The charges that were added by Southwest included various flat-rate taxes and fees including the federal segment tax, the 9-11 security fee, and airport PFC's. The 7.5% excise tax was included from the start. Southwest joined Spirit and Allegiant in asking the federal courts to block the new rule.
Dallas Morning News
Thanks for the link PRR 60.
I still have a problem with the idea that Southwest was "piling on" hidden charges that would have previously been included in the original ticket rate. The growing list of hidden costs that were confusing and annoying consumers were related to things like arbitrary fuel surcharges and baggage fees, but Southwest did not levy those fees in the first place. More than anything I'd like Jis to explain to us which US airline he thinks was doing a better job than Southwest of resisting the temptation to unbundle everything into a confusing myriad of secondary surcharges and fees. I'm hard pressed to come up with
anyone.
It's true that some of the fees that Southwest charges are of questionable value to passengers, but it's not like Southwest has much control over when they're levied or how they're used. The security fees are of questionable value when compared to the extremely small chance of being on a Southwest-sized aircraft on a Southwest-issued flight plan that is a target of actual terrorism. Even in the heyday of hijackings back in the 1960's and 1970's, when the most we had were early generation metal detectors and anyone at all could legally approach an open gate, it was extremely rare to be on a flight that was a direct target of any terrorist group. For an airline like Southwest the risk/reward equation still probably doesn't add up the same way it would for an airline like United or American.
PFC's as currently managed are also of questionable value in my opinion. Here at SAT we recently demolished an extremely well maintained and renovated terminal just so we could build a brand new replacement terminal with the exact same number of gates and even fewer active airlines. If American Airlines happens to go belly-up or is bought out then this brand new terminal will have no more than a couple of active United gates left in the whole building. Why did we waste all of that money on a brand new terminal that nobody was asking for and the vast majority of our city's visitors won't ever see? I really don't get it.
I can certainly understand Southwest's position about this being a rule that is applied almost nowhere in our
caveat emptor society outside of a handful of arbitrary exceptions such as airfare, gasoline, and concession venders. That being said, I can also see the benefit to giving the consumer the total cost up front along with a clearly itemized receipt before the last click. If it's unfair that these rules are only being applied to airfare then maybe the real solution is make them applicable virtually
everywhere like they are in Europe?
As Southwest explained in the article it's true that many of the fees that make up the final cost people pay are based on factors that may not be possible to quantify when creating a new nationwide advertisement. Well, that's what happens when you let your supposedly united market devolve into a huge mess of competitive tax districts actively sparing against each other for a dwindling number of tax dollars. As with many of America's problems, you reap what you sow.