Passengers taking short-haul economy flights with British Airways will now have to pay for food on-board.
The airline has signed a deal with M&S that could see passengers on flights of five hours or less paying almost £8 for a sandwich, crisps and a non-alcoholic drink.
Why the change?
Alex Cruz, the former head of budget Spanish budget airline Vueling who took over as British Airways chief executive in April, denied the move was a cost-cutting exercise.
Rather, he said, it was a response to passenger demand for greater choice of upmarket snacks.
“We know our customers expect a great experience with British Airways,” he said.
“They’ve told us we are experts in flying and service, but when it comes to catering on short-haul flights, they want to choose from a wider range of premium products.”
If @British_Airways scrap meals on short flights then what is the advantage of using them over @easyJet ...
— LifeLondonFood (@Becca_Boo85) September 30, 2016
how times change! #nomoremeals
However, many passenngers have taken to social media to express their anger at the move, accusing British Airways of adopting budget airline practices.
Rivals easyJet and Ryanair have long kept costs to a minimum by charging for food and drink.
Seriously @British_Airways - buy on board? What a bad idea. I fly w you because EasyJet is stressful yet ur becoming more &more like them 😔
— Melanie Windridge (@m_windridge) September 30, 2016
Will it mean cheaper flights?
While many passengers might be hoping for cheaper flights as a result of the change, aviation analyst Alex Macheras told the Guardian that was unlikely.
“Unfortunately you have to be realistic," he said.
"This sandwich is basically nothing on the ticket price, so what will disappear from the price? Nothing.”
What do you think? Is British Airways right to scrap the free meal in favour of more upmarket in-flight options? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
Avoid rip-off fees while abroad with these credit cards
Ridiculous @British_Airways. Always thought "a little more for a lot more" was great marketing. Shame it's false. https://t.co/LnOOoyd3qX
— Philip Chadwick (@Wouldbe_Wannabe) September 29, 2016