lorcancoyle

Petrus

clubman

I would imagine that's what it was. There are some rumours flying around that this is going to be extended to other routes, and I really hope they are untrue.

Raffles

msm2000uk

Meaning what? No option to GUF to F?

M

TheFlyingCyclist

Does that affect booking F rewards in other ways, or discounted F?

Oaxaca

What is the fare class realignment on BOS and DXB? If there is a thread, I missed it.

Beaulieu

This is mentioned on Speedbird Club here: Fare class realignment on Boston and Dubai routes

In summary:

gustavmahler

Is it just on these routes, and will that mean there's only the one F bucket, so no discounted First?

nufnuf77

Why are they removing A class I don't quite follow tbh

corporate-wage-slave

Correct, from my reading of this. In theory nothing need change, they can use F and put restrictions into the fare basis, and they can still issue redemption buckets in First, it is just that under the usual BA way of working they tend not to issue restrictive fares in F, and GUFs have to point to A availability if - and this is the important point - they are being used on a revenue basis. That's to say you buy Club World as a revenue ticket and use a GUF plus revenue availability in A to force a seat in First. If you are using GUF on a CW redemption booking there would be no change, you can still get First that way.

For World Traveller - which affects vastly more passengers - it looks like a tidy up / rationalisation piece. There are big fare overlaps at that level.

Now more broadly it seems they are trying to force revenue tickets in First into higher buckets, presumably as a trial. It suggests A is not paying its way so either people need to pay more or it makes more sense to indirectly add CW inventory since A is an overlap space for CW. Neither route are currently money makers in First, DXB due to competition and BOS due to local market conditions / local business policies / the competition on fares. So they seem to be putting out a kite to see what happens when forcing people to pay more for First, as well as indirectly expanding CW inventory, which of course does make money. One implication is that First redemption availability could go up - should more seats go empty - but for revenue GUF it comes across as too much of a good thing,the internal costings versus internal cashflow from revenue+GUF - as well as A fares - suggest they aren't convinced this is business they want to have. The corporate CW fares used to build GUFs on these routes can be quite low. But as a general rule when this sort of thing happens you follow the money to CW or WTP for the implications.

Just speculation on my part.

mikeyfly

I wonder if it's routes earmarked for 8F or even less for new aircraft? So restricting F seat sales at lower prices ?

megaloman

How is it going to work with Gold Guest List redemption? afaik it requires A space too...

nufnuf77

Good question, guess it is now impossible

jamesreid978

It seems like they are trying to implement a system where a seat in First will never be cheaper than a seat in CW, a seat in CW never cheaper than WT+ and WT+ not cheaper than WT, which from experience happens a lot on the DXB route. If this is the goal here, it does make sense, when I was doing a lot of work travel where policy was business to DXB (and DOH) First was more often cheaper than CW for the reason that the I fare bucket had sold out but the lowest A fare bucket had not and was cheaper than the next highest CW (can't remember what it is) fare bucket. If by putting a more dynamic system in place whereby CW and First share fare buckets, it could end up netting them more money (same goes for WT to WT+ and Wt+ to CW). This could be especially true going forward with the new CW seat where the difference between the cabins will be even smaller than it is currently.

Apologies for going off topic! It could be a shame for those who have GUFs to miss out on the ability to use to fly in first on these routes and possibly all routes if the trial is successful.