Originally Posted by
HilFly
Apart from occasional reward trips to the former Europe zone 1, the changes are positive for me.
That's good to hear ^
Originally Posted by
HilFly
If the sentence about 97% of routes not changing or requiring fewer Avios is not what BA intended to communicate I would like to know the names of the people whose heads are going to roll for that one. Clearly, 97% of routes are not staying the same or requiring fewer Avios.
But it doesn't say that '97% of routes are not changing', it says '97% of
our routes are not changing'. I think that whether that is seen as being clear or not is dependant on what you normally use your Avios for. If it is for reward bookings on airlines other than BA, then you might have read and thought that it meant non-BA routes too, because, in your mind, that is what you wanted it to say.
I'm in a similar position as the OP, the changes themselves seems entirely reasonable and will not impact me greatly. No matter how you interpret the statement though it's still untrue, dishonest and misleading.
Is it? What is misleading about BA saying 'our' routes? This is from BA, talking about BA, not about partners. I don't understand this massive obsession with getting hold of BA miles and then having no intention of using them to book BA reward flights, and then being totally up in arms when BA protects changes to it's own network to the disadvantage of partner rewards.
Originally Posted by
bernardd
It must be the only FF scheme in existence where the actual routing changes the number of miles required. Meshing that with AA's hub & spoke operation is a mess.
This makes perfectly logical sense to me. The more miles you have to fly, the more you should have to pay.
If I want to fly from Sydney to Melbourne, but end up going via Canberra, why should it cost the same as a direct Sydney to Melbourne flight?
Originally Posted by
bernardd
I also can't square the promise of fair warning in the BAEC T's & C's with a 2 1/2 month wait that slapping on changes overnight with zero notice.
I agree with you on this one. BA said that changes were coming, but they didn't explain those changes in detail. They should have given a warning, been explicit and then set the date that those changes would come into effect.