Originally Posted by
Phantom707
I'm reporting what I've read from other threads.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/credi...ose-1-fee.html
According to those comments, the A+ does charge a FTF. Barclay doesn't charge it, but MasterCard does (and this enables Barclay to claim it as a no FTF card). This is usually offset by the lower exchange rate that MasterCard offers.
However, that doesn't mean that it will always be offset by the exchange rate, and it does mean that there is still a FTF in principle, even if not in effect.
Again, I'm not commenting on my own experience regarding the Arrival+. I'm only reporting what others have said.
Edit: I do see that you, patrick.barnes did comment in that thread. However, there are people who directly responded to your statements with counterclaims. Again, I don't have personal experience with the Arrival+ and am only reporting.
Those people are quoting clueless front line CSR and are not actually basing their posts on actual transaction data.
No one can get a 100% accurate FX spot rate since that rate changes every microsecond. I'm just saying that over thousands of transactions, the MC FX rate is as close to interbank rates as possible, and that neither the A+ or Citi MC cards marketed as 0% FTF include any additional mark up over the advertised MC rates.
Meanwhile, rates on Visa cards claiming 0% FTF *do* include a hidden markup of up to 1%. I've run the same transactions in the same currencies on 4 different cards at exactly the same time to confirm all of the above. My A+ and Citi Prestige gave me identical rates, and my Chase CSP and CU issued Visa gave identical (craptacular) rates.
Amex just gives you a rate they determine which has no basis in reality apart from being "close enough". It tends to be on par with the Visa rate or slightly better.
I doubt any of this stuff matters to most people, but for those that spend a lot of money internationally... Seems worth it to save ~1% on each transaction by using a MC.