BIG NEWS: BA moves to revenue-based tier status for Bronze, Silver, Gold and Gold Guest List

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• sxparkin says:

  12 Jan12 January 14:14

  Today – UK Sunday Times – Travel section p50 Crisp overview and seems pretty accurate article on this subject – no mention of the 2 4 1 Voucher in the paragraph on BA Amex card though – seems odd to miss the main point of the card for most ! Listening to the pod cast now Loyalty Leaders ‘ Has BA overplayed their hand ?’ featuring Rob..interesting discussion too FYI

  • Rob says:

    12 Jan12 January 16:14

    That Times article looks heavily lifted from here ….

    • R01 says:

      12 Jan12 January 18:43

      Thought the same things. Basically plagiarised

• Jonathan says:

  12 Jan12 January 14:22

  With these changes, it half makes you wonder how long it’ll take BA to take a leap out of Qatar Airways book and stop travellers (with no status) on the very cheapest Business class tickets from being able to access the lounges…

  • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

    12 Jan12 January 14:43

    Like Finnair has been doing for some time!

  • Ilou says:

    12 Jan12 January 14:46

    At least QA is a proper top notch lounge ! I kinda get why they have such a policy.. BA lounges quality is not anywhere near !

  • Throwawayname says:

    12 Jan12 January 15:09

    I was surprised to discover that Finnair do this even within Europe. Check out the prices on the HEL-MAN route for a laugh, you don’t even get a blocked seat in C!

  • Phil says:

    12 Jan12 January 15:33

    This is getting chatted about on FT and some people surprisingly see it as a good thing.
    I don’t think they realise that to make a ‘CE / CW light’ they would bump the CE / CW fare up first.

    Lot of discussion of economy paid lounge access too and simultaneously lounges being emptied of non-status folk meaning quieter.

    Just points to the duff comms out of BA that speculation allowed to fill a void

    • RC says:

      12 Jan12 January 16:02

      Flyertalk is full of kidz whose suggestions always revolve around what’s good for the person suggesting it at that moment in time. Lots of fake goods and GGLs on there already.
      Seems a fair portion even claim to be GGL4L, which says it all. (There are about 100 of those, and most couldn’t care less for flyertalk geeks.)

      Realistically, little will change. Wil the lounges empty out – not until 2927 as status drops happen.
      Will gold benefits increase?Unlikely.
      Will GGL get cars to the plane? no
      Will BA suddenly decide to throw out extra guest passes for lounges? no
      Will there be a chance to buy lounge access? Yes – you buy a club or higher ticket.
      Will BA have lost a swathe of low yielding but very high frequency use ‘road warriors’. Yes – because it does nt have the frequency of flights at best times of day to many locations.
      Do at least on HFP many are in the maturity of the ‘acceptance’ state. FT still in shock and negotiation. Which tells a lot about the relative immaturity on that site perhaps?

      • Andrew John Bent says:

        12 Jan12 January 17:53

        We’ll probably have to wait until 2927 for Heathrow’s 3rd runway even if the lounges do empty out before then.

      • Phil says:

        12 Jan12 January 22:15

        Bit harsh tbf

      • GUWonder says:

        13 Jan13 January 07:24

        The “kidz” reference is sort of funny. Flyertalk demographics tend to have the site users — especially its more active members — on the older age side. Younger side folks interested in this stuff have been more into things like Reddit, vlog type stuff and other spaces.

        • Phil says:

          13 Jan13 January 08:44

          I agree anyone below early millennials is probably on those.

          I do find some very opinionated posters there can get quite irate if their post isn’t taken as gospel / seen rudeness towards those straying from gospel of their preaching hence never joined just dipped in to read.

          Generally though seems an alright crowd with a passion for flying

    • Throwawayname says:

      12 Jan12 January 16:13

      They won’t be bumping up any fares because they can’t afford to do that. BA basically have zero pricing power in relation to anyone who isn’t flying long-haul to/from London. If anything, such a move should make the base fares cheaper so that they can appear on the Expedias and corporate travel agencies of the world.

      • Danny says:

        12 Jan12 January 18:25

        Exactly. The only way that BA’s fares can go is down.

      • GUWonder says:

        12 Jan12 January 19:58

        And by May, the vast majority of non-UK/non-Irish passengers transiting LHR between short and long-haul will have to pay the UK ETA tax. That’s going to turn off some people, not just because of the money but also because it involve times and mind space that other routes don’t.

        • Rob says:

          12 Jan12 January 20:20

          This. I’ve written about this before and people always reply ‘no one is going to stop transiting through London for the sake of £10’. Except its not £10, its the need to remember to fill in the forms, the worry that you may be rejected (perhaps one member of your party has a criminal record) and will lose the flight cost, the worry you may delete the confirmation email etc. People just want an easy life.

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

          12 Jan12 January 20:51

          Rob yet people have been applying for the equivalents in the USA, Canada, Australia as well as visas for the likes of India and China (and that’s just off the top of my head) for many years now.

          And the things you say about rejection apply to all of the above as well.

          Allying for an ETA will be one of the simplest of pre trip tasks for most people.

        • Rob says:

          12 Jan12 January 21:14

          You’re missing the point – this is about the transfer, not the end point. We’re talking about people flying from the US to, say, Milan via a hub – Heathrow, Amsterdam, Frankfurt etc. One of these hubs requires the flyer to fill in a form to transfer, the others don’t. Who are you booking?

        • Throwawayname says:

          12 Jan12 January 20:55

          That is a really good observation, not because it hadn’t been picked up before, but because it demonstrates how clueless BA are in managing data and timing. It’s from about now that people will begin realising that they need the additional paperwork, so at this point BA won’t have enough data to interpret the effect of the move on future bookings. Instead of keeping a ‘ceteris paribus’ approach, in order to gauge that before making changes to the FFP, they cracked on with the changes before they’re in a position to understand the effect of the new measure.

          There’s always the theoretical possibility that someone’s done that on purpose in order to be able to point to the ETA [and not the FFP] as the reason for EU pax deserting the airline, but I get the impression that BA management and their consultant friends are far too arrogant to have been thinking like that.

        • Throwawayname says:

          12 Jan12 January 21:00

          @BAFIHGS , we’re talking connecting pax, not those actually travelling to the UK. Imagine having to fly between Italy/Greece and Scandinavia, you can either fly via AMS/ZRH with your national ID card or via LHR with the need for a valid passport as well as an evisa. Most people won’t even spend 10 seconds before making a decision on that.

        • GUWonder says:

          13 Jan13 January 07:36

          The UK ETA for transit thing is only valid for 2 years. Given children’s passports are often only valid for 3-5 years and still adult passports in some countries are only valid for 5 years, and then you have 3-6 months additional validity requirement for the passport, it’s a nuisance to have to juggle this for short-haul trips in particular.

          US airports don’t count on international to international transit traffic from ESTA-required users to anywhere near the same extent as BA/LHR will for ETA-required users of LHR.

          As with Brexit, the UK has sort of pulled another own-goal with this move.

      • Phil says:

        12 Jan12 January 21:17

        Wouldn’t they need to put a distinction between CE light and CE or CW light and CW.
        If it is just the cost of a lounge difference it doesn’t really make any meaningful impact.

        I would expect the light fares to be slightly below the original business price so it looks like you are getting a cheaper option, with the full fat fares stepping a little higher to make that differential appear greater.

        BA could easily push a price up £50-£100 on some routes where comptition is more than that. Then drop your light fare similar and you have an artificial appearence of things being lower.

        On the ETA aspect I do see it as a barrier purely because I have seen people get them wrong in other countries or be rejected for daft bureaucratic reasons ( esp India) while having an extra queue delay.
        It also being new expect the usual teething issues on intro.

        LHR on tight connections could become a deep problem if all doesn’t go smoothly.
        Do airlines get fines if you travel with an invalid UK ETA as per overseas schemes? Now that could get interesting

        • Throwawayname says:

          12 Jan12 January 21:33

          There’s also luggage, at least on AFKL the light business fares don’t include that, which makes them better value for status holders who get luggage included with their status (2 pieces for Flying Blue Platinum).

          I don’t know about ex-CDG/AMS, but some of the AF light fares from Germany, Italy etc are very good indeed (e.g. travel-dealz often show €500-odd premium economy return to DXB, and occasionally well under €1000 in business class), I expect BA to be cheaper than them for ex-EU itineraries.

• Greeny says:

  12 Jan12 January 19:05

  Has there been no follow up from BA media department to clarify/explain BAs thoughts? Just an email fire and forget!

  • JDB says:

    12 Jan12 January 20:44

    It would be highly unusual for any company media team to offer some sort of running commentary following a media release, let alone explain the management’s “thoughts”.

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

      12 Jan12 January 20:54

      Though they were pretty quick to announce “clarifications” when they announced the year end changes.

      But it does say something that they haven’t even come up with an extended list of FAQs.

      • Phil says:

        12 Jan12 January 21:22

        While comms have been woeful and let the narrative spiral / speculation fill the void of facts it is only 1st week back and possibly it now has to go through multiple hands and sign-offs before they drop anything else after the mitigation bonus debacle and Twitter replies going off intuition not any firm guidance

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

          12 Jan12 January 21:34

          Perhaps if they hadn’t been in such a rush to announce it in the first place they would have had time to review it properly!

          It being the “holidays” is a pretty poor excuse.

          It was their choice to announce this in the lacuna between Christmas and New Year in the first place. Did they think no one would notice and we would all be distracted by searching for batteries for the kids gadgets or how much Turkey they had left?

        • Phil says:

          12 Jan12 January 21:49

          @BA Flyer IHG Stayer
          Someone mentioned 31st Dec was ed of financial year so last op before that.
          Must admit feels like the bury the bad news day and hope everyone still books the Q1 & 2 hols in Jan

        • sigma421 says:

          13 Jan13 January 09:47

          Agree with BA Flyer IHG Stayer. Additionally, while I can see that announcing it during the holidays may have seemed a good way to bury the news, they actually ended up doing it at.a moment when people had time to read about it, understand it and get cross about it.

• Simon says:

  12 Jan12 January 21:22

  I’ve just checked in at the F Wing. Agent told me that BA were planning a new lounge at C gates and pay to use lounges.

  • Phil says:

    12 Jan12 January 21:54

    Wouldn’t that be the kind of thing they should announce to investors first.
    Might be an internal rumour rather than facts otherwise could be dodgy them letting it become public selectively

    • JDB says:

      12 Jan12 January 22:01

      The new C lounge wouldn’t be a remotely big enough project to require an RNS release, nor is it at all market sensitive.

      It’s also absolutely no secret – I reported it earlier on this thread when there were silly comments that these TP changes were about reducing lounge occupancy to the point where BA could/would return space to save on rent!! Lounge capacity at LHR will be increased and quality improved. The C lounge is part of a bigger project that will see B and C satellites extended and the D satellite built.

      • Phil says:

        12 Jan12 January 22:17

        The second part of that statement by the op.
        We ould speculate but a BA employee stating as fact would br market sensitive info I would have thought

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

      12 Jan12 January 22:15

      Fitting out a C lounge is likely part of managing the refurbs of the A lounges.

      They need spaces to send people to and there is already space in C earmarked for it and if you know where to look you can see the blocked off escalator shaft that would lead up to it.

  • Throwawayname says:

    12 Jan12 January 21:57

    This is going to be so much fun [to watch from a distance]!

    • GUWonder says:

      13 Jan13 January 07:49

      I can’t be the only one that has a Queen classic in mind when it comes to this situation:

      [Verse]
      Buddy, you’re a boy, make a big noise Playing in the street
      Gonna be a big man someday
      You got mud on your face
      You big disgrace
      Kicking your can all over the place, singing[/verse]
      [Chorus]
      We will, we will rock you
      We will, we will rock you[/chorus]

      There is going to be some frustrating rocking going on. But I’ll pounce if it provides a window of opportunity for more mileage ticket space for me to take or even lower fares on BA from Stockholm.

  • JDB says:

    12 Jan12 January 22:08

    I think the ‘pay to use’ aspect mentioned above re lounges is part of the plan to move (as they have already started) to simplified fare families with ‘lite’ type fares not necessarily including lounge access, something already practised by other OW airlines. The new Nevio system will make it easier to offer unbundled fares and to offer extras like hand luggage, lounge access etc.

  • CheshirePete says:

    13 Jan13 January 04:43

    I was also informed very recently that it would span the entire length of the C terminal and have multiple sections.

• BadOmens says:

  13 Jan13 January 08:07

  Do we have any official confirmation that “Soft Landing” is gone? I’m about 580 points away from Gold, but could only be bothered with it if got me a soft landing in 2026. If not, then I’ll use the money better elsewhere.

  • GUWonder says:

    13 Jan13 January 08:39

    Even if we have an answer on BA’s soft-landing proposition for now, I wouldn’t trust BA not to change its mind on soft-landings at some later point and do so without giving us enough notice to be considered customer-friendly by me.

    • BadOmens says:

      13 Jan13 January 09:01

      Very true!

  • JDB says:

    13 Jan13 January 09:01

    On the basis there’s no “official confirmation” that soft landings exist, it seems unlikely there would be any confirmation that they have “gone”. For BA, it would seem to make sense to maintain the ambiguity. Soft landings are extraordinarily generous, but keeping them after next April might be seen overly to delay resolution of the too many status holders problem.

    • Scott says:

      13 Jan13 January 09:07

      Too many status holders isn’t an issue. Unless every gold card holder suddenly choose to fly multiple times a year on the cheapest tickets and takes full.advantage of everything, it can’t be costing that much.
      Someone who scrapes silver after April probably isn’t going to be in a position where they can afford to pay to fly say 10-20 more times and then spend hours guzzling champagne etc. More likely the odd trip or they’ll barely use that status.

      • JDB says:

        13 Jan13 January 09:14

        It’s not just the lounges, although that’s an issue not only for numbers but how the faux status holders use the lounges. The problem is that a small number of status holders are using up a disproportionate amount of the higher tier services. It’s a bit like the situation after European airlines abandoned intra Europe first class and went all economy. The high fare paying businessmen resented sitting next to the tourists who had paid tuppence for their seats, so Club/business class was born.

        BA is simply redrawing the line between those who make a difference to their bottom line and expect to be recognised and rewarded for that vs those who have done a few cheapo trips who then think BA owes them a living.

        • Ziggy says:

          13 Jan13 January 09:38

          @JDB. This nonsense is getting tiresome.

          (1) BA is not redrawing any lines because, as has been pointed out to you ad infinitum, the new rules will (mostly) benefit flyers who would have flown with BA anyway because the companies they work for have corporate contracts with the airline.

          Yes, some high-end flyers who pay to fly full fare/last minute J & F with their own hard earned cash will benefit too, but if you think that this is a significant percentage of BA’s customer base (or even anything more than a rounding error) you are deluded.

          (2) You torpedo your own argument by saying that “[t]he problem is that a small number of status holders are using up a disproportionate amount of the higher tier services”.

          Yes, a small number of people may well use up a disproportionate amount of the higher tier services, but because it’s a small number of people (your words) it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference to BA’s bottom line.

          Do you really think that BA would go to all this cost and upheaval if they just wanted to get rid of a small number of people who make the most of the benefits that the airline has given them?

          These changes have nothing to do with redrawing any lines, with making anyone feel more special, with making more room in the lounges, with giving anyone access to improved benefits, or with culling the FF numbers.

          They have everything to do with BA wanting to monetize its FF program in the same way that AA/DL/UA have monetized theirs, and the airline is taking the punt that the money they will make from whatever ancillary services it choose to offer (extra cash from credit cards, holiday sales, car rentals, shopping portals, etc…) will offset the money lost from flyers they have alienated with the latest changes.

        • RC says:

          13 Jan13 January 19:35

          That’s quite a simplification of a complex issue.
          If you , as you hint, work with or for BA, that might explain why so much is wrong with the business.
          Ie it has failed to grasp that it’s customer base is not so binary as you suggest.

    • Ziggy says:

      13 Jan13 January 09:18

      What makes you think that BA believes that it has a “too many status holders problem”?

      BA has been deliberately miniting new status holders at an aggressive rate for at least a couple of years and as there’s is no evidence from BA that it’s unhappy with how many status holders it has, you appear to be coming to a conclusion based on what you think the driver is for the recent BAEC changes.

      The idea that the changes to BAEC are due to “too many status holders” seems to come (primarily) from people who think that the lounges are overcrowded, but I have yet to see anything from BA that would indicate that the airline either agrees with this or even cares about this.

      • JDB says:

        13 Jan13 January 10:12

        @Ziggy – speak to people at BA. They will confirm. Some phrases are verbatim. You should also speak to some of the passengers that have been advocating for these changes.

        The point about the small numbers is how disproportionately they are affecting things. The lounges are just one part of the issue.

        BA hasn’t exactly deliberately been minting new status holders, but they made what they now recognise as overly generous offers post Covid and underestimated the extent to which and how the offers would be used. The recovery has panned out considerably better than forecast.

        • Ziggy says:

          13 Jan13 January 10:36

          (1) The number of passengers who will have been advocating for these changes and who, through spending they control, contribute to BA revenue & profits will be negligible. There simply aren’t that may rich people flying BA on their own money.

          I have no doubt that a good number of people flying on OPM are in favour of these changes too, but as they have little direct effect on the airline’s bottom line, they’re irrelevant.

          (2) BA extended the 2x TP promotion on BA Holidays within the past 6 – 7 months and during a time when these changes to the FF program were well on the way to being finalised, so if these changes are about reducing the number of elites and if they’ve come about because BA recognised that it had made overly generous offers, why was the poster child for these offers, extended?

          BA has shown time and time again that it’s happy to be a mediocre airline which makes the most of its dominant position at LHR and which invests in its product only as much as it feels that it really has to. The idea that these changes are part of a scheme to make things more premium or to improve things for a select group of people is laughable. That’s not in BA’s DNA.

          Sure, will some people at the airline attempt to spin these changes as an attempt to please the top echelons of its flyer pool? Of course. That’s politics and egos need to be manages and massaged.

          The reality is, however, that this is all about taking a pathway that the airline believes will lead to more money in its coffers and has nothing to do with the passenger of frequqnt flyer experience.

        • JDB says:

          13 Jan13 January 11:19

          @Ziggy – most pundits here suggest BA will actually lose revenues as a result of these changes, so you are quite a lone voice in suggesting it’s all about “money in its coffers”. Although the number of status pax may be reduced expansion of lounge capacity and enhancements to the lounge offering are planned and budgeted.

          Re DNA, having been I been involved since privatisation in 1987, it’s been a problem for BA in more recent years that it doesn’t really have a DNA, something they recognise and are trying to fix but that’s very difficult. One thing that you say was in its DNA is cost cutting and that won’t change because the cost base is still too high.

      • NorskSaint says:

        13 Jan13 January 19:01

        May have been mentioned on one of the other =124 pages but Oliver Ranson from Airline Economics (I think Rob recommended his blog) did a great piece on how the net affect of all of this will be negligible on the lounge overcrowding situation due to the fact that actually status holders make up a very small amount of the overall number in the lounge at any one time.

    • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

      13 Jan13 January 12:32

      There may be no “official confirmation” that soft landings exist but in the real world they clearly do.

      They have existed for many years and would have been programmed into the system for them to be implemented as part of year end processes for each status / collection year.

      BA really can’t now come along and deny their existence and claim it’s some sort of IT error they have overlooked or claim that call centre staff have issued them in error to a small number of passengers who have called in and asked for one.

      There comes a point where custom and practice even when not overtly expressed as a contractual condition does in effect become contractual.

      • JDB says:

        13 Jan13 January 15:37

        @BA Flyer IHG Stayer – it’s either contractual or it isn’t. This isn’t like footpaths!

        BA has already shortened the long standing run off period.

        I have know idea whether BA will maintain soft landings next but I don’t think anyone will be successfully taking any legal action if they did go. For now, keeping quiet suits BA and the ambiguity gives them a bargaining chip.

        • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

          13 Jan13 January 17:21

          Tell that to numerous businesses who have lost employment tribunal cases because custom & practice effectivly contractual because it had continuned for a sufficiently long period of time and applied equally to either all or a specific group of employees.

          All I am saying is that there is a case that could be made that soft landings have existed for several years and is applied equally that it is now contractual.

          I don’t think the change of the run off period isn’t the same as people were given sufficient notice of the change.

  • Tom says:

    13 Jan13 January 11:14

    I’ve had personal confirmation from BA as have many others that there is no change planned to the ‘soft landing’ model – it is only mischievous rumour spreaders on here that are propagating that story. The less said about it probably the better!

    • JDB says:

      13 Jan13 January 11:21

      Yes, all the requests for clarification are asking for trouble.

    • Ziggy says:

      13 Jan13 January 11:57

      @JDB

      Re: “most pundits here suggest BA will actually lose revenues as a result of these changes, so you are quite a lone voice in suggesting it’s all about “money in its coffers”

      Erm… no.

      I said that BA is making these moves because it thinks that it will help put more money in its coffers while others are speculating that this will backfire and cause the airline to lose money. That doesn’t make me a “lone voice”. I didn’t say that this *will* make BA more money and others haven’t said that this isn’t a move by BA to try to make more money. The is no contradiction here.

      Also…

      You say: “One thing that you say was in its DNA is cost cutting and that won’t change because the cost base is still too high.”

      And in the paragraph immediately before that statement you say “[a]lthough the number of status pax may be reduced expansion of lounge capacity and enhancements to the lounge offering are planned and budgeted”.

      Those two statements cannot both be true.

      Why would an airline that has a cost base that is too high (your words) choose to add to that cost base by expanding lounge capacity when the number of passengers with access to those lounges is being culled? Who’s that extra capacity for and how is this plan part of the cost cutting that you say the airline needs (and will do)?

      • JDB says:

        13 Jan13 January 12:28

        @Ziggy – if you have ever managed your own business or managed budgets in a big business, you will know that it is very possible, and often desirable, to cut costs in some areas and/or overall at the same time as investing or increasing costs in other areas. The current huge increase in IT spending is part of a revenue raising and ultimately cost cutting project. There are cost cutting initiatives across the board. They are going through a golden patch but wisely preparing for tougher times.

        BA is planning to increase the quality of the lounge offering at LHR and part of that is by refurbishment and increase of overall lounge space which is also necessary as BA increases long haul capacity at the expense of short haul (as they have announced).

        • Ziggy says:

          13 Jan13 January 13:11

          @JDB

          You say: “it is very possible, and often desirable, to cut costs in some areas and/or overall at the same time as investing or increasing costs in other areas”

          Of course it is … but investing in more lounge space when you (a) want to cut costs and (b) are actively reducing the number of people who have access to lounges isn’t an example of this is it?

          You say: “The current huge increase in IT spending is part of a revenue raising and ultimately cost cutting project.”

          The current huge increase in IT spending is because BA has neglected to invest in its systems since last century and as a result, its systems simply do not function. It may save some cash eventually, but the driver here certainly isn’t just cost cutting or revenue raising.

          You say: “BA is planning to increase the quality of the lounge offering at LHR and part of that is by refurbishment and increase of overall lounge space which is also necessary as BA increases long haul capacity at the expense of short haul (as they have announced).”

          Just where is this increase in passengers going to come from to fill your reported increase in long-haul capacity and to fill the extra lounge space that BA plans (according to you)?

          Not from feeder traffic (because you say BA will cut short-haul traffic) so, presumably from the UK? How’s that going to work?

          To be frank, you sound like you’re reading from a BA press release.You paint a picture of a management team that’s cutting costs in exactly the right places to ensure that its premium customers aren’t negatively affected, that’s increasing spending in exactly the right places to make its best customers happy, and one that cares about serving up a premium offering.

          That’s not a BA that anyone with an objective point of view will recognise and it’s not one that I believe exists.

          BA will continue as it has for years – trying to make as much money as possible while spending as little as it can get away with, and that’s why the changes to BAEC have nothing to do with improving things for any group of passengers and everything to do with trying to make more money.

        • RC says:

          13 Jan13 January 15:22

          @JDB. BA has woefully underinvested in some costs. They’re too low. A high margin and appalling (independent ( customer scores mean BA has a major problem.
          Ironically the margin is under earning because costs are too low and BA has lost either higher spend customers or a major slice of their travel. The present changes won’t help:
          Now, BA can do what it wants within the law, but behaving as if it’s a business with excess demand of a LVMH handbag when you’re selling mid range mediocre mid market doesn’t end well for businesses.
          What’s astonishing is perhaps how arrogant BA clearly thinks it’s something special. It’s Heathrow slot pool is, but everything else is very very mediocre.
          How many businesses employ a customer experience manager who uses airside chauffeurs to avoid customers if the rumours are correct?

        • JDB says:

          13 Jan13 January 15:43

          @RC – what’s funny is that with all these references to BA being so mediocre why have so many people been so obsessed about chasing status and are now kicking up a huge stink about maybe having a status that confers fairly little benefit taken away from them. It doesn’t really add off.

          They liked BA until they were chucked and slagging off exes never seems to be very attractive.

        • Rob says:

          13 Jan13 January 16:58

          That’s the whole point though isn’t it? If BA was the worlds greatest airline it wouldn’t even need a loyalty programme.

          What happens now is that people go ‘well, BA is a bit rubbish BUT if I put up with it on this trip and a few others I’ll get status, and lounge + fast track + priority boarding + crappy BA flight > no lounge + no priority anything + decent flight on another carrier’.

          Remember that we have run multiple competitions in the past (funded by non-BA airlines) to test this. We’ve said ‘win 2 business class flights to New York on whoever you want – to enter, just pick the airline you prefer and that’s what you get if you win’.

          BA always does terribly in these competitions in almost inverse proportion to its market share, and that big gap is filled almost entirely by the requirement for earning Avios and TP.

        • RC says:

          13 Jan13 January 19:40

          Are you on the corporate Kool Aid?
          Much of that is unsubstantiated guesses.
          If BA wants to match, let alone surpass the quality of Delta, SAS or even easyJet it can kiss goodbye to its profit margin. It’s so far behind yet is in denial about how badly it lags.
          There’s a rumour BA even ‘selects’ the better NPS to IAG because some are still so bad.

  • JRich says:

    13 Jan13 January 11:17

    I asked about this yesterday, as am in a similar position. The first answer was to call back in March/April to confirm. When I pointed out that by then it would be too late to push to the next level the CS agent put me on hold… He returned 5 minutes later to declare that soft landings would indeed be respected after April 1st. Take that for how ever much (or little) it is worth….

    • JDB says:

      13 Jan13 January 11:43

      I think it’s April 2026 that’s really the issue. That’s a lifetime away given the current pace of change.

  • Sarah says:

    13 Jan13 January 15:53

    I asked on Twitter and was told “we can confirm that the soft landing proposition has not changed”. I asked if they could confirm that the soft landing would definitely remain in place but they just repeated that line. It seemed like a carefully crafted line so I wouldn’t put it past them to change things down the line

• GUWonder says:

  13 Jan13 January 09:50

  Would be interesting to know the nationalities of the external consulting folks who worked this project for BA. Probably doesn’t matter all that much since they tend to pull from the same material depositories anyway, but it’s rather amusing that they seem to have sold BA on trying to do as the US3 airlines.

  • JDB says:

    13 Jan13 January 10:22

    Why wouldn’t BA look at the US FF model when that market has the oldest and most evolved FF market? Do you not think other European airlines will follow suit in one form or another? While lots of people are in a bate with BA threatening to take their business elsewhere, a few posts are beginning to recognise that the grass may not really be greener today, let alone when the new airline inevitably moves the goalposts.

    • Throwawayname says:

      13 Jan13 January 10:46

      They won’t follow suit because they aren’t so daft as to design their products for a market that basically doesn’t exist in Europe. Lufthansa have just moved away from that type of model for status qualification.

      • GUWonder says:

        13 Jan13 January 11:07

        True, but Finnair moved toward that model as they lost their East Asia business and tried to replace it with North America and DOH-centric business.

        • Throwawayname says:

          13 Jan13 January 11:28

          Finnair basically is a regional airline which happens to serve a few long haul destinations, that is why they can change focus quite easily, plus their home market has a lot of small airports where they’re a bit of a monopoly and can grab good margins. They can’t be compared to a global airline, I’d even say that SAS is on a completely different level of scale, complexity etc.

        • JDB says:

          13 Jan13 January 11:48

          @Throwawayname – yes SAS is on a different level of complexity and trying to serve masters in different capitals is problematic. It’s one of the reasons it went bust, only emerging late last year. Finnair had a great model until it couldn’t fly over Russia. It would appear to be up for sale; with AY and TP on the block, there’s going to be a lot of jostling for position.

    • GUWonder says:

      13 Jan13 January 11:10

      I don’t buy the “but we are different” excuses from parties with entrenched interests and hostile to change, but differences are differences. The US3 have such dominance that BA lacks except with regard to London/LHR.

      • Sean says:

        14 Jan14 January 07:40

        Finnair isn’t for sale. It’s currently profitable and it operates more wide bodies than SAS.

• Td8 says:

  13 Jan13 January 10:50

  Scandalous from BA.

  do you know if Star Alliance have status matches for BA gold?

  I have three biz class flights to US in Q1 (gva-lhr, then lhr- US)

  If i send an email telling Swiss that i am gold BA and looking to switch to Swiss, would that work?

  • Clive says:

    13 Jan13 January 12:17

    There’s no harm in asking. They might do something in response to an individual request that is not advertised. But do report back on the result.

  • NorskSaint says:

    13 Jan13 January 19:08

    I recently did a status match with LH from SAS once they moved over to Skyteam so definitely worthwhile trying. Clearly was an opportune moment for LH and all they asked was 6 sectors in 12 weeks if I remember rightly to match to Senator.

• Francisco Sapunaf says:

  13 Jan13 January 10:55

  Morning. Would you kindly review other programs on OneWorld and advise your loyal readers on which one to change to. Or the best way to aim for Gold without paying £20,000 plus taxes on BA airfare? Perhaps fly on partners to achieve this with qualifying miles? This is becoming the worst loyalty program! Thanks

  • Rob says:

    13 Jan13 January 11:15

    We will definitely be doing this BUT we are holding back in case BA reverses course or makes major changes, because it is a substantial time commitment from our side.

    • Greeny says:

      13 Jan13 January 11:26

      Rob do you have any indication that this may happen

      • Danny says:

        13 Jan13 January 12:36

        Won’t be reversed is my bet, but there will most probably be concessions (an educated guess).

    • MY says:

      13 Jan13 January 12:54

      And if you were asked to put a % chance on BA eating humble pie & making major changes/reversing course…

      • Rob says:

        13 Jan13 January 13:04

        Pressure will continue to mount – see HfP tomorrow for an example ….

        • Nick P says:

          13 Jan13 January 21:41

          The clock is ticking down and even if there were some back peddling, trust has been broken with many [self included] already leaving the ‘Club’.

          My remaining duty to burn through my last 2-4-1

        • LittleNick says:

          14 Jan14 January 07:32

          Which article today implies pressure?

        • Rob says:

          14 Jan14 January 08:11

          Got pushed back 24 hours 🙂

      • BA Flyer IHG Stayer says:

        13 Jan13 January 14:14

        Well they stopped forcing brunch on us so anything is possible …

        And would that be a Tom Kerridge pie available from the BOB menu?

        My guess is there won’t be an out and out reversal of revenue based TP earning but some ground given on the likes of soft landings and some adjustment to either the rate of TP earnign or a slight reduction in the thresholds.

        I could even see them delaying the start of this until april 2026 as so many people will have flights and holidays booked for the new 1st April 2025 – 31st March 2026 collection year based on the old system and if they has known about this change months ago (remember people were able to book summer flights months ago) they may have made different choices. However this would require them to acknowledge they made a major mess up and eat a factory full of pie.

    • Andy says:

      13 Jan13 January 22:06

      Do you think the bonus tier point offer for flights booked before 14th Feb but flown after 1 April was an attempt to soften the blow of the new tiers?

      https://www.britishairways.com/content/en/executive-club/offers/tier-point-bonus

      • Rob says:

        13 Jan13 January 22:39

        Failed if it did. What use is 210 bonus TP when Gold needs 20,000?

        • LittleNick says:

          14 Jan14 January 07:34

          It seems they forgot to x13.33 (13.5x) these bonuses so that it would be effective

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.