The Consumer Travel Alliance calls Spirit Airlines’ new $100 fee for carry-on bags a wake up call for DOT. When the fee for a carry-on bag can be more than three times the cost of airfare itself, advertising only the airfare is deceptive and misleading to the flying public. When ancillary fees add dramatically to the airfare itself, airlines should be required to disclose baggage and seat reservation fees upfront everywhere they sell airline tickets.

Though Spirit Airlines is, presently, alone in charging as much as $100 for a carry-on bag, a fee like this underscores the need for airlines to disclose ancillary fees in every channel where they choose to sell airline tickets. These fees are not simple convenience fees. They are spread through the entire air travel purchase process and they can add dramatically to the cost of travel.

Worse, these additional baggage fees and other fees are not disclosed to more than half of airline consumers who buy tickets through travel agents or on online. This makes it impossible to easily compare prices across airlines that include baggage, seat reservation and other fees.

Charlie Leocha, director of the Consumer Travel Alliance, says, “Consumers don’t fully understand just how much these extra fees end up adding to the total cost of travel.” He adds, “Our surveys have shown that more than half of the airline travelers in the U.S. find themselves surprised by extra fees after they have purchased their airline tickets.”

When around 70 percent of those who fly only take to the skies once a year and airlines advertise lowest-possible airfares to game travel Website systems, disclosing, at the very least, the basic extras — baggage and seat reservation fees — is needed for any comparative-pricing honesty.

• A US Airways flight from Washington Reagan to Boston can be purchased with an airfare of between $140-$170 on most dates with an advanced purchase. Baggage charges for two checked bags will cost $120 round-trip, adding 70 to 85 percent to the cost of travel. Adding a special seat reservation can easily double the cost of travel.

• A Delta flight from Detroit to Ft. Lauderdale lists at only $268 for an advance-purchase ticket. In this case, the added costs for two pieces of checked baggage adds 45 percent to the cost of travel.

• An American Airlines $534 transcontinental flight from LAX to Dulles can cost 22 percent more when two pieces of luggage are added to the airfare.
• A $348 United flight between Chicago and Denver costs 34 percent more when baggage fees are calculated for two checked bags.

• When a Spirit Airlines flight for $334 from Denver to Fort Lauderdale is listed alongside a Delta flight on the same route costing $342, the deception is supremely evident. Spirit’s added fees just for a carry-on bag can add another $100 to the cost, while Delta has no charges for carry-on bags.

“Unless, a passenger is traveling with only a small purse,” notes Leocha, “they will be required to pay some sort of fee on Spirit Airlines, which makes comparing only airfares bogus.”

Because airlines refuse to disclose their fees to airline price-comparison search engines or to either online or corner travel agents, everyday consumers have no way to know that they are being deceived.

These extra fees, not included in the airfares, not only surprise leisure travelers, but they make it difficult for America’s corporations to budget effectively for travel and make it more difficult for workers who travel to be reimbursed for their extra fee expense.

For more than half-a-decade, since airlines began to charge separately for baggage and choice seat reservations, America’s leisure and business travelers have not had the opportunity to easily compare the total cost of travel across airlines. It’s time the airlines let their customers know the full cost of air travel before they purchase. That’s not too much to ask.

If anyone thought airline baggage fees were reaching a plateau, take a loolk at Spirit Airlines’ new baggage fees coming into effect in November 2012. — $100 for carry-on luggage checked in at the gate! Unbelievable!

Are baggage fees simple and easy-to-understand? Take a look at this page of baggage fees from Spirit on their webaite. Frankly, it is more than I can paste into this website and have it be understandable.

Looking at the website, we know that baggage charges and other fees are now COMPLEX and not something that is readily transparent. Once the number choices go beyond a half-dozen or so, they become confusing to the public.

Just this Spirit Airlines webpage could be a poster for disclosure of baggage and other fees on travel agent screens and websites so that consumers can compare the overall cost of travel across airlines.

DOT is examining exactly this kind of issue right now. A final rulemaking is expected a the end of the year.

More than once (actually, a lot more than once) I have heard from passengers that the cheap airfare they expected from Spirit Airlines turned out to cost about the same as another airline’s airfare after all of the extra fees were included.

Spirit Airlines charges $45 for a carry-on bag, today. The fee for a carry-on bag at the boarding gate increase to $100 on November 6th. If the bag needs to fit in the overhead bin it is considered a carry-on. A small bag that fits under the seat is free.

On November 6th, the price for a carry-on paid for at an airport kiosk will increase to $50 from $40. Plus, another series of baggage fees will creep up by $5-$10.

Airline pilots do it. Military pilots do it. Private pilots do it. JetBlue does it. Alec Baldwin tried to do it. Why can’t we do it? Use electronic items during take off and landing? Once upon a time, with old cell phones there may have been a reason to limit electronic interference with aircraft avionics. Is that still true?

With the proliferation of iPads and tablet computers in the cockpit, not to mention computers and electronics out the gazoo surrounding pilots, is there any justification for the current ban (that perhaps half of the passengers ignore) on having electronics turned on during airliner takeoff and landing?

Earlier this week, one of the most contentious part of the flight was the flight attendants marching up and down the aisle of the plane demanding that everyone turn off their electronic items. Over and over I heard, “Airplane mode is not good enough. Turn it completely off.” One flight attendant noticed the glowing red light indicating that my noise-canceling earphone were turned on and made a special trip to admonish me. It is really necessary?

New FAA rules, Air Force findings and common sense seem to indicate that current FAA rules flight attendants are ostensibly following are outdated. After all of the pre-flight brouhaha on my last flight, the passenger sitting next to me only switched his iPhone to “airplane mode.” He kept peeking at it from time to time as we taxied to the takeoff runway. We didn’t crash.

After reading the latest test results from the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command that they plan to “junk paper navigation charts and technical manuals and replace them with digital versions stored on Apple iPad tablet computers issued to every crew member,” it begs the question — should airline passengers be punished for using something that the pilots use during take off and landing?

The command said in a Dec. 29, 2011, justification and approval notice that it plans to acquire 2,861 iPad 2s to serve as electronic flight bags for its crews. Air Force officials determined after a three-month product evaluation completed last fall that only the Apple tablet met the command’s requirements.

Command officials tested tablets in five aircraft, including the vertical takeoff and landing CV-22 Osprey, and determined that the iPad “outmatched all peer competitors — not only meeting but exceeding AFSOC mission specifications.”

The iPads will contain digital versions of National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Flight Information Publications for navigation, which are updated as often as every month, and aircraft technical manuals. The transition to an electronic flight bag will cut printing costs and reduce the time needed to manually distribute paper versions, the notice said.

The FAA has authorized airlines to use iPads with digital navigation charts specifically during take off and landing.

Recently, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorized a certificated operator to use an iPad as a Class 1 EFB. In this particular case, the operator is using the iPad with the Jeppesen Mobile TC App to display approach plates, terminal procedures, and airport diagrams. This operator worked closely with their certificate holding district office, Jeppesen, and Apple during the application and evaluation process.

United Airlines has decided to equip all of its 11,000 pilots with electronic flight bags.

The iPads are loaded with Jeppesen Mobile FliteDeck, the industry’s premier app featuring interactive, data-driven enroute navigation information and worldwide geo-referenced terminal charts. The enhanced full-color, high-quality information display ensures the right information is displayed at the right time.

Each iPad, which weighs less than 1.5 pounds, will replace approximately 38 pounds of paper operating manuals, navigation charts, reference handbooks, flight checklists, logbooks and weather information in a pilot’s flight bag. A conventional flight bag full of paper materials contains an average of 12,000 sheets of paper per pilot. The green benefits of moving to EFBs are two-fold—it significantly reduces paper use and printing, and, in turn, reduces fuel consumption. The airline projects EFBs will save nearly 16 million sheets of paper a year which is equivalent to more than 1,900 trees not cut down. Saving 326,000 gallons of jet fuel a year reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 3,208 metric tons.

The Consumer Travel Alliance sent a a letter to the FAA last January in an effort to shed some light on the current rules and ask the administration to take another look at passenger rules since they are in the process of changing all of the rules for the airlines and their pilots.

This week the FAA announced that they are moving forward on a study about the effects of electronics on the navigation systems of aircraft. The Consumer Travel Alliance will be following their findings with interest.

Photo: Courtesy United Continental Holdings

We have all heard of Predator drones striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan, Yemen and other countries. There, these unmanned aircraft can fly with impunity. But, what about here at home? Drones area already being used to monitor our borders, realtors use them for aerial shots of properties, police departments (see video above) are using drones more and more, and this is just the beginning.

A little-noticed section of the latest FAA legislation pays attention to the development of drones and the Consumer Travel Alliance (CTA) has their antennas tuned to coming changes and how they will affect airline passenger safety.

CTA has already met with drone manufacturer representatives and with pilots to discuss the development of the commercial drone market in the U.S. The technology is out of the bottle, now the nation must figure out how to safely mix manned and unmanned aircraft from small, hand-launched, model-sized planes to unmanned planes the size of 747s.

Whether we like it or not, drone usage in the U.S. airspace is growing. It is growing quickly. Some of the concepts are beyond current public imagination, such as the remote piloting of large, 747-sized cargo aircraft across oceans that may reduce pilot requirements in the future. But that is a subject for future articles.

Today, the market for domestic drones is the focus of a sliver of Washington’s aviation watchdog agencies. More importantly, Congress has mandated in the FAA bill a full report and a plan to integrate drones (unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs) into the nation’s skies by September 2015.

…under the FAA bill, proponents envision huge fleets of drones operated nationwide by states, local governments and companies.

Unmanned aircraft can be as small as a hummingbird or have the wingspan of an airliner. Among their possible uses are environmental monitoring, fire protection and surveillance of suspected criminals. Other potential roles include industrial jobs such as checking power lines and tracking equipment.

Drone manufacturers, local governments and business groups have long complained about the FAA’s go-slow approach to allowing unmanned and manned aircraft to share the same airspace. The bill, among other things, requires the FAA to move expeditiously to phase in operation of smaller drones and establish six test areas nationwide to demonstrate safety technology.

The UAV realm is an aviation market that will grow dramatically over the coming decade and the need for systems that can operate in an integrated manner is accepted by all parties.

“There is a huge potential market for civilian and commercial uses of unmanned aircraft systems,” says Ben Gielow, general counsel for the industry group Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International.

The market will almost double over the next decade to $11.3 billion, according to a March estimate by the Teal Group in Fairfax, Va., which analyzes the aerospace and defense industries.

Commercial pilots have raised safety concerns. Although pilots are required to spend time flying planes and are tested on their abilities to hold licenses, no similar rules exist for the controllers of remote aircraft. Likewise, the FAA doesn’t certify drones like passenger planes against engine failure or wings falling off.

In discussions with Capt. Lee Moak, president of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), he noted that these UAVs are unmanned, but that they still require pilots on the ground at control stations to remotely pilot the aircraft. He points out that there are currently no certification regulations for these ground-based unmanned aircraft operators similar to the stringent requirements imposed by the FAA on passenger aircraft and on even private pilots who require testing to receive pilot’s licenses.

He noted in other interviews that there have already been problems associated with pilots and drone control.

Despite their many successful flights in Afghanistan, drones occasionally crash.

In August, for instance, an unmanned Shadow drone collided with a C-130 cargo plane. The cargo plane had to make an emergency landing at a base in eastern Afghanistan, but nobody was injured.

A drone occasionally goes awry here, too. In August 2010, the military considered shooting down a Navy Fire Scout drone that wandered close to restricted airspace near Washington, D.C., after controllers lost their link to the drone. But controllers regained contact.

In a freewheeling discussion with CTA about drones and their inevitability, ALPA members noted that in the future, long-rang flights might be able to fly with fewer pilots — A pilot on the ground could serve as a remote pilot should the pilots aboard the aircraft need rest. The pilots I spoke with don’t envision 747-sized aircraft flying without a pilot in the cockpit. However, they do admit that remote pilots may be suggested as a solution for long-range flights.

It is a new world that is hurtling towards us rapidly. The FAA has a three-year deadline to draw up plans for the manned and unmanned world to live together in the skies. This will be a regulatory battle between industries and unions that will shake the foundations of the aviation community.

Though consumers didn’t end up with a legislated three-hour tarmac-delay rule, nor did they manage to get a “Sense of Congress” comment about airline price transparency, there is a lot to cheer about in the bill that will probably be passed next week.

Before delving into the nitty-gritty, the overall bill is welcome for the aviation industry. It is not just loaded with goodies and marching orders for the various industries that surround air transportation, but it will end up saving taxpayers hundreds-of-millions of dollars, perhaps billions, if only for the ability to plan ahead and coordinate projects.

Plus, as the NextGen air traffic navigation system gets put into place across the country there will be amazing savings in terms of the environment, carbon emissions, fuel savings, time saved and a decrease in delays and cancellations.

Specifically for consumers, the bill adds an airport component to the tarmac-delay regulations from DOT, new no-smoking rules, a new Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protection is formed, musical baggage rules, military traveler breaks, child safety seat changes and new disclosure requirements for websites and phone numbers to handle complaints are mandated.

Plus, new studies about cell phones, delays and cancellations, as well as checked baggage are required by this bill, which may change the lay of the legislative and regulatory land regarding travel in the future.

Here is a section by section breakout of the main consumer issues. These are organized according to the bill sections that were released this afternoon by the Commerce Committee.

Sec. 401 — Smoking is banned on virtually all flight, both domestic and foreign serving the USA.

Sec. 402 — Reporting of airline delays and cancellations are codified and now required by law. DOT already required some of these kinds of reports, so there will be no big change for consumers. However, DOT will have more data to track the effects of the current tarmac-delay regulations.

Sec. 403 — New rules for musical instruments have been specified to allow passengers to carry on smaller musical instruments as carry-on luggage and it outlines new rules for large instruments. Don’t get terribly excited — final new rules from DOT are not due until two years.

Sec. 405 — A Sense of Congress that military members and families should be granted special exemptions for many of the airline rules for luggage and family members.

Sec. 406 — Requires an update of a year 2000 GAO report on Delays, Cancellations, and Associated Causes within one year. The report will cover impact of delays and cancellations on the industry and consumers.

Sec. 407 — Compensation for delayed baggage. Congress instructs the Comptroller General to do a study of compensation for lost or delayed baggage in this new world of baggage fees. The report should assess the options for and examine the impact of establishing minimum standards to compensate a passenger in the case of an unreasonable delay in the delivery of checked baggage. Study is due in 180 days.

Sec. 408 — DOT airline consumer complaint investigations now get the force of legislation in consumer vs. airline disputes and complaints.

Sec. 409 — Requires an FAA study of all airline operations in the country focused especially on airline equipment, safety and sales revenues.

Sec. 410 — Study of the effects of cell phone use in airplanes to be delivered within 120 days. Basically, Congress wants to know if there is a there a technical reason that passengers cannot use cell phones in flight.

Sec. 411 — Create an Advisory Committee for Aviation Consumer Protections to “to advise the Secretary in carrying out activities relating to airline customer service improvements.”

The job of this committee is:

(1) evaluating existing aviation consumer protection programs and providing recommendations for the improvement of such programs, if needed; and
(2) providing recommendations for establishing additional aviation consumer protection programs, if needed.

Sec. 412 — Disclosure of seat dimensions to facilitate use of child safety seats. This is supposed to be completed with in one year of the passage of this law.

Airlines will be required “to post on the Internet Web site of the air carrier the maximum dimensions of a child safety seat that can be used on each aircraft operated by the air carrier to enable passengers to determine which child safety seats can be used on those aircraft.”

Sec. 413 — Gives FAA power under law to regulate airport air traffic in case of overcrowding of airports.

Sec. 414 — Provides 16 exemptions to the Washington/Reagan Airport perimeter rule. This means that 16 more flights a day can fly from DC to points beyond 1,250 miles from Washington, DC. There is a complex matrix of shifting flights from airports within the perimeter to new destinations outside of the perimeter limit.

Sec. 415 — Airports will be included in the tarmac-delay coordination with airlines. This will come into play and may serve to avoid the issues that caused the tarmac delays at Hartford during the freak October snowstorm.

• The establishment of a telephone line at DOT for consumer complaints plus the publication of that DOT number and the DOT website as well as airline consumer complaint numbers and contacts for problems. These numbers and website address must be displayed as follows:

(1) prominently displayed signs of the carrier at the airport ticket counters in the United States where the air carrier operates; and
(2) any electronic confirmation of the purchase of a passenger ticket for air transportation issued by the air carrier.

• Mandates the creation of a DOT Web page that “contains a listing of countries that may require an air carrier or foreign air carrier to treat an aircraft passenger cabin with insecticides prior to a flight in foreign air transportation to that country or to apply an aerosol insecticide in an aircraft cabin used for such a flight when the cabin is occupied with passengers.”

With the removal of the National Mediation Board as an impediment to passage of the long-suffering FAA bill, Congress is ready to get the bill passed. Let’s face it, they are tired of flogging the same old horse. Plus, members realize that it is time to move forward with modernization of our air traffic control system which is inexorably entwined with getting this bill passed.

The good news — the FAA bill will finally move forward and the aviation community and the country at large can get on with necessary air transportation network improvements. The bad news — virtually all meaningful consumer protection provisions have been stripped from the bill. Theoretically, the bill still has to go through conference committee this afternoon, but the deed is done.

The worker bees at the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Transportation Committee have sealed deals and the conference committee will more than likely be a rubber stamp to the compromises made and wording crafted in cross-Hill meetings that have been going on for almost a year in preparation for this day.

Of course, Senators and Representatives on the conference committee will huff and puff, but it’s all over but the shouting. Though, a “Sense of Congress” statement that the Consumer Travel Alliance was championing will not be included and specific three-hour tarmac-delay rules will not be mandated, this is a good bipartisan bill for America.

Let me acknowledge the staff of the major committees that have shepherded this FAA bill through multiple Congresses. The committee staffs have provided the steady hand through elections, party changes and budget battles. They are the ones who made the real bipartisan compromises. They are the ones who dealt with the nitty-gritty while their bosses set the scene with the big picture.

Here is a big shout out to the Consumer Travel Alliance’s main Capitol Hill staff contacts that we have worked with during the three years of our effort in Washington. They deserve a big thank you from consumers who are unaware of their hard work but who will benefit from changes that they make possible. This group are unsung heroes.

Holly Woodruff Lyons — House Transportation Committee
Debbie Gephardt — House Aviation Subcommittee
Gael Sullivan — Senate Commerce Committee
Rich Swayze — Senate Commerce Committee
Jarrod Thompson — Senate Commerce Committee

It is time that we move on into the future of aviation. Plus, consumer issues are perhaps best pursued through regulatory channels where safety and consumer deception are the focus rather than through legislative routes where politics taints all other other issues.

As an airline lobbyist told me yesterday after our final negotiations failed to add language encouraging price transparency, “Technology will probably trump and overtake all of our issues.”

She’s right.

To that end, the Consumer Travel Alliance is already meeting with companies at the forefront of travel technology. And though Congress doesn’t see a need to pressure the airlines for open data and free flow of ancillary fees and transparent pricing, the technology community certainly does.

Our organization is already discussing free flow of data and airline pricing with the giants of Web travel technology — Google, Expedia, Orbitz, Sabre, Amadeus, Travelport — as well as smaller IT companies like FareCompare and Farelogix, and the airlines, as well, to craft a way that the open flow of transparent pricing and data will be able to make airline travel a better experience and provide consumers an informative platform from which to make travel decisions.

We’ve all seen that “great deal” airline ad, only to discover that with surcharges, taxes and fees, the great deal is not-so-great. Starting today, when airline consumers see an advertised price of $500 that will be the price they pay. (Of course, there will still be some additional irritating “optional” fees like baggage charges, seat reservations, etc.)

Here is a synopsis of new rule changes that came into effect in phases this Tuesday and today affecting airfares and airline fees.

Full-fare advertising

Starting today, all advertised airline prices will have to be the full cost of travel. Airlines are squirming, claiming that their business will suffer if they are required to advertise the full cost of travel and suggesting that consumers will be scared away when they see a jump in prices when this rule comes into effect. Consumers may see what seems to be an increase in prices, but it will only be transparent honesty that is to blame.

Many airlines and some analysts have argued that making airlines play by a different set of rules than other industries is, well, un-American. However, DOT has found itself all but forced to act because of the astounding discrepancies in the advertised price and the real price of airline travel.

On some domestic routes the difference will be minimal. On international routes the price increases may seem astronomical.

The price on Orbitz (Jan. 23rd) for a flight from Boston to London Heathrow departing on April 17th and returning April 24th is advertised with a $130 round-trip airfare! After airlines, airports and governments add on another $622 in taxes and fees, the total cost is $752.

Orbitz screen detail, January 23, 2012, $130 airfare + $622 taxes and fees

Priceline.com BOS-LHR display on Jan. 26, 2012 — much more honest and clear

Is it honest advertising to advertise a flight from Boston to London for $130 when the lowest cost to travel would be $752? I think everyone would agree that it is not.

Unfortunately, the slew of “optional fees,” especially such as baggage fees and seat reservation fees that can add more than a hundred dollars to the cost are still concealed from airline shoppers unless they do some digging. The airlines are not making comparison shopping easy when it comes to examining the full cost of travel across airlines, including optional fees. And, yes, consumer groups are encouraging DOT to mandate that airlines disclose, at least, baggage and reservation fee information before consumers have to press the “buy” button.

Exact baggage charges

• Passenger-specific baggage fees are now required on flight itineraries. Airlines must tell the passenger exactly what their baggage fee will be based on their frequent flier status, class of service, the credit card with which they purchased the airfare and take into account whether the passenger is traveling with others, on the same ticket record, who have benefits or dispensation that they can share.

Though airlines still refuse to disclose baggage fees that can be compared across airlines during the buying process, this measure will allow passengers to know what they will have to pay, rather than find themselves surprised at the airport.

Baggage fees across code-share and alliance flights

• The marketing carrier must provide passengers a common baggage charge that will apply throughout their trip when travel involves code-share and alliance partners. For instance, a ticket purchased on Delta Airlines may not involved any flights on Delta, but the Delta baggage rules will apply. If the first flight with a Delta flight number is on an Air France to Paris, the second is on Alitalia from Paris to Rome and the return flight from Rome via Amsterdam to the U.S. is on KLM, the Delta baggage rules will apply.

As confusing as domestic baggage fees have become, international baggage fees on a Delta-flight-number ticket used to be indecipherable. Now, consumers may get baggage fees that are comprehensible.

More new rules with important protections

Besides these new rules that come into effect this week regarding pricing, airlines must allow a 24-hour grace period to change airline tickets or cancel them after purchase. They will be forbidden from increasing prices after airfare purchase. And, airlines will be required to inform passengers of delays of 30 minutes or more, cancellations and diversions within 30 minutes of the carrier becoming aware of the change.

Finally, airline consumers are getting some respect.

A version of this story was published on CNN.com on January 25, 2012

There is a new regulation coming into effect, “Don’t mislead passengers.” Let’s call it the “truth in advertising” rule. Understandably, the airlines are incensed. Spirit Airlines is leading the charge. How dare the government mandate that they tell the truth. After decades of being allowed to mislead the public and bury taxes and fees in the fine print, being forced to be honest doesn’t come easily.

Amazingly, now that airlines are being forced to “reveal” all taxes and fees in their advertised airfares, Spirit Airlines is claiming the government is requiring them to “hide” taxes from the flying public.

Balderdash! It is exactly the opposite. Now, the government is mandating that the airlines disclose all taxes and fees rather than hiding them in tiny type at the bottom of a newspaper or magazine page or in links from their website prices.

Spirit Airlines’ most recent campaign claiming that the government is forcing them to “hide” taxes is a sorry twisting of the truth. In a move that would make George Orwell blush, Spirit has launched a website claiming that by including taxes and fees in advertised costs they are hiding the fees. The very premise of the Website is misleading and another attempt to mislead their customers.

On their “keepmyfareslow.org” website Spirit claims,

Thanks to the U.S. Department of Transportation’s latest fare rules, Spirit must now HIDE the government’s taxes and fees in your fares.

Absolutely false! The DOT rules only say that Spirit Airlines must include their mandatory taxes and fees in their advertised fares. Spirit Airlines must be upfront and honest. They can disclose a breakout of taxes and fees anytime they want.

Spirit Airlines, in a burst of transparency, can create a separate Web page with prominent links to taxes. They can plaster taxes and fees all over their home page. Spirit can tell their customers how much they have spent on taxes and fees in a separate line on every ticket itinerary. Their claims that the government is forcing them to hide taxes is a flat out, unadulterated twisted look at reality.

Evidently, Spirit Airlines hasn’t been reading their mail from DOT. The department specifically stated:

the Department decided to include a provision permitting a seller of air transportation to break-out these charges while still displaying the total price to be paid by the consumer. A separate statement of these taxes and fees, however, must not be false or misleading, must be provided on a per-passenger basis and must accurately reflect the cost of the charge to the carrier, and may not be displayed prominently. The purpose of the rule is to ensure consumers are not misled regarding the total cost of the purchase.

“Prominent” under this rule means that the break-out of per-person charges cannot be in a more prominent place on a web page or in a print advertisement than the advertised total fare.

The Consumer Travel Alliance that worked together with and encouraged DOT to mandate truth in advertising notes that there is nothing in the new regulations that prevents Spirit Airlines from publishing a complete breakout of their advertised price. Just as oil companies often post taxes and fees at the pump, airlines are free to list taxes and fees any time they want.

Only an airline like Spirit that thrives on obscure ancillary fees that are not included in their ads or their booking process to make a buck could conjure up such a misleading, “the government is making me hide your taxes” campaign.

Spirit is an airline that, with a straight face, offers ridiculously low “airfares” only to pump them up with fee after fee after fee. Even after the ticket purchase, Spirit finds ways to squeeze in a few more fees. This is an airline whose marketing depends on using low advertised fares that cannot be purchased (because Spirit is hiding the taxes and fees) to pump up their fee income.

Spirit is an airline that prides itself on charging $45 for carry-on bags, $10 for purchasing a ticket on the Web, $5 for printing a boarding pass at an airport, $95 for an “administrative fee,” $16.99 for a “usage fee,” $10 for a “package booking fee,” up to $95 for checking a bag and $50 for privilege of reserving a seat in advance. Some of these fees I cannot decipher and there are more.

It is such a shame when a business model based on deception is forced to be more transparent and honest. If honest and full disclosure damages Spirit Airlines’ bottom line, so be it.

New regulations going into effect this week will help ensure that consumers are treated fairly when they travel by air, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said today. Among the new provisions, part of the airline consumer rule issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation in April 2011, are requirements that airlines and ticket agents include all mandatory taxes and fees in published airfares and that they disclose baggage fees to consumers buying tickets.

Here is the Department of Transportation release about the changes.

“Airline passengers have rights, and they should be able to expect fair and reasonable treatment when booking a trip and when they fly,” U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said. “The new passenger protections taking effect this week are a continuation of our effort to help air travelers receive the respect they deserve.”

Also beginning this week, passengers will be able to hold a reservation without payment, or cancel a booking without penalty, for 24 hours after the reservation is made, if they make the reservation one week or more prior to a flight’s departure date. In addition, airlines will be required to promptly notify passengers of flight delays of over 30 minutes, as well as flight cancellations and diversions, and they will generally be prohibited from increasing the price of passengers’ ticket after it is bought.

The new rules also will make it easier for passengers to determine the full price they will have to pay for air transportation prior to travel. Currently, airlines and ticket agents are allowed to publish ads that list government-imposed taxes and fees separately from the advertised fare, as long as these taxes and fees are assessed on a per-passenger basis. However, sometimes the notice of these taxes and fees is not obvious to consumers. Under the new requirements, all mandatory taxes and fees must be included together in the advertised fare. The advertising provision takes effect Jan. 26, 2012 while all of the other consumer protections go into effect on Jan. 24 of this year.

In addition, airlines and ticket agents will be required to disclose baggage fees to consumers when they book a flight online. The first screen containing a fare quotation for a specific itinerary must show if there will be additional baggage fees, and inform consumers where they can go to see these fees. Information on baggage fees also must be included on all e-ticket confirmations, and for most trips the same baggage allowances and fees must apply throughout a passenger’s journey.

The new requirements are the final provisions to become effective from the Department’s most recent airline consumer rule. A number of new measures required by the rule took effect on Aug. 23, 2011, including requirements that airlines refund baggage fees if bags are lost and provide increased compensation to passengers bumped from oversold flights.

Also beginning last August, the Department set a four-hour time limit on tarmac delays for all international flights at U.S. airports, and extended the three-hour tarmac delay limit for domestic flights to smaller airports. It also required additional airlines to report their lengthy tarmac delays to DOT.

The Department is looking at other airline consumer protection measures for a possible future rulemaking, including requiring that all airline optional fees be disclosed wherever consumers can book a flight, strengthening disclosure of code-share flights, and requiring additional carriers to file on-time performance reports.

Consumer Travel Alliance (CTA) has learned from sources on Capitol Hill that a deal has been struck to allow passage of the long-delayed FAA Reauthorization bill. Evidently, Republicans have agreed to modify the National Mediation Board (NMB) language in the bill which will allow the bill to move forward in about two weeks barring any glitches.

CTA has been working steadily to have inclusion of airline fee transparency language in the bill. It has garnered support from the Senate which included an amendment, introduced by Sen. Menendez (D-NJ), specifying that passengers be told of airline fees prior to purchase of air transportation. CTA has also been supported by GDS’s such as Amadeus, Sabre and Travelport, In additon, the American Society of Travel Agents (ASTA) and the Business Travel Coalition (BTC, representing corporate travel managers) have been working side-by-side with CTA.

The final CTA proposal sent to the Commerce Committee and Transportation Committee requested language that would instruct the Department of Transportation (DOT) to:

Prepare a rulemaking that will create a framework for all airlines, foreign and domestic, to disclose airfares, mandatory or optional fees and taxes in such a manner that the total cost of travel is available to passengers for across-airlines price comparison and purchase through all sales channels with which any airline agrees to do business.

Negotiations are ongoing between congressional staffers on both sides of the aisle. However, the airlines, so far, have refused any language that will force them to disclose prices, any prices other than the basic airfare stripped of all ancillary services such as baggage, seat reservations, meals, WiFi, etc.

This would be a good time call your Congressman or Senator and let them know you would like to know the full cost of travel before you have to purchase your airline tickets.

Knowing what you are paying for is not too much to ask.

The FAA bill deal reached Friday applies only to the Railway Labor Act that governs airline unionization. The new agreement, if passed, will require a public hearing before the NMB makes future rulings.

Here is the wording, tucked at the end of the House version of the bill, that Democrats would not allow to move forward:

SEC. 903. REPEAL OF RULE.
…the rule prescribed by the National Mediation Board relating to representation election procedures published on May 11, 2010 (95 Fed. Reg.26062) and revising sections 1202 and 1206 of title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, shall have no force or effect.

The agreement between the Senate and House will change the way union elections are held, changing runoff rules so that one of the options on the runoff ballot could be “no union.” Plus, with the new agreement, if passed, it will take 50 percent of the workers ask for an election or decirtification of a union.