British Airways
Who else flies their 777's in 9-abreast in economy?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
British Airways is to make changes to its credit card booking fees, moving from a £5 flat rate charge to a 1 per cent fee.
The new fee – which comes into effect for bookings made from December 14 – will be capped at a maximum of £20, with no minimum.
It means that customers booking flights totalling under £500 will actually see their credit fee fall, while those booking more expensive tickets, or booking for groups or families, will pay more.
BA has given Business Traveller the following statement:
“British Airways continues to offer free payment methods on ba.com and through travel agents.
“From December 14 2016, if customers choose to pay using a credit card they will now be charged a one per cent fee of their total ticket price, up to a maximum of £20.
“We do not profit from these charges, they contribute towards the fees levied by the credit card companies.”
The new fee applies to credit card bookings only.
The new fee – which comes into effect for bookings made from December 14 – will be capped at a maximum of £20, with no minimum.
It means that customers booking flights totalling under £500 will actually see their credit fee fall, while those booking more expensive tickets, or booking for groups or families, will pay more.
BA has given Business Traveller the following statement:
“British Airways continues to offer free payment methods on ba.com and through travel agents.
“From December 14 2016, if customers choose to pay using a credit card they will now be charged a one per cent fee of their total ticket price, up to a maximum of £20.
“We do not profit from these charges, they contribute towards the fees levied by the credit card companies.”
The new fee applies to credit card bookings only.
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: London
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of BA developments announced yesterday concerning a new codeshare relationship with Alaska Airlines and a $60m redevelopment of New York JFK Terminal 7:
https://londonairtravel.com/2016/11/...north-america/
https://londonairtravel.com/2016/11/...jfk-terminal-7
https://londonairtravel.com/2016/11/...north-america/
https://londonairtravel.com/2016/11/...jfk-terminal-7
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxing All Over The World
Thanks Navpi. One of the funniest things I have read in ages.
Airline chief Wille Walsh furious about not being told of demolition – and about fact he will ‘end up paying for the destruction’
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2...ll-raze-his-hq
The boss of Heathrow’s biggest customer, British Airways, only discovered that building the airport’s planned third runway would require the demolition of his airline’s head office after looking at a map.
Willie Walsh, the chief executive of BA’s parent company IAG, claimed that despite the group being responsible for about half of all flights at the London hub, he received no formal warning of the proposed demolition. He said: “We were never actually informed or advised by Heathrow that they intended to knock down our headquarters.”
Both IAG and British Airways are based at Waterside in Harmondsworth, which opened in 1998 at a cost of £200m and sits in a 115-hectare (280-acre) manmade park. Walsh said the HQ was “a fantastic environmental achievement on our part”. However, it looks unlikely to stay that way. “The first I saw of it was when the Airport Commission report came out and I saw a map and I thought, that looks very close to Waterside,” Walsh said. “Then I discovered it actually went right through Waterside.”
Walsh’s grievance over his doomed HQ has been compounded by the prospect of being effectively charged for the compensation bill. While all properties in the path of the runway will be compulsorily purchased at 25% over the market price, the way Heathrow’s charges are set by the Civil Aviation Authority means that airlines are likely to pay more to operate from the airport as expansion costs grow.
Walsh said: “That compensation goes into the regulatory asset base and we end up paying 56% of that. We can’t have a situation where I end up paying for the destruction of my own head office.”..............
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reads more like internal IAG dislocation over communicating the biggest change in a long time that they face.
Unless you actually believe that the airport chose to not engage its biggest customer despite CAA requirement to do just that as part of its licence conditions...
Unless you actually believe that the airport chose to not engage its biggest customer despite CAA requirement to do just that as part of its licence conditions...
I don't buy the story about WW being shocked at the demolition plans for one moment, but I accept he might not like the financial angle.
Just about everybody who has worked at BA since Waterside opened or who works there now knows that the HQ was in the firing line if a third runway was approved.
I can't believe for one moment WW wasn't aware of the fact...
Just about everybody who has worked at BA since Waterside opened or who works there now knows that the HQ was in the firing line if a third runway was approved.
I can't believe for one moment WW wasn't aware of the fact...
Last edited by wiggy; 23rd Nov 2016 at 09:21. Reason: spolling.....
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't buy the story about WW being shocked at the demoliation plans for one moment, but I accept he might not like the financial angle.
Just about everybody who has worked at BA since Waterside opened or who works there now knows that the HQ was in the firing line if a third runway was approved.
I can't believe for one moment WW wasn't aware of the fact...
Just about everybody who has worked at BA since Waterside opened or who works there now knows that the HQ was in the firing line if a third runway was approved.
I can't believe for one moment WW wasn't aware of the fact...
"The first I saw of it was when the Airport Commission report came out and I saw a map and I thought, that looks very close to Waterside," Walsh said. "Then I discovered it actually went right through Waterside."
It smacks more of manufactured outrage, which is no real surprise given BA's ambiguous stance on Heathrow expansion.
But it's been bl**ding obvious to everyone else since the late 1940s that any additional runway(s) at Heathrow would be north of the A4.
Last edited by DaveReidUK; 23rd Nov 2016 at 09:54. Reason: north of A4, not north of M4 !
It's behind the Times' paywall.
But it basically contains the same as the above-linked Guardian article, quoting WW's speech to the AOA where he calls Heathrow "fat, dumb and happy" and says there is zero chance of BA adding any new domestic routes from an expanded Heathrow.
That may, of course, just turn out to be more bluster (see above) from WW, who appears to have been studying the MO'L Manual of PR.
But it basically contains the same as the above-linked Guardian article, quoting WW's speech to the AOA where he calls Heathrow "fat, dumb and happy" and says there is zero chance of BA adding any new domestic routes from an expanded Heathrow.
That may, of course, just turn out to be more bluster (see above) from WW, who appears to have been studying the MO'L Manual of PR.
It smacks more of manufactured outrage
) The size of the building was based on the original idea of a "short" runway, to the north of the Bath Road, thus the height was restricted to avoid the safeguarding "cone".Along comes the later plan for a full sized runway which surprised no one so I'm with DaveReidUK here and reckon WW is just angling for money...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
where he calls Heathrow "fat, dumb and happy" and says there is zero chance of BA adding any new domestic routes from an expanded Heathrow.
)
But Walsh stated that his airlines would not operate routes to airports such as Newquay in Cornwall, “even if [Heathrow chief executive] John Holland-Kaye got down and begged me”.
It's WW giving good copy. This is the same guy who has "Show me the ****ing money" on a public facing IAG presentation of late. He's morphing into Bob Crandall in his old age. He was happier when he was....less thin
Crandall was equally blunt, but much less uncouth.
I'm reminded of a cringe-making moment many years ago, when BA and American were sworn enemies rather than alliance partners. Bob was invited to enter the lions' den and talk to the Heathrow RAeS branch, and he duly accepted. At the start of the meeting, he was introduced by the Branch chair to the assembled masses as "Bob Cranston".
Needless to say, his talk was fascinating.
I'm reminded of a cringe-making moment many years ago, when BA and American were sworn enemies rather than alliance partners. Bob was invited to enter the lions' den and talk to the Heathrow RAeS branch, and he duly accepted. At the start of the meeting, he was introduced by the Branch chair to the assembled masses as "Bob Cranston".
Needless to say, his talk was fascinating.