BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Complaint of Benjamin Edelman, Esq. Docket DOT-OST-2013-0025 

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to: 

Richard Mendles 

General Counsel, Americas 

James B. Blaney 

Senior Counsel, Americas 

British Airways Plc 

2 Park Avenue, Suite 1100 

New York, NY 10016 

richard.mendles@ba.com 

jim.blaney@ba.com 

 

Richard F. Hans 

Keara M. Gordon 

Colleen M. Carey 

DLA Piper LLP 

1251 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10020 

keara.gordon@dlapiper.com 

richard.hans@dlapiper.com 

colleen.carey@dlapiper.com 

 

Don H. Hainbach 

Erin M. Tallardy 

Garofalo Goerlich Hainbach PC 

1200 New Hampshire Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Phone: (202) 776-3970 

dhainbach@ggh-airlaw.com 

etallardy@ggh-airlaw.com 

April 5, 2013
BEFORE THE 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Complaint of Benjamin Edelman, Esq. Docket DOT-OST-2013-0025 

BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC ANSWER TO COMPLAINT 

 British Airways Plc (“British Airways” or “BA”) hereby answers the complaint (the 

“Complaint”) filed by Benjamin Edelman (“Mr. Edelman” or “Complainant”) alleging that BA 

misrepresented airline-imposed fuel surcharges as taxes in violation of 49 U.S.C. § 41712 and 

that BA’s fuel surcharges exceeded actual fuel costs. Except as otherwise stated below, BA 

denies the allegations of the Complaint and respectfully requests that the Department of 

Transportation (the “Department”) dismiss the Complaint without further investigation or order 

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.406(a)(2). The structure of the Complaint, the failure to number 

paragraphs, and the assertion of legal and other conclusions do not lend themselves to precise 

responsive pleading. To the extent that there is any factual statement or allegation that is not 

specifically admitted or denied herein, it should be deemed to have been denied. 

Introduction 

 BA respectfully urges the Department to decline to commence an investigation or formal 

enforcement proceeding. There is no basis to do so. 

 BA’s fuel surcharge is appropriately set and applied. In an attempt to suggest otherwise, 

Mr. Edelman engages in speculation and hypothesis. Moreover, his hypothetical computations 

are predicated upon erroneous information and incorrect assumptions. Specifically, Mr. 

Edelman compares inapposite fuel surcharge figures to what he incorrectly characterizes as the 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 2 

“actual cost of fuel” to BA and, compounding the errors, relies on a series of deeply flawed 

assumptions. As a result, his analysis is irrelevant and proves nothing. 

 BA has not committed any violations related to price advertising, whether under 14 

C.F.R. § 399.84(a) or 49 U.S.C. § 41712, and Mr. Edelman’s Complaint does not establish 

otherwise. The Department’s February 21, 2012 Guidance (“February 2012 Guidance”)1

specifies that a cost component described as a fuel surcharge “must actually reflect a reasonable 

estimate of the per-passenger fuel costs incurred by the carrier above some baseline calculated 

based on such factors as the length of the trip, varying costs of fuel, and number of flight 

segments involved.” As demonstrated below, BA complies with that requirement. 

 When consumers access the BA website to purchase a ticket, they are provided the entire 

price to be paid. In the interest of increasing transparency, consumers are also provided with a 

breakdown of government imposed taxes and fees as well as carrier charges and surcharges that 

collectively comprise the total price to be paid by the consumer. It is clear from the Complaint 

that Mr. Edelman was not confused, much less deceived, by anything he viewed on the BA 

website, and the Complaint does not provide any evidence that any other consumer was either 

confused or deceived. Under those circumstances, the Complaint must be dismissed. 

 Finally, the relief that Mr. Edelman seeks is both unwarranted and unavailable. For the 

reasons summarized above and set forth in more detail below, sanctions of any sort are not 

warranted here. Mr. Edelman’s suggestion that the Department refer this matter to U.S. and 

foreign tax collection agencies for investigation of possible tax fraud or other violations of tax 

law strays far afield from the alleged “facts” and is meritless and inappropriate. Moreover, as 

there is no private right of action under 49 U.S.C. § 41712, Mr. Edelman may not seek – and he 

 

1

 Additional Guidance on Airfare/Air Tour Price Advertisements, February 21, 2012. 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 3 

may not ask the Department to pursue – refunds on his own behalf or anyone else’s behalf. See, 

e.g., Statland v. American Airlines, Inc., 998 F.2d 539, 541 (7th Cir. 1993); Polansky v. Trans 

World Airlines, Inc., 523 F.2d 332, 338-40 (3d Cir. 1975); Wolf v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 

544 F.2d 134, 136-37 (3d Cir. 1976). 

I. BACKGROUND 

The cost of jet fuel to BA has risen nearly continuously since 2003 and the percentage of 

fuel costs to total expenses has risen as well. As BA has discussed in numerous public 

statements, including its annual reports and investor materials: 

 In fiscal year 2004, BA paid a 9.5 percent increase in fuel and oil costs over the prior 

year (for a total of £922 million). 

 By March 2005, fuel prices were at “record highs”; the cost of fuel was up 75 percent 

from early December 2003, which resulted in a “heavy hit to the bottom line.” Fuel 

was “the major cost issue” for BA at that time. 

 During fiscal year 2005 alone, the price of fuel rose 44.4 percent, which resulted in an 

increased cost of fuel to BA of 22.5 percent (for a total of £1.128 billion in fuel and 

oil costs). 

 In fiscal year 2006, fuel costs continued to soar; brent crude reached a then all-time 

high of $72 a barrel in May 2005. 

 Fuel prices were up 38 percent in March 2006 over the prior fiscal year. The 

resulting cost to BA for fuel and oil rose 44.7 percent, to £1.6 billion at March 31, 

2006. BA reported that fuel prices “continue to stalk the industry and there is no sign 

this will change.” At that time, BA anticipated an additional significant cost for 

2006/2007. 

 In 2007, fuel continued to be a “major cost” – BA’s second largest cost, and it rose 

22.1 percent to £1.931 billion. 

 Fuel prices continued to increase; by March 2008, fuel costs rose to £2.055 billion, a 

28.4 percent increase from 2006. 

 In March 2008, BA anticipated that the following year’s fuel bill would be up an 

additional £1 billion to a whopping £3 billion. 

 Record oil prices continued in fiscal year 2009. “The year saw unprecedented 

volatility in oil prices, climbing at one point to $146 a barrel and falling to as low as 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 4 

$37 a barrel.” At $146 a barrel, fuel costs were at “unprecedented levels.” BA 

remained concerned about the “prospect of renewed volatility.” 

 By the end of 2009, fuel costs had risen another staggering 44.5 percent to £2.969 

billion. In 2010, jet fuel costs recovered, but they rose again by more than 33 percent 

in 2011. 

 As BA noted in its 2011 Annual Report, “[i]t has been a difficult few years for the 

aviation industry; 2011 was no exception with significant increases in fuel prices 

against the backdrop of a sluggish global economic recovery.” 

 In 2012, fuel costs again increased, this time by 14.4 percent, to more than £3.7 

billion. 

In sum, with limited exceptions, the cost of jet fuel has risen significantly and nearly 

continuously since 2003. As a result, in 2004, BA began to impose a fuel surcharge. BA was 

not unique or an outlier – many airlines began to impose a fuel surcharge in this same period. 

And, fuel surcharges are not limited to airlines – they are imposed by numerous other 

transportation-related industries. 

II. MR. EDELMAN’S COMPLAINT HAS NO MERIT. 

1. Mr. Edelman’s Analysis is Flawed And Does Not Support His Conclusory Assertions. 

 Mr. Edelman’s claim that the fuel surcharge must precisely track some undefined 

relationship to the cost of fuel on a particular day is meritless. What Mr. Edelman seeks — an 

exact, statistical correlation between fuel surcharge and the actual cost of fuel actually expended 

on a particular flight — is impossible. 

 Mr. Edelman alleges that “to the best of [his] knowledge,” fuel surcharges do not 

represent a reasonable estimate of per passenger costs, and offers a rough calculation of what he 

believes per passenger costs and aggregate fuel surcharges to be. As addressed below, Mr. 

Edelman’s estimates are built on a series of incorrect assumptions. In reality, fuel surcharges 

have never recouped the entire cost of fuel. To the contrary, they have generally recouped far 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 5 

less than the annual increases in jet fuel costs to BA. A demonstrable comparison of the price of 

jet fuel and fuel surcharge for economy long haul flights between the UK and U.S. in pounds 

sterling is provided below. 

 

 Mr. Edelman’s analysis is flawed because he incorrectly assumes that the cost of fuel to 

BA on a given day is the same as the quoted market price of jet fuel and crude oil on that day. 

Not so. There are a number of reasons why the actual cost of jet fuel to BA may differ from the 

market price of jet fuel and crude oil. 

 BA purchases refined jet fuel, not crude oil, and does so (in part) pursuant to forward 

contracts. Forward contracts are “over the counter” agreements between two parties 

whereby one purchases fuel from the other at a fixed price at a future date. 

 BA employs a hedging strategy in an attempt to temper the relationship between the 

daily, more volatile market price for jet fuel and BA’s cost of fuel. 

 BA pays for fuel in dollars, but accounts for it in pounds sterling, and thus its cost of fuel 

is affected by currency exchange rates. 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 6 

 Similarly, there are a myriad of reasons why there will not be, and cannot be, a direct 

correlation between BA’s fuel surcharge imposed on a particular flight, and the actual cost of 

fuel to BA on that flight. For example: 

 BA assesses its fuel costs periodically and sets its fuel surcharge accordingly; it does not 

adjust the fuel surcharge daily. BA changes the fuel surcharge periodically based upon a 

variety of factors including significant swings in the price of jet fuel that are not 

perceived to be short-term. As a result, the fuel surcharge does not move every time that 

the price of oil moves. 

 Most travelers book their flight in advance. At the time of booking, the exact cost of fuel 

on a future travel date is a future, unknowable event that BA cannot predict with 

certainty. BA applies the fuel surcharge applicable on the date one books a flight. 

 It is not possible for BA (or any airline) to assign a fuel surcharge that will exactly match 

the actual per passenger cost of fuel on a specific flight on which a specific passenger 

may travel months in advance. There are too many variables, such as: the future 

movement of jet fuel prices (and BA’s hedging positions); weather; seat density; type and 

age of the aircraft; the size of the aircraft; the percentage of the plane that will be filled 

(versus vacant); excess baggage; the existence (or lack of) headwinds; taxi times; or long 

waits circling to land (holding patterns). 

 BA flies over 750 flights per day to 70 countries on 240 planes, and in the last 12 months, 

transported more than 34 million passengers, which common sense dictates 

administratively would make a particularized fuel surcharge calculation impossible. 

 For all of these reasons, BA does not set and assign a unique fuel surcharge to an 

individual flight on a particular day, but rather sets the surcharge based on sector, length of flight 

and class of ticket purchased. In addition, airlines operate in a competitive environment. BA 

will take into account the competitive landscape in all of its pricing, including fuel surcharges. 

 Presumably in an attempt to argue that the fuel surcharge amount should be stagnant or 

easily calculable, Mr. Edelman claims that fuel prices have stabilized and have not increased 

over “recent years.” In support, he offers his Attachment 5 as supposed proof of price stability 

but with no analysis. But a review of Attachment 5 as well as the attached chart of the spot price 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 7 

of U.S. Gulf Coast Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel over the last 18-24 months, proves that in fact it has 

been a highly volatile period in the jet fuel market. (See Exhibit 1). For example: 

 On Monday, January 3, 2011, the spot price of U.S. Gulf Coast Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 

was $2.528 per gallon. 

 On Monday, January 9, 2012 – a little over one year later – the spot price had risen to 

$3.124 per gallon, an increase of more than 23 percent. 

 Five months later, on June 4, 2012, the spot price had dropped to $2.673 per gallon, a 

decrease of more than 14 percent. 

 However, by February 11, 2013, the spot price had again risen almost 19 percent to 

$3.299 per gallon. 

Thus, it is clear that the rise and fall of fuel prices is hardly linear. 

2. Mr. Edelman’s Calculations are Flawed. 

 On pages two to three of his Complaint, Mr. Edelman makes a series of incorrect 

assumptions regarding fuel surcharges, the cost of fuel, fuel consumption, and passenger and 

cargo load factors. These incorrect assumptions result in Mr. Edelman significantly overstating 

the maximum recoverable fuel surcharges while understating the true costs of fuel. When 

corrected, it becomes clear that BA’s costs of fuel exceed recoverable fuel surcharges. 

a. Mr. Edelman’s Fuel Consumption Assumptions Are Wrong. 

Mr. Edelman’s computations are based on his inaccurate estimates of the cost of the fuel 

consumed during two hypothetical flights. Mr. Edelman’s presentation demonstrates a 

fundamental lack of understanding of airline operations. Airlines have complex formulas that 

dictate the fuel necessary for a particular flight, which account for a host of unexpected events, 

such as diversions for mechanical problems, medical emergencies, weather, or traffic delays. 

The amount of fuel that will actually be expended on any given flight varies for a multitude of 

reasons, including the type and age of the aircraft flown; taxi time, gate time, weather; seat 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 8 

density; the size of the aircraft; the number of actual passengers on board; the percentage of the 

plane that is filled (versus vacant); excess baggage; the existence (or lack of) headwinds; long 

waits circling to land; diverted flights, etc. BA will carry more than the precise amount of fuel 

correlating exactly to the scheduled travel time from runway to runway with no margin for 

diversion; all of the above factors and potential exigencies must be considered. 

The 747-400 aircraft employed by BA has a fuel capacity of 216,902 litres. Using Mr. 

Edelman’s assumed price of jet fuel (with which BA disagrees), $0.766/litre, the cost of fully 

fueling the 747-400 would be $166,146.93. The fuel capacity of the 777 aircraft is 168,090 

litres.2

 Again assuming $0.766/litre, the cost of fully fueling the 777 aircraft would be 

$128,756.94. Thus, to the extent that more fuel, up to capacity, is used on a particular flight, Mr. 

Edelman understates the fuel cost. 

b. Mr. Edelman Overstates Passenger and Cargo Load Factors. 

 Mr. Edelman incorrectly initially assumes passenger and cargo load factors of 100 

percent. Mr. Edelman eventually concedes that the Passenger Load Factor (“PLF”) may actually 

be closer to 83 percent and the Cargo Load Factor (“CLF”) even lower at 73.9 percent, but states 

that he has “not fully evaluated that argument.” (Complaint at 3). In fact, as set forth in BA’s 

2012 Annual Report, the PLF is closer to 79 percent. 

 Perhaps because of his incomplete analysis, Mr. Edelman wrongly dismisses the effect of 

his overstatement as inconsequential. To the contrary, it is quite consequential and, as Mr. 

Edelman admits, can affect the maximum aggregate fuel surcharge per flight by $20,000 or 

more. 

 

2

 The data for both models is based on BA’s published 2007 factbook, which is available on the Internet. 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 9 

c. Mr. Edelman Overstates Revenue that Could be Charged. 

 In addition to his failure properly to consider cargo load factors, Mr. Edelman vastly 

overstates the available cargo capacity of the 777 and 747-400 aircraft, as configured by BA, and 

as a result, materially overstates the potential cargo fuel surcharge BA may apply. For example, 

the actual cargo capacity of BA’s 777 is 20,184 kg.3

 Taking into account the 9,062 kg set aside 

for passenger baggage, there is a billable cargo capacity of only 11,122 kg. Assuming 100 

percent utilization of the billable cargo capacity would return only $12,901.52 – more than 

$27,000 less than the amount ($40,600) computed by Mr. Edelman. 

 Mr. Edelman similarly overestimates the billable cargo space available on the 747 by 

more than 26,000 kg. Again, this results in an overstatement of the maximum potential 

aggregate cargo surcharge by more than $30,000. 

d. Mr. Edelman Understates Fuel Consumption on the BA 777. 

 Mr. Edelman understates the fuel consumption on BA’s 777 service by almost 10 

percent. The fuel consumption for the 777 is actually 8,290 litres per hour4 or approximately 

700 litres per hour greater than the 7,600 litres per hour figure used by Mr. Edelman. Even 

assuming the accuracy of his remaining assumptions, for purposes of argument only, this 

understates the fuel expense by nearly $3,400 per flight. 

e. Mr. Edelman Employs Incorrect Seating Density Information. 

 Mr. Edelman also misstates the amount of available First Class seats on BA’s 777 service

— BA provides 777 service through its 777-200 (772). As reflected in BA’s site and seat map 

 

3

 This data is based on BA’s published 2007 factbook, and has been converted from pounds to kilograms. 

4

 This data is based on BA’s published 2007 factbook. Given the age of the aircraft, this number is likely 

even higher now. 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 10 

for the equipment, there are 14 available First class seats and not the 16 as claimed by Mr. 

Edelman. This overstates the maximum recoverable fuel surcharge revenues by $900. 

 Mr. Edelman’s calculations on the 747 service also benefit from his decision to use a 

configuration of the 747 with greater seating capacity. BA has in its fleet two versions of the 

747-400. One model has 299 seats and the other has 345 seats. By using the model with 345 

seats, Mr. Edelman potentially overstates the maximum recoverable fuel surcharge revenues by 

$6,500. 

 Finally, Mr. Edelman’s calculations do not account for the fact that not all seats are 

available for sale. Mr. Edelman’s calculations neglect to account for the fact that on long haul 

transatlantic flights, certain seats are designated for crew rest and cannot be occupied by 

passengers. 

f. Mr. Edelman Miscalculates the Price of Jet Fuel. 

 As has already been noted, BA purchases its jet fuel through forward contracts. Because 

BA does not purchase jet fuel on the date of the actual flight, consideration of jet fuel prices on 

that date is not appropriate. Even were one to do so, however, Mr. Edelman’s assumed price of 

jet fuel is based on static and misleading prices that may underestimate, however inadvertently, 

the base fuel price by as much as $.25 per gallon. 

g. Mr. Edelman Cherry Picked Data. 

Mr. Edelman alleges that the fuel surcharges are implausibly high and in his Complaint 

he calculates the fuel surcharge to be over 70 percent of a $640 round-trip transatlantic ticket. 

However his analysis is skewed by the fact that the fare he selected reflects the lowest end of 

potential sale fares for the specified routing. The 70 percent ratio is not reflective of the majority 

of tickets sold by BA. A fully flexible economy fare for the same itinerary would be 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 11 

approximately $4,500, and in that instance, the fuel surcharge would constitute approximately 10 

percent of the ticket price. A $2,600 fare is also available in the market and that fare would 

result in the fuel surcharge constituting approximately 17 percent of the fare. These examples 

demonstrate that the percentage of the ticket allocated to the fuel surcharge will vary based on 

the range of ticket prices available and the actual ticket amount. It is a gross misstatement to 

assert that 70 percent of each ticket available for purchase represents the fuel cost above a 

baseline. 

3. BA is Not Required to Provide Calculations Supporting the Fuel Surcharge On the 

Website. 

 Mr. Edelman alleges that BA’s fuel surcharges are not supported by “required 

calculations.” The Department’s February 2012 Guidance, however, does not require that BA 

provide substantiation or some form of financial calculation in support of the fuel surcharge 

imposed on its website. 

4. BA’s On Business Web Pages. 

 The Complaint mischaracterizes the nature of the British Airways On Business 

programme. On Business is a business to business (“B2B”) initiative, intended to provide 

incentives and discounts to small and medium-sized enterprises (“SMEs”) which do not have 

corporate discounted travel agreements with BA for employee travel. 

 Participation in the On Business programme is based on terms formally agreed to by the 

SME, not its individual employees/travelers. Points may only be accrued for validated travel by 

SME employees or consultants; all programme benefits and travel redemptions, including 

discounts on flights, redemption of On Business points for flight, hotel or other services may 

only be accessed by the programme administrator or corporate authorizer designated by the SME 

at the time of enrollment. Travelers on redemption awards must be employees, consultants or 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 12 

guests of the SME and cannot access or book travel or redeem On Business benefits unless the 

programme administrator authorizes such redemption. SMEs must validate that they are 

legitimate businesses, not individuals, in order to qualify for participation in the programme. In 

sum, BA’s On Business web pages are designed for use by commercial participants in the 

programme, not the general public. 

5. BA Does Not Improperly Co-Mingle Government-Imposed Taxes with BA Fees. 

 As with many carriers worldwide, BA’s flights may be incorporated by prospective 

passengers into specialized “around-the-world” (RTW) itineraries. One online source of RTW 

tickets is “rtw.oneworld.com,” a specialized site owned and managed by oneworld Management 

Company, Inc. (“oMC”) and developed by oMC in cooperation with Innovata and Amadeus. 

oMC offers this “RTW Tool” to book RTW flights on BA and other oneworld carriers. Fare 

displays and disclosures provided by the RTW Tool are determined by oMC, not the individual 

carriers. 

 Mr. Edelman has docketed identical complaints concerning the RTW Tool against two 

other oneworld carriers — American Airlines and Cathay Pacific — but BA understands that the 

RTW Tool may, depending on itinerary, select any of nine active oneworld members to ticket an 

itinerary. The Complaint here is based on a test conducted by Mr. Edelman of the RTW Tool for 

an itinerary containing five BA flight segments; the itinerary apparently was composed so that 

BA would be the ticketing carrier. 

 As has already been documented to the Department, oMC completed its remedial action 

on February 18, 2013. BA has confirmed that the RTW Tool pricing displays now show a 

“Taxes and Carrier Surcharges/Fees” subtotal, and non-tax items are identified, for example, as 

“Carrier Surcharges/Fees.” Thus, the RTW Tool is consistent with the Department’s February 
British Airways Answer 

April 5, 2013 

Page 13 

2012 Guidance in this area, any unintended confusion regarding the non-fare portion of the total 

price has been eliminated, and the subject matter of the Complaint in this regard has been 

resolved. 

6. BA’s Itemization of Costs Properly Denotes Taxes and Surcharges. 

 Mr. Edelman complains that references to “fuel surcharges” are inherently improper. 

Mr. Edelman’s suggestion that the sentence, “The price of your ticket may include a fuel 

surcharge per flight levied by the carrier” is somehow misleading strains credulity. As an initial 

matter, the Department did not issue guidance regarding the disclosure of fuel surcharge until 

February 21, 2012, which was not effective until April 22, 2012. Pursuant to the February 2012 

Guidance, BA transitioned to the use of the phrase “carrier charges” on its website in nearly 

every instance. 

 BA did this even though it creates a tension with EU rules which, in practice, have a 

much greater bearing on BA than U.S. carriers because of BA's UK domicile and the size of its 

EU business. 

 The EU rules are set out in Article 23 of EC Regulation 1008/2008 which has direct 

binding force in all 27 EU Member States and applies to the sale of flights to/from an EU airport. 

The rules require that, in addition to specifying the final price payable by the consumer, a 

breakdown of the following items must be included; namely, (i) “taxes,” (ii) “airport charges,” 

and (iii) “other charges, surcharges or fees, such as those related to security or fuel.” 

 In addition, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (which 

implement into UK law the requirements of an EU Directive concerning unfair commercial 

practices applicable to all EU Member States) prohibit misleading practices in consumer 


EXHIBIT 1 
PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS

OVERVIEW GLOSSARY › FAQS › DATA ANALYSIS & PROJECTIONS

 View History: Daily Weekly Monthly Annual Download Data (XLS File)

U.S. Gulf Coast Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Spot Price FOB (Dollars per Gallon)

Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9

 1990's 0.762 0.608 0.572 0.529 0.493 0.494 0.611 0.560 0.403 0.498

 2000's 0.850 0.725 0.687 0.824 1.151 1.715 1.923 2.131 2.964 1.664

 2010's 2.149 2.998

- = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. 

Release Date: 2/13/2013

Next Release Date: 2/21/2013

Referring Pages:

■ Spot Prices for Crude Oil and Petroleum Products

U.S. Gulf Coast Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Spot Price FOB

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2002 2004 2006 2008 2000 2010

0

1

2

3

4

Dollars per Gallon

Source: Thomson Reuters

U.S. Gulf Coast Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Spot Price FOB

U.S. Gulf Coast Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel Spot Price FOB (Dollars per Gallon) Page 1 of 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=eer_epjk_pf4_rgc_dpg&f=a 2/14/2013