wow, i've seen people complain about the vagaries of the fuel surcharges but now i myself have first hand proof that they are an arbitrary cash grab that are not based on the rational consumption of fuel.
YVR-LHR-ARN RT in F/CE, two flights, total of 9051 km: $726
YVR-LHR RT in F, one flight, 7587 km: $866
so it costs about 11% more in fuel surcharges to fly about 16% less. how does this work exactly?
Last edited by BenSenise; Nov 19, 12 at 6:18 pm..
Reason: corrected amount to reflect fuel surcharge only
wow, i've seen people complain about the vagaries of the fuel surcharges but now i myself have first hand proof that they are an arbitrary cash grab that are not based on the rational consumption of fuel.
YVR-LHR-ARN RT in F/CE, two flights, total of 9051 km: $726
YVR-LHR RT in F, one flight, 7587 km: $1,196
so it costs about 65% more in fuel surcharges to fly about 16% less. how does this work exactly?
Did you by any chance include the ADP on the YVR-LHR RT flight? I come up with CAD $1,183.34 in "total taxes, fees and surcharges per person". CAD $866 of that is fuel surcharge.
For YVR-LHR-ARN RT it is CAD $870.96 for the dates I choose, where the fuel surcharge is CAD $726. Still less for more distance.
Did you by any chance include the ADP on the YVR-LHR RT flight? I come up with CAD $1,183.34 in "total taxes, fees and surcharges per person". CAD $866 of that is fuel surcharge.
For YVR-LHR-ARN RT it is CAD $870.96 for the dates I choose, where the fuel surcharge is CAD $726. Still less for more distance.
yes, i did. thanks for pointing that out. i have corrected it. the principle is still the same though, just not as exaggerated as i had mistakenly written.
Simple fact is on revenue tickets (which the majority of BA passengers travel on) it makes no difference on the total price you have to pay anyway. On redemptions they charge it because they can and it helps their profit margins.
Until the powers that be decide they are breaking some law then they'll continue to charge it. None of us like it but you do have a choice.....accept it or move on.
__________________
Don't let the Walter Mitty's get you down....
None of us like it but you do have a choice.....accept it or move on.
oh i do better than that. i use it to my advantage.
i was ready to book the award ticket YVR-LHR and then book a cash ticket onwards to ARN. but then i saw that it would actually cost about $900 more per person to do that. so we're doing a quick overnighter at LHR rather than stockholm. still get home the same date and time.
Simple fact is on revenue tickets (which the majority of BA passengers travel on) it makes no difference on the total price you have to pay anyway. On redemptions they charge it because they can and it helps their profit margins.
But it appears to be a completely illogical system. Assuming they have it purely to get revenue from award flights, who sits down and comes up with a system that result in receiving less money for an award ticket that comprises of an extra flight and substantially more miles ?
__________________
Check out my blog charting my challenge to have a maximum value rewards holiday:- http://www.goingonrewards.com
But it appears to be a completely illogical system. Assuming they have it purely to get revenue from award flights, who sits down and comes up with a system that result in receiving less money for an award ticket that comprises of an extra flight and substantially more miles ?
It's only illogical if you think that it has anything to do with the cost of fuel. It doesn't. Providing you abandon that notion, then you can imagine someone in, say Rome, having a choice between redeeming on AZ for a direct flight to North America somewhere, or going via the UK on BA. If BA wants to compete with that market they have to offer incentives (probably not that many if you're competing with AZ ).
As has been illustrated many times previously, the market for A-B-C, is not the same as that from A-B plus that of B-C, it's an entirely separate market. If you wish, you could often fly from LHR to FCO and pick up a FCO-JFK flight in J for half the total cost of that of a LHR-JFK round trip. Of course you can do that, but BA knows that the typical business traveller isn't that crazy. Present company excepted.
... you could often fly from LHR to FCO and pick up a FCO-JFK flight in J for half the total cost of that of a LHR-JFK round trip. Of course you can do that, but BA knows that the typical business traveller isn't that crazy. Present company excepted.
Surely this is hardly news! I thought it was common knowledge that the whole point of the fuel surcharge was to generate revenue to offset the costs of BAEC redemptions, in which case its bound to be based on commercial reality rather than fuel consumed. Presumably if it were removed there would have to be some drastic changes: No more credit card promotions, bye-bye tesco, treble the current miles for redemptions, slash the 100% bonus for Silvo members, abolish Brasso members entirely.
I thought it was common knowledge that the whole point of the fuel surcharge was to generate revenue to offset the costs of BAEC redemptions
I do not believe that this is strictly true.
What I actually think is happening is that BA have stumbled into the situation where YQ is much higher than they initially planned. However because removing it would cause the loss of a small but significant revenue stream from redemptions it would take a particularly courageous Commercial Director to take that call. And hence we have not seen it removed.
All that said, I believe we have cause for optimism. The reward flight savers to Europe have been available for more than a year now. BA will probably have nearly enough data to establish whether or not the loyalty benefits of introducing a similar scheme on longhaul are likely to exceed the costs of losing the YQ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdWalker
Presumably if it were removed there would have to be some drastic changes: No more credit card promotions, bye-bye tesco, treble the current miles for redemptions, slash the 100% bonus for Silvo members, abolish Brasso members entirely.
I do not believe that this is true either. It is important to remember that most Avios are either never used or used for low-value flights, especially on shorthaul. Furthermore, Avios are a profit centre for BA as although they cost nothing to produce they can be sold to Amex, Tesco and so on for real money.
I thought it was common knowledge that the whole point of the fuel surcharge was to generate revenue to offset the costs of BAEC redemptions.
Granted there are a lot of people here that feel that's the only justification for maintaining a "fuel surcharge" in its current form. However, it's completely understandable the vast majority of people don't naturally make this illogical step to the same conclusion.
Every airline that charges a fuel surcharge has these "anomalies". Agree with everyone else -- they are not anomalies when you give up the fiction that the charges were ever intended to be directly related to the cost of fuel.
).
That made me chuckle, but how very true 
