new restriction: only adult fares can be upgraded with miles

Greetings, everyone.

I've been flying with VS for about 7 years, and have been a Gold FC member for all but the first few months of this period.

My son is nearly 5, and my wife and I take several trips per year with him on VS. On most overnight flights longer than 7 hours, we upgrade to UC using miles from Economy (originally from L fare basis, and later from M fare basis, once Virgin began deemed the latter upgradeable). We've done this at least a couple times a year over the course of my son's life.

Today I spotted G availability for an overnight SFO-LHR flight we'll be taking as a family. When I called the FC Gold reservations line, I was politely told that "Child fares are not upgradeable with miles in *any* fare basis; you will need to change your son's ticket to an adult fare in order to upgrade his ticket. And you will need to pay the GBP 100 change fee to change his ticket from an M child fare to an M adult fare."

All told, the difference was over GBP 500 for this change to my son's ticket (including the change fee). Compare that with the usual GBP 60 to upgrade an M to a G on a US-to-UK sector.

I was positively livid. Consider that:

1) I've upgraded child M fares using miles at least twice a year for the past 4 years. Never once did anyone ever indicate this rule in any way.

2) When I purchased our LHR-SFO itinerary, there were O fares available, and I specifically asked for Ms so that I could upgrade. Why on *earth* wasn't I told *at purchase time* that I would not be able to upgrade a child M fare using miles? It was unambiguously clear that I intended to upgrade all three seats--indeed, I even asked about G availability on that same call when I first purchased the itinerary.

3) If they'd *told* me of this restriction, I'd either have bought an adult fare for my son from the outset to avoid the GBP 100 change fee or (more likely) not bothered with M for any of us, bought O fares, and saved about GBP 24 per seat in the process.

I explained all the above to the agent and asked to speak to a supervisor. After holding about 3 minutes, I explained all the above to a supervisor.

He told me that the rule prohibiting miles upgrades of child fares had *always* been on the books, but that their agents had routinely not enforced it. He said that management had recently pushed hard for this rule to be enforced strictly.

He then said that he agreed with me that *if* my call to purchase the tickets had gone as I'd said, and I'd made clear I intended to upgrade and wasn't told the child M fare would not be upgradeable, then this was unfair. He said he'd go back and listen to a recording of that call (first time I'd heard this done by VS to resolve a complaint by a customer--they do say they record, but the explanation is usually for "training" purposes if I recall correctly), and if it matched what I'd said, he'd allow the upgrade on the M child fare. He then advised me that in the future, I should always expect to need to purchase an adult M fare for my son if I wanted to upgrade with miles.

30 minutes later he called back to confirm the recording showed my prior call was exactly as I'd stated, and he'd allow the upgrade.

I'm posting this anecdote for two reasons:

1) To ask if anyone else has encountered this rule, either recently or not so recently.

2) To warn others that if my experience today was representative, you can expect the same yourself. Book your children adult fares if you intend to upgrade them using miles later, or you'll get stuck with a change fee to move to an adult fare later!

Overall, I'm very displeased with the rule that only adult fares can be upgraded...whether it's old and was previously unenforced or new, it is a material expense for families. Virgin made a reasonably good case that it was a family-friendly airline: allowing children's flights to accrue miles to parents' accounts, providing activities for children in flight, etc. Frankly, requiring that a child fly on an adult fare to upgrade seems like a pure revenue play. It will likely mean that my family doesn't consider upgrading at all when we travel together--it's expensive enough flying the whole family long haul without having to fly our son as an adult.

Another interesting detail: HM Government has ended APD for children as of this spring. So: if you buy an adult fare for a child to make upgrades possible, what does the law require--do you pay APD on that child's ticket or not? I asked the supervisor today, and he said that VS policy is that one pays full APD on an adult fare for a child passenger.

I'm considering writing to the relevant office of HMG to ask if they agree.

This might even be enough to make us consider traveling with another airline. Frankly, it's the affordability of upgrading our travels as a family that is one of the main draws of flying with Virgin.

With dismay,
BNK

Thank you for sharing your experience - I'm sure it will affect a few v-flyers.

I don't have any similar experience to share, except that I have recently had conflicting advice on several occasions from FC helpline on one particular rule (if anyone is interested, it is to do with redeeming on partner flights - basically as it turned out my OH cannot use his miles to redeem only one sector of a reward return flight with partner airlines; he needs to have enough miles to redeem for the entire return trip), which resulted in him transferring Amex points to VS without being able to use them.

When I complained, I provided the staff names and extensions (I always take these down), so that they could listen to the recordings. I was told that VS has state of art telephone system... Although they were unable to reverse the Amex point transfer, they did gave us a goodwill gesture which was almost as much as the MR points transferred, so we were happy with the resolution.

Anyway I'm glad it all worked out for you this time, but shame you had to go through all that hassle.

Thanks for sharing this, sorry to read about the problems you've had this time around, but glad to see it was sorted based on evidencing the content of your phone calls, even if it means future bookings will no longer be on the basis you've had.

However, permit me to play devils advocate. Having checked the rules on spending miles, under the relevant section of upgrades and companion rewards it does clearly say that only published adult fares in qualifying classes are eligible. This is something FC have brought to your attention in this instance. Admittedly they've also agreed that the rule hasn't been enforced, but this also means that for a number of years you've had a perk you shouldn't have had and shouldn't have been able to access. In that sense you've been lucky, it's been good for you and your family and saved you a few quid. You might not have been aware that the program's rules were being circumvented, but nonetheless they were. Undoubtedly other pax have had the same.

It's fair to assume that it's likely there are other pax with children who consistently haven't been able to upgrade with miles unless they've upgraded their child's fare to an adult fare. There could easily be pax who've gotten the few FC reps on the phone who know the rules and enforce them consistently. So in this instance they've not been able to circumvent this rule at all. If we can assume this has or could have happened, then there's imbalance, and it's perhaps this that VS is seeking to address by enforcing the FC rules on upgrading revenue tickets with miles, thereby attempting to introduce consistency (which could open a whole new debate I'm sure!).

So, you've had a perk that's been good, but you shouldn't have had. That perk has been removed, or rather will be going forward (assuming you continue to fly with VS). I'd say you've been lucky this hasn't come up before now, but it's time to move on. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, after all most of us here are looking for ways to travel as cheaply as we can whilst getting the best we can, such as playing the system to travel UC without paying UC prices. Loopholes are great whilst they last, but they do eventually get plugged.

Now, back to that potential topic of consistency... I think this is yet another demonstration, along with many others, of the fact that FC reps are inconsistent with the advice they give, they don't all know or enforce the rules properly, and that comes from the top and from poor training. But maybe that should be debated separately.

I hope after the hassle you've had, you have a great trip with your family.

At a time like this, one has to ask 'what would BA do'. And my understanding (and experience) is that child fares ARE upgradeable, certainly my 2 cherubs are in CW in April for that reason. They were on child WT+ fares and there was no issue using Avios to upgrade them.

I would have been mightily pee'd off if this had happened to me... the change fee just to get them to adult fares is a real f-you as well...

So, you've had a perk that's been good, but you shouldn't have had. That perk has been removed, or rather will be going forward (assuming you continue to fly with VS). I'd say you've been lucky this hasn't come up before now, but it's time to move on. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, after all most of us here are looking for ways to travel as cheaply as we can whilst getting the best we can, such as playing the system to travel UC without paying UC prices. Loopholes are great whilst they last, but they do eventually get plugged.

I wasn't aware there was a loophole in the first place, let alone consciously exploited one. I was doing what seemed intuitive: buying a child fare for a child in an upgradeable fare basis, then asking to upgrade that ticket using miles.

VS's agents over a 4+ year period responded in every single case (at least 8 times) by not giving even the slightest hint that this upgrade was anything other than routine.

If a company wishes to impose rules that extract greater fees from its customers, it can of course do so. But the burden lies squarely on the *company* to make the rules clear and enforce them uniformly. If the company routinely overlooks non-obvious rules without even informing customers that it is doing so, it is the *company* that, upon suddenly starting to enforce the rule, gives the customer the impression that the status quo has been changed in a way disadvantageous to the customer.

To put it differently, the terms a company offers its customers are intuitively understood by customers to be those they experience in transactions. Not those that are notionally written down in obscure rules never cited by the company.

If VS in the past deliberately ignored this rule in an attempt to retain families' custom, it shouldn't be surprised if abruptly enforcing the rule causes the company to lose families' custom.

If VS ignored this rule out of poor training of its agents, it similarly shouldn't be surprised if abruptly enforcing the rule causes the company to lose families' custom.

FWIW, given that with a random selection of agents over 4 years and at least 8 flights, I was every single time sold children's L or M fares and allowed to upgrade them with miles--all without any agent's ever mentioning any sort of rule to the contrary--I'd be somewhat surprised if others weren't treated similarly over the same period.

BNK

At a time like this, one has to ask 'what would BA do'. And my understanding (and experience) is that child fares ARE upgradeable, certainly my 2 cherubs are in CW in April for that reason. They were on child WT+ fares and there was no issue using Avios to upgrade them.

I would have been mightily pee'd off if this had happened to me... the change fee just to get them to adult fares is a real f-you as well...

Well I suppose the other difference on BA is that you wouldn't be able to book in economy and upgrade to CW.

But I agree, and with the OP, it would make me mighty peeved.

In terms of the APD. It sounds like you kind of want " the penny and the bun". You want an upgradeable fare (which you are being advised means paying an adult fare) but you want the child APD rule applied.

My thoughts are, you pick your poison, take the child fare in the class you actually want, and pay the appropriate taxes, or take the adult M class paying the adult APD and do your miles upgrade.

APD is a non issue. If the child flies in any cabin other than the lowest, APD is liable. Se regardless of what fare you buy for the wee one, as soon as you upgrade him to a higher cabin, APD is liable.

So, you've had a perk that's been good, but you shouldn't have had. That perk has been removed, or rather will be going forward (assuming you continue to fly with VS). I'd say you've been lucky this hasn't come up before now, but it's time to move on. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, after all most of us here are looking for ways to travel as cheaply as we can whilst getting the best we can, such as playing the system to travel UC without paying UC prices. Loopholes are great whilst they last, but they do eventually get plugged.

I wasn't aware there was a loophole in the first place, let alone consciously exploited one. I was doing what seemed intuitive: buying a child fare for a child in an upgradeable fare basis, then asking to upgrade that ticket using miles.

VS's agents over a 4+ year period responded in every single case (at least 8 times) by not giving even the slightest hint that this upgrade was anything other than routine.

If a company wishes to impose rules that extract greater fees from its customers, it can of course do so. But the burden lies squarely on the *company* to make the rules clear and enforce them uniformly. If the company routinely overlooks non-obvious rules without even informing customers that it is doing so, it is the *company* that, upon suddenly starting to enforce the rule, gives the customer the impression that the status quo has been changed in a way disadvantageous to the customer.

To put it differently, the terms a company offers its customers are intuitively understood by customers to be those they experience in transactions. Not those that are notionally written down in obscure rules never cited by the company.

If VS in the past deliberately ignored this rule in an attempt to retain families' custom, it shouldn't be surprised if abruptly enforcing the rule causes the company to lose families' custom.

If VS ignored this rule out of poor training of its agents, it similarly shouldn't be surprised if abruptly enforcing the rule causes the company to lose families' custom.

FWIW, given that with a random selection of agents over 4 years and at least 8 flights, I was every single time sold children's L or M fares and allowed to upgrade them with miles--all without any agent's ever mentioning any sort of rule to the contrary--I'd be somewhat surprised if others weren't treated similarly over the same period.

BNK

I don't disagree with you on anything you've said, and I'm quite sure you didn't know a loophole existed and weren't consciously exploiting it. Another side to this is that many of us don't read small print either, so we remain ignorant of certain policies and procedures, and to some degree companies exploit that. I had to go and read the small print to check the rules I quoted you because I hadn't read them! But it's there in black and white, and now, like it or not, it's being enforced, so the loophole closes.

I can understand the OP being annoyed - especially as he clearly made his upgrade intentions clear at the time of booking. However, he has clearly enjoyed a benefit in the past that he should not have had - admittedly through no fault of his own, so really cannot complain too much when the rules are enforced.

I suspect the "enforce the rules" move is part of Virgin's move to increase revenue. We've already seen seat bookings, now this. Every penny counts in the airline industry. Delta may be having some influence on this as the US legacy carriers now charge for all sorts of extras.

Also - when did the Economy baggage allowance on USA routes drop to one bag? (The baggage allowance on Virgin's site is as clear as mud to read - but the way I read it it's only one bag @ 23kg for UK-USA-UK routes). Bet this is a good revenue stream on the MCO-UK routes - all those families coming home loaded with outlet shopping / souvenirs.

APD as has already been stated is a non-issue, the the removal of it for children only applies to Economy fares. If you bought an adult M fare for a child at the time of booking & subsequently could not get the upgrade you wanted and flew economy, I bet Virgin would not refund the APD. It would create an accounting nightmare for them & the Revenue.

Also - when did the Economy baggage allowance on USA routes drop to one bag? (The baggage allowance on Virgin's site is as clear as mud to read - but the way I read it it's only one bag @ 23kg for UK-USA-UK routes). Bet this is a good revenue stream on the MCO-UK routes - all those families coming home loaded with outlet shopping / souvenirs. It changed about 4-5 years ago! PE also dropped from 2*32kg to 2*23kg. They even reduced UC from 3*32 to 3*23 but that change didn't last long. The limits are pretty clear otherwise there would be regular posts on here and facebook about people having to pay extra etc etc

APD as has already been stated is a non-issue, the the removal of it for children only applies to Economy fares. correct

However, he has clearly enjoyed a benefit in the past that he should not have had - admittedly through no fault of his own, so really cannot complain too much when the rules are enforced.

I think all of us on V-Flyer in one way or another like flying VS. I certainly do. Some quibble that they liked flying some erstwhile version of VS more than the present-day version; others are totally happy with VS as it is today.

There are moments, however, when I sense that the devotion in our community is almost more to VS's financial bottom line than to our experience as VS's customers. These two aren't entirely unrelated--of course VS must succeed commercially for those who enjoy flying it to continue to be able to do so.

That said, I find it somewhat amusing to say that a customer isn't really justified in complaining when a company changes its behaviour in a way that the customer perceives to be disadvantageous to him or her. If we step back for a moment, the question isn't "was this rule in fine print somewhere." The question is what expectation VS created on the part of customers by its behaviour in past years. The answer to the latter question is resoundingly that by not ever citing the rule or enforcing it, VS created an impression among its customers of a de facto reality in which child M fares were upgradeable.

Companies can only set policies to the extent customers are willing to suffer them. The visible effect to customers has nothing to do with what was or wasn't in print...in this case, the change perceived by customers is "now the cost difference between travelling with a child in economy and travelling with a child in UC is GBP 400+ on an SFO-LHR sector, vs. GBP 60 in the past". (Somewhat amusingly, the size of this difference has been magnified by the end of charging APD on child fares!) If enough customers decide VS is no longer an attractive option for traveling with their families on this basis, perhaps VS would reconsider the change. I'm not optimistic that enough of their revenue comes from families this price sensitive, however.

In any event, I see no reason why I as a customer should think, "well, since VS had this in the fine print, I guess I have no reason to complain that they've started enforcing it when they never did before." Perfectly reasonable for me to find it equally annoying to their newly instituting the rule...same effect precisely on the customer.

I'd think most customer-focused companies would take the same view I've attempted to explain above on how a company's actions will make customers feel.

BNK

I'd think most customer-focused companies would take the same view I've attempted to explain above on how a company's actions will make customers feel.

BNK

I am not trying to defend Virgin here - or indeed start a flame war. Virgin have acknowledged to the OP that they let him get away with this in the past as they did not enforce the rule [their fault].

Furthermore, they allowed the OP to upgrade the current child M fare with miles when his version of events matched the recorded booking call. [They were at fault again, they held their hands up to it and allowed the upgrade].

All they have politely done is point out that they will enforce the rules in the future. I appreciate the OP is unhappy, as this will cost him more in future, should he still choose to fly Virgin. That is a decision only he can make when considering which airline / frequent flyer scheme out there best serves his needs.

I for one am certainly worried about the effect Delta may have on flying club redemption availability - especially at the front of the plane.

[preiffer]

All they have politely done is point out that they will enforce the rules in the future. I appreciate the OP is unhappy, as this will cost him more in future, should he still choose to fly Virgin. That is a decision only he can make when considering which airline / frequent flyer scheme out there best serves his needs.

I for one am certainly worried about the effect Delta may have on flying club redemption availability - especially at the front of the plane.

^ Bingo.

While it may feel that you're going to suffer from the change, charging only £60 per child to sit in a full Upper Class seat (which could otherwise be sold) is not sustainable going forward.

It may be a child you're putting in the cabin, but the opportunity cost to the airline is exactly the same as if they gave the seat to an adult for that price - and they certainly wouldn't do that!