Virgin reviews fares instead of increasing fuel surcharge.

[Mal]

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/story/0,20797,18988730-5003402,00.html

"AIRLINE Virgin Blue has decided to review its airfares on a route-by-route basis rather than an across-the-board increase in its fuel surcharge."

A step in the right direction I think. Now if only they could completely remove the Fuel Surcharge and replace it with fare increases, I think things would be better... And also put more pressure on Qantas to follow suit.

[Rant]
Fuel Surcharges should be in the base fare. And they should be calculated on the distance of the flight and likely burn of fuel. None of this "flat rate" whether you are flying 100miles or 1000miles rubbish.
[/rant]

 

[JohnK]

Re: Virgin reviews fares instead of increasing fuel surcharg

[Rant]
Fuel Surcharges should be in the base fare. And they should be calculated on the distance of the flight and likely burn of fuel. None of this "flat rate" whether you are flying 100miles or 1000miles rubbish.
[/rant]

You are so right, fuel surcharges have gone past their use by date.

 

[dajop]

Re: Virgin reviews fares instead of increasing fuel surcharg

None of this "flat rate" whether you are flying 100miles or 1000miles rubbish.

Or paying different rates whether you are flying 10,000 miles (SYD-LHR) or 10,000 miles (BNE-LHR with compulsory change in SIN, doubling the fuel charge).

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

or shorter trans-tasman vs longer intra oz :evil:

 

[serfty]

or shorter trans-tasman vs longer intra oz :evil:

I had to jump the gun this week and book MEL-HKG-MEL flights for four people far earlier than I planned. :evil: (2 T class, 2 V).

The reason? a $23 jump per segment as of Friday and $23 x 4 x 2 = $184.

As it was, the T class fares had T/L/C's of $220.02 each. :shock: :shock: :x