Jase76

I just flew DY for the first time, OSL-TOS, and was pleasantly surprised. Was expecting hell on earth for a LCC, but self check in was faster than BA F LHR-OSL and boarding was very orderly for a full 737 with no CE/Gold/Silver/Bronze style. For their prices, I'd happily fly them again - probably over BA.

TabTraveller

I can't help but think this is a large part FT groupthink.

People read on here that BA is in the cliched "race to the bottom" (cue dramatic music) and this feeds into negative expectations of interactions with BA which is then turns into more negative anecdotes and hey-presto FT thinks BA is in terminal decline.

Back in the real world, very few people notice or agree. Oh I forgot: the continued perception that BA is run by "beancounters" or accountants. It isn't. But that's not going to change anyone's perception.

T8191

But, Sir ... it isn't FT that's giving us dysfunctional IFE, dirty seats, less/worse food, disinterested CC, etc. etc. We all notice that without prompting, and FT gives us the medium to discuss that.

henkybaby

Well, thanks to chazman189 we now know that they consider themselves a LCC.

http://www.elfaa.com/members.htm

subject2load

As politicians with dubious policies and negative feedback never tire of telling us : it's the media, of course

And specifically in this case ...... ah yes ..... it's not BA that's in any way a problem, but FT. As evidenced by the fact that once you're actually onboard BA, everything is high quality - and even above expectations.

ahmetdouas

TK's lounge has unbelievable food!
But yes the alcohol section is nothing special.

NickB

To be 100% scrupulously fair, we should perhaps compare LGW-OAK on DY to LGW-OAK on BA (from next March) rather than LHR-SFO. Even then, though, the lowest BA fare (circa £585) is more than twice the lowest DY fare (circa £278).

IST may be within Europe in a purely geographical sense but not in a meaningful sense from an air passenger transport perspective. TK does not compete with European airlines on intra-European traffic (other than obviously point to point to/from IST); it competes with them on inter-continental traffic only and mostly Eastbound or Southbound (from Europe, that is). TK is, in this sense, more of a Middle-Eastern airline than a European one. It therefore makes perfect sense to exclude TK and IST, either explicitly or implicitly, from comparisons among European airlines and hubs.

wb1969

I started the thread asking a specific question because BA was once a leader and had every rite to call itself a premium carrier. Those days are gone and I really believe that they are kidding themselves if they think they are anything other than mediocre now at best.

mcgahat

The way I would answer this question is to ask if BA would be my preferred carrier on various routes....right? I am not sure what the definition of a "premium airline" is but I would think it would be the most desired on any given route.

I have a hard time saying BA would be my preferred airline on long haul because of their hard product. I would say BA is competitive in other aspects like lounge, ground service and service in the air but they lose out because of the hard product, specifically the long haul biz seat. I am sorry but they are in now way competitive in that area and I avoid them on long haul for the most part if I have a choice, I will select AY, CX, AA, IB, QR instead. I think on short haul EU flights BA is fine but that is not enough to be considered "premium".

I am not a BA hater by the way. I think they are pumped up a bit much by some and way over criticized by others. If I ended up on BA in biz on a 777...I would survive and be fine with the experience but it would not have been my first choice by far.

smokie36

BA is my preferred carrier to Bangkok next week due to the cost being at least £200 less in business than anyone else.

On a straight same fare BA would be nowhere near the top....I'd rather fly QR or EK with a stop as they are both far better airlines.

BA get my business however as I don't need to spend extra money for all the extras....I can take crisps from the lounge as a snack for instance.

South London Bon Viveur

Agree to some extent. Stories of decline can become self-fulfilling and re-inforced through confirmation bias. The majority of passengers will not notice a decline because they simply do not fly often enough. FTers on the other hand are quicker to pick up these things. But insofar as you are suggesting the decline is an imagined one, I beg to differ. There has been a very noticeable decline IMO and I don't think I know a single regular BA traveller that does not agree. Once they start BOB the average person on the street may start to take note (although I actually think that it would be an improvement if done properly) and then things might become interesting.

TabTraveller

I don't suggest it is entirely imagined but most people don't get on board planes looking for dirt down the side of their seat. Some on here clearly do. Then Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells comes on here to vent and the idea that every BA aircraft is "filthy" becomes a meme.

I hadn't flown CW in a while and recently flew on a super high J 747. Good IFE, excellent crew and very nice food. Plane was clean. The crew weren't uninterested (although I suppose they may have been "disinterested" - how would I know?).

ahmetdouas

I don't find BA's planes to be particularly dirty! Mind you, I do most of my flying on BA on their refurbished A320's and 1/2 A380's.
Although that may change with BOB = )

johnspenceruk

This is not my video but I wish CE was like this:

TabTraveller

:bangsheadagainstwall:

I wish BA's F was more like EY's apartments.

If you can't see the fatuousness of your own post then nothing I say will help you I'm afraid.