Finnair introduces "continuous" pricing model
Jan 17, 2023, 5:09 am
#1
Moderator, Finnair
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Gold, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 14,174
Finnair introduces "continuous" pricing model
Finnair introduces next steps towards modern distribution
Finnair introduces next steps towards modern distribution
Finnair continues the journey towards enhanced retailing and introduces next steps towards a more dynamic, customer-centric selling through modern distribution channels.
Starting early 2023, Finnair will gradually implement continuous pricing in modern distribution channels – through Finnair.com and Finnair mobile App as well as NDC-enabled channels for agent partners. Through continuous pricing, customers will not experience large price increases between booking classes as pricing is not tied to the 26 legacy price points.
https://easy.finnair.com/en/finnair-ndc
Finniar claims "competitive pricing". I doubt it. We've seen a lot of horrendous pricing already, I guess abandoning traditional bucket pricing will only mean no upper limit to pricing.
I am sure they will set a floor price, that their competitive continous model never will go below.
Jan 17, 2023, 7:19 am
#5
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Switzerland
Programs: AY+ Platinum, SK Gold, BAEC Silver, airbaltic VIP, Radisson VIP
Posts: 6,531
I don't know all the details. What this means I think is that there will be different price points per selling class. When AY claims the price will not increase it might be correct, as they base fare might still be the same. But they might decide to sell fewer seats at that base fare before using the next price point within the same fare bucket.
Let's look at ZRH-HEL fares:
Results from https://www.ExpertFlyer.com
We can see the price points per selling class. The continuous pricing supposedly will introduce price points between each selling class. So when we will see Z9 in EF, we actually won't know if they are selling 9 seats at the cheapest Z class price point or if they will cap them. Of course we will never know.
Apparently BA has been doing this for a few years already. For example ZRH-LHR in O class:
Results from https://www.ExpertFlyer.com
Let's look at ZRH-HEL fares:
Results from https://www.ExpertFlyer.com
Code:
Fare Information Search: Departing ZRH on 01/17/23 for HEL Flying AY Viewing in currency CHF Show Fares for All Travel Dates Fare Basis Airline Booking Trip Type Fare Cabin Effective Expiration Min/Max Advanced Class Date Date Stay Purchase Req ZNN0S9CZ AY Z One-Way 134.00 (CHF) E ONN0S9CZ AY O One-Way 145.00 (CHF) E QNN0S9CZ AY Q One-Way 165.00 (CHF) E ZNN0S9FZ AY Z One-Way 178.00 (CHF) E NNN0S9CZ AY N One-Way 187.00 (CHF) E ONN0S9FZ AY O One-Way 189.00 (CHF) E QNN0S9FZ AY Q One-Way 208.00 (CHF) E SNN0S9CZ AY S One-Way 212.00 (CHF) E NNN0S9FZ AY N One-Way 230.00 (CHF) E VNN0S9CZ AY V One-Way 239.00 (CHF) E SNN0S9FZ AY S One-Way 255.00 (CHF) E LNN0S9CZ AY L One-Way 269.00 (CHF) E VNN0S9FZ AY V One-Way 282.00 (CHF) E LNN0S9FZ AY L One-Way 313.00 (CHF) E MNN0S9CZ AY M One-Way 313.00 (CHF) E MNN0S9FZ AY M One-Way 356.00 (CHF) E KNN0S9CZ AY K One-Way 362.00 (CHF) E INN0S9CZ AY I One-Way 400.00 (CHF) B KNN0S9FZ AY K One-Way 405.00 (CHF) E HNN0S9CZ AY H One-Way 416.00 (CHF) E HNN0S9FZ AY H One-Way 460.00 (CHF) E BNN0S9CZ AY B One-Way 479.00 (CHF) E RNN0S9CZ AY R One-Way 481.00 (CHF) B INN0S9FZ AY I One-Way 487.00 (CHF) B BNN0S9FZ AY B One-Way 523.00 (CHF) E YNN0S9CZ AY Y One-Way 550.00 (CHF) E RNN0S9FZ AY R One-Way 569.00 (CHF) B YNN0S9FZ AY Y One-Way 594.00 (CHF) E DNN0S9CZ AY D One-Way 618.00 (CHF) B DNN0S9FZ AY D One-Way 705.00 (CHF) B CNN0S9CZ AY C One-Way 781.00 (CHF) B CNN0S9FZ AY C One-Way 868.00 (CHF) B JNN0S9CZ AY J One-Way 999.00 (CHF) B JNN0S9FZ AY J One-Way 1086.00 (CHF) B
We can see the price points per selling class. The continuous pricing supposedly will introduce price points between each selling class. So when we will see Z9 in EF, we actually won't know if they are selling 9 seats at the cheapest Z class price point or if they will cap them. Of course we will never know.
Apparently BA has been doing this for a few years already. For example ZRH-LHR in O class:
Results from https://www.ExpertFlyer.com
Code:
Fare Information Search:
Departing ZRH on 01/17/23 for LHR
Flying BA on booking class O
Viewing in currency CHF
Show Fares for All Travel Dates
Fare Basis Airline Booking Trip Type Fare Cabin Effective Expiration Min/Max Advanced
Class Date Date Stay Purchase Req
OZ0HO BA O One-Way 33.00 (CHF) E
OZ0CO BA O One-Way 42.00 (CHF) E
OZ0H BA O Round-Trip 51.00 (CHF) E
OV2CO BA O One-Way 54.00 (CHF) E
OV2HO BA O One-Way 56.00 (CHF) E
OM0V2H BA O Round-Trip 76.00 (CHF) E SU / --
OV2COMR BA O One-Way 79.00 (CHF) E
OZ0C BA O Round-Trip 84.00 (CHF) E
OV2H BA O Round-Trip 86.00 (CHF) E
OV2C BA O Round-Trip 108.00 (CHF) E
OV2OMR BA O One-Way 114.00 (CHF) E
OV2CMR BA O Round-Trip 157.00 (CHF) E
OV2HMR BA O Round-Trip 166.00 (CHF) E SU / --
OV2HMR BA O Round-Trip 202.00 (CHF) E
Jan 17, 2023, 7:38 am
#6
Moderator, Finnair
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Gold, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 14,174
Jan 17, 2023, 8:27 am
#8
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: LAX
Programs: UA
Posts: 1,532
There is a thread in the UA subforum about continuous pricing: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...ing-pilot.html
Jan 17, 2023, 9:10 am
#9
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 2,279
This is a good summary document by IATA explaining the idea.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/0...c-bundling.pdf
Airlines claim its a win-win for both, allowing them flexibility to sell you the ticket at a more competitive offering that the market is currently demanding as opposed to forcing you into the next higher bucket if a lower one isn't available.
As an example (since I don't know AY's fare buckets Ill only use Y and B, but at least at UA it only appears they're applying it to discounted fare buckets and not "full fare", though I guess they theoretically could offer it on full fare buckets if they want to).
Y fare filing exists for $800. B fare filing exists for $600. The flight is Y3 B0. Traditionally your only option would be to buy the Y fare for $800. With continuous pricing the system can offer you a B fare for anywhere between $600 and $800 even though the B fare is sold out. So you might get a ticket for $650 under this system when under traditional pricing system you would be paying $800 with that inventory allocation..
Of course the question that begs to be asked and we won't know the answers (but can assume it is likely): are the airlines reducing the number of "traditional" B fares they are allowing on a flight by doing this? So instead if they didn't have continuous pricing would the flight actually have been Y3 B1 instead of B0? On some routes, probably, on other routes, probably not. But we don't know as a whole how the implementation of continuous pricing changes their inventory allocation practices. Presumably on some routes the airline is coming out ahead, and on others the consumer comes out ahead, but it allows the price to be more flexible/adaptive to the market instead of being constrained to discrete fare buckets.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/0...c-bundling.pdf
Airlines claim its a win-win for both, allowing them flexibility to sell you the ticket at a more competitive offering that the market is currently demanding as opposed to forcing you into the next higher bucket if a lower one isn't available.
As an example (since I don't know AY's fare buckets Ill only use Y and B, but at least at UA it only appears they're applying it to discounted fare buckets and not "full fare", though I guess they theoretically could offer it on full fare buckets if they want to).
Y fare filing exists for $800. B fare filing exists for $600. The flight is Y3 B0. Traditionally your only option would be to buy the Y fare for $800. With continuous pricing the system can offer you a B fare for anywhere between $600 and $800 even though the B fare is sold out. So you might get a ticket for $650 under this system when under traditional pricing system you would be paying $800 with that inventory allocation..
Of course the question that begs to be asked and we won't know the answers (but can assume it is likely): are the airlines reducing the number of "traditional" B fares they are allowing on a flight by doing this? So instead if they didn't have continuous pricing would the flight actually have been Y3 B1 instead of B0? On some routes, probably, on other routes, probably not. But we don't know as a whole how the implementation of continuous pricing changes their inventory allocation practices. Presumably on some routes the airline is coming out ahead, and on others the consumer comes out ahead, but it allows the price to be more flexible/adaptive to the market instead of being constrained to discrete fare buckets.
Jan 17, 2023, 9:29 am
#10
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2022
Posts: 853
This is a good summary document by IATA explaining the idea.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/0...c-bundling.pdf
Airlines claim its a win-win for both, allowing them flexibility to sell you the ticket at a more competitive offering that the market is currently demanding as opposed to forcing you into the next higher bucket if a lower one isn't available.
As an example (since I don't know AY's fare buckets Ill only use Y and B, but at least at UA it only appears they're applying it to discounted fare buckets and not "full fare", though I guess they theoretically could offer it on full fare buckets if they want to).
Y fare filing exists for $800. B fare filing exists for $600. The flight is Y3 B0. Traditionally your only option would be to buy the Y fare for $800. With continuous pricing the system can offer you a B fare for anywhere between $600 and $800 even though the B fare is sold out. So you might get a ticket for $650 under this system when under traditional pricing system you would be paying $800 with that inventory allocation..
Of course the question that begs to be asked and we won't know the answers (but can assume it is likely): are the airlines reducing the number of "traditional" B fares they are allowing on a flight by doing this? So instead if they didn't have continuous pricing would the flight actually have been Y3 B1 instead of B0? On some routes, probably, on other routes, probably not. But we don't know as a whole how the implementation of continuous pricing changes their inventory allocation practices. Presumably on some routes the airline is coming out ahead, and on others the consumer comes out ahead, but it allows the price to be more flexible/adaptive to the market instead of being constrained to discrete fare buckets.
https://www.iata.org/contentassets/0...c-bundling.pdf
Airlines claim its a win-win for both, allowing them flexibility to sell you the ticket at a more competitive offering that the market is currently demanding as opposed to forcing you into the next higher bucket if a lower one isn't available.
As an example (since I don't know AY's fare buckets Ill only use Y and B, but at least at UA it only appears they're applying it to discounted fare buckets and not "full fare", though I guess they theoretically could offer it on full fare buckets if they want to).
Y fare filing exists for $800. B fare filing exists for $600. The flight is Y3 B0. Traditionally your only option would be to buy the Y fare for $800. With continuous pricing the system can offer you a B fare for anywhere between $600 and $800 even though the B fare is sold out. So you might get a ticket for $650 under this system when under traditional pricing system you would be paying $800 with that inventory allocation..
Of course the question that begs to be asked and we won't know the answers (but can assume it is likely): are the airlines reducing the number of "traditional" B fares they are allowing on a flight by doing this? So instead if they didn't have continuous pricing would the flight actually have been Y3 B1 instead of B0? On some routes, probably, on other routes, probably not. But we don't know as a whole how the implementation of continuous pricing changes their inventory allocation practices. Presumably on some routes the airline is coming out ahead, and on others the consumer comes out ahead, but it allows the price to be more flexible/adaptive to the market instead of being constrained to discrete fare buckets.
Jan 17, 2023, 9:44 am
#11
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2,685
Yes, I guess overall consumers will lose, though it is not a given (if continuous pricing improves yield factors - but if it is an IATA initiative, I guess it must have been designed with consent from the entire industry and hence no yield factor improvements factored in). The question is whether this is beneficial for certain patterns of flying or booking, savvy vs. uninformed customers etc.
Jan 17, 2023, 9:56 am
#12
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: HEL
Programs: AY Plat Lumo, SK Gold
Posts: 954
Isn't continuous pricing how it should have been done always. Just back in the dsys legacy IT systems didn't allow it, but that limitation is long gone.
I guess the airlines wouldn't be implementing the change if they wouldn't have a business case for it. Anyhow the competition on the market hasn't disappeared, so also AY needs to take that into account when setting prices.
I guess the airlines wouldn't be implementing the change if they wouldn't have a business case for it. Anyhow the competition on the market hasn't disappeared, so also AY needs to take that into account when setting prices.
Jan 17, 2023, 10:40 am
#13
Moderator, Finnair
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Gold, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 14,174
One effect is probably that changing a fully "no-fee" flexible ticket in the future will 100% result in fare difference being collected.
They went from a pricey full fare flex ticket (that could be changed without any penalty to any departure) to the intermediate state where changes of full fare flex tickets was only free of charge if seats where available in the same bucket.
My prediction is that with at continous pricing, by definition there will never be availability in the sold bucket, as every ticket will more or less have a unique price. So any change will always be repriced on this "continous spectrum" of pricing. Effectively killing of the last shread of flexibility they had in their ticket types.
They went from a pricey full fare flex ticket (that could be changed without any penalty to any departure) to the intermediate state where changes of full fare flex tickets was only free of charge if seats where available in the same bucket.
My prediction is that with at continous pricing, by definition there will never be availability in the sold bucket, as every ticket will more or less have a unique price. So any change will always be repriced on this "continous spectrum" of pricing. Effectively killing of the last shread of flexibility they had in their ticket types.
Jan 17, 2023, 10:50 am
#14
Moderator, Finnair
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2011
Location: MMX (CPH)
Programs: Eurobonus Diamond, QR Gold, AY+ Platinum, A3*G, Nordic Choice Lifetime Platinum, SJ Prio Black
Posts: 14,174
Isn't continuous pricing how it should have been done always. Just back in the dsys legacy IT systems didn't allow it, but that limitation is long gone.
I guess the airlines wouldn't be implementing the change if they wouldn't have a business case for it. Anyhow the competition on the market hasn't disappeared, so also AY needs to take that into account when setting prices.
I guess the airlines wouldn't be implementing the change if they wouldn't have a business case for it. Anyhow the competition on the market hasn't disappeared, so also AY needs to take that into account when setting prices.
Why not 20%? you say, and he replies that he just sold one subscription at 20% and thus the pricing changed to 19,73% discount. And that this system is much better than offering fixed discounts, because what if he had only had the choice of offering you 15% once the 20% was sold out?
But this continous pricing makes somewhat sense in relation to the insanely steep prices Finnair has configured their upper buckets. When a intra-EU J seat goes from 600€ to 1200€ in one swoop, I guess a discounted intermediate step at say 900€ is cheaper. But again, this is because they first decided to stretch the pricing, so that highest bucket is maybe priced at 100x the lowest bucket. Then of course they need more buckets than there are letters in the system.
Jan 17, 2023, 10:53 am
#15
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Isle of Man/East Palo Alto
Programs: AA - CK/Airpass
Posts: 1,046
One effect is probably that changing a fully "no-fee" flexible ticket in the future will 100% result in fare difference being collected.
They went from a pricey full fare flex ticket (that could be changed without any penalty to any departure) to the intermediate state where changes of full fare flex tickets was only free of charge if seats where available in the same bucket.
My prediction is that with at continous pricing, by definition there will never be availability in the sold bucket, as every ticket will more or less have a unique price. So any change will always be repriced on this "continous spectrum" of pricing. Effectively killing of the last shread of flexibility they had in their ticket types.
They went from a pricey full fare flex ticket (that could be changed without any penalty to any departure) to the intermediate state where changes of full fare flex tickets was only free of charge if seats where available in the same bucket.
My prediction is that with at continous pricing, by definition there will never be availability in the sold bucket, as every ticket will more or less have a unique price. So any change will always be repriced on this "continous spectrum" of pricing. Effectively killing of the last shread of flexibility they had in their ticket types.