Bits: BA and Accor Economist promos, Heathrow Rewards transfer bonus, Avios gender pay gap

Links on Head for Points pay us an affiliate commission. A list of our partners is here.

News in brief:

New Economist promos launched by British Airways and Accor

You can’t move these days without seeing a generous mileage offer for subscribing to The Economist.

As you can see at this linkyou can earn 13,200 Avios if you take out a 1-year digital and print subscription to The Economist. The cost is £179.  This works out at 1.35p per Avios.

Alternatively, you can earn 10,200 Avios with a £145 print-only or digital-only subscription.  This works out at 1.4p per point.

This offer is particularly attractive if you are self-employed or run a company.  Whilst I am not a tax expert and you should obviously take your own advice if necessary, it would be hard to argue that The Economist magazine is not an acceptable tax-deductible purchase for most business people.  The price charged seems to be in line with the price charged via other channels so you are not over-paying.

If you have any friends in the United States who may enjoy The Economist in print (you could access the digital version yourself), there is a bigger deal to be had.  The cost is $190 (£134) for 13,200 Avios.  Note also that the DIGITAL ONLY version for US residents is $152 (£108) and you get 10,200 Avios for yourself.

Le Club AccorHotels is running a similar deal.  There is a link on the Accor website here.

You will earn up to 12,000 Le Club AccorHotels points with a two-year Economist subscription.

1 Accor points = 1 Avios point in Iberia Plus if you choose to convert them.  (Do NOT convert into British Airways Avios as the rate is 2:1.  Convert to Iberia and move them across to BA via ‘Combine My Avios’).

However …… 12,000 Accor points are also worth a €240 (£209) discount on an Accor hotel stay.  Given that a 2-year Economist subscription (print and digital) is £315, this is a very strong rebate if you were after the magazine in the first place.

If you are self employed and can offset the cost of the magazine as a business expense, it is even more interesting.  Both the BA and Accor offers run until 31st May.   Thanks to James for the Accor link.

Economist

New Heathrow Rewards transfer bonus launched

Heathrow Rewards has launched a new transfer bonus exclusively for Singapore Airlines KrisFlyer members.

Premium members of Heathrow Rewards (who spend £750 in a year) will receive a 50% bonus on all transfers to KrisFlyer made before 31st May.

Standard members will receive a 25% bonus.

Heathrow Rewards is also running a bonus on purchases of Apple products until 30th April.  You will receive:

  • Double points when you spend £350 – £699
  • Triple points when you spend £700 – £999
  • Quadruple points when you spend £1,000 or more

Heathrow Rewards KrisFlyer transfer bonus

Avios Gender Pay Gap report

Avios Group has published its gender pay gap report, as it is now legally obliged to do as an employer of over 250 people.  The report is here (PDF) and shows a 32% difference in median pay between male and female employees.

(Want to earn more Avios?  Click here to visit our home page for the latest articles on earning and spending your Avios points and click here to see how to earn more Avios from current offers and promotions.)

Your questions about the new Virgin Atlantic credit cards answered
Bits: 2400 Avios with £50 of toys, Etihad dropping Edinburgh?, massive Nectar shake up
Click here to join the 13,000 people on our email list and receive the latest Avios, miles and points news by 6am.

Amazon ad
About Head for Points

We help business and leisure travellers maximise their Avios, frequent flyer miles and hotel loyalty points. Visit every day for three new articles or sign up for our FREE emails via this page or the box to your right.

Comments

  1. Eduardo says:

    Pretty sure that any EARNINGS gap will be explained by choices and experience levels. Pay is equal between genders – and has been since the 1970s (or else sue).
    Pretty fed up with this constant progressive nonsense

    • mark2 says:

      I couldn’t have put it better.

    • Callum says:

      Pay is not equal – it is however very close.

      The focus now needs to be on what they can do to support women to take the higher paying roles should they want them (though I’d fiercely object to anything that achieves this by penalising men).

      • Chris Palmer says:

        Callum, how can more women move into higher paying roles without that penalising men?

        What I find most interesting about the Gender/Sex debate is how the feminist movement is almost entirely focused on the most prestigious jobs. For example, I have yet to see a great campaign by the feminist movement for equality on who collects the rubbish and recycling bins – currently heavily dominated by men. Similarly, no campaigns to get more men into secretarial work, nannying, Human Resources and all the other great bastions of female-dominated employment. Presumably, this doesn’t really benefit the people who are most prominent in this movement who are pursuing the well-paid jobs in the BBC, corporations and other organisations.

        Equally, (a little pun that, ha!) the feminist movement seem largely uninterested in helping out women who wish to return to work after long periods of time due to giving birth and bringing up their children. The enlightened, employment-obsessed members of the sisterhood don’t seem to consider that path, chosen by many women, as valid and needing assistance.

        • You seem quite angry. Why don’t you take a deep breath and read Kathy’s excellent posts. below.

        • Chris Palmer says:

          I’m not at all angry. Kathy’s post doesn’t touch on the two main points I make above.

    • Tilly says:

      Pay is not equal between genders. It may be law but I still experience doing the same work for less pay than my male counterpart who many I work with say I carry him! The organisation culture though means I’ll never win a claim and going to employment tribunal is hassle.

    • Andrew says:

      Uber published a very detailed analysis of their own pay gap in their drivers. The most interesting thing is that there was a gap at all given that their prices are published and completely gender agnostic. Basically the differences came down to:
      – men driving faster and therefore completing more trips
      – male drivers having served longer on average and therefore knowing to concentrate on high value routes
      – male drivers working at more anti-social times when surge pricing was more likely to be in effect

      So despite the existence of a gender pay gap there was absolutely nothing ‘unfair’ going on.

      • Jeremy says:

        Except that you’re not looking at a macro level. Why are men able to earn more? Why are male Uber drivers able to work the anti-social hours more than women? This exercise is not just about seeing whether at a given company women are being paid unfairly by comparison to men. It is also about showing companies and the public at large that although equal pay is enshrined in the law and although discrimination on the grounds of gender is illegal, in reality we are not yet at an equal opportunities workplace/society.

        • Andrew says:

          But that’s not what this exercise is about. All of the headlines are along the lines of ‘Women in NHS paid 23% less than men’. There’s no analysis as to why that is. The Uber study showed that there were very reasonable reasons for the differences there.

          Why do male drivers tend to work more antisocial hours? Probably because they have fewer childcare commitments. That’s nothing Uber, or probably even the government, should be getting involved in. Who’s to say the men are in the better position in that scenario? I suspect many would be quite happy watching the children in an evening while their other half earned the money.

    • You’re pretty sure Eduardo?

      That must make it true then. Especially if it’s an inequality that you’ve been on the benefiting end of your entire working life. It can’t possibly be true. Quick, label it nonsense (maybe throw in the odd word like “hysterical”, “feminist”, “lifestyle choices” or perhaps “experience” for good measure).

      Chris, the gender pay gap focuses on the glass ceiling, not the glass basement, for obvious reasons. Are you being facetious, or do you really need that explaining? Are you also joking about feminists not wanting to help out women returning to work after raising children? Have you actually ever sat down and *listened* to a feminist talking about this topic (rather than arguing back)? I have NEVER heard anyone on my side of this saying “Oh, we’re paid less because we took a few month off to continue the human race you say? Oh, that makes it OK then!”. The argument that women somehow deserve to be paid less because their internal organs mean they’re the ones that push out the babies has been a source of contention for as long as the gender pay gap has.

      Eduardo, Mark2, Callum, Chris have a look over this fairly detailed analysis, paying particular attention to figure 4 https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/understandingthegenderpaygapintheuk/2018-01-17

      • Chris Palmer says:

        If the reason for the focus of the “pay gap” being, as you put, “on the glass ceiling, not the glass basement, for obvious reasons” is indeed so obvious, perhaps you would care to elaborate a little further? I’ve already submitted one reason: militant members of the feminist movement are mainly interested in their own self-furtherment and care less about most women who are not on six figure salaries or who wish to raise children rather than pursue “equality” in the workplace. Case in point (and no joke) where are the high-profile feminist campaigns for getting women back into the workforce after longer periods of bringing up children?

        I have listened to feminists for many years on this subject and others, and that is why I make the points I make.

        You’ve never heard someone make that statement because you have been conversing in the echo chamber inhabited by your feminist friends (and, amusingly, you have the cheek to accuse me of not listening to others!), so you are hardly likely to have heard an alternative opinion. The simple fact is that many women have children and men cannot. Therefore, naturally, women who are pregnant, give birth and then care for children thereafter are going to have to interrupt their careers. It’s also worth pointing out that this impact, in many cases, is far longer than “a few months” as you suggest. Legally (and morally), women and men who do the same work, should be paid the same and this has been the case for many years.

        Also, it’s interesting to note your use of the words “push out” to signify a woman giving birth, which doesn’t indicate much respect for those who fulfil this vitality important and admirable role in society.

        Lastly, in turn, may I suggest you read the IEA’s report, “The Gender Pay Gap Reporting Measures” by Kate Andrews, which concludes: “The requirement to measure pay gaps across entire organisations (rather than between comparable roles within organisations), as well as the omission of necessary data, renders the majority of the findings meaningless.” It can be found here: https://iea.org.uk/publications/the-gender-pay-gap-reporting-measures/

        • Chris – I promise you, if I ever encounter a woman whose dream in life is to be a refuse collector, and they find that pursuing their dream is hampered by sexism and a refusal to employ a woman in this non-gender-conforming role, I will do my bit to campaign for her. I have literally never encountered anyone in this position, nor have I read of any such person on the internet, or in a paper. Feel free to post a link if you find someone.

          The thing is, most people dream about having a *better* job – ideally one that pays more than the one they’re on. That goes for women on six-figure salaries, and people on the minimum wage. If the gender pay gap reports that have come in show one thing clear as day, it’s that women already occupy a disproportionate percentage of the jobs in the lower quartile of most companies’ pay range. Advocating for women to have better access to minimum wage jobs (which, frankly, we seem to have excellent access to already) doesn’t really improve anyone’s lot in life, hence the lack of focus on the glass basement.

          In terms of feminist campaigns for getting women back into the workforce, the Fawcett society has been campaigning for years for better access to affordable, flexible, good quality childcare, so that women in all income brackets can afford to return to work, if they chose to (see https://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/ensure-women-not-hardest-hit-economic-downturn ), this article in the Observer https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/16/can-women-stage-mumback-after-having-children was written after the annual Mumsnet Workfest (aimed at helping women returning to work after raising children). I could also link dozens of articles from the Guardian, Huffington Post, the Telegraph and even Vogue with tips and advice to help Mums get back into work after a career break. You’re capable of doing a google search and finding them yourself, I’m sure. Those campaigns are there, you just have to look for them. Perhaps the reason you aren’t seeing them, is that you are not their target audience, so they don’t pop up in your own echo chamber.

          Not all “militant” (really???) feminists are on 6 figure salaries – some are stay at home mums, some are unemployed and some are on minimum wage themselves – why on earth do you assume that all feminists are on 6 figure salaries, and that they don’t want to raise children? This is an odd view to have, to say the least, and does seem to be a reflection of your own prejudices.

          Are you actually saying in your third paragraph that if I listen to non-feminist women (women who don’t believe they deserve to be treated as equals) outside of my circle I will find many women who are absolutely OK with being paid a lower rate than their male peers because they’ve had children?

          Why on earth would you decide that I don’t have respect for women who become mothers, purely because of a choice of phrase to describe childbirth – you’re the one saying that I should listen to non-feminists stating that women should be paid less after childbirth, clearly you don’t value women who fulfil that vitally important role in society (or at least not as highly as men, who don’t). I do, which is why I think women’s salary shouldn’t suffer because they’re the ones who have to take a break from work in order to continue the woman race.

          I agree, the gender pay gap measures would be more meaningful if like for like pay comparisons were included, which is why I included a link to the ONS report – have a look at figure 4, as I suggested.

        • Chris Palmer says:

          Cat, your inability to argue with what has been said, rather than what you imagine has been said, is troubling.

          For example, you wrote, “why on earth do you assume that all feminists are on 6 figure salaries, and that they don’t want to raise children? This is an odd view to have, to say the least, and does seem to be a reflection of your own prejudices.”

          Could you point out exactly where I said, “all feminists are on 6 figure salaries, and that they don’t want to raise children”. (Hint: you won’t be able to do so because nowhere in what I wrote above does it say that. Nor, indeed, do I think it.)

          The problem with people, such as yourself, who haven’t learned how to argue, is that their own prejudices form an image of what they imagine their opponent to be like and have said. Then, instead of reading what has been written and countering with facts and logic, they argue against what they imagine their opponent to have said. You asked me (above) whether I had listened to my opponents (which I have), but you have just confirmed that you don’t listen to yours.

          Furthermore, you wrote, “Are you actually saying in your third paragraph that if I listen to non-feminist women (women who don’t believe they deserve to be treated as equals) outside of my circle I will find many women who are absolutely OK with being paid a lower rate than their male peers because they’ve had children?”

          No, I’m actually saying what I am actually saying. Try reading it again. If you cannot discern a distinction between your characterisation and what I have written, then there is little hope for you in debate.

          The campaigns which you mention, to get women back to work, despite potentially affecting larger numbers of women, have not been given anywhere near the same prominence as the numerous, very high profile and publicly visible campaigns to obtain even larger salaries and top positions for those comparatively small number of women who are already close to the pinnacle of the employment market. This speaks volumes about the priorities of the movement.

          Choice of words is important, most especially in non-verbal exchanges. Do you think the words or phrase “push out” confers respect for the act of child birth (and, by extension, the women involved)? They were not the only words you could have used, so must have been chosen with purpose.

          The ONS report states the data “does not measure the pay difference between men and women at the same pay grade, doing the same job, with the same working pattern. It also does not include any of the personal characteristics that may determine a person’s pay such as age.”

          Figure 4, unless I am mistaken, appears to be based upon such data. Therefore, much in keeping with what Kate Andrews at the IEA wrote about the recent gender pay reporting: “the government’s pay gap reporting measures fail to provide any meaningful insight into equal or fair pay for men and women in the workplace. Because they fail to take account of the type of work being done by men and women within a company, they cannot reveal sex discrimination.”

        • “Could you point out exactly where I said, “all feminists are on 6 figure salaries, and that they don’t want to raise children”.”

          You imply that here:

          “I’ve already submitted one reason: militant members of the feminist movement are mainly interested in their own self-furtherment and care less about most women who are not on six figure salaries or who wish to raise children rather than pursue “equality” in the workplace.”

          If
          a) they mainly care about their own self-furtherment, and
          b) they care less about women who are not on six figure salaries or who wish to raise children,
          one can deduce that
          c) they themselves are on six figure salaries and do not wish to raise children
          since these women who are not on six figure salaries or who wish to raise children are cared for less than themselves, they cannot *be* themselves.

          I believe that’s a reasonably logical argument. Feel free to mansplain how to argue to me further if you disagree.

          “Choice of words is important, most especially in non-verbal exchanges.”

          Quite.

        • Chris Palmer says:

          Cat, you’re digging an even bigger hole for yourself. Nowhere in what I said above does it state that I think those things of “all feminists”. Nothing was implied (“imply” being, in any event, a weasel word for when the facts don’t fit your argument). You misrepresented my position, either because you didn’t read the text properly the first time, or you were purposefully attempting to distort what I wrote. I’m inclined to be generous and believe it was the former, however, regardless, from such evidence, facts, accuracy and logic are clearly not your strong suit.

          Finally, no “mainsplain” required. I think it very interesting that you are sure I am a man (“Chris” is a gender-neutral name), but then that’s more evidence of your prejudiced mind at work, isn’t it? Also, it doesn’t matter to me whether you are a man or women because, either way, I would have pointed out your inability to stick to the facts and your lack of accuracy.

  2. James says:

    My pleasure Rob 🙂

  3. James says:

    Starbucks have announced today that they have no gender pay gap.
    A spokesperson announced ” We have no need of a gender pay gap within our organisation, we all recieve dreadfully low wage most of us can’t on whether we are male, female or any other gender”
    “We also don’t pay anywhere near our fair share of taxes so public bodies have to scrimp somewhere & they just happen to have chosen female salaries instead of public services”.

    • Starbucks has an excellent reputation in the US for its pay and benefits, including offering healthcare coverage.

      • Brian says:

        Starbucks has an excellent reputation in the US for its coffee, if my American friends are to be believed, but it’s still pretty bad… 🙂

        • Intentionally Blank says:

          Indeed. Putrid filth will always be putrid filth, however popular.

        • JamesB says:

          +1, never thought there was such a thing as bac Colombian coffee until I tried starbucks.

        • mark2 says:

          When we went on holiday to Seattle, a cruise to Alaska and Vancouver BC last year I was devastated that all the hotels, restaurants, ship etc. used Starbucks coffee and portrayed it as a feature. The only decent coffee that I had in Seattle was in a French bakery, ironically a few doors away from the first Starbucks shop.

  4. Steve says:

    It is interesting that Avios say they will promote flexible working to help women progress as allowing women to work less hours will massively affect the gender pay gap. If a is allowed to only work 4 days then the pay gap will be 20% before any other factors are taken into account.

    The best thing for Avios to do is to force all women to work full time.

    • All the figures are done on hourly rate – so that won’t work.

      • Steve says:

        Yes you are right. I was mostly reflecting on the Bonus section (Where it mentions the reduced working hours) and how this will surely get worse if they promote flexible working as stated right next to it in the report.

    • Navara says:

      Why not let men work 3 days

  5. This so called gender pay gap is just like the Loch Ness monster. Both are big fat myths that can’t be proven but there are more than a few wackos that are certain they are real

    • Steve says:

      I disagree, the gender pay gap exists that is why it is picked up and accepted by mainstream media and politicians.

      The debate is about why it exists. If anyone is paying women less just because they are women then that should be illegal (and it is) if anyone is giving women less opprtunities because they are women then that shouldbe illegal (and it is)

      As said above we could easily fix the gender pay gap by stopping women from being allowed to work in lower paid jobs, preventing them from working flexibly and enforcing manditory assigment of Women into high paid high risk jobs – which could also go some way towards equaling out the Gender Death at Work Gap (Currently 93% surely we can get this more equal?) but at the end of the day personal freedom should (and must) always be more important that hitting aribitory targets.

    • My wife believes it.

    • Kathy says:

      Do people just not understand what a gender pay gap is, or are they being disingenuous? It’s not the same measure as equal pay, it’s not about individual-level detail, it’s about giving you a macro-level picture of your society.

      AS A SOCIETY men are more likely to be in higher paying roles than women, overall. Of course there are reasons for that – and they may be good reasons, that we’re perfectly happy with. But they may not be – it may be that women are not being promoted into senior roles because of bias, or because of hostile working environments, or because there’s an old boy’s network they can’t access, or because their partners do not have access to flexible working practices (even if they *wanted* to spend more time at home with their kids) so they end up having to pass up career opportunities for childcare reasons.

      Some of the gap will ease over time naturally – we tend to have more gender balanced entry-level roles now than 20 years ago, but most execs are pulled from that male-dominated pool that started work 20 years ago. But also more attention can be paid to certain job specialties to see if there are barriers in place – there are well-known issues with hostile working environments for women in tech fields, for example.

      • Steve says:

        I think the reason people get worked up is that people are not having the conversation about is it wrong – it is just accepted that it exisits and it is because of discrimination, when personal choices make up a much more likely cause.

        Also the focus on the gender pay gap is arbitory when we could just as easily ask why White women are paid more than Black men, or why Asian Men earn more than White Men. Selecting one caracteristic and using this to create the entire narriative is only ever going to create misleading information and distort the conversation.

        • Kathy says:

          Personal choices are made in the context of cultural conditions – given different cultural conditions (e.g., men being encouraged to actively look after their children – in my parents’ generation men wouldn’t be caught dead pushing a buggy, even if they were with their wife while she was struggling with it, let alone taking time off work to look after them) people make different choices. You can change cultural conditions – gradually, it always takes time – to allow people a greater range of choices. There’s no particular reason why more women couldn’t work in tech – men are not naturally better at it or more interested in it than women – it is the cultural conditions that have caused a gender imbalance there. And that is *bad* for the industry overall – they end up launching terrible products that fail because they lack the perspective of half the population.

          This is a long-term data-gathering exercise designed to allow a trend to be monitored and influenced. It shouldn’t be treated as a naming and shaming exercise and the way the media have been misusing it is disgraceful.

          And yes, of course we should also be looking at pay gaps for ethnic minority groups too. Absolutely. But the thing is that women are also members of those groups and are not a minority – we make up half the population! So it makes sense to start with gender, simply because of the population size.

        • There must be more to it than cultural bias though.

          It seems that every “culture” has women doing most of the child rearing, whether its an Amazonian tribe, isolated tribes in Papau New Guinea, Australian Aboriginies or so-called advanced countries like the UK and US.

          Why would all known human existence have females predominantly rearing children if it wan’t naturally the best option?

          It can’t be down to cultural conditions in all of these groups surely? There simply must be more to it.

        • Kathy says:

          Alan, it ‘seems’ that way to you because you’re making a generalisation based on very limited data to confirm your existing beliefs.

          There’s actually huge variations in child-rearing practices between cultures and across time. Indeed, in many cultures and time periods the question doesn’t even make sense, because children are/were working alongside their parents and distinction between external paid work and domestic labour does not/did not exist – all activity is work to support the family unit*, and anyone capable of doing it does/did it.
          *Which, of course, it not necessarily a nuclear family unit.

          There’s even variations between modern European countries, and between Europe and the US, based on factor like availability of maternity and paternity leave.

          Yes, of course, women get pregnant, give birth and feed their babies – that has not historically and universally precluded them from working or men from assisting with childcare.

        • My existing beliefs don’t really come in to it. From a personal experience point of view, what I have seen from numerous historical and travelogue documentaries show that women stay in the “village” to tend the children, men go out hunting.

          Of course, women often do more than this and take the children out when they go “gathering” or farming but, almost without exception, the women are tending the children (whether they are doing other tasks or leaving the children in a sort of creche tended by other women from the village).

          It is good to see that some “modern European countries” are bucking the trend (I assume that is what you mean by “variations”) and encouraging men to perform childcare and women to stay in work. Is it in the best interest of the child? Only time will tell, but its definitely in the best interests of “equality” and any decent modern society should encourage that.

          Of course, absolutely none of this has anything to do with gathering frequent flyer miles.

          • Actually, that is not true (says the man with an A-level in Sociology).

            Men gravitate towards higher status jobs. Studies of remote tribes have found that, when what you (as a Westerner) would see as a low status role is seen as having higher status in that society, men do it.

        • Interesting (says the man with no official sociology experience whatsoever). I wonder why that is? Why would men, all over the world, get the status jobs?

          Is this cause or effect? Do the men gravitate towards the status jobs or are they cosidered status jobs because men do them?

          Equally interestingly, why don’t the womeen in any of these cultures do the status jobs. What is it about women that allows this to happen everywhere?

        • Kathy says:

          (The replies function on this board is really not good for this sort of discussion!)

          There’s a chicken and egg effect to the status thing because we have good evidence that male-dominated occupations are given higher status than female dominated ones regardless of the nature of the occupation itself – and thus pay. When the gender balance of a profession changes from being female-dominated to male-dominated the average pay increases, when the gender balance goes in the other direction it decreases. Status appears to track who is performing the occupation rather than the occupation itself. Thus heavy manual labour performed by women is lower status than that performed by men. When child-rearing or teaching is performed by men it is high status, when performed by women low status.

          Although we should remember that this is all correlational data, and correlation does not equal causation.

          Alan, it happens because most societies are patriarchal – deeply embedded structural and cultural conditions perpetuate it. It’s something that can be changed over time. Has already changed, in fact – not so long ago it would have been impossible for me as a single woman to get a credit card in my own name, to bring it back round to something vaguely frequent-flyer related.

        • Genghis says:

          “correlation does not equal causation”. You clearly listen to More or Less?

        • Alan – hunter gatherers are nomads who move to find food. Farmers are sedentary communities that produce their own food and are thus able to stay in one place. Totally different societal systems. Also, the question isn’t “What is it about women that allows this to happen everywhere?”, or at least it shouldn’t be. Perhaps a more relevant question is “What is it about our society that allows this to happen?”. You should maybe ask yourself why your first instinct is to leap to find a reason to blame women for their own perceived lower status.

          I prefer “Correlation does not *imply* causation” personally. It’s more precise. Other than that, I thoroughly agree Kathy!

        • Also, this paragraph goes a long way to explaining the pay disparity. It doesn’t excuse it.

          “AGL has greater numbers of women in more junior roles which are lower-paid. As we progress through the organisation, proportionally, the number of women vs. men declines.”

      • Tilly says:

        Well said Kathy!

  6. Frankie says:

    OT, Is this an OK use of avios at Christmas/New Year time? if anyone can be so kind as to give their thoughts? I’ve only ever used avios on a BA 2 for 1 voucher for a long haul CW flights.
    2 PAX. LHR to BNE one way economy for cash with Emirates for £700 per person. (This is a flex fare and included £100 off the fare for using Amex offer with Emirates)
    2 PAX. SYD to BKK, economy in Qantas for 25k avios per person and £52.40 cash per person
    2 PAX. BKK to LHR, Club World for 75k avios per person and £180.70 cash per person
    Thanks in advance to anyone who comments.

    • Mikeact says:

      You mean next Christmas? I wish you luck.

      • Stu N says:

        The BKK-LHR leg is almost certainly good value as BA singles are prohibitively expensive. If you value Avios at 1-1.5p, unless fares are under £1,200 per person the Avios is good value. Of course, its worth checking business on other airlines to give a full comparison.

        SYD-BKK comparison would be c.£300-400 on a similar measure – I have no idea if this is good or bad.

        As you actually seeing availability for these sectors though (think that’s what Mikeact is referring to!)?

        • JamesB says:

          BA econmy return EDI to BKK in December peak was coming in at just under £1500 last week. Needed a ow to someplace in se Asia and got sort of lucky when they release 6 CW to BKK on 24th. Took one for the monent. Garuda has excellent fares to BKK in J for most of the year, excluding summer and most of December, at the monent so might be wirth checking for Oz and other destinations.

        • Frankie says:

          Thanks all. Yes. I have already booked a month ago. Flight one (cash economy) 27th Dec. Flight 2 avios economy 9th Jan. Flight 3 avios club world 18th Jan

  7. Hi Guys

    Two questions if anybody knows the answer.

    The save £50 on £250 spend at Hilton is this an accumulative spend on do I need to hit it in one go?

    The new Financial Times £25 back on £30 spend would buying a subscription to digital trigger this ?

  8. MarkZ says:

    Apologies, but am I missing something? The maximum number of Le Club AccorHotels points available for a 2-year print+digital Economist subscription appears to to be 4,000, not 12,000?

    • There is a box further down the page which takes you to the special offer.

      • MarkZ says:

        Thanks Rob, you are right. There are two offers displayed on the page – the one to choose is the one that says “12,000 Rewards points” in the description! Doh!

  9. JamesB says:

    Anybody tempted by the economist offer needs to be aware that most UK residents can access tge digital version fir fred via tge subscripgion taken out by their local authority library. It varies by region but some LA have a very impresiive list of free digital subscriptions.

    • Steve says:

      Obviously a lot of local library heads building up a large Avios balance.

      • Janeyferr says:

        Most will come via a packaged service like Zinio, though we’re not supposed to privately benefit from council purchasing in any case.

  10. Soloflyer1977 says:

    I’ve been found out! I thought that might be the case…

    • Boris says:

      My local butchers does it and puts it through as a purchase. He also does it with credit cards with regular customers.

      He is however a very expensive butcher. But the food is excellent!

    • lumma says:

      Its been a while since I’ve been to one but I remember Asda offering it on the self service tills

    • Hi Boris, your butcher sounds like my friend Dave, is he in North London by any chance?

  11. Thanks for the tip of Krisflyer, off to convert my Heathrow Rewards points now, for 50% bonus. Every little helps!

Please click here to read our data protection policy before submitting your comment.