A RULING against Thomas Cook by advertising watchdogs has stirred fresh calls from travel agents for published fares to include fuel surcharges.
The Advertising Standards Authority found that a promotional e-mail sent by Thomas Cook retail division headlined ‘late deals from £69’ was misleading because it did not include a mandatory £30 fuel supplement.
The ruling has highlighted widespread flouting of the Committee of Advertising Practice code administered by the ASA. It says the decision has implications for the entire industry. It comes in the same week that US crude oil hit $71.60 a barrel – its highest level in more than 20 years – prompting British Airways to react by increasing its long-haul return fuel surcharge from £60 to £70, its seventh surcharge hike since May 2004.
In making its ruling against Thomas Cook, the ASA stressed the CAP code, which applies to all UK advertising except for material on companies’ own websites, states “advertisers must quote prices inclusive of VAT and other non-optional taxes and duties”.
According to an ASA spokesman, the case “has ramifications for anyone quoting prices across the travel industry”.
“Certain sectors of the industry will not know the fuel costs in advance. Thomas Cook did,” he said.
Travel agents welcomed the ASA’s decision, but did not think it went far enough.
“What you see should be what you get but it has got to apply to everyone,” said Wish You Were Here manager Linsay Flowers. “When we do window cards, fuel is included in the advertised price it is not shown as an optional extra.
“Why don’t the tour operators and airlines simply hide their fuel costs inside their banner prices? It would make it a lot less confusing.”
Epsom Worldchoice director Mike Tattersall also wants airlines and operators to be forced to offer prices inclusive of fuel as an unavoidable operating cost.
“The current situation of having these massive fuel supplements and charges is wrong. It’s misleading and they should not be allowed to do it,” Tattersall said.
Following the ASA judgement, Thomas Cook agreed to add a footnote to its e-mails explaining that extra charges may apply, but the ASA insisted it advertise fares in full.
However, Thomas Cook said it did not accept it breached advertising regulations. A spokesman insisted fuel supplements – even though they are compulsory – should be seen as “variable charges” levied by operators and airlines, not as taxes or duties.
There is further confusion regarding supplements and surcharges because airlines such as British Airways advertise all-inclusive prices, while others such as Ryanair do not.ABTA said it supported the ASA ruling and urged members to take it into account – even though its Code of Conduct currently gives members the option of listing extras alongside the banner price in brochures if they don’t cause confusion. A spokeswoman said: “We are always in favour of a level playing field across the industry.”