rossmacd

Nice piece of additional spin

Andriyko

What do you mean? You said that your company did not want to lose a substantial amount of money because BA would not give a rebate on the carrier imposed surcharge (which would make the final price uncompetitive). Is my understanding correct that BA would have gotten the contract had a rebate been offered on the surcharge? Or would your company still turn BA down because the price is composed of the fare and the surcharge rather than just the fare? I apologize if I misunderstood you.

Andriyko

What you wrote suggests that BA was noncompetitive in terms of the final price (what travel ends up costing your company after the rebates). My 'unidirectional viewpoint' is exactly that individual components don't really matter as long as the buyer likes the final price. Your company did not. Rather than give me characteristics it'd be nice if you actually elaborated about what I misunderstood about your company's decision. If I am not moved from my viewpoint it is only because what you wrote only affirms my views.

simons1

Indeed, if BA made their prices of a thousand 1 dollar charges there would still be some posters on here saying how fantastic it all is.

I take the point about the bottom line being the same but BA would not do this if there was not commercial benefit. We know that it benefits them on mileage redemptions for example, and we have seen above there is also a benefit on corporate deals.

Globaliser

Although it was also interesting to see from that story that competition for corporate deals seems to be alive and well. In the same way as in relation to the total price for cash tickets sold to the public, market forces will have some restraining effect on what the company does.

And given the importance of corporate deals to companies like BA, I suspect that what happens in that market is much more interesting - and, of course, much less transparent to we outside onlookers.

Andriyko

But I am not talking about any commercial benefit for airlines in structuring their prices the way they do. And I am not sure why the question 'then why do airlines do it?' is directed to me. I am not the airlines and I do not come up with the way the final price is arrived at. I was making a point strictly from the point of view of a passenger - I don't care what is what in the final price. I assume other passengers do not either. I gave an example of the same US$700 tickets offered by LH and PS. That the former's ticket was 30% the fare and 70% the carrier imposed surcharge, while the latter's was the other way around should not really matter; which is why I asked why some people are so angry about these surcharges and call them dishonest and a ripoff. Reward tickets aside (and it has been for many years now that the frequent flyer currency only replaces the fare part), I don't see how it affects cash bookings at all. Again, I find Lufthansa's price structure a bit ridiculous (really low fares and humongous surcharges), but if their tickets are often the cheapest I don't see what the big deal is. Even with the example of the lost corporate account, as far as I understood, the issue was not that the price was part fare and part surcharge, but that no rebate was given for the surcharge to bring the overall price down to be competitive. People are getting personal with me simply for asking why it matters what the cash price is composed of.

redeyedonkey

I agree with you 100% it doesn't impact cash bookings. Either the final price is competitive with other airlines or not and we can all vote accordingly with our money.

It is a significant devaluation to the reward currency though - cash buyers are earning less valuable AVIOS as a result of backdoor devaluations if it matches their typical strategy for redeeming points so a higher surcharge on your preferred redemptions makes ALL the AVIOS you earn worth less to you.

Round number fake example:

Flyer does a J round trip 20 times a year that yields 10,000 AVIOS for 200,000 total.

Old preferred redemption: 200,000 return in F + $500 fees. Say the ticket sells for $4,000 the AVIOS are worth 1.75p ($3,500 / 200,000)

New after a change to the taxes/fees - 200,000 return in F + $500 fees. Same gross ticket price. The AVIOS are now only worth 1.5p ($3,000 / 200,000).

And of course for many travellers if the fees reach a certain level the redemption becomes not very appealing at all/worth nothing in effect. When you can often snag a return in J for $1,800 getting First for $1800 + XXX,XXX AVIOS where you could get $3,000+ in value for those AVIOS elsewhere really starts to make the impact of the devaluation of the points by the backdoor felt more strongly.

So yes - doesn't matter when you pay cash but it comes back to bite you in the ... when you want to redeem your AVIOS and get value from them later. Definitely should take it into account when deciding which airlines to fly all other things being equal (to your situation - home city, flexibility, price preferences etc).

Dave Noble

It also matters very much so for paid tickets

Take, for example, an ATW type ticket - this will have a fare of $X

Taxes will have to be paid

BA will then expect , on top of the fare will invent a price hike for travel on BA which will be different to travel on another company

This makes a material impact since the total fare component of a defined fare is being screwed over by airlines that invent surcharges

If it was purely BA only fares where BA decided to misrepresent the fare by calling it a surcharge , then it would have less on an impact. when it is also charged on other fares it makes a huge difference

One of the scams of surcharging was dealt with nicely by courts in that the airline could not avoid paying commission on surcharges

JAXBA

I haven't heard of this.

My agency doesn't get commission on YQ/YR, from any airline.

Dave Noble

let me rephrase - I missed out a key word - by courts here

courts here ruled that surcharge counted as afare component that the airlines had to pay commission on - not aware of travel agents taking airlines to court in UK

golfmad

I have just used a GUF to upgrade a sector of a revenue ticket from CW to F. For the first time I have been quoted an additional taxes/fees component of $200. The agent on the telephone informed me that this was nothing to do with BA and all to do with the US government imposing higher taxes on the airline. I very much doubt that this is the case. This is the first time I've had to pay to use a GUF from CW-F which is quite disappointing.

skippythelizard

I upgraded a booking CW-F last month and had the same experience. $400 round-trip ... $800 for the two of us traveling on the GUF2.

The agent that I dealt with didn't lie to me about it, however.

The sweet spots in this program have definitely dwindled.

UKtravelbear

I would say that is an absolute pile of nonsense of Trumpian proportions and BA need to be called out for it.

It is the out and out dishonesty that irritates more than the amount involved.

golfmad

I sent a note to BA about this via ba.com/contactus on Friday and received a call back from customer services this morning. The lady said she had checked and that the increased charges were nothing to do with BA and were new government imposed taxes/fees.

What collective evidence - if any - do we have to the contrary please? I will take it up with them but at the moment I have nothing to present to them. Thanks

Often1

The e-ticket receipt should itemize the fare and each tax. Ask BA for an updated e-ticket receipt and then provide the numbers. Typically there will be a reference code for each tax.