Oil price at 4 year low but still V high fuel surcharges
Dec 3, 2014, 11:35 am
#137
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Near Edinburgh
Programs: BA Silver
Posts: 9,034
Dec 3, 2014, 12:30 pm
#138
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
The question was about OpEx "opportunities" that seemed to worry analysts, I think they were hoping the money would go back to their client shareholders rather than improve the product. 
WW sounded like he didn't want to commit to anything either way. 
I think.
WW sounded like he didn't want to commit to anything either way. I think.
Dec 3, 2014, 3:56 pm
#139
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: YYC
Programs: BA bronze, Aeroplan peon
Posts: 4,747
Dec 4, 2014, 3:00 am
#142
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MAN/BHX
Programs: ABBA
Posts: 6,027
BA have already bought a lot of oil at a higher price though.
Dec 7, 2014, 2:23 am
#143
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
A question of trust: "[BA] will review this surcharge on a regular basis"
This thread is about trustworthiness, ethics, morality, rectitude and decency.
On 11 May 2004 British Airways introduced what BA (and not someone else) called a fuel surcharge. BA (and not someone else) chose to use an "airline own use only" IATA tax code to collect it, the YQ "tax" (at the time) code.
At the time, British Airways (not someone else) made the following statement / promise:
Source: here
Given the year on year drop of aviation fuel costs by 27.1% (source: IATA Fuel Price Analysis), the "appropriateness" of an "adjustment" to the YQ "carrier imposed surcharge" (as renamed) is long overdue. From my limited knowledge, the transatlantic YQ surcharge actually increased this year against this dramatic reduction in fuel costs:
Can BA be trusted?
On 11 May 2004 British Airways introduced what BA (and not someone else) called a fuel surcharge. BA (and not someone else) chose to use an "airline own use only" IATA tax code to collect it, the YQ "tax" (at the time) code.
At the time, British Airways (not someone else) made the following statement / promise:
Due to the continuing fluctuations in the price of oil British Airways will review this surcharge on a regular basis with a view to adjusting it when appropriate."
Given the year on year drop of aviation fuel costs by 27.1% (source: IATA Fuel Price Analysis), the "appropriateness" of an "adjustment" to the YQ "carrier imposed surcharge" (as renamed) is long overdue. From my limited knowledge, the transatlantic YQ surcharge actually increased this year against this dramatic reduction in fuel costs:
Can BA be trusted?
Dec 7, 2014, 2:35 am
#144
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 10,709
BA and other airlines buy the fuel in advance. So what BA is paying is different to the market rates at present. I agree this works when the cost goes up, not when it goes down. Hopefully when the present fuel hedge runs out, the surcharge can come down. If you know how long fuel will remain low, please let us know.
Dec 7, 2014, 2:40 am
#145
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
BA's own YQ numbers provide a rather comprehensive demolition of the idea that the "carrier charge" is linked to fuel in any way. See:
It's nothing to do with fuel, it doesn't even seem to be strongly linked to distance flown; BA sets the "carrier charge" at a level they can get away with. That's all.
Funny you should mention CX F. Some numbers:
The carrier charge for a CX F flight from FRA to HKG is £65
The carrier charge for a CX F flight from LHR to HKG is £65
The carrier charge for a BA F flight from LHR to HKG is £179.50 (but this is easily explained because BA F is widely viewed as 2.76x better than CX F
)
The carrier charge for a BA F flight from JFK to LHR is £259.40 (this is explained because of Chase giving away all those damn Avios
)
Look at the figures, look at the distances, look at the carriers.
EDIT: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=FRA-HKG;+LHR-HKG;+JFK-LHR
Oh, and remember that 241 voucher that's "saving" you so much? Could it just be that BA is clawing that saving back via inflated YQ on its metal?
The carrier charge for a CX F flight from FRA to HKG is £65
The carrier charge for a CX F flight from LHR to HKG is £65
The carrier charge for a BA F flight from LHR to HKG is £179.50 (but this is easily explained because BA F is widely viewed as 2.76x better than CX F
)The carrier charge for a BA F flight from JFK to LHR is £259.40 (this is explained because of Chase giving away all those damn Avios
)Look at the figures, look at the distances, look at the carriers.
EDIT: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=FRA-HKG;+LHR-HKG;+JFK-LHR
Oh, and remember that 241 voucher that's "saving" you so much? Could it just be that BA is clawing that saving back via inflated YQ on its metal?
Dec 7, 2014, 2:42 am
#146
Moderator: British Airways Executive Club, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges and Environmentally Friendly Travel
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London, UK
Posts: 22,213
The practice of separating out the carrier imposed surcharge has become engrained in the industry such that all airlines that operate between Europe and North America charge very similar fees, it's not just BA. AA, DL, UA surcharges are more or less equal to those imposed by BA. So, I guess the question is, which airline (if any) will go against the status quo? Even if one chooses to take the lead on this, the surcharge will very probably be rolled into the net fare, which will leave the consumer in much the same position as before.
Dec 7, 2014, 2:42 am
#147
Join Date: Aug 2013
Programs: BAEC Gold, IHG Spire Elite
Posts: 1,713
BA and other airlines buy the fuel in advance. So what BA is paying is different to the market rates at present. I agree this works when the cost goes up, not when it goes down. Hopefully when the present fuel hedge runs out, the surcharge can come down. If you know how long fuel will remain low, please let us know.
Should we hold our breath?
Dec 7, 2014, 2:49 am
#148
Moderator, Iberia Airlines, Airport Lounges, and Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Feb 2010
Programs: BA Lifetime Gold; Flying Blue Life Platinum; LH Sen.; Hilton Diamond; Kemal Kebabs Prized Customer
Posts: 63,857
Yes, I agree. It's nothing to do with fuel - it may have been to begin with. But for the last x years it's just been called a carrier charge, which is reviewed upwards from time to time, and it's simply a cost of doing business with BA. You don't have to pay it, it's clearly stated in every booking, the competition is there to go elsewhere and in the round fares are very good value, redemptions thereby less so, but still there are good opportunities out there. I'm always intrigued at the sound and fury of YQ related debates, when there seems almost no debate on base fares. But when you can fly from London to Australia for under £800 return I guess that debate isn't worth having.
Dec 7, 2014, 2:51 am
#149
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
Well, apart from the fact that YQ is significantly higher JFK-LHR (one-way), than LHR-JFK (one-way) - as of today, £106.50 vs £146.20 in Y.
Dec 7, 2014, 2:55 am
#150
Ambassador: Emirates Airlines
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 18,620
EDIT...
Found it. It wasn't you, but you started a thread about it. Why the need for yet another thread?
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...ot-filing.html