Changes to long-haul awards
Jun 3, 2013, 3:26 pm
#406
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
Quant à la réduction en classe affaires... Ha, ha, ha.... Ah, bon, vous ne trouvez pas çà drôle? Nous si... Allez, soyez beau joueur. Reconnaissez qu'on vous a bien eu, non?
Jun 3, 2013, 3:41 pm
#408
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: FRA
Programs: FB Plat & DL KM, Le Club Plat, GHA Plat, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 1,591
and here is the English version
More award tickets available on intercontinental flights.
Last year, Flying Blue made more award seats available on AIR FRANCE and KLM flights within Europe. Now these positives changes are also here for intercontinental flights.
• More choice for you now with more available award seats in Economy and Business classes, with various numbers of Miles required.
• The number of upgradable booking classes has been increased substantially, giving you far more possibilities for upgrades with Miles to Premium Economy and Business class.
• There are lower carrier imposed international surcharges for you to pay. For an Award in Economy the carrier surcharge is greatly reduced. In Premium Economy, there is a marginal reduction. However airport taxes are still to be paid separately.
You can still book a Classic Award ticket in Economy class with the same number of Miles as usual. However, the number of Miles needed for intercontinental Award tickets in other classes has increased to better reflect the new flexibility and availability, as well as the partly inclusion of the carrier imposed international surcharge.
Until the end of 2013, you can also choose to book intercontinental awards under the previous conditions simply by contacting our Service Centre.
Last year, Flying Blue made more award seats available on AIR FRANCE and KLM flights within Europe. Now these positives changes are also here for intercontinental flights.
• More choice for you now with more available award seats in Economy and Business classes, with various numbers of Miles required.
• The number of upgradable booking classes has been increased substantially, giving you far more possibilities for upgrades with Miles to Premium Economy and Business class.
• There are lower carrier imposed international surcharges for you to pay. For an Award in Economy the carrier surcharge is greatly reduced. In Premium Economy, there is a marginal reduction. However airport taxes are still to be paid separately.
You can still book a Classic Award ticket in Economy class with the same number of Miles as usual. However, the number of Miles needed for intercontinental Award tickets in other classes has increased to better reflect the new flexibility and availability, as well as the partly inclusion of the carrier imposed international surcharge.
Until the end of 2013, you can also choose to book intercontinental awards under the previous conditions simply by contacting our Service Centre.
Jun 3, 2013, 3:41 pm
#409
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,510
Jun 3, 2013, 11:23 pm
#410
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: Eurostar Carte Blanche, SBB-CFF-FFS GA-AG, SNCF Grand Voyageur LeClub
Posts: 7,834
Look how this started: "The oil price has shot up to a level which really hurts us. We would have to increase fares but that would look as if we were just enriching ourselves, so we clearly spell out how much more you are paying not to us but to greedy oil companies. We are just inbetween them and you. Of course we'll abolish the surcharge once the oil price has come down to a normal level."
Some time later, to their shareholders: "First we were caught on the wrong foot. But now we know how this fuel game works and we've gotten really good at it and we now hedge most of our fuel needs. Good for us because while on one side we are not spending too much on fuel we still rake in that fuel surcharge so that makes for an additional profit. That comes in quite handy to compensate for the lower fares that we are forced to charge to actually find someone to fly with our ever crappier product".
At the same, to their customers: "We said that we were going to abolish the fuel surcharge as soon as the oil price goes down. We of course stick to that promise. Except that it hasn't gone down to where it would need to be. In any case a plane needs fuel to fly so you need to pay for it." Inofficially: "Where it would need to be means a point in time by which we do not need that revenue stream to compensate for all the low fares we had to offer to achieve load factors >80%"
Now: "Fuel surcharge? What fuel surcharge? As we said a plane needs fuel to fly and therefore that is included in the fare, after all it is an integral part of what we give you. A seat on a plane that has enough fuel to fly where you want. What you probably mean are some other charges and taxes, ough, yes, there are so many these days. Some of them are 'carrier-imposed' charges. Those nasty carriers. Not sure what they want it for, nothing to do with us, it's a carrier-imposed surcharge. But have no fear, this is all very fair. You only pay the carrier-imposed surcharge, which is not a fuel surcharge, for the amount of money we pretend to have to pay extra for the fuel to fly you to your destination. Which is why we charge you EUR 394 for a return-trip from Paris to New York in Business. Of course if you fly the same route in Economy you use as much fuel which is why you only have to pay EUR 294 for that. And surely you will understand that Los Angeles is much farther than New York and more fuel is consumed so we make you pay the same amount as for New York. Of course if you don't fly you don't use any fuel which is why have decided to not reimburse you the carrier-imposed surcharge. You see, it's all quite straight forward: the money is needed for the fuel that you may or may not use more or less in relation to the amount of fuel used on your trip, which is why we have decided to stop calling it fuel surcharge."
Now, with FB: "Confused? Why? Whatever, we have now made this fun for you. Basically the carrier surcharge is random. It's calculated by a complicated formula by which:
- we have slightly increased the number of miles needed in Economy so as tu substantially reduce the carrier surcharge
- We have substantially increased the number of miles needed to slightly reduce the carrier surcharge in Premium Economy
- We have substantially increased the number of miles needed in Business to slightly reduce the carrier surcharge, unless you go for an award which is has substantially increased the number of miles and also substantially increased the carrier surcharge, depending on which direction you fly
- We have substantially increased the number of miles for Premiere awards just to make people believe that this is really a great product. And there is a fuel surcharge for the car that drives you to the plane from the lounge.
Seriously, I am not living in fantasy land so I understand and accept that FFPs need to review their earning and spend tables from time to time. I do understand that airlines had an "external" shock with the hike of the price of oil some years ago and that they needed to recoup those costs. But the game many airlines are playing with fuel surcharges is grotesque. Add to that the extremely unattractive earn/burn ratio of Flying Blue and one comes to the conclusion that AFKL has gone too far. We may have fun ridiculing them for their offers which are over-engineered by design but just absurdly confusing in practice, but it is revealing that there isn't anyone out there anymore in this or other forums who can find a convincing rationale (qualitative or quantitative) for what is going on here. Must be hard to believe in AF these days. Although I had two reasonably pleasant flights with AF yesterday (obviously with the usual OLCI problems), thank you very much.
Jun 4, 2013, 1:07 am
#411
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,510
Jun 4, 2013, 1:19 am
#412
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 🇸🇬 🇭🇰 🇫🇷
Programs: Many
Posts: 4,749
C'mon, don't be such a killjoy. Not only has the art of making customers pay extra something which isn't extra become much more sophisticated; it is also fun now with all the surprises.
Look how this started: "The oil price has shot up to a level which really hurts us. We would have to increase fares but that would look as if we were just enriching ourselves, so we clearly spell out how much more you are paying not to us but to greedy oil companies. We are just inbetween them and you. Of course we'll abolish the surcharge once the oil price has come down to a normal level."
Some time later, to their shareholders: "First we were caught on the wrong foot. But now we know how this fuel game works and we've gotten really good at it and we now hedge most of our fuel needs. Good for us because while on one side we are not spending too much on fuel we still rake in that fuel surcharge so that makes for an additional profit. That comes in quite handy to compensate for the lower fares that we are forced to charge to actually find someone to fly with our ever crappier product".
At the same, to their customers: "We said that we were going to abolish the fuel surcharge as soon as the oil price goes down. We of course stick to that promise. Except that it hasn't gone down to where it would need to be. In any case a plane needs fuel to fly so you need to pay for it." Inofficially: "Where it would need to be means a point in time by which we do not need that revenue stream to compensate for all the low fares we had to offer to achieve load factors >80%"
Now: "Fuel surcharge? What fuel surcharge? As we said a plane needs fuel to fly and therefore that is included in the fare, after all it is an integral part of what we give you. A seat on a plane that has enough fuel to fly where you want. What you probably mean are some other charges and taxes, ough, yes, there are so many these days. Some of them are 'carrier-imposed' charges. Those nasty carriers. Not sure what they want it for, nothing to do with us, it's a carrier-imposed surcharge. But have no fear, this is all very fair. You only pay the carrier-imposed surcharge, which is not a fuel surcharge, for the amount of money we pretend to have to pay extra for the fuel to fly you to your destination. Which is why we charge you EUR 394 for a return-trip from Paris to New York in Business. Of course if you fly the same route in Economy you use as much fuel which is why you only have to pay EUR 294 for that. And surely you will understand that Los Angeles is much farther than New York and more fuel is consumed so we make you pay the same amount as for New York. Of course if you don't fly you don't use any fuel which is why have decided to not reimburse you the carrier-imposed surcharge. You see, it's all quite straight forward: the money is needed for the fuel that you may or may not use more or less in relation to the amount of fuel used on your trip, which is why we have decided to stop calling it fuel surcharge."
Now, with FB: "Confused? Why? Whatever, we have now made this fun for you. Basically the carrier surcharge is random. It's calculated by a complicated formula by which:
Seriously, I am not living in fantasy land so I understand and accept that FFPs need to review their earning and spend tables from time to time. I do understand that airlines had an "external" shock with the hike of the price of oil some years ago and that they needed to recoup those costs. But the game many airlines are playing with fuel surcharges is grotesque. Add to that the extremely unattractive earn/burn ratio of Flying Blue and one comes to the conclusion that AFKL has gone too far. We may have fun ridiculing them for their offers which are over-engineered by design but just absurdly confusing in practice, but it is revealing that there isn't anyone out there anymore in this or other forums who can find a convincing rationale (qualitative or quantitative) for what is going on here. Must be hard to believe in AF these days. Although I had two reasonably pleasant flights with AF yesterday (obviously with the usual OLCI problems), thank you very much.
Look how this started: "The oil price has shot up to a level which really hurts us. We would have to increase fares but that would look as if we were just enriching ourselves, so we clearly spell out how much more you are paying not to us but to greedy oil companies. We are just inbetween them and you. Of course we'll abolish the surcharge once the oil price has come down to a normal level."
Some time later, to their shareholders: "First we were caught on the wrong foot. But now we know how this fuel game works and we've gotten really good at it and we now hedge most of our fuel needs. Good for us because while on one side we are not spending too much on fuel we still rake in that fuel surcharge so that makes for an additional profit. That comes in quite handy to compensate for the lower fares that we are forced to charge to actually find someone to fly with our ever crappier product".
At the same, to their customers: "We said that we were going to abolish the fuel surcharge as soon as the oil price goes down. We of course stick to that promise. Except that it hasn't gone down to where it would need to be. In any case a plane needs fuel to fly so you need to pay for it." Inofficially: "Where it would need to be means a point in time by which we do not need that revenue stream to compensate for all the low fares we had to offer to achieve load factors >80%"
Now: "Fuel surcharge? What fuel surcharge? As we said a plane needs fuel to fly and therefore that is included in the fare, after all it is an integral part of what we give you. A seat on a plane that has enough fuel to fly where you want. What you probably mean are some other charges and taxes, ough, yes, there are so many these days. Some of them are 'carrier-imposed' charges. Those nasty carriers. Not sure what they want it for, nothing to do with us, it's a carrier-imposed surcharge. But have no fear, this is all very fair. You only pay the carrier-imposed surcharge, which is not a fuel surcharge, for the amount of money we pretend to have to pay extra for the fuel to fly you to your destination. Which is why we charge you EUR 394 for a return-trip from Paris to New York in Business. Of course if you fly the same route in Economy you use as much fuel which is why you only have to pay EUR 294 for that. And surely you will understand that Los Angeles is much farther than New York and more fuel is consumed so we make you pay the same amount as for New York. Of course if you don't fly you don't use any fuel which is why have decided to not reimburse you the carrier-imposed surcharge. You see, it's all quite straight forward: the money is needed for the fuel that you may or may not use more or less in relation to the amount of fuel used on your trip, which is why we have decided to stop calling it fuel surcharge."
Now, with FB: "Confused? Why? Whatever, we have now made this fun for you. Basically the carrier surcharge is random. It's calculated by a complicated formula by which:
- we have slightly increased the number of miles needed in Economy so as tu substantially reduce the carrier surcharge
- We have substantially increased the number of miles needed to slightly reduce the carrier surcharge in Premium Economy
- We have substantially increased the number of miles needed in Business to slightly reduce the carrier surcharge, unless you go for an award which is has substantially increased the number of miles and also substantially increased the carrier surcharge, depending on which direction you fly
- We have substantially increased the number of miles for Premiere awards just to make people believe that this is really a great product. And there is a fuel surcharge for the car that drives you to the plane from the lounge.
Seriously, I am not living in fantasy land so I understand and accept that FFPs need to review their earning and spend tables from time to time. I do understand that airlines had an "external" shock with the hike of the price of oil some years ago and that they needed to recoup those costs. But the game many airlines are playing with fuel surcharges is grotesque. Add to that the extremely unattractive earn/burn ratio of Flying Blue and one comes to the conclusion that AFKL has gone too far. We may have fun ridiculing them for their offers which are over-engineered by design but just absurdly confusing in practice, but it is revealing that there isn't anyone out there anymore in this or other forums who can find a convincing rationale (qualitative or quantitative) for what is going on here. Must be hard to believe in AF these days. Although I had two reasonably pleasant flights with AF yesterday (obviously with the usual OLCI problems), thank you very much.
Jun 4, 2013, 1:30 am
#413
Join Date: Apr 2005
Programs: AF/KL FB Plat ; A3 Gold ; HH Gold ; IHG Plat Amb
Posts: 2,376
Great work.
But it could actually be that the code you have found is not FB's intended award structure, but instead a computer bug resulting from the implementation of the new scheme. (At least this would explain the strange pattern you have found, and given the history of the booking tool it is a pretty reasonable explanation.)
But it could actually be that the code you have found is not FB's intended award structure, but instead a computer bug resulting from the implementation of the new scheme. (At least this would explain the strange pattern you have found, and given the history of the booking tool it is a pretty reasonable explanation.)
Jun 4, 2013, 3:04 am
#414
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Programs: AMEX Platinum, BA Gold, Flying Blue Platinum, Marriott Platinum Elite, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 1,280
Well this is interesting...
I called FB to ask for old classic award inventory on a AMS - BON trip beginning of july. Before the change there were a few dates still for 50k miles and now they turned into the 62,5K miles option.
When asked on NON of those dates the old classic award was available. Since the 62,5K option is the cheapest option now, you would think that this constitutes the old 50K option.
Anyone else had this same experience. I wasn't able to get any 50k option over the phone for the whole month!
I called FB to ask for old classic award inventory on a AMS - BON trip beginning of july. Before the change there were a few dates still for 50k miles and now they turned into the 62,5K miles option.
When asked on NON of those dates the old classic award was available. Since the 62,5K option is the cheapest option now, you would think that this constitutes the old 50K option.
Anyone else had this same experience. I wasn't able to get any 50k option over the phone for the whole month!
Jun 4, 2013, 3:09 am
#415
Moderator: Flying Blue (Air France & KLM), France and TravelBuzz!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Paris, France, AF F+ Rouge pour toujours, Flying Blue whatever, LH FTL, HHonors Gold, formerly proud SCC Executive, now IC Ambassador, BA down to nobody, Grand Voyageur Le Club
Posts: 12,403
Well this is interesting...
I called FB to ask for old classic award inventory on a AMS - BON trip beginning of july. Before the change there were a few dates still for 50k miles and now they turned into the 62,5K miles option.
When asked on NON of those dates the old classic award was available. Since the 62,5K option is the cheapest option now, you would think that this constitutes the old 50K option.
Anyone else had this same experience. I wasn't able to get any 50k option over the phone for the whole month!
I called FB to ask for old classic award inventory on a AMS - BON trip beginning of july. Before the change there were a few dates still for 50k miles and now they turned into the 62,5K miles option.
When asked on NON of those dates the old classic award was available. Since the 62,5K option is the cheapest option now, you would think that this constitutes the old 50K option.
Anyone else had this same experience. I wasn't able to get any 50k option over the phone for the whole month!
Jun 4, 2013, 4:06 am
#416
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Rotterdam
Programs: AMEX Platinum, BA Gold, Flying Blue Platinum, Marriott Platinum Elite, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 1,280
Yes your stating the obvios. I checked last week and at least 4 dates still had classic 50k availability. These dates are now still available, but only for 62,5k availability. So these are the lowest available awards. You would think that if you call FB that you should be able to book these dates under the old rules, but that isn't the case.
So I'm wondering if anybody had any succes booking under the new rules, since the lowest awards now don't necessarly translate into lowest award availability under the old rules.
So I'm wondering if anybody had any succes booking under the new rules, since the lowest awards now don't necessarly translate into lowest award availability under the old rules.
Jun 4, 2013, 4:19 am
#417
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong, France
Programs: FB , BA Gold
Posts: 15,551
Summer is usually a good time to get award in premium classes. Plenty in new award structure but could not get it at old award structure by phone (I tried to clean all my family miles). Are they booking in a different class?
Jun 4, 2013, 4:30 am
#418
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Netherlands
Programs: KL Platinum; A3 Gold
Posts: 28,710
Yes your stating the obvios. I checked last week and at least 4 dates still had classic 50k availability. These dates are now still available, but only for 62,5k availability. So these are the lowest available awards. You would think that if you call FB that you should be able to book these dates under the old rules, but that isn't the case.
So I'm wondering if anybody had any succes booking under the new rules, since the lowest awards now don't necessarly translate into lowest award availability under the old rules.
So I'm wondering if anybody had any succes booking under the new rules, since the lowest awards now don't necessarly translate into lowest award availability under the old rules.
If, as brunos says, they've changed the redemption classes, then the old "O" at 50k just cannot be booked at all, despite what they said [which therefore would be a lie told to placate us], or perhaps the agent is supposed to know that they have to do something to enable such old rates to be redeemed, rather than just dumbly looking at the same screen with the same redemption rates that we can see now online on the Flying Blue booking tool.
perhaps it's just a case of hang up and dial again. I can't imagine they have had many requests so far to book under the old scheme, so perhaps some agents don't know how to do this and just insist that they only see the "new" rates.
Jun 4, 2013, 4:38 am
#419
FlyerTalk Evangelist, Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Somewhere between 0 and 13,000 metres high
Programs: AF/KL Life Plat, BA GGL+GfL, ALL Plat, Hilton Diam, Marriott Gold, blablablah, etc
Posts: 30,510
Yes your stating the obvios. I checked last week and at least 4 dates still had classic 50k availability. These dates are now still available, but only for 62,5k availability. So these are the lowest available awards. You would think that if you call FB that you should be able to book these dates under the old rules, but that isn't the case.
So I'm wondering if anybody had any succes booking under the new rules, since the lowest awards now don't necessarly translate into lowest award availability under the old rules.
So I'm wondering if anybody had any succes booking under the new rules, since the lowest awards now don't necessarly translate into lowest award availability under the old rules.
Jun 4, 2013, 4:51 am
#420
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: PWM/CDG
Programs: AF/KL Plat, AA Plat, HH Diamond
Posts: 789
I also hate that they treat you as if they were doing you a huge favor by agreeing to sell you a so cheap 165K one-way P transatlantic award... (aren't they priced at 62.5K with much easier miles to earn on AA?)