Originally Posted by
13901
As much as this forum likes a BAshing, this is uncalled for. Suggesting this means that BA is making a mockery of security, which is a pretty serious allegation (as well as that it gives a flying rat’s arse about customer feedback, which is absurd! There, a BAsh!).
What’s rather happening is what many thought it would when some bright mind decided “hey, we don’t need 6 321 mid haulers, we can do it with 4!”
The G-MEDs are due for their big checks and BA is now trying to find alternatives. But with not a lot of longhaulers, thanks to madame Rolls Royce, and tight coverage on the short haul front too (the Monarch slots hadn’t been planned 3 or 4 years ago), compounded with a lack of wet lease globally... the cover is very, very tight and cancellations must occur.
Are these "mid haulers" still the true CW configuration that flies to BEY and AMM?
Originally Posted by
Obruni Boy
I think I resemble that remark!
. Anyway with regards to last April as BA have refused to provide any evidence of the incident and lost a CERD case as a result I am happy stand with "J'accuse".
For reference the thread is here;
BA cancels all CAI flights for 7 days : ‘security precaution’.
While the Expert Flyer info is said to say mid-haul on your info I would say that NA-Flyer needs to give BA a call as it still seems a likely short haul aircraft.
Why does it seem likely to be a "short haul aircraft," did BA use short haul (no real CW) to CAI? I must have missed that unfortunate episode.