More BA baggage woes and some other bad BA news

British Airways is yet again in the news for a poor baggage situation at London Heathrow (LHR). Apparently only T4 is affected. With limited capacity to handle baggage by hand, there are restrictions in place. These vary by day, whether originating in London or transitting, by class of travel and elite frequent flyer status. So for the latest check the BA website here.

In short, some passengers are limited to carry on only. Fortunately this increased to 2 bags earlier in the year. Unfortunately we still have the liquids restrictions.

I do wonder though how much thinking went into this statement.

On Thursday 21 February, transfer passengers through London Heathrow Terminal 4 should not bring luggage to be checked in as they will not be able to travel.

So someone flying on BA from Sydney (leaves shortly as I write this and arrives on Thursday 21 February) and transferring through T4 can or cannot have checked bags? Isn't it a bit late to advise these passengers now? In general transferring passengers have the least flexibility in terms of being able to convert to carry-on only for luggage.

I think the rules BA has established for allowing checked baggage in the short term until the situation is resolved, while no doubt well meaning, are rather too complex to be well understood. Be prepared for longer than normal queues at check in, and also at security.

For once it appears the airline is not to blame for the problem which is attributed to computer errors and thus responsibility of airport operator BAA (source BBC News). Still one can't help but wonder why BA seems to attract so many problems compared with other airlines.

It was only a few hours ago I speculated that BA's latest announced fuel surcharge increase was being timed to get all their bad news over well ahead of T5 opening in 5 weeks time. BA have also been in the news recently for losing a major court case on overcharged fuel surcharge (yes ironic timing leading some to wonder how much of the latest increase is to pay the refunds of the lost case). They are also threatened with strikes by pilots and cabin crew (more on this soon).

Travel agents sue airlines over fuel surcharges

It isn't only passengers that are unhappy with airline fuel surcharges. A group of Australian travel agents are suing several airlines for lost commissions. (Source SMH) One of the arguments used relates to fair trading (Australian Trade Practices Act), which if successful should be good news for most passengers.

Airline surcharges in USA

As an update on an earlier post, thanks to Upgrade: Travel Better for the welcome news that inclusive airline pricing is to stay in USA.

Meanwhile the surcharge nonsense continues to get worse and worse elsewhere. Some recent tickets I've bought had surcharges of 3-4 times the base fare.

Travel Rage and Changes Ahead for Surcharges in America

Travel Rage

The other day I mentioned an example of travel rage at an airport. Of course drivers are not immune and road rage is increasingly common. I was reminded of this while walking at rush hour. A bus driver sat on his horn for 10 minutes despite seeing perfectly clearly that the car in front could not move more than a foot due to the traffic. What did he hope to achieve? Did he really think a gap would miraculously open up in the clogged road just because he tooted his horn?

In the space of a couple of hours I saw several other cases of drivers who showed signs of anger at other road users. Its no wonder society is becoming more stressed if every second of time and every foot of space is so tightly contested for no purpose.


Changes Ahead for Surcharges in USA

Travellers in Europe have long known to watch for promotional airfares that can be as low as €0.01 or 1p only to be hit by surcharges that increase the fare to €100 or £100, or more. At the moment travellers in USA have the benefit that advertised fares must include all surcharges, except any true taxes.

As reported in many blogs (including as a couple of examples Upgrade: travel better and Christopher Elliott), the US Department of Trade is considering relaxing the advertising rules.

This is a step backwards and against the trend in some other countries which have, or are in the process of, tightening the rules so that airfares advertised are inclusive. An incomplete list of some countries that are increasing consumer protection in this way:

• Australia (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, changed 2005)
• Switzerland (as reported on Flyer Talk, changes 2006)
• New Zealand (Commerce Commission on recent court case involving Air New Zealand)

Unless I've missed news of it, strangely the European Commission doesn't seem to have misleading advertising on its agenda with the current Directive having been in place since 1984 and last amended in 1997.

Here's hoping the US Department of Trade does not decide to relax the current rules.

Fuel Surcharges - not all bad?

Since my previous post on fuel surcharges I've come across an alternative viewpoint that they are not all bad.

Not all bad?

The explanation used was that fuel surcharges are refundable, whereas the base fare is not on non-refundable tickets. Unlike most US-based airlines, many cheap tickets on other airlines are non-refundable. So a $100 base fare plus $50 fuel surcharge may be better than a $150 base fare plus no fuel surcharge, if you need to refund.

Does it stack up?

This sounds plausible, but I am not convinced. If there is a high chance of needing to refund, or change flights, you generally just pay a bit more for the more flexible and refundable fares. Granted you could save some money depending on the fare difference between refundable and non-refundable if you often need to cancel.

But most times you (hopefully!) dont need to refund, in which case there is no difference on a paid ticket between $100 base fare plus $50 fuel surchare or $150 base fare.

However, most frequent flyer programs (again apart from US-based ones) charge fuel surcharges on award tickets also. So the existence of a fuel surcharge effectively devalues the miles in circulation. This is because the frequent flyer programs did not reduce the number of miles needed for an award when the airlines introduced fuel surcharges or subsequently raised them (several times so far).

The way fuel surcharges have been generally structured - an amount for domestic/short haul and a much higher amount for long haul, and on a per flight basis - means it doesn't matter if you use miles for short trips or long trips. Your miles are worth less in both cases.

My conclusion: there may be some circumstances where fuel surcharges are beneficial to the consumer, but I think there are far more circumstances where they are not.



What do you think?

Fuel surcharges

Anyone who has bought an air ticket from a non-US airline in the past few years may have noticed the "taxes" are a significant cost. Some of these taxes are genuine charges from a government agency, however some are charges invented by the airline.

Since the cost of fuel increased rapidly a few years ago, most airlines have been charging something called a fuel surcharge. When it was introduced the airlines kept it separate from the rest of the air fare, supposedly on the grounds of transparency and so the consumer can see it reduce when fuel prices eventually fall. But of course fuel prices have not fallen back to the old levels. And so the fuel surcharge has been increased time and time again.

It has now reached the point, where on many fares the surcharge equals or exceeds the base air fare. See a special advertised at $79? Dont be suckered in, add the surcharges of perhaps $90 and that great deal suddenly doesnt seem as good.

Something that really bugs me, and many other travellers I know, is how the airlines get away with this deception. When you buy a cup of coffee you dont get charged a Brazilian frost surcharge to cover temporarily higher costs if there are significant crop losses. No that cup of coffee just costs a little extra until supply is restored. Buying gas at the station, they dont advertise a base price of $x per gallon and a surcharge of an extra $y, do they?

So why should the airlines be any different? Fuel is a fundamental cost of doing business for an airline. Shouldnt this be included in the base air fare?

Some airlines have argued that they can change a surcharge much more easily than the many thousands of different fares that they charge. I dont think that washes though. How many times has the fuel surcharge dropped when fuel prices dip? Not often. How many times do airlines change fares anyway? I seem to get emails about sales and specials just about every day. So it would seem air fares change frequently anyway.

How can the airlines get away with advertising a low price that has nothing to do with what you end up paying? Isnt that deceptive? Shouldn't the relevant authorities - advertising fairness boards and commerce commissions - be doing something about this?

Fun travels everyone
The Global Traveller