British Airways has not had a good month so far with oil prices soaring, a baggage handling disaster and an imminent strike by ground staff.
In answer to its problems it says it will put fares up, using the formula of a "fuel surcharge" to describe the rise. The media seems prepared to accept these rises unquestioningly although it costs the passenger and benefits the airline exactly the same if the amount paid is a surcharge or part of the main fare.
The only effect of calling it a surcharge is that enables the airline to advertise superficially cheaper headline fares. Go to the BA website and your first impression might be that you could fly to New York next week for £404. But closer analysis would show you actually paid £470.
Buyers could argue that the first figure is the 'price indication'.
Publishing a misleading price indication in respect of goods or services is an offence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. But it is a reflection on the inadequacy of consumer regulators in this country that it is a practice which has so far gone unchallenged.
BA is not the only airline to adopt surcharges: it is virtually universal in the airline industry.
However, when Virgin Atlantic adds a £73 surcharge to its £426 New York fare, it announces the entire fare at the same time, so it cannot be accused of misleading.
The self-proclaimed "low fare" airlines are currently not too bad at this. Easyjet's fares of up to £470 to Athens during the Olympics include only £20 extra charges, with a couple of pounds more included in Ryanair's £353 for flights to Murcia on August weekends.
It was encouraging to see new guidelines published by the Trading Standards Institute that air fares should include all non-optional charges such as taxes, surcharges, airport and security fees. It highlighted an offer of 99p flights in July that actually cost £63.
Besides the irritation the present position causes to consumers, travel agents feel they are being unfairly discriminated against as ABTA regulations require them to advertise the full price of any services they may offer.
Although not named by the institute, Ryanair this week gave a bizarre riposte making no attempt to justify its own behaviour but merely launching a scathing attack on British Airways' fuel surcharges. It also, incorrectly, suggested that BA's surcharges were going to be applied to fares that had already been booked. Ryanair criticised the institute for wasting thousands of pounds on court action. It is however the lack of court action, and none is currently being threatened, that has enabled Ryanair, BA and others to continue with these practices unchallenged.
All that has been done now is the issue of a guidance paper. The press releases did not even refer to the Consumer Protection Act. The main thrust of enforcement seems to be through the Advertising Standards Authority, whose power is basically to order the removal of an advert, with no other civil let alone criminal sanction.
As the campaign is usually finished before the ASA makes a decision, this is no deterrent. On the other hand a single prosecution, that the airline would bear the costs of if convicted, could result in the entire industry being forced to provide transparent pricing.
· Richard Colbey is a barrister
