Oil price at 4 year low but still V high fuel surcharges
Oct 10, 2014, 6:14 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 1,008
Oil price at 4 year low but still V high fuel surcharges
BBC reporting oil at a near 4 year low, and BA originally responded to high oil prices by introducing/increasing YQ - so why havent they reduced YQ
Seems to me that BA are behaving like the UK government - once a tax/charge is established it is very rarely reduced and even more rare, removed.
i know some of you will come back and say BA have hedged and therefore may be paying more but seriously they seem to quickly react to increasing prices but more reluctant to reduce the charge when prices go the other way.
Seems to me that BA are behaving like the UK government - once a tax/charge is established it is very rarely reduced and even more rare, removed.
i know some of you will come back and say BA have hedged and therefore may be paying more but seriously they seem to quickly react to increasing prices but more reluctant to reduce the charge when prices go the other way.
Oct 10, 2014, 6:21 am
#3
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,667
Exactly what is the "carrier surcharge" for then if no "direct link" to fuel cost?
Edited to add that in googling, "what is the BA YQ charge for", the words "fuel" and "charge" come up pretty much every time from multiple sources.
So what is YQ exactly for then nux?
Edited to add that in googling, "what is the BA YQ charge for", the words "fuel" and "charge" come up pretty much every time from multiple sources.
So what is YQ exactly for then nux?
Oct 10, 2014, 6:25 am
#4
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2004
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 1,008
Oct 10, 2014, 6:28 am
#5
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
They enable collection of revenue on award tickets, make it simpler to do mass adjustment of fares in response to cost shocks, are often not subject to fare-discounting deals offered to large corporates, and in some jurisdictions there are tax and accounting advantages.
Last edited by Calchas; Oct 10, 2014 at 6:33 am Reason: Verb inflexion
Oct 10, 2014, 6:31 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 12,046
The answer is very simple.
For the vast majority of passengers the balance of the fare between the YQ and fare components is not relevant.
BA will see a multi-million Pound revenue stream from revenue attributable to YQ on redemptions. It would take a Commercial Director of singular courage to abandon that tangible and measurable revenue stream for intangible and much harder to measure "loyalty benefits".
Furthermore, an individual with such courage would probably be unlikely to rise to the rank of Commercial Director at a company like BA because they would either be seen as too much of a risk, too busy running their own businesses or otherwise engaged trading futures contracts at a merchant bank for a million a year. And even if such an individual was in the post, they would still be unable to get such a proposal past the rest of the board!
For the vast majority of passengers the balance of the fare between the YQ and fare components is not relevant.
BA will see a multi-million Pound revenue stream from revenue attributable to YQ on redemptions. It would take a Commercial Director of singular courage to abandon that tangible and measurable revenue stream for intangible and much harder to measure "loyalty benefits".
Furthermore, an individual with such courage would probably be unlikely to rise to the rank of Commercial Director at a company like BA because they would either be seen as too much of a risk, too busy running their own businesses or otherwise engaged trading futures contracts at a merchant bank for a million a year. And even if such an individual was in the post, they would still be unable to get such a proposal past the rest of the board!
Oct 10, 2014, 6:32 am
#8
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,667
Edited to add that the timescale for coming down from the £1.40-ish mark is more like 6-9 months.
Last edited by BOH; Oct 10, 2014 at 6:37 am
Oct 10, 2014, 6:33 am
#9
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
They certainly aren't here.
Oct 10, 2014, 6:34 am
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: BA Gold, QF WP
Posts: 12,551
It is still (incorrectly) referenced as a fuel surcharge.
It is also often referenced (even more incorrectly) as a tax, just do a search on FT/Google for "YQ Tax".
Oct 10, 2014, 6:35 am
#11
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: MAN/BHX
Programs: ABBA
Posts: 6,027
http://www.petrolprices.com/the-pric...uel.html#j-1-1
Says that prices in the last 12 months have comes down from £1.37 to £1.29, and are the lowest since Feb 2011.
Oct 10, 2014, 6:38 am
#12
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 12,046
According to oil-price.net Brent crude is currently trading at USD 90.05 per barrel.
In 1999 I remember it trading at USD 9.90 per barrel...
In 1999 I remember it trading at USD 9.90 per barrel...
Oct 10, 2014, 6:39 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: London
Posts: 17,007
The answer is very simple.
For the vast majority of passengers the balance of the fare between the YQ and fare components is not relevant.
BA will see a multi-million Pound revenue stream from revenue attributable to YQ on redemptions. It would take a Commercial Director of singular courage to abandon that tangible and measurable revenue stream for intangible and much harder to measure "loyalty benefits".
Furthermore, an individual with such courage would probably be unlikely to rise to the rank of Commercial Director at a company like BA because they would either be seen as too much of a risk, too busy running their own businesses or otherwise engaged trading futures contracts at a merchant bank for a million a year. And even if such an individual was in the post, they would still be unable to get such a proposal past the rest of the board!
For the vast majority of passengers the balance of the fare between the YQ and fare components is not relevant.
BA will see a multi-million Pound revenue stream from revenue attributable to YQ on redemptions. It would take a Commercial Director of singular courage to abandon that tangible and measurable revenue stream for intangible and much harder to measure "loyalty benefits".
Furthermore, an individual with such courage would probably be unlikely to rise to the rank of Commercial Director at a company like BA because they would either be seen as too much of a risk, too busy running their own businesses or otherwise engaged trading futures contracts at a merchant bank for a million a year. And even if such an individual was in the post, they would still be unable to get such a proposal past the rest of the board!
Oct 10, 2014, 6:40 am
#14
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,210
Oct 10, 2014, 6:43 am
#15
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Programs: IC Hotels Spire, BA Gold
Posts: 8,667
YQ/YR used to be identified as a "Fuel surcharge" however most airlines including BA have removed that terminology and it is now just identified as a carrier surcharge.
It is still (incorrectly) referenced as a fuel surcharge.
It is also often referenced (even more incorrectly) as a tax, just do a search on FT/Google for "YQ Tax".
It is still (incorrectly) referenced as a fuel surcharge.
It is also often referenced (even more incorrectly) as a tax, just do a search on FT/Google for "YQ Tax".
Or will BA try and con everyone as per your attempt to and state it is now a "carrier surcharge" with no link to the cost of fuel therefore no need to be reduced in line with the falling oil price?
Although somehow I sense if fuel rockets again, the story will change back to being there is an influence in YQ with the cost of fuel therefore it will go up.
Or am I just being cynical?