=20 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- This article was sent to you by someone who found it on SFGate. The original article can be found on SFGate.com here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=3D/c/a/2006/03/12/TRG5SHKJV6= 1.DTL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday, March 12, 2006 (SF Chronicle) Proposal could ease rules requiring disclosure of true cost of airfares Ed Perkins Say you log onto Expedia or Orbitz, search for the lowest airfare from Chelm to Kampen, and see a fare of just $199 on Ferguson Airlines -- $100 less than on any other line. Only after you click "buy" do you come to a screen that displays what you really have to pay: $199 base airfare, plus $64 "fuel surcharge," $42 "retired employees' pension fund contribution," $26 "interest on airline debt," $22 "executive bonus fee," and $9 "lavatory cleaning fee." That $199 airfare just became $362 -- a total that might well be higher than what you'd have paid with an airline that priced its flights honestly. Don't laugh: That's just the way some airlines want to present airfares. They're pushing for a broader government license to mislead you in their price advertising. If the current sneak attack on advertising standards is successful, every traveler will have a much tougher time sorting out the true prices. Currently, the U.S. Department of Transportation requires airlines to include in the published airfare the federal excise tax on airfares plus any "surcharges" an airline might want to impose, while allowing them to exclude any extras that vary depending on the specific schedule you book, such as per-passenger taxes and fees imposed by the federal government or individual airports. But late last year, DOT quietly issued a "notice of proposed rulemaking" to revise its advertising policies. The proposed notice says DOT will consider four options: (1) maintain the current practice, (2) end the exception for per-passenger government-imposed taxes and fees, (3) eliminate all requirements for airfare advertisements except that consumers be apprised of the total purchase price before the purchase is made, or (4) eliminate truth-in-advertising rules entirely. Although alternatives 1 and 2 would nominally preserve or improve truthfulness, most likely they're merely window dressing for a push to gut consumer protections entirely. My worries aren't just academic. Airlines in other countries already add= a laundry list of unadvertised extras and surcharges; I'm sure the U.S. lines would love nothing better than to do the same. Moreover, DOT already approves one deception airlines routinely use: featuring round-trip fares at half their true price, with fine print saying, "each way based on round-trip purchase." In effect, DOT says it's OK for airlines to mislead you in big type if they correct it in the fine print. To the extent possible, price advertising by airlines (or any other companies, for that matter) should be required to pass a "buyability" test. That means highlighted prices at which you can actually buy a ticket. DOT alternative (2) would help hold airlines to a buyability standard. DOT alternatives (3) and (4), on the other hand, would give them carte blanche to split their true price into a phony base plus a bunch of arbitrary "surcharges" and "extras." Uniform, buyable prices are especially critical in these days of online comparisons, where we often have to make a selection among options displayed on the first screen. Clearly, then, DOT alternative (2) is by far the most beneficial option for consumers; (3) or (4) would be disastrous. Unfortunately, the official comment period for this "stealth" rulemaking procedure closed in mid-February. Unless enough travelers raise a big enough stink, the airlines will probably get away with their ploy. If you agree that giving airlines a broadened license to mislead is a really bad idea, I urge that you log onto dms.dot.gov/support, and indicate your support for fully inclusive price advertising. A note to your senator or representative wouldn't be a bad idea, either. E-mail syndicated author Ed Perkins at eperkins@xxxxxxxxx --------------= -------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle