<轉載自2012年7月23日 明報 社評>
油價對機票價格影響甚大，航空公司更藉此徵收燃油附加費，但本報調查發現，今年5月經香港民航處審批的附加費，比2010年增加220%，遠遠高過同期進口燃油價上升52%的幅度。航空公司被質疑加幅過高，民航處亦被指監管不力，偏袒航空公司、犧牲消費者利益，當局有責任向公眾交代。
航空公司近年推出燃油附加費，但須經民航處批准。本報今日報道，附加費出現兩大問題：（1）絕大部分航空公司的附加費是一樣的，以今年7月為例，73家航空公司當中，有63家收費一樣，佔總數86%。（2）這個大部分公司都採用的附加費，加幅遠超同期入口價。
這些發現衍生眾多質疑。
首先，雖然航空公司面對同一個國際燃油市場，但各公司營運策略不一，營運效率及相關成本各異，理論上附加費可以不同，現實卻是86%航空公司收取劃一附加費，當中是否涉及合謀定價，有否其他反競爭行為存在，惹人懷疑。
其次，燃油附加費本來是因為國際燃油價格上升而附加的，如今附加費升幅遠超油價升幅，航空公司難免被質疑加多減少，從中取利。
最令人費解的是，附加費並非航空公司說了算，而是由民航處審批，而附加費加幅是否與國際油價脗合，理應是審批的重要理據，所以，燃油附加費加快減慢、加多減少的話，民航處難免被指未有盡責、監管不力，當局應該向公眾交代。
處理燃油附加費的一個有效途徑，是引用競爭法調查，但因香港競爭法剛通過，相關配套仍未落實，距離真正執行還有一段時間，因此，負責審批附加費的民航處必須為市民從嚴把關；肩負捍衛消費者權益重任的消費者委員會亦應介入，為消費者討回公道。
Fuel Surcharge Levels Unreasonably High
AS aviation fuel prices have a significant impact on air ticket fares, airline operators in Hong Kong are allowed to levy passenger fuel surcharges. However, a survey carried out by Ming Pao shows that the fuel surcharges approved by the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) in May represented a 220 percent increase over the 2010 figures, which far exceeded the 52 percent increase in imported fuel prices in the corresponding period. The public cannot but feel that the airlines are charging more than what is reasonable, and CAD is not responsibly fulfilling its supervisory role since it appears to favour the airlines at the expense of the passengers. The government should see to the matter and offer the public a proper explanation.
Airlines in Hong Kong have been levying fuel surcharges for a number of years now, but the maximum levels of surcharges have to be approved by CAD. As reported in Ming Pao, two major problems have arisen. First, the surcharges levied by most of the airlines are identical. For instance, 63 of the 73 airlines, or 86 percent of them, are levying the same amount of surcharges in July. Second, the surcharges levied by these airlines represent an increase which far exceeds that observed in imported fuel prices in the corresponding period.
This naturally gives rise to a number of questions.
First of all, while airline operators have to deal with the same international fuel market, their business strategies, operational efficiency and other relevant costs are different, and so theoretically the surcharges should also be different. The fact, however, is that 86 percent of the airlines impose uniform surcharges on passenger tickets. It is therefore reasonable to suspect that there might be price collusion and other forms of anti-competitive behaviour between them.
Then again, fuel surcharges were introduced because of the continued rise in international fuel prices. Now that the increase in surcharges has far exceeded the increase in fuel prices, it is justified to suspect that the surcharges have increased more than warranted but have never decreased as warranted, so that the airlines may reap as much profit as possible.
However, what is most perplexing is that the airline operators cannot adjust the surcharge levels without the approval of CAD, which should see to it that a proposed increase must be commensurate with the increase in international fuel prices. When the surcharges are always quick in going up but slow in going down, and tend to increase more than warranted but never decrease as warranted, the public has every reason to believe that CAD is not fulfilling its supervisory role, and the authorities have to account for this.
One way to handle this fuel surcharge issue is to make use of the competition law and look into the case. However, as Hong Kong's competition law has been passed only recently, supplementary arrangements have yet to be made, and considerable time is needed before it can be enforced. CAD, whose approval is needed for any increase in surcharges, should therefore apply the strictest standards when reviewing any proposed adjustments in fuel surcharges for the sake of the public. The Consumer Council, which has the important duty of protecting consumer interests, should also involve itself in this matter and try to rectify any wrongs done to consumers.
明報社評 2012.07.23﹕機票燃油附加費超高 政府要為消費者把關
油價對機票價格影響甚大，航空公司更藉此徵收燃油附加費，但本報調查發現，今年5月經香港民航處審批的附加費，比2010年增加220%，遠遠高過同期進口燃油價上升52%的幅度。航空公司被質疑加幅過高，民航處亦被指監管不力，偏袒航空公司、犧牲消費者利益，當局有責任向公眾交代。
航空公司近年推出燃油附加費，但須經民航處批准。本報報道，附加費出現兩大問題：（1）絕大部分航空公司的附加費是一樣的，以今年7月為例，73家航空公司當中，有63家收費一樣，佔總數86%。（2）這個大部分公司都採用的附加費，加幅遠超同期入口價。
這些發現衍生眾多質疑。
首先，雖然航空公司面對同一個國際燃油市場，但各公司營運策略不一，營運效率及相關成本各異，理論上附加費可以不同，現實卻是86%航空公司收取劃一附加費，當中是否涉及合謀定價，有否其他反競爭行為存在，惹人懷疑。
其次，燃油附加費本來是因為國際燃油價格上升而附加的，如今附加費升幅遠超油價升幅，航空公司難免被質疑加多減少，從中取利。
最令人費解的是，附加費並非航空公司說了算，而是由民航處審批，而附加費加幅是否與國際油價脗合，理應是審批的重要理據，所以，燃油附加費加快減慢、加多減少的話，民航處難免被指未有盡責、監管不力，當局應該向公眾交代。
沒有留言:
張貼留言