Originally Posted by
Often1
It's not all a supply side process. Despite the over-personalization of the CEO issues, it is also about demand side from customers.
As the large businesses which account for a large percentage of BA's revenues become more cost conscious and push for lower fares with fewer frills, you will see BA react, most certainly on the short-haul.
If a business requires its people to book the lowest logical fare and the answer is that BA provides a lounge, food & liquor onboard and whatever else, few businesses will see that as a reason for their people to pay for the BA ticket.
It is easy to differentiate SH from LH. It is already done. CE vs. CW by way of example.
The real problem is that this is an industry where the customer may not be the passenger but rather the passenger's employer.
But if the issue is costs and how they impact on the price that the customer pays, it is simplistic to focus on only one element (pay) and ignore the output secured by that pay and other costs that may be avoided due to the remuneration strategy.
What matters is unit costs and value.
If BA pay pilots the same as VS, but gets 200 additional hours per pilot, they have considerably better unit costs.
I can buy an avocado in Lidl for 89p, but a perfectly ripe avocado in Waitrose costs 99p. I can save 10p and get a fruit that is too hard to eat immediately and may ripen in a week or so; or I can buy one in perfect condition to eat now. One may be cheaper, but I know which one is better value for my purposes.
In this case, I would have thought engaging your staff (who may have some very good ideas) in adding value and improving business efficiency may be far more fruitful in some race to the bottom onslaught on pay and conditions.
Does anyone remember WW campaign to achieve 10% GP, which was achieved before focus switched to ready for five?