Originally Posted by
KingCanute
Thanks.
The issue is that there appear to be enough people willing to pay for unbundled ancillaries on top of whatever the cash fare may be that it's a sustainable business model at the moment. It’s good to draw a line somewhere on a personal basis and buy elsewhere, as in your BA v VS example and I commend you for that, but principles can be expensive. $300 expensive in that example.
$12k is a LOT of money, of course, and I'm not defending fare levels. But even ignoring inflation and fuel costs etc, it’s just reality currently that there are enough passengers / people with money to burn / mugs / etc who are willing to pay those fares plus fees that it doesn't matter what you or I might think. And if it were your or my business, we might be thinking "lucky me!'
Agree by and large. Sometimes, upholding principles can indeed come with a steep price.
On the whole, my strong objection likely stems from my 15-year experience working with an airline, during which I extensively analyzed route profitability and performance. In my view, no airline seat or service justifies a $12,000 price tag in today's market. However, I do find merit in the idea of an around-the-world fare, encompassing at least 20 countries and exclusively in first class, potentially justifying such a cost.This business strategy appears to be centered around incremental charges, even when passengers are already paying a premium. It's intriguing to consider how things might have transpired if passengers had demonstrated their dissent by making decisions with their wallets – it's conceivable that British Airways would have reconsidered their profit-oriented approach. Yet, as long as there exists a clientele willing to cover these expenses or even higher fares, the motivation to retract such an unreasonable policy remains low.
I tell you, my anticipation builds as I wait to witness what other services they might begin monetizing, all while maintaining the façade of business class and justifying the premium pricing.