Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Would you still fly with BA if BAEC was made illegal?

Would you still fly with BA if BAEC was made illegal?

Old Mar 31, 21, 3:07 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 4,802
Would you still fly with BA if BAEC was made illegal?

Looks like the usual suspects are calling for a ban on frequent flyer programmes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-56582094
In the UK, 70% of flights are made by a wealthy 15% of the population, with 57% not flying abroad at all.

There are calls for a frequent flyer levy - a tax that increases the more you fly each year.

Greenpeace supports the tax and also wants air miles banned because they say it encourages frequent flying.


So would you still fly BA if the BAEC was forced to stop?
kanderson1965 is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 3:23 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Aberdeenshire
Programs: BA
Posts: 986
Yes. Personally when I fly it's because in those circumstances it's the most effective way of getting from A to B. The FF thing is nice but that doesn't stop me flying EasyJet, Ryanair, SWA etc when that works for me. If BA offer the best times price and service on a route then I absolutely choose them. That said, the volume of flying I do now that my expat days are behind me is pathetically low.
bigbadjoe likes this.
expatboy is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 3:28 am
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Berlin, SW Florida, and Toronto
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, Discovery Black, and assorted others
Posts: 29,580
I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you believe that there are people who would stop all travel because they don't accrue some measly points? Of course not. The Greenpeace premise is coming at the problem in a poorly thought through way.
seawolf, mikeyfly, James91 and 5 others like this.
LondonElite is online now  
Old Mar 31, 21, 3:37 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: UK
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 252
I mean given the amount of APD we have to pay as frequent flyers (those that don't do exEU) to take these "unnecessary" trips, do we really need to be taxed more? I think it's a bit silly to be honest to ban FF programs.
SonicStar817 is online now  
Old Mar 31, 21, 3:44 am
  #5  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,736
I 110% agree with the need to curb emissions in the airline industry. It's a minor player right now but, unlike the UK as a whole or other developed countries, CO2 from aviation are rising, and rising fast - not falling.

Having said that, though, there is a power plant in Poland, Belchatow, that emits 3 times more than the entire Ryanair. In fact the top-10 EU emitters, beside MO'L's little airline, are ALL coal power plants (most of them in Germany, I should add). There are proven ways to remove them from the energy mix of a country, so why doesn't Greenpeace and others put their energy and focus on getting rid of them? If they were to disappear tomorrow it's about 150Mt of CO2 removed every year. The entire EU air transport emissions are 170Mt...
13901 is online now  
Old Mar 31, 21, 3:50 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Programs: BA Exec Blue
Posts: 38
Obviously never going to happen, but I do think any programme that incentivises tier point runs is fundamentally broken - and I say that as an aviation enthusiast who has flown back-to-backs before.
pilot007, Gerbs, Kgmm77 and 7 others like this.
flight125 is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:03 am
  #7  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: City of Kingston Upon Hull
Programs: BAEC Silver
Posts: 4,802
Originally Posted by LondonElite View Post
I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you believe that there are people who would stop all travel because they don't accrue some measly points? Of course not. The Greenpeace premise is coming at the problem in a poorly thought through way.
It is not a case that you would stop flying, more about whether you would choose BA over another airline if you were not locked into a FF programme.

This is the flaw as I see it in Greenpeace’s argument, in that it may decrease loyalty to a particular airline, but not necessarily reduce the number of flights someone will take.
kanderson1965 is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:05 am
  #8  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: UK
Programs: BA, U2+, SK, AF/KL, IHG, Hilton, others gathering dust...
Posts: 2,359
Originally Posted by LondonElite View Post
I'm not sure I understand the question. Do you believe that there are people who would stop all travel because they don't accrue some measly points? Of course not. The Greenpeace premise is coming at the problem in a poorly thought through way.
The OP's question appears to be how "loyal" would anyone be to BA without BAEC, not whether they would fly at all. The Greenpeace quote in the BBC article seems to be more specifically around Avios/miles in general, not sure whether the other benefits of FFPs are in question.

It wouldn't stop me flying BA, but like any other purchasing decision, if a benefit is removed it could be a factor when buying a given flight, especially if all other things are more or less equal. The importance of BAEC to BA is well-documented around these parts, so one would imagine it would affect business to some extent, if BA relies on its FFP for business more than other airlines.
Oaxaca is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:11 am
  #9  
Ambassador, British Airways; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Leeds, UK
Programs: BA GGL/CCR, GfL, HH Diamond
Posts: 32,083
Originally Posted by flight125 View Post
Obviously never going to happen, but I do think any programme that incentivises tier point runs is fundamentally broken - and I say that as an aviation enthusiast who has flown back-to-backs before.
a frequent flyer program that incentivises frequent travel is broken?
KARFA is online now  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:15 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Berlin, SW Florida, and Toronto
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, Discovery Black, and assorted others
Posts: 29,580
Originally Posted by kanderson1965 View Post
It is not a case that you would stop flying, more about whether you would choose BA over another airline if you were not locked into a FF programme.

This is the flaw as I see it in Greenpeace’s argument, in that it may decrease loyalty to a particular airline, but not necessarily reduce the number of flights someone will take.
I didn't mean to attack you, apologies if it came across that way. I suspect that some people would tend to another airline if BAEC was gone, but then again a lot of people fly EasyJet and Ryanair. Even if you ban all FFPs, I don't think travel volumes will be impacted.
LondonElite is online now  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:26 am
  #11  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Edinburgh
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 342
I'd likely buy Priority Pass and fly with whichever airline suits the job. I would possibly fly more because I pay entirely for my own travel and if on LCCs wouldn't be paying for short haul business upgrades/luxuries that aren't there.
u01sss3 is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:33 am
  #12  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: LON
Programs: Mucci, BAEC, Eurostar
Posts: 1,987
Originally Posted by KARFA View Post
a frequent flyer program that incentivises frequent travel is broken?
Not necessarily, but a program which pushes you to go indirect is flawed, not broken. Rewarding LON-NYC-SFO double over a direct LON-SFO is not great for the environment. Maybe that's a place to start.
pilot007, Gerbs, Cymro and 5 others like this.
alex67500 is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:40 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Programs: BA Gold
Posts: 766
Originally Posted by alex67500 View Post
Not necessarily, but a program which pushes you to go indirect is flawed, not broken. Rewarding LON-NYC-SFO double over a direct LON-SFO is not great for the environment. Maybe that's a place to start.
It's not just that, it's also the pricing. I can get to Australia and back with four flights. I usually take eight, as I position out to somewhere in Europe to grab a fare that is at least a third cheaper than what is offered from where I live. It could be six, but my chosen airline requires me to take a stop to go anywhere from here!
alex67500, James91 and nancypants like this.
FlightDetective is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:47 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Aarhus, DK
Programs: A3 Gold, BA Silver
Posts: 590
Originally Posted by alex67500 View Post
Not necessarily, but a program which pushes you to go indirect is flawed, not broken. Rewarding LON-NYC-SFO double over a direct LON-SFO is not great for the environment. Maybe that's a place to start.
That is not 100% correct in all cases. The very long flights that require the plane to carry a lot of fuel start to pollute more then an itinerary with a stop. It also assumes that both planes release the same amount of pollution. If the indirect flight is not out of the way too much then pollution would be comparable or lower.
NextWhiteDeath is offline  
Old Mar 31, 21, 4:48 am
  #15  
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 1
The truth is people wouldn't put up with BA's appalling service if BAEC & points were abolished.
Without fortress Heathrow and BAEC, they would have gone bust years ago!
John Sander is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: