Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

HBO fares - Have to pay to select seat in advance [free for GCH/SCH/BCHs @ 14 Jun 17]

Old Aug 7, 2015, 5:53 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: NWIFlyer

    Hand Baggage Only fares (HBO) are available on domestic and EuroTraveller routes. They are offered at a lower price to those able to travel without checked baggage on point to point journeys only - they are not offered with connections, stopovers or with Club Europe. There isn't a special fare bucket for HBO, it's just a discount to all domestic/ET fare buckets, so even expensive flexible tickets offer HBO. The discount varies depending on route. For example, going HBO on LHR-DUB gives a 10 discount; 15 on LHR-PRG; and 20 on LHR-ATH. Online Travel Agents often book into these fares (including building stopovers) and are sometimes less than transparent about the baggage restrictions during the booking process. HBO fares do not earn OnBusiness credits.

    BAEC status passengers from Bronze upwards get advance seat choice with these tickets.

    How to get seat allocation if HBO and without status:
    - Pay up. You can pay up at OLCI if you don't like the seat. Costs vary from 7 to 21 per sector as a minimum, with differential pricing employed for better seats (e.g. an exit row on LHR-DUB was 23 in June 2017). Usually, but not always, this invalidates the cost saving of HBO. You can also pay up in Manage My Booking (MMB) before OLCI.
    - Cancel OLCI at the "confirm contact details" stage. Go in again and/or later and you may be offered another seat.
    - Corporate travel bookings still offer seating to HBO in some cases. Sometimes this ability is temporary and doesn't stick.
    - Ask check-in or the lounge agent for a better seat, so far this seems to be possible. Lounge agents won't be able to assist where they aren't part of the ground handling for BA (e.g. LBA).
    - If your airport has a Self Service Check In (SSCI) machine AND you do not print your boarding pass (see below) then you can select another seat there provided check-in is still open, typically up to 46 minutes before take off. So if you are being allocated a rotten seat and you can see better seats available, you can take a risk and complete/commence check-in later.

    SSCI machines are available at: LHR, LGW, LCY, MAN, EDI (on the general purpose airport machines, but only those by the BA check-in area), NCE, BRU, OSL, BLL, AAR, MUC, AMS.
    They are NOT available at: ABZ, BHD, GLA, LBA, NCL, DUB, CDG, ORY, SVG, DUS, TXL, MAH, CFU, OLB, CTA, CAG, FDH, ANE, UIP, BIO, HER, SVQ, PMI, BRI.
    You can also do this operation the night before at LGW and LHR, details here.

    By "printing boarding pass" we mean not selecting that option at OLCI, or saving, emailing, faxing and/or downloading the boarding pass on the App.
    Print Wikipost

    HBO fares - Have to pay to select seat in advance [free for GCH/SCH/BCHs @ 14 Jun 17]

    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:07 am
      #541  
    FlyerTalk Evangelist
     
    Join Date: Mar 2013
    Location: London
    Posts: 17,007
    Originally Posted by docgasman
    Here's my reply. Not a cut and paste but interesting anyway
    Thanks docgasman. Maybe if all the GGLers affected by this could write in and complain our concerns might have a chance of reaching the surface and being considered by someone in charge?

    Originally Posted by shefgab
    Hmmm, so that makes it sound like they might do this, as opposed to they will. Maybe they've already had too much bad feedback.
    I wouldn't put too much weight on BA's choice of language. Unfortunately they do not always elect to make the most precise choice in their wording.
    Calchas is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:14 am
      #542  
     
    Join Date: Apr 2012
    Location: not far from MUC
    Posts: 6,620
    Originally Posted by FrancisA
    That would have pitched them squarely at the LCCs in terms of product offered for no additional cost/annual membership fee.
    Minor downside: BA will would routinely be more expensive than all the LCCs.

    Apart from that, great idea! ^

    shorthauldad is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:14 am
      #543  
     
    Join Date: Sep 2006
    Location: DUB / BHD
    Programs: BAEC CCR, BAEC Lifetime GGL, Hilton Hhonors Lifetime Diamond
    Posts: 176
    Calchas I agree - I think all GGL / CCR who are not impressed with this change should write to the usual e-mail address. I had quite a fast response time (3 hours). If they get the message that this "enhancement" is a step too far perhaps a retraction for Gold + could happen?

    I reminded them of the TINY fare fiasco @ BMI some time ago. It didn't take long for BD*G passenger power to reverse some of the changes proposed with that fare!

    It's my view that moaning on FT is good to let off steam but the discontent should perhaps be directed to GGL if an eligible FT member.
    docgasman is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:18 am
      #544  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2014
    Location: Londinium
    Programs: BAEC
    Posts: 929
    Still trying to figure out the focus on "no lounge"....

    I don't like it, but I can see seat selection being broken out from the bundle of services being offered in an ET fare. You book the ticket, pay for the ticket, print/collect the boarding pass, check your bag (or not for an HBO fare), get on the plane and have something to eat or drink.

    The cost of lounge access for an ET passenger is unrelated to that. at least from the passenger's perspective and hard to quantify from BA's. I could go in the lounge and sit there quietly, or I could pound down a dozen glasses or wine and eat every crumb of food in the room.

    Now BA could go the US model and only give lounge access to LH F/J pax, paid members and the highest elites. Domestic F/J pax are not even given access. But until they start doing this, I think an attempt to debundle the lounge really would be the straw that broke the camel's back.
    SCSA is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:23 am
      #545  
     
    Join Date: Jul 2008
    Location: London
    Programs: BA Gold, A3 *Gold
    Posts: 887
    Originally Posted by BlackBerryAddict
    If BA removed the HBO fares, they would once again be above easyjet with their fare. And those same systems that make you choose the lowest fare, then make you choose easyjet - our corporate booking system has had easyjet included for a while now.
    So has mine but we are allowed to veto budget airlines due to them not offering all services in the base price (how long until BA fits in that category!)

    Also, flying from London it's easy to avoid easyjet by setting airport as Heathrow, so BA without HBO should still be lowest price (actually we are allowed within $50 of lowest price).
    RobDBA is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:29 am
      #546  
     
    Join Date: Aug 2012
    Posts: 2,676
    Originally Posted by SCSA
    Still trying to figure out the focus on "no lounge"....

    I don't like it, but I can see seat selection being broken out from the bundle of services being offered in an ET fare. You book the ticket, pay for the ticket, print/collect the boarding pass, check your bag (or not for an HBO fare), get on the plane and have something to eat or drink.

    The cost of lounge access for an ET passenger is unrelated to that. at least from the passenger's perspective and hard to quantify from BA's. I could go in the lounge and sit there quietly, or I could pound down a dozen glasses or wine and eat every crumb of food in the room.

    Now BA could go the US model and only give lounge access to LH F/J pax, paid members and the highest elites. Domestic F/J pax are not even given access. But until they start doing this, I think an attempt to debundle the lounge really would be the straw that broke the camel's back.
    You can argue, easily, that the seat selection for status holders is the same. It's not a cost to BA really - so why remove it? Answer - because they hope to gain more revenue by pushing to non-HBO fares.

    So ... if you want to encourage it further ... what else can you remove? Lounge access looks like an easy one to me anyway. There's not much else to remove!

    It wouldn't surprise me, given where we are now, for BA to make that move. That'd lower their costs and it would help all those people complaining about lounge overcrowding.

    And if Raffles is right (from his blog this morning) - there'll be a paid alternative in T5 soon enough anyway.

    M.
    MPH1980 is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:32 am
      #547  
     
    Join Date: May 2008
    Location: PIS
    Programs: BAEC Blue, and anything Amex Plat are dishing out
    Posts: 253
    I rarely use HBO BUT this still pi$$es me off. It's the petty-mindness of not allowing seat selection at T-24 which I find most bizarre - and I say this as a dedicated bean-counter.
    copperfield27 is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:40 am
      #548  
     
    Join Date: Jan 2000
    Programs: Latinpass Million Miler. BA Gold.
    Posts: 3,544
    Originally Posted by RobDBA
    So has mine but we are allowed to veto budget airlines due to them not offering all services in the base price (how long until BA fits in that category!)

    Also, flying from London it's easy to avoid easyjet by setting airport as Heathrow, so BA without HBO should still be lowest price (actually we are allowed within $50 of lowest price).
    We're not allowed to veto budget carriers. And our limit is 10% - so on European tickets typically the baggage-inclusive fare becomes a policy violation.


    Originally Posted by copperfield27
    I rarely use HBO BUT this still pi$$es me off. It's the petty-mindness of not allowing seat selection at T-24 which I find most bizarre - and I say this as a dedicated bean-counter.
    I kind of understand the T-24 decision - if all seats are automatically allocated just before online check in opens, then there will be very little choice left afterwards.
    BlackBerryAddict is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:40 am
      #549  
     
    Join Date: Feb 2002
    Location: London. Or a plane.
    Programs: "Only" 50,000 TPs until BA GGLfL
    Posts: 2,770
    Thank you for taking the time to contact the Gold Guest List team with your comments about your seat selection when travelling on our Hand Baggage Only fares.

    We believe that these fares continue to offer our customers who choose them excellent value for money, however in order to offer such low fares we have to restrict the terms and conditions on them.

    Please be assured that we will share your feedback with our loyalty team.
    blah
    alexwuk is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:43 am
      #550  
     
    Join Date: Aug 2013
    Location: London
    Programs: BA Gold
    Posts: 169
    There is nothing I can add to the (justifiable, in my view) reaction of BAEC members to this change. However might I give a revenue proposition perspective?

    This decision was all about addressing lost revenue not lost profit. The financials of HBO are sound, you can be sure that they are a sustainable product. This decision will not cut costs, as other have already mentioned, what it will do is realise additional revenue.

    Once a B/S/GCH has booked their flight there is very little further revenue that can be extracted from them. However HBO fares were implemented to make BA more competitive at the lower price point of LCCs. The market segment that these fares attract is very used to paying more for ancillary services including advanced seat selection. This opens up further revenue generation opportunities for BA.

    However due the benefits of BAEC membership, the desirable seats that people would pay for (emergency exit, first row on domestic etc.) are already reserved by BAEC members. So by restricting access they have monetised an otherwise revenue neutral offering.

    The trick that BA seem to have missed is the issue of corporate booking policies forcing employees onto HBO tickets. Many of whom will find it very difficult to get policy exceptions approved or even to expense the extra cost of seat selection. Honestly I only assume they factored this into their calculations and decided that corporate travellers will be obligated by policy suck it up and continue to fly BA with a small proportion taking their business elsewhere.

    Whatever the impact to the brand value is, BA have obviously made a decision to maximise all revenue opportunities to the detriment of frequent flier benefits, so dont be surprised to see priority boarding and lounge access removed from B/S/GCHs travelling on HBO fares in the future.
    VFRonTop is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:52 am
      #551  
     
    Join Date: Jan 2000
    Programs: Latinpass Million Miler. BA Gold.
    Posts: 3,544
    I can understand the 'lost revenue' scenario. But if that was the case, why not restrict the exit rows and bulk head seats? And have a look at AA - as SCH+ we actually get their MCE for free - which I think retails at more that a seat assignment for BA. Or maybe MCE is under threat now as well.

    What I don't understand though is whether BA thinks all SCH+ holders only ever fly BA? They must know from their surveys that people fly other airlines too - LCC as well as full service competitors. There are alternatives out there.
    BlackBerryAddict is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 8:56 am
      #552  
     
    Join Date: May 2012
    Location: ATL
    Programs: BA Gold
    Posts: 200
    Originally Posted by VFRonTop

    However due the benefits of BAEC membership, the desirable seats that people would pay for (emergency exit, first row on domestic etc.) are already reserved by BAEC members. So by restricting access they have monetised an otherwise revenue neutral offering.
    All very valid points - but surely for that model/approach to work, all seats purchased would have to be HBO? Surely the "good" seats could still all be gobbled up by status holders who have bought "normal" fares?

    I wonder what the ratio of HBO to non-HBO is.
    Cradders is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 9:04 am
      #553  
     
    Join Date: Oct 2006
    Location: Brighton, UK
    Programs: BA Gold, IC Ambassador, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Fairmont Platinum
    Posts: 3,166
    Originally Posted by VFRonTop
    There is nothing I can add to the (justifiable, in my view) reaction of BAEC members to this change. However might I give a revenue proposition perspective?

    This decision was all about addressing lost revenue not lost profit. The financials of HBO are sound, you can be sure that they are a sustainable product. This decision will not cut costs, as other have already mentioned, what it will do is realise additional revenue.

    Once a B/S/GCH has booked their flight there is very little further revenue that can be extracted from them. However HBO fares were implemented to make BA more competitive at the lower price point of LCCs. The market segment that these fares attract is very used to paying more for ancillary services including advanced seat selection. This opens up further revenue generation opportunities for BA.

    However due the benefits of BAEC membership, the desirable seats that people would pay for (emergency exit, first row on domestic etc.) are already reserved by BAEC members. So by restricting access they have monetised an otherwise revenue neutral offering.

    The trick that BA seem to have missed is the issue of corporate booking policies forcing employees onto HBO tickets. Many of whom will find it very difficult to get policy exceptions approved or even to expense the extra cost of seat selection. Honestly I only assume they factored this into their calculations and decided that corporate travellers will be obligated by policy suck it up and continue to fly BA with a small proportion taking their business elsewhere.

    Whatever the impact to the brand value is, BA have obviously made a decision to maximise all revenue opportunities to the detriment of frequent flier benefits, so dont be surprised to see priority boarding and lounge access removed from B/S/GCHs travelling on HBO fares in the future.
    I suspect that your analysis is right.

    On the point about some taking their business elsewhere, there lies the real question. How many can do this?

    When the avios changes were announced, there were plenty of posters saying that their corporate policy gave them a free choice of carrier with little or no price restriction so they would take their business elsewhere.

    In this thread we have had numerous posts about those who have lowest cost corporate travel policies with little or no chance to override the fare or carrier selected and no option to expense additional services.

    BA presumably think that there are plenty who have no choice and therefore BA will only get their business if they offer the lowest price; but if they do do that, then the flier will have no choice to go elsewhere, even if they don't like the seat selection policy. In that scenario price is the only factor for BA - service doesn't come into it.
    FrancisA is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 9:07 am
      #554  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2014
    Location: Londinium
    Programs: BAEC
    Posts: 929
    Originally Posted by MPH1980
    You can argue, easily, that the seat selection for status holders is the same. It's not a cost to BA really - so why remove it? Answer - because they hope to gain more revenue by pushing to non-HBO fares.
    That's why I said "from the passenger's perspective". One big shift brought about by the discount carriers is airlines now justify their prices by telling you what you do or don't get for the fare

    "Lounge access for elites flying Y who've already earned it" is not one of the things.

    US discount carriers are further advanced at bundling and rebundling service components. You can buy fares that get you nothing. You can buy fares that get you any seat on the plane, 2 bags, a meal and unlimited booze. And you can buy fares that get you something in between.

    I could see BA SH offering "Value" (nothing but a seat of their chosing, no TP), "Everyday" (10 TP, one bag and seat selection plus a voucher for a drink) and "Classic" (what is now a checked bag fare plus 20 TP).

    This makes it clear to everyone what they're getting when making purchasing decisions and makes loads more sense than cutting off lounge access.
    SCSA is offline  
    Old Mar 3, 2015, 9:18 am
      #555  
     
    Join Date: Mar 2011
    Location: Here, there and everywhere
    Posts: 72
    That is now 3 people I work with (all BA Gold) that are planning to their change flight patterns as a result of this change. They are all heavy users of the HBO domestic fares with all of them flying 80+ domestic sectors per year with 2 also having occasion Europe and long haul flights on BA.
    • One colleague is going to join me on Little Red flights for domestic (was firmly in the BA only camp).
    • Another colleague has got Travel to agreed to pay for Easyjet Plus and he will now use them to fly to Gatwick (it is an easier commute for him compared to LHR and saves the company money)
    • More worryingly for BA, a person from a partner company who earns Gold solely through flexible HBO domestic tickets at ~600 return and very rarely changed flights. This must be a great earner for BA! He is going to stop flying BA if he cannot choose his seat or expense the fee to choose his seat. Although not expicitly stated, his travel policy appears to exclude paying for seat reservations but he is waiting to find out.

    My company allows us to choose our own flights including carrier and time but will book the lowest fares for the flights chosen. They book HBO for day trips, overnight trips. Flexible fares are only allowed with suitable justification and "so I can choose my seat" will not work!

    For info, I changed to Little Red for domestics and Virgin Atlantic for some of my long haul flights after the last round of devaluations/enhancements. I may now change my inter Europe flights to other carriers if Im going to get stuck in a middle seat.
    Where am I today? is offline  

    Thread Tools
    Search this Thread

    Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

    This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.