Originally Posted by
simons1
Somebody had to make the first move, presumably either Virgin or BA. Unfortunately a bit of give and take is sometimes required, if everyone dug their heels in it would get difficult.
Even if it's for a year it's still a temporary model and hopefully the end set up will be worth it.
It's not the first time that BA has had to adapt as users of their lounges in Rome and Nairobi will know.
I suspect in this case BA leapt at the chance to get compensation. That should have provided a comparable lounge offer to all passenger groups, including F pax and GCHs. Free pour Champagne is an obvious example of something not provided, but we could include a much longer list of premium drinks starting with JW Blue label.
Let's be clear - BA will have been compensated for agreeing to lose its lounge. That compensation should have provided like-for-like replacement facilities plus a further incentive payment to agree to move ahead of your competitors. The question is where has that money gone?
It's not even a case of No.1 may have wanted too much for Champagne. GAL should be paying for like-for-like so that's for them to pick up if they want BA to move first.
I am sorry there is too much giving BA the benefit of the doubt on this one. It looks to me like someone is trying to make a quick buck (short-term profit) on this on, probably for their own bonus and career purposes, hoping that those faced with a far inferior lounge product will just accept it.
LGW is not NBO or FCO, but if we want to make the comparison neither have ever been BA hubs and both had poor lounge offerings before the changes.
Why not go the whole hog and compare LGW to NAP? When the BA lounge there closed, there was nothing at all for four years then a poor third party offering. Perhaps that's the way forward for LGW too.