Ancient Observer

Let's interrupt prejudice with some facts.
1. Glass door has been around for years and is far more accurate about BA than BA are.
2. A sample size of 460 is more than enough to represent BA staff. A sample size of 1000 covers uk elections, so 460 is quite enough.

skipness1E

My current employer ranks our place in the Sunday Times Great Places to Work list very seriously and our fun culture is very important to us. This is driven and maintained from the highest level. It allows us to hold onto good people for longer and keep staff churn to acceptable levels. Glassdoor is actually reasonably well known among people who care about these things.
Final point, from a sample of two people, both of whom left BA as it had become a non responsive corporate machine where cost cutting was just about the only thing the business knew how to do. BA's loss....

Calchas

That does not follow. Any suppositions that may be drawn from a sample are constrained by the method of its selection.

UK election samples are carefully selected and weighted based on known past performance and a large number of demographic factors. The samples are engineered to be representative.

The same cannot be said for Glassdoor whose samples are biased by self-selection.

Glassdoor's conclusions may or may not be accurate but you cannot express the sample fraction as evidence of useful representation by comparison with a smaller but differently-selected sample.

Ancient Observer

Calchas,
I agree about the weighting and etc. And the self selection. "Random" is not the right word for Glassdoor. However, the point I was making, and clearly failed to express clearly, was that in statistical terms, 430 for the BA population is not to be dismissed.

MPH1980

I always regard Glassdoor as a bit like the Amazon rating system.

There are always the extremes:

There are those who've left a positive review because they've been encouraged (Amazon = free product, Glassdoor = still at company and encouraged to leave review)
There are those who've left a negative review because of a problem (Amazon = broken product/negative on principle, Glassdoor = Fired/left for some negative reason).

The ones in the middle are the ones who tend to be closest to the truth.

But as with all things - look at the trend of reviews. An overwhelming negative on reviews shows you there's something to be wary of. An overwhelming positive (when you take out the ones that are encouraged) is a good thing.

And if I found a product on Amazon with 490 reviews - I'm going to be trusting the trend on that review count.

strichener

Of course this is selection by the polling companies based on what they "think" is representative. Recent polls have shown that they are often not representative at all.

Just to stay on topic, the glass door sample size is sufficient to base opinions on how good the company can be as well as how bad. In BA's case, there is clearly negative sentiment amongst the employees. You don't even need to look at a website to see this, being a customer is sufficient.

stevie

Not sure too many outwith the BA organisation would agree looking back now.
If Cruz had a complete monopoly on LHR slots with very firm government backing in keeping this monopoly, I am sure he would run BA very well.

nallison

Indeed, I'm not sure why anyone is trying to cast doubt on it, it's glaringly obvious to anyone that BA has a major problem with staff morale. Some people may not care how the company treats it's employees, and that's their perogative I guess, but the problem is clearly there and comes from the top.

I don't think this can be blamed on restructuring or industrial disputes or whatever. There is a long standing problem with the current regime, and it is their attitude towards their employees. There are ways of going about restrstructuring, redunancies etc. And decent managers don't go around insulting their staff and making it clear they see them as nothing more than an annoyance, an overpaid cost base they want rid of and do not value. Frankly BA's management potentially present an interesting case study in a certain personality disorder considered to be commonplace in many boardrooms...

Personally, I prefer not to give my money to a company that treats it's staff that way. And it is clear it has just as much disdain for it's customers. Just as I would never fly QR, I don't really get how people can ignore their employment practices for a cheap flight or servile crew.

One thing is clear - be nice to the crew on your flight, they deserve your support. How many crew could be employed on AC's salary? Where do you think better value is being obtained?

T8191

I sent a link to my son, who runs a Recruitment company. He picked up on ber2dca's comment at Post #12, about the difference between UK and US perspectives.

He also said:
I use both Amazon and TripAdvisor reviews with a large slice of circumspection. It's usually possible to whittle away the the extreme perspectives without much difficulty, to obtain a median opinion on <whatever>. The same should be possible with Glass Door too.

subject2load

In fairness, I don't think too many folk were casting (serious) doubt on it. Glassdoor is of course a pretty well-known resource /review facility within the business world.

The most dismissive comment came from HIDDY. But then again, his general guiding principle in such matters is that if he hasn't personally heard of - or is unfamiliar with - something himself, then it can be safely ignored......

(and that's probably his view of me too ......)

Ancient Observer

A bit like the England rugby team and its coaches.

elitetraveler

I think you will find the those throwing rocks at Glass Door or seeking to dismiss that it doesn't have some directional relevance or that BA Glass Door ratings in relationship to other airlines are not relevant will be mainly the same people who never have seen dirty planes, tatty lounge furniture, always have had completed BOB service and generally participate in any thread where there is whinging to either dismiss the complaint or attack the OP

It's the same playbook thread after thread in trying to dismiss any negatives with red herrings, non-sequiturs, and insinuations that perhaps the OP doesn't have credibilty: "But your current status in your FT profile is not updated! "

Or "Why didn't you do this or that?" And if OP complained too forcefully onboard, that was clearly the problem. On the other hand, if OP didn't raise a stink - why not? "Why didn't OP insist on seeing the CSD?"

If it is a question about policy or procedure, they will tell OP BA knows what it's doing and has obviously made an in-depth study ensuring that the policy is right and OP is wrong, if not an entitled DYKWIA.

@:-)

stifle

I must say that used to be me. Used to. I was at one point a massive BA advocate and would plan trips based on places BA flew to. No more; they have joined a race to the bottom and only care about cost cutting.

louie-m

That's a very telling comment from a BA FT Ambassador. Sad.

Calchas

I made a comment on the validity of drawing statistical inferences from certain sample sizes. Not part of a grand conspiracy to prop up IAG.

If it sets your mind at rest, my next BA flight is not for several weeks and, as I found row 1 was not available after purchasing the ticket, I am not looking forward to it.