Often1

The issue is not whether these ancillary features, e.g. lounge, boarding & the like, have a market, but how much one would pay for them.

Indeed the concept of the unaffiliated paid lounge is growing. Not a BA lounge included in your ticket, but a lounge for which you pay because you find value in it.

FlyingScientist

Does this come from the "activists" who fly more than I do?

FlyingScientist

In Britain, that would be called "bronze".

CKBA

A bit of headline news with little substance.
Yes, flying is not good for CO2, but as noted above, many fly for work or leisure and not jsut for the sake of flying. Should train enthusiasts be banned? Should classic car enthusiasts be banned? (Both of which could be seen as activities that needlessly contribute CO2) - and while we're there, ban all those foreign imports since shipping is an horrendous emitter of CO2!
Me, the thing I value about the BAEC is probably the lounges more than anything - a (normally) quiet place to sort things out, work, read, whatever before setting off. I wouldn't mind if they stripped away other perks - they certainly don't encourage me to fly more.

IAN-UK

Sure the Sofia Honolulu fares may well be designed to get Bulgarian bums on BA seats but it's many of those UK-based individuals travelling between Sofia and Honolulu via Heathror, Helsinki, (Heathrow again, if they're lucky ), New York and Los Angeles would not be doing all that flying over a long weekend if the FFP did not exist.

rockflyertalk

This seems the wrong approach to the problem. Or the wrong solutions. What airlines and governing bodies should be pushing more for is eradicating fossil fuels. As flying isn't going away (ok it’s gone away temporarily!), the world is too global now. The process of switching to alternative fuels is underway but this suggests focusing on simply taxing more or applying a plaster to the issue, more needs to come from the industries or pioneers in the industries just as Musk has done with Tesla to challenge the car industry.

Now when’s the next the TP run do?

KARFA

I think many would still take advantage of the fare since that price to Hawaii is attractive - but wouldn’t leverage the itinerary to gain most points by adding in more connections. But fundamentally ExEU pricing isn’t really offered to attract tier point runners at the end of the day. exEU pricing doesn't exist because of FFPs really, but like any fare they can be optimised for points earning.

Mabuk dan gila

Well if I can't get points and free upgrades then no way would I fly commercial. I guess I'll just have to get out the Gulfstream G650 any time I want to go someplace.

SKRan

If nuclear power stations replace coal, the impact to most people is minimal. Then reduction of pollution, including radioactive pollution would be huge - because burning coal releases natural radioactive stuff.

European nuclear power stations are generally considered as safe. France has a lot of expertise in the technology.

I see nuclear power as the most suitable power source for Europe, which reduces both emission and pollution. If the biggest sources are all coal power stations, this really should be done early, while innovations in even better clean energy technology matures.

GBOAC

Generally paid lounges are inferior to airline lounges, certainly airline facilites at home base/major hubs.
There is also the question of 'who pays'. With status, this is 'free' and for me the cost is mostly paid for (indirectly) by work flights. I'm really not sure I could justify, nor be allowed to expense a lounge subscription nor one-off entry, certainly not at 30-50USD (where my daily allowance for food might be USD40!).
Similarly, when required to trave by 'cheapest means' (which is often flexible up to a point) this would usually rule out any extras such as priority boarding etc.
The result would be something that is provided as a form or reward for loyalty (or a high cost ticket) would now have to be paid for by the passenger (and in my case personally). For my personal travel, I don't see a lounge as necessary (for just the amount of personal travel I do, but it is when compounded with work travel through a year). For my work travel, it has uses. I just don't see why I should have to pay personally in the model you describe.

T8191

Indeed, and my EV is currently [oops] recharging using French nuclear electricity, with a subtle hint of garlic.

Back to the original question ... Now, feel free to stone me, but after the last year or so I have largely lost interest in BAEC, their dribbling marketing emails, and BA's general ineptitude. However, on a personal level, that's not really the point. We can afford to pay for our flights. BA flies to the destinations we want, usually with minimal practical competition. So whether there's an FFP associated with it or not is largely irrelevant. We will continue, mainly, to fly BA.

As to the BBC/Greenpeace whining, we have a similar epidemic of idiocy here. The latest outbreak comes, not surprisingly, from our Environment Minister who seems to be drawing parallels between Jersey and Delhi when it comes to pollution, traffic congestion and Carbon Neutrality. His Grand Plan, revealed today, includes ...

Quote:

... allow motorists to travel on Jersey roads only for a set number of days during each calendar month, in order to reduce pollution and traffic congestion. Islanders would be allotted a series of days alphabetically – based on their surname – to be displayed using the number plate of any vehicle registered to them.

https://jerseyeveningpost.com/news/2021/04/01/will-car-restrictions-be-the-name-of-the-game/

Often1

You have hit the nail on the head.

Lounge costs are covered by fares. Employers would likely rather have lower fares and no lounges and then their employees could pay for access if they wish. Competition suggests that if air carrier lounges largely went away for other than premium passengers, that someone would build and operate a high-quality lounge anywhere the market supports it.

The bottom line is that lounges are an important benefit only for those who don't have to pay for it.

Confus

While there are easier ways of implementing it (e.g. digits in licence plates, rather than owner name), this is actually not a bad idea. Your beautiful island does suffer from congestion and pollution from people making largely unnecessary journeys by car, and would be greatly improved by fewer motor vehicles on its roads. The distances people travel lend themselves remarkably well to cycling, and there is a surprisingly good bus service, so ‘encouragement’ to adopt different behaviours is not necessarily a bad thing.

alex67500

If only the weather did as well...

​​​​​

GBOAC

I don't disagree. BUT the idea that employers would rather have lower fares and employees pay for their own lounges (or other extras) also means that employees would have to shoulder the cost of additional stress and exertion of not getting these (i.e. having to queue up for security for 45m rather than 5m fastr track, having to force their way to the back of the plane for hand baggge space because all the front bins are full etc etc.)
So effectively this is externalising the cost to be carried by the individual.
Its not as if employers will say 'your travel is harder, here have an extra day on arrival and day off to recover...'