British Bloody Airways

donners

:mad:So last year we booked a flight for myself, wife and 2 year old to go and visit her family in Toronto. My wife was hevily pregnant so we couldn't book our unborn child on the flight, cause was, unborn.

So now I phone to confirm his details and they want to charge me £180 EXTRA to bring him. He doesn't get a seat, doesn't get a meal. So why do I have to pay such a MASSIVE FEE!!!!

I am so angry right now about this!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anything I can do... except put myself out even more cash and cancel the damn trip!!!!

dzug1

Are you sure it's a FEE and not his FARE? It does sound on the high side even for that though.

donners

It's a fee... which makes it even more of a disgrace!!

NFH

It probably mainly comprises BA's dreaded fuel surcharge. You do get a baggage allowance for infants as well as meals, despite not having a seat. How does the £180 compare to the two adult tickets?

donners

I can't remember since I booke them last May. I reckon we were £1500 for the 2 adults and 1 child, and that's Glasgow- Heathrow - Toronto Return. Infant baggage allowance is 10kg!!

keystone

NFH wrote: »

It probably mainly comprises BA's dreaded fuel surcharge.

NFH is almost certainly correct and don't forget the air passenger duty that keeps going up and up. Thats why its a fee. I feel you are blaming BA without fully investigating. See their site wrt infants as below:

Infants Infants are those aged under two years at the time of travel.

• An infant fare is charged at 10% of the adult fare when the infant does not have his/her own seat, but sits on an adult’s lap.
• If you would like your infant to sit in his/her own seat (they must be between 6 and 23 months), you will be charged the child fare.

Cheers

donners

Thanks Keystone for clearning up my emotional rants, and i do feel that I am entitled to feel in a negative way towards ANY tour operator/airline who has this policy.

Too many companies want to make money to WRONG WAY and charging this is wrong in my opinion!!!

malkie76

It's the government who get the APD, not the airline.

keystone

donners wrote: »

Thanks Keystone for clearning up my emotional rants, and i do feel that I am entitled to feel in a negative way towards ANY tour operator/airline who has this policy.

Too many companies want to make money to WRONG WAY and charging this is wrong in my opinion!!!

Oh yes I do see your point but fuel surcharges are to pay for the fuel not line the airlines pockets and APD goes straight to the government. Having said that HMRC site says that APD is not payable for an infant who does not have an allocated seat so thats my little theory out of the way on that one.

BA fuel surcharge in zoo class for intercontinental flights under 9 hours is now (from 8th Feb) £ 85 per sector per passenger (irrespective of whether they are an infant or not). If you booked before 8th Feb it would have been £ 73 - so that would be £ 146 return with the balance made up of the 10% adult fare element I'm guessing. If you booked the little one after 8th Feb it sounds like you got a good deal!

The trouble is ALL airlines have this policy nowadays due to the wildly fluctuating price of crude. Airlines use an awful lot of fuel!

Cheers

eslick

i was curious as a few years ago they didnt charge that much looking on the website the total infant ticket for a return journey was 78.63 of which 44 was taxes. I would try your dates and then if its cheaper call BA and find out where they got the 180 from.

donners

eslick wrote: »

i was curious as a few years ago they didnt charge that much looking on the website the total infant ticket for a return journey was 78.63 of which 44 was taxes. I would try your dates and then if its cheaper call BA and find out where they got the 180 from.

Not sure what you mean mate. Can you explain for me?