Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Lufthansa, Austrian, Swiss, Brussels, LOT and Other Partners | Miles & More
Reload this Page >

New "Light" Flight Class means ZERO bags for star alliance gold members

New "Light" Flight Class means ZERO bags for star alliance gold members

Old Aug 15, 2016, 8:15 am
  #91  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: FRA / YEG
Programs: AC Super Elite, Radisson Platinum, Accor Platinum
Posts: 11,874
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
Why ain't you just happy that such fares are available? I really appreciate that I can book without all these extras I do not need. Most of my travel for business is a day or a day and a night. I don't need any luggage and I always found it annoying that I had to pay for luggage transportation (included in the fare) I never required.
It depends on how you look at it:

1) "Light fares" aren't necessarily cheap. You can still spend 150-200Euros on an intra-European LH Group r/t ticket and be treated as if you had booked a ticket with a bottom of the barrel LCC. (It's only a few years ago that I purchased intra-European LH tickets for 89 tickets r/t which included 500 miles each way and all *G benefits incl. increased baggage allowance - not to mention Eurowings/Germanwings hadn't taken over many routes back then).

2) The point of unbundling services is to maximize profits. It's not about "fairly distributing costs" between pax who use a particular service (such as checking baggage) and those who don't.

3) The way Light fares were introduced suggests that LH doesn't give a crap about loyalty. You can spend a six-figure amount per year to earn status and still be told that you still have to pay a fee for a piece of baggage since you purchased a semi-cheap ticket for your flight. Or to put it differently: According to LH Group, 0 + 1 equals 0, as in zero benefits / baggage allowance.
Jasper2009 is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 8:45 am
  #92  
esp
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 52
"Light fares" aren't necessarily cheap.
Nobody claimed anything to the opposite. Why should they be cheap? If anything, it would make sense for them to be cheaper than the corresponding booking in classic.

2) The point of unbundling services is to maximize profits. It's not about "fairly distributing costs" between pax who use a particular service (such as checking baggage) and those who don't.
Every private enterprise wants to maximize profits. They don't care about the customer per se. Yet still, market outcomes can be desirable for both firms and consumers. So argued a guy named Adam Smith some 200+ years ago.

Why shouldn't a mix-and-match service system also be in the interest of consumers as a whole? Sure, there are some consumers which want to buy a bundle which gives them "piece of mind." (That may often be irrational, by the way.) But I think many (even some ITT) want to pay only for what they use.

Such an a-la-carte pricing model wasn't technologically feasible a few decades ago. But now it is. And, again, I think it's what many people want. Especially those who are very price sensitive and only fly when rates are low (hence the big success of the no-frills business model of the LCC.)

3) The way Light fares were introduced suggests that LH doesn't give a crap about loyalty.
To me, it doesn't. I believe even business travellers have become more price sensitive. Ultimately, I believe the airlines are cutting costs in their elite programs and elsewhere because the customer demands it. They care about loyalty programs to the extent that the customer wants them (and pays for them with his dollars).
esp is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 9:32 am
  #93  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by esp
In real terms, air fares are at historic lows. That side of the equation is often forgotten when discussing airlines' "enhancements".
By what measure? RASK is at a historic low on LH? I'm sure their shareholders are thrilled.
I can only provide anecdotal evidence, but it does seem to prove your point (somewhat, I still miss the good old days of 2007 crisis). Just not on LH.

Originally Posted by esp
Where I live (FRA), today I can choose from many more direct routes than, say, 10 or 20 years ago. Not having to use connecting flights is a huge quality improvement for me personally. As are online check-in options (no more dreaded lines at the check-in counter when flying Y).
My local airport traffic has increased ten fold probably, and so has the route network. Thanks to it, I'm relying less and less on my previous carrier of choice (LH) and have plenty more direct routes on cheaper carriers.
Lack is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 12:19 pm
  #94  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DCA
Programs: UA LT 1K, AA EXP, Bonvoy LT Titan, Avis PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,647
I guess I learned my lesson buying my one-way intraEurope ticket from United.com. When I realized this, I noticed that united.com was selling Business class at just 2x the Light fare (buying Business from SWISS direct was much higher). So now it looks like Business is sold out. SWISS even removed a row out of Business from what used to show on the seat map and made it only 3 rows.

Originally united.com was selling Business at about 4X but then later offered it for 2X, but then that sold out quickly. I would have bought 2X Business fare and avoided the fees.

The Net -
1. For IntraEurope - buy the Classic fare direct from the carrier (not a third party), to avoid the Light Fare.
2. But check third parties for cheaper Business Class.

OK - since *Gold can still use Senator's Lounge on a Light Fare - can you still use First Class check in?
cova is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 12:37 pm
  #95  
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 152
Lounge access and First Class checkin is no issue
noname83 is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 1:06 pm
  #96  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: FRA (formerly JNB)
Programs: LH M&M
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by esp
Nobody claimed anything to the opposite. Why should they be cheap? If anything, it would make sense for them to be cheaper than the corresponding booking in classic.


Every private enterprise wants to maximize profits. They don't care about the customer per se. Yet still, market outcomes can be desirable for both firms and consumers. So argued a guy named Adam Smith some 200+ years ago.

Why shouldn't a mix-and-match service system also be in the interest of consumers as a whole? Sure, there are some consumers which want to buy a bundle which gives them "piece of mind." (That may often be irrational, by the way.) But I think many (even some ITT) want to pay only for what they use.

Such an a-la-carte pricing model wasn't technologically feasible a few decades ago. But now it is. And, again, I think it's what many people want. Especially those who are very price sensitive and only fly when rates are low (hence the big success of the no-frills business model of the LCC.)


To me, it doesn't. I believe even business travellers have become more price sensitive. Ultimately, I believe the airlines are cutting costs in their elite programs and elsewhere because the customer demands it. They care about loyalty programs to the extent that the customer wants them (and pays for them with his dollars).
I believe the major complaint when these fares were introduced, is that the new "light" fares were more expensive than the baggage-inclusive fares they replaced. So as an example, instantaneously, classic was introduced at say 30 more than the old fares, and light at say 15 more than the old fares. So your argument that a la carte pricing makes it cheaper for those who don't want to pay for bags doesn't hold any water. They used the introduction of the new model as a cover to jack the prices up.

I agree all businesses want to maximise profits. Despite knowing this, you still think that this scheme was introduced in the best interests of the paying customer?
purch is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 2:57 pm
  #97  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: POZ
Programs: LH*S (FTL), OZ*G, Accor gold, HH Diamond
Posts: 270
Originally Posted by YuropFlyer
No. When your fare does not have ANY allowance, you won't get an extra bag (extra as in, only if your allowance is already ONE bag, you'll get one more extra) - and you can perfectly mix LH/LX/OS on keep on being Light (ie, no baggage) - only if you add carriers outside of LH Group, it will not be Light anymore (but more expensive)

In my opinion *A rules are clear:
"*G can take an extra 20 kg (44 pounds) where the weight concept applies or an extra piece where the piece concept applies.
Some airlines do not offer this benefit on individual flights but only on connecting Star Alliance flights."

LH / LX / OS are still different *A airlines , even if all belongs to LH Group.

But I am not surprised , that they do not respect own rules.

*G is loosing sense, if the main *A airline are trying to circumvent the rules and privileges (by creating subsidiary airline (like 4U), or by not offering additional baggage allowance for *G on light fares.)
SPlDER is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 3:03 pm
  #98  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: SIN (with a bit of ZRH sprinkled in)
Posts: 9,442
Well, it's more like guidelines

And basically, in the case of LH/LX/OS, think of it more like Air China and Shenzhen Airlines. (They also share the same FFP, Shenzhen is - kinda - owned by Air China, and a full *A member)

But one wouldn't say Shenzhen is really an independant airline. Just like OS and LX aren't.
YuropFlyer is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 3:24 pm
  #99  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by SPlDER
In my opinion *A rules are clear:
They were also clear when Air New Zealand started this and you still had to pay up.

Originally Posted by YuropFlyer
But one wouldn't say Shenzhen is really an independant airline. Just like OS and LX aren't.
Where do you draw the line? If let's say some retirement fund owned a stake in LH and DB would you say they are pretty much the same carrier?
I dare anyone saying that all airline under LH umbrella are one entity to try get customer service for and LH flights from LX staff in ZRH - even though that point is mute, as per my ANZ example earlier.
Lack is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 5:31 pm
  #100  
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 64
Originally Posted by SPlDER
In my opinion *A rules are clear:
"*G can take an extra 20 kg (44 pounds) where the weight concept applies or an extra piece where the piece concept applies.
Some airlines do not offer this benefit on individual flights but only on connecting Star Alliance flights."
Light fares don't give any luggage allowance.

Originally Posted by purch
I believe the major complaint when these fares were introduced, is that the new "light" fares were more expensive than the baggage-inclusive fares they replaced. So as an example, instantaneously, classic was introduced at say 30 more than the old fares, and light at say 15 more than the old fares. So your argument that a la carte pricing makes it cheaper for those who don't want to pay for bags doesn't hold any water. They used the introduction of the new model as a cover to jack the prices up.
I believe, for many, the main complain is that when one is buying a ticket from a non-LH site, one is often not aware of the fact that the fare is Light Fare and doesn't include any luggage allowance.
Further, (if one read all details of the fare and noted that it doesn't include any luggage) in such a case one can purchase extra luggage allowance, but if the fare stays as Light Fare, then as a *G one will have only one piece of luggage, not 2.
Maniak is offline  
Old Aug 15, 2016, 11:53 pm
  #101  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Capetown
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Plat, IHG and Hilton Diamond, LH SEN, BA Gold
Posts: 10,163
Originally Posted by Lack
That could be a true if the light fares actually delivered on that promise on a lower price, which is not the case.
And now you're paying for the IT work and consulting contracts that put them in place - which you never required.
The cheapest fares result in losses for the airlines. These are required however for marketing reasons.Stripping such fares of all extras is a way to keep them alive. It is like always in business. You try to attract somebody by a low rate or price and try to make your money via the extras. I might be expected to tip the FAs one day, would not be surprised.
Flying Lawyer is offline  
Old Aug 16, 2016, 5:49 am
  #102  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K+K
Programs: *G
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by deniah
i dont think it is made very obvious that Light fares are exempt from *A baggage benefit, but that is just my personal opinion

.....

not going to split hairs here and claim LX is being deceitful, but it obviously is not well-communicated this new fare class and fare policy
I think this part of the communication has been greatly improved.

Recent experience on the group made it abundantly clear - during booking, during check-in, etc - about the (reduced) baggage allowance and treatment of status.

There is still a small gap, and that is when booking flights with 3rd party travel agents (expedia, travelocity, etc). These systems don't accurately show the policy, assumes a standard allowance, with a catch-all of "check with airline for specific detail". More effort needs to be put here because it can easily deceive the infrequent flyer and cause some grief and bad image
deniah is offline  
Old Aug 16, 2016, 7:40 am
  #103  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,859
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
The cheapest fares result in losses for the airlines. These are required however for marketing reasons.Stripping such fares of all extras is a way to keep them alive. It is like always in business. You try to attract somebody by a low rate or price and try to make your money via the extras. I might be expected to tip the FAs one day, would not be surprised.
I think Ryanair and EasyJet keep those fares alive, and LH realizes that they help to break even or make a profit on a flight after everyone who just had to be on it (paying more) took their seat. Doesn't mean that they won't try to extract every single cent they can, but that's beside the point of the whole scheme of jacking up prices across the board on the pretense of saving money for clients buying a-la-carte.
Lack is offline  
Old Aug 16, 2016, 8:22 pm
  #104  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: 1 thousand
Posts: 2,110
Originally Posted by deniah
I think this part of the communication has been greatly improved.

Recent experience on the group made it abundantly clear - during booking, during check-in, etc - about the (reduced) baggage allowance and treatment of status.

There is still a small gap, and that is when booking flights with 3rd party travel agents (expedia, travelocity, etc). These systems don't accurately show the policy, assumes a standard allowance, with a catch-all of "check with airline for specific detail". More effort needs to be put here because it can easily deceive the infrequent flyer and cause some grief and bad image
Expedia are accurate about luggage fees, I've never had incorrect information, and they make it perfectly clear that not only will LH group airlines charge a fee, they even show the fees for first and second checked bag (surprisingly for BA flights they show 1 free bag, does that mean that OTA's don't sell BA's HBO fares?).
televisor is offline  
Old Aug 17, 2016, 5:10 pm
  #105  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 2,329
Originally Posted by bdk234
@ warakorn

From the Star Alliance Website at http://www.staralliance.com/en/benef...silver-status/

Extra Baggage Allowance 3
As a Gold Status holder you can choose not to travel light. We allow an additional 20 kg (44 pounds) where the weight concept applies, or one additional piece of luggage where the piece concept applies.

There is a footnote which says: "This benefit may only be available if travelling on two or more Star Alliance member airlines on a single ticket. Please contact the Star Alliance member airline with whom you will check-in with for further details."

What this means effectively is that if your booking is only with a single star alliance carrier, that carrier can choose whether or not you get a free bag.

The problem... is that nowadays tickets are usually purchased through travel companies like ebookers etc because they can sell cheaper than the airlines themselves, and when booking with them you have no way of knowing if you've gotten the "Light" fare or not. So passengers end up essentially being held hostage at the airport and forced to fork over substantial sums of money, often meaning the airlines end up making more on a Light ticket than they would if the passenger had just bought a standard ticket.
This is what happened to me. I booked a r/t open-jaw ticket LIS-CDG/CDG-TXL on Expedia.com, and they sold me a OS ticket via VIE:

LIS-VIE-CDG first segment operated by TP; second one by AF. Both "E" fare class.

CDG-VIE-TXL third segment operated by OS; fourth one by XG (SunExpress Germany, apparently a subsidiary of OS) Both "K" fare class.

All 4 flight numbers are OS flight numbers. I had no idea that Expedia had sold me a "light" fare. I only found that out when I called OS to get seat assignment and was told that because I have purchased a "light" fare, I cannot get seat assignment until check-in at the airport or OLCI 36 hours prior.

Originally Posted by televisor
Or just get any combination of *A airlines on the ticket. I've had luggage included on SN+LX, SK+LX, OS+LO, and other combinations. (The only exception might be if you only mix the LH group airlines, but even then I'm not 100% sure.)
I have *G status from UA.

For the outbound, when I check in at LIS, I'm hoping TP will (1) allow me to check a bag for free, and (2) be able to interline it to AF for the connecting flight to CDG. Is this scenario likely?

For the return, when I check in at CDG, will OS allow me to check a bag for free? Even though I have mixed operating carriers on this ticket (TP, AF, OS & XG), all 4 flight numbers are OS ones.

Last edited by sfvoyage; Aug 17, 2016 at 5:19 pm
sfvoyage is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.