Originally Posted by
continentalclub
To argue a very narrow point again, are we potentially no worse off than we were two years ago, however?
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...nly-fares.html
Prior to that, there were no HBOs. The inclusions of the then 'lowest' fare were, insofar as I can recall, the same as the now 'lowest non-HBO' fare, including for status-holders.
If we can inflation- and competition-adjust to prove that the 'lowest non-HBO fare' now is higher than the then 'lowest fare', then we'd still potentially be arguing a different point.
To be clear, this is not to approve of the change now being discussed, but if there's any chance of effecting positive change then I think that care must be taking in avoiding potentially specious and/or conflatory positions.
BA doesn't care about whether or not their position -- or the position of critics of this BA move -- is using "potentially specious and/or conflatory positions".
Customers with BA/OW elite status on BA who recognize how this move makes them worse off don't need to rely upon, nor avoid, any argument -- "potentially specious and/or conflatory positions" or not -- to know that this move undermines the value gotten out of BA/OW loyalty program participation.
Claiming that there are BA smoke and mirrors -- as your post indicates -- availlable that may obfuscate matters doesn't change the fact that BA customers are facing benefit losses and often paying as much or more than before for the flights.
The move to and expansion of HBO fares seems to be part of BA's strategic game to: set things up to eliminate not only included checked baggage service for short-haul customers but also to eliminate free seat selection service; and then substitute in the same services contingent upon post-purchase fee payments that boost BA's revenue above and beyond what it was before.