About airlines and others charging for debit card use.

 

I must first explain how this can be an amendment to an existing law.

There is a law which defines 'legal tender'; ie, a law which in effect defines what MONEY USED FOR PAYMENTS IS. Essentially, that means that only MONEY approved by the King is acceptable.  My suggestion is an amendment to that law.

A few years ago, airlines sneaked into their on-line booking systems a charge for using cards to pay for booking a flight on-line. At first, the charge was minimal – say, £1. Because the charge was so minimal, they got away with it. But, as is the case with baggage charges, they have gradually increased these additional charges/fees. Below is Jet 2's list of charges for using cards:

————————————————————————————

How can I pay?

You can pay online using a credit or debit card and also using PayPal – see charges below. For payment via the call centre you can pay using a credit or debit card only. For payment at our sales desks you can pay using a credit or debit card, cheque or cash.

Booking fees A booking fee of 3.5% (minimum charge of 4.99GBP/ 7EUR/ 10CHF/ 180CZK/ 30PLN) will be applied to all card payments except for Solo and Visa Electron which are free. For bookings made using PayPal the booking fee is 3.49GBPQuestions or/ 5.00EUR.

Payment fees Payment made by credit card or PayPal incur an additional fee of 2.25% or 1.5% respectively.

 

—————————————————————————

 

As an example, a person who books flights costing £400 and pays by debit card will incur a fee of £14 (3.5%). A person using a credit card will incur a further additional fee of £9, making a total of £23. That is the cost of paying!

 

We can understand that the cost of carrying baggage is a reasonable, competitive service, but can the same thing be said about paying the bill? I think that not.

 

Read the quote above carefully and note that payments made by cheque or cash at sales desks incur no charge. I am not definitely sure about cheques, but I know FOR A FACT that charging for payment in cash IS AGAINST THE LAW.  

 

But we must ask ourselves, is it in anyway possible to pay on-line in cash? Obviously, not. But the serious point is that, as regards on-line payments, debit cards ARE cash – or the equivalent.

 

We notice also that these demands from airlines are couched in phrases such as 'booking fee'. That is not true. What we are paying for when we book on-line is the ACTUAL COST of being transported from, say, Manchester to Majorca. What the airlines are doing, by using the phrase 'booking fee', is making us pay to pay! This is nonsense!

 

The Law which defines 'Legal Tender' must be changed to include payment by debit card. Debit card these days is the equivalent of cash. I would say that the same applies to credit cards, but – one step at a time.

 

I have no doubt that airlines would say in their defence that Banks charge them for internet transaction, but that idea will not wash. The fact is that Banks charge these airlines just as much, if not more, for cash and cheque activity. It costs airlines a lot in terms of staff costs, bank charges, etc to handle cash and cheques. On-line transactions save them MASSES of money.  

 

The Law re Legal Tender needs to be brought up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I must first explain how this can be an amendment to an existing law.

There is a law which defines 'legal tender'; ie, a law which in effect defines what MONEY USED FOR PAYMENTS IS. Essentially, that means that only MONEY approved by the King is acceptable.  My suggestion is an amendment to that law.

A few years ago, airlines sneaked into their on-line booking systems a charge for using cards to pay for booking a flight on-line. At first, the charge was minimal – say, £1. Because the charge was so minimal, they got away with it. But, as is the case with baggage charges, they have gradually increased these additional charges/fees. Below is Jet 2's list of charges for using cards:

————————————————————————————

How can I pay?

You can pay online using a credit or debit card and also using PayPal – see charges below. For payment via the call centre you can pay using a credit or debit card only. For payment at our sales desks you can pay using a credit or debit card, cheque or cash.

Booking fees A booking fee of 3.5% (minimum charge of 4.99GBP/ 7EUR/ 10CHF/ 180CZK/ 30PLN) will be applied to all card payments except for Solo and Visa Electron which are free. For bookings made using PayPal the booking fee is 3.49GBPQuestions or/ 5.00EUR.

Payment fees Payment made by credit card or PayPal incur an additional fee of 2.25% or 1.5% respectively.

 

—————————————————————————

 

As an example, a person who books flights costing £400 and pays by debit card will incur a fee of £14 (3.5%). A person using a credit card will incur a further additional fee of £9, making a total of £23. That is the cost of paying!

 

We can understand that the cost of carrying baggage is a reasonable, competitive service, but can the same thing be said about paying the bill? I think that not.

 

Read the quote above carefully and note that payments made by cheque or cash at sales desks incur no charge. I am not definitely sure about cheques, but I know FOR A FACT that charging for payment in cash IS AGAINST THE LAW.  

 

But we must ask ourselves, is it in anyway possible to pay on-line in cash? Obviously, not. But the serious point is that, as regards on-line payments, debit cards ARE cash – or the equivalent.

 

We notice also that these demands from airlines are couched in phrases such as 'booking fee'. That is not true. What we are paying for when we book on-line is the ACTUAL COST of being transported from, say, Manchester to Majorca. What the airlines are doing, by using the phrase 'booking fee', is making us pay to pay! This is nonsense!

 

The Law which defines 'Legal Tender' must be changed to include payment by debit card. Debit card these days is the equivalent of cash. I would say that the same applies to credit cards, but – one step at a time.

 

I have no doubt that airlines would say in their defence that Banks charge them for internet transaction, but that idea will not wash. The fact is that Banks charge these airlines just as much, if not more, for cash and cheque activity. It costs airlines a lot in terms of staff costs, bank charges, etc to handle cash and cheques. On-line transactions save them MASSES of money.  

 

The Law re Legal Tender needs to be brought up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remove the need for a GAR for private pilots flying from Northern Ireland to GB

During 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland it was decided that all private pilots who wished to fly from Northern Ireland to airfields in GB would have to notify the Police and HMRC by means of a GAR(General Aviation Report).

Touring:

This requires a pilot to give a minimum of 12 hours notice and to predict where and when he/she intends to touch down in GB.    The same applies in reverse and forms a barrier to those aerial tourists who may decide between a bureaucratic trip to Ulster or a freedome flight to the Scottish Isles.

The weather over the British Isles is decidedly unpredictable and opportunities to cross the Irish Sea appear and disappear almost as fast as the weather forecaster.      Introducing a 12 hour administrative buffer prevents

Safety:

Placing a legal requirement on the movement adds a level of stress to a pilot's freedome to decide on the safest route and will influence (in however small a way) the decision of wether to abort or re-route a flight.     'Pushing-on' in to bad weather has been the cause of many a fatal accident.

Where I to live in Glasgow, should a fine summer's morning appear out of the blue (sorry for the pun), I can hop in my plane and pop down to Blackpool for the day.    This freedome is what attracts most of us to flying.

Under one of the more obscure elements of the Terrorism Act, because I live in what was the centre of terrorism in the latter end of the last centuary ….I am robbed of this freedome, and yet the pilot in Glasgow, who has no requirement to file a GAR, will be flying out of what was the site of the UK's worst airport attrocity.

Solution:

May I recommend that qualified and licenced pilots are checked in the same way that teachers etc are certified for working with children.    This could be added as some form of endorsement to a pilot's licence.

Why is this idea important?

During 'the troubles' in Northern Ireland it was decided that all private pilots who wished to fly from Northern Ireland to airfields in GB would have to notify the Police and HMRC by means of a GAR(General Aviation Report).

Touring:

This requires a pilot to give a minimum of 12 hours notice and to predict where and when he/she intends to touch down in GB.    The same applies in reverse and forms a barrier to those aerial tourists who may decide between a bureaucratic trip to Ulster or a freedome flight to the Scottish Isles.

The weather over the British Isles is decidedly unpredictable and opportunities to cross the Irish Sea appear and disappear almost as fast as the weather forecaster.      Introducing a 12 hour administrative buffer prevents

Safety:

Placing a legal requirement on the movement adds a level of stress to a pilot's freedome to decide on the safest route and will influence (in however small a way) the decision of wether to abort or re-route a flight.     'Pushing-on' in to bad weather has been the cause of many a fatal accident.

Where I to live in Glasgow, should a fine summer's morning appear out of the blue (sorry for the pun), I can hop in my plane and pop down to Blackpool for the day.    This freedome is what attracts most of us to flying.

Under one of the more obscure elements of the Terrorism Act, because I live in what was the centre of terrorism in the latter end of the last centuary ….I am robbed of this freedome, and yet the pilot in Glasgow, who has no requirement to file a GAR, will be flying out of what was the site of the UK's worst airport attrocity.

Solution:

May I recommend that qualified and licenced pilots are checked in the same way that teachers etc are certified for working with children.    This could be added as some form of endorsement to a pilot's licence.

Remove the protection of Aviation from noise controll regulations

Aviation is exempt from noise control regulations and consequentely need take no heed of members of the public who are affected by aircraft noise, especially the testing of aircraft engines

Why is this idea important?

Aviation is exempt from noise control regulations and consequentely need take no heed of members of the public who are affected by aircraft noise, especially the testing of aircraft engines

Loosening of the regulations governing hand baggage at UK Airports

That these reactionary and ineffective security measures be repealed making flying for millions of travellers much less stressful and simpler.

In particular:

The regulation restricting the amount of liquid you can carry in your hand baggage to 100ml;

The need to place all liquid items in a transparent bag to be produced for inspection by customs officials.

Why is this idea important?

That these reactionary and ineffective security measures be repealed making flying for millions of travellers much less stressful and simpler.

In particular:

The regulation restricting the amount of liquid you can carry in your hand baggage to 100ml;

The need to place all liquid items in a transparent bag to be produced for inspection by customs officials.

Air traffic radio listening & rebroadcast

Under the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act it is illegal to listen to air traffic radio communication in the UK on a scanning receiver which can be bought in any High Street. It is not illegal to OWN an airband radio, you just can't use it ! The law permits the listening to broadcasts that are intended for "general reception" only, including amateur, CB and public broadcast radio. The listening to air traffic communication is not, and never has been, a security issue to the UK and we are the only country that does not allow the rebroadcast or even discussion of such transmissions. In today's multimedia world, this is something that needs to change.

Why is this idea important?

Under the 1949 Wireless Telegraphy Act it is illegal to listen to air traffic radio communication in the UK on a scanning receiver which can be bought in any High Street. It is not illegal to OWN an airband radio, you just can't use it ! The law permits the listening to broadcasts that are intended for "general reception" only, including amateur, CB and public broadcast radio. The listening to air traffic communication is not, and never has been, a security issue to the UK and we are the only country that does not allow the rebroadcast or even discussion of such transmissions. In today's multimedia world, this is something that needs to change.