Airline fare soars
ON April 17 1975, The Fiji Times reported that Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, a former minister for tourism, was not happy that Qantas had implemented a price increase on their tickets.
A Qantas official had said “international airlines with services through Nadi Airport had been charging eight per cent more on tickets bought in Fiji since the first of that month”.
Speaking at the opening of the Fiji Tourism Convention, Ratu Penaia commented on an Australian government decision announced two days earlier, on the approval of a recommendation by international airlines for a worldwide increase in fares.
The recommendation by the International Air Transport Association did not affect Air Pacific, which was not a member.
Australia’s Minister for Transport, Charles Jones said all excursion and promotional fares out of Australia, and many economy and first-class fares, would be raised by eight per cent from that day.
Airlines had planned to bring the new fares in on doing this to Australia until the approval of the Government. A Qantas official in Suva said the Nadi-Sydney economy one-way fare was $172.50, return fare was $345 and the standard excursion rate was $232.
Ratu Penaia said Fiji wanted agreement with airlines on the elimination of stopover, interlining, and other fare restrictions, which had done much damage to our North American market.
“The plain fact is that the present package of fares and conditions discouraged stopovers, and this worked not only against the interests of Fiji but also against those of our near neighbours,” Ratu Penaia said.
He welcomed a recent increase in Qantas and Pan American flights to Nadi as “the right direction.” However, he added that group inclusive tour fares and conditions for Sydney-Los Angeles flights were still most unfavourable compared with those to Singapore.
“Sometimes I wondered whether our part of the world was not subsidizing some of the carriers in other more competitive regions.”
Ratu Penaia, who addressed nearly 400 travel industry representatives, accused some tour companies of failing to pass on discounts they were getting from hotels by lowering the cost of the package Fiji holidays sold.
Fiji was in danger of pricing itself out of the market compared with such holiday destinations as Manila, Bangkok, and Kuala Lumpur.
Because of the vital need to lower costs, he was especially worried about the hotel discount situation.
A study revealed that not only were the reductions not getting through to the customer, but in some cases, the wholesaler might be loading retail rates.
Ratu Penaia said 1974 had been the “most difficult and disappointing” year for Fiji tourism with visitor numbers dropping for the first time.
Apart from a satisfactory increase in the number of cruise ships Ratu Penaia defended the $80,000 cut in 1975 government grant to the Fiji Visitors Bureau, stating that at one time Fiji’s economic situation had been “so delicate” there was no choice in making it.
He expressed government’s dissatisfaction with financial support the Fiji Visitors Bureau got from the tourism industry.
This had never exceeded $20,000 and was “dismally low”.
The plain fact is that the present package of fares and conditions discouraged stopovers, and this worked not only against the interests of Fiji but also against those of our near neighbours
– Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau