In February the OFT issued a warning and set a deadline for
compliance. It expired last Thursday. Non-optional charges include
government taxes, fuel supplements, security and airport charges
and can add substantially to the basic cost of a ticket.
The OFT said last week that most airlines it has contacted have
agreed to review their pricing practices. Some have agreed to
change their pricing to make it more transparent. The OFT is now
reviewing adverts and websites to ensure that compliance is
complete.
The OFT has identified but not named a minority of airlines that
have failed to comply. It intends to bring enforcement proceedings
against these airlines.
Meanwhile, the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) has
issued a reminder to its members that its Code of Conduct requires
them to include all fixed non-optional costs, inclduing taxes, in
the basic advertised prices of their holidays.
ABTA Chief Executive Mark Tanzer said last week: "The days of
the 1p flight have now gone, but in reality they were never
here."
Earlier this month the Air Transport Users' Council (AUC) issued
a plea for pricing transparency. AUC research in 2005 suggested
that only 43% of travellers who booked flights online were aware
that diffferent airlines often charged different levels of taxes,
fees and charges for the same route. Follow-up research last month
found that many airlines, particularly budget carriers, continued
to separate taxes, fees and charges from the main fare.
The OFT is empowered by the Enterprise Act 2002 to obtain court
orders against traders that breach a range of consumer legislation
including laws on misleading advertising and misleading
pricing.
A DTI Code of Practice for Traders on Price Indications states
that when advertising holiday and travel prices, any non-optional
extra charges which are for fixed amounts should be included in the
basic price and not shown as additions, unless they are only
payable by some consumers. Contravention of the Code does not of
itself give rise to any civil or criminal liability but evidence of
breaches of the Code can be used to support a prosecution for the
offence of giving a misleading price indication, contrary to the
Consumer Protection Act 1987.
