European Union
The media was full of stories last week about the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) requirement that advertised airfares include all taxes and fees, which goes into effect Jan. 26. But most stories missed the detail that promoting each-way fares “based on a required round-trip purchase” will still be allowed.
This means that a $220 fare you see advertised may not be the actual final price, after all — despite DOT’s much trumpeted pursuit of transparency and consumer protection. In its ruling last April that finalized the new requirements, it only demanded that the fine print be more prominent.
“The department is codifying existing enforcement policy, allowing sellers of air transportation to advertise an each-way price that is contingent on a round-trip ticket purchase, so long as the round-trip purchase requirement is clearly and conspicuously disclosed in a location that is prominent and proximate to the advertised fare,” the final ruling said.
I suppose it’s easy enough to double $220 and quickly arrive at the $440 round-trip price, if there is a notation next to the fare that a round trip is mandatory. But at the same time, isn’t it even easier to just put $440 instead of half that amount plus the fine print?
DOT said that its ruling “allows sellers of air transportation to be flexible in the way they advertise round-trip fares while still requiring all pertinent disclosures to consumers.”
Who are we kidding? The only reason airlines use this marketing ploy is to mislead and manipulate customers. They can easily prove me wrong by ending the practice.
“While the department understands that some consumers would prefer the full round-trip price to be displayed, the department has not found that the current regime has led to consumer confusion or deception, and it does permit certain types of advertising that are beneficial,” DOT said.
I’ve written about this issue several times, and it’s hard for me to see anything “beneficial” in false each-way fare advertising — for consumers, that is. I have no trouble seeing how this practice benefits airlines. As I’ve pointed out before, many airlines do advertise actual round-trip fares.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with promoting one-way fares that can indeed be purchased as such, without the round-trip requirement.
DOT has taken important steps to address false fare advertising — including fines on carriers that break the rules — but there is much more to be desired if it’s really serious about protecting consumers.
On a somewhat different note, the new rules also increase the denied-boarding compensation airlines are required to offer passengers who are left behind because their flight was oversold. Carriers usually try to entice volunteers with travel vouchers, but if that fails, they must give the affected customers cash or a check.
If such travelers’ new flights delay arrival at their final destination between 1 and 2 hours for domestic flights and between 1 and 4 hours for international ones, the compensation must be 200 percent of the one-way fare or $650, whichever is lower. For longer delays, the numbers go up to 400 percent of the fare or $1,300.
Airlines are exempt from these rules if the denied boarding is due to substituting the scheduled aircraft with a smaller plane, or if the plane has fewer than 30 seats. The rules don’t apply to international flights inbound to the United States, though the European Commission has even stricter rules for flights originating in the European Union.
Related stories:
DOT cracks down on airfare advertising
Proper airfare advertising comes to U.S.
Fare sales often lost in translation
When an airfare sale is not quite a sale
Airlines find new way to overcharge fliers
Continue reading about DOT keeps false ‘each-way’ airfare ads
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) seems semi-serious about false airfare advertising. It fined several airlines this week for violating its rules of disclosing taxes and fees, but it still tolerates the disgraceful “one way based on a required round-trip purchase” manipulation practiced by some carriers.
Continental Airlines was fined $120,000 for failing to include fuel surcharges in fares listed on its website. US Airways and TACA, the Central American company, must pay $45,000 and $55,000, respectively, for the same wrongdoing — indicating that fares didn’t include taxes and surcharges, but not disclosing actual amounts.
“Consumers have a right to know the full price they will be paying for airfares,” said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “We established airline price advertising rules to protect the consumer, and will take enforcement action when these rules are violated.”
Starting on Oct. 24, DOT will require airlines to include all taxes, surcharges and government fees in advertised fares — not just using asterisks and fine-print explanations.
However, advertising only half of a ticket price will continue. As I’ve written before, I have nothing against listing one-way fares — when they can be truly bought as such. To this day, American Airlines, Delta, British Airways, Lufthansa and others promote only half of mandatory round-trip purchases on their websites.
In fact, Lufthansa doesn’t even bother to spell out the words, using instead “OW based on RT purchase.” The German carrier doesn’t do those gimmicks on its European sites because of strict European Union rules.
In March, I wrote that United Airlines became the first major U.S. carrier to begin advertising predominantly round-trip fares on its site. Continental has since followed suit. US Airways still uses a mixed method.
One would hope this item will be next on DOT’s agenda.
Related stories:
Proper airfare advertising comes to U.S.
Fare sales often lost in translation
When an airfare sale is not quite a sale
Airlines find new way to overcharge fliers
Continue reading about DOT cracks down on airfare advertising
During my decade as a State Department correspondent, I never expressed personal opinions about the diplomats I covered — as it should be. The closest I came to offering a glimpse of how I felt was a 2009 profile of William J. Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs. Last week, President Obama nominated Burns to be Hillary Clinton’s deputy.
As I wrote in a private e-mail message to Burns, whom I consider one of my friends in the Foreign Service, there is no one more deserving. My sources tell me that Clinton has been enormously impressed with him in the two years they have been working together. I haven’t found a single person with a negative opinion of Burns.
Deputy secretary of state is a political post, and very few career diplomats have held it. It’s extremely telling that of all Democrats in the foreign-policy establishment, Clinton didn’t see one better suited for the job than Burns.
It’s also a great testament to Burns’ abilities and achievements that Obama went along with Clinton’s choice and didn’t nominate a person from his inner circle. Clinton’s current deputy, James Steinberg, is considered Obama’s man at the State Department. The deputy secretary during the eight years of the Clinton administration was Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton’s onetime roommate at Oxford University.
Steinberg, who advised Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign, is stepping down to become dean of the Maxwell School of Public Affairs at Syracuse University.
Here is my profile of Burns, which ran in the Washington Times on April 12, 2009, with contribution from Barbara Slavin.
Diplomatic Dedication
By Nicholas Kralev
Call him the understated undersecretary.
The highest-ranking career diplomat in the U.S. government, William J. Burns, held onto his job as undersecretary for political affairs when the administrations changed in January — a testament to his abilities, experience and, unusual for Washington, apparent lack of desire to grab the limelight, his friends and colleagues say.
There are many subjects he can discuss with ease — from Russia to the Middle East — but one he always shies away from: himself. Predictably, he declined to be interviewed for this profile. Many others, however, were happy to share their views.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said that Mr. Burns was the first State Department official she met with after she was nominated by President-elect Barack Obama in November.
“He immediately lived up to his stellar reputation as a seasoned diplomat, and I have valued his insight and judgment every day,” she said. “He personifies the very best of our Foreign Service and is a model of dedication to our country.”
Mr. Burns was appointed a year ago by Mrs. Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice. Although it is typical for every secretary to hire her own undersecretary, Mrs. Clinton made the almost unprecedented decision to retain Mr. Burns. “She knew from the start she wanted him to stay and wasn’t ever in doubt,” said one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides.
Just before Ms. Rice left the State Department in January, she said she was “really sad to leave people like” Mr. Burns, but “delighted” that he would continue to work with the new team, which “will never find a better repository of skill and dignity and integrity and honor.” Similar praise from departing political appointees to civil servants is not unusual, but Ms. Rice teared up when she uttered those words, and Mr. Burns was visibly touched.
During his nearly three decades of public service, Mr. Burns has received the nation’s highest honors, including two Presidential Distinguished Service Awards and several State Department awards. But perhaps most telling is the fact that both Democratic and Republican administrations have appointed him to senior positions.
“He is one of the two finest diplomats I’ve ever met. The other happens to be a Japanese diplomat,” said Richard L. Armitage, who was deputy secretary of state during President George W. Bush’s first term, when Mr. Burns was assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs. “What makes Bill so special is that he is calm, unflappable, informed, with an absolute steel core. He is a man of principle who will not bow to expediency.”
Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III called Mr. Burns a “top-notch public servant” who “speaks truth to power in an understated way.” He is “not ideological, calls it like he sees it, and everybody has confidence in him,” Mr. Baker said. “I don’t know anyone who thinks ill of him, and if you look at the results of his work, you’ll know why.”
Elliott Abrams, the top Middle East expert in the Bush White House who has often been described as a neoconservative, said he traveled with Mr. Burns “quite a bit and had a very pleasant experience.”
“He knows how to make the machinery work and to serve the secretary well,” Mr. Abrams said of Mr. Burns, who was the Bush administration’s point man on diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. “He worked within the policy guidelines, and he did everything he could within that framework. So critics of the policy should focus on people who made the policy.”
The Bush administration refused to join European Union-led negotiations with Iran unless Tehran suspended uranium enrichment. Ms. Rice sent Mr. Burns to a meeting with an Iranian official in Geneva last summer, but he was not authorized to engage directly with the Iranian. On Wednesday, the Obama administration decided that Mr. Burns will participate in such discussions with Iran from now on.
Mr. Burns is expected to have a major influence on U.S. policy toward Iran and the wider Middle East, a reflection of experience that goes back to the administration of George H.W. Bush. Then Mr. Burns was one of a handful of so-called food processors” who churned through ideas for Arab-Israeli peace following the 1990 Gulf War.
Toby Gati, who was assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research in the Clinton administration, said that, although Mr. Burns has been able to serve both Republican and Democratic administrations “without losing his core beliefs,” he appears “liberated” working for the Obama administration. “Whenever we have a problem, I would sleep a lot easier knowing that Bill Burns is in charge of it,” Mrs. Gati said.
Several State Department officials said Mr. Burns has been an inspiration for young Foreign Service officers, because his career is proof that a modest but capable civil servant can reach the highest levels of the U.S. government.
Unlike his predecessor, R. Nicholas Burns, who loved being in the spotlight and held regular on-camera press briefings, “Bill Burns is not a politician — he prefers to do things quietly,” said one official who has worked for both men but asked not to be named because he was not authorized to speak publicly.
Mr. Burns gave a rare speech at Princeton University last month, during which he talked about humility in foreign policy and seemed to be criticizing the Bush administration’s “lecturing” other countries on human rights and other issues, rather than leading by example.
“We do make mistakes,” he said, “and we gain in global status when we admit them, and then show how our own democratic system can reliably correct them.”
Mr. Burns returned to Washington last year after a stint as ambassador to Russia. His expertise is highly valued by the current administration, and he sat at Mr. Obama’s right during a meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in London earlier this month.
“I entered the Foreign Service in 1982, in a world defined largely by the Cold War and an international order organized largely around Russian-American rivalry,” Mr. Burns said at Princeton. “Twenty-seven years later, the world is, of course, a much different place, and a constant source of humility for those of us trying to navigate through it, in pursuit of our country’s interests and values.”
Earlier in his career, Mr. Burns was ambassador to Jordan and also held senior staff positions at the State Department, such as executive secretary and executive assistant to Secretaries of State Warren Christopher and Madeleine K. Albright.
Mrs. Gati, who has known Mr. Burns since he was on the Soviet desk in the 1980s, said that one of Mrs. Clinton’s most challenging tasks would be “to produce the next generation of Bill Burnses.” “These people don’t appear from nowhere,” she said. “It takes 20-30 years to nurture someone like that.”
Related stories:
Why are political ambassadors tolerated?
Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
Diplomats in the news for wrong reasons
Foreign Service: America’s other army
Continue reading about The greatest understated U.S. diplomat
This should not be news, but it is: U.S. airlines have finally begun advertising some airfares properly, meaning they now show round-trip prices instead of the longtime marketing ploy of “each way based on a required round-trip purchase.” But those are just baby steps, as some taxes and fees are still being excluded.
When I wrote about false fare advertising in 2008, my copy editor at the Washington Times put this headline on my column: “Fare sales often lost in translation.” I compared the deliberately misleading airline practice to the mysterious “Twin Peaks” revelation “The owls are not what they seem.” I also wondered, If a round trip is required, why on earth is only half of the actual fare being advertised?
This month, United Airlines became the first major U.S. carrier to change its policy and advertise predominantly round-trip fares on its website — the only exceptions seem to be last-minute weekend specials. The airline is currently promoting five domestic and four international sales on its site, and they all include round-trip prices and fuel (YQ) surcharges — though some taxes and fees are excluded.
For example, a Business Class fare for a round trip from Los Angeles to Shanghai is shown as $3,513, while the total final price as of today is $3,572, if booked on nonstop flights. A round-trip Business Class fare from Washington to Rome is displayed as $2,411, and the final price is $2,460, if purchased today on nonstop flights. As you see, the differences are not that big.
All other carriers should follow suit. Continental and US Airways display some fares as round trips, but most of their advertising is still being done the old-fashioned way, as is American’s and Delta’s. Southwest, Alaska Airlines and Virgin America show one-way fares but don’t require round-trip purchases.
Although the Department of Transportation has looked into the issue and called on the industry not to deliberately mislead consumers, it has done nothing to stop the controversial practice. The European Union (EU), on the other hand, has been much more proactive on behalf of travelers. That’s why fares in Europe are advertised with the full ticket price.
Some of the European carriers that fly to the United States, such as Spain’s Iberia, are honoring the EU rules globally and displaying actual full prices on their U.S. websites as well. But others, such as British Airways, Air France and Lufthansa, while observing the rules on their home turf, have given in to the pressure from their U.S. competitors and adopted the “one-way based on a round-trip purchase” policy.
In January, all four above-mentioned European airlines offered the same fares from New York to London. The last three advertised $199, while Iberia showed $584, which is what the actual fare was, including all taxes and surcharges. Singapore Airlines, also having the guts to be honest with its customers, promoted a $586 fare from New York to Frankfurt that was truly the final price.
It’s high time the airline mentality of trying to trick customers changed once and for all.
Related stories:
Fare sales often lost in translation
When an airfare sale is not quite a sale
Airlines find new way to overcharge fliers
Continue reading about Proper airfare advertising comes to U.S.
If anyone had any doubts that putting together the European Union’s new diplomatic service would be an utterly messy task, that is now an undisputed fact. A high-profile ambassadorial list released this week provoked publicly aired quarrels rather uncharacteristic of diplomats, and it raised questions about the future effectiveness of the EU corps.
The long-anticipated list, unveiled by EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Brussels, was apparently based not on merit, but on what Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called “esoteric considerations.”
What are those? A quick look at the list shows that the most important ambassadorships are going to diplomats from the oldest EU members in the West — China was given to the Germans, Japan to the Austrians and South Africa to the Dutch. What about less important but plush posts? Of those, the Spanish got Argentina and Singapore went to Luxembourg.
So the considerations Sikorski referred to had more to do with where the diplomats come from, rather than what they can accomplish in their respective positions. “Appointments should be made on merit,” he said. “We in the new member-countries have people who speak the languages of the former Soviet Union, we have expertise there.”
Four posts out of 29 went to diplomats from Central and Eastern Europe. Despite Sikorski’s protest, Poland did better than any other former communist country, winning South Korea and Jordan. The Bulgarians got Georgia, and Afghanistan had gone to the Lithuanians earlier.
“I have appointed the best people for the right jobs,” said Ashton, whose official title is EU high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, as well as vice president of the European Commission, the EU’s executive body. She was also criticized for choosing only eight women.
“We have made a start to address the important issues of geographical and gender balance,” Ashton said in an apparent admission that those problems are not yet resolved.
The nominees, who have to be approved by the European Parliament, may be the “best people” for the jobs from their country, but it’s questionable whether they are the best from any EU state. It’s not clear, either, that the top criteria during the selection process were actually skills, qualifications and experience.
“We are deeply disappointed,” said Slovenian Foreign Minister Samuel Zbogar. “We expected more transparent decisions and that geographic balance would be taken into account, in particular for those states, like Slovenia, which have no presence at all in the EU’s foreign institutions.”
Creating the European External Action Service — the diplomatic corps’ official name — is a daunting task, and Ashton has an impossible job. She won’t be able to please everyone even if she really wants to. But more consultation with Eastern European members would go a long way.
If there is hostility among diplomats from different countries even before the foreign service’s launch, which is expected in December, it will likely affect trust and their ability to work together at the dozens of missions they are setting up around the world.
Here is the full list released by Ashton’s office on Wednesday:
China — Markus Ederer (Germany)
Japan — Hans Dietmar Schweisgut (Austria)
South Africa — Roeland van de Geer (Netherlands)
Afghanistan — Vygaudas Usackas (Lithuania)
Albania — Ettore Sequi (Italy)
Argentina — Alfonso Diez Torres (Spain)
Macedonia — Peter Sorensen (Denmark)
Bangladesh — William Hanna (Ireland)
Jordan — Joanna Wronecka (Poland)
Uganda — Roberto Ridolfi (Italy)
Senegal — Dominique Dellicour (Belgium)
Angola — Javier Puyol Pinuela (Spain)
Botswana — Gerard McGovern (Ireland)
Burundi — Stephane de Loecker (Belgium)
South Korea — Tomasz Kozlowski (Poland)
Gabon — Cristina Martins Barreira (Portugal)
Georgia — Philip Dimitrov (Bulgaria)
Guinea-Bissau — Joaquin Gonzalez-Ducay (Spain)
Haiti — Lut Fabert-Goossens (Luxembourg)
Lebanon — Angelina Eichhorst (Netherlands)
Mozambique — Paul Malin (Ireland)
Namibia — Raúl Fuentes Milani (Spain)
Pakistan — Lars-Gunnar Wigemark (Sweden)
Philippines — Guy Ledoux (France)
Singapore — Marc Ungeheuer (Luxembourg)
Chad — Helene Cave (France)
Zambia — Gilles Hervio (France)
China (Deputy) — Carmen Cano de Lasala (Spain)
Papua New Guinea — Martin Dihm (Germany)
Related stories:
Political ambassadorships hold at 30%
U.S., EU face off over travel, again
Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
Continue reading about EU diplo corps gets messy before launch
