close
close

Viral post about IndiGo’s ‘cute fee’ sparks debate, airline reacts

Mr Singh's contribution sparked a debate on transparency and accountability in airline pricing

Although flying is becoming more affordable, air travel remains expensive. A recent social media post by lawyer Shrayansh Singh has sparked a heated debate on the additional fees charged by IndiGo Airlines, particularly the 'Cute Fee'. In his post, he also sought clarification on two additional fees: the 'User Development Fee' and the 'Aviation Security Fee', which add to the already high cost of flights. He demanded to know what these fees cover and why they are being charged.

“Dear IndiGo, what is this 'cuteness fee'? Are you charging your users for being cute? Or are you charging because you think your planes are cute?” wrote X-user and advocate Shrayansh Singh.

“What is this 'User Development Fee'? How do you develop me when I travel in your aircraft? What is this 'Flight Safety Fee'? Am I not paying taxes to the government to ensure my safety while travelling? Or has @MoCA_GoI outsourced flight safety to companies?” he further asked.

See the article here:

IndiGo Airlines responded to his query and clarified that the 'Cute Fee' is actually an abbreviation for 'Common User Terminal Equipment' charges. These charges are for using airport infrastructure such as metal detectors, escalators and other essential equipment.

“Hello, we would like to inform you that the Cute fees refer to the shared user terminal equipment fee. This is the amount charged for the use of metal detectors, escalators and other equipment at the airport,” the airline replied.

However, he was not convinced by the clarification and countered IndiGo's reply with a logical argument. He questioned the need to pass on the cost of equipment maintenance to passengers, especially since such infrastructure is usually the responsibility of government bodies like the CISF. Mr Singh wrote that airports, as public utilities, should recover their maintenance costs through taxes and not through additional charges imposed on passengers.

“Isn't this part of airport security? Aren't the metal detectors the property of CISF, a government security organisation which is also responsible for airport security? The equipment used at the airport, including the airport buildings themselves, is public infrastructure. It is supposed to be maintained through the taxes we pay,” he wrote.

Mr Singh's post sparked a debate on transparency and accountability in airline pricing, with many users voicing their opinions on the issue. Some users pointed out that similar charges are common in the airline industry worldwide.

One user wrote: “I wonder what kind of fees for using gas pumps at gas stations will be next. Oh, sorry, I shouldn't give you ideas like that.” Another commented: “Soon they'll start delaying flights even further, leaving us sitting at the airport for over two hours, and then charging us a 'seat fee' to use the seats while we wait!”

A third joked: “What about the breathing fees? The passenger breathes oxygen in the airport and on the plane? Where is the tax reduction?”

You may also like...