More thoughts on SQ’s new credit card surcharges

When does it end?

[Update: SIA has reversed its decision and will not be levying credit card surcharges]

So, yesterday was fun. SQ announced its plans to levy credit card surcharges on certain types of tickets. I voiced my strong disagreement. The article was picked up on various platforms. The site got overloaded and went down for a while (methinks another server upgrade is in order). Man, who needs to feud with influencers?

There are some who took exception to the use of the word “disgrace” in my original article, believing it was an overreaction to what they saw as a small, limited impact fee. I’ll get to that in a minute, but there’s one point I think necessary to highlight: when I wrote the original article, SQ’s website was ambiguous about the surcharge, saying that it would apply to “certain fares”.

website header as it appeared earlier in the day

It was not until later in the day that SQ updated its site to clarify that only economy lite fares would be subject to the surcharge.

website header as it appeared later in the day

I have to admit that when I first wrote the article I was using the working assumption that all fares would be subject to this 1.3% surcharge, as was the case in Australia, for example. That would indeed be disgraceful, given that surcharges are hardly the market practice in Singapore (unless of course you’re benchmarking yourself to a budget airline…)

But given that we now know the surcharge only applies to the cheapest economy fares, does my conclusion change? I thought about it long and hard, and my answer is no. I still think it’s wrong for SQ to impose this fee, and here’s why.

But it’s only 1.3%…

Let’s ignore for a minute that a credit card surcharge goes against the terms of service of Visa and Mastercard. Let’s also ignore that levying a credit card surcharge is conceptually the same as asking customers to pay a “cashier surcharge” in a grocery store to cover what should rightfully be the firm’s cost of doing business.

There are some who believe the whole hoo hah is much ado about nothing. Mark from The Shutterwhale is of the opinion that a 1.3% fee is “insignificant”, given that the base fare for economy lite is low,  the fee paid will range between $1.79 and $13.36 and there are multiple ways of avoiding it.

Now, I have nothing but respect for Mark, but I disagree with him here. Mark is taking a utilitarian point of view, arguing that the fee, in the grand scheme of things, “isn’t a lot to pay since you’re already saving quite a bit on your tickets” (do have a read of his full article, the last thing I want is to take him out of context). I see this as a matter of principle more than anything else. In my mind, there’s a very big difference between discriminating in product and discriminating in payment. 

When SQ announced its fare bucket changes, I didn’t like that they took away free seat selection for economy lite passengers. However, I could still understand the general concept that customers who buy a more expensive ticket (economy standard, flexi) should enjoy certain incremental benefits (even if those benefits arose by virtue of removing the benefits of others rather than adding anything).

What I don’t understand is why someone who buys a cheaper ticket should be subject to an additional fee when paying for said ticket. The product you buy shouldn’t have any effect on the value of your payment medium. So I’m buying a cheaper economy fare. Why should my mode of payment be worth 1.3% less than someone who buys a more expensive one? I mean, how is that any different from going to a restaurant, ordering the cheaper steak and finding out later that those ordering the cheaper steak need to pay a credit card surcharge?

Therefore, to those who say “it’s only 1.3%, don’t get your pantaloons in a twist,” I’d just as soon flip that argument and say “yes, it’s only 1.3%. So why pass that on to the customer?” Let’s be honest and call this for what it is- a cynical attempt to get customers to pay for what should rightfully be the firm’s cost of doing business, done by a company which knows it can get away with it.

Where does it end?

As expected, the interweb is abuzz with very angry people blaming everything from corporate greed to “the 70%” (yes, that actually happened).

Perhaps it hurts the brand a bit, but I honestly don’t think that this, in and of itself, will cause customers to desert SQ in droves. But then again, that’s exactly what I said about charging for seat selection.

The question then is- where does this unbundling stop? Voices out of Airline House suggest that that SQ is exploring all avenues to “optimize revenue” and “rebase cost”. What comes next? Baggage charges? Buy on board? Logically, there must come some discrete tipping point where even the most die hard of SQ loyalists make the switch to other airlines. I don’t know where that is, but SQ seems eager to test the boundaries.

Aaron Wong
Aaron Wong
Aaron founded The Milelion to help people travel better for less and impress chiobu. He was 50% successful.

Similar Articles


Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

No hard feelings haha! I guess we’ll have to see how much Economy Lite fares differ from the existing ‘Super Saver’ fares as well to take a more balanced standpoint. I see your frustrations with the state of unbundling though!


This article totally nailed it. SQ starting this price variation is a test on the price elasticity of their ‘lite fare’ product. Once they deem their product are relatively price inelastic to small changes, they will start charging this 1.3% everywhere else.


I think SQ could have tested the economy lite and other unbundling on Silk Air. That way they could have avoided hurting SQ brand.


“How is that any different from going to a restaurant, ordering the cheaper steak and finding out later that those ordering the cheaper steak need to pay a credit card surcharge?”

To be fair, some eatablishments (incl. retail) impose a min. spend amount before credit cards are accepted. This is also a form of payment mode discrimination. So if one ordered cheaper steak vs prime rib, there is a chance that the cheaper steak order be penalised because it doesn’t meet the min. spend.

Wei Hao

the min spend is usually $20 for such establishments. i don’t think we have any SQ ticket at that price. if there is, i’ll gladly pay the surcharge.


The point is in the analogy of the cheaper steak being discriminated and is not about SQ’s prices, etc.

So if you ate a cheaper steak that costs $19 all-in, you can’t pay with credit cards because it doesn’t meet the $20 min spend, but a steak that costs $25 all-in can be paid with a credit card. Correct?


If you went to Lawry paid for a $200 steak and they charge you 1.3% surcharge and you walk down to Aston’s and they don’t do it. How would you feel?


Simple – Don’t eat Lawry’s then! Because Astons’ steaks taste far better and doesn’t incur a surcharge.


In a sign of things to come, CX now plans to charge for meals – they are rolling out Buy on Board for economy.


Will be keeping a lookout for how SQ advertises its promo fares, whether it falls in line with Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS)’s revised travel advisory (see

Unbundling is an irreversible (irresistable?) trend for airlines. How else can this play out? Pay to use the lavatory?


Latest update received 5mins back: “Following a further review, Singapore Airlines will not be proceeding with the implementation of the CCSF.”


Seems to me that damage is done to the SQ brand. Not to mention the fact that they probably scaled back on the implementation after all this backlash. Now, I will always wonder when SQ will be trying to leech off economy passengers again.

Miles hedgehog

Is this sarcasm or true


Miles hedgehog: Anon quoted from sales circular. A link to the CNA news was posted in another comment. 🙂

Asian Miler

I’d agree on one thing: it simply confounds me why there is a discrimination of payment, as you put it. For a premium airline I don’t even understand this. What’s next, 50% surcharge if you pay your fares using… I dunno, red packet gift certificates? Why is there even a distinction about *how* you pay them in this digital age?


even now SIA decided to cancel CCSF, but i think already hurt his branding

Zack (the other one)

Power to the people. Maybe their CFO reads the milelion and saw all the angry comments


Milelion 1: SIA 0


SIA could force their pax to club baby seals (or otters for Singapore reality) and it won’t affect their customer base – herd mentality (for Singapore again) in action – there are plenty of people who will select SIA regardless how they are treated.


And now they’ve done away with it altogether –


“Where does this unbundling stop?”

Well. They’ve installed NFC in every economy seat for internet / duty free. Conceivably, other services could be on a pay -as-you-go basis as well.


they cancelled it, somebody must be getting scolded like hell right now.

Miles Hedgehog

It’s so stupid



Featured Deals


Follow us