 just wouldn't bring the punters in as much.
--
Roland Perry
>> >I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
>> >that initial price.
>>
>> No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
>> reclaim times mainly).
>
>You're maybe missing the point of what I'm suggesting. Let airlines
>charge extra for baggage, just make them include it in the advertised
>price. I think travelling without check-in luggage should be seen as a
>perk, something which you get a discount for- not something you have to
>do in order to get the advertised price.
So you'd be adding about £20 to the price for everyone, then giving a
>> >that initial price.
>>
>> No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
>> reclaim times mainly).
>
>You're maybe missing the point of what I'm suggesting. Let airlines
>charge extra for baggage, just make them include it in the advertised
>price. I think travelling without check-in luggage should be seen as a
>perk, something which you get a discount for- not something you have to
>do in order to get the advertised price.
"hand baggage only" discount of £20? Sounds complicated.
>> Continental (and probably other similar airlines) now charges $25 for
>> the first domestic checked bag, up to $70 for the first Intercontinental
>> bag on many routes. Thankfully transatlantic and their connecting
>> flights are still free.
>>
>> >I don't see the problem with that approach...
>>
>> The problem with making the prices look less attractive is it will
>> reduce the number of people looking, and hence the number eventually
>> buying. Flights are cheap because they can fill the planes.
>
>Flights would still be cheap with the added extras.
many people have about the pricing structure, flights advertised as
starting at about £50 just wouldn't bring the punters in as much.
--
Roland Perry
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
Sep 20, 2011, 2:20:22 AM9/20/11
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <1k7v69l.odzxzj1liiqnyN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 22:56:25 on
> Mon, 19 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
> <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
> >> >I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
> >> >that initial price.
> >>
> >> No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
> >> reclaim times mainly).
> >
> >You're maybe missing the point of what I'm suggesting. Let airlines
> >charge extra for baggage, just make them include it in the advertised
> >price. I think travelling without check-in luggage should be seen as a
> >perk, something which you get a discount for- not something you have to
> >do in order to get the advertised price.
>
> So you'd be adding about £20 to the price for everyone, then giving a
> "hand baggage only" discount of £20? Sounds complicated.
No more complicated than the current system.
> In message <1k7v69l.odzxzj1liiqnyN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 22:56:25 on
> Mon, 19 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
> <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
> >> >I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
> >> >that initial price.
> >>
> >> No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
> >> reclaim times mainly).
> >
> >You're maybe missing the point of what I'm suggesting. Let airlines
> >charge extra for baggage, just make them include it in the advertised
> >price. I think travelling without check-in luggage should be seen as a
> >perk, something which you get a discount for- not something you have to
> >do in order to get the advertised price.
>
> So you'd be adding about £20 to the price for everyone, then giving a
> "hand baggage only" discount of £20? Sounds complicated.
> >> Continental (and probably other similar airlines) now charges $25 for
> >> the first domestic checked bag, up to $70 for the first Intercontinental
> >> bag on many routes. Thankfully transatlantic and their connecting
> >> flights are still free.
> >>
> >> >I don't see the problem with that approach...
> >>
> >> The problem with making the prices look less attractive is it will
> >> reduce the number of people looking, and hence the number eventually
> >> buying. Flights are cheap because they can fill the planes.
> >
> >Flights would still be cheap with the added extras.
>
> They wouldn't *look* as cheap, and while I understand the complaints
> many people have about the pricing structure, flights advertised as
> starting at about £50 just wouldn't bring the punters in as much.
Roland Perry
Sep 20, 2011, 8:30:12 AM9/20/11
to
In message <1k7vto5.1y4c7fjia19kwN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 07:20:22 on
Tue, 20 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
<d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> So you'd be adding about £20 to the price for everyone, then giving a
>> "hand baggage only" discount of £20? Sounds complicated.
>
>No more complicated than the current system.
The current system is such that if you don't want any "extras" like
human check in, checked baggage, preferential boarding etc, you just
skip all those things and keep the entry level price.
While I accept you don't want to see checked baggage as an "extra", it's
rapidly becoming so even for full service airlines (and if not for the
first bag, the second). Actually, what I'd quite like is a small
surcharge to permit me to have second (small) carry-on.
>> >Flights would still be cheap with the added extras.
>>
>> They wouldn't *look* as cheap, and while I understand the complaints
>> many people have about the pricing structure, flights advertised as
>> starting at about £50 just wouldn't bring the punters in as much.
>
>Sure they will.
Which is presumably why trains, planes and buses all like to push the £1
fares, and motels the very difficult to find £29 a night?
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 20 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
<d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> So you'd be adding about £20 to the price for everyone, then giving a
>> "hand baggage only" discount of £20? Sounds complicated.
>
>No more complicated than the current system.
human check in, checked baggage, preferential boarding etc, you just
skip all those things and keep the entry level price.
While I accept you don't want to see checked baggage as an "extra", it's
rapidly becoming so even for full service airlines (and if not for the
first bag, the second). Actually, what I'd quite like is a small
surcharge to permit me to have second (small) carry-on.
>> >Flights would still be cheap with the added extras.
>>
>> They wouldn't *look* as cheap, and while I understand the complaints
>> many people have about the pricing structure, flights advertised as
>> starting at about £50 just wouldn't bring the punters in as much.
>
>Sure they will.
fares, and motels the very difficult to find £29 a night?
--
Roland Perry
tim....
Sep 24, 2011, 2:06:27 AM9/24/11
to
"Graeme Wall" <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:XOBdq.7663$4u6...@newsfe16.ams2...
> On 19/09/2011 01:04, David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
>> Roland Perry<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message<j4qev9$7l6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:14 on Wed, 14 Sep
>>> 2011, Mizter T<mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Up until that point however, would one expect anything else from
>>>> Ryanair but to rake it in as much as they can...
>>>
>>> You have to look at theirs (and others') fares as a bottom line figure.
>>> This is why Essex Trading Standards lost a case against Ryanair - the
>>> jury said in effect "but everyone knows the first price you see on the
>>> website is a myth".
>>>
>>> To some extent everyone paying the same surcharge means those of us who
>>> would not have the right card to avoid the surcharge might be getting a
>>> better price. If this surcharge is outlawed they'll just get the money
>>> off us some other way.
>>
>> I see that point of view, but far easier if the law simply mandates that
>> the _first_ price you see on the website is the non-discounted (via
>> card) one. I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
>> that initial price. I don't see the problem with that approach...
>>
>
> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all mandatory
> taxes and charges.
The law does say that.
>> Roland Perry<rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message<j4qev9$7l6$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:50:14 on Wed, 14 Sep
>>> 2011, Mizter T<mizt...@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Up until that point however, would one expect anything else from
>>>> Ryanair but to rake it in as much as they can...
>>>
>>> You have to look at theirs (and others') fares as a bottom line figure.
>>> This is why Essex Trading Standards lost a case against Ryanair - the
>>> jury said in effect "but everyone knows the first price you see on the
>>> website is a myth".
>>>
>>> To some extent everyone paying the same surcharge means those of us who
>>> would not have the right card to avoid the surcharge might be getting a
>>> better price. If this surcharge is outlawed they'll just get the money
>>> off us some other way.
>>
>> I see that point of view, but far easier if the law simply mandates that
>> the _first_ price you see on the website is the non-discounted (via
>> card) one. I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
>> that initial price. I don't see the problem with that approach...
>>
>
> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all mandatory
> taxes and charges.
> So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise fares from £1 when there is a
> mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
complaint to TS is in order
tim
tim....
Sep 24, 2011, 2:09:48 AM9/24/11
to
"David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1k7v69l.odzxzj1liiqnyN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk...
> Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <1k7thjv.19lmw7p11ot9peN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 01:04:25 on
>> Mon, 19 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
>> <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> >far easier if the law simply mandates that the _first_ price you see on
>> >the website is the non-discounted (via card) one.
>>
>> There should be a general law about Credit Card surcharges (and how they
>> are applied to online selling). The problem with airline tickets, more
>> so than even rail tickets, is the difficulty of buying them with cash.
>>
>> >I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
>> >that initial price.
>>
>> No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
>> reclaim times mainly).
>
> You're maybe missing the point of what I'm suggesting. Let airlines
> charge extra for baggage, just make them include it in the advertised
> price.
Depends what you mean by "advertised" price.
>
>> In message <1k7thjv.19lmw7p11ot9peN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk>, at 01:04:25 on
>> Mon, 19 Sep 2011, "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)"
>> <d4g...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>> >far easier if the law simply mandates that the _first_ price you see on
>> >the website is the non-discounted (via card) one.
>>
>> There should be a general law about Credit Card surcharges (and how they
>> are applied to online selling). The problem with airline tickets, more
>> so than even rail tickets, is the difficulty of buying them with cash.
>>
>> >I'd also like to see one piece of luggage (20kg!) included in
>> >that initial price.
>>
>> No thanks. I often fly hand-baggage only (to reduce check-in and baggage
>> reclaim times mainly).
>
> You're maybe missing the point of what I'm suggesting. Let airlines
> charge extra for baggage, just make them include it in the advertised
> price.
Do you mean the price in a newspaper ad,
or the first price that you see when you start the online booking process?
I can see some merit in your idea for the former, but not the latter
tim
Roland Perry
Sep 24, 2011, 5:35:27 AM9/24/11
to
In message <9e5adb...@mid.individual.net>, at 07:06:27 on Sat, 24 Sep
2011, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
the law does not in practice say that. One day maybe TS will revisit the
situation, but that case casts a long shadow over the subject.
--
Roland Perry
2011, tim.... <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> You have to look at theirs (and others') fares as a bottom line figure.
>>>> This is why Essex Trading Standards lost a case against Ryanair - the
>>>> jury said in effect "but everyone knows the first price you see on the
>>>> website is a myth".
>>>> This is why Essex Trading Standards lost a case against Ryanair - the
>>>> jury said in effect "but everyone knows the first price you see on the
>>>> website is a myth".
...
>> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
>> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all mandatory
>> taxes and charges.
>
>The law does say that.
To the extent that Essex Trading Standards v Ryanair is caselaw, then
>> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
>> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all mandatory
>> taxes and charges.
>
>The law does say that.
the law does not in practice say that. One day maybe TS will revisit the
situation, but that case casts a long shadow over the subject.
--
Roland Perry
Theo Markettos
Sep 25, 2011, 12:03:14 PM9/25/11
to
In alt.travel.uk.air Graeme Wall <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
> mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
> fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
> mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
> fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
How would it work for package holidays? They're usually advertised as a
price based on two sharing, and you can't actually have the holiday for that
price as one person (since you have to pay a single room supplement). Most
people go on holiday in a group of two or more. What if companies were to
advertise prices based on 6 sharing, with the 6 hidden in the small print?
Theo
Graeme Wall
Sep 25, 2011, 1:03:30 PM9/25/11
to
On 25/09/2011 17:03, Theo Markettos wrote:
> In alt.travel.uk.air Graeme Wall<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
>> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
>> mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
>> fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
>
> How would it work for package holidays? They're usually advertised as a
> price based on two sharing, and you can't actually have the holiday for that
> price as one person (since you have to pay a single room supplement).
As long as it says up front that that is what the deal is, fine.
> In alt.travel.uk.air Graeme Wall<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
>> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
>> mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
>> fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
>
> How would it work for package holidays? They're usually advertised as a
> price based on two sharing, and you can't actually have the holiday for that
> price as one person (since you have to pay a single room supplement).
> Most
> people go on holiday in a group of two or more. What if companies were to
> advertise prices based on 6 sharing, with the 6 hidden in the small print?
>
basis these days.
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)
Sep 25, 2011, 1:35:56 PM9/25/11
to
tim......
Sep 26, 2011, 2:09:37 PM9/26/11
to
news:C9Jfq.132$jz6...@newsfe18.ams2...
the price based upon 4 sharing
tim
> On 25/09/2011 17:03, Theo Markettos wrote:
>> In alt.travel.uk.air Graeme Wall<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
>>> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
>>> mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
>>> fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
>>
>> How would it work for package holidays? They're usually advertised as a
>> price based on two sharing, and you can't actually have the holiday for
>> that
>> price as one person (since you have to pay a single room supplement).
>
>
> As long as it says up front that that is what the deal is, fine.
>
>> Most
>> people go on holiday in a group of two or more. What if companies were
>> to
>> advertise prices based on 6 sharing, with the 6 hidden in the small
>> print?
>>
>
> Sounds an unlikely scenario.
I've never seen 6, but "fly drive" deals with a camper van often advertise
>> In alt.travel.uk.air Graeme Wall<ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> What I'd like to see is a law that says you should be able to actually
>>> nake the journey at the first price offered, ie it includes all
>>> mandatory taxes and charges. So Megabus couldn't falsely advertise
>>> fares from £1 when there is a mandatory "booking fee" to add to that.
>>
>> How would it work for package holidays? They're usually advertised as a
>> price based on two sharing, and you can't actually have the holiday for
>> that
>> price as one person (since you have to pay a single room supplement).
>
>
> As long as it says up front that that is what the deal is, fine.
>
>> Most
>> people go on holiday in a group of two or more. What if companies were
>> to
>> advertise prices based on 6 sharing, with the 6 hidden in the small
>> print?
>>
>
> Sounds an unlikely scenario.
the price based upon 4 sharing
tim
tim......
Sep 26, 2011, 2:10:49 PM9/26/11
to
news:1k85ybl.1hqkiojdph7lsN%d4g...@yahoo.co.uk...
If for no other reason that it's much harder to control (though I can see
other reasons as well)
tim
Graeme Wall
Sep 26, 2011, 2:16:06 PM9/26/11
to
it is normally very obvious that you are looking at group prices.
0 new messages