-
…What BA is trying to prevent is you booking a hotel with a larger room capacity as part of your holiday and then trying to add the other 2 to the same room when you arrive at the hotel.
If there’s an opportunity for more revenue, my guess is many hotels will take it.
@NorthernLass – the booking contract and the payment for accommodation is between BAH and the hotel.
This notion of ‘spying’ or ‘reporting on the customer’ is rubbish and BAH is hardly a ‘third party’! BAH is simply asking the hotel to take the booking exactly as made by them and not to accept alterations without prior agreement by BAH. This is entirely normal in many contractual arrangements.
This is very simple so I’m not sure why it’s being dramatised.
…What BA is trying to prevent is you booking a hotel with a larger room capacity as part of your holiday and then trying to add the other 2 to the same room when you arrive at the hotel.
If there’s an opportunity for more revenue, my guess is many hotels will take it.
…What BA is trying to prevent is you booking a hotel with a larger room capacity as part of your holiday and then trying to add the other 2 to the same room when you arrive at the hotel.
If there’s an opportunity for more revenue, my guess is many hotels will take it.
They can do both! Take the money and get your TP removed.
@NorthernLass – the booking contract and the payment for accommodation is between BAH and the hotel…
There could be a ‘bed bank’ supplier such as hotelbeds in the middle somewhere.
BTW I’m not recommending anyone puts the earning of TPs at risk.
@Richie – yes, you are right, there might be additional middlemen. My sense is that with BA specifying this term from the outset that their intent is serious and it has to be to avoid creating a new problem akin to the one they have as well as breaching basic TP principles.
It’s not too difficult for BAH to enforce but clearly there are people here who fancy being the guinea pigs for TP removal and then a long post about how unfair it was.
For BAH to enforce, are there contractual back to back party issues to be considered with suppliers in the middle?
I get that! Just saying I don’t think it was that much of an issue for the hotels as long as any extra charges were paid, more like BA trying to limit their liabilities in respect of awarding TPs in this Brave New World.
The hotels may well get fed up with BA’s demands that they spy on their clientele and report back, 1984-style.
I’m sure literary metaphors will go straight over their heads, however!
No one is spying. Big Brother hotel staff won’t be listening at Mr W Smith’s room door or checking how ruffled the sheets and pillows are or how many towels get used and messaging BA Holidays. To say that they will be doing that is just a flight of fancy.
IF BAH asks hotel to inform them if more guests turn up than listed on the booking that’s not spying. What if a hotel calls BA Hols off its own bat and asks ‘did you make a mistake? the booking says 1 person but 4 have turned up?’
That’s a different issue – the hotel is not proactively looking for extra people in that case. But again, this would be asking for trouble even before the changes because the hotel could just refuse to accommodate the pax not on the booking.
For BAH to enforce, are there contractual back to back party issues to be considered with suppliers in the middle?
No. All that is being said is that these bookings are like OTA airline bookings. We will pay you for exactly what we booked. If a pax wishes to change a booking they should be referred back to the booking agent. No spying, big brother nonsense. As BAH is the customer, they set the rules and if you were the booker, I doubt you would like someone else fiddling with the booking.
There is only one legitimate fiddle. If you are booking a big room or asuite for adults and a cheap room for children. Say 10k on one room , 5 k on other. Then you should do it as two bookings with the payer in expensive room. Then contact hotel if you want it adjoining.
This could work if they let 2 kids book a BA holiday on their own !!??
There is only one legitimate fiddle. If you are booking a big room or asuite for adults and a cheap room for children. Say 10k on one room , 5 k on other. Then you should do it as two bookings with the payer in expensive room. Then contact hotel if you want it adjoining.
This could work if they let 2 kids book a BA holiday on their own !!??
Obviously one adult and one child in each room
For BAH to enforce, are there contractual back to back party issues to be considered with suppliers in the middle?
No. All that is being said is that these bookings are like OTA airline bookings. We will pay you for exactly what we booked. If a pax wishes to change a booking they should be referred back to the booking agent. No spying, big brother nonsense. As BAH is the customer, they set the rules and if you were the booker, I doubt you would like someone else fiddling with the booking.
There isn’t much difference to a hotelier charging breakfast to a room or an additional occupant fee without upsetting the OTA revenue stream.
I don’t think hoteliers have system constraints in the same way airlines do.
Exactly – I can book a room at a hotel in my sole name and as long as it sleeps 2 or however many people, the hotel is not going to have a problem if I then decide to share it. They can charge supplements, of course, and I would obviously pay these, I’m not trying to get anything for free here. Some hotels have single rooms so if you booked one of those then turned up with another person, the hotel is going to be quite within its rights to refuse the 2nd guest.
BA is taking all these measures solely to limit the number of future status members as far as they possibly can, and of course it’s their prerogative to make business decisions as they see fit. But nobody needs to try and game the system or be a guinea pig, because there are easier and cheaper ways to attain or renew status than via for a BAH.
Exactly – I can book a room at a hotel in my sole name and as long as it sleeps 2 or however many people, the hotel is not going to have a problem if I then decide to share it.
If I’m sharing your room, I want my share of Avios you got by paying on your AMEX. BA says that’s what customers want 😁 😁
Lol. I’ve just triggered the 241 so it would go on the Virgin card, I’m afraid!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Popular articles this week:
