All over the world, airlines and governments are heeding the call of frustrated consumers for honest, transparent advertising of air fares.

So why is Jetstar still willfully deceiving consumers?

It’s been part of the airline’s culture since Day One. When it started to advertise unbelievably low fares from Sydney to “Melbourne” in the Daily Telegraph newspaper with ‘Avalon’ in brackets - and smaller print. Anyone with a moderate knowledge of Australian geography knows Avalon is not in Melbourne. It is outside Geelong.

A friend of mine, a Chinese woman studying in Australia at the time, excitedly told me she’d seen the Jetstar deal to Melbourne - I managed to save her wasting her money in the nick of time. She was furious. How are visitors to Australia tempted by such promotions to know they’re buying an air fare to the middle of nowhere and face another whacking taxi or bus fare on top to get to the city they actually want to go to. That in the end, they’d likely be spending more than if they’d actually flown to Melbourne.

The ad drew at least one complain to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, although the outcome of that was never known.

Two weeks ago, Jetstar was still up to its old tricks. It was running advertisements in New Zealand newspapers promoting cheap one-way fares from Christchurch to Sydney. Fortunately, my optometrist has just dispensed me new reading glasses so I was able to read the fine print. “Carry-on baggage only”. Yes, if you took any luggage on your trans-Tasman overseas trip you’d have to pay another $20. Each way.

Who travels internationally on low-cost carriers without taking luggage? And what do they do with their toiletries that they’re no longer able to take on board?

The surcharge took the fare over the $200 price-point thus removing the apparent bargain rate being offered, when compared to a growing number of full service carriers plying the route.

That kind of advertising is deliberately misleading by drawing people in by promoting an unrealisable price. Surely it breaks fair trading laws? If it doesn’t, it should.

Meanwhile, in Malaysia, Emirates has, according to The Star Online, “expressed support to regulate advertising of all-in prices in Malaysia as advocated by the Malaysian Association of Tour and Travel Agents (Matta)”.

Country manager Alban Lee said Emirates believed the all-in pricing, including taxes, surcharges and fees, must be made transparent as this would make it more convenient for customers to make their purchasing decisions.

Precisely.

And in Singapore: The Advertising Standards Authority has issued a circular stating that all airlines and travel agencies are required to list the full fares of plane and travelling packages in advertisements.

Good stuff.

So how is it, then, that one Raphael Saw, commercial head at Jetstar Asia, based in Singapore, told a reporter a fortnight ago: “We definitely welcome the new (Singapore) advertising standards as they translate to a higher transparency of pricing to passengers. We do not expect any possible negative impact on our business from this ruling. Instead, this ruling will benefit us as it will highlight to consumers that even from a total fare basis, we still offer a competitive pricing coupled with value-added propositions.”

Oops. I’d watch out Raphael, because head office clearly has a different view! Either that or its New Zealand strategies are breaking its internal rules!