My letter to ST Forum got published online

[philliptan]

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/forum/story/0,5562,383490,00.html?

Topic: Why is Tiger Airways charging the same taxes after move to the Budget Terminal?

I think this concerns those of us who travel via budget airlines.

 

[Ah Pao]

Sigh...another case of beuracratic high-handedness. Attempts to hide information will always result in a backlash from the public.

Kudos for questioning the airline. :thumbsup:

 

[AReality]

Remember to update us...


.

 

[Canew]

Idol Phillip, I actually saw this mail this morning. Never thought that it was you! MY IDOL!

 

[ahbeng]

you should question yourself why they can't do that. i suppose they did not "promise" or "gurantee" you a lower fee in the first place. i mean, hey, the purpose for them doing so is to cut down their operation cost in order to have a fatter profit, right? Dun be so bothered, in singapore, just pay and pay.

 

[furrycake]

haha hope they lower their rates even more after this. i just got chopped by some hilarious rates of air tix too. sigh..

 

[philliptan]

you should question yourself why they can't do that. i suppose they did not "promise" or "gurantee" you a lower fee in the first place. i mean, hey, the purpose for them doing so is to cut down their operation cost in order to have a fatter profit, right? Dun be so bothered, in singapore, just pay and pay.

The reason why they moved to the Budget Terminal is to cut cost and there has to be some cuts in taxes that we pay as well... How else can they justify us paying passengers using the Budget Terminal and paying the same tax as those in the beautiful main terminals?

It's plastic chairs vs cushioned chairs, one lousy Han's outlet vs dozens of food outlets, a handful of duty free shops vs dozens, etc.... I'm not gonna pay the same tax for budget facilities.

 

[yanyewkay]

if you didn't bring it up.. i wun have noticed! I would think it's 'normal' to be charged air port tax! (i always thought airport tax = tax to use airport) :embrass:

 

[alba]

Any reply from Tiger Airways?

There's one thing I can't comprehend for budget airline, why is the ticket itself so much cheaper than the taxes.... :dunno:

Can't help smelling a rat here.

 

[Koelsch]

WOW! another good case. hahaha idol philip fighting for our rights! good job bro

*hopes got cheaper prices for planes next time*

anyway its really unjustifiable for the airport to raise the tax while tiger airways lower their tax and it all comes back to square one. and truely, why should we be paying the same tax when we will be using the budget terminal.

and the budget terminal is buildt using taxpayers' money as well. this is rubbish!

 

[dkw]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Ah Pao]

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Which part of the "fuss" you didn't manage to see?

 

[philliptan]

Let me list it in summary form...

Before 26 March - Tiger Airways + T1 + gate departure + dozens of shops = Tax $94.50 for 2
On and after 26 March - Tiger Airways + Budget Terminal + walk to plane + around 3 shops = Tax $94.50 for 2

You do the math?

 

[alba]

Err.. I bought tix to fly this Friday in Feb.

I was charged the old airport tax at that time.

Now that I have to use the new budget terminal with the lesser facilities and frills, wonder if I can get a refund for the difference? :lovegrin:

 

[dkw]

I fail to see how anybody makes a determination on a trip based on what the airport tax is. As far as I can see, the money in my wallet is blind and agnostic, it does not care if it is being paid to the airline, airport authority, cab driver or travel agent. Therefore, if the airport tax remains the same, but the overall cost of the travel in terms of air tickets is lower due to lower operating costs for the airline, I couldn't care less what they call it. Even if it is NOT lower, but the airline is able to enhance security checks, maintenance schedules etc., I am happy.

After all, it is discretionary spending, its not like I will convulse and die if I don't fly to Bangkok for a vacation.

The other thing is this, no one here has offered an intelligent opinion of what may actually constitute a reasonable airport tax. Is it $10? $50? $100? Any of those here who are being so critical of Tiger, perhaps come up with an educated guess? For all you know, Changi had been undercharging and Budget Terminal charges are in fact a true reflection of the actual operating costs. I'm not saying that this is the case, but before folk jump in with both feet, it would perhaps do them well to understand that NONE of the budget airlines are making money at this time, and only Tiger has some prospect of profitability in the short term. If you want to squeeze them hard, please go ahead, and maybe they will disappear from the scene altogether since their presence is so unwelcome.

Storm in a tea-cup, that's why I don't see the fuss.

 

[philliptan]

Nobody said anything abt squeezing them out of business, but why should the paying customer be the one to shoulder any extra operating costs especially since they are moving to a Budget terminal?

I find it ridiculous that I have to pay the same tax despite having to make do with budget facilities. There's a price for everything. Budget terminal = budget facilities = cheaper. It's not my responsibility to do the sums for Tiger and keep them in business. If they go under, tough, some other entity will fill the vacuum, but I'm not gonna pay them unjustified extras just so they'll stay afloat... I'm not their shareholder.

My money doesn't care if it's being paid for airline tax, airport tax or rubbish tax... but I do.

 

[dkw]

Nobody said anything abt squeezing them out of business, but why should the paying customer be the one to shoulder any extra operating costs especially since they are moving to a Budget terminal?

I find it ridiculous that I have to pay the same tax despite having to make do with budget facilities. There's a price for everything. Budget terminal = budget facilities = cheaper. It's not my responsibility to do the sums for Tiger and keep them in business. If they go under, tough, some other entity will fill the vacuum, but I'm not gonna pay them unjustified extras just so they'll stay afloat... I'm not their shareholder.

My money doesn't care if it's being paid for airline tax, airport tax or rubbish tax... but I do.

Truly, I couldn't care if Tiger went under either (well, a little, since it reduces my options). But I'm a free-marketeer at heart, I believe that in a capitalist open market system, prices will always find its lowest sustainable level. That's why I don't care how Tiger make their money, as long as they deliver on their promise of a safe, reliable and reasonably comfortable journey. I don't fuss about whether its airline tax, airport tax, or even if they call it rubbish or toilet tax, I really don't.

I'm sorry, we disagree, but I am only writing in response to those who feel that my opinion is off-base. I stand by my opinion that there is nothing worth fussing about.

 

[philliptan]

Yes, obviously we disagree. But don't you think if we continued to keep quiet and have the attitude of "They ask this amount, don't argue, just pay lor" then companies will continue to milk us for all it's worth?

I suspect this is their rational...

Tiger: Yay! We're moving to the Budget Terminal. We're paying Changi Airport less fees because we won't be at gates and we get a lousy terminal. Now if we keep quiet and continue charging the same, no one will notice and we can pocket more. So, we will be profitable sooner! *evil laughter*

 

[dkw]

Yes, obviously we disagree. But don't you think if we continued to keep quiet and have the attitude of "They ask this amount, don't argue, just pay lor" then companies will continue to milk us for all it's worth?

I suspect this is their rational...

Tiger: Yay! We're moving to the Budget Terminal. We're paying Changi Airport less fees because we won't be at gates and we get a lousy terminal. Now if we keep quiet and continue charging the same, no one will notice and we can pocket more. So, we will be profitable sooner! *evil laughter*

If the corporate relations can be as dumb as to even think they could get escape the eye of the consumer or regulator with that tactic, then I wouldn't fly Tiger anyway, as I doubt they would be smart enough to maintain and fly aircraft.

I believe that the market forces have a far greater ability to shape a company's behaviour than do isolated appeal letters. Since market forces work "fairly" well in this capitalist of capitalist countries, I kick up my heels and sleep easy. Do you think that a hundred angry letters to the press would yield a ounce of effect? The best way is to vote with your wallet. If you are unhappy, stay clear of Tiger until they change (if they change). As I said, it is discretionary spending. The money is in your wallet, so you hold the power.

 

[philliptan]

Yes, you're right. It's my hope that my letter would help potential customers be aware of the situation and in a sense, vote with their wallet. That single letter may not affect Tiger, but if it allows people to sit up and take note, then I guess my letter would have produced the desired effect indirectly.