Originally Posted by Globaliser
as a lawyer
So you’re a lawyer? Well, then, I suppose that makes you right.
Originally Posted by Globaliser
In fact, to make it crystal clear, I'll address this:-Your (a) and (b) were:-
(a) [that it became obvious that fuel surcharges were not going to be reduced or removed - no pr value in decreasing a figure that's hidden] is a non-sequitur. The figure is not hidden any more than it was before the change in Fare Explorer. Before the change, you had an add-on line that in effect said "to these estimated base fares you must add estimated TFC = £x" to estimate the total payable. You now get shown the estimated total payable, which on firm quote is then broken down to say "Your base fare is £y, and TFC are £x". That neither hides the TFC, nor does it incorporate the TFC into the ticket price.
(a) addresses fuel surcharges. These are set by BA and have moved up consistently. Uniquely (I think) amongst all the add on charges, fuel surcharges are the ones that BA could lower, if it chose to. Now consider this: BA quotes £30 per sector for a ticket, and then adds £30 for taxes, surcharges etc = £90 total to pay. Then BA switches, and quotes £45 per sector for the same ticket. You really don’t think that in the second scenario, BA is less likely to see a need to reduce fuel surcharges? In the first, doing so would bring the final ticket price closer in line with the customer’s initial expectation of what they might have to pay. In the second, that expectation is completely absent. There’s no incentive to reduce the fuel surcharge. Whether, in the second scenario, you get told at the end of the process what proportion of what you’re paying goes on a fuel surcharges makes no difference. The customer’s initial expectation has been set by then.
Perhaps I’ll be proved wrong when BA lowers the fuel surcharge. Although now it looks like if there is a reduction, it won’t be voluntary.
Originally Posted by Globaliser
(b) [the taxes and surcharges ought to have ceased to become payable on redemption bookings.] is also a non-sequitur. As the TFC have not been incorporated into the base fare, but are a separate element broken out in the firm quote, it does not follow that TFC should have been abolished on redemption tix. In fact, your argument is an extreme one: On this basis, BA should be absorbing everything including the APD.
And if BA absorbed everything on a redemption ticket, the sky would fall in?
If BA chooses to advertise its prices inclusive of the sundry add-ons, then it is not unreasonable to expect that a “free” ticket won’t require a person to pay for the sundry add-ons.
However, BA advertises redemption tickets as ones where taxes, charges and surcharges apply. And that seems to me to be precisely on point, and contrary to your assertion, having it both ways.
Drawing lawyerly distinctions between the “base fare”, the “firm quote” and the “ticket price” is all very interesting, but just ends up sounding like a defensive justification for what BA is doing.
Oh, and jolly clever as those Romans might have been, they didn't hyphens.
