Originally Posted by
Tafflyer
Which curiously means short-haul redemptions from places like DUB, LUX and FAO with low taxes and charges are actually cheaper than an RFS redemption. This must be an error, and the only way to see it is to log on to an Avios account not eligible for RFS.
The new system, which was supposed to be a trial, which has now been tweaked twice is, as I said then, a not very well hidden devaluation. And then look of you combine one of these RFS redemptions connecting to a long-haul redemption. They always use the higher avios value for the short-haul, added to the value for the long-haul and still charge full taxes and fees from origin to destination.
I believe the way this trial was done, was by lowering the RFS fee to be £0.50 per segment (BA's website can't handle transactions with cash value of £0.00); redemption costs has been increased to include avios for RFS; avios+cash options where adjusted to include the original value, e.g. £17.50 + 4500 avios for a peak redemption.
This led two a number of issues (ones I've encounter so far):
1) person eligible for RFS no longer has an option to pay lower taxes instead of RFS fee, since RFS is set to £0.50
2) trying to book Gold Priority Reward (double avios for any seat 30 days out) one has to argue that it should be 30k avios for LHR-WAW in Club, not 40k avios as quoted by the agent. Knowledgable agent will spot this and ask the supervisor for a permission (sic!) while some agents will incorrectly argue redemptions have gone up.
3) rebooking redemption done before the "trial" resulted in agents asking for extra avios, can happen with bookings made before being eligible for RFS too.
Terms and conditions have not been updated (at least last time I've checked) and they still mention £35 RFS fee for economy and £50 RFS fee for club redemptions. On some routes cash value is adjusted so it is £35/£50, on many others it's actually £36/£51 (assuming round trip).
While I appreciate BA is experimenting with new ways of getting their avios back (avios for RFS is a pretty poor value), this particular trial, in my humble opinion, has been handled in a very unprofessional way.