Maximise your Avios, air miles and hotel points

Bits: Marriott and Man Utd part ways, Qatar / Yannick Alléno menus, KLM SAF surcharge

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission.  See here for all partner links.

News in brief:

Marriott Bonvoy and Manchester United part ways

According to reports in the marketing press, Marriott Bonvoy and Manchester United have not renewed their sponsorship agreement.

This had been a fruitful partnership for Marriott Bonvoy members, with some impressive redemption opportunities available for games at Old Trafford. This included the M Club box, pictured below.

Malaysia Airways retains its partnership with the club, although this has never resulted in match tickets or any other benefits being available to Enrich frequent flyer members as far as I have seen.

With Virgin Red dropping its suite at the AO (Manchester) Arena, opportunities to burn your miles and points for ‘experiences’ redemptions outside London are shrinking.

Hilton’s new partnership with the Football Association should see some opportunities when the national teams are playing away from Wembley.

Qatar Airways partners with Yannick Alléno

Qatar Airways often appears to be on a mission to ensure that its product exceeds the competition in every respect. In the last year or so alone we’ve seen the deployment of ‘game changing’ Starlink wi-fi and the introduction of a caviar service in business class on selected flights from Doha.

(Rhys and I tried both of these on our recent trip to Doha, and both are outstanding.)

One thing that we both felt wasn’t totally world class on our trip was the restaurant in the First Class lounge in Doha. Whilst better than anything you’re ever going to get from a European airline, it wasn’t pushing any boundaries.

The airline clearly thinks the same and has signed a partnership with French chef Yannick Alléno.

The Al Safwa First Class lounge in Doha will now become (I think) the first mainstream airport lounge in the world to be overseen by a chef with a three Michelin star restaurant. I’m excluding Alain Ducasse in Paris because you can’t enter that lounge with status or on short haul tickets.

An offshoot of Pavyllon will be opened in the lounge. There is a Pavyllon in the Four Seasons London Park Lane hotel and the original in Paris holds three stars. (Yannick has 17 Michelin stars in total across his restaurants.)

According to the airline, it will be:

“offering diners a seat at the counter facing an open kitchen – a signature of Alléno’s ‘gastronomic counter’ concept.”

For those who are flying Qatar Airways to/from Paris, you will also find dishes from Yannick appearing in the lounge at Paris CDG as well as on First and Business Class menus.

You can find out more on the Qatar Airways website here.

KLM adds 100% SAF surcharge from London City Airport

KLM adds 100% SAF surcharge from London City

If you’ve noticed that KLM flights between London City and Amsterdam have become more expensive, here’s why.

As part of a trial, KLM is adding a €20 SAF surcharge to the cost of a one-way economy ticket in September (€30 for business class).

Sustainable aviation fuels (SAF) are produced in a variety of ways, from domestic waste, repurposing residual products such as cooking oil or even extracting carbon out of thin air (called eSAF) using renewable energy. The photo above shows conventional jet fuel (left) and SAF (right).

Although SAF emits roughly the same amount of CO₂ during a flight, the impact across the life cycle is at least 65% lower than traditional kerosene. You can find out more in my deep dive with Rolls-Royce here, including a look at the other benefits of SAF such as lower particulates and – potentially – fewer contrails.

At present, KLM applies a 2% SAF surcharge to all tickets as part of an EU mandate that all airlines use at least 2% SAF this year, rising to 6% in 2030 and 70% in 2050.

For two trial routes, KLM has temporarily increased this percentage to 100%. KLM says “The additional amount goes entirely towards the purchase of SAF” so this is a genuine pass-through, not a stealth price rise. Of course, the SAF use is mandated by law and your flight will NOT be using 100% SAF – the money will simply pay for the flight equivalent of SAF.

The trial only applies to flights in September on two routes:

  • Amsterdam to London City
  • Amsterdam to Hamburg

Coincidentally, these are some of the airline’s shortest flights.

During the trial, KLM says it is hoping to “assess passengers’ willingness to pay extra for SAF when it is automatically included in the ticket price”. Zita Schellekens, SVP Sustainability and Strategy adds: “Through this trial, we want to better understand passenger behaviour and examine the role sustainability plays in the decision-making process when purchasing a ticket.”

Comments (75)

  • bafan says:

    It always amuse me that any attempt relating to sustainability somehow always manages to involve fleecing the consumer even more.

    • Nico says:

      Only one person can pay: the customer

    • JDB says:

      Who did you think was going to pay for all these grand political mandates?

    • Bagoly says:

      Is KLM’s idea that the “SAF surcharge” be excluded from the amounts used by the price-comparison websites?

      Congratulations to skyscanner for now including options for cabin and checked bags.

      • Rhys says:

        I believe it’s part of the taxes and fees of the fare, not an ancillary, so it will show the total cost on price comparison websites.

  • David Cohen says:

    On the three star chef point, Air France’s La Premiere lounge in Paris is overseen by Alain Ducasse who I believe has a total of 21 stars.

  • Cat says:

    D+I may be missing something here, but doesn’t Alain Ducasse collaborate with Air France on the restaurant in the lounge in Charles de Gaulle?

    • Rob says:

      I ignored that as it’s not a standard lounge. You can’t get in with elite status, for eg, as you can with Al Safwa.

      • daveinitalia says:

        You can’t get into Al Safwa with oneworld elite status either, according to the oneworld website it needs to be QR Platinum with a business class ticket.

        Do they have a GGL type level where you can get in Al Safwa with any ticket like a GGL+CCR combo?

        • Rob says:

          No, you need a business ticket and QR Platinum. But QR Platinum is very easy to get vs BA GGL.

          • daveinitalia says:

            Most people here don’t have QR Platinum it’s not easy to build up status in QR if you’re already building up status in another oneworld airline.

            You say “Whilst better than anything you’re ever going to get from a European airline” but AF is a European airline and for most people the only way to access Al Safwa, CCR or La Premiere is to fly that particular airlines first class.

          • Dev says:

            … and it’s pretty easy to get into Al Safwa via a regional F ticket purchased either in cash or via points.

            I would also categorize Al Safwa as far more accessible than the La Premiere Lounge, and dare I say it, easier than CCR as well.

          • daveinitalia says:

            @Dev – you still have to get to Doha to make use of this regional F ticket. Whereas for me I just ‘simply’ have to earn GGL and I get CCR access for all these short haul flights I make between Italy and the UK. So to me the CCR is more accessible. To use Al Safwa I’d need to go out of my way.

            The point was La Premiere has a Michelin starred chef collaboration and it’s in Europe so it’s not right to say “[Al Safwa is] better than anything you’re ever going to get from a European airline”

    • JDB says:

      This is idea of chef ‘collaboration’ is all a bit of a commercial gimmick! Raymond Blanc used to collaborate with BA and now Tom Kerridge does.

      Alain Ducasse is a very commercial enterprise nowadays, not quite cutting edge!

  • Ian McWilliams says:

    I don’t understand the SAF surcharge – you say that KLM has increased the SAF to 100% on 2 routes then go on to say your flight will NOT be run on 100% SAF. I’m confused.

    • Rob says:

      The equivalent amount of SAF used on your flight gets mixed into a big fuel tank in Amsterdam!

    • Paul B says:

      Yeah I was a bit confused on this point too. Probably a naive question but why can’t they actually use 100% SAF on these routes? And if it’s all just adding to the overall amount of SAF purchased by the airline (which they’d have been mandated to buy anyway) how isn’t that a price rise by stealth?

      • Rhys says:

        You should read my SAF series with Virgin from 2023. But the bottom line is that not all engines are currently certified to run on 100% SAF (Rolls-Royce are the only ones that are) and, logistically speaking, all the fuel goes into a big tank at Amsterdam/Heathrow etc so you would need to bring in extra tankers to fuel a 100% SAF flight (which is what Virgin did) which is less convenient and more expensive than simply blending the additional SAF into the existing fuel tanks.

        • Tariq says:

          Sounds like the environmental equivalent of homeopathy.

          • Rhys says:

            Except, you know, the benefits of SAF are widely known and studied. So not like homeopathy at all 🙂

          • Tim says:

            The emissions are all mixed together into a single shared atmosphere, so it makes no odds where they are abated. 1 tonnes less CO2 into the atmosphere us a tonne less CO2 in the atmosphere.

  • Pat says:

    I find it very funny to see Europe thinking anyone cares what they do with the climate anymore but okay, let’s say ROTW are “inspired by their climate leadership”, the real issue is the growth in aviation by 2050. There’s little point in a plan of 70% SAF by 2050 (LOL) if that’s going to be with more flights. I keep reading of bigger fleets, more routes. If you want to cut emissions, ban more and more flights otherwise the general trend is up.
    While it’s very good that Europe continues to deindustrialise (the UK even more) and is the main driver for lower CO2 emissions, we need fewer flights not more.

    • JDB says:

      What’s the benefit to us or the planet of Europe deindustrialising when that former industrialisation is simply moved to another part of the world with lower environmental standards and then incurs the environmental and financial cost of shipping the goods back to Europe? It’s too naive for words.

      As for banning flights, this probably isn’t the ideal forum to bang that drum.

      • Pat says:

        I agree with you. I’d like there to be clear carbon taxes on items we purchase. A British factory making a pen is going to have higher standards for making the pen and more stringent carbon emission rules than a factory in China. A carbon tax would reduce the price delta and likely it would not be as cheap anymore. Moreover, consumers would be interested in products that last longer.
        I’m aware it’s clown world eg forcing fully serviceable older vehicles off the road through taxation to be replaced by subsidised BEV is not reducing emissions. It’s better to keep the older vehicle going until it’s no longer serviceable.
        However the current mantra is that as long as emissions are low here, then it doesn’t matter if they’re high elsewhere to keep them low here. The books are deliberately cooked.
        It’s this obvious thinking that we agree on, so why is it so hard to understand if we want to reduce aviation emissions, fly less? Miles and status incentivise people to fly more and reward them for those carbon emissions, instead of finding ways for people to fly less.
        This is the age of behaviour coercion at the state level. The purpose is to prevent a climate catastrophe. Whether you agree with this term or not, maybe it gets your back up, offsetting carbon and greenhouse gas emissions is in everything we do in our lives, every penny you spend in your life and it must increase enormously.

      • Hampshirehog says:

        Absolutely agree, can’t decide if the earlier contribution is naive or trolling.

    • Ken says:

      European and USA deindustrialisation is largely exaggerated other than a few sectors (Steel being the obvious one)

      The decline in world share is more a function of Asian growth.

      Manufacturing was about 30% of USA GDP in the 1960’s and about 10% now. That’s a function of the growth of services not that manufacturing has declined in absolute terms.

      You only need one fridge but you might need on going healthcare for decades.

      The delusion that we should be going back to 10,000 men working in a single factory in Corby or Detroit still seems strong however

    • memesweeper says:

      If we moved to 100% SAF there would be a genuine benefit to the climate even if flying jumps by 100%. Adopting SAF is a whole heap easier to implement than abandoning flying altogether.

      • Ken says:

        The idea of 100% SAF seems fanciful.
        There will never be sufficient feedstocks.

        The ‘capture carbon from the air’ will always be massively more expensive unless electricity really does become too cheap to meter.

        • Pat says:

          SAF is absolute nonsense. It can never be scaled up without huge environmental and ecological costs. SAF would cause an ecological emergency.
          But you’re forgetting. It only matters if the EU/UK are “net zero”. It’s as significant as just Luxembourg. LU could be 100% SAF and it doesn’t make a bit of difference.

          • Nico says:

            Exactly only Europe taking these measures is pointless as Europe is only 5% of emissions.
            As for a 2050 target, guess there are a few chances to change it.

          • Rhys says:

            Innovation requires someone to be first. It seems to me that Europe, with its huge historic emissions, is as good a place as any.

        • Rhys says:

          eSAF becomes massively more attractive as grids transition to intermittent renewables and you end up with over generation. At present, there is no real method to deal with that and we end up turning off wind farms which is obviously stupid. In the future, using the extra electricity for productive purposes is sensible.

          • Pat says:

            Would those be the “huge historic emissions” that propelled the world out of poverty?
            Since 1750 the EU has emitted 20% of the world’s CO2 emissions, around 300-350 billion tonnes. China surpassed cumulative EU emissions in 2024.

          • Pat says:

            It’s not wishful thinking but law.
            The Commissions own forecasts put EU aviation demand at around 46 million tonnes of fuel by 2050. (But take this as a pinch of salt, like the IEA saying coal would start to decline years ago (see today’s FT) being so utterly wrong the forecasts were declared as nuts).
            That’s 32 million tonnes of SAF. This is COLOSSAL.
            EU Law (Regulation 2023/2405) splits 50/50 the share of synthetic SAF and bio-based SAF to be approx 16m tonnes each. This is a monumental figure and it will need billions of Euros of subsidy. The poor grid can barely cope and more and more is being moved away from energy dense fuel sources to the grid.
            5% of EU land is dedicated to SAF, that will need to triple, that’s land being taken away from food production to SAF.
            This will likely lead to deforestation and a huge environmental impact and ecological destruction that we are already seeing with the push to renewables.
            There’s also enormous amounts of CO2 that are released when for example peat is used.
            And remember, ALL THIS, is just so you can keep flying. Go on your holidays, meet your friends, migrate around the world. It’s nuts.

  • riku says:

    Adding the SAF surcharge because it’s mandated by law is like car manufacturers adding a separate “seat belt supplement” and justifying it as a “genuine pass-through” because it’s mandated by law

    • memesweeper says:

      If this is extra SAF then this is a welcome change.

    • Rhys says:

      Most people will never see it. It’s only a line-item when you drill down to the fare details.

      • LittleNick says:

        Will you not see it as an added fee on redemption flights?

        • Rhys says:

          I assume so, but it will presumably be bundled into the overall ‘taxes and fees’ charged and not displayed separately, unless you drill down into the detail.

  • Dan Carey says:

    Not the companies adding another surcharge for the “environment”. They are worse than governments!

    The whole thing is a PR con. If we are serious about reducing flight emissions – don’t fly or invest in high speed rail for short haul. But we know how that turned out for HS2

    • Rhys says:

      SAF reduces lifecycle emissions by around 70%, so it is clearly not a con.

      • T says:

        Sounds a bit like the quote that air source heat pumps are 300% efficient?

        • Rhys says:

          Both of which are true. Plenty of studies on this. Go read them!

          • T says:

            Contrary to popular belief, people who disagree with popular interpretation, are educated, can and do form their own opinions

          • Pat says:

            Let’s go read some IEA reports on coal… oh wait… all wrong.

      • ken says:

        Its a con because it ignores the effects that NOX and contrails have a warming effect that SAF doesn’t really change.

        Intermittant electricity will be better used in battery storage.
        Green hydrogen (which is the eSAF feedstock) will always have alternate uses.

        It also assumes that feedstocks wouldn’t be used for something else – when of course they can (and are) used in other fuels.
        Industry would like you to believe that SAF can be made in meaningful quantities of SAF from residues that have negligble economic vale (tree needles, nut shells or straw).
        Common sense should show you this is absurd.

        • Rhys says:

          None of these things make it a con. SAF can and does reduce CO2 emissions, full stop. The reality is SAF is one of the only ways to do that for aviation. Other industries have more choice when it comes to decarbonising (eg. heating, cars, etc). Aviation is harder to decarbonise.

          • Pat says:

            We do read.
            Crop-based SAF (corn, ethanol, various veg oils) *increases* net emissions vs jet fuel.
            Reminder, the Regulation mandates a split and again, you need 32 million tonnes, perhaps more (no one has a clue, least of all IEA), by 2050 split equally, so 16 million tonnes of SAF.
            Land use changes will release hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2. Deforestation, a food chain catastrophe especially for the developing world not to mention all the water. And all this so people can fly around? Do you think people with kids now want them to grow up to see the world or to stay local? We all know the answer.

            The EU would be competing globally for SAF, especially as we know the world is inspired by our climate leadership and would want to follow.
            There just isn’t enough waste to produce SAF and the energy consumption is huge. I do understand why you want to believe these things. Who wouldn’t like the idea that when after you’ve had your meal with champagne and put your seat in the lie flat position that this flight is having no effect, that it’s cancelled out by the Woodland Trust. But it’s nonsense.
            There is no better way to reduce emissions than to stop flying. Otherwise you’re robbing Peter to pay Paul.

          • Rhys says:

            You’ll be first to volunteer, I assume 😉

          • T says:

            Let’s not worry about all the starving people who can’t afford food and feel good about ourselves because a few people perceive that SAF etal is beneficial (rather than the long con that it actually is)

  • daveinitalia says:

    SAF stuff reminds me of being 17 again, driving with friends and being asked to chip in for the fuel. Whereas if you got a taxi you paid the fare on the meter, you weren’t asked to chip in for the petrol separately.

    Why do airlines feel it’s acceptable to do this? They already have YQ to put these charges under

    • Rhys says:

      Why does it matter if it’s a separate line item vs YQ? Most consumers will never actually see this. It’s only if you click ‘View tax details’ on the KLM website that you’ll see it.

Leave a Reply to daveinitalia Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

The UK's biggest frequent flyer website uses cookies, which you can block via your browser settings. Continuing implies your consent to this policy. Our privacy policy is here.