Would you still fly with BA if BAEC was made illegal?
Apr 5, 2021, 10:45 am
#76
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Programs: Lemonia. Best Greek ever.
Posts: 2,274
When I took up a new job back in early 1989, I was told that as it involved a lot of Long Haul travel, I should live about 20 minutes from LHR. As BA was pretty dominant at LHR, I was obviously going to fly with them rather a lot.
(Although some time in the 90s I became bored with BA and sought status with others aswell, such as SQ, which impacted my Lifetime record!!)
The air miles and status and etc was a side issue. It would be the same now.
(Although some time in the 90s I became bored with BA and sought status with others aswell, such as SQ, which impacted my Lifetime record!!)
The air miles and status and etc was a side issue. It would be the same now.
Apr 5, 2021, 12:19 pm
#77
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: The Blackwater Valley (Berkshire/Hampshire/Surrey border area)
Programs: BAEC Silver, Hilton Gold, Bonvoy Gold, IHG Diamond, etc etc
Posts: 199
But then what about hotels?
Apr 5, 2021, 9:00 pm
#78
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: BOS
Programs: BA GLD for LIfe, AA PLT 2 MM miler, B6 Mosaic, Star GLD; HH Diamond; Marriott PLT, IHG Plat
Posts: 1,368
I value the perks of status on BA. Going through Fast Track lanes; the Flounge and the regular Lounge make traveling less stressful. I can use AA lounges without paying and the great lounges in Hong Kong and Sydney. When I was stranded in London for the Eyjafjallajökull volcano in 2010, many co-strandees were calling airlines daily and concocting trips (train to boat to France to donkey to plane or train to Barcelona to flight back to the US). BA called my travel agent every day and told me to relax. Then they called him and said, "Get your client to the airport tomorrow morning." I was in F on the first plane leaving London for Boston.
So, I did skew my flying to BA/OneWorld for years and am now Gold for Life. No need to skew except that I still value the perks. I did notice that JetBlue is going to start BOS-LHR. I'm also a loyal JetBlue Mosaic and the MInt Service to London could be very good. I will definitely try it.
With the exception of a couple of trips taken on points, I don't think the absence of FF would cause me to fly less. But, it might change my airline mix. With the exception of mileage runs (which I don't think I ever did), I suspect few people are gratuitously flying just to accumulate FF miles. The economics don't work. So, the Greenpeace argument that people would fly less seems basically flawed. They might fly through London less, but if we are thinking about greenhouse gases and carbon footprints, those wouldn't change by shifting airports.
I believe that, in the US, an individual cannot deduct the cost of Club membership for tax purposes but a company can deduct the potentially higher cost of airfares as deductible expenses. So, the company is paying say 80 cents on the dollar for something that would cost the employees one dollar.
There is an argument for taxing FF miles. That would deal with some of the income benefits given to frequent-flying employees. To the extent that the employees care about the miles rather than the other perks, this could discourage usage of FF mileage plans.
So, I did skew my flying to BA/OneWorld for years and am now Gold for Life. No need to skew except that I still value the perks. I did notice that JetBlue is going to start BOS-LHR. I'm also a loyal JetBlue Mosaic and the MInt Service to London could be very good. I will definitely try it.
With the exception of a couple of trips taken on points, I don't think the absence of FF would cause me to fly less. But, it might change my airline mix. With the exception of mileage runs (which I don't think I ever did), I suspect few people are gratuitously flying just to accumulate FF miles. The economics don't work. So, the Greenpeace argument that people would fly less seems basically flawed. They might fly through London less, but if we are thinking about greenhouse gases and carbon footprints, those wouldn't change by shifting airports.
I believe that, in the US, an individual cannot deduct the cost of Club membership for tax purposes but a company can deduct the potentially higher cost of airfares as deductible expenses. So, the company is paying say 80 cents on the dollar for something that would cost the employees one dollar.
There is an argument for taxing FF miles. That would deal with some of the income benefits given to frequent-flying employees. To the extent that the employees care about the miles rather than the other perks, this could discourage usage of FF mileage plans.
Oct 20, 2021, 12:27 pm
#79
Join Date: Sep 2020
Programs: BA Gold; ex JAL JGCP
Posts: 261
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.
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.
Oct 20, 2021, 3:56 pm
#80
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: London
Programs: BA Gold; FB Silver; SPG; IHG Gold
Posts: 2,985
I would fly BA if they are more convenient/cheaper/better value than the other carriers. At the moment I will fly BA (and OW) even where they may not be the most convenient/cheapest/best value. That's not to say that I will fly with them regardless of timing, price etc. but simply that any inconvenience or excessive pricing will often be outweighed by the benefits of BAEC. So, yes, I would still fly them, but I would fly them less. That said, it may be that the same would also apply to other carriers, partly to BA's benefit, so that actually what ends up happening is that there is simply a re-distribution of passengers between the legacies, but I suspect that the lo-co's would be beneficiaries.