bisonrav

Misanthropes gonna misanthrope

KARFA

although exEU pricing isn’t anything to do with the FFP, and more to do with competition from the starting point - but I agree you can leverage an exEU to maximise points earning.

kanderson1965

No, i did not see it as an attack, I think we both have the same view in fact.

PGberkshire

So, if you need to fly, you fly.

the only difference a program like BAEC makes is if you are chasing status.

So really what Greenpeace wants to do is ban those flights for status reasons. Effectively the TP run forum is their target audience. Cant imagine this is a huge amount of people / flights and to be fair even if you did reduce these passengers the plane they would be flying on would most likely still be flying for your normal paying PAX.

Im not sure they have thought this through?

pfreet

Greenpeace's goal is to increase donations. They do this by generating free publicity. This is usually accomplished with stunts or hoodwinking complicit media into covering absurd proposals. They don't actually care about carbon emissions, or frequent flyer programs, that's just marketing.

Confus

If points were banned, it would definitely reduce some flying - the TP runs on here for example. But it’s a drop in the ocean compared with the wider picture. And corporates would just share the flying out over a wider group of people, so it would likely not lead to a reduction in flying for business either.

What would also be interesting is to see a campaign against seats that are an inefficient use of space... but I don’t see that happening as I’m sure the leaders enjoy flying J or F (similar to how the Greens in Germany for many years refused to campaign against flying as they liked their Med holidays too much).

Also from a geeky perspective it would be interesting to see campaigns against flights that use too much fuel for passenger convenience. I once saw a study into Europe-Japan flights that said that to fly any further than OVB becomes inefficient as the cost (both environmental and fiscal) of carrying extra fuel is higher than the cost of landing to refuel. It’s unlikely of course, but I suppose possible that we could see a resurgence of tech stops.

All of which punches lighter than ‘ban FFPs’... but it would be great to see an actual nuanced report into where the biggest benefits could actually be gained.

flight125

No, any FF program that incentivises pointless flights (i.e. B2Bs and the like) for the sole purpose of accumulating status is broken.

Cymro

That's all FFPs though, or at least ones that are more than cashback with extra steps (Vueling, for instance).

If you have status thresholds at 100k, someone who flies 99,900 miles organically (or £10k revenue, and £9,900 of organic spend) is going to have an incentive to book an extra LHR-MAN or whatever.

80 TPs might have a more dramatic effect on someone's status than £150 of revenue or 1,500 status miles from SOF-LHR, but there will always be an incentive for additional flying.

crazy8534

I don’t think it makes sense to say that BAEC or any FFP is broken- it’s like saying a tank is broken because it blows things up; no it isn’t broken, it’s doing exactly what is is supposed to do, you just don’t like it!

BAEC would be broken if it was incentivising people to fly Ryanair or get the Eurostar.

In answer to the original question, I think there are lots of examples here and elsewhere of people reaching e.g. lifetime status and using it as an opportunity to move some travel over to e.g. ME3 or SK. BA works well for my requirements and that’s why I use it so I still would even if the FFP was banned somehow.

HIDDY

All a lot of tosh. Their argument has more holes in it than the ozone layer!!

TBD

The flaw in this argument isn't whether FFPs encourage travel.
The flaw is that very-high volume air travelers are almost always flying for work. Taking action to disincentivize flights (e.g. taxes) won't do anything at the individual level. It's just a corporate tax.

Often1

FFP's likely affect flying distance (which is what matters when it comes to emissions) at the margins. FT would let one think that there is an appreciable market for tier / point / mile runs and the like. There likely is not. People fly because they must or they want to, either to make money or to enjoy themselves. They are not going to stop because there is or is not an FFP.

While some say that they will not fly BA if they are not handcuffed to a program, that cuts two ways. There are others who will now fly BA when they used to fly VS or perhaps one of the LCC's. Competing around price, convenience and product is not a bad thing.

Those who think that BA will suddenly pull back from LHR or that there will be an improvement of service or that BA will fail, are dreaming.

Im a new user

If you ban frequent flyer programmes, then fliers have one incentive less to pick one airline over another airline. This increases the competition between the airlines, potentially reducing the prices. If you reduce the prices, then you incentivise more travel. So Greenpeace wants to incentivise more travel?

LondonElite

It’s not quite as simple as that. The reason FFPs increase costs is largely because you have to account for future flights, so in both cases ‘more’ flights are potentially being taken.

gcuk

The vast majority of people fly because they need to. A tiny proportion, a disproportionate number on these forums, fly for the fun of the flight or to amass TPs. The last PHX do attracted maybe 100 people and GIB was similar. Realistically that is a tiny fraction of the seats that BA sell. If those 100 people gave up flying, would it really save the world?