Have I just been screwed?

We booked PE reward seats to New York in October a few months ago and paid all the applicable taxes and fees. After our recent trip to California we got a few more miles and decided to see if we could upgrade the PE seats to UC.

Called the premier team today and there are 2 seats available on the way out but none on the way back. So I decided to book the outbound seats only to be told that I needed to pay an additional 125 in 'taxes' per person which I thought sounded quite high bearing in mind we had already paid taxes, charges, surcharges and fees previously.

When I probed further as to what these additional 'taxes' were for the response was very vague and I became very suspicious that VS were trying to earn a fast buck. I pushed further for an explanation and when I didn't get one I asked to speak to a supervisor or someone who could give me a reasonable explanation as to what these additional 'taxes' were for and what legislation they were based upon.

I was put on hold for some 9 minutes and when the girl came back she could provide me with no further information except that these 'taxes' were introduced in June and she did not have the ability to put me through to someone who could explain further. No supervisors were available either.

In the end I booked and paid because I want to go UC and I have the miles to do it however I can't help feeling that I've been tucked up and right now I'm pretty P****d off about the whole situation.

Before taking this further however I thought I'd check with the more knowledgeable V-Flyers on here.

Does this sound right or am I being taken for a ride?

Miopyk[8D]

[preiffer]

Fuel surcharge increase since the original booking?

...although that wouldn't be £125 per person. And it can't be APD as PE has the same APD bracket as Upper... [:?]

In terms of UK Airline Passenger Duty [tax], you should have already paid the higher rate for 'non economy' travel, as your flight to New Your has more than one class. (The likes of Maxjet & SilverJet used to be able to charge the lower rate of APD for everyone, as their aircraft only had one class).

Only thought is have VS put up their fuel surcharges just for pax in the PE & UC cabins like BA have? (Not that they discuss fuel surcharges with BA, naturally).

James

Up until fairly recently there was one fuel surcharge regardless of class. There are now three different surcharges in effect. What I suspect happened is you paid originally the single-rate aurcharge, and have been made to pay the difference between that and the new UC charge.

Interestingly, when I did a recent miles UG at the airport, I didn't have to pay the additional surcharge, only the additional APD.

While the responses may be right, the vendor, aka Virgin, should be able to be absolutely clear about what they are charging you for and why. Failing to do this alone is tantamount to 'unfair trade' and a whole host of legal issues. You may have a right to seek recompense for false or poor information in this regard - which is contentious but Virgin should take this seriously or they may find themselves on the receiving end of another law suit.

Surely when you receive your emailed receipt or Eticket it will itemise the costs ?

MS [:)]

You'll know in 9 months.

GJ

The current taxes, surcharges and fees for a PE ticket to NYC in October amount to £308.80 per passenger (£617.60) If you have paid more than this then the answer to your question is 'Yes you have been screwed'

Cheers
Mark [:D]

Ok I have a bit more information. Our etickets arrived overnight and the 'taxes' are listed as 'additional collection'.

Having never had a receipt for the previous transaction I looked at the original eticket and it looks as though we paid about £190 in Taxes, fees etc. So it looks though the 'additional collection' is to make up the difference between the current level of surcharges and what we originally paid.

Now this is pure assumption on my part and I guess on the part of my fellow V-Flyers who have responded to my original question. The disturbing point for me is that the girl I spoke to yesterday was absolutely adamant that these charges were a 'tax' that had been imposed by the government and had absolutely nothing to do with VS at all.

On that basis I feel completely misled and angry that as a regular customer with VS I have been treated in this way. My next frustration is the thought of dealing with VS Customer Service as my previous dealings with them have been less than positive.

Currently I think my options are to:

1. Try and speak to someone in Customer Services in authority although in the past this has proved to be almost impossible and communication by email takes months.

2. Report VS to Trading Standards for providing false information on the nature of these 'additional charges' and follow this up with a private action.

3. Enjoy my trip to NY and never use VS again.

Again I welcome any thoughts or suggestions on this matter before I decide what to do.

Miopyk[8D]

I wonder if they have made a mistake and have charged you the difference between a normal Econ fare and Upper rather than PE to Upper.

-Steve

Originally posted by miopyk
I looked at the original eticket and it looks as though we paid about £190 in Taxes, fees etc. So it looks though the 'additional collection' is to make up the difference between the current level of surcharges and what we originally paid.

This is the difference between then (October) and now for the fuel surcharge currently charged in UC.
You've now got nice seats on the outbound journey and everyone else currently ugrading is in the same boat (and in some cases paying even more).
Whilst I understand your disquiet, that's how things are in the current economic climate.
My suggestion (FWIW)is to bite the bullet and enjoy the trip.If VS can offer you what you want in the future all well and good.If they can't, so be it.Life is too short to get wound up(says she having spent the last week like a coiled spring, but who is now nice and chilled[8D]).
DL

Originally posted by miopyk

3. Enjoy my trip to NY and never use VS again.

Miopyk[8D]

If I was in your position I would use item 3 and not use them again, having been in correspondence with VS Customer Services myself for several months and still not had my issue's resolved, you will only end up being wound up.
I decided to call it quits and move on to a more caring airline (I will let you know if I find one[}:)])
Good Luck and enjoy the trip.

[Nottingham Nick]

Originally posted by DragonLady
Whilst I understand your disquiet, that's how things are in the current economic climate.
My suggestion (FWIW)is to bite the bullet and enjoy the trip.If VS can offer you what you want in the future all well and good.If they can't, so be it.Life is too short to get wound up.......

My sentiments exactly. [8D][:D]

Nick

You're right off course and I have been so busy today I haven't really had time to think about this issue much so am now much calmer. However while I accept the economics of the situation I do feel that the explanation from VS was less than honest. Effectively the increase was described as a government tax which had to be paid when in reality it is a fuel supplement which VS had imposed because of the increase in the cost of oil.

If that had been explained properly yesterday I wouldn't have started this thread.

In the end my grievance is entirely the fact that when I asked for details of what the additional costs were for I was completely fobbed off, misled and was denied the opportunity to get an explanation from a higher authority. This cannot in anyones eyes be seen as acceptable business practice. VS do not operate their business from Nelson Mandela House in Peckham and on that basis I expect their standards to be higher.

In the end I've concluded that persuing this with VS directly is probably a waste of my time based on previous experiences and so in this instance I'm going to report them to Trading Standards. Hopefully that will mean that they'll end up getting fined a few thousand pounds and be forced to treat their customers a little better in future.

Miopyk[8D]

Have'nt fuel costs started to fall[?] So we should now start to see this blatant profitering start to fall[?] Don't think so somehow[V]

Good luck with Trading Standards, keep us informed please?

[Darren Wheeler]

Originally posted by goanmad
Have'nt fuel costs started to fall[?] So we should now start to see this blatant profitering start to fall[?] Don't think so somehow[V]

Good luck with Trading Standards, keep us informed please?

I've not seen an 'blatant profiteering'. What I have seen is airlines having to add a surcharge to cover the massive increases in oil over the last few years. The alternative would be to cut routes, services or just simply give up and fold.

The surcharge won't be cut immediately as due to hedging, the price VS pay has been set until it expires. Even then I cannot see a decrease given the volatility of the worlds oil producing areas. The days of a barrel costing $20 has long gone.

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler

Originally posted by goanmad
Have'nt fuel costs started to fall[?] So we should now start to see this blatant profitering start to fall[?] Don't think so somehow[V]

Good luck with Trading Standards, keep us informed please?

I've not seen an 'blatant profiteering'. What I have seen is airlines having to add a surcharge to cover the massive increases in oil over the last few years. The alternative would be to cut routes, services or just simply give up and fold.

The surcharge won't be cut immediately as due to hedging, the price VS pay has been set until it expires. Even then I cannot see a decrease given the volatility of the worlds oil producing areas. The days of a barrel costing $20 has long gone.

Darren I tend to agree with everything you have written, however I think you are missing a vital point? VS should be completely honest and upfront in respect to any additional charges they decide to pass on to customers.

Regards
Bryan

An airline won't see the benefit of falling fuel costs immediately due to hedging which is done months ahead of time. The oil price that you see quoted on the news isn't for purchase today, its for future dates so if VS entered a purchase contract now it would be for payment/delivery in say 3 or 6 months time.

As for the prices not being clear, my opinion is that there's no way they're trying to 'screw' you. I imagine that you unfortunately just dealt with someone who is perhaps new/inexperienced and didn't realise that her vagueness could have such an impact.

Have you called them back to ask for clarification? Nothing is done manually so taxes and charges will been calculated in the system and there will be a reconciliation of the difference for you. VS is a regulated company who would never ever add charges that were't legally payable by the passenger.

Originally posted by sixdownkeepsafedepth

Originally posted by Darren Wheeler

Originally posted by goanmad
Have'nt fuel costs started to fall[?] So we should now start to see this blatant profitering start to fall[?] Don't think so somehow[V]

Good luck with Trading Standards, keep us informed please?

I've not seen an 'blatant profiteering'. What I have seen is airlines having to add a surcharge to cover the massive increases in oil over the last few years. The alternative would be to cut routes, services or just simply give up and fold.

The surcharge won't be cut immediately as due to hedging, the price VS pay has been set until it expires. Even then I cannot see a decrease given the volatility of the worlds oil producing areas. The days of a barrel costing $20 has long gone.

Darren I tend to agree with everything you have written, however I think you are missing a vital point? VS should be completely honest and upfront in respect to any additional charges they decide to pass on to customers.

Regards
Bryan

Bryan, you have completely hit the nail on the head. Had they done that in the first place there would not have been an issue.

Miopyk[8D]

Originally posted by RJD
Have you called them back to ask for clarification? Nothing is done manually so taxes and charges will been calculated in the system and there will be a reconciliation of the difference for you. VS is a regulated company who would never ever add charges that were't legally payable by the passenger.

I love flying with VS and have been loyal to them for 5 years for all our trips across the pond. Things don't go wrong often but when they do their Customer Service stinks.

In this instance when I questioned what the charges were for I was told in no uncertain terms 'government imposed taxes'. When I pushed further I was put on hold and then told the same thing again. As the agent had the opportunity to check her facts this was no mistake.

Since I'm not looking for any recompense there is always the possibility that after reading this thread someone from VS may decide to contact me directly and explain the situation. But failing that rather than me having to go through the pain of dealing with VS Customer Services I'll contact Trading Standards next week and ask them to investigate.


Miopyk[8D]

The price of fuel increased and so did fuel surcharges, where was the 'hedging' then? It came into effect immediately?

Unlike banks who pass on full interest rate rises immediately, airlines don't pass on fuel surcharges straight away, and they don't pass on the full charges. Every airline undertakes risk analysis to match expected pax numbers with possible, probable and extreme fuel costs and undertakes hedging to try and reduce the impact on both profit and on ticket prices. There is an element of timing here as well - buying a ticket well in advance pays off with rising fuel prices but loses if they tumble.

The fuel surcharge often doesn't cover even half of the actual extra cost to the airline, hence why so many are taking a bath right now - airlines aren't out to 'get' the passengers, they are trying to survive whilst being as fair as they can to their pax.

So, I have booked to go to St Lucia in January. I have paid my Fuel Surcharges. So IF the price of fuel either continues to fall or even remains static and IF after the 'hedging' (new term for me!)process has taken place, given that it is almost six months away, will VS refund all or part of my surcharge? I think not and thats the reason so many people bitch on about fuel surcharge.
By all means, VS or any airline for that matter should protect themselves from rising oil prices by charging customers fuel surcharges, it makes perfect business sense. However, if/when the surcharge is not required, give it back ! [V]

NOC

Alternatively if fuel prices shoot up you won't have to pay the additional surcharge that other pax might be paying - the luck of the financial environment draw I'm afraid.

Companies undertake currency, commodity and interest rate hedging for everything from fuel to rent to loan payments up to a certain percentage of the known/expected obligation - this ensures that, whilst they might not be able to take advantage of the positive movements, they are protected from negative index movements.

Originally posted by RJD
Alternatively if fuel prices shoot up you won't have to pay the additional surcharge that other pax might be paying - the luck of the financial environment draw I'm afraid.

Companies undertake currency, commodity and interest rate hedging for everything from fuel to rent to loan payments up to a certain percentage of the known/expected obligation - this ensures that, whilst they might not be able to take advantage of the positive movements, they are protected from negative index movements.

While I don't disagree with what you are saying the fact that airlines use hedging to stabalise pricing for a period in the future should mean that the price of a ticket including fuel surcharges should also remain stable for the same period. Where is this information published and if it isn't, why not?

The issue I have isn't paying the additional charges it is the lack of clarity as to what they are for. Airlines should be honest about their charges and when requested provide customers with a clear explanation of what any additional charges are for. In fact my belief is that this is actually a legal requirement and that is the crux of my annoyance.

Miopyk[8D]