Influence of Fuel Cost
Towards the end of 2011, several passengers of an India bound plane and I were forced to pay cash to flight attendants, on top of the amount we had previously paid for tickets. The extra amount was required as money to cater for fuel. Most of the passengers in this plane did not seem to mind giving an extra buck to the flight attendants but a certain group felt like such expenses should have been added in the price of tickets. In this case, the head office of the classified passenger plane apologized for the rare occurrence claiming that if anything could have been done, they would avoid such scenarios. To my opinion, it was odd to understand how ticket price would be set without the consideration of fuel cost to a point of demanding cash from passengers in an airborne plane.
With the inflation of everything and mostly the cost of fuel going up, scenarios of every kind are witnessed all over the stock market, business cartels, multinational organizations, and the transport sector. In this case, is it justified for passenger plane companies to push the burden of fuel cost to the passengers outside their outstanding flight tickets? No, it is not justified for any flight company to demand passengers to cater for flight fuel amid their journeys for this would not count how genuine the demand is.
Because the costs of fuels are going up, it is unjustified for passenger plane organizations to demand fueling funds from passengers in settings uncovered by flight tickets.
The fact that fuel cost is going up because of low deposits and heavy investment to its drilling makes the justification for inflation appropriate arguing in that sense of fuel-related businesses. Flight passengers, however, do not need to pay twice for the same flight – i.e., paying for flight tickets and having to part with cash amid their journeys. It is understandable if the cost of flights goes up; however, it is not if there are no adjustments on the price of flight tickets because passengers are expected to take up the responsibility of paying for the fuel. Take, for example, a plane expected to transport 140 passengers using $10,000 fuel which is booked halfway; besides, the tickets that the 70 passengers will pay for have to come up with the $10,000 to put the plane airborne. The mode of telling how much will be required to fuel up the plane could be a conspiracy to push the profits of the company by fleecing passengers with extra costs and responsibilities.
With the challenges presented to the employment sector in terms of raising cost of living, flight attendant strikes have been one issue that has cost the transport sector a lot of money. As a way of taking care of this issue, flight companies assume that finding a way to cut part of their spending would resolve the discrepancies brought about by raising the cost of living. However, whether the price of fuel goes up or down, everything should be reflected in the tickets; otherwise, customers might lose confidence in their favorite flight companies for a lack of transparency on the issue.
Cost of flight in respect to the cost of fuel is an installment and price everyone should pay for. However, passengers are not required to pay for anything outside the contract signed between them and the flight company through the tickets they buy. Can it be a one-time thing? Whether it is or not, contracts do not allow for special cases unless they are just friendly agreements.
Being asked for extra money on an airborne plane by using fuel cost as an excuse to do so is not a burden people would not afford occasionally. However, inspite of how desperate things get, transparency is required to make sure that clients are reading from the same page as the people making the decisions. Bottom line is that agreements made outside any contract should not have any negative or unfavorable effects to any party involved.
|Transportation||California Agricultural Productivity|
- California Agricultural Productivity
- HRM Effectiveness
- Evaluate the Role of Groups as a Means of Terror Management