There's a huge debate in marketing about whether people prefer all in one or component pricing.
A lot of people think they win when they are able to deselect components they don't want (ie a gross meal, baggage, alcohol) because they save $25. Others prefer all in one / "packages".
It's funny how you hear a lot of airlines say (or "justify") by saying that they had "listened to customers" and they said they wanted this.
In fact, much of the complainants on the FT BA thread say that they hardly check in a bag and having the hand baggage only fare was a great advantage for them. Now of course they are pretty annoyed because being able to select a seat (at some point in time, free of charge, even at OLCI) seems like an intrinsic ability, and now it is gone.
I'm sure qantas had this debate recently about fuel surcharges.
Fuel surcharges are a different debate on their own (and - may I add now - not one for this thread!)
But when it comes down to it, seat location in identical seats within a cabin has no real value, it's all perceived (arguably all value is subjective but let's not go there). So this will just be seen as penny pinching of BA creating their own two teir system (jetstar anyone?).
Taking a mechanical view of it, you are correct. In fact, many of the seats on many BA aircraft on short haul are nearly exactly the same (i.e. the pitch doesn't differ about the aircraft, unlike, say the Australian airlines).
The only main reasons for people to really select seats in such situations are:
- Exit row or around exit rows (e.g. all bags up or no space to be reclined into - quite a few short haul -BA aircraft do not have extra pitch in exit rows)
- Aisle or window, since it is rare that anyone wants a middle seat for various reasons
- Proximity to front, purely a case for faster embarkation / disembarkation (or farthest point from the toilets).
Overall, I'm still confused why BA made
this kind of modification to the fare.
