FrancisA

But it does matter to BA. In the example I gave, I intended to have two weekends in EDI and a summer break in the south of France. I would have bought two EDI returns and a return to NCE. I would probably have paid cash for the EDI returns too.

Beside any APD issue, BA are losing a revenue fare for one of the EDIs in my example. The loophole is that people were using the free domestic connection to avoid paying for flights at different times and unconnected to the SH international flight, which they would still have taken and paid for anyway.

That, to my mind, is a loophole.

missdimeaner

Whatever the 'enhancements' to the BAEC have been (I'm a little behind on that)....its BA's ball and their game.

MrD stated after our last LH trip (CE/WTP) 'I'm never travelling economy again', that statement may well now be true. At least we will earn 100% avios etc.

Our impending promotion to bronze should mean that any reduction in avios earning will be offset by the tier bonus, not that I have ever amassed a huge number of them...I tend to spend them as soon as I have enough for something worthwhile. It seems this was a good strategy.

Change is always unsettling, some will leave, some will stay...at present BA fulfils my needs adequately, and until that changes I will still us them (mostly).

IAN-UK

I struggled to see much worthwhile about the "loophole", except for those who simply wanted to stop off in London before a cheap (APD) flight onwards.

You might be missing out the MAN passenger and security charges - £11.80 per departing passenger averaged over the year's peak/off-peak system.

And note that the transfer passenger charge at LHR is £21 in each direction, so £42 (if no break of journey in London) rather than £56.

Lufthansa did something similar when it introduced its "pay taxes with miles" approach to M&M-funded travel within Europe. Started at 10K miles, now up to 18K (economy) 25K (business).

But it's worth noting that M&M can offer very real value from Manchester and other regional airports to European destinations, compared to the revised BA scheme.

It imposes a flat rate mileage, regardless of the number of connections. Connections send the cash element through the roof, but these can be covered with the 18K/25K payment. So for the mileage-rich, travel is "free"-ish.

It gets even better with "last minute" M&M reservations (I think it's 15 days) when the underlying mileage requirement drops to half.

So for late reservations, or trips to far-flung or obscure European destinations it's worth having some M&M miles in the bank...

Andriyko

I know people who have to work 2 or 3 jobs to feed their families and they don't get any miles for that to go on a holiday. In fact, they don't know what going on a holiday means. Flying on business is no more difficult and should not be more rewarding than working in a mine or on an oil rig. I am sure that a lot of people would love to get free airline/hotel status and free miles in addition to the paycheck. So, I am sorry but I don't believe in this "it's a reward for being away from home". Many jobs that keep people away from their homes and families don't offer such nice rewards,

So I agree that many overreact to the changes. We've had it very nice for a few years but I always thought that 100% for all fares would not be here for long.

Globaliser

I doubt that the TP earning changes will do much here, but I suspect that the changes to earn and burn rates will have a particular impact on this category - which is obviously not a strict category but one end of a spectrum of customer types.

I also doubt that the Silver customer who is mostly flying on profitable and high TP earning fares, and also flies a small number of deepest discount Y trips that are being reduced from 50% to 25% TP earning, will suddenly find it an enormous struggle to retain Silver. Those who will struggle are those who do the majority of their flying in these booking classes, and I find it hard to see how it is unreasonable that the TP earning should reflect the deepest discount nature of these fares.

MPH1980

In my company's case - I think the changes might precipitate a change in our travel policy.

We are a Prem Eco place for flights over 7 hours. The key reason (as I see it) for this is that our CEO likes flying business and frequently pays for his cheap AUPs and UUAs out of the premium economy seats.

Pushing the cost of the UUA up so much may well get him to think 'well now - what's the point' and suddenly we'll find ourselves in a 'cheapest economy' arrangement. At that point - with the plan as it is - I'll then use whichever airline gets me there quickest.

So for now - I'm with BA because I have my gold status and I like the lounge access (even if I don't always like the lounges). I'm with BA because they are one of the few carriers going to the destinations I need with Premium Economy.

If my company keep paying for WTP - I'll keep flying BA and (perhaps) one of the results of this will be an increase in space for me in the lounges. Yes - that's an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude here - but I see that the changes have been made and they won't reverse them - so I have to look to the positives for me.

The downside I see is that I think there'll be a number of companies who think like mine - I can get cheap J by buying W and upgrading 50% of the time. Those companies might well now be thinking 'J ain't so cheap now - and W ain't worth the premium otherwise - so let's go Y'.

As a result - W might (over time - it won't happen tomorrow) start to be less popular and we might find that Op-Ups start decreasing out of that cabin.

gustavmahler

Isn't it more the burn rates than anything else? And this will have an impact on everyone. Personally, I can accept the lower earn rates, and TPs will unlikely be affected. As I said on the other thread, it's the huge hike in redemption rates, (especially UuA) where the increased earn rates for higher fare buckets doesn't necessarily mitigate that.

Globaliser

I can see that, but it still doesn't mean that the reduction in TPs for the very lowest booking classes is designed to stop this category of customer retaining Silver. It's designed to reflect the bargain basement nature of these fares, but that will obviously have an effect on those who only fly on these bargain basement fares.It's only three booking classes that have been reduced to 25% TP earning: Q, O and G.

There are only three booking classes that earn 100% TPs: Y, B and H. No change here.

And the majority of booking classes in between will continue to earn 50% TPs. No change here either.

I don't know what it's like on short-haul, but on long-haul you normally only get put into Q or O classes on sale fares. Non-sale fares start at N as the cheapest booking class, and that will continue to earn TPs as now.I hope so - that would be a customer-friendly thing to do.

RobDBA

But why don't they want people flying on bargain basement fares to earn many tier points? It's so it is more difficult to earn a level of status (Silver) which costs BA potentially large amounts of margin.

Maybe you are right and I've been flying on higher fare classes than I thought, anyone any idea how to check that in retrospect? This could be the deciding factor in my jumping to Star or not (which I don't want to do!)

(My mistake on the 100% btw, I assumed what I'd been earning was 100% and the one leg that earned me more than that last year was 200%, I see now that I was earning was 50% so maybe, if those cheap classes really are deep deep sale fares only, I might be OK).

EDIT: To answer my own question you can see booking class on BA's transactions page. In my case for 2014 it's about 20% Q, O or G fares with all but one being short haul. I got 700 tier points in 2014 so it appears the equation is going to be extremely tight. As I'm expecting a little more long haul travel this year maybe I'll be OK, tricky decision!

SCSA

Sorry to rant (and this won't win me any friends), but I'm a little confused by comments like "I'm only 40 points off from Silver but not going to bother now" and "they just took £600 off me".

Are the tier point thresholds changing? Devaluation of FFP has been going on for as long as FF programmes have existed. BA aren't stealing your money. They're just saying that in the near future, this customer benefit we've been providing won't offer quite as much benefit.

If you don't want your Avios to be devalued, use them now. If you thnk another carrier will give you a better deal, go there. But don't try to claim BA are stealing money from you.

Also I don't get all the pissing and moaning about crowded lounges. I really don't like kids running around them, but who cares about how crowded they are as long as I can still get my food and drink? I'm much more interested in the overall quality of the lounge than how many people are there.

stueys

This has been long overdue to be honest, BA have been printing Avios at a rate that was unsustainable and also availability has all but disappeared. I use two flights a year on rewards, every time I've tried to make a booking Over the last 3 years I've needed to use my GGL joker to do so. Whilst that availability situation exists I've struggled to see the point of BAEC to be honest.

So addressing that situation is helpful.

Secondly, being honest, all of us will continue using BA if you're UK based. Ultimately you're buying a mode of transport and BA have the best UK based network by some margin. You would need to be a dedicated points collector to make a different choice and, I suspect, BA arent especially interested in that demographic.

My summary would be that this probably makes BAEC more attractive whilst I'm continuing to do high volume corporate flying (assuming BA stand by their promise to resolve the pitiful availability). Far less attractive when that stops.

NickB

While I agree with the core of your underlying argument, the way you phrase it here seems to me a bit simplistic and the derogatory terminology of "milking the system" rather uncalled for.

Somebody who buys Q, O and G fares is not "milking the system": they are merely buying the products offered on the market by BA at the price set by BA. Now, it certainly is the case that margins on these fares will be lower than on higher fares and that there is a case for BA offering less in terms of Avios and TPs on those lower fares. However, it does not follow from this that those who make use of these fares should be regarded as "milking the system".

Which brings me to my other point: if customers flying on Q, O and G were not "profitable" and BA thought that it would be a good thing to get rid of them, there would be a much better and infinitely more effective way of doing this than faffing around with Avios and TP earning: if you do not make money on those fares, just do not offer them. There you have it. Simple.

The truth, of course, is that customers on Q, O and G are also needed for BA to make a profit, otherwise BA would not be offering those fares. Now, clearly, proportionately they do not make the same level of contribution to the bottom line as those on higher fares and it might make sense for TP and avios earnings to reflect that. I therefore agree with the core of your point.
However, it would be simplistic to describe those customers as "unprofitable" and that the aim of the changes is to get rid of them. This is plainly not the case. BA also wants Q/O/G only customers on its planes along with customers paying higher fares. The aim is a better adequation between the benefits received by those customers and the price they pay. That is not at all the same thing.

LupineChemist

I said it earlier, but it's that IAG has taken a strategic position of not trying to compete on loyalty against the LCCs. Basically if you have status, BA will be good for you, but if you are between BA, Norwegian, Easyjet, Etc... well then the BAEC or IB+ aren't for you anymore. It definitely stings, but at the end of the day they have decided it costs too much money to chase a segment that will buy on price point alone.

Personally my short haul choices are dictated by timing, and then price/airline with a bit of give and take in there. I won't spend hundreds more of the company's money just to stick to an airline.

FrancisA

If you look on your BAEC transactions you will see next to each flight a two letter combination (e.g. C/I). First letter is cabin flown (CE in my example) second is fare bucket.

paulwuk

Sorry, how is BA more convienient than KL from MAN, or LBA, or GLA? Especially with the new changes at AMS that will allow securityless transfers? Heathrow outbound from T5 is fine, but from T3, or inbound, is a mess.

How is it better than flying via EK for half the price when heading east? Or flying via US and PHL when heading to the states?

BA isn't the obvious choice for those in the majority of the UK.

This was based on a revenue flight tomorrow as reported by ITA. The outbound MAN-LHR-LIS is the same cost as LHR-LIS, however costs £35 on avios rather than £17.50 from LHR.

The values were the entire "passenger service charge", so yes it might be split between MAN and LHR, but the lion's share goes to LHR