Prospero

I was reading Raffles’ blog of how he thinks UuAs will be priced from 28 April - see here

It takes a brave person to challenge Raffles’ analytical prowess, but I have interpreted the new rates differently, at least as far as UuA will be calculated. I confess though, this is mere speculation on my part based on the info BA has thus far imparted.

Taking London to San Francisco (Distance Band 6) as an example, here’s how I see it:

The Off peak base rate = 16,500 Avios
The Peak base rate = 25,000 Avios

My understanding of the way BA upgrades have traditionally worked is that an upgrade from the purchased cabin to the next cabin up is calculated as a multiple of the base rate (equivalent to the cost of an Economy Class redemption), currently 1x for Club to First; 0.5x for WT+ to Club, 0.5x for WT to WT+. From April 28, upgrades from WT to WT+ and from WT+ to Club change to a multiple 1.0x matching Club to First, and with the new variable rates there will be two price points. With LHR-SFO the cost of a one cabin upgrade would be 16.5k off peak and 25k peak.

When redemption inventory is available on Off-peak dates we will be charged the UuA lower rate.


Does anyone concur or is my rationale completely warped?

paul4040

BA.com used to have a table which showed the necessary multiples of the base Avios required to upgrade. WTP>CW was 0.5x which is what made it brilliant. However, the website now states this:


I'm afraid Raffles appears to be correct based on BA's own source:

http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/...ing-with-avios

(See "How Much Will It Cost?")

NickB

The way that it is described on ba.com is that it would be the difference between class originally booked and upgraded class.
For instance, if upgrading from WT+ to J on a band 5 offpeak, this would be 50000-26000= 24000.
However, in so far as this leads to weird results, it might work differently.

The long and short of it is, as long as we do not explicit official confirmation from BA that this is so notwithstanding the weird results in produces, we just do not know for sure.

Dave Noble

I may be misinterpreting what you say or how I understod the change

I thought that Peak vs Off Peak pricing was simply impacted by date of travel; either it is a peak day or an off peak day rather than there being peak vs of peak inventory on a particular flight

For points required for business class , isn't it simply points required for business class minus points required for premium economy

for zone 6 that would seem to be 25 peak vs 30 off peak

There does seem to be a gain in that upgrades from economy will no longer be limited to Y,B and H classes

paul4040

There are some places you "win" though. I recently UuA'd a Zone 5 booking. Revenue CW to F was 20000 Avios based on the old formula.

Off-Peak, it will now cost only 18,000 Avios.

Prospero

Yes, you're absolutely correct. I appended that sentence two seconds before I posted, obviously without thinking things through properly.

Its now a bit ironic for me to say this: BA caused quite a bit of confusion concerned UuAs when it communicated the November 2011 changes. Nicci, bless her, cleared things up very quickly though. The costing mechanics of UuAs are not the easiest of things to describe in one sentence.

I would be great to get some official confirmation

awarty

I originally thought that the 'Difference in Avios' calculation method only applied to UuAs from discount WT to WTP but from paul4040's link it looks like BA have modified the calculation method for all UuAs.

Personally, this is the change that has the largest impact on me, as almost all my tickets are work paid WT, self upgraded to WTP at the time of booking and then UuAs to CW, when available.

:D!

I may be missing something but with the current system, it makes sense to describe upgrades as being multiples of the economy rates because this is how they are actually priced.

With the new off peak rates, there appears to be no rule about how the numbers were arrived at so it would be inaccurate to use 1x/2x/3x/4x, whereas this is the case for non-RFS peak rates. RFS peak rates appear to be using the multipliers of 1x/1.5x/2x/4x

I can't see why BA would let you upgrade for less than the regular avios price as a rule.

Calum

I can't get my head around any of it.. So now a UUA to NYC in F is actually cheaper? Maybe BA have thrown us a bone after all.

I was looking forward to a nice UUA from WT+ to CW to ICN but now it appears to be very bad value. Next time!

Raffles

This is the interpretation I used.

It is also worth reading Iberia's website about their changes, which are clearer than BA's - or at least describe something in a different way which allows you to understand what BA meant.

Iberia has also has the BA Jan-Mar 2016 peak dates on their site which BA has not provided itself.

It is worth noting that the 'weird outcomes' created by the UUA pricing are simply because BA has thrown people a bit of a bone by making off-peak WTP redemptions proportionately cheaper than off-peak CW, thus increasing the differential. 'Tidying up' UUA pricing would mean increasing the cost of off-peak WTP.

paul4040

Yes, UuA CW>F is marginally cheaper.

But really the sweet spot they wanted removing was WTP>CW which they've done rather effectively.

KARFA

Yes, it used to be desribed as a multiple of the base rate but the description was changed on ba.com (last year?) to the difference between your booked cabin and the one you want to UuA to as noted by paul4040. Based on that the analysis done by Raffles appears correct. However, some further clarification would be welcome from BA in due course - at least we have three months to check.

Apart from the avios cost the extra cash due for a UuA seems to be unaffected (i.e. tax for WT->WT+, carrier surcharge WT+->CW, and none for CW->F).

Genius1

I think there is confusion because ba.com is currently stating that the cost of a UUA is the Avios price for the cabin you want to travel in, minus the Avios cost for the cabin you purchased.

Taken literally, this would mean comparing CW and WTP off-peak rate differences for a WTP to CW upgrade, which would mean off-peak was actually more expensive than peak.

The Raffles logic above assumes that only the WT rates are considered regardless of the class to be upgraded - this is not clear from ba.com, but makes sense.

MPH1980

I'd interpreted it in the way Genius1 outlines above - e.g. it's the difference between CW and WTP off-peak or peak as appropriate.

I don't think BA think they've changed anything in the calculation - the old multipliers meant that the cost of upgrading was always in line with the .5/.5/1 calculation that could be done.

By making the peak the standard and then not making off peak directly proportional has resulted in the confusion - as Raffles said - I think this is unintentional.

Has anyone actually bothered to PM Jeni for clarification (Before I do it and find out 500 people have!)?

KARFA

I think it is worth getting some clarification from Jeni, but perhaps wait a few weeks for the whole uproar on the changes to die down before doing so. Since this doesn't take effect until 28 April there is little urgency.